Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 73
73
Summary and Conclusions: agencies in developing new paradigm projects that will
How to Turn Stakeholders into require collaboration among multiple stakeholders.
New Paradigm Project Partners · Local Governments typically control land use planning
and regulations as well as the local surface street networks.
New paradigm corridors require complex collaborations New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: A direct conduit to
among organizations and agencies, including the cooperation local political leaders and their constituencies. The effec-
of mode-specific agencies such as highway departments and tive implementation of a new paradigm corridor project
transit agencies. Similarly, because these projects are focused requires the enthusiastic cooperation of local governments
over wide geographical areas (corridors), they often cross to coordinate transportation investments with local land
jurisdictional boundaries and require the involvement of local use controls.
city and county governments, particularly if an integrated,
new paradigm corridor plan is to properly combine trans- This diverse group of stakeholders has an equally diverse
portation and land use components into a cohesive, unified list of reasons why they would be interested in collaborating
system. The institutional issues that are barriers to multimodal on a new paradigm project. An effective new paradigm col-
corridor projects are constantly changing over time and can laboration among these stakeholders requires two key ele-
differ substantially from project to project. At times, it can ments: a well-defined and appropriate set of roles for each
seem that there are few commonalities to point to that can help party and a project plan that serves the interests and needs of
new paradigm projects avoid the pitfalls experienced in past each stakeholder.
projects. However, this variation in the landscape of multi- Effective new paradigm partnerships require the active and
modal planning and policies is instructive. By understanding enthusiastic participation of all stakeholders. Generally,
the institutional histories of the various stakeholders, pitfalls partnerships are successful when each party believes they have
can be avoided and strengths can be tapped. a say in shaping the outcome of the project and when they
believe they can make a meaningful contribution.
· USDOT has pursued mutually supportive strategies of New paradigm projects can learn from successful partner-
multimodalism and "devolution" of its funding authority ships like those seen in the development of Colorado's T-REX
for transportation projects to lower levels of government, project, where all the partner agencies worked to shape the
first to State DOTs and later to MPOs. Multimodalism has outcome. The active participation of a diverse set of stake-
been central to the reforms embodied in ISTEA and its holders in this project was due in no small part to the open
successor legislation wherein USDOT has also gradually collaborative process developed for the project during the
worked to level the playing field between modes when planning phase when the project's major investment study
financing transportation projects. was undertaken. This process recognized that the project's
New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: Arbiter of conflicts definition--the goals and objectives of the project--needed to
between project partners and modal interests and funding be determined through collaboration. Although this process
agency for capital-intensive transportation project. was not always smooth, it provided all stakeholders with a
· State DOTs, although originally focused on highway plan- sense of empowerment, making them willing partners that
ning, design, construction, and operations, have become could bring the strengths of their individual agencies to the
increasingly multimodal in their outlook and mandates in partnership. In doing so, each partner has brought their best
recent decades. capabilities to the table: local governments have provided
New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: A history of close land use controls and surface street facilities that support the
contact with the federal government as partners in building transit line and the freeway; the MPO has played the role of
the Interstate system. State DOTs can play an important consensus-builder and project financier; the transit agency
role in bridging the gap between highway and transit advo- has been the lead agency in designing, building, and operating
cates when securing political support for a new paradigm the transit line; the state DOT has been both an advocate for
project. a multimodal corridor design and the lead agency responsible
· MPOs have become important stakeholders in transporta- for re-designing the freeway facility; and the USDOT has played
tion planning and financing since the passage of ISTEA. the role of providing project oversight and advocating within
New Paradigm Partnership Strengths: Increasingly in the federal government. Successful new paradigm partnerships
control of regional transportation funds from state and should be designed so that each party is given a role accord-
federal sources, these agencies were established with a ing to its strengths and is given a sense of empowerment in
multimodal mandate, potentially making them ideal lead decision making.
