Incorporating ITS Into the Transportation Planning Process: An Integrated Planning Framework (ITS, M&O, Infrastructure) Practitioner's Guidebook (2002)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

IV INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, ACTIVITIES, AND FUNCTIONS Institutional and organizational challenges hinder the integration of ITS, system management, and operations with the planning process. These challenges range from a lack of coordination within and among specific agencies, to the broad context of professional traditions and organizational missions. Key Points of Chapter IV • Activities and Functions needed to bridge the gap/hurdle between planning and operations. - Redefine institutional/organizational relationships through: + Enabling a new authorizing environment. + Within agency coordination. + Between agency coordination. - Expand stakeholder involvement. + Planning, operations, and users. + Match to services. - Determine Public-Private Sector Roles. + Who provides ITS can change its characteristics and who uses it. Therefore, need to set policy on respective roles. + Create positive environment. + Develop common understanding of tasks, roles, and expectations. + Both public and private must benefit! • The best way to organize to support ITS and operations within the integrated framework depends upon the local situation and issues. It may change and evolve over time as the situation changes. - Options include: + Do it alone. + MPO Centric. + Sate Centric. + Ad Hoc or new organization. - Factors important to the choice: + Willingness and ability to lead. + Geographic overlap of agencies, ITS services, and influence areas. + Legacy institutions and relationships. + Transportation and Environmental concerns such air quality non-attainment, and major incidents. + Other agency skills and resources + Authorizing environment (legal and other issues). - Assembling new resources to carry out the activities and functions and expand skills is also critical. • A “Concept of Planning” captures the approach to take and how it should change over time. It defines responsibilities. This Chapter deals with the institutional and organization relationships, activities, and functions needed to address the challenges in implementing the Integrated Framework. These are highlighted in Figure IV-1 and include: gathering stakeholders, forging new institutional relationships, determining public/private roles, deciding how to organize, and capturing the relationships and how they change (evolve) over time in the Concept of Planning. Section IV.A examines how to overcome the institutional and organizational gap between planning and operations while implementing the Integrated Framework. There are many cultural, professional, and institutional differences that may be more difficult to resolve than the technical challenges. A key component in overcoming the hurdles is working to change the context by educating policy makers and the public on the basic concepts and benefits of ITS. Finding champions and redefining agency missions towards performance also help set the stage. The institutional and organizational activities and functions of the Integrated Framework must also be carried out, including: • Expand Stakeholders. Expanding stakeholders is one of the key activities to successful integration. The process must continue to combine the stakeholders from traditional planning, ITS, and operations as well as users, communications providers, and non-transportation entities. Note also that expanding stakeholders it is a continuous process. The stakeholders must change to match the transportation system as it evolves and changes over time. INSTITUTIONAL IV-1

• Redefine Institutional Relationships. New institutional relationships must also be forged to merge traditional planning with ITS and operations. This includes overcoming departmental, funding, and other barriers to implementing, operating, and maintaining an integrated system both within an agency and across agencies Figure IV-1 Institutional/Organizational Activities and Functions in the Integrated Framework • Determine Public/Private Roles. What should the public’s position be on private sector provision of public services? The private sector must be included in the decision making process to develop lasting concepts of operations. Also, the type of service, and who will use it may vary greatly depending on who provides it. Consequently, the role the private sector should play must be explicitly determined in order to understand how the overall system will function in the future. Section IV.B explores choosing what is the best way to organize to represent ITS and systems management within the Integrated Framework for a given context. Four approaches are identified including: • Do IT Alone. If an agency is the only entity carrying out or contemplating development of significant ITS services in an area it may be appropriate for it to develop and plan for ITS primarily on its own. This could include some transit authorities, or ITS services along rural interstates. Stakeholders would still need to be included and others consulted. • MPO Centric. MPOs are providing the lead for ITS and operations planning in several pioneering areas around the country. AMPO has identified 5 levels of increasing MPO participation (Traditional, Convener, Champion, Developer, and Operator). Which is appropriate depends upon among other things MPO boundaries, skills and resources. • State Centric. Likewise States have become the primary movers and developers of ITS in many areas. • Ad Hoc or New Organizations. In many areas new “regional operating organizations” are also developing to address needs for operations and coordination across jurisdictional, modal, or agency boundaries that have not been met under existing relationships. Which to choose depends upon many factors including the willingness and ability of an institution to take the lead, the overlap of agency boundaries with ITS systems and their influence areas, transportation and environmental issues, other agency skills and resources, legal and other restrictions, and historical relationships. No matter what is chosen, the traditional planning agencies must be key participants for the results to be incorporated into the area’s formal planning documents (Transportation Plans, TIP, etc.). The ability to assemble resources to carry out the new activities and expand staff skills also plays an important role. Section IV.C explains the “Concept of Planning.” A concept of planning describes how the roles and responsibilities for planning and decision making will evolve along with changes in the system and other conditions. It includes memorandum of understanding and other agreements on the decision-making , implementing, operating, and maintenance responsibilities for the system. An incremental plan should be developed to match these agreements and responsibilities with the system as it develops over time. This chapter ends with a review and transition assessment in Section IV.D. INSTITUTIONAL IV-2

IV.A BRIDGING THE GAP BETWEEN PLANNING AND OPERATIONS As previously discussed the “Gap” between the operations and planning worlds is largely institutional/organizational and may prove more difficult to overcome than the technical challenges. Therefore, this section first provides a closer look at the differences between operations and planning institutions and issues they raise. Activities and functions to help bridge the gap are then discussed including: redefining institutional/organizational relationships; expanding stakeholder involvement; and determining private-public sector roles. Note, that merging consideration ITS, systems management, and operations into planning and programming must take place at an area or regional scale – the logical scale of many operations improvements and ITS User Services. It is at this scale that cooperative multi-jurisdictional mechanisms are needed for defining and deploying a high tech “ITS regional infrastructure.” The regional scale is also appropriate for the development of: operating concepts and regimes; protocols and performance measures; and real-time implementation responsibilities. As congestion increases the spillover effects of one jurisdiction’s/agency’s operational decisions to others are becoming more significant. Taken together, these imply significant changes in not just what services are delivered – but also how, when and by whom. IV.A.1 THE GAP BETWEEN THE PLANNING AND OPERATIONS WORLDS Currently, planning and operations largely continue to take place within different institutional and organizational worlds. A sizable number of institutions and organizations populate each. Those populating the transportation-planning world include: • State DOTs – who own and plan for the State’s highway system and may also own and plan for ports, airports, transit and other facilities. • Metropolitan Planning Organizations – who are responsible, in metropolitan areas, for adopting regional transportation plans and programs. • Transit Agencies – who own and plan for transit facilities and services. Some metropolitan areas are served by a number of transit agencies. • Local Governments – who plan for and control land use, and who often own and plan for the local street system and local transit. Each of the institutions engaged in planning also establishes the goals and policies that act as guides for planning, and is involved in the programming of capital projects. Each has its own planning, programming and budgeting priorities, and its own procedures and traditions. To a large degree, these same institutions inhabit the operations world, but there are important differences: • State DOTs – who maintain the systems they own and set operating policies • State Police – who enforce highway-driving laws and respond to incidents. • Transit Agencies – who operate and maintain the transit systems they own • Local governments – who operate and maintain the roadway and transit systems they own, and who provide police and emergency response services • Private Sector – who operate vehicles that utilize the transportation system, and who may operate and maintain elements of the highway infrastructure as well. Figure IV-2 illustrates the institutional relationships described above. The institutions involved in planning and operations act as loosely coordinated “stovepipes” that develop policies, physical and operating plans, and programs of priority projects. As shown, however, the planning and operations worlds do not overlap. In most parts of the U.S., there is little to no coordination between planning and operations. INSTITUTIONAL IV-3

Figure IV-2 Institutional Relationships This gap between planning and operations is found in many ways. First, there is a general lack of coordination within the institutions that perform both planning and operations. More broadly, there is a gap in coordination across institutions. Also, planning and operations each involves their own set of activities, relationships, and traditions. These differences hinder integration. The Gap in Coordination Within Organizations As described above, there are a number of institutions (e.g., State DOTs, transit agencies, local governments) that carry out both planning and operations. Normally, however, the planning and operations functions are performed in very different parts of the organization. While governed by the same body or leader, and subject to the same agency goals and policies, the planning and operating units may have different interpretations of the directions they receive. The individuals in each unit have different professional traditions, and tend to see their missions in very different terms. They may also utilize different funding – the capital budget, or the operating budget. Coordination within agencies is consequently often loose, informal, and sporadic. The Gap in Coordination Across Agencies In metropolitan areas, the MPOs are called upon to coordinate the transportation planning activities of the various institutions and organizations involved in planning. Nevertheless, decision-making is complicated as the various players (different levels of government, different modes, and different jurisdictions) all jockey for position and advantage. Some (but not all) rural parts of the country have established similar coordinating bodies for planning. There, coordination occurs on an informal basis, and tends to be dominated by the State DOT. With some notable exceptions, most parts of the country have not established formal mechanisms for coordinating operations, especially those funded from local sources. The owner of each system tends to decide for themselves how they will apply the resources they have for operations, system management, and INSTITUTIONAL IV-4

maintenance. Consequently, there are often disconnects at jurisdictional and system boundaries and between modes. The potential efficiencies and synergies of integration are lost. The Gap Due To Institutional Differences The integration of planning, ITS and system management, and operations is also hindered by a number of other institutional differences between the planning and operation worlds. These include the kinds of decisions that planners and operations people are involved with, the kinds of activities they perform in order to support these decisions, and their professional traditions, skills, authorities, technical jargon, stakeholders, and funding. These differences are summarized in Table IV-1. Table IV-1 Institutional Differences between Planning and Operations Planning Operations Decisions • Adoption of long-range plan • Adoption of short-range capital improvement programs • Identification of short-range projects • Immediate response to incidents Activities and Traditions • Analysis of long-range problems and solutions • Emphasis on infrastructure-based solutions • System performance is measured in terms of level of service under typical conditions • Professional jargon includes acronyms like TIP, SIP, SIP, UPWP, MPO • Analysis of existing and short-range problems and solutions • Consideration of low capital and system management solutions • System performance measurement considers level of service, reliability, customer service • Professional jargon includes terms like ITS architecture, protocols, deployment Professional Skills • Civil engineering • Forecasting • Impact assessment • Traffic engineering • Systems engineering • Computer science Authorizing Environment • Planning programs and processes are in place and are closely linked to construction program delivery • Few State DOTs or MPOs have established funding programs for operations • Transit agencies and local governments have operating programs and budgets Stakeholders • State DOTs, transit agencies, MPOs, local government planners • Future users of the system • Construction industry • Real estate industry • Those impacted by proposed projects • State DOTs, transit agencies, local government traffic operations people • Current users of the system • Suppliers of systems and equipment • Traveler information providers • Incident response and management • Law enforcement Funding • Emphasis on capital funding • Emphasis on both capital and operating budgets The activities required to define, deploy and manage appropriate operational improvements are significantly different from those associated with traditional planning and programming that focuses on providing long-term capital facilities. The differences highlighted in Table IV-1 suggest the changes in the overall institutional setting needed for the Integrated Framework. They include: a new mission mix for transportation organizations; new functions (including some not currently defined as “transportation”); new roles and relationships; shifting boundaries in funding categories; a planning and programming process that includes both capital and operational projects; and new skills needed by the key players in transportation policy, planning, implementation, and operations. INSTITUTIONAL IV-5

IV.A.2 REDEFINE INSTITUTIONAL/ORGANIZATIONAL RELATIONSHIPS Bridging the gap often requires new institutions and relationships to be defined. The modest level of ITS implementation achieved to date has been accomplished without modifying the current state/local/regional institutional framework, including the planning process. An initial round of ITS planning and programming has taken place off-line, as special initiatives, without challenging existing priorities. In most cases, implementation has been dependent substantially on the creation of “virtual” organizations that either by-pass or supplement the institutional conventions. Budgets have depended heavily on earmarked discretionary funds. ITS elements have been buried in other projects, treated as special technology demonstrations, or handled outside the formal programming and planning process. Leadership has depended on personal relationships among stakeholders. A number of new organizations have evolved in metropolitan areas to deal with the implementation and real time management of ITS and related operational programs. These entities have typically been fostered by special programs and dedicated, earmarked funding and have focused on implementing and operating a specific set of projects. While they share many of the features required of an institutional framework to integrate ITS and operations into the conventional planning and programming process (such as inter- jurisdictional membership, champions, regional vision, etc.), these new organizations have not been established for that purpose. Typically, they do not conduct broad comprehensive ITS programs, nor are they involved with non-operations matters. Full integration of ITS and system management at the regional scale will involve significant changes to “business as usual “ – from high level policy to real time management in the field, including the planning and programming process. It implies a systems engineering initiative, multi-stakeholder coordination and commitment to real time operations. A program or budget line items called “ITS” may not be essential to a modest ITS program. Nevertheless, increasing levels of commitment to ITS and system management requires a formal program, organization and budget recognition that cannot be easily accommodated within the institutional status quo. Key transportation organization such as state DOTs, MPOs, local government DPW, law enforcement, and emergency response entities are, to varying degrees, at odds with this shift in focus, roles, and responsibilities. It is important to note that these changes may take place at an evolutionary pace and that the changes do not imply displacement of existing institutional practices or organizations. They may be accommodated in a parallel set of institutional practices, or through minor changes in existing organizations – formal or informal – such as supplementary resources and program adjustments, or through new organizations. Key changes that must take place include: • The authorizing environment which sets the mission, policies and resource priorities, • New coordination and relationships within agencies and organizations • New coordination and relationships among service provider organization IV.A.2.1 Enabling A New Authorizing Environment With very few exceptions, systems management and the ITS that supports it is not a program within the funding and organization framework of state DOTs or MPOs. MPOs lack authority for involvement in day-to-day management and operation of the system. They do, however, offer a venue for operations committees and informal communication. No state DOT has a separate system management and operations unit. Some operations oriented ITS programs exist as special ad hoc programs – they are often based on federal discretionary funds, and are treated as demonstrations of new technology or as special treatments for unique problems. If a truly integrated process is to evolve, then all of the activities needed to build, maintain, and operate a sustainable transportation system need to be included in a balanced program driven by system performance. Transit operators, by contrast, devote considerable attention to the day-to-day operations of their bus and other systems – trying to make sure that “the trains (buses) run on time”. They have separate operating budgets for this purpose, although limited resources and political realities often constrain their ability to INSTITUTIONAL IV-6

make large scale operational improvements. Similarly, individual local governments typically have traffic operations as a separate budget and organizational element as well – often housed in a fund-starved subsidiary to public works. Introducing and integrating system management and operations considerations into the formal processes by which resources are allocated and program activities are prioritized requires a series of changes within the authorizing environment: Creating a Wider Understanding the Basic Concepts Planners and operations people operate in their technical world, with its own technical jargon. Just as traditional planners may not comprehend such terms and acronyms as “ITS architecture” and “ATMS”, operations and ITS people may not understand the traditional planning process, the role of MPOs and acronyms like “TIP”, “STIP”, and “UPWP”. Better communication, cross-training, and personnel exchanges would help bring the two worlds together. Real time, region-wide systems management as a public responsibility and professional priority is not widely appreciated in the transportation community. ”Operations” has typically been a secondary priority for state highway organizations. Local governments may control traffic signals, but rarely cooperate at the multi-jurisdictional scale. While ITS technology has a “high tech” appeal, the notion of systematic incremental applications of ITS application is not well understood by naturally conservative elected officials and agency management. Furthermore, there is a natural resistance to supporting major initiatives involving untried technology and limited precedents. Even less well understood is the potential of the relationship between public infrastructure, operations and emerging private traveler information and traveler assurance services. The perception that newly available ITS concepts, systems or technology merit a change in policy or program regarding the nature of agency responsibility is not widespread. A key precondition to a greater operational focus is a more widespread understanding of “systems management” as a underlying principle that includes maximizing the efficiency of the existing infrastructure and providing a broad range of services. While the “Gee whiz” characteristics of ITS attract interest, the systematic nature of ITS, the multiple/synergistic nature of supply and demand-based services is more difficult to explain. A major professional effort is essential to educate the decision-making community on the value of the necessary institutional adjustments. It will be increasingly important to build on early successes by highlighting their virtues, gaining support for their extension, and generalizing from their success to the justification for additional investments. Clarifying the Benefits Traditional transportation projects that focus on adding new capacity introduce visible changes in local accessibility and level of service. The direct benefits of many operational improvements are much less apparent. Most published data regarding ITS benefits refer to a limited number of isolated projects or specific new installations. There is limited evidence from more integrated deployments where mutually supporting applications leverage each other. Important payoffs from ITS – the value of improved reliability, increased security, and improved traveler information – are not widely known. Other benefits, such as the reductions in delay from incident management, are hard to measure. Despite high cost -benefit ratios, data that are available also show that the impacts of ITS tend to be modest, widely distributed and focused on users. These features are less highly valued in the political decision arena. A key precondition to generating support for increased operations focus is a more widespread appreciation of the relatively high cost-effectiveness of most operations improvements. Finding Champions Champions are crucial in the absence of established programs with influential constituencies. On-going transportation programs with developed stakeholder constituencies generate institutional inertia. New programs with unfamiliar characteristics, that lack established support interests, depend on articulate, well- placed supporters to lobby for agency resources and to capture and maintain a position in the resource- competitive program arena. Leadership is also necessary to convene outside stakeholders and generate constituency support. Lead agencies and lead individuals are closely related, as the latter generally requires INSTITUTIONAL IV-7

at least tacit support from the home agency. To date, champions from a variety of institutional staff positions within transportation agencies have been very influential in moving ITS programs to an initial plateau. In several states and regions, ITS is identified with key individuals. A key precondition to establishing a context for the aggressive introduction of operations into the formal planning and programming process is the emergence of leadership. While some visible ITS advocates have arisen, they have typically been at the technical level – middle management in transportation organizations. These players are of critical importance in “rallying” their peers to the benefits of operations. However, they are not likely to have a significant impact on the overall institutional environment Redefining the Agency Mission The traditional mission of highway and transit agencies has been dominated by output – measures of facility improvement. The addition of new programs is constrained by the organizational and resource focus on competing traditional missions – access and system preservation – as well as the difficulty in reaching consensus among the larger number of stakeholders. A shift in mission priorities towards service provision will be paced by the ability to demonstrate payoffs compared to other uses of available funds, and the support of articulate stakeholders. Formal strategic planning processes that review customer needs may well reveal the relevance of a set of program strategies that focus attention on short-term actions and more politically realistic improvement approaches with strong operations orientation. Increasing the competitive value of time and reliability is stimulating a focus on performance in both logistics and travel service levels. At the program level, given the constraints on added capacity, system performance is increasingly being linked to improvements in operations and management of existing systems. Accepting responsibility, however circumscribed, for real time systems operations introduces the risk that user-customers will begin to identify the agencies with the quality of service they are experiencing. At the same time, most systems operations involve multiple jurisdictions and multiple agencies. These arrangements can place transportation agencies in a position of apparent responsibility for aspects of ITS they do not control. (How will the police or EMS entities perform? Who will receive the blame for the hazmat spill that blocks traffic for hours?) Strategies for shifting the authorizing environment may include: • Developing a mutual understanding of basic concepts by actors in both the planning and operations worlds. • Emphasizing the basic principles of system management: maximizing the efficiency of the existing system and offering a broad range of services • Explaining the benefits of operational improvements to policymakers, the public and others • Widespread appreciation of the high cost-effectiveness of most operations improvements • Emergence of leadership • A formal reorientation of mission IV.A.2.2 Within Agency Coordination: Performance Based Organizations As anyone that has worked within a large corporation or public agency knows: organizations are not single entities! Each department may have it's own professional perspective, performance measures, culture, and evaluation criteria. Maintenance, operations, planning, and construction often have very different views of the world and what is important. Managers may also not see the value of changing from the status quo, especially if it leads to uncertainty and reduced autonomy. This is especially true when dealing with large agencies such as State DOT's. Observations made during the Discussion Forums conducted during this Guidebook's development include: • "Operations are dispersed throughout the organizations hampering their function. Benefit of ITS maybe to force cooperation between groups and data.” (North Carolina DOT) INSTITUTIONAL IV-8

• The institutional barriers for implementing ITS are: “ 1. Dysfunctional operations scattered throughout organizations, especially DOTs. 2. Attitude of locals that traffic monitoring and planning in general are more of a federal requirement than of vital interest to themselves." (James Porter, Louisiana DOT) • "You must deal with internal coordination within your agency first, before you even attempt inter- agency coordination" (J.R. Robinson, Virginia DOT) Substantial effort and internal communication is required to make everyone understand the new mission of system management and the value of cooperation. One example of internal coordination is now taking place at Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). HRT’s Executive Director (Mike Townes) has established an internal ITS Project Team for the transit agency bringing operations and planning together. This team coordinates across departments and makes trade-offs between investing in capital and investing in ITS. Participants include the Director of Planning, Director of Operations, head of Service Planning, Director of Communications, Director of Human Resources, Database Administrator, head of IT. HRT was created through the merger of two transit agencies – Peninsula Transit and Tidewater Transit – and the unique circumstances of this merger and an environment of change may have been a catalyst for establishing new institutional relationships within the agency. IV.A.2.3 Between Agency Coordination: Coordinated Service Provision The regional scale and the activity focus of many ITS User Services require the involvement of agencies and jurisdictions beyond those in capital facilities planning and implementation. Several types of cooperation are involved: Cooperative Regional Decision-Making Conventional transportation programming has been evolving towards increased shared decision-making in resource allocation, especially in metropolitan areas where Federal funding programs and planning regulations encourages states and local governments towards an increasingly cooperative mode. ITS reinforces this trend. In some cases there are substantial differences in the relative priorities placed on operations improvements on behalf of agencies whose mission may not be operational – such as law enforcement or public safety. Even where objectives are shared, most state and local agencies jealously guard their prerogatives to control the realm of their authority in order to insure responsiveness to their own constituencies. Additionally, operations improvements often require a joint capital commitment – as well as a joint operating resource commitment. Since systems operations is not typically a line item in either state or regional programs, it is difficult for planning processes to determine resource reliability especially in out years. At the same time, there are a few mechanisms for coordinating funding across agency boundaries other than an item-by-item negotiation and trust built up with cooperation over a period of years. Increased sharing of authority and resources depends principally on finding common objectives and demonstrating the advantages of cooperation from a cost and effective point of view. Within transportation organizations, the ability to pool funds, share federal aid on multiyear basis, and even bring regional politics to bear can have a major impact Inter-Jurisdictional Cooperation ITS operations (for example, incident response and traveler information) ideally involve User Services delivered at the scale of the user’s trip regardless of jurisdictional boundaries. Projects developed for one mode or jurisdiction often fail to capitalize on the systems integration potential of ITS. The regional, multi- modal, capital and operational aspects of many ITS projects require cooperation and coordination at several stages in program development. Depending on the project characteristics, cooperation within the public sector occurs vertically between levels of government and horizontally within agencies or modes as well as among the same level of government. Lack of a single program development entity for multi-jurisdictional ITS deployment creates the need for burdensome ad hoc arrangements on a project-by-project basis. Often, these arrangements are absent or not well executed. Defining and negotiating the approaches and arrangements is a substantial undertaking. As INSTITUTIONAL IV-9

a result, ITS projects have been sub-optimized – shaped by a perception of the difficulty of achieving the necessary level of coordination in project development and the desirable level of coordination in operations. Relative resource availability, history of cooperation, and personalities all play a major role in such perceptions. For integration to occur issues relating to unclear or overlapping authority to act, varied priorities among organizations, differing resource capabilities and conflicting cultures must be resolved. The lessons learned to date suggest that the agencies involved must: • Accept the impacts of operational regimes, such as diversion, that may result in some loss of jurisdictional independence • Agree on specific condition-based protocols for actions and roles that require a commitment of resources and operational responses • Commit to some level of real time coordination that may involve some sharing of responsibility or even temporary ceding control to other entities The creation of the National ITS Architecture and the TEA-21 requirements for development of regional ITS architectures based upon it may act as a catalyst in providing the coordination needed. Important components that must be included in a regional ITS architecture include (see Chapter II): • The identification of participating agencies and stakeholders • An operational concept describing the roles and responsibilities of the stakeholders in implementing and operating the ITS system • Interface requirements and information flows between agencies and organizations • Agreements required for operating the ITS system. However, while a regional ITS architecture requires that these be put in place for the ITS system it describes, it does not require actual coordination and integration of the ITS elements within the overall transportation network. Participants can choose not to coordinate and integrate for efficient operations. If they do so, their regional architecture must simply reflect and highlight this lack. Also, it remains to be seen if the agreements and commitments reflected in any particular area’s regional architecture will be honored. This depends upon the agency’s themselves and the full commitment of the organizations and policy makers they represent to those agreements. Strategies for bridging institutional disconnects include: • Analyzing agency formal and informal structures to determine whether traditional planning and operational functions communicate and work cooperatively • Analyzing the roles of transportation and related agencies in a given region to determine where roles may overlap, where communication might be improved, and where interests may be shared • Finding common objectives and demonstrating the advantages of cooperation • Resolving issues relating to unclear or overlapping authority, varied priorities, differing resource capabilities, and conflicting cultures. • Develop a Regional ITS Architecture that includes identification of interagency information flows, a concept of operations, and agreements necessary to implement and operate the systems it includes. IV.A.3 EXPAND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT One of the key activities in making the transition to Integrated Planning is the expansion of Stakeholders. Stakeholders are interest groups who benefit from, or are otherwise impacted by, transportation improvements. This includes the various transportation “providers” (those concerned with building, maintaining and operating the system) and transportation “customers” (the public itself as travelers or shoppers, freight haulers, and other users of the transportation facilities and services). INSTITUTIONAL IV-10

ITS – with its regional focus, inter-modal potential, and operational scope – requires the involvement of a wider range of players from different modes, jurisdictions, and agencies than found in traditional planning. In fact, expanding stakeholders is required as part of any regional ITS architecture. In addition, many ITS User Services impact and involve stakeholders that have not been part of transportation in the past such as law enforcement and emergency medical services and the private sector (information service providers, Mayday services). An example of potential stakeholder groups is shown in Table IV-2. Table IV-2 Potential Stakeholders in the ITS Planning Process Stakeholders (Providers) Stakeholders (Users) ƒ Federal Transportation Agencies (FHWA, FTA, etc.) • Motorists (commuters, Tourists, other travelers) • Federal and State Environmental Agencies (EPA, DOE) • Transit Riders (commuters, tourists, other travelers) • Florida Department of Transportation • Bicyclist/Pedestrians • Metropolitan Planning Organizations • Private Paratransit and Taxi Services • County and Local Transportation Agencies • Commercial Vehicle Operators and Fleet Managers (trucks, intercity bus) • County and Local Environmental Agencies • Motorist Associations/Transit Rider Associations • Transit Operators • Commercial Vehicle Industry Groups • State and Local Police Departments • Traffic Reporting Services/Media • Fire Departments/Ambulance Services • Major Traffic Generators (airports, major employers, universities, ports) • Emergency Management Agencies • Private Industry (communications, automotive, electronics) • Toll Agencies • Public Health Agencies Source: Cambridge Systematics, 1998 Transportation provider stakeholders in ITS and operations are typically the organizations, public or private, whose public responsibility or business relates to services or functions related to travelers or transportation – especially those that take place on the infrastructure. Most of these have nothing to do with the principal planning and programming focus on physical improvements. They include: • Freeway and traffic operations: Infrastructure owner organizations: state DOTs, local government public works and traffic/transportation departments that deploy and manage freeway and arterial traffic operations systems • Incident response and management: Infrastructure owner organization: state DOTs, Local government public works and traffic/transportation departments, state and local law enforcement, emergency response entities (fire and medical), hazmat–related entities who are involved in incident detection and response, weather and road works-related maintenance • Commercial vehicle operations (CVO) regulation and enforcement: Motor vehicle administrations, CVO and law enforcement entities that manage and operate CVO programs including administration and roadside enforcement • Traveler information: State and local traffic operations, private service provides who collect, process and disseminate information to agencies and consumers • Traveler security: Incident response groups (as above) as well as Public Safety Answering Points (PSAP) agencies, private service providers that provide and manage Mayday and related services INSTITUTIONAL IV-11

• Electronic payment: Toll agency, transit, and parking personnel who deploy and operate these systems. • Transit operations and special preference services: Transit agency and state and local traffic operations personnel, and law enforcement who are involved in transit fleet operations and management The planning and programming process for ITS, system management, and operations must create a framework for cooperative actions among these “players” whose involvement is essential to the various operations activities ranging from the coordinated deployment of operations infrastructure to the cooperative delivery of real time services. Developing a motivation for cooperation is a key first step. This require identification of common objectives that can be shared widely across organizations that may have very different priority hierarchies, programming cycles, and experience with working outside their own “institutional” framework. Finding non-competitive objectives is crucial together with picking initial objectives with a high probability of producing early wins. It is also important to identify new constituencies who benefit directly from ITS and operations. Key supporters of conventional transportation investments (larger long tern capital investment) are typically non-user interests who expect to benefit indirectly. These supporters may include major developers, employers, real estate business interests, and construction and labor interests. A major challenge to “institutionalizing” support for ITS at higher levels of implementation is the justification for resource diversion from a stakeholder perspective. Benefits to operations from this user perspective such as reduced delay, improved information, and increased security must be brought to the fore. The short-term tangibility of these benefits (compared to long-term facility improvements) are somewhat offset by their more widely dispersed nature. At the same time, travelers are playing an increasingly important role in determining the availability and quality of ITS services. Market-based products and services – such as commercial traveler information, Mayday subscription services, users of toll and HOT lane tags – introduce a new relationship between travelers as customers and the service providers, public or private. The rate at which service can be improved now depends on the customer’s willingness to pay rather than on public policy. In addition, travelers are also becoming part of the service delivery chain. The effectiveness of publicly provided traveler information is directly related to consumer investment in mobile communications products and the quality of incident management is now substantially dependent on the traveler-as-informant though cell phone calls from passing or affected motorists. As more and better information on travel conditions is available and as premium services become available, travelers expectations will increasing include the notion that infrastructure should be operated and demand responsive. A key precondition to institutionalizing ITS and operations within the state, regional and local decision- making processes is finding supporters who exercise their self–interest in the political, policy making and program development process. Thus it is important to identify stakeholders and update participation in the process based upon the ITS User Services that are contemplated, and when they are expected to be implemented and operated. Table IV-3 provides an initial screening of stakeholders by category of ITS User Service (See Ertico, 1998, Transcore, 1998 for additional stakeholder lists). Strategies for expanding stakeholders may include: • Identifying and involving stakeholders and constituencies who can exercise their self – interest in the political, policy making and program development process • Defining the benefits of ITS and operational improvements to policymakers, the public and others to engender a widespread appreciation of their cost-effectiveness. Identifying common objectives that can be shared widely across stakeholders • Tying Stakeholder involvement to the User Services that impact them. • Stimulating the emergence of leadership INSTITUTIONAL IV-12

Table IV-3 Initial Identification of Stakeholders for Various ITS User Services ATMS ATIS APTS EMC AVC EPS CVO RR Federal Transportation Agencies o o o o o o o o Federal Environmental Agencies o o o FDOT X o o o o o X X MPOs X X X o o o o X Local Transportation Agencies X X X o o o o X Transit Operators o o X o o X o Police Departments o o X X o Fire Departments o X o Emergency Management o X Toll Agencies X Public Health Agencies o o Motorists X o o X X o X Transit Riders o o X o X Bicyclist/Pedestrians o o o o o Private Paratransit Services o o X o CVO o o X Motorist/Transit Rider Assoc. o o X o X X o o CVO Industry Groups o o X Traffic Reporting Services X o Major Traffic Generators o X o o Private Industry o o o o X O o X Key: X Primary Participant o Secondary Participant Source: Cambridge Systematics, 1998 IV.A.4 DETERMINE PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS The public sector (Federal, State, Local) provides the legal framework and rules within which the private sector and “free enterprise” market system operates in any area. As new technologies advance there are increasing opportunities for the private sector to be providers or play a significant role in the provision and operation of ITS services. The private sector may be involved in ITS as (see Siwek, 1998): • Users (commercial vehicle operators, private transit providers, taxis); • Suppliers (ITS service integrators, automobile manufacturers, equipment suppliers); • Franchisees (toll and fare collection, traveler information systems); • Information service providers (real time traffic/transit information vendors –SmartRoute, Mapping services – Etak, MapQuest, News organizations). However, the characteristics of the service, who will use it, and who is impacted or benefits vary can vary greatly depending on who provides it. Consequently, conscious decisions should be made on what the private and public sector roles should be, the rules within which the private sector will operate, and how the private sector will participate in the planning/decision making process. In any case it is important to identify and invite to the table private sector stakeholders early in the planning process (see previous sub- section). Typically, the private sector is a stakeholder in traditional planning both as a user of transportation facilities and services, and as a contractor in their development, implementation, or provision. To avoid “conflicts of interest” and appearances of bias, the private sector for the most part has been kept at a distance in planning/decision making regarding: what to do, how it should be done, and resource gathering/allocation to carry decisions out. INSTITUTIONAL IV-13

Metro Commute is a private company in New York that provides real time traffic, transit, and weather information via the Internet (http://metrocommute.com). The company obtains direct feeds of traffic data from highway agency loop detectors and video cameras. Transit operators, private companies and users also supply information on how the system is performing. MetroCommute’s income includes advertising revenues from the web site. However, integrating ITS into planning and decision-making introduces opportunities/need for the private sector to be a partner as well as a stakeholder in the process. Private entities may provide significant components for ITS and operation of the system as: developers of new technologies/systems; vendors/providers of transportation, communications, and information services directly to individuals as well as public entities; and builders/operators of systems. Integrating and maintaining ITS components that must be closely coordinated to continually operate and evolve also requires long-term relationships to be developed with private sector developers. Significant uncertainty and risk is also often part of creating and implementing new technologies and systems. If the public sector wishes to implement and take advantage of these systems new ways of sharing risk and providing long-term commitment are needed. Finally, the private sector has many resources (capital and expertise) that may become accessed by the public with innovative partnerships and joint efforts. Issues associated with determining the private public sector roles and partnerships are provided below. IV.A.4.1 Creating a Business Environment For Private-Public Partnership One of the major impediments to private sector investment and participation in providing the transportation system and services is uncertainty concerning the rules of doing business and their ability to recoup investments and maintain ownership and control over their developments. Overcoming this often requires that partnerships between public and private entities to allow resources (assets, capital, intellectual property) to be commingled, bartered or shared on either a competitive or exclusive basis. These types of formal or informal relationships challenge the existing legal and administrative conventions. Explicit legislative authorization may be desirable to avoid clouding otherwise promising arrangements to access private technology and other intellectual property, capital, and management. This process has been consistently hampered by procurement regulations and conventions based for awards to the lowest bidder that meets detailed pre-determined specifications. These have regularly proven inconsistent with the flexibility required in acquiring software as well as ITS hardware. Project delay, cost overruns, quality problems, complex claims and unattractive commercial risk/returns perceptions have plagued many ITS projects. Public agencies are more frequently turning to a range of alternative procurement approaches from outside the traditional Federal Acquisition Regulatory process. Approaches developed in other federal agencies and at the state level for non-professional services accommodate scope changes and a more equitable allocation of risks between owner and vendor.. A key challenge is the increased familiarization of public agency personnel with these options through professional capacity building activities Consequently, it is important to establish the rules and guidelines on their participation and operation as part of defining the new relationships for integrated planning. Some of the issues associated with this include: Utilization of public resources to support business prospects. This often becomes the basis for resource sharing the narrower sense. Telecommunications companies using public rights-of-way in order to facilitate build-out of the communications infrastructure is an example. This type of sharing of resources can result in a win-win for both parties, as well as the public. INSTITUTIONAL IV-14

Proprietary issues and confidentiality. The private sector expects to own the rights to their ideas, products, and information. The public sector expects to own the rights to the work that they have funded. Public sector information is also typically just that: available to the public through Freedom of Information Act requests and other avenues. Private sector partners desire to protect their “trade secrets” and information about their operations from their competitors (see Buffkin & Remer, 1997 for further discussion). These concerns must be overcome and general guidelines on the public / private sector ownership of work and information developed as part of the alternative definition. Preserving the privacy rights of individuals and firms must also be addressed. Otherwise, it is likely that ITS services will be defined that cannot be realistically implemented (public sector firms will choose not to provide the services, necessary information flows will not take place, data may not be available for planning or other purposes). Statutory authority and liability. Partnerships must also be feasible both technically and administratively. Often there are legislative and other barriers to long-term public/private partnerships where every component is not competitively bid, to sharing of information between the public and private sector, and sharing liability and other risks. Liability, in and of itself can be a barrier to private sector participation in ITS elements, especially those that are safety related. The public private partnerships being considered must therefore be examined for their statutory authority and liability issues. If barriers are found the change in legislation must be part of the supporting policies and procedures. IV.A.4.2 Bringing Private Resources Into The Process Through Partnerships and Risk Sharing As the private sector appears to be taking on a larger role, one can envision a range of ways in which the private and public sectors might share resources. For example, the private sector is increasingly playing a role in the provision of traveler information. Both the public and private sectors are collecting larger amounts of traveler data, which could be beneficial to both parties. To the extent the private sector collects data of value to the public sector or vice versa, various sharing arrangements might be envisioned. These include: • Contracting in the traditional manner for, as an example, planning studies, • Engaging in more complicated turnkey mechanisms where the private may do much of the planning for a given project or facility, • Developing barter arrangements or in-kind contributions which could involve, for example, sharing of traveler or traffic data for planning purposes, • Incorporating privately conducted transportation studies into public planning projections and studies, or comparing the conclusions and data of the private studies with the public studies as a method of validation, • Contributing to studies that may be of mutual benefit to both sectors, • Using the access of employers to employees as a means to educate or involve employees in transportation planning processes, and • Enlisting the business community to place its influence behind transportation planning initiatives. A particularly important concern from above is how to share risk. Oftentimes, the issues of risk can be addressed through good faith negotiations. Sometimes, however, gaps between public and private sector understandings can frustrate the process of agreement, particularly where the partnerships will be more complex. Some areas of frustration in the development of more complex arrangements include the following: • Lengthy processes often necessitated by public sector processes and concerns, partly stemming from the number of jurisdictions and agencies that may play a role in any transaction, • Perception by the private sector of having to accept most of the financial, tort or other risk, • Desire by a private entity to obtain an exclusive, long-term arrangement when legal and other restrictions may constrain the public sector from this type of arrangement, • Limitation of the public sector in its ability to compensate a private partner and vice versa, • Concern by the private sector about protecting intellectual property, INSTITUTIONAL IV-15

• Lack of clear valuation measures, and • Inability to utilize public resources or engage in public/private partnerships, SmartRoute Systems has developed successful public-private partnerships for ATIS systems in cities across the United States including: • Boston -1991 • Bridgeport -1994 • Cincinnati - 1998 • Philadelphia -1997 • Washington D.C. 1997 • Minneapolis -1998 • Detroit – 1998 From their experience successful public-private partnerships must overcome how each views the other’s perspective: Public sees Private as: How can I fake a bunch of “in-kind” contributions so I can get maximum public dollars at no risk? Private sees Public as: What’s mine is mine, and what’s yours is mine. This achieved both parties must come to a mutual understanding through development of • Shared goals • Trust • Understanding of the partnership • Flexibility • Shared Risk Source: Ruth Anne Bower, SmartRoutes Manager of Public Sector Business development: 1999 TRB Presentation. Clearly, resource sharing at its most complex should involve a thorough analysis of the existing public authority to act and enter into partnerships, as well as the institutional framework and market situation in which sharing might occur. Compensation is typically a significant issue, as well as the structure of the public/private partnership. But, again, as mentioned above, if care is taken in entering into a sharing agreement, such agreements can have major advantages to both public and private sectors in the provision of transportation services and facilities and in planning. IV.A.4.3 Incorporating assumptions on private provision of service into planning As may be seen, the private sector may play a role in many ways. Regional decision-makers and their staffs need to determine where the public and private sectors have mutual interests in transportation and planning, and then set out to fashion arrangements of mutual benefit. These then need to be incorporated into the regional transportation plans and programs and the integrated framework’s path of development at the short, mid, and long-range time frames. Where private sector resources can reduce congestion, for example, through the introduction of an effective traveler information system that enables the best use of existing capacity, this needs to be factored into transportation planning. If one assumes the private sector will continue to provide more services in the future, which given the increasing technology orientation of these services is likely, then neglecting the private sector contribution may undercut otherwise carefully conducted transportation planning efforts. Greater reflection on the potential private sector role implies a growing dialog with the private sector. However, the private sector can only be expected to provide ITS components and services if it can cover its costs at a reasonable risk. This depends to a large part on the benefits that an individual receives from the service and the ability to recover costs through direct payments. Services have diffuse benefits to society INSTITUTIONAL IV-16

and not the individual are not market driven and are not good candidates for private complete private sector provision. The issues associated with selecting appropriate ITS services for private sector provision and partnerships are examined in Section V.E under Identifying Alternatives. Of course, if and when the private sector becomes involved with the public sector, certain requirements may follow. For example, a private sector provider of traveler and traffic data may have to ensure that its operation is conforms to ITS Standards and the regional ITS architecture. In many cases, however, this will be a benefit to private sector companies in that it enable them to more widely sell their products or services. In recent years, efforts have been made to pay greater attention to the nature and needs of freight transportation in regional planning processes. This attention has often been focused on the facility and capacity needs of freight operators. It has not, however, focused as heavily on the private sector as the provider of passenger transportation services or the provider of various value-added services. These private sector services need to be incorporated into public sector planning, particularly to the extent they change current public sector assumptions about the need for capacity and other resources. Strategies for including the private sector may include: • Identifying and involving private sector providers and stakeholders and inviting their participation in the planning/decision process • Reduce uncertainty and risk by creating a business environment and procurement process that provides for private sector participation and can be depended on into the future. • Come to a mutual understanding on shared goals and what each party expects from the partnerships. Provide for flexibility and shared risk. • Define the expected roles and ITS services for the private sector and or public private partnerships IV.B CHOOSING WHAT IS BEST IN A GIVEN CONTEXT? This section gives insight on different ways that an area (state, region, corridor) may organize to support ITS and operations within the Integrated Framework. Note, that the traditional planning organizations that support the Federal process (MPOs and States) do not necessarily have to be responsible or become the leaders and champions for all the new activities, functions, and products that this requires. In fact, several other approaches exist that may be more appropriate under different conditions. These include: • Stand alone single agency/implementer planning and implementation; • MPO centric coordination; • State-centric coordination; • Ad Hoc or New Organizations. Which to choose depends on area’s context, jurisdictions, problems/issues, and existing institutional roles, activities, and expertise. This is not to suggest that the traditional organizations should be supplanted or replaced. The decisions and products (path of development) must fit within and be consistent with the mandated Transportation Plans, TIPs, and other required products/analyses of the MPOs and States. Consequently, they must always participate and be closely coordinated with no matter which option for organizing is chosen. Their activities and responsibilities however will vary depending upon the choice. IV.B.1 SOURCES/PERSPECTIVES FOR EVOLVING/NEW ORGANIZATIONS To date most metropolitan areas have implemented management and operations and ITS programs within their existing institutional setting with minor tweaks here or there. In some regional settings, ad hoc adjustments or informal arrangements have been sufficient in the short-term to implement some ITS and/or other management and operational solutions. Other areas are in the process of creating or evolving new INSTITUTIONAL IV-17

institutions and/or relationships to address both ITS and operations. These seem to be originating from two sources and perspectives: ITS oriented entities for operations; and MPO planning. IV.B.1.1 Operations Oriented Sources There are a variety of ITS-oriented entities that have been established on an ad hoc basis for one or more ITS services or functions. Often, they are characterized by the following: • Focus on a particular operational service (such as incident management) but not traffic management • Focus on a limited regional network • Handle information transfer but not operations • Handle a set of real time operations activity but not planning or programming There are currently two versions of these operation entities: 1. “Formal” operations organizations: These are often established informally by a lead agency, typically the state DOT, as the recipient of dedicated federal funds. These entities are not multi- modal planning entities. They do not have authority regarding categorical state and federal funds. They are typically project-focused and do not trade off investments among a broad range of strategies. They are typically funded with dedicated ITS project funds, both federal and state, and conduct systems integration and operations planning on a multi-jurisdictional basis using those funds. As such they are not directly integrating ITS and operations into the mainstream of regional planning and programming 2. “Informal” organizations via lead agency (a funding jurisdiction): A jurisdiction with direct access to operations funds or earmarked ITS funds (for example, state DOT or local government) has often become the de facto leader of special operations initiatives within given metropolitan areas. Typically, other jurisdictions are invited to participate. In many cases the lead agency has assumed this role in the absence of MPO leadership or in the face of limited interest from other jurisdictions Either of these two types of entities could conceivably evolve into established operations planning and implementation entities that receive some share of available transportation funds directly from state and local governments or through MPOs. MPOs would still conduct the remainder of the multi-modal planning activities. IV.B.1.2 Planning-based Sources The other “trend” is the incorporation of planning and implementation of operations and related ITS improvements into the MPO process as it currently exists in most regions. Within the MPO setting there appear to be two options that have been followed: 1. Formal incorporation within MPO: MPOs and other regional planning entities will incorporate some ITS or management and operations functions. Formal incorporation implies a change in the existing authority of the MPO, the redistribution of decision-making influence, or importing into the MPO decision-making structure decisions made elsewhere. Specific changes in items such as organizational structure or roles or responsibilities may involve modifications in authority, jurisdiction or resource allocation influence within the organization, If so, these are likely to require (or provoke) a change in law or memorandum of understanding among existing organization members. 2. Informal incorporation within MPO: Informal changes are characterized by use of the existing organization’s features for new purposes such as the establishment of special subcommittees or task forces, establishing modified procedures, changing evaluation criteria or programming categories, including new, previously uninvolved personnel, etc. – all without substantially altering existing decision making authority. In either case, the MPO could either take on real time operations responsibility itself or simply act as a funding allocation mechanism to other ad hoc multi-jurisdictional operating entities. INSTITUTIONAL IV-18

To date, the level of ITS and other operations-oriented improvements compared to conventional investments has been small. Much of the funding has come from outside the channels that are the normal purview of MPOs. The constituencies pressuring for increased investments in ITS and operations are modest and largely professional rather than political. For these reasons, MPOs have felt only modest pressures to modify planning processes and programming procedures. However, as system users demand more “fixes” to current traffic problems, congestion, security, and enhanced information, the pressure is sure to increase on policymakers who in turn will influence MPOs. Given their central role in today’s transportation planning as well as their statutory position, MPOs have a strong likelihood of continuing to be regional planning organizations but with an evolving role to include more management and operations responsibilities, or at the least oversight thereof. A 2001 survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) showed 53% of MPOs saw operational issues as a high to very high priority and 64% placed a need for investment in management and operations as high to very high (Taft, 2001). AMPO has identified 5 levels of increasing responsibility for ITS and operations that MPOs can provide: 1. Traditional MPO role, with involvement in management and operations planning limited to existing role in ITS, CMS, etc. 2. Convener of meetings to facilitate the planning for management and operations improvements 3. Champion of plan to improve management and operations efficiency 4. Developer of metropolitan-level M&O plans 5. Operator of the metropolitan system AMPO states that the current goal of all MPOs should be to develop the capacity to play and effective role as a convener of meetings on metropolitan-level operations planning (#2 above). They recommend, “that ISTEA-21 re-authorization legislation establish an ideal role for all MPOs to play the role of developer of metropolitan-level operations plans and projects” (#4 above) (Taft, 2001, page 17). This can only take place if adequate planning funds are provided to undertake this role. IV.B.2 WAYS TO ORGANIZE As stated, the results of any ITS and operations process must be consistent with, and incorporated into, the mandated plans and products at the MPO and State Level. However, many organizational permutations are possible other than those shown above. Their exact nature and which to choose depends on a host of factors. Below are four models that one finds in looking across the United States. IV.B.2.1 Do It Alone In some instances, agencies can act, comparatively speaking, alone in moving an ITS agenda. This is rarely true in metropolitan areas, but state DOTs have a fair amount of autonomy in more rural areas. While this is by no means complete autonomy, relatively speaking, state DOTs have more room to act outside metropolitan areas. On the other hand, partnerships with other public and private partners often make sense no matter where or what autonomy a given agency has, as partners can bring strengths, political and otherwise, to enable more rapid progress. In certain instances, an agency may control its facilities and have the authority to act unilaterally. For example, state DOTs often can plan and install freeway management systems largely on their own. The same is true of transit agencies that control their rights-of-way. Some of the countries’ rail systems are currently installing sophisticated traveler information services for their passengers. Systems such as automatic vehicle location systems can also be installed by an agency acting on its own. This can also be true of local governments that often control much of the transportation infrastructure and, for example, manage transit systems. Sometimes, a local source of funding for management and operations is available and there is no regulatory need for project approval through MPOs or other agencies: The one agency can in fact act on its own. However, when a region adopts an integrated planning framework, there may be an increased sense that a variety of projects that are currently uncoordinated in fact need to be coordinated. INSTITUTIONAL IV-19

IV.B.2.2 MPO Centric Several regions have turned to their MPOs to take the lead. Relying on MPOs may make sense in particularly complex areas that span multiple jurisdictions and/or states. In San Francisco, the TravInfo field operational test spanned nine counties, while in the Washington, DC area, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia share boundaries. In the San Francisco Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) served as the lead agency for TravInfo, a field operational test involving the dissemination of traveler information through a phone system and to information service providers. As consensus building was particularly important in the complex, nine-county area of the San Francisco Bay, the MTC seemed the appropriate agency to bring all parties together. The project was guided by the Management Board, which drew members from MTC, three other regional agencies, the regional Caltrans district, and the regional Highway Patrol Division. TravInfo also relied heavily on the private sector as a private contractor operated the Traveler Information Center with oversight of the center through the MTC and Management Board. In Washington, DC, the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments is home to both an ITS Policy Task Force and an ITS Technical Task Force. The latter was initially formed after a more ad hoc organization was pulled together to procure the services for an Advanced Traveler Information System, now called Partners in Motion. This group became the nucleus for the ITS Technical Task Force when the Transportation Planning Board (also known as TPB, the local MPO) of MWCOG authorized its creation. The creation of this group was also recommended by an ITS early deployment study. This study, which focused on institutional issues, was completed in 1997. In 1999, after some concern by TPB members that the Technical Task Force was moving forward without adequate consultation, the TPB also formed an ITS Policy Task Force. This higher-level task force is composed of TPB members. The TPB, with staff assistance from the MWCOG and the two task forces, is now embarked on developing a regional ITS strategic plan and regional architecture. Strong support from the Virginia Department of Transportation and the Maryland State Highway Administration, as well as other local and regional agencies, has enabled the TPB to play an active role. Placement of these task forces within the MPO structure has enabled the MPO to provide coordination services and has served as an incentive to include ITS in the planning and programming process. It has recently be renamed the “Management and Operations and ITS Task Force” to reflect a mission and focus that has grown beyond just ITS issues. IV.B.2.3 State Centric In San Antonio, the Texas DOT San Antonio District is the lead agency for the TransGuide Traffic Operations Center, in part because of Texas DOT’s responsibility for operation and maintenance of the state highway system as well as for ITS. TransGuide is truly a multi-modal operation, as the VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority paratransit dispatch staff, the city’s Public Works Department traffic engineering staff, the Police Department traffic dispatch staff, and alternate dispatch points for the Police and Fire Departments are all located in one structure. Each agency performs its separate responsibility but in a way that information can be shared between agencies and modes. In this case, the state is the lead agency. For the Seattle SmarTrek Model Deployment Initiative, the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) is the lead agency. SmarTrek involves many partners, including WSDOT regional offices, University of Washington, Port Authority of Seattle (operator of Seattle-Tacoma Airport), City of Seattle, Washington State Ferries, and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Each has a role ranging from improving video transmissions of traffic, to better data collection and archiving, to incident management. IV.B.2.4 Ad Hoc or New Organization In many areas informal/ad hoc relationships/arrangements, or formal institutions for operations have evolved in response to needs not met by existing arrangements or cross inter-jurisdictional boundaries. These "regional operating organizations" offer new opportunities for cooperation and coordinated operations that were not previously being met due to a number of factors (e.g. political boundaries, INSTITUTIONAL IV-20

legislative barriers, legacy relationships). Recently, the potential for these types of organizations represented by AZTECH in Phoenix Arizona, TRANSCOM in the New York/New Jersey region, and others has been recognized. As a result, the FHWA Travel Management Office and ITE have sponsored case studies and the preparation of the "Organizing for Regional Transportation Operations: An Executive Guide" (Briggs & Jasper, 2001). Two types of new organizations are identified. AZTECH of Phoenix Arizona represents one approach. It is "virtual organization" or partnership based on voluntary participation. It is not a legal entity and relies on its constituent agencies for corporate functions such as procurement, project management, and staffing. In the AZTech model deployment initiative in the Phoenix, AZ area, the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Maricopa County DOT are co-lead agencies. This resulted from the recognition that each agency brought certain capabilities to the project that the other could not. Therefore, rather than a state-centric or MPO-centric model, the AZTech model might be viewed as a multi-centric model. The Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee, or TRANSCOM would also fit under the rubric of an ad hoc or new organization. it was formed in a pre-ITS era (1986) to provide a means for setting up a regional cooperative approach to transportation management and improve interagency cooperation in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area. Composed of 15 traffic, transit and police agencies, TRANSCOM was viewed as a logical organization to serve as a lead for the tri-area model deployment initiative. It is a private corporation with independent legal status. This enables it to hire staff and perform corporate functions independent of its constituent agencies. Consequently, private corporations can institute processes that are most favorable to the partnership. However, they must also be financially independent, supported through dues, contributions, or private revenue sources. Corporations are best suited for regional organizations that have a well-defined purpose and means of financial support. IV.B.3 HOW TO CHOOSE: FACTORS TO CONSIDER Sometimes, the choice on how to organize and who to lead is clear. Often however, it is not and must consciously determined or evolve. Obviously, while the above sections focused on the lead agencies, all of the efforts must be partnerships. As these organizations are generally collaborative bodies, the lead agency is often more the manager of the decision making process than the final arbiter in all matters. This also points out the fact that these organizations are brought together by a perceived shared interest, strong enough to enable them to work closely together. Responsibilities are also shared according to respective agency resources and capabilities. Other factors that are often important are the consideration of the need for a full-time project manager or other support staff, as well as the need, rationale, and structure of committees that should be formed. Once in place, the organizational structure, including the committee structure, can appear quite complex. Nonetheless, these structures may need to encompass a variety of diverse partners as well as work on multiple issues that may be efficiently handled through a committee structure. As many of these organizations may be operations-focused, the need to include MPO decision-makers and their staffs and their long-range planning emphasis must not be forgotten. Often, MPO staff should be included for a variety of reasons, for example, to keep the MPO informed and educated, and to build support should funding be needed through the MPO-planning process. Which of the above ways to organize for integrated planning (decision-making) and provision of the activities and functions for ITS depends largely on an area’s local context, history and the issues/problems it faces. Organizations undertake new initiatives and efforts to meet their constituent’s needs and/or respond to other imperatives (Federal regulations) and circumstances. Leaders come to the fore based upon the relevance of the activity in meeting their interests and mission, available resources, and the ability to carry out the effort (resources and skills). New relationships and organizations form and evolve to overcome perceived gaps and deficiencies that are not being met by existing institutions, or activities. Oftentimes, one agency is likely to be an obvious choice to lead a given effort, perhaps because it has been a leader in ITS projects or has played other coordinating roles previously. Alternatively, one agency may make most sense because of its political influence, ownership of certain rights-of-way, particular INSTITUTIONAL IV-21

procurement capabilities it may have, or other reasons. As seen above in the AZTech Model Deployment Initiative, leadership may also be shared. The remainder of this section explores these factors that, as they vary, may change the desirable relationships between agencies and other actors in the Integrated Framework. These include: • The willingness and ability of an entity to become the leader, or champion. • The geographic overlap of the political jurisdictions, ITS and other systems, and their influence areas. • Transportation, environmental, and other problems/issues of concern. • Agency Resources/Skills • Authorizing Environment (funding sources, legislative authority/mandate, legal issues) • Historical Relationships The first step, therefore, must be to inventory the region with regard to these factors. The lead organization and responds best to these factors can then be chosen. Note, that they may change over time and the organizational structure should evolve in response. Thus, a development path can (should) be created to enable an evolution of an organization or organizational structure that is based on that regional context. IV.B.3.1 Willingness and ability of an entity to become the leader, or champion. One of the most important factors in determining how to organize is finding an organizations and/or specific individuals to lead and be responsible for the new activities. However, if the efforts are to be successful, these responsibilities cannot simply be assigned, especially given the degree of change in perspective, values, and mission that moving towards integration (ITS and operations) implies. The leading agency must be willing to commit from top to bottom to the effort, and have the resources and capability to carry it out. . Often, a high-level or executive champion(s) is necessary to force consideration of change in the current way of doing business. Typically, this executive champion needs a counterpart(s)at the staff level who can also champion change. The talents and location of these individuals can make a difference in the speed with which a region looks at change in existing processes. In fact, the identification of champions has been included as a key step in both development of Regional ITS Architectures (National ITS Architecture Team, 2001), and in regional planning for operations (SAIC, 2001). In addition to champions, the number of technical staff, their expertise and resources to them may also effect moving to a more integrated planning process. Consequently, if an area already has an agency(ies) and individual champions willing and able to take the lead this is an extremely important asset. Otherwise, the efforts discussed earlier to enable a new authorizing environment and find/evolve champions must become part of the long-term strategy for transition. IV.B.3.2 Geographic overlap of the political jurisdictions, ITS and other systems, their influence areas. Another important consideration is the geographic overlap of the transportation and ITS systems, jurisdictions, and challenges that exist within an area or region. In general, one might argue that strong cross-jurisdictional and cross-system shared needs may drive a cooperative search for solutions. The larger the area in which the needs are shared may enable broader crosscutting and systematic approaches to solving transportation issues. On the other hand, where the number of agencies is greater, the task of developing cooperative agreements and shared responsibilities may be larger and therefore more difficult. One must consider agency overlap as well as gaps between agencies and their authority and responsibilities. In short, one must develop an understanding of the geographic area for which a united approach to ITS solutions might make sense, and then consider the jurisdictions and agencies to determine their capabilities in developing unified ITS solutions. For effective operations and management the boundaries and influence areas (origin and destinations of users, distribution of impacts and costs) of the transportation system and ITS components must in INSTITUTIONAL IV-22

alignment with the decision-making process. This is illustrated in Figure IV-3. Consequently, the organization whose boundaries and responsibilities most closely align with these systems may be the natural choice for organizing and providing effective operational coordination throughout. . It has a vested interest in seeing the overall system perform. Depending on circumstance, this could be an MPO, regional transit authority, State, or other organization that crosses many local jurisdictions. Note, that defining this area for alignment is one of the first steps for the development of a regional ITS architecture. Figure IV-3 Overlapping Systems, Jurisdictions, Travel/Influence Areas Where no jurisdiction's or agency's boundaries or responsibilities match the systems of concern it is more important to develop ways to share leadership and decision-making. Examples of this are: urban area's with many political jurisdictions, multiple states, or multiple MPOs. In these instances, commuters and the traveler information systems that they use, transit systems, and traffic control systems may all extend beyond traditional planning area boundaries, or the operations of any one agency. Here, joint leadership may be necessary that combines boundaries to cover the full system. Another option is the evolution of new regional organizations whose boundaries are based upon the need for operational coordination and control such as TRANSCOM. IV.B.3.3 Legacy Institutions and Historical Relationships Going one step beyond the political jurisdictions, there are also issues incorporating existing transportation providers/agencies and their relationships with other agencies both within and outside of their respective jurisdictions. Different transportation modes and agencies that support them often have a long history of interaction and allocation of responsibilities. Some regions have primarily highway truck and car traffic, while others have a mix of modes. Some may rely more heavily on public transit, while others do not. Public transit can itself take a number of forms; quite often, the main forms are bus and light or heavy rail although van, ferry, and other types of transportation services may be offered. The presence of airports or INSTITUTIONAL IV-23

seaports can also influence a region’s approach. ITS and other management and operations improvements may be appropriately applied to any of these modes or between modes. Agencies may have strained, neutral or excellent relationships with other modal agencies or other jurisdictions. Various agencies may compete and /or overlap in their duties and responsibilities; on the other hand, sometimes no agency has the responsibility for ITS or coordinated operations. Thus, there is confusion when there is a need to respond to an issue having to do with ITS or other issues raised by the Integrated Framework. As we all know from political science, agencies are often leery of entering into any arrangement that may appear to result in loss of power or resources. Therefore, a great deal of sensitivity exists relative to new approaches that may change existing relationships. Existing ownership and operational relationships are viewed with great importance. These relationships may well have a bearing on system-crossing innovations. A history of planning or operations coordination and cooperation between agencies, both within and out of jurisdictions, can make a large difference in the appropriate organization and the region’s willingness to undertake more complex and mutual projects. ITS operational tests and early deployment projects have often capitalized on project funding earmarks to provide a catalyst for fledging operational coordination. Often this has occurred outside the MPO process. States as well as other agencies and new organizations have taken the lead. Ad hoc multi-government-level committees and task forces have been set up. Projects have been defined and deployed without proceeding through the standard planning and programming procedures. Ad hoc implementation and operations planning and procedures have been conducted. In many cases these start-up ITS projects have left institutional legacies in the form of ongoing committees and informal personal relationships. In some cases the projects have even developed new permanent activities such as traffic operations centers which function in some ways like formal organizations (Briggs, 1999, Briggs & Jasper, 2001), IV.B.3.4 Transportation, environmental, and other problems/issues of concern. Each region has a unique set and mix of transportation and environmental challenges and constraints. Naturally, this uniqueness leads to different responses to given challenges. Congestion, air quality, and the condition of existing facilities all have an impact on a region's ability and need to focus on ITS and operations. As hypothesized in the World I and World II scenarios, more congested areas are likely to move towards integrated planning more quickly. Systems operations and short to mid-term improvements, e.g., ITS projects, often bring relief that seems rapid in comparison to capacity expansion or other improvements that may take decades to complete. Therefore, level of congestion is often a factor in motivating an evolving planning process. Environmental laws and regulations, and their effects on (generally metropolitan) areas, are also a factor in motivating change in the planning process. Conformity requirements impose stiff challenges on regions, and sometimes add constraints to building new capacity. When an area is not in conformity the Conformity requirements also change the roles, activities, and functions of many of the transportation organizations impacted. They may in fact be a catalyst for change since ITS and operational strategies can help bring areas into conformity. New organizations may also develop in response such as the recent creation of a super-regional transportation agency in Greater Atlanta. Other special events and incidents can act as catalysts for change and shape how to organize. Safety, and since September 11, 2001 Security, are other reasons for choosing to utilize ITS and other management and operational improvements. Oftentimes, safety is treated as the highest transportation priority, and elected officials are loathe to wait for long-term infrastructure improvements to remedy problems perceived to be immediate in nature. Other special problems such as a continuing series of special events, as in Branson, Missouri, or severe winter weather have also been recurring reasons to focus on ITS and management and operational improvements. Several ITS operational tests have applied today’s technology to corridors with extreme weather, such as the weather warning system in mountainous areas of Washington State. INSTITUTIONAL IV-24

Another factor that might influence receptivity to evolving transportation planning processes is the regional system’s maturity and current condition. Is the system (speaking broadly of the combination of different modal systems) relatively new with sufficient capacity? Or is it in need of extensive rehabilitation and/or maintenance? In the latter case, a region may want to take a more far-reaching approach to the planning process in order to survey all possible short, mid and long-term alternatives. IV.B.3.5 Agency Resources/Skills Differing resources and capabilities between stakeholder organizations can also have a profound influence on organizing to support the continual process of the Integrated Framework. For example, there may be significant differences in the overall issues, the available funding, and the public's concern for a smoothly flowing transportation system between suburban communities (large tax bases, recently built capital facilities, and many commuters), and the inner city (fiscal constraints, decaying infrastructure, a plethora of public needs and concerns). However, for regional operations and coordinated activities to take place both must participate. This may mean that those with resources and skills share them in the interest of the system as a whole. In the Norfolk/Hampton Roads Virginia urban area the approach taken by VDOT was to think regionally from the start and offer/plan a system that could be shared. Consequently, they can provide some key backbone communications and other central services beyond the capabilities of many of the individual entities as an inducement for cooperation. Another concern that must be addressed is the ability of each participant to raise or commit funds at key points in time to implement phased ITS or operational improvements. Different issues and demands on each agency's or jurisdiction's funds can limit when they can make their contributions. Again, creative solutions must be examined in organizing the overall process to ensure the integrity and operation of the system at all times. IV.B.3.6 Authorizing Environment The existing authorizing environment for transportation also has a significant influence on the choices that can be made in organizing to support the Integrated Framework. This includes: current decision-making processes; who owns and maintains each system component; legal authority or legislative barriers; and fiscal issues (funding constraints, scarcity). One of the most challenging issues in many American metropolitan areas is the number of political jurisdictions, including the overlapping nature of various regional, state and federal responsibilities and roles. Gaining consensus, and overcoming the parochial concerns of jurisdictional leaders and staff, can be a time-consuming process. Often, certain organizations such as metropolitan planning organizations were formed to assist in a broad regional consensus building process and to assist in overcoming parochial concerns. Some regions have been effective at forging regional decision making mechanisms, while others have been noticeably less so. In order to effect ITS or other crosscutting system operations issues, a workable decision making structure is often imperative. Transportation planning and programming is done differently in different regions. In some cases, a state DOT may exert a powerful influence on, for example, the metropolitan planning process. In others, the MPO may have developed its own significant influence relative to planning and programming. In other cases, dynamic leaders from other local agencies may have forged relationships that provide them with unusual levels of influence. Often, the views of the dominant agency or agencies towards ITS and management and operational improvements will strongly color the overall outcome of the planning process. Another distinction is that, in some states/regions, the state owns and operates all or most of the highway infrastructure or transit systems, while in others responsibility may be split between the state and regional or local jurisdictions or agencies. In the state-only context, one might consider a movement towards ITS more likely, in that the state DOT is more readily able to act under its own authority (although, in fact, this rarely happens). On the other hand, there may be situations where the regional or local jurisdiction or agency is the driving force behind new ways of doing business, perhaps driven by local needs. The greater number of involved parties may increase the odds of at least one having an urgent need to look at ITS and other management and operational improvements. In any case, the mix of modes, facility ownership and operational responsibilities will color the planning and system improvements orientation. INSTITUTIONAL IV-25

Sometimes, there are also specific legal and legislative barriers that hamper development of an integrated planning process including ITS, system management and operations. This may be especially true in regions crossing state borders, where the entire governmental structure and outlook may vary between states. Legal authority to undertake tasks; contracting and purchasing requirements; liability, privacy, and public disclosure regulations; and regulations between public-private relationships or partnerships may present hurdles that must be overcome. However, these barriers tend to more ones of perception than reality. Where barriers are perceived, there is often a way to work around them if the political will exists. Conversely, in some cases, legislative incentives have been established to promote an integrated planning process. Last, funding limitations and/or fiscal constraints often drive regions to look at alternative and cheaper means to improve the transportation system, and are another factor in trying ITS and operational improvements as well as new planning processes. Of course, those same fiscal constraints may be used as a reason for opposing experimentation or innovation. Transportation decision-makers may opt for the tried and true, which, more often than not, is some type of capacity expansion. While this may save scarce dollars in the short-term, lack of innovation may cost additional dollars in the long-term, especially in the rapidly changing transportation environment of today. The next sections focus on assembling the resources necessary to develop new or evolving organizations. IV.B.4 ASSEMBLING RESOURCES The term “resources” refers to the inputs necessary to implement (plan, deploy, operate and maintain) Operations systems and services. These include capital funds to support systems development and deployment, operations funds and staff allocation to support staffing, maintenance and upgrading funds to keep systems up to date. Existing state and regional transportation infrastructure improvement programs take place in the context of limited funds and staff. Even if where its potential is understood, ITS must compete for scarce financial and staff resources. State and regional funds are programmed on a multiyear basis with federal and state sources being increasing fungible across program categories. Local funds are less “dedicated” and compete with other sectors as well as with other types of transportation improvements. As a result, any new ITS proposals must flow through a pipeline already backed up with existing commitments. Funding is not the critical scarce resource. In an environment of agency downsizing, staff slots are limited and the required skills are increasingly scarce The project development process, involving cross-agency negotiation and cooperation, is very senior and middle management labor intensive. Many operations programs appear to be staff rather than funds constrained. Traditionally the dedication of resources at the state, local and federal level has been framed in terms of a “systems” or a “program” defined by a network or in terms of performance standards and embodied in the formal state and regional planning and programming process. A corresponding generic definition what constitutes comprehensive operations and management program has not been developed in any jurisdiction. Few states or regions have formal, funded management and operations programs. The hesitancy of state and local entities to define systems management or operations performance standards and related target programs may reflect finance–driven reluctance on the part of agencies instead of conceptual difficulties. That ITS or operations do not appear as a program line item in most state STIPS or regional TIPs reflects the broader reality that systems operations and management as a distinct and major service responsibility is not widely adopted as a policy concept deserving of a separate programmatic, budgeting or organizational response equivalent to “preservation” or “safety”. IV.B.4.1 Mobilizing Funds Initial deployment plans have been developed on an ad hoc basis and few jurisdictions have estimated, much less committed, program level funds. In the majority of states and metropolitan regions, ITS investments are typically funded as special projects, or they are combined with other major improvements. In most cases, ITS investments are considered “special” “demonstration” or “high technology” and are supported with special earmarked funds. A few of INSTITUTIONAL IV-26

the more advanced state programs have obtained special resources through discretionary federal aid such as the Model Deployment Initiative (MDI) programs or where the momentum of an early operational test has developed a strong ITS constituency. At the same time, other ITS components are conveniently combined with major improvements (such as detection or wireline communications) and buried in conventional funding. While this latter approach represents a form of “mainstreaming”, it is often simply the practical recourse when explicit funding for ITS is not otherwise available. In either case, stable long-term program oriented ITS and system management programs are extremely rare. A key precondition to mainstreaming operations is its ability to compete for funds. The separation of capital and operating funds within the allocation flows from state and federal sources and the current program-defined funding allocations within State DOTs and to regions (and within local governments) puts operations at a significant disadvantage. Redefinition of programs within this process is probably necessary to enable operations to compete effectively While adequate capital is a continual challenge, a more serious handicap to mainstreaming ITS relates to operating funds. Traditional transportation improvements are capital intensive. This “pay as you go” funding system has disconnected concepts of reserves, life cycle considerations and future operating and maintenance burdens from funding decisions. Furthermore the federal aid program on which states have depended for nearby 45% of capital cost has historically not been available for operations, although these constraints have now been relaxed. The effectiveness of ITS is particularly dependent on support for continuing operations and regular upgrades. IV.B.4.2 Special Technical Staff Capabilities Funding alone is not the only scarce public resource. As ITS-related programs expand, staffing is becoming a real constraint. The professional orientation in most transportation agencies has been civil engineering or planning. The personnel with operations or system engineering backgrounds are relatively rare. Additional staffing is limited by state and local policies. At the same time, the technologies on which ITS is based are part of larger information and communications industries, which are fast growing and extremely competitive. Attracting and retaining highly qualified technical staff is increasingly difficult, especially in the public sector where civil service and compensation constraints reduce management flexibility in creating satisfactory career environments. The rate of progress for many ITS programs is therefore limited by the capacity of the ITS-oriented staff. In the absence of organized ITS programs, much of the current deployment is done on an ad hoc basis, substantially dependent on the day-to-day lobbying and individual project facilitation of small ITS-dedicated staffs in state DOTs and local government. In parallel to budgetary increases for operations, more effective operations planning staff resources need to be built up. Three tactics are emerging for responding to this shortage. First, a major training effort within transportation organizations is necessary. This can play an important role in filling some of the important staff vacuums. At the same time state DOTs and local agencies (based on motives beyond ITS) are seeking more flexible employment opportunities that reflect the expectations of technical specialist in a competitive setting. At the same time public agencies are finding that outsourcing and other forms of partnerships with private vendors is an effective strategy for accessing specialized capabilities Systems engineering is a discipline not widely available in the planning ranks of state DOTS, local government or MPOs. As a result, much of the ITS architecture development and project planning have been carried out by operational personal that are not part of the normal planning process. It is not clear the degree to which this will substantially handicap the ability of management and operations investments to compete within the established planning process. Many state efforts appear to be limited more by the small number of middle level and senior ITS staff than lack of financial resources INSTITUTIONAL IV-27

IV.C CONCEPT OF PLANNING The “Concept of Planning “ is designed to capture these shifts. It is to decision making what the concept of operations is to maintaining and operating the overall system. It defines the relationships and responsibilities required to carry out the integrated planning process as it evolves towards the Integrated Framework. It, therefore, recognizes that institutional arrangements and levels of cooperation also evolve over time in response to the changing system. The shifts in institutions, organizations, and relationships for planning/decision making discussed in this chapter take time to implement and evolve. Shifts are likely to be needed due to the following factors: • As an area moves more and more towards a World II environment, new stakeholders, interests, and concerns will emerge (see chapter II). It is likely that institutions, organizational structures, and planning/ decision making processes designed to address previous problems and needs will not be able to respond to the new issues. Consequently, changes will occur in what types of decisions are made, how they are made, and who makes them. • Likewise, moving from where an area is today towards integrated planning will introduce the new stakeholders, considerations, and relationships discussed throughout this Guidebook. Operations and planning stakeholders must be brought together. Mechanisms for balancing near-term and far- term improvements must be developed. New resources and capabilities may need to be assembled or developed. • As the area’s environment changes and the transportation system moves along its development path through implementation of its programmed improvements new stakeholders will be impacted and need to become involved in the process. If stakeholders are invited to participate before they are affected and have a reason to be concerned they are not likely to contribute. Elements of the Concept of Planning include: • Identification of new stakeholders and when their participation is likely to be needed as part of the planning process. This might include new types of stakeholders such as incorporating public safety officials as the decisions regarding incident management, emergency evacuation, and security issues are being considered and systems to address them implemented. They may also include new area and jurisdictions as the systems expand to accommodate growth. • Identification of roles and responsibilities for the new components of planning mentioned above (ITS infrastructure and services, ITS Regional Architecture, operational concepts, and characteristics). This includes the organization/entity responsible for maintaining the inputs and products of the integrated process. For example, one requirement for conformity with the National ITS Architecture is to identify who is responsible and the mechanisms/procedures for updating/maintaining the regional ITS architecture. Other issues that may need to be addressed are the responsibilities for data archiving, analysis, and maintenance, and data rights (ownership, privacy) • Identification of new organizational structures and relationships that may be needed to match geographic and modal leadership to the problem/impact area of the system and its operations. • Memorandum of understanding and other agreements on both the decision making implementing/operating responsibilities for the system. • A path of development for institutional arrangements and planning and operating roles. A key factor in creating the concept of planning is leadership must exist where the primary transportation challenges or problems are faced and/or primary responsibility and ownership of addressing those challenges and problems are located. An agency assigned planning responsibilities must feel buy-in to that particular set of planning issues it has been handed; otherwise, that element of planning may fail. Part of ensuring buy-in by a given organization or jurisdiction is to closely match geographic, modal nature, and other factors to that aspect of the Integrated Framework’s planning. The private sector should also be considered as the partner with the ownership of a issues that concern them, and so various private organizations might take the lead in aspects of the regional planning process. INSTITUTIONAL IV-28

The path of development of the transportation system also evolves and so should the decision-making and other organizations that support it. Therefore, an organizational path of development and plan should be determined to match the shifts in responsibilities, roles, and stakeholders that occur as the transportation system changes are implemented. The concept of planning, as a concept of operations, would differ from region to region, depending on specific circumstances, tradition, institutional constraints, and other factors. Moreover, it will also evolve as feedback occurs and the path of development for the transportation system is updated. Regions would have to assess their own needs, context and setting to determine what would work best. One might also have a vision of a desired long-range planning structure and develop an evolutionary path or plan to achieve that structure. That vision can help ensure that progress is being made towards a planning structure optimized to meet the challenges of tomorrow. IV.D CHAPTER REVIEW AND TRANSITION ASSESSMENT This chapter described the institutional relationships, activities, and functions and how they must change to organizational gap between planning and operations and support the Integrated Framework. The gap exists for a number of reasons including differences in departmental and institutional mission and goals, professional culture and perspective, and institutional structure and rules. Activities and Functions needed to bridge the gap/hurdle between planning and operations include: • Redefine institutional/organizational relationships through: – Enabling a new authorizing environment – Within agency coordination – Between agency coordination. • Expand stakeholder involvement to include planning, operations, and users. It is also important to match them to the services that are/will be provided. • Determine Public-Private Sector Roles. Who provides ITS can change its characteristics and who uses it. Therefore, need to set policy on respective roles. It is also important to: create positive environment for private sector partnership, develop common understanding of tasks, roles, and expectations, and ensure that both the public and private sectors benefit! The best way to organize to support ITS and operations within the integrated framework depends upon the local situation and issues. It may change and evolve over time as the situation changes. The options include: • Do it alone • MPO Centric • Sate Centric • Ad Hoc or new organization Factors important to the choice include: • Willingness and ability to lead • Geographic overlap of agencies, ITS services, and influence areas • Legacy institutions and relationships • Transportation and Environmental concerns such air quality non-attainment, and major incidents • Other agency skills and resources • Authorizing environment (legal and other issues) Last, A “Concept of Planning” captures the approach to take and how it should change over time. It defines responsibilities and roles for integrated planning. Table IV-4 provides some self-assessment questions to help determine what is the best approach for organizing in your area. Mark where you think your area’s relative position is for each question. INSTITUTIONAL IV-29

Table IV-4 Institutional Relationships, Activities, and Functions Self-Assessment Question NO YES Redefine Institutional /Organizational Relationships Do agencies within your area include development/construction, operations, maintenance, and other departmental staff in decisions on service provision, development, or ongoing performance? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do agencies with your area have separate budgets for operations, maintenance, preservation, and capital expansion, making it difficult to examine tradeoffs, or develop life cycle approaches? Do other restrictions such as procurement practices or work rules inhibit within agency coordination? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have agencies within your area adopted a customer service orientation? Has this new mission been promoted throughout their organizations? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is there a current forum for area-wide cooperative decision-making concerning transportation operations and management? Is this carried out through the MPO? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do inter-jurisdictional or agency agreements exist for ITS systems, or other system operations? Are they informal “virtual” organizations, or they formal legal entities? NO - - - - - - - - YES Has a Concept of Operations been developed as part of a Regional ITS Architecture? Is one now being developed? NO - - - - - - - - YES Expand Stakeholder Involvement Are transportation operators/providers included in the regional transportation planning process (freeway and traffic operations, transit, public safety and incident management)? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are other Stakeholders/Users also part of the process (Motorists, transit riders, commercial shippers, taxi and shuttle operators)? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have new forums for operations been created by the MPO or others that provide for the exchange of information between planning and operations? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are these stakeholders also participating in the development of a Regional ITS Architecture? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is a process in place for continual review and update of stakeholders that need to participate in the decision/planning process? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are private sector transportation and ITS providers also participants? NO - - - - - - - - YES Mark the relative position of your area’s advancement. INSTITUTIONAL IV-30

Table IV-4 Institutional Relationships, Activities, and Functions Self-Assessment Continued Question NO YES Determine Public-Private Sector Roles and Relationships Do private-public sector partnerships for ITS or other transportation services currently exist in your area? Do the private sector partners participate in planning and operational decisions? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are their procurement or other barriers to developing new extended relationships with private sector partners? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have clear principals for private public sector agreements been established regarding responsibilities, liability, ownership of intellectual property, privacy, and/or confidentiality been established? NO - - - - - - - - YES Have the ITS and other services that are candidates for private sector provision or partnerships been determined? Are the assumptions on each participant’s roles clearly defined? Does each party benefit? NO - - - - - - - - YES Factors: Leaders and Champions Have leaders and champions for ITS and operations already been established in your area? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is this through the MPO, the state, an operating agency, or regional operating organization? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do they have the necessary resources and technical skills? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is training and outreach to political and other decision makers being carried out to help them understand the benefits of ITS and Operational improvements? NO - - - - - - - - YES Factors: Alignment of Systems, Influence Areas, and Jurisdictions Do the ITS or other transportation systems or their influence area’s in your region cross multiple MPO, state, or other significant jurisdictional boundaries? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is there a potential lead organization whose boundaries align with the above? Does it have the legal authority or mandate to provide leadership in ITS and operations? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are there ongoing operational partnerships between existing entities that could evolve into new joint leadership for ITS and operations? NO - - - - - - - - YES Factors: Historical Relationships NO - - - - - - - - YES Is there a history and precedence for cooperation between agencies and organizations in your area? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are there historical issues with cooperation due to political differences (suburbs-inner city), or professional perspectives (transit-highway). Have these created barriers to cooperation in the past? NO - - - - - - - - YES Mark the relative position of your area’s advancement. INSTITUTIONAL IV-31

Table IV-4 Institutional Relationships, Activities, and Functions Self-Assessment Continued Question NO YES Factors: Transportation Environmental and Other Issues Is your area primarily part of World I, or World II (see earlier self- assessment)? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is part of your area in World I, and part in World II? This may lead to separate programs and agendas for each. NO - - - - - - - - YES Is your area a air quality non-attainment area? Are their other environmental issues and concerns that could limit transportation solutions, or introduce new stakeholders? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are there special events or activities that may act as a catalyst for ITS and operational considerations (festivals, severe weather)? Do these introduce additional stakeholders? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is the transportation system in need of extensive rehabilitation and /or maintenance? NO - - - - - - - - YES Factors: Agency Resources/Skills Does the MPO have available resources ITS and operations? Do staff understand ITS technologies, system engineering, and architectural development? NO - - - - - - - - YES Does the MPO currently operate any ITS or other services (ride-share, traveler information)? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is there significant disparity between jurisdictions/agencies in your region with regards to resource levels/budgets, staffing, or staff capabilities? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is training on ITS and operational issues ongoing or being considered for both staff within organizations, and public policy decision makers? NO - - - - - - - - YES Factors: Authorizing Environment Are they multiple operating agencies and political jurisdictions in your area? Does your area cross state boundaries? NO - - - - - - - - YES Do states own and operate the freeway and arterial systems in your area? Is this a city, or county function? NO - - - - - - - - YES Is the transit agency an independent regional authority? Does it cross jurisdictional boundaries? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are there specific legal and legislative barriers that inhibit regional operations and/or coordinated decision-making? NO - - - - - - - - YES Are funding sources available and flexible to be used for combined alternatives (ITS, operations, and capital). NO - - - - - - - - YES Mark the relative position of your area’s advancement. INSTITUTIONAL IV-32