Cooperative Agreements for Corridor Management (2004)

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.

33 APPENDIX A Survey Responses SURVEY OF STATE AND PROVINCIAL TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES Agreements Between Government Entities to Manage Arterial Corridors to Preserve Mobility and Safety Number of responses: 22, response rate: 35% 1. Has your agency entered into a cooperative agreement with other governmental agencies or private entities for the purpose of managing arterial corridors to preserve mobility and safety? Yes 13 No 9 (If no, answer Questions 12 and 13 only.) 2. From where did your agency derive its authority to enter into the cooperative agreement(s)? (Number of responses: 13) General agency powers granted in transportation law (9) Specific agency powers granted in transportation law (specifically mentions agreements) (3) Enabling legislation related to intergovernmental agreements (2) Enabling legislation related to development agreements (0) Specific agency procedure or policy (2): Minnesota: Interregional Corridors: A Guide for Plan Development and Corridor Management Oregon: Oregon Highway Plan, Goal 2 Other (2): “Planning methodology and techniques…these are not mandatory or required, but it is how [our state transportation agency] has chosen to do business, to strengthen agreements with local government.” “Voluntary participation by local governments to require private development to meet state design standards.” 3. Which of these terms best describes the types of agreements your agency has entered into or is in the process of drafting with regard to corridor management and land use/transportation linkages? (Check all that apply.) (Number of responses: 13) Resolutions (5) Maintenance agreements (related to access permitting or other corridor management issues) (7) Development agreements and other public–private agreements (7) Intergovernmental agreements (6) Memoranda of understanding (9) Other (describe) (2): “Mutual adoption of facility plans; e.g., Transportation System Plans or Access Management Plans.” “Signal Plans and Corridor Access Plans.” 4. Please characterize the purpose of the agreement(s) you noted in Question 3 above. (Number of Responses: 13) “Memoranda of understanding: Purpose is to define the limits and responsibilities of the two different levels of governments and the standards which would be acceptable.” “Resolutions and maintenance agreements: Manage access points and median breaks along a section of [state highway].” “Memoranda of understanding: The agreements are intended to formalize the understanding between the Department and the municipality. To provide a written record of that understanding along with documenting the respective responsibilities so that as councils and department staff change from time to time, the understanding will endure.” “Development agreements, intergovernmental agreements, and memoranda of understanding: Purpose of agreements is primarily to preserve the state’s long-term transportation plans while accommodating shorter-term development needs.”

34 “Resolutions: Local governments are asked to endorse the Corridor Management Plan and can cite their concerns and issues that remain to be resolved.” “Maintenance agreement, development agreements, public–private agreements, and memoranda of understanding: Used to develop, design, construct, operate, manage and maintain a 4-lane, level 1 access controlled highway.” “Resolutions, maintenance agreements, development agreements, intergovernmental agreements, memoranda of understanding, along with the mutual adoption of facility plans, are intended to make the corridors work. These agreements can take the form of plans (e.g., access management plans, facility management plans) or they can be for maintenance or development. The agreements regulate at those levels (planning or development, for example) so there is no need for further agreements. Memoranda of understanding can be between ODOT and local governments or between agencies in state government.” “Maintenance agreements: Maintenance of roads, intergovernmental agreements: Sharing of resources, memoranda of understanding: Using same Commonwealth money for shared projects instead of using a contractor.” “Memoranda of understanding: Establish a cooperative working relationship with the affected local units of government with land use powers.” “Resolutions, maintenance agreements, intergovernmental agreements, public–private agreements, memoranda of understanding, signal plans, and corridor access plans: UDOT has a written agreement of affected parties concerning any action occurring within state right-of-way.” “Development agreement and intergovernmental agreements primarily protect the safety and mobility of the state highway. This is done through access control and contribution of right-of-way, developer-built, or cash contributions to highway improvements (including non-motorized).” “Maintenance agreements: To use access management as a tool to preserve the transportation corridor.” “Utility agreements: Purpose is to uniformly regulate state highway rights-of-way to ensure standardization of installation/construction and public safety.” 5. Do you coordinate with utility companies in arterial corridor management? Yes 9 No 4 6. If yes, have you entered written agreements/MOUs with utility companies with regard to arterial corridor management? Yes 5 No 4 7. Which, if any, of the above examples might be a good case study for the synthesis? (Number of responses: 7) 8. Are you aware of any local agencies or MPOs that have developed or entered a cooperative agreement for managing arterial corridors (other than those above)? Yes 3 No 10 (If yes, please provide an agency, contact name, and telephone number or e-mail) 9. Have you been involved in litigation over a corridor management agreement? Yes 1 No 12 10. What, if any, problems are you aware of or have you experienced related to entering corridor management agreements with local agencies? (Check all that apply.) (Number of responses: 13) No real problems (1) Agency concern over potential abrogation of authority related to contractual commitments (0) Lack of agency leadership on corridor management issues (4) Lack of clear authority to enter corridor management agreements (1) Local/public opposition to corridor management in general (4) Inability to obtain consensus on appropriate agency roles and responsibilities (2) Lack of local government understanding of corridor management (7) Lack of state transportation agency understanding or support for corridor management (1) Competition or conflicts among potential signatories (3) 11. What, if any, problems have you experienced related to implementing corridor management agreements? (Check all that apply.) (Number of responses: 13) No real problems (3) Lack of flexibility or mechanisms to address changing needs (1)

35 Outdated or ineffective state corridor management policies/practices (1) Outdated or ineffective local corridor management policies/practices (2) Lack of continuity in local support or adherence to commitments/turnover of elected officials (7) Lack of continuity in state agency support or adherence to commitments (2) Legal/political concerns over implementation of specific elements (3) Need for technical assistance on implementation methods (3) Other: “Locally, commercial development is desirable from the standpoint of employment, taxes, etc. Often, initial local support for access management is eroded over time by those desires.” “It is our experience that corridor management agreements can only work when both parties, i.e., state/province and the local government, can agree on the function of the corridor. Where we have been unsuccessful is when we cannot agree on the road function.” “Lack of ability to enforce agreements can be an issue. This is why ODOT works toward inclusion of agreement language in comprehensive plans.” 12. What lesson(s) have you learned relative to intergovernmental agreements or accomplishing cooperation between agencies on corridor management that you would pass on to other agencies? “There must be a committed champion for the concept who can articulate the reasons for doing it to affected landowners. City must be supportive at both political and staff level.” “The vision for the corridor has to be shared and the benefits need to be fairly obvious for locals to buy in.” “Locals and the state need to work early in the process . . . with the public, property, and business owners. Have videos that show before and after of other areas where managed access programs have been implemented.” “We don’t have ongoing agreements but we have implemented access and corridor management projects. So, in respect to lessons learned from these projects we’ve learned the following. Only rarely are transportation problems of sufficient concern for a community to change its land use and zoning (requirements) . . . and they generally expect us to take care of these problems, anyway. Second, quite often you have to solve their problems in implementing access or corridor management projects. Third, reciprocity is essential. You can call it win–win, if you like, but the fact is that if we’re going to ask them to take actions that may be controversial or unpopular in their community it’ll almost certainly be necessary to provide a sweetener.” “Try to make local governments equal partners in corridor management. Help them manage adjacent local corridors as a part of the process.” “Smaller local governments do not have the staff or expertise to develop/update comprehensive plans to reflect Corridor Management Plans.” “From a traffic perspective, [the state agency] does not have enough experience with corridor management agreements to provide a lot of input.” “There is a need for more authority—intergovernmental agreements do not have a lot of ‘teeth.’ For long-term, enforceable implementation, the elements of the agreement need to become part of a decision document, i.e., a plan. Thus, it needs to go from an intergovernmental agreement to a planning document, and then become final in a comprehensive plan.” “Mechanisms for change are very important because over time there will need to be some changes and the partners need to be willing to make compromises from time to time to keep an agreement alive; otherwise it becomes very inflexible and unattractive.” “Intergovernmental agreements for arterial corridor access management have long-term ramifications. Changing local leadership, changing economic climates, development pressures, and reductions in state and local fiscal horizons all immediately deteriorate any possible agreements.” “The agreement is only as strong as the willingness of the two parties to work towards the intended outcomes. A change in administration or elected officials can lead to a loss of understanding of the original purpose for the agreement and a subsequent loss of ability to accomplish the intended outcome.”

36 “Although we have not entered into corridor management agreements we have been involved in implementing corridor management actions/projects . . . continuity in local support or commitment can be a significant problem given changing management/officials (the same may be true for the State) . . . ” “Cooperation agreements are sometimes made to satisfy an individual problem and do not always address the corridor as a whole.” 13. What topics would you like to learn more about with regard to intergovernmental agreements for corridor management? “Advantages and disadvantages of the different types of agreements.” “Making the case for intergovernmental cooperation to preserve corridors.” “Any information related to areas of managed access success stories would be appreciated.” “The positive documented benefits of having implemented the agreements.” “Mechanisms for change.” “What are some of the most innovative tools and techniques?” “Innovative ways to increase awareness of existing plans and agreements.” “Techniques used to involve other state and federal regulating agencies in the corridor management process.” “How to involve Councils of Governments in similar partnerships.”