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.

COOPERATIVE AGREEMENTS FOR CORRIDOR MANAGEMENT SUMMARY A growing number of transportation agencies are engaging in corridor management plans and projects to preserve the safety and mobility of major thoroughfares. Corridor management in- volves the application of strategies in one or more of the following areas: access management, land use and subdivision management, right-of-way needs and preservation, operational strategies, intergovernmental coordination, and financing of corridor management improve- ments. The policy, programmatic, and funding actions needed to carry out these strategies generally transcend the authority, resources, or jurisdiction of any single group or unit of gov- ernment. Therefore, cooperation is necessary between governmental entities, and often with private entities as well, to accomplish corridor management objectives. The need to formalize cooperation has led many state transportation agencies to enter co- operative agreements with local governments and other affected parties that are aimed at strengthening land use and transportation linkages. These cooperative agreements often re- quire each involved party to verify its level of commitment to managing the corridor and to specify their respective roles and responsibilities. Cooperation between agencies may take the form of resolutions, memorandums of understanding or agreement, intergovernmental agree- ments, or some combination of these methods. Public–private agreements relating to corridor management objectives may also be pursued between state or local agencies and property owners. Despite evidence of increasing use of cooperative agreements for corridor management, lit- tle information is available on best practices. The objective of the synthesis is to identify the state of current practice in developing and implementing cooperative agreements for corridor management, elements of such agreements, and best practices or lessons learned. The focus is on cooperative agreements between two or more government agencies or between public and private entities on corridor management issues. The synthesis was developed based on a survey of state and provincial transportation agen- cies, a review of the literature and agreements, and conversations with selected respondents. Responses were received from 17 states and 5 provinces, for a 35% response rate. From the survey, approximately 30 cooperative agreements or resolutions were collected, and additional examples were identified through the literature or agency contacts. A handful of case exam- ples were selected for more detailed consideration of agreement characteristics and outcomes. Of the 22 agencies that responded to the survey, 13 (59%) have entered into some type of cooperative agreement to manage arterial corridors to preserve mobility and safety. Nine of these 13 agencies (69%) indicated that they use two or more types of agreements to forge co- operation with other agencies or private entities and 6 (46%) have used three or more types. The most common types of agreements reported were memorandums of understanding (69%), maintenance agreements (54%), and public–private or development agreements (54%). Typi- cal elements of cooperative agreements included purpose and need, duration, coverage,

2 authority, roles and responsibilities, enforcement mechanisms, monitoring or renegotiation mechanisms, and funding. The purpose of most of the cooperative agreements was to establish a common under- standing about the importance of an arterial to regional mobility, establish a mutual com- mitment to managing the corridor, and specify agency roles and responsibilities. Other pur- poses were to establish mutually acceptable standards for arterial management, obtain local or developer contributions toward highway improvements, improve state and local coordina- tion in access permitting, and promote uniform maintenance of highways. Public–private agreements generally involved access improvements, developer contributions, utility place- ment agreements, or financial partnerships. As would be expected, agreements that involved specific improvements or actions were generally terminated with the completion of the project or action. Agreements that address ongoing considerations, such as access management, had no limit on duration. Termination in these situations was generally at the consent of the parties or if the agreement was vio- lated according to certain conditions. Agreements that involve shared financial obligations or that primarily address financial considerations include a detailed statement as to which party (or parties) is responsible for bearing the cost of various portions of the agreement. When asked what, if any, problems the agency has experienced when entering into corri- dor management agreements, most cited a lack of local government understanding of corri- dor management (54%), lack of agency leadership on corridor management issues (31%), and local/public opposition to corridor management in general (31%). With regard to im- plementing corridor management agreements, more than half (54%) noted a lack of local adherence to commitments as problematic. Other common problems were legal and political concerns over implementing specific elements (23%) and the need for technical assistance (23%). A variety of institutional, political, economic, and interpersonal factors were identified as potentially derailing the agreement process or causing an agreement to be unsuccessful. In- stitutional factors included bureaucratic resistance to long-term commitments, agency reluc- tance to assume a leadership or mediation role, and lack of internal cooperation across divi- sions. Political factors included turnover of elected officials, reluctance to adhere to prior commitments, intergovernmental competition, perceived inequity in the allocation of re- sponsibilities and resources, growth/no-growth politics, or anti-government attitudes. A gen- eral lack of trust, personality conflicts, or even controversy over unrelated community issues can destabilize support for the agreement. Continuity of enforcement for agreements was another clear factor in current practice. One suggestion for improving enforcement was to encourage local, state, and provincial governments to incorporate the necessary policies, design standards, and regulations into lo- cal comprehensive plans, design manuals, and codes. Outdated or ineffective state corridor management codes and policies could impede local government efforts to cooperate for cor- ridor management. Enforcement could also be enhanced in other ways, including through a joint approval process for amendments and by establishing an administrative structure through the agreement, such as a committee to administer the corridor management plan. Furthermore, there is an advantage in establishing a monitoring or renegotiation clause to address changing circumstances or unforeseen issues. A body might be created whose role is to monitor progress and report back to the participating agencies. Or there might be a formal mechanism for revisiting an agreement within a specified period of time. Establishing a

3 regular time line for discussing salient features of a cooperative agreement can proactively address unforeseen changes and head off problems or escalation of concerns. This is particu- larly beneficial for corridor access management plans, which may need to be revisited if land use or transportation changes occur that significantly affect the plan. Such time lines also provide advance notice to participating agencies of a potential need to budget for plan updates. A common theme in developing effective agreements is that the tough issues need to be resolved through direct involvement of affected parties. Readiness to compromise, treating all participants as equal partners, and keeping all parties to the agreement apprised of substantive developments throughout the process were other suggestions from respondents and the literature. A related theme in current practice is the importance of establishing a shared vision of the corridor and for each party to look at the corridor as a whole—not just from within or outside of the right-of-way. The willingness of each party to work toward a common vision and to compromise for mutual benefit can form the basis of a lasting and effective agreement on corridor management.