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.

28 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS Several themes were identified from the research that can contribute to or detract from the success of a cooperative agreement for corridor management. The following are those that were most commonly expressed: • • • • • • • • Cooperative agreements offer an opportunity for par- ticipants to apply their individual authority to mutual advantage. Such cooperation is critical to the effec- tiveness of corridor management, given that the pol- icy, programmatic, and funding actions needed to carry out corridor management strategies generally transcend the authority, resources, or jurisdiction of any single group or unit of government. An agreement should be pursued in a spirit of mutual compromise. A willingness to compromise and to treat others as equal partners helps establish an envi- ronment that is conducive to cooperation. Each par- ticipant should take the time to gain an understanding of the issues that affect the other partners and to be cognizant of those issues when generating alterna- tives. The potential benefits to each party through participating in and supporting the process should be made as clear as possible. Achieving a shared vision of the corridor and its func- tion is important to long-term success. As noted by one respondent, “It is our experience that corridor manage- ment 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 unsuc- cessful is when we cannot agree on the road function.” It is vital to proactively confront the tough corridor management issues through direct involvement of the affected parties. It is important to keep all parties to the agreement apprised of substantive developments throughout the process to ensure a smooth transition from the corridor management plan to the agreement. The written agreement can serve to ratify a spirit of cooperation that has already been worked out through direct involvement of affected parties. It is also help- ful to have a committed champion who can articulate to affected landowners and elected officials the rea- sons for a corridor management plan. Some respon- dents also found that a willingness to take the time to sit with people and walk them through an access management plan has made a significant difference in winning the support of those property owners and businesses that would be affected. Partners should be asked to incorporate the substance of the agreement into their plans, policies, and regula- tions to facilitate enforcement. Continuity of enforce- ment was clearly a factor for agencies that have experi- ence with corridor management agreements. The strongest suggestion for improving enforcement is to encourage local governments to incorporate the neces- sary policies, design standards, and regulations into lo- cal comprehensive plans, design manuals, and codes. State and provincial transportation agencies and metro- politan planning organizations can facilitate this process through technical assistance to local governments where needed. In addition, state and provincial transportation agencies may need to revisit their policies and practices. Outdated or ineffective policies and procedures can im- pede the ability of an agency to effectively cooperate with local governments on corridor management issues. Action should be taken to incorporate formal mecha- nisms and time lines for addressing needed changes to corridor management plans. Establishing a moni- toring or renegotiation clause provides a way to pro- actively address issues or problems that may be ex- perienced in implementation. A specific time line for revisiting the plan can be particularly useful for ac- cess management plans, which may need to be revis- ited periodically to address changing circumstances on the corridor. Such time lines also provide advance notice to participating agencies of a potential need to budget for plan updates. Establish a joint committee or multiparty amendment process for the administration of a corridor manage- ment plan. Establishing an administrative structure through the agreement, such as a committee to ad- minister a corridor management plan or a provision for multiparty approval of amendments, can help formalize the decision-making process, improve intergovernmen- tal coordination and communication, and reduce the po- tential for amendments that conflict with corridor man- agement objectives. A joint process for reviewing amendments can also facilitate resource sharing and technical assistance among participants. That process may be especially beneficial when there is work with smaller or rural communities that lack adequate staff, resources, and technical capabilities. Create frequent opportunities for educating partners and their stakeholders on the importance of the corri- dor management effort. Most agencies experience some setbacks in their corridor management efforts, even with formal cooperative agreements. Those hav- ing success recognize that corridor management is an ongoing process that benefits from continuous educa-

29 tion and periodic technical assistance. As noted by one respondent, “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.” Many other respondents identified a need for technical assistance to local governments. Parties to a corridor management agreement should look for opportunities to provide ongoing education and technical assistance in support of their efforts, both within the agency and among the various stakeholders. Recurrent themes on what can derail a corridor man- agement agreement or cause it to be unsuccessful related to several institutional, political, and interpersonal factors. • • • reements. Institutional factors were agency resistance to long-term commitments, agency reluctance to assume a leadership or mediation role, and a lack of internal cooperation among divisions or functions in an organization. Political factors included turnover of elected offi- cials, political expediency and short-term orientation, reluctance to adhere to prior commitments, intergov- ernmental competition for tax base, growth/no- growth politics, and anti-government attitudes. Interpersonal issues were personality conflicts, gen- eral lack of trust, inability to compromise, and per- ceived inequity in the allocation of responsibilities and resources. Although a variety of factors can impede intergovern- mental cooperation, many government agencies have over- come such barriers and have cooperated on corridor man- agement issues. The lessons shared by these agencies and reviewed in the synthesis provide insight for others seeking to forge lasting and effective corridor management agree- ments. Survey respondents identified several areas in which they would like additional information with regard to cooperative agreements. Many respondents conveyed a need for effective tools and techniques that can be em- ployed to strengthen cooperative agreements and increase involvement among interested parties. Others noted that case studies could be made available that exemplify successful cooperative agreements and that discuss the benefits of having implemented the ag More information was requested about the advantages and disadvantages of adopting the various types of agree- ments, such as memorandums of understanding, resolu- tions, intergovernmental agreements, and development agreements. This synthesis is one step toward meeting these information needs. However, given the shortage of information on the subject, additional research on the pros and cons of different types of agreements and provisions would be beneficial, as well as research on ways to im- prove the enforceability of agreements between political partners.