Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies (2020)

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.

18 C H A P T E R 4 4.1 Introduction This chapter presents a self-assessment tool that can be used to (1) assess the current experi- ence with collaborative planning efforts between airport planning staffs and public planning agencies, and (2) identify strategies that can be used to enhance this collaboration. The founda- tion for this self-assessment tool comes from the use of capability maturity models (CMMs) in a variety of fields as well as the information gathered as part of the survey and case studies for this project. The next two sections describe the concept of CMMs and how they can be used to enhance organizational capacity. Section 4.4 presents the self-assessment tool, which can be used by transportation and airport planners and officials to enhance collaborative planning efforts, especially as they relate to improved airport access. Section 4.5 identifies possible strategies to improve collaboration. The final section discusses the types of strategies that can be used for three different situations: • Where little or no current collaboration exists, • Where planning participants want to strengthen current planning efforts when there is mutual interest, and • Where a healthy collaboration has occurred for some time but efforts are needed to maintain this success. This chapter illustrates the application of this self-assessment tool for both airport and planning agency contexts. 4.2 Capability Maturity The capability maturity approach examines the current strengths and weaknesses of an orga- nization’s existing capability in the key dimensions shown to be critical to a particular function or area—in the case of this research project, collaborative planning. (More detailed information is provided on capability maturity models in the final report.) As applied by the FHWA in its CMM tools, and which will be adopted in this guidebook, there are distinct levels of capability. The key concepts of a CMM approach are discussed in the following. • Influence factors are the variables/factors that can enhance or degrade collaboration. These are called by different names (e.g., domains and causal variables) in different CMM tools. In the tool, three major influence factors are identified: agency culture, experience or history with collaborative planning, and institutional structure for collaborative planning. • Maturity level is the combined set of actions/strategies/policies/planning history that repre- sent a user-specified level of maturity in collaborative airport access planning. Four levels of collaboration maturity are used in this tool. Self-Assessment Tool

Self-Assessment Tool 19 • Maturation changes the level of maturity of collaborative planning by using strategies targeted at specific influence factors. For example, establishing formal institutional mechanisms for fostering collaboration is likely an important step in institutionalizing what may have been ad hoc. 4.3 Levels of Maturity for Collaborative Airport/ Public Planning Efforts The suggested CMM consists of four levels of collaboration maturity among the transporta- tion planning agencies and airport staffs as they relate to airport access planning: • Maturity Level 1: Communication/interaction as needed, usually for project-specific purposes • Maturity Level 2: Periodic and institutionally defined interactions • Maturity Level 3: Developing new and continual institutional roles and participation opportunities • Maturity Level 4: Sustained and institutionally defined interactions In simple terms, the four levels range from little or no collaborative interactions to being fully collaborative, with standard operating procedures in place to foster such collaboration. Table 8 provides a more detailed description of each maturity level and some examples from the research project’s case studies. Maturity Level Description Example 1 Communication/ interaction as needed, usually for project-specific purposes Collaboration on airport planning issues is generally champion-driven, ad hoc, uncoordinated, and reactive in nature. Success may result from directed activities on the part of champions rather than from established agency processes and culture. There is little alignment across different plans and between planning agencies, although efforts are made to inform other planning staff that certain projects are being considered. This is the maturity level often seen in many urban areas. Planning staff communication occurs when specific airport access projects are being considered (e.g., highway or transit improvements) and another agency’s role dictates that they be informed. 2 Periodic and institutionally defined interactions Airport and MPO planning staff collaborate on predetermined steps in their respective planning processes (e.g., approval of the regional plan or adoption of regional goals and objectives). In some cases, airport staff sit on MPO committees and participate in the planning efforts for the region. No examples were found in this research where the opposite occurs (i.e., where MPO staff members meet at set times with the airport planning staff). 3 Developing new and continual institutional roles and participation opportunities Planning agencies and staff are developing collaborative processes to establish joint goals and objectives, with linkages between agency functions and broader societal concerns still being clarified. A process to institutionalize such interaction on a recurring basis is emerging. An example of this maturity level is the Aerotropolis in Atlanta where the airport, MPO, City of Atlanta, economic development agencies, and others have established a structure and guiding principles for furthering Aerotropolis goals. This example does not extend to the entire transportation planning process, but shows how a particular project or initiative could act as a catalyst for additional collaborative work. The master cooperative agreement between Los Angeles World Airports and Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority with respect to the Landside Access Modernization Program is another example of such collaboration. 4 Sustained and institutionally defined interactions Collaboration on airport planning issues is engrained in the agency culture to a point where it would be expected to be sustained across changes in leadership. Managers at respective agencies view such collaboration as an essential factor in the agency’s success. Data and information are shared based on standard procedures rather than waiting for requests. Data quality and availability are jointly assessed and improved. External agency stakeholders are positively received. Institutional mechanisms such as task forces, committees/ subcommittees, memoranda of understanding, and joint staff assignments are in place to create the institutional foundation for collaborative actions. The closest example is the collaborative Twin Cities' airport/MPO planning efforts. However, this collaboration has been enabled by the respective planning functions occurring in one agency. Source: FHWA 2020. Table 8. Four maturity levels for collaborative planning among airports and surface transportation planning agencies.

20 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? No: 0 Yes: 3 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? No: 0 Yes: 3 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? No: 1 Yes: 3 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? No: 0 Yes: 3 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? No: 0 Yes, but only on a project basis: 1 Yes, support for continual interaction: 3 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport access planning or planning in general? No: 0 Yes: 3 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? No: 0 Yes: 3 Are agency staff who are involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? No: 0 Yes: 3 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? No: 0 Yes: 3 Table 9. Questions to determine current level of collaboration. 4.4 Assessing Your Current Level of Maturity The self-assessment tool (Table 9) is based on a scoring system that allows users to determine the maturity of the collaboration they currently experience. Once this level is determined, the tool can then be used to identify strategies and actions to elevate the planning collaboration capabilities of their agency and partners to the next level. Table 9 shows the types of questions that are part of a self-assessment process to determine where an agency falls in the four levels of maturity. (Note that the questions and the scoring shown in Table 10 can be changed or added to in order to make the assessment process more meaningful to a particular agency.) The scores are intended to provide a higher level of maturity for those characteristics that indicate a strong level of collaboration among the planning partici- pants. In some cases, points are awarded even though that particular characteristic is not found in practice. For example, the characteristic “Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts?” earns one point even if there are no such requirements. This is a subjective assignment intended to not penalize a particular planning environment just because no requirements are in place to foster collaborative planning. Note that the assessment criteria are organized in three major categories: agency culture, history of collaboration, and institutional structure. These three categories were selected based on a review of other CMM approaches and on the results of this research. The overall score places the collaborative planning efforts in one of the four maturity levels. Ranges in scores can be determined relating to each maturity level. For example, the following ranges in scores represent one such definition of maturity level. • 0 to 30: Maturity Level 1 • 31 to 50: Maturity Level 2 • 51 to 65: Maturity Level 3 • 66 to 75: Maturity Level 4 Depending on the desires of those conducting the assessment, one could apply weights to each of the factors provided in Table 9, although this is not necessary in order to obtain a valid

Self-Assessment Tool 21 Table 9. (Continued). Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? No: 0 Don’t know: 1 Yes: 3 Have memoranda of understanding been signed with the airport or planning agencies [choose one] that guide collaborative efforts? No: 0 Yes: project-by-project basis: 1 Yes, master agreement for all efforts: 3 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? Never: 0 More than 1 year ago: 1 More than 6 months ago, but less than 1 year: 2 Less than 6 months ago: 3 Note: In several cases, the user of the self-assessment tool is asked to choose one planning participant or another. The selection will depend on who is answering the question. For example, if an airport staff member is using the tool, the selection in terms of planning partners would be planning agencies. Likewise, if an MPO staff member is filling out the survey, the airport would be the selected term to fill in the question. Airport- and MPO-specific forms are provided in the appendix or can be modified for the specific purpose the form is being used for. Description of Collaboration Criteria Points History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with the airport or planning agencies [choose one] in the past with respect to airport planning projects? No: 0 Yes, on a project basis: 1 All the time: 3 Has your agency collaborated with the airport or planning agencies [choose one] in the past with respect to regional or area planning? No: 0 Yes, for a few studies: 1 Yes, for the majority of studies: 2 Yes, all studies: 3 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at your airport or planning agency [choose one] partners? No: 0 Yes: 3 Have collaborative planning efforts between the airport and planning agencies in the past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? No: 0 Yes, on a couple of occasions: 1 Yes, majority of occasions: 2 Yes, all the time: 3 Is there a data-sharing agreement between the airport and planning partners in the region? No: 0 Yes: 3 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with the airport or planning agencies [choose one] for airport access planning reasons? No: 0 Yes: 3 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Yes: 3 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? No: 0 Yes, sometimes: 1 Yes, all the time: 3 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? No: 0 Yes, sometimes: 1 Yes: 3 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? No: 0 Yes, by most: 2 Yes, by all: 3 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for planning partners relating to airport access issues? No: 0 Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 1 Yes, continual committee activities: 3 Do the representatives from the planning or airport [choose one] partners attend committee meetings? No: 0 Yes, but low-level staff attend: 1 Yes, high-level staff attend periodically: 2 Yes, high-level staff attend all the time: 3

Maturity Level Example Strategies or Tools to Move to Next Level 1 Communication/Interaction as Needed, Usually for Project-Specific Purposes St ra te gi es to G et to L ev el 2 Identify internal goals and benefits for airport access Identify issues for access planning collaboration: key regional transportation issues that involve surface transportation planning agencies and for which the airport is a player, but not necessarily the most important one; for instance, in the following regions: – Miami: getting passengers from cruise ships to airport. – Los Angeles: overall regional congestion affecting airport access for employees and passengers. – Washington, D.C.: accessing Dulles International Airport via transit for employees and passengers. . – Chicago: improving access to downtown, including from the airport. – Minneapolis–St. Paul: getting service workers from St. Paul at the right hour, when transit systems are down. (This issue is widespread.) Identify internal agency objectives with respect to airport access and airport access planning. Identify internal benefits to collaborative planning, including opportunities for: – Reducing data duplication between agencies, and – Leveraging externally available data sources. Start adjusting internal processes to prepare for collaborative airport access planning Collaboration becomes a higher priority if the message comes from the top of the organization (airport or surface transportation planning agency): make collaboration an expectation and start developing it as a cultural dimension within airport organizations. Initiate an effort to identify core competencies required for collaborative planning. Begin to develop process to evaluate existing staff capabilities and identify gaps. Identify points in each agency’s respective planning processes where formal participation of other planning staff would be worthwhile and welcomed. Start outlining training strategy to expand employee skills. With respect to data sharing, identify what data exist that would be useful to others (e.g., trip generation at airport looking at origin–destination passenger forecasts and employee trips) and describe the analysis tools that are being used and how the results are useful for decision making. Start engaging in collaborative airport access planning processes Initiate discussion with partner agencies on collaborative planning: – For airports, start participating by attending MPO committee meetings and collaborating with surface transportation planning agencies. – For MPOs and other surface transportation planning agencies, identify opportunities to extend a specific invitation to airport authorities beyond the statutory process to increase the chance that they will join. Explore how data can be shared for transportation analysis purposes—in particular, the development of travel demand models (regional or local) that can be used for regional planning studies and project-level analyses. For other surface transportation planning organizations that may not have set meetings at which the airport has a seat, consider starting out with a meeting facilitator to find areas of common interest and key issues to be dealt with and process for continuing relationship building. Based on regular participation of planning meetings, determine how airport access ranks among regional transportation priorities. Build relationship and trust over time through regular contacts, both formal and informal. Initiate an effort to develop a methodology and process to prioritize strategies and analyze trade-offs relating to airport access; start envisioning where and how consensus could be reached on key evaluation factors and desired outcomes of airport access planning. Identify the champions of collaborative airport access planning in the respective agencies. Begin process to define mutual goals and responsibilities of key agencies in airport access planning. Use the opportunity of a pilot study that includes multiple agencies and stakeholders to establish professional staff network; move forward with one or more initiatives to pool resources and share data for airport access planning. Table 10. Illustrative strategies to move to higher collaboration levels.

2 Periodic and Institutionally Defined Interactions St ra te gi es to G et to L ev el 3 Enhance internal airport access planning goals and align them with other agencies Integrate airport access planning goals/objectives into regional planning and programming. Gather feedback from external stakeholders on opportunities for enhanced collaboration. Ensure that senior management communicates the importance of linking the long-range transportation plan and airport plans. Continue adjusting internal processes to prepare for collaborative airport access planning Make collaboration important/an expectation—cultural dimension within airport organizations. Conduct initial training courses for staff; build lessons learned based on experience and use to refine training. Obtain internal feedback from different types of users (e.g., executives, performance area managers) across the agency on opportunities for enhanced collaboration: – For the airport, develop a goal of being a good citizen/a partner in the community in relation to access planning but also beyond access planning: the airport needs to collaborate as an organization, which could be helpful in handling other issues, such as noise. – Surface transportation planning agencies should strive to “put themselves in the shoes of the airport” while looking at access problems and particularly funding questions, as well as understand FAA funding constraints and opportunities. Continue engaging in collaborative airport access planning processes Identify institutional structures that could help to formalize collaborative planning efforts: – Share timelines of planning processes, especially for multiyear/multi-annual efforts that are more flexible than yearly/biannual updates like TIPs. – Create an ad hoc or formal task force/committee. – Encourage studies including the airport (can be of corridors beyond the airport, depending on the issues identified in the previous phase). – Have the airport sit on study technical committees. – Use third-party facilitation (e.g., state DOT). Initiate effort to develop formal collaboration process and define roles and responsibilities of key players; identify benefits to each agency of collaborative actions. If not done already, develop protocols on data sharing for transportation analysis purposes. Implement processes to ensure coordination and consistency across planning processes. Identify and address roadblocks to collaborative airport access planning. Implement review processes with airport and planning agency participation to ensure that planning documents are clear enough to guide investment decision making in the programming process at it relates to airport access. Use the opportunity of a pilot study to illustrate the benefits of new and continual collaboration efforts. 3 Developing New and Continual Institutional Roles and Participation Opportunities St ra te gi es to G et to L ev el 4 Ensure full alignment of internal airport access planning goals with those of other agencies Integrate collaborative efforts and needs into all planning documents and goal statements. Ensure that the senior management team is aware of the benefits of collaborative efforts to remain supportive. Ensure that commitment of senior leadership to collaborative airport access planning is shared Ensure that senior management team communicates the importance of planning collaboration for internal decision making and communicating externally. Where needed, enrich and adjust collaborative airport access planning processes Establish a master cooperative agreement. Technical: examine data sharing among planning participants to identify where improvements could be made; consider joint funding for enhanced data collection that could be used for planning purposes. For multi-airport regions, common-ground initiatives between airports can be usefully brokered by MPOs or other transportation planning agencies that play the role of conveners, especially on politically or business-sensitive issues. Large initiative/project committees can be recycled for the next need, with the airport/MPO/other agency changing roles in terms of who is leading (e.g., working groups that worked on access issues now focusing on airport development and access). Collect feedback from internal and external stakeholders regularly on collaboration: what works, what does not work. Following each planning cycle, assess and refine processes used in collaborative efforts across agencies. Evaluate factors contributing to successful planning outcomes (or lack of achievement) and identify actions to fix deficiencies. (continued on next page)

Maturity Level Example Strategies or Tools to Move to Next Level 4 Sustaining and Refining Institutional Interactions St ra te gi es to S us ta in In st itu tio na lly D ef in ed In te ra ct io ns Maintain and update strategic airport access planning goals across agencies The agencies periodically revisit and refine goals and objectives regarding their own and external stakeholder needs. An assessment is conducted periodically with a third-party evaluator who examines the degree to which the collaboration strategies and tools are effective. Ensure commitment of staff and senior leadership for collaborative airport access planning, including succession planning and knowledge transfer Maintain relationships when a key individual changes role: – Transition planning is a simple but essential way to maintain the quality of the collaboration between organizations, especially those with relatively high turnover such as airports. – CEO groups meeting periodically to review areas of common interest and review upcoming issues (i.e., get out ahead of potential issues). Maintain relationships once project is over: – Maintain a good organizational chart list for other organizations, keeping them up to date. – Are able to call each other. Periodic training (both internal and external) encourages ongoing learning in collaboration techniques. Maintain and update collaborative airport access planning processes Some organizations are forced to keep collaborating, both financially and technically, by statute, which can be a valuable solution in some contexts. “Show up”: it will help down the line: – It is never clear when the next issue will appear and will require collaboration (e.g., technological changes affecting flight paths or airspace, such as drones.) – It may never be proven that collaboration helped avoid issues, but the track record of areas with good collaboration has often been pointed to as one of the major reasons why airport controversies were not prevalent in a particular region. Joint agency efforts are based on a collaborative, data-driven process to identify strategies and evaluate trade-offs across scenarios. The process is well-established and has been used for prioritization through multiple cycles. All processes are clearly documented and periodically refined. Responsibilities are periodically refined to reflect the adoption of new collaborative practices. Table 10. (Continued).

Self-Assessment Tool 25 assessment of the organization’s capability in collaboration. Thus, if the agency head places more importance on the degree to which agency staff have collaborated with other planning agencies, one might place twice the weight on examples of past participation on committees and task forces as compared to the perception of external stakeholders on the extent of collabora- tive planning. Note that when doing this the scoring ranges would likely have to be changed as well, with Maturity Level 4 now reflecting the total number of points achievable with a weight of 2 placed on this assessment criterion. After the self-assessment process has been completed and the current maturity level is identified, the user of the tool can then begin to identify strategies to improve collaboration. 4.5 Identifying Strategies to Improve Collaboration The strategies needed to progress to the next level of collaboration maturity focus on the institutional, partnership, and communication actions that can establish a more institutional- ized collaborative process. Clearly, the appropriateness of any individual strategy will depend on the circumstances being faced and the willingness of those participating in the collaboration. In many ways, the questions that formed the self-assessment tool can be turned around to act as strategies for improving that particular aspect of collaborative planning. Table 10 shows the types of strategies for moving to a higher level of collaboration for different levels of maturity. As an example, using the scoring system presented in the previous section, an agency would find itself in one of the self-defined maturity levels and would proceed to the relevant section of Table 10 as shown in the following: • 0 to 30: Maturity Level 1 – Go to the “Strategies to Get to Level 2” section. • 31 to 50: Maturity Level 2 – Go to the “Strategies to Get to Level 3” section. • 51 to 65: Maturity Level 3 – Go to the “Strategies to Get to Level 4” section. • 66 to 75: Maturity Level 4 – Go to the “Strategies to Sustain Institutionally Defined Inter- actions” section. Within each step, an agency may want to complete some internal actions before broadening its efforts on collaboration with its counterpart(s), but by no means do all internal steps have to be completed before any collaborative effort begins. Considering the complexity of airport access planning and the difficulty of reaching consensus on key projects in many metropolitan areas, seizing an opportunity for collaborative planning could be beneficial even with relatively low preparation within an agency. Note that Table 10 does not present specific strategies for a particular issue identified in the self-assessment process (although as noted previously, one can use each self-assessment criterion as an indicator of what specifically can be done to improve that factor in organizational capa- bility). Table 10 is organized purposely to present different strategies for organizational levels of capability, which implies that many different types of actions can be considered to enhance organizational performance. By approaching the strategy identification from an organizational perspective, the users of the guidelines will not be looking for a single strategy that will solve their problems, but rather the focus will be on what the organization can do to move systematically to enhance its collaboration capabilities. 4.6 Example Airport Ground Access Applications of the Self-Assessment Tool The following hypothetical scenarios are offered to illustrate the application of the self- assessment tool and the identification of strategies to enhance collaboration. For purposes of illustration, the default values shown in Table 10 are used for the self-assessment, and the range

26 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies of scores are used as suggested earlier. Suggested actions include an appropriate subset of the strategies presented previously but with more contextual detail. 4.6.1 Scenario 1: Major Airport/Multimodal Transportation System/Initiated by the Airport Description The MPO for the region is updating the metropolitan transportation plan and wants to have the airport engaged in the process given that airport access has been a continuing issue in the region. The airport has not generally been an active participant in regional planning, but the governor and central city mayor have both talked to the airport general manager asking that the airport be a more active participant in the planning process. One of the issues with past attempts to collaborate has been the MPO emphasis on reducing auto travel to the airport. The airport executive has turned to the airport planning director and asked for recommended steps the airport can take to increase the level of collaboration among the planning groups, if for no other reason than to be a good citizen. However, the airport executive emphasized that the air- port should clearly benefit from the interaction. Self-Assessment The airport planning director gave the self-assessment form to eight members of her plan- ning and capital program development staff and asked them to answer the questions. Table 11 shows the results of the combined ratings. The resulting score was 24, which puts the agency/ collaboration status at Maturity Level 1. This level of maturity leads to the “Strategies to Get to Level 2” section of Table 10, or possibly to strategies for attaining higher levels if agency decision makers so desire. Based on the strategies located in this section of Table 10, the airport planning director developed the following recommended set of actions to enhance collaboration among the planning participants in relation to airport access. Recommended Actions 1. Identify issues for access planning collaboration and the key regional transportation issues that affect airport access the most. Discuss these issues with MPO staff to identify potential joint efforts in analyzing what could be done. 2. Identify airport functional areas where regional transportation issues potentially have some effect on how the airport performs with respect to access. Examine existing airport policies and standard operating procedures to see if changes are necessary to encourage staff attention to such issues. 3. Hold an airport access summit with local planning agencies and decision makers to present the latest information on airport access needs and how the airport can contribute to improved regional transportation system performance. 4. Consider assigning a staff member as the official liaison to the MPO for coordinating inter- actions. This person should attend MPO meetings on behalf of the airport and should make regular presentations on the planning issues facing the airport. 5. Initiate an effort to develop a methodology and process to prioritize strategies and analyze trade-offs relating to airport access; start envisioning where and how consensus could be reached on key evaluation factors and desired outcomes of airport access planning. 6. Identify and sponsor a planning study that could be jointly supported by the MPO and the airport, perhaps a corridor study focused on improving access to the airport or an Aerotro- polis project. This might be considered a pilot study to identify issues that need to be resolved to firm up the institutional structure for enhanced collaboration.

Self-Assessment Tool 27 7. Conduct a survey of planning staff to determine current capabilities in transportation plan- ning and in understanding regional planning processes. Consider holding a training session with the MPO to exchange information on what each is doing. 8. Identify databases that both the airport and planning agencies manage to determine which data might be of most interest to the respective agencies. Identify desired additional data that would improve the planning process and develop a funding strategy to support the collec- tion of such data. Are there areas of data duplication where savings could occur by focusing capability on one data-collection effort? Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? No: 0 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? No: 0 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? Yes: 3 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? No: 0 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? Yes, but only on a project basis: 1 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport access planning or planning in general? Yes: 3 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? No: 0 Are agency staff involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? No: 0 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? No: 0 History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with the MPO and other planning agencies in the past with respect to airport planning projects? Yes, on a project basis: 1 Has your agency collaborated with the MPO and other planning agencies in the past with respect to regional or area planning? Yes, for a few studies: 1 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at your partner planning agencies? Yes: 3 Have collaborative planning efforts in the past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? Yes, on a couple of occasions: 1 Is there a data-sharing agreement among planning partners in the region? No: 0 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with your partner planning agencies for airport access planning reasons? Yes: 3 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? Yes, sometimes: 1 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? No: 0 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? Yes, by most: 2 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for your planning partners relating to airport access issues? Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 1 Do the representatives from the relevant planning partners attend committee meetings? Yes, but low-level staff attend: 1 Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? Don’t know: 1 Have memoranda of understanding been signed among the planning participants that guide collaborative efforts? Yes: project-by-project basis: 1 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? More than 1 year ago: 1 Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Table 11. Self-assessment for Scenario 1.

28 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies 4.6.2 Scenario 2: Major Airport/Multimodal Transportation System/Initiated by the MPO Description The MPO for the region has long wanted the airport planning staff to be more engaged in the transportation planning process, for issues associated with airport access and, more generally, given the airport’s role as a major generator of trips. The MPO executive director has expressed a desire to enhance the airport’s role in regional transportation planning and, realizing that the MPO itself might not be the best positioned to encourage such interaction, has asked the MPO planning director to identify strategies and actions to increase the level of collaboration with the airport planning staff. The MPO executive director emphasized that these strategies should focus on enhancing interactions between the two agencies as well as identifying actions the MPO itself should take to make collaboration more attractive to airport staff. Self-Assessment The MPO planning director gave the self-assessment form to six MPO staff members and asked them to answer the questions. Table 12 shows the results of the combined ratings. The score from this self-assessment was 34 points, which falls just into Maturity Level 2. This result reflects a common situation in many regions where one member of a two-participant collaboration has a mandate and is structured to collaborate, while the other participant is not planning-oriented. A Maturity Level 2 reflects the fact that some initial steps for collaboration exist and that at least one does not have to start at the beginning. In this case, the MPO, which was formed to lead collaborative transportation planning efforts in a region, had the institu- tional capability and staff mindset to inaugurate and support collaborative planning. Based on the score, the MPO planning director was led to the “Strategies to Get to Level 3” section of Table 10 and developed the following recommended set of actions to enhance col- laboration among the planning participants in the region as related to airport access specifically and transportation planning more generally. Recommended Actions Given that the score was so close to the boundary with Maturity Level 1, the MPO plan- ning director decided to examine the prospective strategies listed for evolving to both Maturity Levels 2 and 3. After examining the Level 1 to Level 2 strategies, the planning director deter- mined that some were still relevant even though the self-assessment indicated that the col- laboration was already at Maturity Level 2. (Examining strategies in the previous maturity level is a good practice to adopt when using the guidebook.) In doing this, the planning director identified the following strategies for enhancing collaborative planning efforts with the airport. 1. Identify issues for access planning collaboration and the key regional transportation issues that most affect airport access. Discuss these issues with airport staff to identify potential joint efforts in analyzing what both agencies can do to address these issues. 2. Hold an airport access summit with the airport and relevant local planning agencies and decision makers to present the latest information on airport access needs and how each can contribute to improved regional transportation system performance. 3. Hold a joint MPO/airport staff workshop where funding constraints and key planning issues are discussed and potential solutions are identified. Consider a role-playing exercise where MPO staff represent the airport and airport staff represent the MPO staff. 4. Identify and sponsor a planning study that could be jointly supported between the MPO and the airport, perhaps a corridor study focused on improving access to the airport or an Aerotropolis project. This might be considered a pilot study to identify issues that need to be resolved to firm up the institutional structure for enhanced collaboration.

Self-Assessment Tool 29 5. Identify databases that both the airport and planning agencies manage to determine which data might be of most interest to the respective agencies. Identify desired additional data that would improve the planning process and develop a funding strategy to support the collec- tion of such data. Are there areas of data duplication where savings could occur by focusing capability in one data-collection effort? 6. Formally, integrate airport access planning goals/objectives into regional planning and pro- gramming. Ensure that senior management communicates the importance of linking the long-range transportation plan and airport plans. 7. Initiate executive-to-executive discussions on how to enhance collaboration. Identify a staff liaison from both agencies to meet periodically to identify opportunities for interaction. At the respective boards, have the chief executive present the latest planning initiatives that would be of interest to the other agency. Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? Yes: 3 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? Yes: 3 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? Yes: 3 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? Yes: 3 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? Yes, support for continual interaction: 3 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport access planning or planning in general? Yes: 3 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? Yes: 3 Are agency staff involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? Yes: 3 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? No: 0 History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with other planning agencies in the past with respect to airport planning projects? Yes, on a project basis: 1 Has your agency collaborated with the airport in the past with respect to regional or area planning? Yes, for a few studies: 1 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at the airport? No: 0 Have collaborative planning efforts in the past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? Yes, on a couple of occasions: 1 Is there a data-sharing agreement among planning partners in the region? No: 0 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with the airport for airport access planning reasons? No: 0 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? No: 0 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? Yes, by most: 2 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for your planning partners relating to airport access issues? Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 1 Do the representatives from the airport attend committee meetings? No: 0 Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? Yes: 3 Have memoranda of understanding been signed with the airport that guide collaborative efforts? No: 0 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? More than 1 year ago: 1 Table 12. Self-assessment for Scenario 2.

30 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies 8. Initiate an effort to develop a formal collaboration process and define roles and responsibilities of key players; identify benefits to each agency of collaborative actions. This might result in a dedicated airport position on MPO technical committees or perhaps the policy committee. 4.6.3 Scenario 3: Major Airport/Multimodal Transportation System/ Freight Focus/Initiated by MPO Description The airport and MPO for the region have been increasingly concerned about the increasing truck traffic to and from the airport. The airport has in its master plan expectations that freight cargo will be one of the growth markets in the future, and airport staff have been working with warehouse operators, freight carriers, terminal operators, and distribution centers to identify areas near the airport where freight-related land-use expansion could occur. Airport staff have not been involved with the regional transportation planning process and have little awareness of how what happens at the airport affects the region. The long-range transportation plan for the region does not identify the growth in freight and cargo through the airport as a trend or as a future issue. However, city officials (hearing from their constituents complaining about increasing truck traffic) have officially informed the MPO that something needs to be done. In addition, an on-again/off-again Aerotropolis development proposal has been languishing for about 5 years through lack of leadership. MPO staff have not interacted with airport staff on airport-related projects, except to the extent that road access projects needed to be listed in the TIP. The MPO executive director has decided that something needs to happen to create a systematic and more collaborative process for dealing with freight access to the airport, before it becomes a major public policy issue. The MPO executive director has turned to the MPO planning director and asked for a set of recommendations on how a more collaborative process might be established. Self-Assessment Recognizing that the concern for freight access to the airport was found among airport and MPO staff, the MPO planning director gave the self-assessment form to six MPO staff members and six airport planning and development staff members and asked them to answer the ques- tions. The combined answers are shown in Table 13. Note that the self-assessment questions were modified to focus on the issue of freight where appropriate. The final score for the self- assessment was 27, indicating Maturity Level 1, which was not surprising given the situation. This led the planning director to the “Strategies to Get to Level 2” section of Table 10. Recommended Actions 1. Identify freight access issues that should be the subject for collaborative efforts with airport planning staff. Clearly note the benefits to all concerned for conducting collaborative efforts on these issues. 2. Identify airport areas where freight access issues might affect airport performance. Similarly, identify the public issues associated with a growing number of trucks accessing the airport. Develop a short memorandum for public decision makers and airport executives that out- lines these issues and the benefits to each of addressing them collaboratively. 3. Hold an airport freight access summit with local planning agencies and decision makers, airport staff, freight representatives, and airlines to present the latest information on freight access needs and how continued growth without mitigating actions will lead to significant transportation system performance issues.

Self-Assessment Tool 31 4. Initiate an effort to develop a methodology and process to prioritize strategies and analyze trade-offs relating to airport freight access; start envisioning where and how consensus could be reached on key evaluation factors and desired outcomes. Determine whether priority criteria currently used as part of regional transportation planning and TIP development are detrimental to airport freight access projects. 5. Identify and sponsor a freight access study that would be jointly supported by the MPO and the airport (perhaps jointly chaired). This might be considered a pilot study to identify issues that need to be resolved to firm up the institutional structure for enhanced collaboration more generally. Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? Yes: 3 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? Yes: 3 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? Yes: 3 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? Yes: 3 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? Yes, support for continual interaction: 3 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport freight access planning? No: 0 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? Yes: 3 Are agency staff involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? Yes: 3 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? No: 0 History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with the airport in the past with respect to airport freight access projects? No: 0 Has your agency collaborated with the airport in the past with respect to regional or area planning? Yes, for a few studies: 1 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at the airport? No: 0 Have collaborative planning efforts with the airport in the past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? Yes, on a couple of occasions: 1 Is there a data-sharing agreement among planning partners in the region? No: 0 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with the airport for airport freight access planning reasons? No: 0 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport freight access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? No: 0 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? Yes, by most: 2 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for your planning partners relating to airport access issues? Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 1 Do the representatives from the airport attend committee meetings? No: 0 Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? Yes: 3 Have memoranda of understanding been signed with the airport that guide collaborative efforts? No: 0 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? More than 1 year ago: 1 Table 13. Self-assessment for Scenario 3.

32 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies 6. Do an assessment of current planning capabilities in freight access planning (e.g., data, models and other analysis tools, staff capability) to determine if the MPO is positioned to provide credible and reliable information on future freight access issues. If not, develop a strategy to enhance such capabilities. 7. Identify databases that both the airport and planning agencies manage to determine which data might be of most interest to the respective agencies for freight access planning. Identify desired additional data that would improve the planning process, and develop a funding strategy to support the collection of such data. Are there areas of data duplication where savings could occur by focusing capability in one data-collection effort? 8. Position the MPO as the convener of the Aerotropolis initiative, perhaps providing planning study funds to explore options and assigning a staff member with the responsibility for sup- porting this effort. Portray the initiative as part of a broader freight access strategy for the airport, to the extent the development has freight-related activities. 4.6.4 Scenario 4: Moderate-Sized Airport/Road and Bus Airport Access/Initiated by MPO Description An airport in a moderately sized metropolitan area (500,000 population) has been an impor- tant generator of jobs in the region but has not really participated in regional transportation planning nor interacted much at all with the MPO. For its part, the MPO has a limited staff capability and has not seriously examined access to the airport as a planning issue because the primary mode of access is via private automobile. There has been limited interest in expanding bus transit services to the airport. A major international corporation has expressed interest in locating its back-office operations in the major city in the region (approximately 10 miles from the airport) but has serious con- cerns about airport access. In particular, it is looking at metropolitan areas that provide effective transit services to their airports. The MPO director, transit agency executive director, and airport executive director were called to a meeting with the chamber of commerce executive director, who wanted to know what could be provided in terms of planned transit services to the airport (serving a new corporate office complex in the central city). It was suggested that the business community would lead the effort to pay for any new services if the corporation agreed to move to the region. The MPO, transit, and airport planning agencies have small staffs that focus almost exclu- sively on studies relating directly to their mandates and have had little opportunity to collabo- rate. Viewing this situation as an opportunity, however, the directors of the three agencies agreed to establish a collaborative process for the potential new transit service, which could serve as the foundation for a more systematic effort to integrate transit, airport, and road planning issues into the regional planning process. Given the MPO’s role as a facilitator and lead in developing the regional transportation plan, the transit and airport directors asked the MPO director to propose actions that would (1) lead to a feasible and cost-effective proposal for new bus service to the airport and (2) lay the foundation for more collaborative efforts in the future. The MPO director asked the planning director to identify a strategy for doing so. Self-Assessment The planning director—the staff member with most seniority, having a 20-year knowledge of past planning efforts—conducted the self-assessment, which is shown in Table 14. The final

Self-Assessment Tool 33 Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? No: 0 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? No: 0 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? No: 0 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? No: 0 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? No: 0 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport access planning or planning in general? No: 0 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? No: 0 Are your agency staff involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? No: 0 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? No: 0 History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with other planning agencies in the past with respect to airport planning projects? Yes, on a project basis: 1 Has your agency collaborated with the airport in the past with respect to regional or area planning? No: 0 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at the airport? No: 0 Have collaborative planning efforts in the past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? Yes, on a couple of occasions: 1 Is there a data-sharing agreement among planning partners in the region? No: 0 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with the airport for airport access planning reasons? No: 0 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? No: 0 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? No: 0 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for your planning partners relating to airport access issues? Yes, on a case-by-case basis: 1 Do the representatives from the airport attend committee meetings? No: 0 Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? Yes: 3 Have memoranda of understanding been signed with the airport that guide collaborative efforts? No: 0 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? Never: 0 Table 14. Self-assessment for Scenario 4.

34 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies score for the self-assessment was 6, a low Maturity Level 1, but one that did not surprise the planning director. In this case, the “Strategies to Get to Level 2” section of Table 10 provided some ideas for strategies that could be considered, but given the poor starting point, the plan- ning director decided to use the self-assessment questions themselves as suggested strategies to initiate actions to enhance collaboration among the different transportation agencies in the region. Recommended Actions 1. Identify the key issues for access planning collaboration: important regional transportation issues that involve surface transportation planning agencies and for which the airport is a player but is not necessarily the most important one. 2. Identify MPO, airport, and transit agency objectives with respect to airport access and airport access planning. Define the internal benefits to collaborative planning, including opportunities for reducing data duplication among agencies and leveraging externally available data sources. 3. Initiate an effort to identify core competencies required for collaborative planning. Begin to develop a process to evaluate existing staff capabilities and identify gaps. 4. Identify points in each agency’s respective planning processes where formal participation of other planning staff would be worthwhile and welcomed. Identify a champion at the airport and transit agency for collaborative airport access planning. 5. Start engaging in a collaborative planning effort with respect to bus access to the airport. Not only will this study meet the immediate needs of identifying options for providing improved bus access to the airport, but the planning director is also viewing the effort as a pilot study to better define where steps can be taken to enhance collaborative planning more generally. 6. Request that airport staff participate in this effort and plan meetings and products that will clearly show the benefits to the airport and transit agency of participating in the study. 7. Invite the airport executive director to address the MPO policy committee on the key issues facing the airport; similarly, request a meeting with the airport board of directors to discuss the role of regional transportation planning and where the airport fits in. Given the limited staff resources of the MPO and the airport, the planning director realized that any strategy to enhance collaborative planning needed to be realistic and thus decided to outline a 5-year strategy for slowly building effective interaction with airport staff. 4.6.5 Scenario 5: Major Airport/Multimodal Transportation System/ Maintain Level 4/Initiated by Both the Airport and MPO Description The airport and MPO have had a strong collaborative history that began 15 years previous, when a light-rail line was extended to service the airport terminal and required transportation planning and programming support from the MPO to satisfy federal planning requirements. Since that time, airport planning staff have participated in regional planning efforts, and the airport has been provided a seat on the MPO policy committee. MPO and airport planners have been working together on a major Aerotropolis project near the airport that is designed to focus new development at a site that is best suited to handle additional traffic demands. A formal data collection and management protocol has been signed to share analysis tools and data concerning airport-related planning issues. As it turns out, a new director of the MPO has been appointed, and the executive director of the airport agency is relatively new as well, having been appointed a year previous. They met recently and agreed that the progress made in the past 15 years should not be wasted. They have asked their respective planning directors to identify a strategy for reinforcing the current rela- tionship and identify actions that might enhance successful collaboration.

Self-Assessment Tool 35 In this case, the planning directors filled out the assessment form together to develop a con- sensus rating. Self-Assessment The planning directors produced a consensus self-assessment form (Table 15). The final score for the self-assessment was 66, which indicates a Maturity Level 4. This led to the “Strat- egies to Sustain Institutionally Defined Interactions” section of Table 10. Given the strong foundation that already exists for collaboration, the planning directors recommended the following actions. Table 15. Self-assessment for Scenario 5. Description of Collaboration Criteria Points Agency Culture Is collaborative planning with other planning agencies in your region a part of your agency culture? Yes: 3 Does top leadership in your agency recognize the importance of collaborative planning? Yes: 3 Are there external requirements for collaborative planning guiding your planning efforts? Yes: 3 Are the benefits of collaborative planning clearly articulated and defined at your agency? Yes: 3 Does top leadership support collaborative planning with resource allocation and staff recognition? Yes, support for continual interaction: 3 Does your agency have formal processes or standard operating procedures requiring collaborative planning processes for airport access planning? Yes: 3 Are there champions for collaborative planning in your agency (including yourself)? Yes: 3 Are your agency staff involved in collaborative efforts well trained to be effective in such efforts? Yes: 3 Do you think past collaborative efforts have led to effective and lasting relationships with your planning partners? Yes: 3 History of Collaboration Has your agency collaborated with the other in the past with respect to airport planning projects? All the time: 3 Has your agency collaborated with the other in the past with respect to regional or area planning? Yes, all studies: 3 Do you know the names of your planning counterparts at your partner agency? Yes: 3 Have collaborative planning efforts between the airport and planning agencies in the Yes, all the time: 3 past been successful in achieving desired outcomes? Is there a data-sharing agreement between the airport and planning partners in the region? Yes: 3 Has your agency shared models or other analysis tools with the other for airport access planning reasons? Yes: 3 Does your region’s transportation plan include airport access as an issue with accompanying strategies? No: 0 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the regional transportation plan? Yes, all the time: 3 Do airport planning staff participate in the development of the region’s TIP? Yes: 3 Do you think the transportation planning process in your region is viewed by external stakeholders and the media as being effectively collaborative? Yes, by all: 3 Institutional Structure Are there formal committees/task forces established for planning partners relating to airport access issues? Yes, continual committee activities: 3 Do the representatives from each partner attend committee meetings? Yes, high-level staff attend all the time: 3 Is the regional transportation planning process guided by policies that encourage collaborative planning efforts? Yes: 3 Have memoranda of understanding been signed that guide collaborative efforts? Yes, master agreement for all efforts: 3 When was the last time you participated in a collaborative committee relating to airport planning issues, including considering airport concerns in regional transportation planning? Less than 6 months ago: 3

36 Guidebook for Assessing Collaborative Planning Efforts Among Airport and Public Planning Agencies Recommended Actions 1. Conduct an assessment with a third-party evaluator to identify areas where collaboration could be enhanced. 2. Hold a celebration meeting that honors 15 years of good practice. Recognize staff members who best reflect the concept of collaborative planning. Consider making an annual award, perhaps extending it to beyond the MPO and airport context. 3. Since the planning directors noted that one of the weaknesses identified by the self- assessment was that airport access is neither identified nor discussed in the region’s trans- portation plan, the MPO planning director committed to adding such a section, and the airport planning director committed to having airport planning staff participate in the effort. 4. Survey the airport and MPO staffs to identify what they believe could be done to enhance the collaborative planning effort. In particular, the survey would identify skill development and training that would serve to improve collaborative skills and analysis abilities.