2.6 Institutional Arrangements

Background

In most regions, institutional issues are one of the most significant barriers to a coordinated regional approach to transportation planning and operations. Today, a variety of changes are occurring that necessitate rethinking existing institutional arrangements and, at the same time, that provide opportunities to address some of these institutional barriers. For example, technological advances have allowed the deployment of ITS systems that cross many jurisdictional boundaries, requiring coordination in funding and operations. Transportation agencies that have traditionally focused on planning, programming and maintaining roadway capacity additions are now focusing more on managing and operating a mature system. There is also greater need for public and private sector collaboration, and for more cooperation among public agencies, partly in response to funding limitations and partly in response to the increasing system performance effects of non-recurring incidents. As a result of these changes, transportation agencies are taking on new responsibilities and exploring new relationships. This section discusses how institutional arrangements can be put to use to strengthen the linkages between operations and regional transportation planning and programming.

What Is Meant by Institutional Arrangements?

Institutional arrangements refer to agreements and organizational structures both within transportation agencies and between agencies. This can mean forums that regularly bring together transportation planners and operations practitioners. It also refers to arrangements that promote involvement of management and operations practitioners in planning processes, or that promote a regional planning perspective within an operations environment.

New institutional arrangements are created for a number of reasons. There may be a seminal event (e.g., hosting a major national or global event, or responding to a major natural disaster) that motivates planning and operating agencies to coordinate more effectively. New arrangements may also be conceived to manage new programs (e.g., ITS), to respond to new State or Federal mandates, or to take advantage of new funding sources. Moreover, arrangements are often formed to achieve a specific regional operations objective, such as regional management of work zones, coordinated incident management, or ITS deployment. Sometimes these regional institutional arrangements broaden their mandate over time to include an integrated set of operations-oriented strategies.

Some of the examples discussed as part of other opportunities in Chapter 2 highlight institutional arrangements that can link planning and operations for the purposes of a specific process (e.g., an interagency committee that oversees the development of performance measures). Many regions have other types of institutional arrangements that focus on M&O more broadly, and can serve as a link to regional planning activities. Although the circumstances that lead to institutional innovation may differ across regions (see Box 29 below), examples of arrangements that better tie together planning and operations include the following:

• Regional management and operations committees within the MPO or other regional body,
• Regional collaborations that function as independent partnerships between transportation and public safety organizations,
• Transportation agencies that include both operations and planning divisions (often State DOTs and transit agencies), or
• Regional traffic management centers co-managed by public safety officials and traffic operations staff.

How Can Institutional Arrangements Improve Planning and Operations Coordination?

Institutional arrangements such as those discussed above can improve the linkage between planning and operations in a number of ways. They enable the development of a regional vision for systems management and operations, which in turn creates an opportunity for addressing technology-oriented solutions, short-term coordination goals, cooperative funding, and coordinated implementation processes. Some arrangements create a more centralized point of contact for regional operations responsibilities, increasing the sense of accountability, and consequently increasing the need to coordinate.

Some institutional arrangements will increase the number of operations stakeholders that view their contributions from a regional context. This is important because many public and private transportation providers and users have little involvement in the transportation planning and programming process. New forums or organizations that focus specifically on management and operations can attract these stakeholders who previously had no satisfactory way to be engaged at the regional scale. Expanded stakeholder participation not only brings critical new perspectives to the task of enhancing regional management and operations, it also increases the number of local agencies and jurisdictions that consider regional goals in developing their own operations strategies. In addition, when new stakeholders perceive benefits to their own interests from regional coordination, they will help pressure elected official to secure funding for regional management and operations solutions.

Linkage Implementation

Some common strategies have emerged for building institutional arrangements that can better link planning and operations. Changing institutional relationships and behavior is a tremendous challenge and requires a sustained effort. But laying the groundwork for such change can begin immediately. The following approaches can highlight opportunities for existing institutions to better coordinate planning and operations and prompt leaders to consider where new institutional arrangements may be needed.

Designate an MPO Stakeholder Forum on Regional Management and Operations

An increasing number of MPOs support interagency committees that deal directly and regularly with the management and operations of regional transportation systems. In hosting such committees, the MPO facilitates a vital forum where interjurisdictional coordination, funding strategies, and data sharing can be addressed (see Box 30). In addition, the MPO can use the committee's diverse operations expertise to inform M&O issues in regional planning documents and in the MPO's annual work program. The forum allows operations managers to increase their awareness of broader regional trends, needs, and strategies.

Developing an effective structure for these MPO committees can be difficult. One reason is that regional management and operations planning must often deal with narrow technical issues. Example might include how to provide back-up power at signals, use of various signalization software programs, and measures of effectiveness for signals. These forums may be invaluable as an information exchange for operations practitioners, but less useful as a forum for addressing broader coordination issues. As a result, some MPOs have created separate subcommittees for technical and policy issues. A technical subcommittee focuses on the details of equipment coordination, while the policy committee addresses regional funding strategies and prioritization of regional operations initiatives. Periodic meetings of the full committee allow exchange between technical and policy staff.

Attract Stakeholders with Specific Regional Operations Programs

One way to achieve greater stakeholder participation in stakeholder forums is to focus discussions on specific operations concerns (see Box 31 below). This makes it clear to both operations practitioners and policy makers when the forum is within their area of expertise. For example, someone who manages first responders is more likely to attend a committee dealing with regional incident management than a committee dealing with the very broad topic of regional management and operations coordination. A focused forum will also likely benefit from participants who have a grasp of both the technical and the institutional challenges associated with regional coordination for that specific topic.

Freight transportation planning is an area where focused forums have been successful. Engaging shippers, freight carriers, and freight terminal operators in the regional planning discussion has been challenging, in part because the long time frame of planning is foreign to most private sector entities. Freight companies may also be mistrustful of government planners, and concerned about divulging proprietary business information. Some regions, however, have successfully developed forums or task forces specifically to address regional freight operations planning. Part of the success has come from a committing funds toward short-term freight corridor improvements and making clear that the committee input would influence actual freight management investments. Such committees have managed to bring freight needs and perspectives to the planning process, helping to promote a regional perspective on operations challenges (see Box 32).

Involve Regional Operations Forums in the Planning Process

Regional transportation operations collaborations and traffic management centers (TMCs) increasingly offer forums for integrated operations that are independent of other regional bodies. These organizations may have specific mandates, such as running a regional incident management program, providing real time traffic information, and coordinating emergency management plans. They often provide a unique opportunity to bring together the public safety and operations management communities, and thus are well positioned to address broader operations issues.

Regional transportation operations collaborations and TMCs can provide valuable input to the planning process. At the same time, state and regional planners should ensure that these organizations are aware of the planning cycle and planning decisions that could influence regional management and operations initiatives.

Beyond offering a forum for coordination on operations issues, a growing number of regional transportation operations collaborations are taking the lead in ensuring coordinated interagency operations planning to address challenges over the longer-term (see Box 33). Specifically, the functions of these organizations have grown to cover:

• Integration of personnel from multiple agencies into focused program implementation teams;
• Integration of equipment though sharing of communications infrastructure, specialized vehicles, and data; and
• Source of funding for coordinated operations activities, both through pooled funds from participating agencies and through direct State and Federal funding awards.

Consequently, through the development of regional operations plans, regional organizations collaborations are in an excellent position to ensure that operations goals, objectives, and strategies are integrated into the regional transportation planning process. Such operations plans not only help to address immediate operational needs, but also allow operations managers to come to the planning table with an integrated set of strategies. In this manner, operations managers can more effectively advocate for appropriate policies and coordinated funding within the regional planning and programming process.

Define an Organizational Structure for the MPO that Reflects the Importance of Regional Operations

MPOs have historically been organized around long-range planning and programming of capital projects. In recent years, many MPOs have expanded their role to include greater involvement in regional systems management issues (see Box 34 below). Some agencies have chosen fundamental restructuring to reflect a growing responsibility for regional management and operations. MPOs should consider the potential benefits of an institutional structure that reflects a heightened focus on managing the regional network.

One option for such a restructuring is to develop a division within the MPO that is specifically responsible for regional system M&O activities. This body may be charged with promoting data sharing programs, coordinating operations between jurisdictions, ensuring intermodal coordination, and leading ITS planning. The advantage of such a structure is that practitioners within the regional planning agency are directly responsible for management and operations activities. These individuals are more likely to be familiar with the timing and details of the planning and funding process, and thus able to be effective in advancing systems management programs. An operations arm of an MPO may appear more accessible and carry more legitimacy with operations staff in the other bodies such as the State DOT, local jurisdictions, transit agencies, and private fleet operators.

Link Planning and Operations within State DOTs and Transit Agencies

Unlike MPOs, most State DOTs and regional transit agencies traditionally have included both planning and operations functions. They have an opportunity to better coordinate planning and operations without some of the interjurisdictional and interagency challenges faced by MPOs. Some DOTs have bridged this gap because of the initiative taken by both planners and operators. Planners get involved in operations activities in cases where policy issues become integral to operations decisions (e.g., developing policies regarding the use of HOV lanes). Operators assist planners in some technical aspects of prioritizing needs according to specific objectives, and by helping to apply performance measures.

The development of the statewide plan offers additional opportunities to link planning and operations. In some cases, an operations committee or operations division has led development of portions of the statewide plan (see Box 35). This is a valuable means for raising awareness of the planning process within the operations community, while bringing operations expertise into the planning process.

Building bridges between staff members is a critical step in breaking down intra- and inter-agency barriers. Agencies and jurisdictions should explore options for a staff exchange between agencies to promote such connections. Identify specific projects for which a staff exchange would benefit both agencies while exposing staff members to new institutional processes and cultures. Work toward a regular exchange program that will build a network of interagency or interdivisional relationships and experience.

Reinforce Institutional Links by Integrating Operations into Project Design and Delivery

Operations practitioners should be involved in project design at the earliest possible stage in order to ensure that projects support, or at the very least, do not conflict with regional operations strategies. Institutional relationships between planning and operating agencies are supported when practitioners collaborate to accommodate ITS, transit, and operations flexibility into design during the early stages of the project development process. In some cases, management and operations options are only possible if they are funded as an integrated element of a broader infrastructure project. To ensure that operations strategies are embedded in capital projects, MPOs should take steps to ensure that appropriate operations stakeholders become part of the early stages of the project development and design process. This includes key constituents who may not participate in an existing regional operations forum (e.g., major employers, shippers, major housing or commercial developers, and special events managers).

Lessons Learned

Institutional arrangements that have worked well in some regions have fallen apart in others. Below are several lessons learned from institutional arrangements that have been developed in the field.

Common Institutional Challenges

A number of hurdles have emerged for regions attempting to develop institutional arrangements suited to implement regional management and operations initiatives. One of the most common challenges is getting public safety officials involved (see Box 36). Regions routinely struggle to attract public safety officials to meetings that cover broader issues of operations coordination. Some regions attribute the problem to differences in management approach between public safety officials and other transportation agencies; many public safety management practices follow a strict command structure and less consensus-oriented decisionmaking. Some regions have found that demonstrating the benefits of involvement to public safety officials can increase their engagement. Benefits of coordination in some regions have led to better exchange of information about emergency response routes, active management of traffic to facilitate faster response, and access to funds for better communications equipment. Others have found success through implementation of regional traffic management centers. When public safety officials are involved in cooperative management of these TMCs, a forum is created for communication and for learning more about each other's roles.

Regions have also faced challenges in engaging a committee of diverse stakeholders on the sometimes broad and amorphous topic of regional transportation systems management and operations. By focusing a committee narrowly (e.g., on freeway management, or on corridor signal synchronization), a sponsoring agency may be more effective in drawing practitioners from diverse agencies and jurisdictions. Practitioners tend to participate in a committee if they are confident that it relates to their expertise. However, this more focused approach to regional management and operations has drawbacks. Some regions have found the threat of redundancy in activities when management and operations committees are narrowly focused. More importantly, the opportunity to integrate various specific operations activities is diminished. These challenges are inspiring agencies to seek more creative techniques for drawing a broad range of stakeholders to the table for integrated regional M&O discussions. Appropriate use of task forces and subcommittees within a broader management and operations committees appears to offer the best solution.

The Importance of Interagency Staff Relations

Transportation agencies often cite personal relationships within and between agencies as one of the most important factors influencing the likelihood of regional planning and operations coordination. In some cases, key staff members have spent time in both operating agencies and transportation planning agencies (see Box 37 below). This breadth of experience creates a familiarity with the structures, processes, and cultures in both operating and planning environments, enabling more frequent and effective coordination. In other cases, many of the transportation practitioners scattered among different planning and operating agencies have connections through their university background, and have maintained an interest and capacity to communicate and work together toward regional transportation solutions.

Regions differ in terms of the level of cooperation within and between agencies. Some regions have a culture of positive and cooperative interagency relations while others are more inclined toward disagreements and interagency turf wars. These differences often stem from some combination of historical, political, and cultural factors. Regions with a history and habit of conflict between agencies and divisions will require greater effort and a greater variety of strategies to build collaborative thinking.