Kentucky Appalachian Regional Intermodal Airpark

1
Report on the Federal Highway AdministrationsWh
ite Paper on
Challenges withMulti-State/JurisdictionalTranspo
rtation PlanningCrystal City (Arlington),
Virginia June 18-19, 2001
Sponsors
Transportation Research Board
I-95 Corridor Coalition
Wilbur Smith AssociatesArno Hart and Jim Covil
2
Seven Multi-State Alliances
3
Seven Multi-State Alliances
I-95
4
Seven Multi-State Alliances
I-69
High PriorityCorridor 18
5
Seven Multi-State Alliances
LATTS
Latin AmericaTrade and TransportationStudy
6
Seven Multi-State Alliances
MWRRI
MidwestRegionalRail Initiative
7
Seven Multi-State Alliances
ARC
AppalachiaRegionalCommission
8
Seven Multi-State Alliances
JWC
Binational Border Transportation Planning
and ProgrammingProcess
9
Seven Multi-State Alliances
IMTC
InternationalMobility andTrade Corridor
10
Goals
11
Origin
Multi-state Coalitions
Transportation needs

• Cannot be addressed easily using traditional
  approaches

12
Champion
Singleagency
Recruit members, organize
Becomes lead agency
13
Facilitated by
Previous experience workingin a another
organizational setup
Example - SASHTO
14
Various
MOU

• Formal
• Set out basic aspects

Degrees ofFormality
Terms of Reference

• Not a legal document
• Symbolize willingness

Informal
15
NO POWERS
Act as Forums

• No controlling authority
• No binding authority

VOLUNTEER BASIS

• Coalitions operate in pursuit of shared
  interests

Coalitions
MEMBERS ACT ON OWN ACCORD

• Do not relinquish prerogatives with regard to
  Alliance decisions

16
Influenced byAnticipated Benefits
Win-Win Outcome is Key

• Some are bigger winners
• But all must win (perceive)

Level of Commitment from Members
Compromises

• To achieve win-win
• To avoid problems for partners

17
Respect for uniquecircumstances
MajorDecisions
Resolved outside of formal settings
Formally ratified at meetings
18
Support of a
Helpful if
Well organized
Private - SectorAdvocacy Group
Active
Similar Objectives
19
Beyond staff resources
Studies, Research, etc
Retain External Services
20
Alliances
COLLECTIVE POWER
Greatersphere ofinfluence

• Achieve more than if each members act alone

Especially true if seekingFederal discretionary
funds
21
PooledFund Approach
Achieve more

• Tackle larger issues
• Broadens the scope
• Greater flexibility

22
Seven Multi-State Alliances
23
Typicallyplay a role
FederalAgencies
Source of funding
Disproportionate to role on steering committee
24
Contribute to Pool
FinancialParticipationBy Members
Staff involvement
Travel expenses
Out-of-state travel policiescan limit involvement
25
Key to success
Level of Commitment
26
Target
FundingSources
Federal Discretionary Grants
Congressional Earmarks
Leverage state funds
Credit Programs

• Federal
• State

27
Coordination
Value of Coalitions
Consensus
Multi-Jurisdiction Projects
Special Funding
28
Three Phases (Lives)
BUILD COALTION
Phase I

• Champion pushes idea
• Decide on vision, goals, plan, etc

Phase II
STUDY/RESEARCH

• Secure study funding (pool)
• Hire external resources
• Conduct study

Phase III
IMPLEMENT/COORDINATE

• Mostly coordinate

29
Funding is Issue

Phase I
BUILD COALTION

• Members cover costs
• Other association meetings

Phase II
STUDY/RESEARCH

• Federal earmarks, discret. formula
• Own funds (state)

Phase III
IMPLEMENT/COORDINATE

• Funding is Scarce

30
Funding Needs

Phase I
BUILD COALTION

• Several Thousand

Phase II
STUDY/RESEARCH

• 1-5 Million

Phase III
IMPLEMENT/COORDINATE

• Hundreds of Millions and Billions

• Project eligibility
• Competing priorities
• Difficulty matching Federal funds

31
Jobs
Jobs
Jobs
Jobs
A
B
Jurisdiction 1
Jurisdiction 3
Jurisdiction 2
Jurisdiction 4
Jurisdiction 5
32
(No Transcript)
33
Coalition
Jurisdiction 1 Jurisdiction 2 Jurisdiction
3 Jurisdiction 4
Multi-State/Jurisdictional Approach
34
Coalition
Public Sector Private Sector
Expanded Approach
35
Coalition
Challenges Opportunities
36
Thank You