Incorporating ITS Into the Transportation Planning Process: An Integrated Planning Framework (ITS, M&O, Infrastructure) Executive Guidebook (2002)

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.

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook IV INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS, ACTIVITIES, AND FUNCTIONS Institutional and organizational challenges hinder the integration of ITS, system management, and operations with the planning process. These challenges range from a lack of coordination within and among specific agencies, to the broad context of professional traditions and organizational missions. Figure IV-1 Institutional/Organizational Activities and Functions in the Integrated Framework This Section deals with the institutional and organization relationships, activities, and functions needed to address the challenges in implementing the Integrated Framework. These are highlighted in Figure IV-1 and include: gathering stakeholders, forging new institutional relationships, determining public/private roles, deciding how to organize, and capturing the relationships and how they change (evolve) over time in the Concept of Planning. IV.A EXPAND STAKEHOLDER INVOLVEMENT One of the key activities in making the transition to Integrated Planning is the expansion of Stakeholders. Stakeholders are interest groups who benefit from, or are otherwise impacted by, transportation improvements. This includes the various transportation “providers” (those concerned with building, maintaining and operating the system) and transportation “customers” (the public itself as travelers or shoppers, freight haulers, and other users of the transportation facilities and services). ITS – with its regional focus, inter-modal potential, and operational scope – requires the involvement of a wider range of players from different modes, jurisdictions, and agencies than found in traditional planning. In fact, expanding stakeholders is required as part of any regional ITS architecture. In addition, many ITS User Services impact and involve stakeholders that have not been part of transportation in the past such as law enforcement and emergency medical services and the private sector (information service providers, Mayday services). A key precondition to institutionalizing ITS and system management within the state, regional and local decision-making processes is finding supporters who exercise their self–interest in the political, policy making and program development process. Thus it is important to identify stakeholders and update participation in the process based upon the ITS User Services that are contemplated, and when they are expected to be implemented and operated. Table IV-1 provides an initial screening of stakeholders by category of ITS User Service (See Ertico, 1998, Transcore, 1998 for additional stakeholder lists). Several categories of stakeholders are shown in Table IV-1. Transportation provider stakeholders in ITS and operations are typically the organizations, public or private, whose public responsibility or business relates to services or functions related to travelers or transportation – especially those that take place on the infrastructure. Examples include traffic operations, incident response units, public safety and security, and traveler information providers. Most of these have had little or nothing to do in the past with the planning and programming process and its focus on physical improvements. It is also important to identify new constituencies who benefit directly from ITS and operations. These supporters may include health providers, employers, real estate business interests with a stake in the smooth operation of the overall transportation network. Last, travelers are playing an increasingly important role in determining the availability and quality of ITS services. Market-based products and services – such as commercial traveler INSTITUTIONAL IV-1

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook information, Mayday subscription services, users of toll and HOT lane tags – introduce a new relationship between travelers as customers and the service providers, public or private. Their interest in ITS as stakeholders is thus increasing. Table IV-1 Initial Identification of Stakeholders for Various ITS User Services ATMS ATIS APTS EMC AVC EPS CVO RR Federal Transportation Agencies o o o o o o o o Federal Environmental Agencies o o o FDOT X o o o o o X X MPOs X X X o o o o X Local Transportation Agencies X X X o o o o X Transit Operators o o X o o X o Police Departments o o X X o Fire Departments o X o Emergency Management o X Toll Agencies X Public Health Agencies o o Motorists X o o X X o X Transit Riders o o X o X Bicyclist/Pedestrians o o o o o Private Paratransit Services o o X o CVO o o X Motorist/Transit Rider Assoc. o o X o X X o o CVO Industry Groups o o X Traffic Reporting Services X o Major Traffic Generators o X o o Private Industry o o o o X O o X Key: X Primary Participant o Secondary Participant Source: Cambridge Systematics, 1998 The planning and programming process for ITS, system management, and operations must create a framework for cooperative actions among these “players” whose involvement is essential to the various operations activities ranging from the coordinated deployment of operations infrastructure to the cooperative delivery of real time services. Developing a motivation for cooperation is a key first step. This requires identification of common objectives that can be shared widely across organizations that may have very different priority hierarchies, programming cycles, and experience with working outside their own “institutional” framework. Finding non-competitive objectives is crucial together with picking initial objectives with a high probability of producing early wins. IV.B REDEFINE INSTITUTIONAL RELATIONSHIPS BOTH WITHIN AND BETWEEN ORGANIZATIONS. Currently, planning and operations largely continue to take place within different institutional and organizational worlds. A sizable number of institutions and organizations populate each. Those populating the transportation-planning world include: • State DOTs – who own and plan for the State’s highway system and may also own and plan for ports, airports, transit and other facilities. • Metropolitan Planning Organizations – who are responsible, in metropolitan areas, for adopting regional transportation plans and programs. • Transit Agencies – who own and plan for transit facilities and services. Some metropolitan areas are served by a number of transit agencies. INSTITUTIONAL IV-2

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook • Local Governments – who plan for and control land use, and who often own and plan for the local street system and local transit. Each of the institutions engaged in planning also establishes the goals and policies that act as guides for planning, and is involved in the programming of capital projects. Each has its own planning, programming and budgeting priorities, and its own procedures and traditions. To a large degree, these same institutions inhabit the operations world, but there are important differences: • State DOTs – who maintain the systems they own and set operating policies • State Police – who enforce highway-driving laws and respond to incidents. • Transit Agencies – who operate and maintain the transit systems they own • Local governments – who operate and maintain the roadway and transit systems they own, and who provide police and emergency response services • Private Sector – who operate vehicles that utilize the transportation system, and who may operate and maintain elements of the highway infrastructure as well. The institutions involved in planning and operations act as loosely coordinated “stovepipes” that develop policies, physical and operating plans, and programs of priority projects. However, the planning and operations worlds do not overlap. In most parts of the U.S., there is little to no coordination between planning and operations. While governed by the same body or leader, and subject to the same agency goals and policies, the planning and operating units may have different interpretations of the directions they receive. The individuals in each unit have different professional traditions, and tend to see their missions in very different terms. They may also utilize different funding – the capital budget, or the operating budget. Coordination within agencies is consequently often loose, informal, and sporadic. This institutional and organizational gap between planning and operations is found in many ways. First, there is a general lack of coordination within the institutions that perform both planning and operations. More broadly, there is a gap in coordination across institutions. Also, planning and operations each involves their own set of activities, relationships, and traditions. These differences hinder integration. With some notable exceptions, most parts of the country have not established formal mechanisms for coordinating operations, especially those funded from local sources. The owner of each system tends to decide for themselves how they will apply the resources they have for operations, system management, and maintenance. Consequently, there are often disconnects at jurisdictional and system boundaries and between modes. The potential efficiencies and synergies of integration are lost. Key changes that must take place to overcome the gaps and hurdles include: • The authorizing environment which sets the mission, policies and resource priorities, • New coordination and relationships within agencies and organizations • New coordination and relationships among service provider organization Enabling A New Authorizing Environment. With very few exceptions, systems management and the ITS that supports it is not a program within the funding and organization framework of state DOTs or MPOs. MPOs lack authority for involvement in day-to-day management and operation of the system. They do, however, offer a venue for operations committees and informal communication. No state DOT has a separate system management and operations unit. Some operations oriented ITS programs exist as special ad hoc programs – they are often based on federal discretionary funds, and are treated as demonstrations of new technology or as special treatments for unique problems. If a truly integrated process is to evolve, then all of the activities needed to build, maintain, and operate a sustainable transportation system need to be included in a balanced program driven by system performance. Transit operators, by contrast, devote considerable attention to the day-to-day operations of their bus and other systems – trying to make sure that “the trains (buses) run on time”. They have separate operating budgets for this purpose, although limited resources and political realities often constrain their ability to make large-scale operational improvements. Similarly, individual local governments typically have traffic operations as a separate budget and organizational element as well – often housed in a fund-starved subsidiary to public works. INSTITUTIONAL IV-3

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook Introducing and integrating system management and operations considerations into the formal processes by which resources are allocated and program activities are prioritized requires a series of changes within the authorizing environment that include: • Creating a Wider Understanding the Basic Concepts of ITS and system management. • Clarifying the benefits of the ITS and integration. • Finding champions. • Redefining agency missions towards system performance from the users perspective. Within Agency Coordination: Performance Based Organizations. As anyone that has worked within a large corporation or public agency knows: organizations are not single entities! Each department may have it's own professional perspective, performance measures, culture, and evaluation criteria. Maintenance, operations, planning, and construction often have very different views of the world and what is important. Managers may also not see the value of changing from the status quo, especially if it leads to uncertainty and reduced autonomy. This is especially true when dealing with large agencies such as State DOT's. Observations made during the Discussion Forums conducted during this Guidebook's development include: • "Operations are dispersed throughout the organizations hampering their function. Benefit of ITS maybe to force cooperation between groups and data.” (North Carolina DOT) • The institutional barriers for implementing ITS are: “ 1. Dysfunctional operations scattered throughout organizations, especially DOTs. 2. Attitude of locals that traffic monitoring and planning in general are more of a federal requirement than of vital interest to themselves." (James Porter, Louisiana DOT) • "You must deal with internal coordination within your agency first, before you even attempt inter- agency coordination" (J.R. Robinson, Virginia DOT) Substantial effort and internal communication is required to make everyone understand the new mission of system management and the value of cooperation. One example of internal coordination is now taking place at Hampton Roads Transit (HRT). HRT’s Executive Director (Mike Townes) has established an internal ITS Project Team for the transit agency bringing operations and planning together. This team coordinates across departments and makes trade-offs between investing in capital and investing in ITS. Participants include the Director of Planning, Director of Operations, head of Service Planning, Director of Communications, Director of Human Resources, Database Administrator, head of IT. Between Agency Coordination: Coordinated Service Provision. The regional scale and the activity focus of many ITS User Services require the involvement of agencies and jurisdictions beyond those in capital facilities planning and implementation. This requires both cooperative regional decision-making and coordination of transportation agencies operating within the same area, and interjurisdictional coordination. However, even where objectives are shared, most state and local agencies jealously guard their prerogatives to control the realm of their authority in order to insure responsiveness to their own constituencies. Additionally, operations improvements often require a joint capital commitment – as well as a joint operating resource commitment. Since systems operations is not typically a line item in either state or regional programs, it is difficult for planning processes to determine resource reliability especially in out years. At the same time, there are a few mechanisms for coordinating funding across agency boundaries other than an item-by-item negotiation and trust built up with cooperation over a period of years. Increased sharing of authority and resources depends principally on finding common objectives and demonstrating the advantages of cooperation from a cost and effective point of view. Within transportation organizations, the ability to pool funds, share federal aid on multiyear basis, and even bring regional politics to bear can have a major impact. The lessons learned to date suggest that the agencies involved must: • Accept the impacts of operational regimes, such as diversion, that may result in some loss of jurisdictional independence • Agree on specific condition-based protocols for actions and roles that require a commitment of resources and operational responses INSTITUTIONAL IV-4

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook • Commit to some level of real time coordination that may involve some sharing of responsibility or even temporary ceding control to other entities IV.C DETERMINE PRIVATE-PUBLIC SECTOR ROLES AND RELATIONSHIPS The public sector (Federal, State, Local) provides the legal framework and rules within which the private sector and “free enterprise” market system operates in any area. As new technologies advance there are increasing opportunities for the private sector to be providers or play a significant role in the provision and operation of ITS services. The private sector may be involved in ITS as (see Siwek, 1998): • Users (commercial vehicle operators, private transit providers, taxis); • Suppliers (ITS service integrators, automobile manufacturers, equipment suppliers); • Franchisees (toll and fare collection, traveler information systems); • Information service providers (real time traffic/transit information vendors –SmartRoute, Mapping services – Etak, Mapquest, News organizations). However, the characteristics of the service, who will use it, and who is impacted or benefits vary can vary greatly depending on who provides it. Consequently, conscious decisions should be made on what the private and public sector roles should be, the rules within which the private sector will operate, and how the private sector will participate in the planning/decision making process. In any case it is important to identify and invite to the table private sector stakeholders early in the planning process. Typically, the private sector is a stakeholder in traditional planning both as a user of transportation facilities and services, and as a contractor in their development, implementation, or provision. To avoid “conflicts of interest” and appearances of bias, the private sector for the most part has been kept at a distance in planning/decision making regarding: what to do, how it should be done, and resource gathering/allocation to carry decisions out. However, integrating ITS into planning and decision-making introduces opportunities/need for the private sector to be a partner as well as a stakeholder in the process. Private entities may provide significant components for ITS and operation of the system as: developers of new technologies/systems; vendors/providers of transportation, communications, and information services directly to individuals as well as public entities; and builders/operators of systems. Integrating and maintaining ITS components that must be closely coordinated to continually operate and evolve also requires long-term relationships to be developed with private sector developers. Significant uncertainty and risk is also often part of creating and implementing new technologies and systems. If the public sector wishes to implement and take advantage of these systems new ways of sharing risk and providing long-term commitment are needed. Finally, the private sector has many resources (capital and expertise) that may become accessed by the public with innovative partnerships and joint efforts. Issues associated with determining the private public sector roles and partnerships are provided below. Creating a Business Environment For Private-Public Partnership. One of the major impediments to private sector investment and participation in providing the transportation system and services is uncertainty concerning the rules of doing business and their ability to recoup investments and maintain ownership and control over their developments. Consequently, it is important to establish the rules and guidelines on their participation and operation as part of defining the new relationships for integrated planning. Some of the issues associated with this include: • Utilization of public resources to support business prospects. Telecommunications companies using public rights-of-way in order to facilitate build-out of the communications infrastructure is an example. This type of sharing of resources can result in a win-win for both parties, as well as the public. • Proprietary issues and confidentiality. General guidelines must be developed on the public / private sector ownership of work and information. Preserving the privacy rights of individuals and firms must also be addressed (see Buffkin & Remer, 1997 for further discussion). • Statutory authority and liability. Liability, can be a barrier to private sector participation in ITS elements, especially those that are safety related. The public private partnerships being considered INSTITUTIONAL IV-5

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook must therefore be examined for their statutory authority and liability issues. If barriers are found the change in legislation must be part of the supporting policies and procedures. Bringing Private Resources Into The Process Through Partnerships and Risk Sharing. As the private sector appears to be taking on a larger role, one can envision a range of ways in which the private and public sectors might share resources. For example, the private sector is increasingly playing a role in the provision of traveler information. Both the public and private sectors are collecting larger amounts of traveler data, which could be beneficial to both parties. To the extent the private sector collects data of value to the public sector or vice versa, various sharing arrangements might be envisioned. These include: • Contracting in the traditional manner for, as an example, planning studies, • Engaging in more complicated turnkey mechanisms where the private may do much of the planning for a given project or facility, • Developing barter arrangements or in-kind contributions which could involve, for example, sharing of traveler or traffic data for planning purposes, • Incorporating privately conducted transportation studies into public planning projections and studies, or comparing the conclusions and data of the private studies with the public studies as a method of validation, • Contributing to studies that may be of mutual benefit to both sectors, • Using the access of employers to employees as a means to educate or involve employees in transportation planning processes, and • Enlisting the business community to place its influence behind transportation planning initiatives. A particularly important concern from above is how to share risk. Oftentimes, the issues of risk can be addressed through good faith negotiations. Sometimes, however, gaps between public and private sector understandings can frustrate the process of agreement, particularly where the partnerships will be more complex. Clearly, resource sharing at its most complex should involve a thorough analysis of the existing public authority to act and enter into partnerships, as well as the institutional framework and market situation in which sharing might occur. Compensation is typically a significant issue, as well as the structure of the public/private partnership. But, again, as mentioned above, if care is taken in entering into a sharing agreement, such agreements can have major advantages to both public and private sectors in the provision of transportation services and facilities and in planning. Incorporating assumptions on private provision of service into planning. As may be seen, the private sector may play a role in many ways. Regional decision-makers and their staffs need to determine where the public and private sectors have mutual interests in transportation and planning, and then set out to fashion arrangements of mutual benefit. These then need to be incorporated into the regional transportation plans and programs and the integrated framework’s path of development at the short, mid, and long-range time frames. This is critical sense with ITS, who provides the service often changes the customers that use it and the impacts that it has on how the overall system operates. IV.D CHOOSING WHAT IS BEST IN A GIVEN CONTEXT? This section gives insight on different ways that an area (state, region, corridor) may organize to support ITS and operations within the Integrated Framework. Note, that the traditional planning organizations that support the Federal process (MPOs and States) do not necessarily have to be responsible or become the leaders and champions for all the new activities, functions, and products that this requires. In fact, several other approaches exist that may be more appropriate under different conditions. These include: • Stand alone single agency/implementer planning and implementation; • MPO centric coordination; • State-centric coordination; • Ad Hoc or New Organizations. Which to choose depends on area’s context, jurisdictions, problems/issues, and existing institutional roles, activities, and expertise. This is not to suggest that the traditional organizations should be supplanted or replaced. The decisions and products (path of development) must fit within and be consistent with the mandated Transportation Plans, TIPs, and other required products/analyses of the MPOs and States. INSTITUTIONAL IV-6

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook Consequently, they must always participate and be closely coordinated with no matter which option for organizing is chosen. Their activities and responsibilities however will vary depending upon the choice. IV.D.1 DO IT ALONE In some instances, agencies can act, comparatively speaking, alone in moving an ITS agenda. This is rarely true in metropolitan areas, but state DOTs have a fair amount of autonomy in more rural areas. While this is by no means complete autonomy, relatively speaking, state DOTs have more room to act outside metropolitan areas. On the other hand, partnerships with other public and private partners often make sense no matter where or what autonomy a given agency has, as partners can bring strengths, political and otherwise, to enable more rapid progress. In certain instances, an agency may control its facilities and have the authority to act unilaterally. For example, state DOTs often can plan and install freeway management systems largely on their own. The same is true of transit agencies that control their rights-of-way. Some of the countries’ rail systems are currently installing sophisticated traveler information services for their passengers. Systems such as automatic vehicle location systems can also be installed by an agency acting on its own. This can also be true of local governments that often control much of the transportation infrastructure and, for example, manage transit systems. Sometimes, a local source of funding for management and operations is available and there is no regulatory need for project approval through MPOs or other agencies: The one agency can in fact act on its own. However, when a region adopts an integrated planning framework, there may be an increased sense that a variety of projects that are currently uncoordinated in fact need to be coordinated. IV.D.2 MPO CENTRIC Several regions have turned to their MPOs to take the lead. Relying on MPOs may make sense in particularly complex areas that span multiple jurisdictions and/or states. In San Francisco, the TravInfo field operational test spanned nine counties, while in the Washington, DC area, the District of Columbia, Maryland, and Virginia share boundaries. A 2001 survey conducted by the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) showed 53% of MPOs saw operational issues as a high to very high priority and 64% placed a need for investment in management and operations as high to very high (Taft, 2001). AMPO has identified 5 levels of increasing responsibility for ITS and operations that MPOs can provide: 1. Traditional MPO role, with involvement in management and operations planning limited to existing role in ITS, CMS, etc. 2. Convener of meetings to facilitate the planning for management and operations improvements 3. Champion of plan to improve management and operations efficiency 4. Developer of metropolitan-level M&O plans 5. Operator of the metropolitan system AMPO states that the current goal of all MPOs should be to develop the capacity to play and effective role as a convener of meetings on metropolitan-level operations planning (#2 above). They recommend, “that ISTEA-21 re-authorization legislation establish an ideal role for all MPOs to play the role of developer of metropolitan-level operations plans and projects” (#4 above) (Taft, 2001, page 17). This can only take place if adequate planning funds are provided to undertake this role. IV.D.3 STATE CENTRIC Likewise, States have played a central role in planning and organizing for ITS and operations decisions. In San Antonio, the Texas DOT San Antonio District is the lead agency for the TransGuide Traffic Operations Center, in part because of Texas DOT’s responsibility for operation and maintenance of the state highway system as well as for ITS. TransGuide is truly a multi-modal operation, as the VIA Metropolitan Transit Authority paratransit dispatch staff, the city’s Public Works Department traffic engineering staff, the Police Department traffic dispatch staff, and alternate dispatch points for the Police and Fire Departments are all INSTITUTIONAL IV-7

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook located in one structure. Each agency performs its separate responsibility but in a way that information can be shared between agencies and modes. In this case, the state is the lead agency. For the Seattle SmarTrek Model Deployment Initiative, the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) is the lead agency. SmarTrek involves many partners, including WSDOT regional offices, University of Washington, Port Authority of Seattle (operator of Seattle-Tacoma Airport), City of Seattle, Washington State Ferries, and the Puget Sound Regional Council. Each has a role ranging from improving video transmissions of traffic, to better data collection and archiving, to incident management. IV.D.4 AD HOC OR NEW ORGANIZATION In many areas informal/ad hoc relationships/arrangements, or formal institutions for operations have evolved in response to needs not met by existing arrangements or cross inter-jurisdictional boundaries. These "regional operating organizations" offer new opportunities for cooperation and coordinated operations that were not previously being met due to a number of factors (e.g. political boundaries, legislative barriers, legacy relationships). Recently, the potential for these types of organizations represented by AZTECH in Phoenix Arizona, TRANSCOM in the New York/New Jersey region, and others has been recognized. As a result, the FHWA Travel Management Office and ITE have sponsored case studies and the preparation of the "Organizing for Regional Transportation Operations: An Executive Guide" (Briggs & Jasper, 2001). Two types of new organizations are identified. AZTECH of Phoenix Arizona represents one approach. It is "virtual organization" or partnership based on voluntary participation. It is not a legal entity and relies on its constituent agencies for corporate functions such as procurement, project management, and staffing. In the AZTech model deployment initiative in the Phoenix, AZ area, the Arizona Department of Transportation and the Maricopa County DOT are co-lead agencies. This resulted from the recognition that each agency brought certain capabilities to the project that the other could not. Therefore, rather than a state-centric or MPO-centric model, the AZTech model might be viewed as a multi-centric model. The Transportation Operations Coordinating Committee, or TRANSCOM would also fit under the rubric of an ad hoc or new organization. it was formed in a pre-ITS era (1986) to provide a means for setting up a regional cooperative approach to transportation management and improve interagency cooperation in the New York/New Jersey/Connecticut area. Composed of 15 traffic, transit and police agencies, TRANSCOM was viewed as a logical organization to serve as a lead for the tri-area model deployment initiative. It is a private corporation with independent legal status. This enables it to hire staff and perform corporate functions independent of its constituent agencies. Consequently, private corporations can institute processes that are most favorable to the partnership. However, they must also be financially independent, supported through dues, contributions, or private revenue sources. Corporations are best suited for regional organizations that have a well-defined purpose and means of financial support. IV.D.5 HOW TO CHOOSE: FACTORS TO CONSIDER Sometimes, the choice on how to organize and who to lead is clear. Often however, it is not and must consciously determined or evolve. Obviously, while the above sections focused on the lead agencies, all of the efforts must be partnerships. As these organizations are generally collaborative bodies, the lead agency is often more the manager of the decision making process than the final arbiter in all matters. This also points out the fact that these organizations are brought together by a perceived shared interest, strong enough to enable them to work closely together. Responsibilities are also shared according to respective agency resources and capabilities. Other factors that are often important are the consideration of the need for a full-time project manager or other support staff, as well as the need, rationale, and structure of committees that should be formed. Once in place, the organizational structure, including the committee structure, can appear quite complex. Nonetheless, these structures may need to encompass a variety of diverse partners as well as work on multiple issues that may be efficiently handled through a committee structure. As many of these organizations may be operations-focused, the need to include MPO decision-makers and their staffs and their long-range planning emphasis must not be forgotten. Often, MPO staff should be included for a INSTITUTIONAL IV-8

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook variety of reasons, for example, to keep the MPO informed and educated, and to build support should funding be needed through the MPO-planning process. Which of the above ways to organize for integrated planning (decision-making) and provision of the activities and functions for ITS depends largely on an area’s local context, history and the issues/problems it faces. Organizations undertake new initiatives and efforts to meet their constituent’s needs and/or respond to other imperatives (Federal regulations) and circumstances. Leaders come to the fore based upon the relevance of the activity in meeting their interests and mission, available resources, and the ability to carry out the effort (resources and skills). New relationships and organizations form and evolve to overcome perceived gaps and deficiencies that are not being met by existing institutions, or activities. Oftentimes, one agency is likely to be an obvious choice to lead a given effort, perhaps because it has been a leader in ITS projects or has played other coordinating roles previously. Alternatively, one agency may make most sense because of its political influence, ownership of certain rights-of-way, particular procurement capabilities it may have, or other reasons. As seen above in the AZTech Model Deployment Initiative, leadership may also be shared. Important factors to consider in determining who should lead the ITS, systems management, and operations components within an Integrated Framework are: • The willingness and ability of an entity to become the leader, or champion. • The geographic overlap of the political jurisdictions, ITS and other systems, and their influence areas. • Transportation, environmental, and other problems/issues of concern. • Agency Resources/Skills • Authorizing Environment (funding sources, legislative authority/mandate, legal issues) • Historical Relationships The first step, therefore, must be to inventory the region with regard to these factors. The lead organization and responds best to these factors can then be chosen. Note, that they may change over time and the organizational structure should evolve in response. Thus, a development path can (should) be created to enable an evolution of an organization or organizational structure that is based on that regional context. IV.E CONCEPT OF PLANNING The “Concept of Planning “ is designed to capture these shifts. It is to decision making what the concept of operations is to maintaining and operating the overall system. It defines the relationships and responsibilities required to carry out the integrated planning process as it evolves towards the Integrated Framework. It, therefore, recognizes that institutional arrangements and levels of cooperation also evolve over time in response to the changing system. The shifts in institutions, organizations, and relationships for planning/decision making discussed in this chapter take time to implement and evolve. Shifts are likely to be needed due to the following factors: • As an area moves more and more towards a World II environment, new stakeholders, interests, and concerns will emerge (see chapter II). It is likely that institutions, organizational structures, and planning/ decision making processes designed to address previous problems and needs will not be able to respond to the new issues. Consequently, changes will occur in what types of decisions are made, how they are made, and who makes them. • Likewise, moving from where an area is today towards integrated planning will introduce the new stakeholders, considerations, and relationships discussed throughout this Guidebook. Operations and planning stakeholders must be brought together. Mechanisms for balancing near-term and far- term improvements must be developed. New resources and capabilities may need to be assembled or developed. • As the area’s environment changes and the transportation system moves along its development path through implementation of its programmed improvements new stakeholders will be impacted and need to become involved in the process. If stakeholders are invited to participate before they are affected and have a reason to be concerned they are not likely to contribute. INSTITUTIONAL IV-9

Incorporating ITS Into The Transportation Planning Process Executive Guidebook Elements of the Concept of Planning include: • Identification of new stakeholders and when their participation is likely to be needed as part of the planning process. This might include new types of stakeholders such as incorporating public safety officials as the decisions regarding incident management, emergency evacuation, and security issues are being considered and systems to address them implemented. They may also include new area and jurisdictions as the systems expand to accommodate growth. • Identification of roles and responsibilities for the new components of planning mentioned above (ITS infrastructure and services, ITS Regional Architecture, operational concepts, and characteristics). This includes the organization/entity responsible for maintaining the inputs and products of the integrated process. For example, one requirement for conformity with the National ITS Architecture is to identify who is responsible and the mechanisms/procedures for updating/maintaining the regional ITS architecture. Other issues that may need to be addressed are the responsibilities for data archiving, analysis, and maintenance, and data rights (ownership, privacy) • Identification of new organizational structures and relationships that may be needed to match geographic and modal leadership to the problem/impact area of the system and its operations. • Memorandum of understanding and other agreements on both the decision making implementing/operating responsibilities for the system. • A path of development for institutional arrangements and planning and operating roles. A key factor in creating the concept of planning is leadership must exist where the primary transportation challenges or problems are faced and/or primary responsibility and ownership of addressing those challenges and problems are located. An agency assigned planning responsibilities must feel buy-in to that particular set of planning issues it has been handed; otherwise, that element of planning may fail. Part of ensuring buy-in by a given organization or jurisdiction is to closely match geographic, modal nature, and other factors to that aspect of the Integrated Framework’s planning. The private sector should also be considered as the partner with the ownership of a issues that concern them, and so various private organizations might take the lead in aspects of the regional planning process. The path of development of the transportation system also evolves and so should the decision-making and other organizations that support it. Therefore, an organizational path of development and plan should be determined to match the shifts in responsibilities, roles, and stakeholders that occur as the transportation system changes are implemented. The concept of planning, as a concept of operations, would differ from region to region, depending on specific circumstances, tradition, institutional constraints, and other factors. Moreover, it will also evolve as feedback occurs and the path of development for the transportation system is updated. Regions would have to assess their own needs, context and setting to determine what would work best. One might also have a vision of a desired long-range planning structure and develop an evolutionary path or plan to achieve that structure. That vision can help ensure that progress is being made towards a planning structure optimized to meet the challenges of tomorrow. INSTITUTIONAL IV-10