Executive Decision Making for Transportation Capacity: The Multiagency Context (2014)

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.

25 C h a p t e r 4 Methodology As described in Chapter 1, the objective of this project is to identify the ways in which the TCAPP framework can be understood, appreciated, and subsequently championed by the leaders and decision makers of DOTs and their partner agen- cies. While the foundation of TCAPP is a collaborative frame- work that enables interest-based problem solving among all of these target agencies, getting the message out to the leaders is complex due to a number of factors, detailed in Chapter 3: 1. The agencies have diverse and disparate missions. 2. The agencies have differing cultures that have a direct bear- ing on how they operate both internally and with partners. 3. The leaders of these agencies have diverse backgrounds (e.g., education, appointed versus career positions) that have a direct bearing on leadership and management styles. In addition, the tenure of leadership is sometimes brief and is often vulnerable to political shifts that affect the agency. 4. The agencies have varying geographic and organizational structures, and identifying the position that has direct inter- action with transportation agencies requires knowledge about these agency distinctions. With this context in mind, the research team set out to gather data illuminating what issues these agencies and their leaders are facing, in what way collaboration (and TCAPP) can play a role, and the best way to disseminate information about TCAPP and its benefits. The first phase was a charrette-style meeting with industry leaders. This facilitated conversation provided insights into the issues that agencies are facing, mapped the benefits of TCAPP to various audiences, and provided some initial thoughts about key messages and how they should be presented to reach the intended audience and send the correct message. In the second phase, the research team fleshed out the preliminary findings from the charrette through a series of interviews with decision makers across agencies, positions, and geographic regions. The interviewees were selected to provide a range of perspectives, from both the transportation agency and resource agency approach. The following types of interviewees were selected: • Clusters: Three diverse states were chosen as locations for a clustered approach. In each of these states, agency leaders from transportation and resource agencies (natural and cultural/historical) were interviewed. The intent was to see a variety of perspectives on transportation capacity origi- nating within the same statewide or metropolitan contexts. • Early Advocates: These interviews were conducted with cur- rent and past leaders who had been involved with SHRP 2 and the TCAPP development, or otherwise had stated their commitment to collaboration. • New to TCAPP: These interviewees had limited exposure to TCAPP prior to the interview, and their opinions about collaboration and interest-based problem solving were unknown. The interviews were conducted using a set of structured questions designed to get input and insight on key aspects of the primary focus areas for this research. The interview guide addressed opinions on leadership and decision making, trans- portation capacity projects, TCAPP, and preferred media for communication. To allow them to feel free to discuss their per- spective openly, the interviewees were told that their state- ments would not be attributed and that the findings would be summarized rather than published verbatim. Demographic information also was collected. The interview guide is attached in Appendix A. Figure 4.1 illustrates the states where interviews were con- ducted, and Tables 4.1 through 4.3 list the agencies at which leaders were interviewed. The names and positions of inter- viewees are not disclosed because interviews were conducted with a promise of confidentiality. Market Research Findings

26 Figure 4.1. Locations and types of interviewees. Table 4.1. 360° View of Clustered Interview Agencies and Departments State Agency Title Colorado Department of Transportation Engineering Department of Transportation Planning Department of Transportation Environmental State Historic Preservation Office State Historic Preservation Officer Georgia Department of Transportation Engineering Department of Transportation Planning Department of Transportation Engineering and Environmental Department of Transportation Planning Department of Transportation Air Quality State Historic Preservation Office Transportation Projects Environmental Protection Agency NEPA Nebraska Department of Transportation Deputy director, engineering Department of Transportation Division engineer, planning and project development Metropolitan Area Planning Agency Executive director

27 The remainder of this section summarizes the market research findings from both the initial charrette conversation, and the follow-on interviews. Chapter 5 uses these findings as a foundation for a set of marketing principles to support cur- rent and upcoming marketing of TCAPP to executive leader- ship of transportation and resource agencies. Defining the Issues There is no exact research science to guide the translation from comments made by individuals to an overview of themes and key points. However, special care was taken to quantify and aggregate comments received and to sort them into cate- gories that could be weighted by the number of times the comments were brought up. This methodical approach to interview content allowed themes to be identified and used as input to the marketing principles, potential strategies, mes- sages, and media identified in Chapter 5. Among themes established at the charrette, and then run- ning clearly through all of the interviews, was the general notion that these are challenging times for agencies involved with transportation. Needs are great, resources are tight, and the issues are complex. The interview findings confirmed that agency leaders recognized that collaboration can be a partic- ularly important (and often necessary) tool in confronting a set of the challenges and conditions that they face daily. The challenges identified include changing approaches to high- way capacity, performance management, strategic planning, and partnerships. Rethinking Highway Capacity The U.S. DOT, state DOTs, MPOs, and the like have recently shifted their focus from a capacity building function to a maintenance, preservation, and operations function. Accord- ing to interviewees, this adjustment is due to a number of factors, including the completion of the Interstate system, the acknowledgment that additional capacity is not always the remedy for increasing congestion, air quality concerns associ- ated with increased vehicle miles traveled, and, most dramati- cally, reduced funding. While present definitions of highway capacity have expanded to include a greater range of concerns and solutions, such as operational improvements, the need for additional transportation capacity remains. Many agen- cies have lengthened their planning horizons to look out beyond present funding shortages. They also have been led to work with new partners. Interviewees were very interested to hear about TCAPP and its detailed and data-driven approach to transportation decision making. There was general support for a framework to guide agencies in walking through the complex set of deci- sions to arrive at the best solution based on a range of factors and partnership interests. Agency decision makers with this goal in mind were interested to learn that TCAPP can provide their staff with the tools needed to understand and navigate the new, and complicated, reality. Performance Management In an era of constrained financial resources and a refined focus on accountability, interviewees from all agencies stated that they were looking to performance management as an important and necessary strategy to achieve measurable outcomes. Most agen- cies currently are using some element of outcome-based perfor- mance management to manage some aspects of their programs. However, many agencies are interested in applying a coordi- nated approach across all areas of agency practice and program implementation. Interviewees were interested to learn that TCAPP’s Deci- sion Guide, in addition to many of the related projects, can help transportation and partner agencies integrate elements Table 4.2. Early Advocates State Agency Title California Department of Transportation Retired executive California Nature Conservancy (California Chapter) Executive Maryland State Highway Association Retired executive Minnesota Department of Transportation Executive Table 4.3. New to TCAPP State Agency Title Idaho Department of Transportation Executive Idaho Department of Transportation Communications Indiana Department of Transportation Executive Rhode Island Department of Transportation Executive Texas Department of Transportation Executive

28 of performance management across a range of program areas. There was a general understanding across agency inter- viewees that these resources can be particularly important as partner agencies strive to find common ground and a united purpose. Strategic Planning Many agency interviewees understand the necessity of being focused and strategic in a time of limited budgets, constrained resources, and evolving missions, as they do with performance management. Most agencies have established the basic elements of a strategic plan, such as a mission, vision, and principles. However, the interviewees noted that the most challenging ele- ment can be applying the vision and principles to everyday programs, well-established procedures, and general agency practices related to planning, project development, environ- mental review, and collaboration with others. When an overview of TCAPP was presented during inter- views, there was a general sentiment that TCAPP and its related resources can help agencies work through these challenges. A few key features of TCAPP were highlighted. For example, the Decision Guide was lauded for its ability to provide direction on how agency policies can be integrated into key decisions in core transportation decision-making processes (e.g., long- range transportation planning, programming, corridor plan- ning). The C03 T-PICS tool was of intense interest because it can be used to provide additional data about the probable eco- nomic impacts of a particular transportation investment. C06 was appreciated because it provides guidance on the integra- tion of environmental permitting and conservation planning to highway planning. Transportation and resource agency decision makers interviewed understood that tools such as these are what are needed to turn their high-level policy direc- tives into decisions and new approaches at the systems plan- ning and project levels. Partnerships Finally, interviewees agreed that strong partnerships are often the most important ingredient of success when trying to advance transportation decisions and construct capacity projects. Whether the partners are other agencies, stake- holders, or the general public, seasoned transportation decision makers understand the inevitable challenges they will face if they do not have strong agreement among inter- ested parties. Here, the TCAPP Decision Guide and related products and tools were cited as useful in helping to illuminate specific types of partners, how they should be involved, and at what stage in the process their input is relevant. A portion of the agency deci- sion makers interviewed clearly understood that achieving this goal can be assisted by the collaboration and interest-based problem-solving guidance provided in TCAPP, and products such as the C08 Vision Guide. Decision Makers and Collaboration While population and demand for mobility continue to increase, infrastructure maintenance and operation require a greater and greater share of limited budgets, making it more difficult to fund new transportation projects and alleviate transportation problems. With respect to government deci- sions, public trust has decreased while resistance to change has increased. And these dynamics are occurring in an envi- ronment that still judges success by an executive’s ability to “get things done,” a refrain heard over and over again in one- on-one interviews, and an imperative that is often seen as contrary to collaboration. In addition to general agreement about a set of shared con- cerns and challenges, there was general consensus among interviewees that there is a place for collaboration in address- ing these challenges. Notions about the way and extent it is best applied varied among interviewees, by agency types and leaders. In addition, the language used to describe planning and project development processes varied. For example, one leader’s “collaboration” may be another’s “partnerships” (and expressly not collaboration). However, there were three clear key elements to effective interest-based decision making that all agencies and leaders identified. Relationships Matter Established personal relationships within agency staff and among agencies were highlighted as the most important ingredient in a successful interest-based problem-solving process. Inherent in these established relationships is the component of trust, without which any process can be bogged down in double-checking, doubting, and muddling through the minutiae. Goals Must Be Aligned As described in detail in Chapter 3 and underscored by all interviewees, the greatest challenge for a collaborative process is often the disparate missions of partner agencies. Even if agencies are willing to engage in collaboration, there will be no progress without a well-defined and shared goal. Interviewees understood that identification of a defined goal would inevi- tably require consensus building and might potentially involve compromise. However, they also understood that if all parties involved could agree on that shared goal as the final outcome, it could serve as the touch point and vision for the process as

29 it inevitably gets pushed and pulled off course with competing interests and priorities. Resources Must Be Available Interviewees were adamant that collaboration requires resources. Collaboration is only successful if there are avail- able resources, both in the form of staff time and expertise at the partner agencies, and in the form of funding for project delivery. This is increasingly important in a time of reduced earmarks. Agencies need to pool their resources in order to make things happen, and this requires focused and efficient collaboration. Finally, money on the table is often the motiva- tor that will bring people together to start talking. In the interest of expediting transportation capacity proj- ects, DOTs have funded environmental liaison positions at federal and state resource agencies. This focus on providing resources to assist with interagency collaboration has yielded measurable results in time savings. Interviewees noted that while these themes are common across all agency types, each agency also has a unique mission and role in the transportation planning and project delivery process which influences the perspectives on collaboration. In addition, the culture of each agency and the leadership style, personality, and past experience of agency decision mak- ers have an undeniable, if not measurable, impact. This issue is explored in Chapter 3 in the discussion of backgrounds of agency leaders. The following section provides an aggregated view of the perspectives on collaboration by agency type, based on the interview findings. Decision Making by agency State Departments of Transportation State DOTs are charged with the provision, operation, and maintenance of the surface transportation network within their boundaries. As the nation’s roadway system has been built out, many DOTs have expanded their central focus from capacity projects to maintenance, renewal, and operations. State DOTs also have expanded their considerations to incor- porate the responsibilities of the environment, the economy, and community issues, and the agencies’ mission statements reflect this shift. For example, Georgia’s DOT mission is to “provide a safe, seamless, and sustainable transportation sys- tem that supports Georgia’s economy and is sensitive to its citizens and environment” (4). This movement involves an increased engagement with the partner agencies that oversee these areas of concern, and an inherent need to collaborate. The agency leaders described a varied approach with regards to collaboration, but all acknowledged its importance and necessity. However, what remains central and sets DOTs apart from their partner agencies is the overarching purpose of delivering transportation projects. Comments on Collaboration From the DOT perspective, collaboration is a means to an end: the delivery of projects. Following is a summary of com- ments heard through the interviews: • Education about collaboration’s benefits matters. Col- laboration for its own sake is not effective. When the connection is made between collaboration and produc- tivity, especially the ability to advance projects to con- struction, industry leaders become evangelists for the process. This connection is essential to building their confidence in the process. It is not automatically made; in fact, executives often believe exactly the opposite, that collaboration slows down and encumbers the process. This is an ingrained belief, supported by industry mythol- ogy and mystique, and it implies that education of future transportation leaders is a key tool to be considered when striving for long-term change. The other implication is that collaboration is not a value-neutral word; that is, it has positive connotations to some and negative connotations to many. • To be effective, messages should be tailored to the specific situation executives are dealing with. Benefits of collabo- ration will be better received if they are described in terms of project efficiency, and their ability to overcome public resistance, engage stakeholders and thereby potentially increase resources available for projects, and so forth. The messages also must be realistic to be believed. For exam- ple, surprises will never be avoided, but they can be reduced through collaboration. The message must fit the particular circumstance or it will not be heard, much less given credence. • Leaders believe other leaders. The opportunity to hear directly from peers about the challenges they faced and how collaboration worked for them will go further than any other marketing technique to reach and persuade exec- utives. Peer-to-peer exchanges and the use of case studies discussed at conferences and other familiar peer-to-peer settings (rather than published in reports that will sit on many executives’ shelves unread) will have the greatest impact on this group. • Flexibility about the structure of a collaborative process is important. A highly prescribed process (such as TCAPP) can improve the speed of decisions, but engaging partners in creating the structure leads to a feeling of ownership and may improve collaboration. In other situations, establish- ing very distinct roles and a specific final decision-making process may be the most effective approach.

30 Barriers to Collaboration DOT leaders noted a range of challenges that can make col- laboration difficult. Any tool that can help to address these issues will provide value to a necessary process. • One source of tension when working with resource agen- cies often stems from the fact that the DOT has access to funds that must be spent on a specific timeline, or they risk losing those funds. • Agency processes are well ingrained, and it can be very dif- ficult to make changes when one has been doing something the same way for a long time. • When resources are tight, people are only able to be reactive, and not proactive. It can be hard to find time to learn a new process or adopt a new way of thinking. • There is often a lack of trust among partners. Resource Agencies For the purposes of the cluster interviews, resource agencies were limited to those focused on the environment (e.g., state agency or federal EPA) and cultural resources (e.g., State Historic Protection Offices). These agencies have missions of protection and preservation, and thus are involved with transportation capacity and other projects. Their role is to make sure that resources are not compromised as a result of the proposed transportation project. For example, the EPA’s mission “is to protect human health and the environment” (5). While EPA may understand the need and benefit of a particular project or improvement, the agency must remain true to its mission and the regulations that govern its work, thus ensuring that these resources are affected to the least extent possible. Without a process involving collaboration, the EPA is unable to work with state DOTs, and is only able to approve or deny a particular proposal. Comments on Collaboration Resource agency decision makers provided the following perspectives on the collaborative process: • The only way to influence a DOT (or other partner agency) is by sitting at the table with them. • A collaborative process instills trust in resource agencies that all voices are being heard, and that the best solution will be chosen. The collaborative process also “buys” cred- ibility with the public, and leads to less confrontational interactions. • Building relationships takes time, but it does pay off in the long run. It will always make things easier the next time around, and lead to better outcomes. • A clear understanding of roles is critical. • Finding common ground sparks conversation, which can lead to the development of workable solutions. • Collaborative processes need to be homegrown in order to accommodate the distinct characteristics of a state, or the cultures of a set of partner agencies. Barriers to Collaboration • Resource agencies want to work with others, but they have to be true to their missions. Sometimes these two motives are at odds. • There is a perception that historic preservation and envi- ronmental protection can be a barrier to transportation project delivery. This reputation needs to change before all partners can have an equal seat at the table. • An ad hoc collaborative process will not work. Everyone must be comfortable with the process and knowledgeable about the decision milestones. • Limited resources can make it difficult to participate in the many meetings that are sometimes required by a collab- orative process. • Change is not easy due to organizational culture, inertia, regulatory focus on enforcement, lack of resources, and competing demands. Overlapping Views on Successful Collaboration DOTs and natural resource agencies have distinct but over- lapping views on the keys to successful collaboration. Fig- ure 4.2 illustrates this, by pulling the key trend perspectives from both agency types and showing how they align and dif- fer. These perspectives are valuable to consider in terms of how TCAPP or other collaborative approaches are presented, as well as to help both resource agencies and DOTs in under- standing their partners’ interests as they begin to engage in collaboration. Decision Makers and Messaging Decision makers of transportation and partner agencies are clear that collaboration is important, and even critical in today’s environment. This section details some of the slight differences between two main partner agencies in their per- spectives. While the partner agencies may differ slightly on the key elements of a successful collaborative process, they are relatively unified on the messages that they need to hear in order to adopt a particular process, and how they prefer to hear them. Following is a consolidation of central messages

31 that was drawn from interviews, listing messages identified as helpful in presenting TCAPP. Potential Messages This collaborative or interest-based problem-solving pro- cess will • Save you time; • Save you money; • Lead to a better outcome; and • Lead to better, easier decisions. An additional set of messages would be best delivered by partner or peer agencies. The messages would be particularly persuasive when used by a peer agency to adopt, or participate in, a collaborative approach. • We can agree that our current situation is not working, so we must work together to improve the outcome. • There’s a lot at stake, and partner agencies can take legal action to put a stop to a project if they are not involved in the process. • Here are some quantitative data that show the actual benefits achieved through adoption of this process. • Do not be the ones holding things up. By staying engaged, you can help make good things happen. How to Disseminate Information In an age of increasing use of varied communication meth- ods, determining how to deliver messages to an audience can be as critical as defining that audience and crafting the message. According to interviewees, the message regarding the use of collaboration, and specifically the TCAPP tool, needs to be presented in the context in which the audience will be most receptive. Those interviewed for this effort had surprisingly similar answers. The main conduit for infor- mation sharing was workshops and conferences. Hearing about how their peer agencies are conducting business was noted as one of the most effective ways of learning about a new process or procedure. Regional workshops also are an effective way of getting peer states, and their partner agencies, together to share their challenges and solutions, and inter- viewees suggested this venue for discussion about TCAPP. DOT leaders also noted that there are a few key agencies to which they are particularly attuned, such as AASHTO and TRB. One natural resources agency leader indicated that information about a product such as TCAPP would have to come from her state’s DOT, since the tool is transportation- focused. In general, current decision makers appear to be uninterested or unfamiliar with social media mechanisms. This is clearly likely to change as leadership changes hands to those more accustomed to social media as a primary means of communicating. DOTs Resource Agencies • A Structured, but Flexible Process • A “Final” Decision Maker • Early Involvement from all Partners • Efficient Process • Defined Roles • A “Homegrown” Process • Established Relationships • Aligned Goals • Project Funding Figure 4.2. Perspectives on effective collaboration.