Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

A P P E N D I X I Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-1 Searching for innovative, new ICM stakeholder engagement frameworks or strategies can benefit from evaluations of similar efforts that have been performed by other entities and organizations in analogous contexts in other industries. Potential sources of such frameworks may involve coordinating large projects among a diverse set of stakeholders with different interests. Six example frameworks are presented here for the purposes of helping ICM stakeholders to assess potential initial ICM organizational forms—and as the ICM system matures and develops over time, alternative forms that may be better aligned with the needs of the ICM community. Frameworks are presented in the order of increasing ICM complexity and integration, starting with frameworks most often considered in the early stages of ICM deployment and concluding with potential advanced ICM frameworks where corridor management roles and practices are well defined and more formal corridor-specific organizational structures are required to improve efficiency and accountability. Many ICM systems will function best using early organizational forms—and may not need to move beyond less formal frameworks. However, under specific circumstances, more advanced and formal frameworks may be required to deliver on the strategic corridor vision—and the ability to react flexibly and efficiently to the challenge of corridor management. Ad Hoc Coordination (Early Model) In this early model (see FIGURE I.1), there is no formal charter or ICM concept. However, there is corridor-level coordination that occurs informally among stakeholders because of the natural intersection of corridor issues, events, conditions and aspects that may have brought stakeholders together in the past. In some cases, staff in one organization may have worked previously in another organization and there are personal relationships that act as natural bridges among corridor stakeholders. Often, the eventual success of developing an early ICM concept is dependent on these kinds of informal connections among individuals who have developed trust relationships that span multiple ICM stakeholder organizations. Among these FIGURE I.1. Ad hoc coordination (early model). Each of the six frameworks is documented here with a conceptual diagram, a text description, a discussion of strengths/weaknesses, and examples drawn from transportation and other industries.

I-2 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders individuals, there may be a documented corridor vision statement or short description that describes shared intent. In the diagram shown above, the Ad Hoc Coordination model can be characterized as a collection of these trust relationships. The open circles represent individual staff, and the solid black lines between them reflect formal organizational chains of command in terms of supervisors, direct reports, and peers. Trust relationships among pairs of staff in different organizations relevant to ICM coordination are highlighted with orange dashed connections. Note that ICM stakeholder organizations may be relatively large (e.g., law enforcement or transit agencies) or as small as a single individual (e.g., a private citizen acting as an that some organizations may have more of the ICM-relevant trust relationships, while others may have none. In this model, there may be some coordinated action to develop new relationships or bring new stakeholders together to discuss shared problems and issues. However, there is no formal organizational structure beyond a registry of ICM stakeholders and the organizational capability to conduct periodic meetings of these stakeholders. Strengths: Low cost. This framework can be an effective and useful framework to create momentum for an early ICM concept. Strong trust among participating stakeholders since the individuals know each other and relationships are primarily personal. Trust relationships can be maintained and strengthened using relatively informal means— meet-ups, invitations to corridor stakeholder events, shared fantasy sports leagues. These events can also be used to network the trust relationships beyond single individual to single individual relationships. Weaknesses: Lack of defined organization may result in the ICM concept to be skewed towards the existing trust relationships, and may leave out key stakeholders where relationships do not exist—or focus on sub-problems that do not address more fundamental underlying corridor-level issues. Difficult to scale. Trust relationships are individual-to-individual and not always transferable. Just because Erica has a trust relationship with Kenny, and Kenny has a trust relationship with Amanda—it is not always a sure thing that Erica and Amanda will also have (or easily develop) an equivalent trust relationship. Further, this framework is subject to replacement risk if key individuals take a new job, move to a new area, or retire. Best Applied: Early ICM Deployments with Limited Institutional Momentum. The Ad Hoc model can be an effective model to follow when the ICM concept is in an early state and institutional momentum needs to be generated to move towards a more comprehensive solution. The framework is not included here as an organizational counter-example—in some cases, the needs of a corridor can be advocate for pedestrian safety, or an independent freight owner/operator). Note that the diagram shows Ad hoc impact. The ad hoc nature of relationships implies that impact is similarly ad hoc—which in some areas may be effective, but in other key areas may have no capability to address corridor issues because of a lack of existing trust relationships.

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-3 fleshed out when a collection of existing trust relationships can be identified and cataloged. These existing trust relationships and the informal value of coordination among agencies can jump start an ICM concept-building activity because it shows that there is a real need and there are already individuals in place working to resolve corridor-level issues. When A Representative ICM Victory is Within Grasp. In some cases, a specific corridor issue or situation can be addressed with limited coordination among a handful of individuals with strong trust relationships. In these cases, there is an opportunity for informal corridor-level coordination to create a success story that can motivate others to join in a broader ICM concept development and implementation effort. Metaphorically speaking, people are more likely to want to jump onto a moving bandwagon with demonstrated forward momentum rather than a motionless bandwagon with the potential to move forward. Examples/Insights: Follow the Data. In some cases, there may be trust relationships among individuals related to sharing corridor-related data. These connections can potentially launch a low-cost, high-impact effort to mash up or integrate available data to help improve the dissemination of the information among corridor travelers who may be considering alternative modes (e.g., transit riders and bike commuters). This early win can create momentum to find more ICM-relevant scenarios. Examples of organizations that may serve as a springboard to ICM include groups that share and visualize data like the OpenStreetMap initiative. This initiative exists to create and provide free geographic data, such as street maps, to anyone. The OpenStreetMap Foundation is an international not-for- profit organization supporting, but not controlling, the OpenStreetMap Project. It is dedicated to encouraging the growth, development and distribution of free geospatial data and to providing geospatial data for anyone to use and share. In this case, the OpenStreetMap project is not an ICM example, per set, but rather an example of existing connections among stakeholders that create new capabilities together, e.g., a map of usable bike paths and pedestrian paths, as well as transit services. For more on OpenStreetMap, see: https://wiki.osmfoundation.org/wiki/Main_Page)

I-4 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Roundtable of Champions (Early Model) In this early model (see FIGURE I.2), senior leaders gather together to initiate or further develop an ICM concept. In this case, creating a charter for the corridor stakeholders and establishing goals may be an early agenda item. In the diagram on the side, the Roundtable of Champions model can be characterized as relatively senior management in each organization creating a roundtable of similar individuals across the ICM stakeholder spectrum and inviting participation. Note that, as depicted, the roundtable is reserved only for senior managers, from the top of each of the subsidiary org charts. These senior managers take time away from their typical duties and participate in roundtable events to discuss corridor-level issues, performance, and potential forms of coordination. Note that these individuals do not leave their regular day jobs behind them—but add representing their organization at the roundtable to their roles and responsibilities list. For stakeholders with well-defined organizational charts, who serves in the Roundtable of Champions may be simple. For other key stakeholders, it may not be clear who can/should act as an advocate (e.g., pedestrian or bike stakeholders), or there may not be an obvious neutral third-party advocate to represent competing stakeholders (e.g., corridor freight carriers). Strengths: High visibility. When a senior leader shows an interest in corridor-level performance and issues, other parts of the organization and the public will take notice. This, in turn, may encourage senior leadership from other stakeholder organizations to participate, even if they had not been engaged earlier. Senior Leaders Can Set Vision/Direct Action. Buy-in from the top is critical to consider implementation of many of the most effective ICM strategies. Durable Organizational Relationships. Roundtable participation/invitation is based on title, not the individual. If there is turnover within organizations, the successor to the senior management position inherits the roundtable seat for their organization. Weaknesses: Risk of “Shallow” Coordination. In some cases, there may be interest in showing coordination but the group may lack inherent momentum to tackle specific issues at a technical level. High-level descriptions of shared vision may lack a focus on specific actions or pilot projects to be conducted. Further, senior managers may have extremely limited time to dedicate to corridor issues when there may be many pressing organizational, financial, and technical issues within their own home FIGURE I.2. Roundtable of champions (early model).

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-5 organizations. This can lead to good intentions but a lack of focus at senior level outside of the roundtable events themselves. Difficult to Manage Rapid Growth. Some roundtables become large quickly—and in these cases, it may be impractical to organize and schedule. Keeping the roundtable small to start and then incrementally expanding membership can be a smart counter to this threat, but the risk is in alienating other stakeholders who would like to join but are initially put off. Stakeholders with No Clear Organizational Chart. In many cases, it may be hard to find a single voice that can speak for a broader stakeholder community (see above regarding bike/ped and freight stakeholders). The same issue arises among stakeholders who have distributed jurisdictional control within the corridor (e.g., multiple transit agencies). In other cases, it may not be clear who within an organization has the power to influence and direct even a highly structured corridor-specific project. In other cases, the actual power to put ICM strategies in place may be confounded by fiefdoms within a large organization. Some individuals will likely see ICM as a threat to their subsystems or subsystem performance and not be inclined to support ICM activity. Best Applied: Early ICM Deployments with Risk Averse Stakeholders. Some organizations are highly risk- averse. Organizational top cover may be needed to institute a change in long-standing processes and procedures—and get buy-in to create new ICM-focused measures and processes. Responding to Grant/Funding Opportunities. An important catalyst for ICM in gaining the attention of senior management is the urge to coordinate in the goal of winning a grant or other competitive funding source related to ICM implementation. Here the shared goal among the stakeholders is clear—to develop a compelling, comprehensive, and technically feasible ICM concept as a shared team. Capitalize on Success. Alternatively, a good success story like the one described in the Ad Hoc of Champions as a next logical step. Examples/Insights: USDOT ICM Pioneer Proposers. In 2007, the initial set of ICM Pioneer sites responded to an initial grant opportunity around the original ICM initiative. In this case, the typical point of departure for proposing locations was to capitalize on early ICM connections made at a high level to set the tone and prepare a detailed proposal. Of the early models detailed in this appendix, this is the best framework to consider if the ICM stakeholders intend to pursue external funding to advance the ICM concept and/or deploy pilot capabilities. included in the upcoming ICM Evaluation Report (Battelle, 2018). An interesting insight provided here is that one or more champions from agencies with corridor-wide responsibility often emerge in lead roles when a roundtable of champions is initially formed. Lead Agencies. A discussion of the role of champions in the San Diego and Dallas sites is Coordination framework discussion can lead to the creation of a viable and energized Roundtable

I-6 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Peer-to-Peer Connection (Early Model) In this early model (see FIGURE I.3), technical and operations staff gather together to solve specific corridor issues. In this case, this is a natural extension of the Ad Hoc Coordination model but advanced to a more mature state where trust relationships among multiple individuals have evolved into trust relationships among sub-elements of individual stakeholder organizations. These connections are encouraged, and possibly authorized, by the chain of command within each participating organization. However, the nature of these engagements is limited by the specific problem they are solving at a tactical level, and not endorsed or specifically chartered as a part of a more comprehensive ICM organizational form (e.g., as might be initiated in the Roundtable of Champions framework). In the diagram shown above, the Peer-to-Peer model can be characterized as a collection of multiple, networked relationships among staff positions in multiple organizations. These trust relationships, indicated in broken orange lines, represent connections that may have originally been based on trust relationships among individuals but have matured over time to represent organizational connections. Existing communities of coordination around recurrent special events, e.g., annual state fair, major conventions, corridor stakeholders. An example might be connections among transit, freight, and bike/pedestrian stakeholders around managing goods and people movement in and around a large fairground for a 10-day period every year. In this case, there may be useful policies regarding when large freight deliveries might take place, when specific roads may be closed to all but transit or non-motorized traffic, or specific plans drawn up to deal with incidents or other emergencies that might arise during the critical 10-day period. While focused on specific event planning rather than more comprehensive corridor management, these relationships, policies, and coordinated activities can be critical building blocks for ICM. Some key corridor stakeholders may not be initially engaged (as depicted in the diagram where one organization has no orange connection lines) as there may not have been a good match between special event stakeholders and corridor stakeholders in early rounds of trust-building and organization formation. Strengths: • Problem-focused. Much like the scenario planning work suggested throughout this document as a good conversation starter for ICM solutions, the peer-to-peer network focused on recurrent event planning can be a useful springboard for a more comprehensive solution. FIGURE I.3. Peer-to-peer connection (early model). seasonal severe weather or emergency response, can assist early corridor planning and coordination among

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-7 Practical. These types of cases often have motivating examples of why coordination works and how everyone benefits. Durable Organizational Relationships. Trust relationships have matured into tactical forms of institutional trust among coordinating organizations—and less likely to be undone by staff moving on to new positions. Weaknesses: Low Visibility Until Something Goes Wrong. Aside from high-visibility events like a major sports championship, even snow events and annual state fair planning may receive significant high- level organizational or public attention. Unless something goes wrong—and then there may be significant attention. If this is the case, then an organized recovery and lessons learned from such an outcome can also be the seed for a more comprehensive ICM solution. May Not Be Well-Positioned to Seek External Corridor-Related Funding. Such arrangements are tactical in nature and tend not to be flexible or scoped widely enough to be able to seek external funding. In addition, since these communities are developed around one or more events, rather than from the mental frame of a corridor, there may not be a good match to corridor-concept funding mechanisms. Issue of Scalability. Only a few days a year may warrant or may have warranted tactical coordination of this nature. The individuals and organizations managing the state fair operations may have limited overlap with the set of stakeholders from those that manage snow removal. It may be difficult to collect these groups, find common ground, and then scale up to a more comprehensive ICM solution without a more formal organizational form (e.g., at a minimum incorporating senior management buy-in in some form as in the Roundtable of Champions model). Best Applied: Busy Corridors with Recurrent Special Events. Corridors that see little or no day-to-day congestion may have little need for a more comprehensive ICM solution—and instead the corridor management effort can be organized around the special events that drive unusual heavy demand patterns. These types of events are likely to affect a wide range of stakeholders, including incident management, transit, pedestrian/bike, and freight stakeholders. Need for Comprehensive Integration is Low. In these cases, the relatively infrequent nature of the events may not support the need for deep technical or organizational integration. Law enforcement may be engaged in managing critical intersections and protecting pedestrian movements during peak periods. The need for a more complex technological traffic control system may be low since the benefit of the system can only be recouped a few days in the year. Examples/Insights: Special Events as ICM Motivators. Often, successful events like state fairs grow in popularity over time and can overwhelm the capability of planners to deal with them outside of a more comprehensive corridor-level strategy. A web-based survey of state fair activity in 2017 indicates nearly a dozen examples where traffic access was considered problematic (diverse locations that include the states of Wisconsin, New Mexico, Washington, New York, Iowa, Kentucky, and California), including transit and pedestrian access. An example for the 2017 New York state fair can be found at http://spectrumlocalnews.com/nys/central-ny/news/2017/08/27/interstate-690-

I-8 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders state-fair-traffic. At least two of the USDOT ICM Pioneer sites incorporated state fair planning within their corridor concept development efforts (U.S.-75 Dallas and Twin Cities). Coordinated Operations (Intermediate Model) In this intermediate model (see FIGURE I.4), stakeholders have formalized an agreement to coordinate activity, either in a playbook or a set of flexible rules. This is the first intermediate model and represents a level of coordinated action and formalized organizational form at a tier above the three early deployment frameworks discussed so far. In many cases, the key difference between the early models and this intermediate model is a more mature set of institutional capital. Specifically, advancing to the intermediate framework requires more detailed operational and technical arrangements that spell out the specific roles, responsibilities and sequence of actions taken in response to observed conditions in the corridor. Rather than working from a general set of principles driving coordination among stakeholders at a broad level, this intermediate model seeks a set of (more or less) comprehensive response plans that stakeholders formulate together. In the diagram shown above, the Coordinated Operations model can be characterized as a collection of stakeholder organizations (shown at the exterior points of the diagram) working together to create a detailed playbook (represented as the element in the center of the diagram) that deepens the level of coordinated action and technical integration among ICM stakeholders. Note that the dotted lines of trust relationships that dominate the diagrams for the early models are no longer the focus. Trust relationships among individuals and organizations are a given in this intermediate framework—and the focus has turned to leverage this trust relationship into developing arrangements describing in detail a set of more complex, coordinated actions. Strengths: Supports More Complex (and Effective) Deployments. Some ICM strategies require high levels of detailed coordinated action. For example, a corridor may include some subelements where freight signal priority is required to assist on-time delivery at key intermodal facilities. Access to these facilities may run counter to optimal transit signal priority timing, bike lane access, pedestrian movements, and other considerations. In order to implement coordination among these competing corridor demands, detailed intersection and facility plans may be needed—far beyond informal coordination among the jurisdictions controlling the signals and the collection of stakeholders. FIGURE I.4. Coordinated operations (intermediate model).

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-9 Higher Level of Responsiveness. The development of a corridor playbook allows actions to be taken more quickly in response to a wide range of operational conditions. Durable Action Plans. One weakness of the early models is the general lack of detailed operational and technical arrangements, and a reliance on trust relationships to execute corridor actions. Such informal arrangements may be consistent with complex actions. However, when individuals change positions or retire, these undocumented plans are lost. Documenting the agreed-to actions allows new staff to step into clear roles with clear responsibilities and associated actions in the playbook. Weaknesses: Limits of the Playbook. In complex corridors, the number of plays needed in a playbook may grow large quickly. Maintaining the playbook and updating it to changing conditions may be difficult and time-consuming. A detailed plan may be created for a situation that occurs infrequently (or never again). At the same time, operational conditions that warrant coordinated action but are not in the playbook may be large. At some point, a detailed playbook may need to be replaced with a more flexible set of rules that describe general actions to be taken supported by a set of automated adaptations. Whether such a system is needed depends on the repeatability and classification of the operational conditions experienced in the corridor—and the nature of the corridor management response. Often Requires Corridor-Specific (External?) Funding. Making the leap from one of the early models to the intermediate model often requires corridor-specific funding to both create the playbook and the supporting technical capability to implement it. Further, this model is difficult to leap into as a first step for an ICM stakeholders, since it is dependent on existing trust relationships already being in place among stakeholders (individuals and organizations). Requires Institutional Maintenance. The ICM playbook should not be viewed as a “one-and- done” activity. The playbook will need significant maintenance and enhancement over time. There should be an institutional commitment to periodically examine corridor performance, develop new plays (including modeling studies), and then to update the playbook. These updates may also require new technical arrangements and possibly new field capabilities. Best Applied: Target Next Step of Early ICM Frameworks. Early framework ICM solutions that have an external or corridor-specific funding source are often good candidates for this level of integration. That is, the result of the funding is to advance to and realize an ICM capability Coordinated Operations, with the appropriate level of institutional capital. ICM Showcases. These types of deployments using this organizational form can serve as motivating examples of what is possible for deeper levels of corridor coordination. Examples/Insights: Current State of the Art. Broadly, this intermediate state reflects the operational capability and organizational form of the USDOT ICM sites after deployment. Specifically, the Dallas U.S.-75 corridor can be characterized as playbook-driven, and the San Diego I-15 corridor as response-plan driven with a set of flexible rules for automated control driven by the decision-support system.

I-10 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Integrated Consortium (Advanced Model) In this advanced model (see FIGURE I.5), corridor management roles and practices are well defined and more formal corridor-specific organizational structures are required to improve efficiency and accountability. A new corridor-level organization is formed to carry out these roles and practices, staffed by individuals drawn from stakeholder organizations. This is the first advanced model and represents a level of coordinated action and formalized organizational form at a tier above both the three early deployment frameworks and the intermediate framework discussed so far. Again, the key difference in this advanced model is a more mature set of institutional capital. Specifically, advancing to the advanced framework requires more detailed institutional arrangements that create a new organizational entity, the ICM consortium. The consortium, in turn, is staffed and is operated by members of stakeholder organizations to carry out corridor-specific activity as a full-time or nearly full-time activity exclusive of positions in the individual “home” organization. In the diagram shown above, the Integrated Consortium model can be characterized as a collection of stakeholder organizations (shown at the exterior points of the diagram) sending individuals and staff from their organizations to take roles in the new corridor-specific roles created by the consortium (represented as the element in the center of the diagram). This action provides yet another opportunity to deepen the level of coordinated action and technical integration among ICM stakeholders. Note that the focus of this diagram is at the institutional level—the playbook is no longer the focus. A comprehensive playbook is a given in this advanced framework—and the focus has turned to creating a new organizational model that (in large part) reflects a desire to enhance and execute the playbook as its sole responsibility. Note that there are no current examples of the Integrated Consortium framework currently deployed for the purposes of ICM. The following analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and best applications are based on the experiences outside of ICM. These advanced models may be of interest for consideration by ICM stakeholders but cannot be described as proven ICM organizational models. Strengths: Corridor-Focused Operational Roles. Creates an operational organization with the specific goal of the managing the corridor. Rotation in/out of these positions deepens understanding among FIGURE I.5. Integrated consortium (advanced model).

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-11 stakeholders and reinforces the corridor world view rather than the “coordination of silos” seen in earlier forms. Dedicated Financial Arrangements. When the new organizational form is created, it requires a supporting financial arrangement. The independent financial stream helps to stabilize and achieve longer-term corridor goals. Drawn from other non-ICM solutions, this means that the management entity is supported by user fees (e.g., aviation passenger taxes, or toll road revenues) Deep Integration. Playbook approaches have logical limits (described above). The consortium model allows managers to consider higher levels of operational control, including increased use of automation, to optimize corridor management actions. Weaknesses: Temporary Positions May be Weak. Individual agencies may not devolve much real power, so the roles created may speed coordination but may not actually achieve deep integration. One observation is that a move to the Integrated Consortium model may be difficult without establishing earned trust in an intermediate organizational form. New Organization to Maintain and Support. The leap to the Integrated Consortium model will require financial and other forms of support from stakeholders. Some organizations may balk at providing staff—others may be reluctant to provide other resources. The benefits of the consortium may be difficult to quantify. Best Applied: Intermediate Models Exit Strategy. The intermediate model may not prove sustainable over the long term for institutional reasons. In these cases, a consortium model may be a useful migration path—rather than dissolution of the ICM deployment. Corridor Financial Flows. Consortium models have been most successful when independent financial flows can be identified. This may be a significant barrier in many ICM solutions. Examples/Insights: Air Traffic Control. Some elements of the consortium model can be seen in the world of commercial aviation and the management of the National Air Space (NAS). Traffic flow management is organized around hand-offs among coordinating control centers. Where domestic and international borders intersect, there are governance processes put in place to ensure a comprehensive air traffic control capability. For a description of traffic flow management, see https://www.nbaa.org/ops/airspace/tfm/concepts/. For a description of domestic/international coordination governance, see https://reason.org/wp-content/uploads/files/air_traffic_control_governance_testimony.pdf

I-12 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Third-Party Operator (Advanced Model) In this advanced model (see FIGURE I.6), corridor management roles and practices are well defined and more formal corridor-specific organizational structures are so well-defined that separate organization is hired or formed to carry out these roles and practices. This is the most advanced model and represents a level of coordinated action and formalized organizational form at a tier above all other frameworks discussed so far. As in the Integrated Consortium model, the key difference in this advanced model is a more mature set of institutional capital. Specifically, advancing to the advanced framework staffed by members of stakeholder organizations. It has defined scope, actions, and methods of financial recovery to conduct corridor-specific activity. In the diagram shown above, the Third-Party Operator model can be characterized as a collection of stakeholder organizations (shown at the exterior points of the diagram) defining the role and responsibility of the third-party ICM operator (represented as the element in the center of the diagram). The third-party ICM operator is shaded green (rather than orange) to emphasize the relationship is focused on a financial relationship and not an institutional trust relationship. Note that the focus of this diagram is at the institutional level—the playbook is no longer the focus. A comprehensive playbook is a given in this advanced framework—and the focus has turned to turning over the playbook to a third party who has financial motivation to enhance and execute the playbook. Note that there are no current examples of the Third-Party Operator framework currently deployed for the purposes of ICM. The following analysis of strengths, weaknesses, and best applications is based on the experiences outside of ICM. These advanced models may be of interest for consideration by ICM stakeholders but cannot be described as proven ICM organizational models. Strengths: Profit-Performance Relationships. Arrangements put in place are likely to make the third-party operator motivated to improve corridor performance. This may help better align investment and performance in ways not possible with other organizational models. Further, these agreements often FIGURE I.6. Third-party operator (advanced model). requires more detailed institutional arrangements that solicit a third-party corridor management entity to enhance and execute defined ICM responsibilities. The third-party entity is free-standing, that is, it is NOT

Alternative Integrated Corridor Management Frameworks I-13 include new capital expenditures from the third party that can be recouped over time through improved corridor performance. Third-Party Operator May Innovate. The desire to increase profits may bring innovation and new strategies into the corridor that stakeholders had not considered previously—innovations that may be highly effective. Weaknesses: Lack of Day-to-Day Stakeholder Control. The playbook needs to be well trusted by the stakeholders as they are likely giving away some aspects of their ability to control their own systems. Fundamentals May Change. It may not be possible to modify these arrangements significantly after they have been put in place. This can be problematic for financial reasons, and the third-party operator model may not be viable over time. For an example drawn from privatizing toll road operations, see: https://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2014/10/03/the-indiana-toll-road-how-did-a-good- deal-go-bad/ Best Applied: Stable Corridors and Short Windows. In an advanced state where corridor conditions and performance are extremely well known, it may be cost effective to consider a third-party operator. However, long operational periods (e.g., 75 years in the toll road example above) expose all parties to significant risk. Stable, well-understood corridors and much shorter operational periods (e.g., 5 or 10 years) may be considered. The downside for the third-party operator for shorter periods is more limited ability to recoup start-up costs and capital investment. Examples/Insights: Public-Private Partnerships. FHWA maintains a useful website with guidance on creating and managing a wide range of third-party partnerships: https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/p3/

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S. DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRA N SPO RTATIO N RESEA RCH BO A RD 500 Fifth Street, N W W ashington, D C 20001 A D D RESS SERV ICE REQ U ESTED ISBN 978-0-309-48161-8 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 4 8 1 6 1 8 9 0 0 0 0 N O N -PR O FIT O R G . U .S. PO STA G E PA ID C O LU M B IA , M D PER M IT N O . 88 Broadening Integrated Corridor M anagem ent Stakeholders TRB