National Academies Press: OpenBook

Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders (2020)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Establish ICM Objectives & Scale
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Determine Potential Partners." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2020. Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/25867.
×
Page 30

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.

23 The objectives and scale of the ICM project will help transportation decisionmakers deter- mine who will be directly or indirectly affected and which stakeholder entities could make good partners. The difference between ICM partners and stakeholders is that ICM partners would be required to support an ICM project through planning, deployment, and operations/ maintenance. ICM partners may be expected to provide funding, data sharing, or opera- tional support, while ICM stakeholders may contribute to an ICM project through user input and feedback. Who Will Be Directly or Indirectly Affected by This ICM Project? As a corridor is being considered for ICM, it is important that all agencies affecting the operations and maintenance of the network are invited and participate in the planning of ICM. It is recommended to cast a wide net early in the process, so as not to exclude possible stake- holders early on. The roles and level of involvement may differ, but in order to be most effective, the ICM team should consider all transportation resources. Below are potential stakeholders to consider as partners, broken down by non-traditional stakeholder group. Freight Stakeholders Freight is moved by rail, water, pipeline, truck, and air. Some common freight stakeholder entities include, but are not limited to, the following: • DOT freight advisory committees – Made up of members of the freight community to advise transportation agencies on freight issues, priorities, projects, and funding needs for freight improvements. Used to ensure that private-sector freight transportation needs are addressed in the public-sector transportation planning, programming, investments, and implementation processes. • Freight/trade associations and user groups – Made up of and funded by businesses that operate in a specific freight industry. An industry trade association may attempt to influence public policy in a direction favorable to the group’s members through advertising, education, political donations, lobbying, and publishing. Trucking industry sectors encompass manu- facturers (e.g., truck, engine, and trailer) and motor carriers (e.g., truckload carriers, less than truckload, third-party logistics providers, national parcel carriers, regional parcel carriers, moving companies, etc.). • Port authorities – Port authorities are responsible for operating and setting policies for gateways for international commerce (e.g., airports, seaports, and railroads). C H A P T E R 4 Determine Potential Partners

24 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders • Marine terminal operators (MTOs) – MTOs offer wharfage, dock, warehouse, or other marine terminal facilities to serve ocean carriers, providing the link for goods between ocean carriers and motor carriers. • Non-vessel operating common carrier (NVOCC) – NVOCCs provide intermediary logistics planning and coordination between marine terminals and drayage trucks. An NVOCC is a cargo consolidator who does not own any vessel, but acts as a carrier legally by accepting required responsibilities of a carrier who issues their own bill of lading. Also, an NVOCC acts as “carrier to shipper” and “shipper to carrier.” An NVOCC can own and operate their own or leased containers. An NVOCC acts as a virtual carrier and accepts all liabilities of a carrier legally, in certain areas of operation. • Beneficial Cargo Owners (BCOs) – BCOs are the importers and exporters of record who physically take possession of cargo at destinations and include distribution centers, ware- houses, and other intermediate locations. BCOs determine when and where containers are moved, how long containers are stored, and who receives and moves containers. Depending on the size of the BCO, a BCO may either route imports to one main terminal or distribute them among several terminals. BCOs have several options to procure transportation services. They can procure directly themselves from an ocean carrier, they can contract or supply their own services, or they can work through a third-party logistics (3PL) entity. • Distribution centers – Distribution centers (also known as warehouses, fulfillment centers, crock-dock facilities, bulk break centers, or package handling centers) are a principal part of the entire order fulfillment process and the foundation of a supply network. Some organiza- tions operate both retail distribution and direct-to-consumer out of a single facility, sharing space, equipment, labor resources, and inventory as applicable. Suppliers ship truckloads of products to the distribution center, which stores the product until needed by the retail loca- tion and ships the proper quantity. • Major freight rail carriers – Freight rail carriers are known to be the most efficient at moving raw materials and heavy freight over long distances. The rail network accounts for approximately 40% of U.S. freight moves by ton-miles and is largely responsible for achieving national export goals and facilitating the safe and efficient importation of goods. • Major motor carrier operators and dispatchers – Trucking company dispatchers and operations managers are responsible for planning trips and maintaining communications with truck drivers; truck drivers are responsible for picking up, transporting, and delivering containers/freight. Transit Stakeholders Some common transit stakeholder entities include, but are not limited to: • State DOT transit groups – The responsibilities of transit groups or advisory committees within state DOTs are to advise the agency on the needs of the state’s transit providers, allocation of transit funds, and rules involving public transit. • Regional Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) transit planning groups – MPOs are regional transportation planning bodies made up of representatives from local governments and transportation authorities. MPOs are responsible for distributing federal transportation funds to their regions. MPO transit planning groups or advisory committees facilitate con- versations between agencies and members of local communities to help coordinate transit planning. • Transit agencies at the local, intercity, and regional levels – Transit agencies operate public transportation services in a designated service area. This service area may be con- fined to the jurisdiction of a single city, or spread across a larger region. Populous regions typically have several large transit agencies serving the region, often with overlapping service areas. In some situations, agencies act as both MPO and transit agency.

Determine Potential Partners 25 • Rail, bus, ferry, private shuttle, streetcar, paratransit agencies – Transit is not limited to bus service. Different modes of public transportation that operate within a corridor may include, but are not limited to, rail, bus, ferry, private shuttle, street car, or paratransit. These modes of transit may be operated by the same transit agency or individual agencies. • Transit advocacy group/citizens committee – Some regions have established transit advo- cacy groups or citizens committees, which consist of citizens from a diverse set of backgrounds and interest areas in the development of transit plans and programs overseen by a transit or regional agency. These committees provide an important forum for discussion and debate about various transit programs and issues. Incident Response Stakeholders Some common incident response stakeholder entities include, but are not limited to: • State and local law enforcement – Usually, law enforcement agencies are the first responders to arrive at the scene of a traffic incident. Jurisdiction of law enforcement agencies varies widely from state to state and even within a state. Typically, State Police and Highway Patrols have jurisdiction on State highways and county and municipal police have jurisdiction off the State highway system. On the scene of a traffic incident, the duties of these officials include securing the incident scene, providing emergency medical aid until help arrives, safeguard- ing personal property, conducting accident investigations, serving as incident commander, supervising scene clearance, assisting disabled motorists, and directing traffic.8 • Fire and Rescue – Fire and rescue services are provided by county and municipal fire depart- ments. In most jurisdictions, the fire department is the primary emergency response agency for hazardous materials spills. On the scene of a traffic incident, the duties of these officials include protecting the incident scene, suppressing fires, providing emergency medical care, serving as incident commander, providing initial hazardous material (HAZMAT) response and containment, rescuing crash victims from contaminated environments, rescuing crash victims from wrecked vehicles, arranging transportation for the injured, assisting in incident clearance, and providing traffic control until law enforcement or DOT arrival. • Emergency medical services (EMS) – The primary responsibilities of EMS are the triage, treatment, and transport of crash victims. In many areas, fire and rescue companies provide emergency medical services. In some areas, other agencies or private companies provide these services to local jurisdictions under contract. Typical roles and responsibilities assumed by EMS at traffic incidents include providing advanced emergency medical care; determining destination and transportation requirements for the injured; coordinating evacuation with fire, police, and ambulance or airlift; serving as incident commander for medical emergencies; determining approximate cause of injuries for the trauma center; and removing medical waste from the incident scene. • Towing and recovery – Towing and recovery companies are secondary responders operat- ing under a towing arrangement usually maintained by a law enforcement agency. On the scene of a traffic incident, their responsibilities include recovering and removing vehicles from the incident scenes; protecting victims’ property and vehicles; removing debris from the roadway; and providing other services, such as traffic control, as directed or under contract. • HAZMAT responders – Hazardous materials contractors are hired by emergency or trans- portation authorities to clean up and dispose of toxic or hazardous materials. Most common (and small quantity) engine fluid spills (e.g., oil, diesel fuel, gasoline, and anti-freeze) can be contained and cleaned up without calling hazardous materials contractors. • Border Patrol – Border Patrol agents are federal law enforcement officers who are responsible for patrolling international land borders and coastal waters. Depending on the location of the 8 https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/eto_tim_pse/about/tim.htm.

26 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders ICM corridor, it may make sense to keep them informed of ICM activities given that they are responsible for performing traffic checkpoint operations, transportation checks, and so forth. • Coroner’s office – When a traffic incident results in a fatality, the coroner’s office is involved to perform autopsies, pathological and toxicological analyses, and inquests relating to the investigation of deaths to determine the cause of and responsibility for the death. Non-Motorized Roadway Users Some common non-motorized stakeholder entities include, but are not limited to: • State and local bicycle and pedestrian coalitions – Organizations that advocate for a healthy, more livable region by promoting bicycling for fun, fitness, and affordable trans- portation. Strategic goals may include improving the built environment for biking, walk- ing, and transit; changing transportation policies to support an equitable, environmentally sustainable, and safe future; and prioritizing underserved communities in transportation spending and policy decisions. Organizations use advocacy, outreach, and education initia- tives to achieve their missions. • Local and regional advocacy groups – Advocacy groups use various forms of advocacy such as policy advocacy, community empowerment, and growing a unified statewide net- work of local community organizations and affiliates in order to influence public opinion and/or policy. Walking and bicycling are important transportation modes, but the needs of these non-motorized roadway users are often overlooked in transportation planning. Advocacy groups9 work to address this problem by advocating for the rights of pedestrians and bicyclists in their communities. Groups may focus on health equity and communities disparately impacted by pedestrian injuries and fatalities. • Bicycle and pedestrian planning groups at local and regional agencies – More and more transportation agencies and MPOs (e.g., Denver Regional Council of Governments) are developing Active Transportation Plans for their region that provide an active transporta- tion vision and implementation plan to support the development of a robust regional active transportation network. • Bicycle and pedestrian advisory groups/committees – Bicycle and pedestrian planning groups at local and regional agencies often invite local community representatives (e.g., bicycle/ pedestrian coalitions or advocacy groups, transit planners, etc.) to join their stakeholder committee to provide insight, feedback and local context; help guide the project teams’ public outreach; provide data and information; and review materials. Depending on the assets and characteristics (e.g., modal options, proximity to other coun- tries, and proximity to railroads) of the ICM corridor, some of these groups may not need to be directly involved, although keeping them informed is recommended. Whom Should We Reach Out to in Each Stakeholder Group? Once the relevant stakeholders for the ICM corridor have been identified, the stakeholders will need to be further categorized into types of decisionmakers. Decisionmakers may refer to: • End-user Decisionmakers – The individuals on the corridor that select from among different alternatives available to them; or 9 Where the Sidewalk Starts is a blog about walkability and pedestrian policy. They compiled a list of nationwide and local pedestrian advocacy groups, available here: http://www.wherethesidewalkstarts.com/p/pedestrian-advocacy-groups.html.

Determine Potential Partners 27 • Operations-Level Decisionmakers – The entities with choices to make regarding ICM operations and strategies to enact during various circumstances; or • Program-Level Decisionmakers – The higher level staff that set policies and investment priorities for an organization, entity, or group. Because all of these decisionmakers play crucial roles in the deployment, operation, and overall success of ICM, all three types are identified, considered, and discussed below in regard to their roles as ICM decisionmakers. End-User Decisionmakers: Individuals on the corridor who make decisions regarding travel behavior are the most direct to identify because they involve the people affected by the ICM strategies and operations. Examples of these decisionmakers include: • Freight – freight vehicle operators, dispatchers, fleet managers, and supervisors; • Transit – transit vehicle operators, dispatchers, fleet managers, and supervisors, as well as transit vehicle passengers and passenger car operators; • Incident Response – highway patrol staff, the fire department, medical service providers, emergency vehicles and safety patrols; and • Non-motorized Roadway Users – pedestrians and bicyclists. These are the individuals whose decisions are intended to be influenced or supported by ICM and these individuals are generally the users of the facilities. In some cases, the decision- makers may not be present on the corridor itself, as with fleet managers or supervisors who dictate what the freight and transit operators in the field must do. An initial set of end-user decisionmakers for each stakeholder group may be identified by reviewing various ICM sce- narios and considering which entities would be directly affected by the ICM strategies. This may be further informed by a review of not only the candidate ICM scenarios, but also of the outcomes and results of those scenarios as implemented in real-world ICM sites (e.g., post- incident debriefing notes). Operations-Level Decisionmakers: Another tier of decisionmakers is responsible for design- ing the course of action to take in any particular ICM scenario. These decisionmakers generally must have a thorough understanding of what is feasible to do, and what is acceptable/suitable given the current conditions. Traditionally, DOTs, MPOs, TMC staff, and local agencies are at the center of operations decisions because they are generally responsible for initiating route diversions, overriding traffic signal timings, and disseminating actionable traveler information. Dispatchers and fleet managers can provide the required input as to whether a specific ICM strategy would be helpful or harmful from each stakeholder’s perspective, given the current state of the system, and can also indicate whether a strategy is feasible or not. An initial set of operations-level decisionmakers for each stakeholder group may be identified by reviewing various ICM scenarios and considering which entities would be best suited to evaluate the feasibility and benefit/dis-benefit associated with each choice. Identification of appropriate parties for each stakeholder group may be further informed by reviews of agency organiza- tion charts, operational decision-making processes, and/or information obtained from stake- holders themselves. Program-Level Decisionmakers: Finally, the most abstract level of decisionmakers involves those whose input influences the overall decision regarding whether to engage in ICM planning and operations at a program level. This group can include upper management and executive- level staff at freight companies, local and regional transit agencies, state police agencies, bicycle/ pedestrian planning groups at local and regional agencies, etc. An initial set of program-level decisionmakers for each stakeholder group may be identified by reviewing agency organization charts, along with the presence of any policy-forming or policy-setting entities such as steering

28 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders committees, advisory panels, or executive boards for each stakeholder group. Program-level decisionmakers can also include even higher level policy-setting or policy-influencing entities and organizations, which may be identified by tracing funding sources for each stakeholder group. Figures 8 through 10 present potential end-user, operations-level, and program-level decision- makers by stakeholder group. Use Table 3 to expand or narrow the entities listed under each type in the figure, as well as to assign roles and responsibilities in the ICM project. Who Is the Top Priority in Terms of Groups, Agencies, or People That We Need to Engage? Program-level decisionmakers are the most critical to engage at the ICM planning stage. By convincing executive-level management of the value that ICM can bring to the freight com- munity, transit agencies, incident responders, and/or non-motorized roadway users, program- level decisionmakers can provide top-down support and champion an ICM initiative by setting aside funding and resources. Gaining buy-in from operations-level decisionmakers can be used as a second resort. ICM initiatives often yield tangible benefits for operations-level decision makers, and as a result, they may advocate for ICM support from management. Freight •Traffic management/operations centers •Trucking associations •Port staff •Marine terminal operators •Non-vessel operating common carriers •Beneficial cargo owners •Rail company operators •Dispatchers, fleet managers, supervisors •Ocean carriers Transit •Traffic management/operations centers •Local and regional transit agencies of all transit modes •Dispatchers, fleet managers, supervisors •Transit vehicle operators •Shuttle service providers (commuter, paratransit) •Park-and-Ride lot operators •Rideshare/taxi operators •Toll road operators Incident Response •Traffic management/operations centers •Highway patrol staff •Fire and Rescue •Emergency Medical Services •Safety patrols •Towing and recovery •Emergency vehicle operators •Hazardous materials contractors •Coroners and medical examiners •Environmental, Natural Resources, Departments of Health Non-Motorized •Traffic management/operations centers •State and local bicycle and pedestrian coalitions •Local and regional advocacy groups •Bicycle and pedestrian planning groups at local and regional agencies •Bicycle and pedestrian advisory groups/committees Figure 9. Potential operations-level decisionmakers. Freight • Freight vehicle operator • Dispatchers • Fleet managers • Fleet supervisors Transit • Transit vehicle operator • Transit vehicle passengers • Passenger car operators • Dispatchers, fleet managers, supervisors Incident Response • Highway patrol staff • Fire department • Medical service providers • Emergency vehicles • Safety patrols Non-Motorized • Pedestrians • Bicycles • Micro-mobility options (e.g., scooters) Figure 8. Potential end-user decisionmakers.

Determine Potential Partners 29 Operations-level and end-user decisionmakers need to be engaged when deliberating ICM strategy options. This may begin during the development of the Concept of Operations for the ICM system (ICMS) and needs to continue through the detailed design of the strategies and response plans. End-user decisionmakers can provide insight into the desired actions and out- comes of an operational scenario, while operations-level decisionmakers will understand if the infrastructure, assets, and data are available to support such ICM strategies. How Do We Identify These Entities in Our Region? Based on interviews with non-traditional stakeholders, the following strategies for identifying non-traditional stakeholder entities in a given region can be useful. Freight Stakeholders • The following can be helpful starting points for outreach and engagement for these stake- holders: internal DOT committees and advisory groups related to freight and safety, freight associations, trade associations and user groups, major carriers, major freight rail operators, distribution centers, and port authorities. Freight •State or regional transportation commissions •Metropolitan planning organizations •Trucking associations •Port authorities •Freight company executive and management staff •Federal Highway Administration •United States Department of Transportation Transit •State or regional transportation commissions •Transit agencies •Metropolitan planning organizations •Shuttle service providers (commuter, paratransit) •Rideshare/taxi companies •Toll road companies •Federal Transit Administration •United States Department of Transportation Incident Response •State or regional transportation commissions •State and local departments of transportation •Metropolitan planning organizations •Departments of traffic safety •State and local chiefs of police •Fire chiefs •Border patrol •Federal Highway Administration •United States Department of Transportation Non-Motorized •State or regional transportation commissions •State and local departments of transportation •Metropolitan planning organizations •State and local bicycle and pedestrian coalitions •Local and regional advocacy groups •Bicycle and pedestrian advisory group/committees •Federal Highway Administration •United States Department of Transportation Figure 10. Potential program-level decisionmakers. Table 3. Integrated Corridor Management roles by type of decisionmaker. Type of Decisionmaker Who Should be Included How to Use This List End-User Entities whose decisions are intended to be influenced or supported by ICM. Use this list to ensure that proposed ICM strategies are designed to address the needs and concerns of all identified end-users. Operations-Level Entities who would be best suited to evaluate the feasibility and benefit/dis-benefit associated with each choice presented to travelers. Decisionmakers on this list should be responsible for designing the course of action to take in any particular ICM scenario. Program-Level Entities who influence the overall decision regarding whether to engage in ICM planning and operations at a program level. Gaining the support of these entities will result in better chances to obtain project resources such as stakeholder input, funding, data access, etc.

30 Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders • Establishing freight coalitions at the DOT, holding a regional operations forum, or leveraging existing relationships that other agencies already have (e.g., MPOs, chambers of commerce) can be used to identify major freight stakeholders and subsequently engage them. • XM/Sirius Radio (currently used by some freight operators for route information) can be used for targeted outreach to freight stakeholders. Transit Stakeholders • The Federal Transit Administration (FTA), internal DOT committees and advisory groups related to transit or safety, regional agencies (e.g., MPOs), and transit agencies can be a help- ful starting point for identifying and engaging transit stakeholders in ICM. • Common participants to consider include state DOT transit groups, regional MPO transit planning groups, and transit agencies at the statewide, intercity, and regional levels. • Transit stakeholders may span several modes, including rail, bus, ferry, private shuttle, and streetcar. Incident Response Stakeholders • Internal DOT committees and advisory groups (or similar) related to incident management or safety can be helpful starting points for outreach and engagement for these stakeholders. • Common participants to consider include fire departments, local police, state police, border patrol, port authorities, medical facility staff, and the coroner’s office. • MPOs or regional agencies may be useful for coordinating with responders. Non-Motorized Roadway Users • The following can be helpful starting points for outreach and engagement for these stake- holders: internal DOT committees and advisory groups related to bicyclists, pedestrians, or safety; state and local bicycle coalitions; local and regional advocacy groups; bicycle and pedestrian planning groups at local and regional agencies; and bicycle and pedestrian advisory groups/committees. • Local agencies and campuses (e.g., colleges) may already have bicycle and pedestrian distri- bution lists or social media groups. • Consider including both agency planners and end-users in ICM planning in order to capture (1) the real-world challenges and issues that the users face and (2) the politics and procedures of transportation planning/operations.

Next: Chapter 5 - Assess Potential Partners Needs »
Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Integrated Corridor Management (ICM) is a relatively new congestion management approach that has been gaining interest for its potential to mitigate congestion with few changes to the existing transportation infrastructure.

The TRB National Cooperative Highway Research Program's NCHRP Research Report 899: Broadening Integrated Corridor Management Stakeholders addresses a broad range of operational and efficiency issues that are critical to bringing non-traditional (freight, transit, incident response, and nonmotorized) stakeholders into the ICM process.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!