CONFERENCE

PROCEEDINGS

National Forum on Challenges with Multi-state/Jurisdictional

Transportation Issues

![](media/image1.wmf)

June 18--19, 2001

Crystal City (Arlington), Virginia

Sponsored by

I--95 Corridor Coalition,

Federal Highway Administration,

Transportation Research Board, and

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

# EXECUTIVE SUMMARY {#executive-summary .unnumbered}

The Forum was convened to allow participants to examine both past
accomplish­ments and future prospects for multi-state/jurisdictional
efforts dealing with trans­por­tation issues. Questions of efficiency and
safety of transportation facilities for both passenger and freight
traffic increasingly transcend geo-political boundaries, leading to a
need for regional approaches as a response. Regional efforts involving
coalitions among multiple states and/or jurisdictions are evolving, but
they need continued nurturing and resources to reach their full
potential.

Regional transportation decision-making can range from an interstate
bridge organ­ization to a multi-state and/or international economic area.
Multi-state/jurisdictional efforts may have varying degrees of
formality, as legally established entities or as informal operations.
Operating in pursuit of shared interests and anticipated benefits,
issue-based groups frequently act as forums with no controlling or
binding authority on members, who are involved on a voluntary basis.
Support comes from pooled resources from the private sector and public
agencies. Federal financial support has facilitated a leveraging of
state and local participation in multi-state/jurisdictional efforts.

The Forum reviewed current activities by coalitions to facilitate
analysis of their effectiveness and utility for the future. Working in
breakout groups, Forum participants prepared comments about
multi-state/jurisdictional efforts that were grouped into Day 1 Themes
and Issues:

-   Think regionally (or globally), act locally.

-   Partnerships are vital.

-   Champions and grassroots support are key.

-   Coalitions are fostered by compelling needs and shared interests.

-   Win-win strategies sustain membership.

-   A customer focus is essential.

-   Key drivers of multi-state/jurisdictional efforts must be present.

Turning to the future of multi-state/jurisdictional efforts, Forum
participants eval­u­ated the options, formation and nature for groups, the
various forms of government involvement (including regional and private
sector organizations), and a potential vision for the future of such
efforts. Participants were urged to comment at an open microphone
session, and the sponsors of the Conference provided assessments of
lessons learned or missed, and potential means of moving forward.

As the Forum concluded, the following achievements were noted:

-   Forum attendance and representation of the diversity of stakeholders
    demonstrates intense interest in subject of
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.

-   Successes of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be
    demonstrated in a variety of settings, based on existing efforts
    designed to deal with regional highway corridors, traffic
    information sharing, freight pickup and delivery, economic regions,
    border crossing issues and rail service areas.

-   Ad hoc models of multi-state/jurisdictional group formation and
    support are the preferred methods for the near future, with varying
    degrees of federal help to enable the agencies involved to cooperate
    effectively for the common good. The ad hoc model has attracted
    private sector participation in multi-state/jurisdictional efforts.

-   Effective communication between participants results in information
    sharing about mutual issues, approaches to problem solving, and
    cross-pollination of ideas and approaches.

-   Funding for start-up and continued support for
    multi-state/jurisdictional efforts is essential, but frequently
    difficult to maintain without national and multi-state leadership.
    Federal funding allows coalitions to establish a scale of effort not
    achievable by states working alone. Working together on funding may
    result in achieving stability of staff and membership levels as a
    basis for expanding volunteer efforts of members. Potential
    challenges are the number of multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations competing for limited funds, the degree and perception
    of success achieved by a group, potential distortion of priorities
    within the states, and overlapping with affected organizations or
    existing coalitions, such as Metropolitan Planning Organizations
    (MPOs).

Based on the work of the Forum, participants outlined fifteen follow-up
actions for federal agencies, states, local organizations, and others to
advance. Ideas ranged from strategic planning, establishing customer
focus, accelerating the pace of freight transportation improvements and
identifying ways to sustain coalitions from planning to implementation.

**TABLE OF CONTENTS**

[EXECUTIVE SUMMARY i](#executive-summary)

[1. INTRODUCTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS 1](#introduction-to-the-proceedings)

[1.1 Context and Background of the Forum
1](#context-and-background-of-the-forum)

[1.2 Purpose and Need for the Forum 1](#purpose-and-need-for-the-forum)

[1.3 Representation at the Forum 3](#representation-at-the-forum)

[2. FOUNDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION 5](#foundations-for-discussion)

[2.1 Presentations and Panel Discussions
5](#presentations-and-panel-discussions)

[2.2 The White Paper Presentation 6](#the-white-paper-presentation)

[2.3 Panel Presentations 7](#panel-presentations)

[3. CONFERENCE DISCUSSION 11](#conference-discussion)

[3.1 Introduction 11](#introduction)

[3.2 Breakout Sessions on Existing Multi-State/Jurisdictional
Coordination
12](#breakout-sessions-on-existing-multi-statejurisdictional-coordination)

[3.3 Current Multi-State/Jurisdictional Examples
13](#current-multi-statejurisdictional-examples)

[3.4 Issues and Questions 15](#issues-and-questions)

[3.5 Day 1 Summary -- Themes and Issues
19](#day-1-summary-themes-and-issues)

[3.6 Perspectives on Multi-State/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues
29](#perspectives-on-multi-statejurisdictional-transportation-issues)

[3.7 Comments: I-95 Corridor Coalition
33](#comments-i-95-corridor-coalition)

[3.8 Comments: Transportation Research Board (TRB)
34](#comments-transportation-research-board-trb)

[3.9 Comments: the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials (AASHTO)
34](#comments-the-american-association-of-state-highway-and-transportation-officials-aashto)

[3.10 Comments: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
35](#comments-federal-highway-administration-fhwa)

[3.11 Day 2 Summary -- Themes and Issues
36](#day-2-summary-themes-and-issues)

[4. CONCLUSIONS: ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FORUM
37](#conclusions-achievements-of-the-forum)

[4.1 Introduction 37](#introduction-2)

[4.2 Achievements of the Forum 38](#achievements-of-the-forum)

[4.3 Follow-up to the Conference 39](#follow-up-to-the-conference)

# INTRODUCTION TO THE PROCEEDINGS

## 1.1 Context and Background of the Forum {#context-and-background-of-the-forum .unnumbered}

Efficient and safe movement via a wide variety of transportation modes
serving both passenger and freight traffic is a concern of political and
administrative jurisdictions responsible for transportation improvements
in the United States. Increasingly, these jurisdictions are finding that
questions of the efficiency and safety of transportation facilities
transcend geo-political boundaries, leading to a need for regional
approaches to transportation operations. As a result, jurisdictions are
developing ways and means of investigating problems and issues that
arise and cannot be solved or addressed by states or other jurisdictions
acting alone.

To address issues that extend across regions, transportation and
economic development, organizations have been exploring means of working
cooperatively with neighboring organizations. In some instances this
involves new forms of institutional relationships, and federal funding
assistance. One result has been that entirely new organizations have
been formed to address the common prob--lems of multiple jurisdictions.
Because of the regional intent of these organiza--tions, their
geographic boundaries frequently include groupings of states or other
jurisdictions that share similar concerns focused on a specific issue.
The first generation of such organizations is now in operation, and it
is likely that new organizations will be formed around other issues or
problems.

Recognizing the need for further examination of existing and future
issues that result from initiating multi-state and multi-jurisdictional
organizations, the sponsors of this Conference invited a variety of
national and regional organiza--tions that deal with these issues daily.
Sponsors include the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), the I--95
Corridor Coalition, the American Association of State Highway and
Transportation Officials; and the Transportation Research Board.

####  {#section .unnumbered}

## 1.2 Purpose and Need for the Forum {#purpose-and-need-for-the-forum .unnumbered}

The principal purpose of this Forum was to provide an opportunity for
participants to convene and examine both past accomplishments and future
prospects for multi-state/jurisdictional efforts. It was initiated by
the sponsors at the outset of discussions leading to the
reauthori--zation of the Transportation Equity Act of the Twenty-first
Century (TEA-21, enacted in 1998).

The need for the Forum has been evolving over the past few years, as
organizations between states, economic development groups, private
sector interests, and organizations of varying jurisdictions have been
assembled. Many organizations have been formed on an ad hoc basis, using
pooled funding approaches and/or Congressional earmarks to support their
activities. These multi-state and multi-jurisdictional coalitions
examine transportation, economic development, congestion and other
issues as an aid to implementing solutions that involve more than one
jurisdiction.

Regional approaches involving multiple states/jurisdictions need time
and continuing resources to fully develop and become more useful to
their constituents. Achieving transportation improvements on a regional
basis requires the sustained cooperation of many jurisdictions,
including States, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), the
private sector and other transportation and trade facilitation entities,
along with assistance from the federal government. This cooperation and
assistance can take a variety of shapes, from financial support through
research into components of a region-wide effort, to mechanisms to help
the new organizations financially as well as institutionally.

The principal goals and objectives of the Conference were: (1) to
examine issues and options surrounding the creation and operation of
multi-state/ jurisdictional formal and ad hoc coalitions and the
mechanisms needed for their existing support and coordination; and (2)
to lay out future options for continued development and continued
support of multi-state/jurisdictional coalitions.

Within these broad goals, the Conference was designed to investigate the
potential role of coalitions in the country's economic development. The
emerging global marketplace is thrusting new responsibilities on states
and regions, which compete for jobs and economic activity. Jurisdictions
across the nation are responding to these issues through the institution
of organizations designed to operate cooperatively to address common
problems. There is a gradual maturing of statewide transportation
planning and a need to coordinate with neighboring states.

The Conference was also designed to explore methods for organizations to
coordinate activities with one another. These new organizations are
being implemented and examined to deal with the proliferation of high
priority corridors, the national border crossing initiatives and new
economic alliances. Current indications are that this approach will
continue to develop and expand, and that additional multi-jurisdictional
groups will be formed.

A final goal was to examine the needs of existing and potential future
organizations to determine the methods of sustaining the organizations
in both financial and institutional terms. A part of this effort was to
look at multi-state and multi-jurisdictional efforts already in
operation to determine degrees of success and effectiveness in
cooperation and collaboration among members on common issues and
problems. This examination was aimed at provoking ideas on the future of
such multi-state/jurisdictional efforts and to address upcoming
legislation in the reauthorization of TEA-21.

The Forum on Multi-state/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues is part of
a comprehensive FHWA freight outreach program held from April through
December 2001, including events in St. Louis, MO; Long Beach, CA;
Detroit, MI; Memphis, TN; Brownsville, TX; Toronto, Canada; and
Washington, DC, and this event, which was held in Arlington, VA.
Programs from this series included issues of finance, operations,
planning, and logistics. In January 2002, a workshop was held at TRB to
present a variety of stakeholder (private or public) views of what is
needed for freight in the future.

Forum results were directed toward informing executive and legislative
decision-makers on policy options that will enhance America's
transportation network. Forum findings will also inform practitioners on
what is most effective in working with multi-state/jurisdictional
coordination and the reasons behind the varying degrees of
effectiveness.

## 1.3 Representation at the Forum {#representation-at-the-forum .unnumbered}

The Forum was held over two days to permit the presentation of ideas
from indivi­duals with diverse backgrounds, including federal agencies,
the private sector, and representatives from regional commissions,
coalitions, multi-state studies, state agencies, regional planning
agencies or Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs).

A total of 164 individuals from the transportation community attended
the Forum in Crystal City. Attendees came from a total of 33 states,
(including the District of Columbia), and one province of Canada to
discuss the potential for multi-state and multi-jurisdictional
approaches to solving transportation problems.

Attendees at the Forum represented diverse public and private sector
interests. A plurality of those attending represented state and local
agencies.

-   34% of those in attendance represented state trade or transportation
    agencies---principally Departments of Transportation (DOTs). Others
    represented multi-state organizations: the I--95 Corridor Coalition,
    Continental One, the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC), TRANSCOM
    (Multi-state transportation manage­ment around New York City), the
    Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, and the\
    I--69 (the Mid-Continent Highway Coalition, Inc., serving areas from
    Ontario to Texas).

-   30% of attendees represented private sector organizations, including
    transporta­tion consulting firms, American Bus Association, United
    Parcel Service (UPS), Grey­hound Bus Lines, AMTRAK, Motor Freight
    Carriers Association, Asso--ciation of American Railroads, and the
    American Trucking Association.

-   27% were from federal agencies: FHWA, the Federal Railroad
    Administration (FRA), the Federal Maritime Administration, the
    Federal Motor Carrier Safety Adminis­tra­tion, Office of Management
    and Budget (OMB), Oak Ridge National Laboratory Center for
    Transportation Analysis, and the U.S. Coast Guard.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ![](media/image2.wmf)9% were from local agencies, MPOs or regional
    planning organizations from Orlando, FL; Bellingham, WA; Los
    Angeles, CA; New Orleans, LA; Chicago, IL; Washington, DC;
    Wilmington, DE; Baltimore, MD; and Bridgeport, CT.

This report on the Proceedings of the Forum is organized to follow the
principal portions of the agenda for the Conference.

The initial portion of this report summarizes presentations at the
Plenary Sessions, and is called Foundations of Discussion. The
preparatory materials of the Introductions to both days of the
Conference and the presentation of the White Paper are included, along
with the opening Panel Discussion and the presentation by the Luncheon
Speaker.

The next section of the Proceedings focuses on Forum discussions based
on the Foundations materials. These discussions were held in small
groups of people, who were assigned the task of assessing the status of
current efforts in multi-state or multi-jurisdictional organizations
during the Day 1 discussions. In this report, breakout group discussions
are summarized for both days.

The final two sections of the report cover the open microphone
discussion by Forum participants, a review of events by the Forum
sponsors, and a sum--mary of the conclusions and achievements of the
Forum, leading to a discussion of potential future activities.

# FOUNDATIONS FOR DISCUSSION

The Forum opened its two-day session on June 18, 2001. On the first day,
presentations and panel discussions prepared participants for conference
discussions. Foundations for the Discussion were presented primarily
during the first day, with introductory remarks on both days to
challenge the participants. Breakout groups were organized for both
days. Discussions of existing multi-state/jurisdictional efforts took
place on Day 1 and the future of these organizations on Day 2. An open
microphone session and comments by conference sponsors concluded the
activities on Day 2.

## 2.1 Presentations and Panel Discussions {#presentations-and-panel-discussions .unnumbered}

Cynthia Burbank, Director of the Planning and Environment Core Business
Unit of FHWA, welcomed participants to the Forum, stating that issues
and problems surrounding multi-state/jurisdictional organizations are
becoming ever more important. Noting that 30 out of 60 metropolitan
areas involve multiple state jurisdictions, she asserted that we need
more emphasis on multi-state/jurisdictional efforts to counter the
growing economic effects of globalization, and potential impacts on our
future economy. World trade has mushroomed, partly as a result of
advances in technology (containerization, telecommunications etc.) and
as a result of eliminating barriers to trade. We have seen several
efforts (GATT---the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, NAFTA---the
North American Free Trade Agreement, and WTO---the World Trade
Organization) to lower tariffs and other barriers. We need to watch the
effects of changes in the European Union economy and how they coordinate
and integrate the transportation systems of each country.

During the 1990s, legislation charged the federal transportation
agencies with coordination between neighboring states, implementation of
programs such as high priority corridors, the Corridors and Borders
Program and integration of transportation efforts with organizations
such as the Appalachian Regional Commission. In the mid '90s, the
passage of NAFTA reflected major increases in truck traffic and
increasing interest in north/south multi-state corridors through the
Corridors and Borders programs. TEA-21 is challenging the institutional
structure of FHWA.

In thinking about preliminary steps leading to re-authorization of
federal funding assistance for transportation, we need to include
efforts that aid multi-state/jurisdictional planning efforts. We need to
look at options for funding needs with broader objectives. New thinking
is needed to assist stakeholders with working together, and the work
effort should include states, MPOs, local governments and private sector
interests. All transportation agencies on the federal, state, and local
levels will need to participate in this new effort.

## 2.2 The White Paper Presentation {#the-white-paper-presentation .unnumbered}

The White Paper, *Challenges with Multi-State/Jurisdictional
Transportation Issues*, was prepared as background.

Jim Covil of Wilbur Smith Associates presented the white paper to the
assembled participants. The white paper was prepared to show the value
of multi-jurisdictional coalitions, formed to transcend jurisdictional
borders and approach problems that are commonly experienced by
individual agencies and that cannot be addressed easily using
traditional approaches. The white paper illustrates the evolution of
multi-state alliances, examining seven organizations that now enjoy
participation from all but eleven of the lower forty-eight states. In
several instances, states are involved in more than one of the
multi-state groups.

The seven multi-state, multi-jurisdictional alliances and coalitions
comprise the following organizations, along with the states that are
included in each group:

-   I--95 Corridor Coalition (ME, NH, MA, VT, RI, CT, NY, NJ, PA, DE,
    MD, VA)

-   Latin America Trade and Transportation Study (LATTS) (TX, LA, AR,
    MS, AL, FL, GA, SC, NC, VA, WV, KY)

-   I--69 (Corridor 18) (MI, IN, KY, TN, MS, LA, TX)

-   Joint Working Committee/Binational Transportation Planning Study
    (CA, AZ, NM, TX, and Mexico)

-   International Mobility and Trade Corridor Project (WA and British
    Columbia)

-   Midwest Regional Rail Initiative (MN, WI, MI, OH, IN, IL, IA, MO,
    NE)

-   Appalachian Regional Commission (AL, MS, GA, SC, NC, TN, KY, VA, WV,
    OH, PA, NY)

These organizations were established to affirm and act upon many
different goals, including coordination of ITS (Intelligent
Transportation Systems) and other trans­por­tation improvements,
development of a new highway or regional rail system, economic
development and international trade, coordination of border crossing
investments and alleviation of border crossing congestion.

The white paper presented multi-state, multi-jurisdictional efforts as a
means of addressing transportation needs that cannot be met easily using
traditional methods. These include, for example, transportation needs
that cross-jurisdictional boundaries and cannot be addressed effectively
by one state or municipality alone. A single state agency typically acts
as the champion for the multi-state organization, recruiting members and
taking the lead in organizing and leading the new group. Agencies use
previous experience of working in multi-state settings to establish a
new group; for example, the transportation agencies have been accustomed
to membership in groups such as the Southeastern Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials (SASHTO).

Multi-state organizations are established with various degrees of
formality, and typically act as Forums, with no controlling or binding
authority on members. Operating in pursuit of shared interests, members
are involved on a voluntary basis and their commitment is influenced by
anticipated benefits. Major decisions for a coalition are resolved
outside formal settings and ratified formally at meetings.

Support for multi-state, multi-jurisdictional organizations can come
from private sector sources, financial participation by members, or
federal agencies. Private support is helpful if similar objectives are
shared with a coalition. Agencies can achieve a great deal by pooling
their resources, which allows flexibility in tackling larger issues and
broadens the scope of the work. Federal government support allows a
leveraging of state funds, as well as a means of addressing
multi-jurisdictional issues. Funding mechanisms for
multi-state/jurisdictional coalitions are an issue to be considered in
the reauthorization of transportation funds to follow TEA-21.

The principal value of multi-state, multi-jurisdictional organizations
is shown in the coordination between states or jurisdictions and the
consensus that can be constructed by using this mechanism. Coalitions
greatly advance the potential for development of projects across
jurisdictional boundaries, allowing members to achieve more than if each
of the members acted alone. Finally, multi-state efforts lead toward
unique uses of special funding from the states and from the federal
government.

## 2.3 Panel Presentations {#panel-presentations .unnumbered}

Panel Moderator Harry Harris of the Connecticut Department of
Transportation, opened the discussion by observing that forming
multi-state, multi-jurisdictional organizations is very American, noted
in the 18^th^ century by Alexis De Toqueville, who wrote "Americans like
to get together and share common problems." However, these organizations
do not rule out home rule, and Tip O'Neill's statement that "all
politics is local" sets an appropriate stage for our efforts.

John Baniak, Executive Director of the I--95 Corridor Coalition, in
discussing the coalition, noted that it is based on the economics of its
region, a mutual respect for each agency's autonomy, and an ability to
keep its members informed of issues and potential impacts. Although not
a legal entity, the group exists on the good will of its members and,
using pooled resources, supports a staff of four plus consultants. The
Coalition, formed to facilitate inter--agency coordination of
transportation services in the states from Virginia to Maine, pursues
its work through a series of program tracks in program management,
traveler information, commercial vehicle operations, intermodal
transfers of people and goods, and electronic payment services*.* Since
it began its work, the Coalition's focus has expanded from an emphasis
on highways to become more multi-modal and needs-based in its approach
to issues.

Jim Gosnell, Director of Planning and Policy for the Southern California
Association of Governments (SCAG), described his organization as a
multi-jurisdictional coalition, representing a region of 28,000 sq.
miles and touching three states (California, Arizona and Nevada) and
Mexico. The coalition affects Southern California MPOs, 188 communities
and 6 counties and one MPO in another state (Yuma, AZ). It is forming a
multi-jurisdictional organization with Nevada to seek additional
transportation funding, and with Baja del Norte in Mexico to coordinate
programs and processes in border crossings, trade, and air quality. Mr.
Gosnell pointed out that MPOs are not customarily involved with
coalitions, but frequently deal with multi-jurisdictional projects,
which may be included in state and regional TIPs. In view of emerging
global trade issues, he called for a national strategy for coalitions,
to help coordinate efforts and determine how coalitions might fit
together strategic--ally at the national level. He urged consideration
of the experience of non-transportation multi-state,
multi-jurisdictional organizations in areas such as energy/electricity,
maritime trade, and air quality.

Marlin Collier, Director of the Intermodal Office of the Mississippi
Department of Transportation, discussed the Latin American Trade and
Transportation Study (LATTS), a multi-state, multi-jurisdictional
organization of 13 states and Puerto Rico. LATTS was designed to deal
with growth issues resulting from trade with Latin American countries,
and coordi--nates activities with the I--69 coalition and I--10 corridor
groups and private sector organizations. Two committees were formed---a
steering committee of CEOs meeting annually at SASHTO meetings, and a
working committee comprising senior management from the member agencies.
A lead state was designated to deal with consultants for the coalition.
Given the highly competitive job attraction campaigns of member states,
the group came to an early determination that members should avoid
detrimental actions toward each other in this area. Meetings between
members are held on the basis of need; for example, at the end of a
task, or when a decision is essential. The flow of information between
states is directed by the lead state.

Ed Terry, Senior Transportation Advisor for the Appalachian Regional
Commission (ARC), discussed its formation in 1965 through Congressional
action. Thirteen states with a population of 22 million people are
represented in the Commission. The Commission represents multiple issues
for its jurisdictions. Transportation is integrated with the
organization's con--centrations in education, health care,
infrastructure, economic development and leadership. A special
initiative is underway in intermodal transportation. Project
implementation within the ARC territory is done through processes that
guide highway projects and Area Development Projects (ADDs). For
highways, the funding process includes ARC approval of corridor
location, termini, and eligible mileage to states, after which states
implement the project with FHWA assistance. For ADDs, a strategic plan
is approved by ARC, then states take the lead in submitting a strategy
and a proposal for ARC approval. Implementation of ADDs is under--taken
by local, state, or federal agencies, as appropriate. Congressional
directives give clout with federal agencies and offer separate federal
funding sources. Projects are initiated locally and state and federal
governments share project costs.

Tom Jensen, Public Affairs Manager, United Parcel Service, described his
firm's activities: 13 million package deliveries daily in 200 countries
by 330,000 U.S. employees and 20,000 abroad, using 70,000 vehicles, 300
owned airplanes, 200 leased airplanes, and major rail freight lines. The
principal values in transportation services are savings that UPS can
make in time or expenditures in a labor-intensive setting. UPS makes
regular decisions on whether to be involved in multi-state,
multi-jurisdictional organizations focused on transportation. The
company participates when it is clear that there are benefits to UPS and
when the results are customer-focused. The I--95 Corridor Coalition is a
good example of providing improvements in operations with greater safety
for UPS employees. Such organizations offer a unique synergy because of
the collective actions by members and a greater value is provided for
deliverables to companies such as UPS.

The luncheon speaker was Matthew Coogan, Consultant in Transportation,
who chose as his topic "Overcoming the Barriers---Looking for Models of
Collaboration." Mr. Coogan used several examples to illustrate his
message, ranging from multi-national/jurisdictional efforts in Sweden,
Denmark and the Netherlands, to examples from industry efforts in the
United States.

The first example of multi-jurisdictional arrangement is the newly
opened bridge that resulted from a unique binational compact to
construct the first bridge to cross the Oresund, an ocean passage
between Malmo, Sweden, and Copenhagen, Denmark. The rail/highway bridge
links the two halves of a newly enlarged metropolitan area to the
Copenhagen International Airport. The compact set the stage for
integrated metropolitan transportation planning and transformation of
tariff and fare systems in public transit service in both countries
using specially designed new institutional arrangements.

In the Netherlands, an information system for transit services on a
nationwide scale is being implemented. This system is based on
understanding the "full trip" of the customer. It will integrate
information concerning 50 companies' service offerings to and from all
addresses in the country. The service, available via a 900 telephone
number, will be operated by a firm owned by all fifty companies. The new
service will integrate transit services and provide information on how
to make a single transit trip, using the various companies; services to
complete the trip.

Two similar systems are planned by a coalition of passenger
transportation companies in Sweden. The new service will offer tickets
that can be purchased at lottery and wagering shops, located in
virtually every community in Sweden. An integrated dispatching program
is being developed in Gothenburg, Sweden, for separate transportation
services run by local hospitals, schools, elderly councils, and programs
for people with disabilities. This new service will be offered to
clients by many individual service providers, using joint dispatching
and management tools---a major form of horizontal integration of
services.

In the United States, Mr. Coogan noted that horizontal integration of
services has been accomplished in privately operated transportation
companies. In the freight industry, shippers integrate a package of
companies to transport the customer's goods over each link of the trip.
Federal Express has adopted a system to automatically select routes for
customers' shipments, which can route deliveries on ships, planes or
trucks owned by other companies, even UPS. In the aviation industry,
United Air Lines and Lufthansa have an arrangement for ticket purchases
that assigns the sale to the most logical carrier.

Describing this type of service as a "collaborative model of mobility,"
Mr. Coogan outlined a pattern of door-to-door services provided by
integrated logistics among the many partners providing services. He
noted that, in each case, the client deals with the integrated service
provider concerned with the door-to-door trip. In each case, information
technology is used to design, track, and evaluate the services provided.

Christine Johnson, Director of the FHWA Operations Core Business Unit
discussed the ways in which multi-state/jurisdictional issues and
concerns are changing the viewpoint of practitioners. As a result, the
future position of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations will be seen
increasingly as a basis for solving shared problems for both regions and
the nation.

Ms. Johnson used the example of freight transportation to illustrate
emerging concerns about future multi-state/jurisdictional issues. In
contrast with the public-sector functions and organizations stressed
earlier, freight transpor--tation is strongly grounded in the private
sector. Using the example of the Port of Charleston, SC, Ms. Johnson
showed the national scope of international freight that moves into and
through the port and is distributed to virtually all of the states
except Hawaii and Alaska, via several different modes of transportation.

For the future, we need to consider multi-state/jurisdiction coalitions
in the light of reauthorization of transportation funding. Three models
come to mind:

A.  Continuation of ad hoc coalitions---encourage, support, and provide
    leadership for states and other transportation interests to continue
    ad hoc arrangements.

B.  Federal enabling of coalitions---creating coalitions through
    partnering

C.  Federal creation of coalitions---directing creation and funding of
    multi-jurisdictional coalitions.

In addition to these three possibilities, there are two cross-cutting
issues:

A.  How to provide specific funding for multi-jurisdictional intermodal
    transportation planning and implementation;

B.  How to bring private and public sector funding for coalitions
    together.

Ms. Johnson challenged the breakout groups to create innovative ideas
for the future of multi-state, multi-jurisdictional organizations.

# CONFERENCE DISCUSSION

## 3.1 Introduction {#introduction .unnumbered}

Breakout groups of participants on both days of the Forum were
facilitated. Breakout groups were established as an important method of
fleshing out issues and considerations of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations in a variety of settings. Because of their importance to
the Conference, roughly three hours was devoted to each breakout
session, to allow for consideration of issues in some depth.

Breakout sessions were assembled with a balanced representation of
Conference attendees in each of six groups. These groups were assigned
on Day 1 to review existing efforts of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations and determine existing successes and issues. On Day 2,
groups discussed the future for multi-state/jurisdictional
decision-making.

On the first day, group assignments were based on geographic areas of
the multi-state/jurisdictional examples to allow consideration of issues
arising from known organizations working in either passenger or freight
transportation service areas, or both. (Individuals with national
interests were spread among the groups). On the second day, individual
participants were assigned randomly to the breakout groups.

On both days, topics offered for guidance in the breakout group
discussions included broad goals and needs served by coalitions, along
with examples of current multi-state/jurisdictional coalitions. For
each, the groups considered the coalitions' scope and scale, authority,
membership, interface relationships and interactions, funding, and how
well multi-state/jurisdictional groups are performing. The results of
discussions from both days are presented in composite form below,
representing concepts and discussions points from all of the groups.

## 3.2 Breakout Sessions on Existing Multi-State/Jurisdictional Coordination {#breakout-sessions-on-existing-multi-statejurisdictional-coordination .unnumbered}

On the first day, breakout groups were asked to consider the broad goals
and objectives of multi-state/jurisdictional groups and to evaluate
existing coalitions and coordination efforts. Breakout groups were
established to discuss and share insights on the current state of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations and the formal and informal
coordination that has developed to address issues. Each group was asked
to consider a single coalition---usually one with which groups members
had some contact or knowledge---from the various regions across the
country, in terms of the ways issues and relationships are being
tackled, and defining what's working well, what's proving to be a
challenge, any critical needs or gaps and lessons that are being
learned.

Breakout groups began discussions by considering the broad goals and
needs for coalitions. Coalitions are formed when states or other
jurisdictions perceive an issue or problem of mutual concern with
another jurisdiction or jurisdictions. Breakout groups made points,
summarized below, on the needs for a multi-state/jurisdictional
organization and goals and objectives that may meet these needs:

-   A single jurisdiction may not have the capability of dealing with
    the issue or problem alone. Transportation issues often reach across
    jurisdictional boundaries. The components of a problem may straddle
    jurisdictional borders or exceed the jurisdictional boundaries of an
    MPO or a single state.

-   Common goals for proceeding may be apparent---usually shared
    interests such as transportation congestion or economic
    development---and in some cases, both.

-   Information about mutual issues and potential approaches to problem
    solving may be shared through communication. Cross-pollination of
    ideas and approaches may be encouraged.

-   A non-traditional situation or issue (such as managing traffic
    incidents that affect more than one law enforcement jurisdiction)
    may suggest a multiple jurisdictional approach.

-   Funding needs may tend to drive issues leading to a coalition.
    Exploring options jointly may be less expensive than if pursued by
    individual agencies or private sector interests.

-   A coalition may provide a stimulus for categorical funding
    (earmarks) by the state or federal governments.

-   A multi-state/jurisdictional organization may help to build
    political support for a project or program locally and regionally.
    With a common issue based on shared interests, competition for
    funding between members may be avoided.

-   A multi-state/jurisdictional organization may engage public/private
    partnerships and obtain valuable political support from the private
    sector.

-   Time may be saved by working cooperatively.

Byproducts of multi-state/jurisdictional organization formation also
offer the following benefits to participating agencies:

-   A tendency to focus on systems larger than a single jurisdiction.

-   Development of projects or programs that go beyond a current
    planning process.

-   A basis for an atmosphere of trust between members.

-   Encouragement of networking between participants and the
    professional development of participants.

-   Exposure to new ideas or concepts and different ways of doing
    things.

-   Levels of technical sophistication may vary between jurisdictions,
    and a group approach can help coordinate operations and guide
    individual agency capabilities to a common standard.

## 3.3 Current Multi-State/Jurisdictional Examples {#current-multi-statejurisdictional-examples .unnumbered}

To articulate the characteristics of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations, participants examined, among others, the coalitions
presented in the White Paper prepared for the Conference. Organizations
discussed by breakout groups include: the I--95 Corridor Coalition,
TRANSCOM (in the tri-state region around New York City), the Appalachian
Regional Commission, Continental One, the I--69 Corridor, the Binational
Border Transportation Planning and Program Process, the International
Mobility Trade Corridor, and the Tri-state tourist information coalition
of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont.

### 3.3.1 Scope and Scale {#scope-and-scale .unnumbered}

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be formed in a variety of
ways to deal with specific issues perceived by constituents to be mutual
problems or opportunities. Most of the coalitions examined were based on
geographically adjacent jurisdictions, but originated in several
differing ways. Coalitions can originate with shared problems of
congestion and traffic management issues that affect more than one
state, such as the I-95 Corridor Coalition, which includes the twelve
states from Maine to Virginia. Coalitions can be formed to promote
specific economic development programs, such as the I--69 Corridor,
which includes states from Michigan to Texas as well as Ontario; and
Continental One, which includes states from New York to Florida and also
Ontario.

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be established to examine
international border issues of trade and security, such as the
Binational Border Transportation Planning and Program Process, along the
U.S.-Mexico border, (involving four U.S. states, six Mexican states and
representatives of federal agencies in both countries), and the
International Mobility Trade Corridor coalition (involving British
Columbia and the State of Washington, local governments and several
federal agencies).

The scale of issues addressed by multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations can vary as well. Coalitions can be based on pressing
needs of an economically depressed region, where both social issues and
transportation problems are addressed simultaneously, as in the
Appalachian Regional Commission. Multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations can address multi-modal transportation problems within a
region simultaneously, as with freight movement issues that encompass
highway, rail and marine interests. These organizations can be
established to work on shared traffic management problems that affect
multiple jurisdictions within a metropolitan area, such as TRANSCOM,
which deals with information sharing, construction coordination and
incident management in the metropolitan areas of the tri-state area of
New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut (approximately thirty counties).

### 3.3.2 Authority {#authority .unnumbered}

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be legally established
entities or informal organizations without legal standing. TRANSCOM is
an example of an independent nonprofit legal entity, operating under the
unanimous agreement of its 16 dues-paying members, who set up a
technical services group to monitor construction activity and to manage
information dissemination about transportation incidents in the New York
City region. The I--95 Corridor Coalition and the International Mobility
and Trade Corridor Projects have no formal legal standing, but are based
on shared interests in coordinating approaches to solve transportation
problems. A memorandum of understanding (MOU) between agencies was the
basis for the Binational Border Transportation Planning and Program
Process.

### 3.3.3 Membership {#membership .unnumbered}

Membership tends to include an array of public agencies and private
sector interests, operating within the region. For the I--95 Corridor
Coalition, membership includes state, regional and corridor (AMTRAK)
agencies providing transportation services in the area from Maine to
Virginia. In addition, the Coalition includes affiliated members,
including industry associations and the TRANSCOM coalition. Most
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations have some type of an executive
board, supplemented by committees for policy and finance, technical
operations, or a subcommittee for steering coalition work. The I--95
Corridor Coalition has program track committees, dealing with specific
ITS areas of interest to members.

Informal membership structures allow engagement of other agencies on an
issue-by-issue basis. The I--69 Coalition has membership from each of
the affected states, supported by a private organization called the
I--69 Mid-Continent Highway Coalition, and individual groups within each
state.

### 3.3.4 Interface {#interface .unnumbered}

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations typically include a large
number of interrelationships between agencies at various levels of
government. In some instances, states conduct individual contacts with
other states, metropolitan planning organizations, or motor vehicle
agencies. Program and project tracking reaches many of a coalition's
players who interface around a particular activity of interest to them.
Open meetings may allow opportunities for meeting individuals and
constituent groups beyond the regular members of a coalition.

For individual members of a multi-state/jurisdictional organization,
divergent interests may appear within a single region and a different
focus may be required for urban versus rural areas. Customers for
transportation services may have varied needs both within a coalition
and its member agencies, and particularly between modes. Funding
constraints can result in competition for funding of coalitions between
geographically separate coalitions and for subareas within coalition
boundaries.

### 3.3.5 Funding {#funding .unnumbered}

Sources of funding vary from high project priority federal funding to
state contributions from planning funds. The Appalachian Regional
Commission is a federally established organization, funded by Congress
since its establishment in 1965. Funds are allocated by ARC to its
member states based on development plans drawn up by each state. The
I--95 Corridor Coalition has high priority funding from ISTEA and
TEA-21. Funds are administered by volunteer state DOTs, and expenditures
are controlled by an Executive Board.

TRANSCOM's funding sources are principally state and local governments.
Dues are capped, but are based on budget and staffing to match needs.
The dues cap results in staff having to pursue other revenue sources,
which include private funding for public/private projects, consulting,
and revenues from the sale of information.

Several multi-state/jurisdictional organizations have been formed
privately or jointly sponsored by public and private organizations to
encourage state and federal agencies to consider new transportation
services. Both I--69 and Continental One are multi-state effort,
international efforts with private and public support.

## 3.4 Issues and Questions {#issues-and-questions .unnumbered}

In breakout group discussions, participants raised a host of wide
ranging issues. In many instances, the issues were posed as questions,
and, although some were answered by other participants, many remain in
the form of questions. Issues raised were centered on organizing a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization, its activities and federal
role(s), as noted of group questions summarized below.

### 3.4.1 Organizing a Multi-State/Jurisdictional Organization {#organizing-a-multi-statejurisdictional-organization .unnumbered}

-   What are the conditions that need to exist to establish a
    multi-state/jurisdictional organization? The perceived need for the
    group among the participants is essential. A broader community
    interest grows out of local needs. Constituents need a compelling
    reason to join. Members have to feel they are equal partners.

-   How should the scope of a multi-state/jurisdictional organization be
    defined? Clarity of definition of memberships and proposed roles is
    needed; understanding the scope may encourage membership. Coalition
    structures should have the ability to facilitate policy change or
    implementation of projects and programs through members.

-   How can we get all operators within the geographic area of the
    organization to become members? Which participant should be the
    champion to drive the work? How can the emphasis be directed toward
    a Forum where relationships can develop?

-   Can there be too many multi-state/jurisdictional organizations in a
    region? Participants questioned how best to deal with competing
    coalitions within a state or region. Can the existence of a group
    help or limit additional coalitions in the area? At what point do we
    have too many groups? How can we tell? Do we need a coalition of
    coalitions?

-   How do we tell if corridors are too large? Should they exceed
    metropolitan scale for most issues? How big is too big for a
    coalition to be effective?

-   How can a multi-state/jurisdictional organization be sunsetted?
    Since no permanent state or federal institutions are usually needed
    to carry out the work of a coalition, should there be some sunset
    provision?

### 3.4.2 Coalition Activities {#coalition-activities .unnumbered}

-   What are the conditions that need to exist to assure the success of
    a coalition? How can a coalition achieve momentum? It is helpful for
    a coalition to have a number of successes shortly after beginning
    its activities. How can a coalition build its strengths
    incrementally? Success may result from commitment of volunteers and
    member-driven programs.

-   How can the representatives of participants help coalition
    activities? A single participating organization may need to provide
    administrative support and logistics assistance. The highest level
    of support comes from representatives who can speak for their
    agencies.

-   How can coalitions such as MPOs become involved in the activities of
    other coalitions? MPOs provide overall metropolitan planning
    assistance, and project activities in a metropolitan region must be
    included in the MPO's Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). MPOs
    offer a regional perspective of its coalition of individual agencies
    in their area.

-   Should a coalition have implementation authority? The coalitions
    examined are typically not empowered to implement projects or
    programs; such powers remain with member agencies. Implementation of
    coalition studies and business functions are often accomplished
    through a single member of the coalition. Without implementation
    authority, a coalition is no threat to existing authorities.

-   How can coalitions become multi-modal? In many cases, the emphasis
    has been predominantly on highways. The I--95 Corridor Coalition's
    Mid-Atlantic Rail study has a multimodal focus. Freight movement
    issues are central to several coalitions and are coming to the fore
    in others, and they frequently involve interface between modes.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How far should a coalition go into planning? Should the focus be on
    the regional-level? Is EIS-level planning appropriate for joint
    projects?

-   Do corridors distort priorities for individual states? Do coalitions
    create a tension between priorities for the state versus priorities
    of a larger coalition that may differ from those of individual
    states? Are there similar potential tensions between
    multi-jurisdiction coalitions' priorities and national interests?

### 3.4.3 Federal Government Role {#federal-government-role .unnumbered}

-   Can multi-state/jurisdictional organizations exist and prosper
    without federal funding? Federal funding allows coalitions to
    establish a scale of effort that might not be possible without
    federal financial support. Lack of funding can be a self-limiting
    constraint. Seed funding on a sustained basis would help some
    coalitions develop.

-   Should the federal government review and revise its regulations and
    approaches to transportation planning and operations? There is
    strong emphasis in planning on capital improvements, but there is a
    growing recognition of the significance of operations and
    management. How do we achieve the right balance programmatically and
    in funding between transportation systems development on one hand,
    and operations and management on the other?

-   Should the federal government create and finance a series of
    regional coalitions? multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should
    be established only where a locally perceived need and interest is
    established. The size of the coalition also depends on local
    perceptions. The vision of a proposed focus for a coalition can
    determine its outcome; e.g., the lack of long-term planning can
    constrain short-term results.

-   Should major metropolitan centers receive separate funding within a
    multi-state/jurisdictional organization? The size of the group
    should relate to economic needs. Of the sixty largest metropolitan
    regions in the US, thirty are multi-state and they can compete with
    one another. Metropolitan nodes within regional corridors have
    multiple agencies and might need to receive separate funding.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Is there a greater national purpose that can be served by
    coalition-formation? For example, would this serve to further
    freight movement or more seamless passenger movement? What is the
    national vision in these areas?

### 3.4.4 Challenges Identified in Discussion {#challenges-identified-in-discussion .unnumbered}

Challenges emerged from consideration of existing
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations and how well they are working.
They provide grist for consideration of potential paths into the future,
in several categories: organizational basis for operations, continuity
of work efforts, process of establishing methods for group study and
reporting, and communication among members.

###  {#section-1 .unnumbered}

### 3.4.5 Organizational Issues {#organizational-issues .unnumbered}

Organizational issues are pervasive in group formation and maintenance.
Challenges begin with the determination of which individual or agency
should initiate and carry forward regional-level projects. Once begun,
challenges need to be faced in establishing continuity of leadership for
a multi-state/jurisdictional organization. Work products and
accomplishments are dependent on working toward stability of staff and
membership levels. In many instances, expanding the volunteer efforts of
member groups may be essential. Greater levels of participation in group
activities are essential, but are frequently forestalled by restrictive
travel policies, which inhibit participation by all coalition members.

###  {#section-2 .unnumbered}

### 3.4.6 Continuity Challenges {#continuity-challenges .unnumbered}

A basic challenge to existing multi-state/jurisdictional organizations
is finding a method of providing continuity for the organization.
Continuity may be principally a question of securing funding for the
programs and projects of the group, or it may be an issue of the degree
of institutional change required of members. In both instances,
continuity may translate into an issue of finding dedicated sources of
funding from either public or private sources. More regular funding can
result from continuing and encouraging the evolution of institutional
relationships between the participants, and on the degrees of success
that the group can attain in meeting its goals and objectives. A
potential issue or problem is agreeing to establish a set of measures by
which success can be determined, so that progress can be demonstrated.

###  {#section-3 .unnumbered}

### 3.4.7 Process Challenges {#process-challenges .unnumbered}

Conference participants identified several challenges to the process of
building and maintaining multi-state/jurisdictional organizations. A
threshold issue is the need to provide more support for freight-related
projects and programs. An additional concern focuses on examining
network impacts of improvements to sub-sectors of the transportation
network. Emphasis should be placed on the discipline of strategic
planning (plan our work and work our plan), and on collaborating---and
how it differs between planning and implementing programs and projects.
All coalition building requires thinking in terms of innovations, not
limitations. Much of the ultimate success of coalition building may
relate to establishing standards for technological development and
deployment, and increasing the focus on performance measurements.

### 3.4.8 Communication Challenges {#communication-challenges .unnumbered}

Communications are a major issue across a multi-state/jurisdictional
organization and between agencies and the private sector, including, in
some instances, multiple agencies within a jurisdiction. The need for
clear communications begins when a group defines clear goals, projects,
and programs. Subsequently, the organization should provide a steady
stream of information for distribution to all its constituents.
Communications are essential to establishing good interrelations among
participants, where building trust is key. Finally,
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can use communications in
maintaining a good relationship with federal funding agencies.

## 3.5 Day 1 Summary -- Themes and Issues {#day-1-summary-themes-and-issues .unnumbered}

Kathleen Stein, Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, presented an overview of
the proceedings of Day 1 to summarize the principal themes and issues
that arose from the presentations and subsequent discussions. These day
one themes and issues were highlighted:

### 3.5.1 Major Themes {#major-themes .unnumbered}

-   Think regionally (or globally), act locally. Existing
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations have worked hard to define
    and assert those regional concerns that cannot be readily dealt with
    by individual agencies. At the same time, the groups encourage
    implementation actions by individual agencies within jurisdictions
    that coordinate these actions with other agencies.

-   Partnerships are vital. Agreements that lead to joint consideration
    of issues and problems are essential between members. These
    agreements can extend across jurisdictions and borders of individual
    members, among varying levels of government, both inside and outside
    individual jurisdictions, and between public and private sectors.

-   Champions and grassroots support are key. Existing
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations have been formed by
    individuals and agencies acting as champions of the idea of members
    working together for common goals. Such organizations should have
    political and grass roots support for the actions of its members.

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations are fostered by compelling
    needs and shared interests. Existing coalitions have been formed
    around outstanding issues that affect all members. Organizations are
    centered on meeting needs that cannot be fully managed by agencies
    operating alone.

-   Win-win strategies sustain membership. Experience has shown that
    early successes that positively affect all participants are useful
    to demonstrate the utility of the coalition and potential benefits
    to participating members.

-   A customer focus is essential. Participating members agree that the
    purpose of the organization is primarily to benefit the customers of
    the agencies, while furthering the goals of the organization as
    well.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Key drivers of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations must be
    present. The impetus for the formation of such groups are
    typically (1) the need to maintain economic strength and support
    within jurisdictions; (2) the impending issues associated with
    global competitiveness and cooperation in economic endeavors;
    and (3) the need to support the smart development, operations, and
    use of transportation assets in furthering economic needs.

### 3.5.2 Issues Presented by Forum Participants {#issues-presented-by-forum-participants .unnumbered}

Questions by participants arose from the presentations and discussion.
Several of the issues that recurred throughout the Day 1 proceedings
were as follows:

-   How do we provide necessary funding?

-   How do we define "regions"?

-   How can we engage MPOs more actively?

-   How do we foster intermodal and multi-modal coalitions?

-   How big is too big?

-   Will "formalizing" multi-state/jurisdictional organizations stifle
    them?

-   What are appropriate roles for federal government? Inappropriate
    ones?

-   What legislative support is needed?

-   What are reasonable performance expectations? And who's to judge?

-   Do we need a coalition of coalitions?

### 3.5.3 Breakout Sessions on the Future of Multi-State/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues {#breakout-sessions-on-the-future-of-multi-statejurisdictional-transportation-issues .unnumbered}

On the second day of the Conference, breakout groups were formed to
examine the future of multi-state/jurisdictional decision-making and to
discuss and share insights on the Day 1 presentations of the current
state of multi-state/ jurisdictional organizations and the formal and
informal coordination that has developed to address issues. Groups were
asked to take a forward look at what might be done to make
multi-state/jurisdictional groups and cooperation processes more
effective. Each group was urged to build on lessons learned from current
examples and identify promising options, drawing on familiar examples
and innovative ideas.

In discussing the suggested topics, breakout groups elected to examine
future options in multi-state/jurisdiction decision-making in diverse
ways. For purposes of reporting the group findings, statements have been
grouped into the following categories: (1) evaluat­ing options for
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations; (2) formation and nature of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations; (3) government involvement in
multi-state/juris­dic­tional organizations; (4) private sector
involvement; and (5) a national vision for multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations.

### 3.5.4 Evaluating Options for Multi-state/Jurisdictional Organizations {#evaluating-options-for-multi-statejurisdictional-organizations .unnumbered}

In the future, multi-state/jurisdictional organizations will continue to
meet needs not satisfied in other ways. Breakout group participants
agreed that the formation and maintenance of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations should be continued in the absence of alternatives that
are as successful in working on the common interests of a diverse group
of participants.

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations might focus on systems and
regions, not just modes and corridors. An example is the planning that
leads to the merging of the rail and roadway freight systems with the
national need for continued economic development. Joining transportation
improvements and other public investment in infrastructure may be a
means to promote this form of economic development. In several of the
groups discussed in this Forum, economic development for a multi-state
region, as opposed to development of a national transportation system
that serves the region, has been viewed as the major purpose of
organizations' efforts. Several multi-state/jurisdictional organizations
have been encouraged to think about benefits derived from improvements
in systems and regions, not corridors.

Most groups agreed that the federal government could play a major role
in data gathering. In any national policy scenario, a nation-wide
database system could be developed for collection and analysis of
regional data. Staff would be required to carry forward such a data
management program on a consistent basis and perhaps to conduct planning
studies.

Breakout groups discussed three potential approaches to multi-state/
jurisdiction organizations, along with other aspects of future
multi-state/jurisdiction decision-making. Most of the breakout group
members concluded that the existing ad hoc basis for forming
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations was the most reasonable choice
for future and continuing organizational work, but that it could be
improved. The potential benefits of continuing the ad hoc model of group
formation include:

-   It is based on common interests.

-   It draws on proven experience that this approach works in existing
    coalitions.

-   It is likely to be preferred by private sector participants.

-   It avoids a one-size-fits-all approach.

-   Coalitions can sunset themselves---they don't have to last forever.

-   It allows innovation, tailored to the need of individual coalitions.

-   It does not exclude new models of coalitions that might develop.

-   It is based on best practices, which are preferable to guidance or
    directives.

The ad hoc approach to forming a multi-state/jurisdictional
organization, while good for relatively fast implementation of programs
and projects, is not a sufficient basis for strategic planning---it's a
"card table with shaky legs." A middle path might lead to a "steering
authority" role for multi-state jurisdictions. This option would provide
for a more powerful national planning role, in which AASHTO, USDOT, and
the governors would jointly develop a national strategic approach to
transportation issues. This national policy then could set a context for
sub-regional efforts. For example, a national freight policy could
become a focal point of national strategy, giving guidance to specific
improvements within corridors. Policy could be developed by a study
commission. Seed money grants could be based on this policy and used to
create a Forum for a multi-state/jurisdictional organization. The money
could be based on, potentially, a multi-state/jurisdictional TIP. A
federal effort that supports multi-state/jurisdictional organizations
toward creating a Forum for common interests would be good idea---a
national Forum of outreach to regions.

Breakout groups tended to disapprove of the "highly structured" model of
forming multi-state/jurisdictional organizations ---through federal
creation---because it is more difficult to establish, to change focus
once established or to sunset. In addition, mandates don't guarantee
success and may not be compelling for participation by private and less
traditional partners. Federal creation of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations may create potential for organizations in search of
funding, rather than based on real, shared needs.

By contrast, federal assistance to multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations could offer potential organization members a higher level
of comfort in participation. One of the breakout groups concluded that,
with or without federal financial support, the benefits derived from a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization, both public and private, should
not result in creation of another layer of bureaucracy. Leadership and a
sense of urgency around an issue or need can bring others together
around a shared interest and result in the formation of an alliance.
Commitment to that alliance fuels participation, which fosters success,
pride and ownership\...and usually the need for money.

The desire for multi-state/jurisdictional organizations to remain on an
ad hoc basis is stronger among those organization members who are
already involved in a successful alliance, because of ownership and
pride. Hence the fear and suspicion of the federal government
constraining or limiting funds by the issuance of "guidelines," no
matter how general their content. Some of those fears might be abated by
adding the federal supportive features that do not constrain in any way
the self-sufficient feeling that many alliances exhibit or affect
eligibility for funding.

### 3.5.5 Formation and Nature of Coalitions {#formation-and-nature-of-coalitions .unnumbered}

Although there is no prescriptive process of coalition-formation, groups
suggested that such a process for developing a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization might follow these steps:

(1) Identify the problem (choke points, impediments to flow) and define
    its magnitude.

(2) Build a constituency by identifying the beneficiaries of potential
    solutions to the problem. It is likely that different stakeholders
    may support different or multiple coalitions.

(3) Make the case for a joint solution to the problem, through
    marketing, persuasion and public consultation.

(4) Pose a business decision: is it worth collaborating with other
    jurisdictions to attack the problem? Is there a need for a
    multi-state/jurisdictional organization based on shared interests?

(5) Measure potential results of a multi-state/jurisdictional
    organization in the context of real results from existing groups.

(6) Identify a champion to aid formation of a multi-state/jurisdictional
    organization.

Most of the breakout groups could not foresee a politically viable way
to bring about a federally mandated method of forming
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations. This approach seems counter to
the way things are going with existing groups. It was estimated that the
private sector would not respond well to this proposal, although it is
noted that the private sector was not present in significant numbers for
this discussion (or at the Forum). There is a possibility that the
method may result in an unfunded mandate within programs where money is
in short supply. There is also a possibility that states might want to
be members of more than one multi-state/jurisdictional organization.

### 3.5.6 Government Involvement: Potential Federal Roles  {#government-involvement-potential-federal-roles .unnumbered}

Many breakout group discussions concentrated on the potential federal
role in assisting development of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations. Groups identified three major federal roles, with
specific activities under each:

\(1\) The federal government should articulate the rationale for a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization.

\- Describe a compelling national imperative or need, e.g. international
commerce.

\- Establish a basic national policy statement regarding
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.

\- Set out potential multi-state/jurisdictional organizations of
interest to states or regions -- defined by state or regions.

\- Help address challenges not met by existing entities and processes.

\(2\) The federal government should support the formation and
maintenance of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.

\- Determine which multi-state/jurisdictional organizations support
needs are in the national interest.

\- Share best practices and lessons learned to incubate and encourage
development of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.

\- Facilitate debate within and among multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations.

\- Assure results in performance of multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations.

\- Research performance measures for multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations

\(3\) The federal government should assist groups with supplemental
funding

\- Establish criteria for which endeavors might be funded with seed
money.

\- Provide seed money for efforts that satisfy criteria.

\- Increase flexibility of state and local funding to make groups easier
to support.

\- Continue earmarking of funding, as needed.

### 3.5.7 Organizational Support {#organizational-support .unnumbered}

Many groups noted that federal funds are not absolutely necessary for a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization. A memorandum of agreement or
understanding can be initiated without federal funding, but federal
assistance is desirable for sponsorship and sustainability. Other means
of federal support are helpful, such as national and/or regional data
collection and assistance with analyses.

Federal involvement might include descriptions of best practices in
formation and operation of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.
Instead of guidelines or regulations, examples may highlight appropriate
or potentially successful approaches, as well as the benefits that
accrue to membership in such groups.

Federal funds could be linked to sunsetting provisions that assure that
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations will have a limited life, based
on the accomplishment of its stated goals. Yet accommodation should be
allowed for a change of mission and activities after initial goals have
been met.

### 3.5.8 Federal Financial Support {#federal-financial-support .unnumbered}

A non-capital orientation for multi-state/jurisdictional organizations
may require seed money, perhaps for a significant period of time. Seed
money provides the necessary glue to keep the organization operating in
its formative years. Federal funding sources are seen as the best source
of seed money, and transportation funding tends to drive the issue of
group formation. Since economic development is frequently one of the
issues in a multi-state/jurisdictional organization, other agencies may
be able to assist.

Participants agreed that federal funds for multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations should not be taken from state obligation authority.
Across-the-board funding should be provided above the federal
obligation. One group suggested that national efforts to encourage
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should be very carefully
crafted and should be structured to avoid opportunistic formation of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations.

Participants suggested that federal funding assistance might be tied to
the structure of a multi-state/jurisdictional organization; for example,
a more complicated structure could imply the need for greater funding
levels, and less structure could imply a smaller need for funding
assistance. In short, the scope, structure and constituency of a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization may determine the funding
requirements and guide requests for federal funding assistance.

Breakout groups were concerned that federal funding for
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations was likely to be constrained
within a zero sum approach to the transportation program. When funding
sources are not expanding to accommodate new programs, some funding will
be taken from other worthy programs.

One group wondered if there could be federal tax incentives to
supplement the fixed pie of transportation funding, especially for
ITS-related operations technology. Another asked if to expand the
funding allocation to meet unmet (e.g. multi-state/jurisdictional
organization) needs would be possible. Still another asked if it would
be feasible to find funding for a multi-state/jurisdictional
organization in other federal programs -- e.g., programs supporting
economic development.

###  {#section-4 .unnumbered}

### 3.5.9 State and Local Government Involvement {#state-and-local-government-involvement .unnumbered}

Concern was expressed that priorities for multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations may create expectations among members that may not be met.
In addition, a priority for activities by such organizations may distort
the internal priorities of a state. For example, a state DOT may have to
put money into a multi-state/jurisdictional project that otherwise would
be a low priority for that state. This possibility suggests that giving
too much power to multi-state/jurisdictional organizations could become
a threat to state DOTs and MPOs and lead to competition for federal
funding.

It was noted that a state may have too many multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations based on corridors, with the result that the groups
compete with one another for funding. Such competition may result in
turf battles, suggesting the need for improved communication between
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations and other organizations, while
protecting the authority and funding of each.

Concerns were expressed about creating winners and losers among the
participants in a multi-state/jurisdictional organization. For example,
if the need for an improvement is regional in nature, but the needed
action takes place within a single jurisdiction of a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization, who should pay? How can this be
determined? Is there a need for an infrastructure bank to help in this
situation?

Formation and sustenance of a multi-state/jurisdictional organization
may depend on the willingness of its members -- state or local
governments and private partners - to commit resources. Resources need
not always be monetary, but could be donations of in-kind services or
space. One of the breakout groups suggested there might be a need to
question the value of such organizations if members do not volunteer
resources for them.

To supplement the process of state support for a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization, a coalition of multiple states
may need to solicit help from members of Congress, who can champion the
need for the joint endeavor in multiple states and designate funding for
the effort. Congress can also help in other ways, such as varying the
matching ratio that is required of the organization.

As an independent process, review of the viability and fundworthiness of
a coalition proposal or request could be conducted by peer groups.

### 3.5.10 MPO Involvement {#mpo-involvement .unnumbered}

MPOs are coalitions, but they have not generally been involved in
interregional coalition formation, though they usually represent
multiple jurisdictions and are a major mechanism for planning and
funding transportation improvements. MPO regions are the origin and
destination of both freight and passengers and can be major choke points
for freight and passenger traffic flows. One difficulty is that MPOs may
represent only a portion of an economic region -- united by commuting
patterns and interrelated economic activity. Within an economic region,
MPOs may not cover sufficient territory. One approach may be to get MPOs
to think about and fund projects jointly with other MPOs. For
multi-jurisdictional regions, MPO-level planning should perhaps be
supplemented by planning at a larger regional level that would include
additional jurisdictions.

MPOs may need to become more involved in multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations, and several factors will determine the success of gaining
such involvement. One problem may be getting MPOs beyond somewhat
parochial concerns; MPOs may want to be involved in specific corridor
work, but not larger regional issues. Rural areas may not see benefits
in joining an organization serving a metropolitan region. Some MPOs may
shy away from becoming involved in the exploration of issues that are
broader than they feel comfortable with.

There is a likely MPO issue in funding multi-state/jurisdictional
organizations, if they take federal funding away from existing resources
available to MPOs. Without such a conflict, MPOs might support such
organizations to a greater extent. On a project decision-making level,
MPOs should be involved because of their TIP role and because they are
potential resources in a region. Some form of buy-in from MPOs may
become important to the success of the efforts of a
multi-state/jurisdictional organization. In some cases it may be a
matter of timing: the MPO role may depend upon where a organization is
in terms of its development.

If a multi-state/jurisdictional organization operates as an advocacy
group for infrastructure improvements, it would be less likely to
threaten existing stakeholders, such as an MPO. The organization should
point out that it is unlikely to become a super MPO or a mini-FHWA
because of its relatively limited scope. However, a group is likely to
have a wider appeal than an MPO because it has a community of interest
that is different from an MPO.

### 3.5.11 Private Sector Involvement {#private-sector-involvement .unnumbered}

Forum participants, who did not include large numbers of representatives
of the private sector, suggested that the ad hoc nature of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations may be preferred by the private
sector. In the words of one participant, "the private sector makes do
with less than a perfect system." If private sector needs are already
being met by a multi-state/jurisdictional organization they may not
become heavily involved. On the other hand, private sector entities may
want to join if they see a specific benefit to be derived.

A plea for development of a multi-state/jurisdictional organization may
be led by the private sector. A champion of a such a group is important,
and the private sector may be encouraged to join as sponsors. In this
way, the private sector would have a stake in the success of the
organization.

###  {#section-5 .unnumbered}

### 3.5.12 A National Vision for Coalitions {#a-national-vision-for-coalitions .unnumbered}

A National Vision for Coalitions is a series of statements made by
participants in the Forum. These statements identified aspects of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations that could form the basis for a
national vision for coalitions. These include:

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations are formed by compelling
    needs and shared interests among organizations. A customer focus is
    essential to assure that the principal benefits are designed to help
    clients of the member organizations -- the end users of their
    services and facilities.

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should not compete with
    member functions, and should foster examination of systems and
    regions, not just modes and corridors. The federal government
    transportation agencies can encourage a national awareness of
    regional issues and a bigger regional picture.

-   Partnerships are the principal requirement of a
    multi-state/jurisdictional organization. The strengths of the
    organization are based on championing ideas and actions that have
    broad political and grass roots support.

-   Agreement can extend across jurisdictions and borders, among varying
    levels of government and between public and private sectors, and for
    metropolitan areas and economic regions. Multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations should encourage implementation by individual agencies
    that are coordinated with organization goals. Groups should come to
    an early determination that members should avoid detrimental
    competition with each other.

-   To the extent possible, transportation services should be offered
    through horizontal integration of providers, which would be based on
    coordination across companies, modes and geographic areas. To a
    large degree, this involves working with partners to address
    problems that extend across jurisdictions, and defining what
    elements multi-jurisdictional planning should include.

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should cooperate in
    establishing strategic goals and objectives for each organization.
    Activities of groups should encourage joint promotion for a local
    project that benefits a larger region. They should give extra effort
    toward initiating and funding regional studies that are intermodal
    in both freight and passenger transportation activities.

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations need to find ways to
    measure results of coalition activities, perhaps by looking at the
    costs and benefits of such groups to a region and to individual
    agencies. Intergovernmental agreement is essential to promote
    continuity of efforts by these organizations; non-government
    agencies may also need to become parties to agreements.

-   Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should integrate
    large-scale planning with other activities of their members. Members
    may need assistance to enhance organizational culture changes within
    DOTs and in transportation planning. Multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations can help transportation agencies throughout the
    country to examine and encourage thinking and acting on regional
    issues.

-   The federal government is a major actor in providing communications
    and data about the activities of multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations, their successes and opportunities, and lessons from
    present experience from corridor programs. Federal funding for
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations should be continuous and
    flexible to empower these organizations toward innovation and
    change. Funding mechanisms should encourage state, regional and
    local leveraging for additional funding or services.

-   A national strategy could help coordinate efforts and determine how
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations might fit strategically at
    the national level. Federal agencies could play a major role in data
    gathering. National leadership could help establish a set of
    measures by which coalition success can be determined.

## 3.6 Perspectives on Multi-State/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues {#perspectives-on-multi-statejurisdictional-transportation-issues .unnumbered}

### 3.6.1 Introduction {#introduction-1 .unnumbered}

An open microphone session was scheduled at midday on Day 2, to allow
participants to raise questions and issues that may not have had
sufficient attention or discussion in prior settings within the
Conference. Many questions were based on reports from breakout groups
and topics discussed within individual breakout groups. Responses came
from other participants and in some instances indicate the need for
additional research. The question session was concluded by sponsor
comments on the activities of the Conference.

Following are questions and comments raised in an open microphone
session during the second day of Forum. Questions raised during the open
microphone session are grouped below, according to the following
categories: (1) Definition of a region; (2) Options for structuring a
coalition; (3) Shifting the aims and purposes of a coalition; (4)
Support for coalitions: (5) Measurement of coalition progress.

### 3.6.2 The Definition of a Region {#the-definition-of-a-region .unnumbered}

-   What is a region? How big is too big for the region of a
    multi-state/jurisdiction organization? Response: Regional groups
    vary depending on purpose and a community of interests. There are
    not necessarily natural divisions between areas. They may be based
    on transportation or other systems. They may have different
    constituencies on different issues. We already have transportation
    management associations and MPOs and in some cases multi-state
    agencies serving very focused purposes, such as TRANSCOM. Market
    areas for labor or freight might become a focus for coalescing
    interests. There may be a danger of having too many such
    organizations.

-   How big should the I-95 Corridor Coalition be? Should it extend
    further south? North? Response: To the south, interest has been
    expressed from North Carolina, but this state is not currently
    active in the coalition. To the north, there is interest from
    Canadian jurisdictions and at least one MPO within the Corridor. The
    coalition addresses topics on an issue-by-issue basis, to determine
    its agenda of activities.

-   Why do regions necessarily need a geographic base? Response: Some
    contexts for regions are not particularly relevant to formation of
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations. For example,
    communications needs may not respect boundaries.

-   Is there a precedent in other legislation that might be relevant to
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations? Response: Most legislation
    does not cover the broad topics we are discussing here. There must
    be a pressing need to generate such groups.

-   How can we get broader and more inclusive multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations? Response: There is concern about the future of
    transportation policy. We might bring in the National Governors
    Association (NGA) to advocate for governor involvement and
    assistance in forming policy. Potential members could include
    environmental groups or contractors. In a 1996-97 survey, only ten
    of the 50 governors listed transportation as a top priority, yet the
    NGA involvement led to more transportation funding.

### 3.6.3 Options for Structuring Multi-state/Jurisdictional Organizations {#options-for-structuring-multi-statejurisdictional-organizations .unnumbered}

-   Is it essential to preserve the ad hoc nature of
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations? Response: The ad hoc
    nature of group formation should be preserved to encourage
    participation by the private sector. A possibility is to move toward
    slightly more federal involvement and encouragement: seed money
    provided by the federal government makes sense. Coalitions may
    evolve similar to the labor market scale -- could be more broadly
    structured. But whether a group will form can't be mandated; they
    will evolve or not, depending on jurisdictions' needs and interests.
    If institutionalized, they may chase off private participation.

### 3.6.4 Shifting the Aims and Purposes of a Multi-state/Jurisdictional Organization {#shifting-the-aims-and-purposes-of-a-multi-statejurisdictional-organization .unnumbered}

-   How can a multi-state/jurisdictional organization shift its purposes
    after success in initial goals? How can groups accelerate the pace
    of improvement? Response: multi-state/jurisdictional organizations
    should go slow at the beginning of their programs to form a sturdy
    basis for later activities. Small accomplishments are beneficial,
    and may help redefine larger organizational goals and approaches.

-   Should multi-state/jurisdictional organizations shift their sights
    over time? Is a sunset provision useful? If you tie such groups into
    the planning phase, perhaps they should get out when planning is
    completed. Response: A sunset provision might accomplish this. For
    implementation, the organization should act in a different manner,
    usually through its members. Another approach is to use ad hoc
    groups for implementation of specific projects or programs.
    Multi-state units might be implementing agents, working within a
    national vision (source unspecified) that would be prepared for the
    national transportation network. The organizations would provide the
    focus for discussion, staff efforts, consistent management for data
    and information that stays up to date, perhaps operating similar to
    earlier corridor planning studies, perhaps subject to sunset
    provisions.

### 3.6.5 Support for Multi-State/Jurisdictional Organizations {#support-for-multi-statejurisdictional-organizations .unnumbered}

-   How do we work together? Are we all competing for the same dollars?
    Response: It may be difficult to maintain dialogue when we are
    competing for money, but we need to continue to work together.
    Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations might move forward more
    broadly by geography and tasks. An e-mail group might help in
    communication between coalitions; the I-95 Corridor Coalition will
    take the lead, if there is interest among participants. Participants
    expressed such interest. A coalition is being formed on trade
    gateways; information will be circulated via e-mail.

-   Should there be additional funding for multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations? What does it take to make the funding pot larger? Is
    it really a zero-sum game? Response: We still have more needs than
    we can meet. There is a large disconnect between who benefits and
    who pays, and between corridor-wide projects and implementations by
    multiple jurisdictions. The Charleston, SC freight distribution
    patterns in Christine Johnson's presentation provided an example of
    service throughout the country from a single port. We need more
    public and private support for increasing investment. We need to
    examine potential unintended consequences from federal legislation,
    and potential collaboration on goals between DOT and other federal
    agencies.

-   Have we taken on impossibly large tasks, like supporting the
    national economy, when we aren't collaborating with other agencies
    that are focused on that? Response: The Appalachian Regional
    Commission is an example of a group taking on large, integrated
    tasks. This supports the national policy for transportation. Marine
    transportation partners are another example with many groups of
    beneficiaries. In another example, U.S. Coast Guard has worked
    jointly with EPA and TRANSCOM, among others, on joint goals.

-   Comment: It may be naïve to think that Congress can change the way
    they approach earmarks.

-   Comment: The public doesn't understand the interconnectivity of
    country's economic issues. Many people think projects benefit only
    one state. We need to change the way we do business in a fundamental
    way -- it is happening, but slowly. We should respond to outreach
    efforts and education needs of the public, and package information
    for elected officials. An understanding of interconnectivity may
    make groups obsolete ultimately, but for now they are still very
    boundary oriented. For example, regulations in federal immigration
    law make crossing the US/Canada border difficult -- too much paper
    work to fill out. This should be an impetus for change to assist in
    international trade.

-   Comment: It is increasingly difficult to add new capacity to
    systems. Don't allow yourself to be restricted by assumptions of
    what will happen in the future. For now, we should try to keep
    funding flexible for group efforts. We need a long-term strategy to
    have adequate funds, and to marshal supporters of initiatives.

### 3.6.6 Measurement of Organization Progress {#measurement-of-organization-progress .unnumbered}

-   What outcomes are we looking for in multi-state/jurisdictional
    organizations? How do we measure success within different
    approaches? How do you know you're getting the most results for the
    investment? Response: Measurements of a group's success and
    potential sustainability might include the number of in-kind
    services to ad hoc coalitions (i.e., staff services, the most common
    contribution by coalition members); member attendance at meetings;
    whether the stated mission is being moved forward; and continuous
    funding.

-   Are there potential *ex post facto* measurements of group
    accomplishment? Response: Economic development helps drive regional
    coalition work. One example came from the Appalachian Regional
    Commission, which cites the number of jobs, a reduction in the
    number of distressed counties, and the number of facilities
    completed as *ex post facto* measures of success.

-   Is it possible to predict outcomes? Can public opinion about
    multi-state/jurisdictional organizations be useful? Where do we want
    to end up? Response: Goals of transportation coalitions include
    reducing congestion and air quality problems, improving safety,
    adding economic development, and good monitoring of progress. Higher
    order benefits for many constituencies may result -- one example is
    the potential extension of rail lines to simplify ship-to-rail
    freight transfers. It's important to recognize that a Forum can't
    solve problems in one day, but that there is a value to dialogue
    between participants.

-   What can we learn from Scandinavia, the example presented by Matthew
    Coogan on day one of the Forum? Response: There is a fundamental
    attitude toward public sector roles and services in Scandinavia that
    is quite different in this country. We may need to step back and
    focus on the appropriate targets for group efforts. One example is
    the Woodrow Wilson Bridge on the Washington, DC Beltway that
    attracted funding from the private sector to help complete the NEPA
    process, and held forums and hearings to generate public information
    and to examine intermodal solutions.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Comment: A committee of AASHTO and TRB should be formed to provide
    further research on these subjects. Response: FHWA has already asked
    TRB to form a subcommittee on corridor management to address the
    needs for research.

-   Question: Will there be a written product of this Conference?

> Response: Yes, proceedings will be prepared and distributed to
> attendees.

### 3.6.7 Sponsor Comments {#sponsor-comments .unnumbered}

To conclude the Forum, sponsors of the Conference were asked to comment
on the proceedings of both the presentations and the discussions. The
sponsors elected to present their comments in the form of "What we
Heard/What we missed." The sponsor presentations are included in the
Appendix.

## 3.7 Comments: I-95 Corridor Coalition {#comments-i-95-corridor-coalition .unnumbered}

What we heard at this Conference:

-   Transportation agencies must get together on common issues and
    concerns to effectively address cross-border issues. In this
    instance it can be said succinctly: "Collaborate or die."

-   Coalitions thrive when there is less pain in belonging than not
    belonging, and they receive value for their participation. It is
    important that coalitions develop from perceived common needs and
    not from direction by outside agencies or governmental bodies.

-   Coalitions need a purpose. It is pointless to form coalitions for
    work that would otherwise be readily accomplished by agencies
    working alone.

What we missed at this Conference:

-   There was insufficient time for cross-fertilization and complete
    discussion of what works and does not work, how conflicts between
    agencies might be resolved, how to build consensus among agencies.
    Perhaps the examples chosen for illustrating coalitions were too
    diverse to accomplish these purposes.

Moving forward on the work of this Conference:

-   US DOT should pursue a public-private partnership to collect the
    data required for planning, operations/management, assessment, and
    private sector businesses under any scenario in TEA 22.

-   Coalitions should reach out more aggressively to MPOs for
    coordination and representation of new interests.

-   Matt Coogan's presentation solidified the views of many Coalition
    attendees regarding the need for informational system improvements
    through specific projects.

## 3.8 Comments: Transportation Research Board (TRB) {#comments-transportation-research-board-trb .unnumbered}

What we heard at this Conference:

-   Some states join coalitions to protect their individual interests --
    a slightly different motive than usually portrayed.

-   Many MPOs are not now included coalitions embracing economic
    regions, in the distribution of information or in continued
    communications and updates.

-   Financing is a significant, continuing factor for all coalition
    activities in all areas.

-   CAO turnover within member agencies is a challenge to continuity, if
    there is no commitment to coalition activities by successors.

What we missed at this Conference:

-   How to involve non-transportation interests in coalition efforts.

-   How to propose and undertake multi-state planning.

-   What kind of performance measures would be useful to coalitions?

-   How to include MPOs in the process of forming and managing
    coalitions?

Moving forward on the work of this Conference:

-   What are the issues beyond chasing funds?

-   Should reauthorization encourage coalitions through special funding
    categories?

## 3.9 Comments: the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) {#comments-the-american-association-of-state-highway-and-transportation-officials-aashto .unnumbered}

What we heard at this Conference:

-   State DOT's are deeply and actively involved in coalitions --
    intermodal, multi-jurisdictional, inter-sectoral -- departments
    without walls.

-   AASHTO has a number of related initiatives underway.

-   This Conference was valuable for highlighting the value of
    multi-jurisdictional coalitions and spotlighting best practices.

-   Multi-jurisdictional coalitions are clearly valuable for their
    creative, bridge-building and innovative initiatives. They should be
    encouraged and supported.

-   Coalitions should be purpose-driven; no issue is too small.

-   Several overlapping issues/objectives were discussed here:

\- Coalitions

\- Multi-jurisdictional planning & programs

\- Orphan projects

What we missed at this Conference:

-   Freight movement has not been given a suitable status in many
    coalition activities.

Moving forward on the work of this Conference:

-   Public understanding and support is essential to the success of
    coalitions.

-   Reauthorization of TEA-21 should include funding for coalitions. New
    spending depends on new money.

-   Do no harm (do not establish a national coalition program with
    detailed requirements and mandates).

-   Hinder the hinderances -- issues and problems should be faced
    directly and minimized.

-   Federalism is permanent and an opportunity to further the use of
    coalitions.

## 3.10 Comments: Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) {#comments-federal-highway-administration-fhwa .unnumbered}

What we heard at this Conference:

-   Demonstration of good examples of processes that are working.

-   Work of coalitions extends beyond traditional boundaries of states
    and other jurisdictions Attendees showed a general desire for less
    formal coalition constructs.

-   Attendees expressed an overall need to involve the people or parties
    affected by coalition activities within coalition territory.

-   Better data on coalition results and processes are needed.

-   Attendees demonstrated some support for flexibility in funding
    coalitions.

-   One size does not fit all -- coalitions vary in content and
    membership depending on specific goals and objectives.

-   No federal mandate is needed to fulfill coalition goals or
    objectives.

What we missed at this Conference:

-   Leadership goals and techniques.

-   Other solutions for specific coalition issues.

Moving forward on the work of this Conference:

-   Work towards re-focusing priorities to reflect collaboration (and
    include ONE DOT concept)

-   For the reauthorization of TEA-21, coalitions should float proposals
    for debate.

-   Coalitions need to work together to:

\- develop best practices and data sharing efforts,

\- bring people together,

\- change mind sets about traditional boundaries,

\- appreciate all of the parties who need to be at the table.

-   OVERALL: leadership is the challenge!

##  3.11 Day 2 Summary -- Themes and Issues {#day-2-summary-themes-and-issues .unnumbered}

During the Day 2 activities, Forum participants were challenged to
consider the future of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations using
the basis of information provided in the Day 1 presentations and
discussions. Day 2 was divided principally between breakout groups and
open microphone sessions for participants, followed by comments from the
Conference sponsors.

Breakout groups suggested a wide variety of future actions to benefit
coalition building and support.

#  CONCLUSIONS: ACHIEVEMENTS OF THE FORUM

## 4.1 Introduction {#introduction-2 .unnumbered}

The Forum on Multi-State/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues concluded
after two days of discussions and deliberations about current successes
and issues, as well as future opportunities. For participants, the work
of the Forum was to outline the process and issues ahead for coalition
formation and supportive maintenance. For agencies, the Forum pointed
out current attitudes and concerns about the direction that current
and/or future coalitions may pursue.

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations are becoming ever more
important as a means of addressing transportation needs that
cross-jurisdictional boundaries and cannot be met using traditional
methods. Key points on multi-state/jurisdictional organizations made by
presenters and highlighted in the discussions cover the need for these
organizations, the foundation for creating them, membership and funding.
The following text is a synthesis of the key points.

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations typically act as Forums with no
controlling or binding authority on members, who are involved on a
voluntary basis. Resources can be public or private, including pooling
to tackle large issues. These organizations can build political support
locally and regionally, avoiding competition among members and creating
a stimulus for private sector participation and categorical funding by
state or federal governments.

Multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be based on shared borders,
mutual problems and opportunities, and/or economic development. They are
usually based on a shared, compelling need. Scale of the geographic
coverage can vary from an interstate bridge to a multi-state economic
region. Coalitions can be legally established entities or
information-sharing organizations without legal standing. Membership can
include affected jurisdictions and affiliations with organizations such
as industry associations. Coalitions typically involve a large number of
interrelationships among agencies at different levels of government.
Work efforts of coalitions and resource sharing may help the nation
compete more effectively in the global economy. Seamless freight
movement and passenger transportation are goals of competing nations.

Future options may include a collaborative model of mobility -- a
pattern of door-to-door services provided by integrated logistics among
the many partners providing services. Information technology can be used
to design, track and evaluate the services provided.

Funding sources include varying degrees of local/regional input and
federal assistance, and range from earmarked state or federal funds to
dues from state or local members. Preliminary steps leading to
reauthorization of federal transportation funding assistance to aid
multi-state/jurisdictional efforts should continue existing support and
expand upon current efforts. There should be no unfunded mandates.

## 4.2 Achievements of the Forum {#achievements-of-the-forum .unnumbered}

The Forum successfully initiated discussion on
multi-state/jurisdictional transportation planning and project
implementation. Research identified several examples of
multi-state/jurisdictional organizations that were created to address:
l.) Transportation problems across state boundaries; 2). Economic growth
and development; 3). Traffic issues associated with growing trade
corridors (such as NAFTA) across multiple boundaries. The discussion
reviewed the case studies, identified strengths and weaknesses and
considered the future of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations. The
variety of people attending the Forum ensured a rich discussion of
issues and solutions. It was uniformly agreed that more information is
needed on existing multi-jurisdictional organizations and how they
operate. The Forum attendees supported continued outreach efforts on
multi-state/jurisdictional problem solving.

Key observations resulting from the Forum are:

-   Successes of multi-state/jurisdictional organizations can be
    demonstrated in a variety of settings, based on existing coalitions
    designed to deal with regional highway corridors, traffic
    information sharing, freight pickup and delivery, economic regions,
    border crossing issues and rail service areas.

-   Informal models of coalition formation and support are the preferred
    methods for the near future, with varying degrees of federal help to
    enable the agencies involved to cooperate effectively for the common
    good.

-   The extent of communication among coalition participants encourages
    information sharing about mutual issues, approaches to problem
    solving, and cross-pollination of ideas and approaches.

-   Funding for start-up and continued support for coalitions is
    essential, but frequently difficult to maintain without national and
    multi-state leadership.

-   Federal funding allows coalitions to establish a scale of effort not
    achievable by states working alone.

-   Working together on funding may result in achieving stability of
    staff and membership levels as a basis for expanding volunteer
    efforts of members.

-   Potential challenges are the number of coalitions competing for
    limited funds, the degree and perception of success achieved by a
    coalition - potential distortion of priorities within the states -
    and overlapping with affected organizations, such as MPOs.

##  4.3 Follow-up to the Conference {#follow-up-to-the-conference .unnumbered}

Participants in the Forum discussed activities that the Federal
government might pursue on behalf of coalition formation and support.
These included:

-   Continue federal funding assistance for multi-state/jurisdictional
    coalition support.

-   Look for lessons from present experience from federal corridor
    programs.

-   Increase federal government staff awareness of regional issues and a
    bigger regional picture.

-   Include freight considerations in support of
    multi-state/jurisdictional coalition efforts.

-   Examine bifurcations in federal regulations that inhibit multi-modal
    planning.

-   Tie multi-jurisdictional planning to funding sources.

-   Provide more flexibility in funding.

-   Avoid stove piping (i.e., a vertically structured, bureaucratic
    organization that limits exploration of issues).

-   Use public funding in support of private efforts on behalf of
    coalitions.

-   Explore the problems of paying for a local project that benefits a
    larger region.

-   Encourage looking at interregional issues in planning regulations.

-   Find ways to measure results of coalition activities, perhaps by the
    costs and benefits of coalitions to a region and individual
    agencies.

-   Establish specifications for better data to help coalitions.

-   Examine methods of promoting continuity of effort among coalition
    members.

-   Provide minutes or proceeds of all FHWA outreach events for
    distribution to participants in CD format.

Forum participants discussed ways for federal agencies, states, local
governments or other jurisdictions to follow up on the issues and
questions raised during Conference activities. These included:

-   Examine and encourage thinking and acting on regional issues in
    transportation agencies throughout the country.

-   Act as a champion for a coalition; find partners and build grass
    roots and political support for coalition activities.

-   Base coalition activities on strategic planning for the coalition
    and its members.

-   Further the goals of coalition members by establishing a customer
    focus for coalition actions.

-   Work with partners to address problems that extend across
    jurisdictions.

-   Define what elements multi-jurisdictional planning should include.

-   Look for ways to sustain and empower coalitions as they do their
    work.

-   Balance coalition powers so that they do not compete with or
    threaten the organizations that make them up.

-   Promote and fund regional studies that are intermodal.

-   Foster organizational culture changes that support coalitions within
    DOTs and in transportation planning.

-   Find ways to integrate large-scale coalition planning with other
    member activities.

-   Look for regional opportunities for coalition activities.

-   Accelerate the pace of program implementation for freight movement.

-   Encourage federal government involvement in coalitions.

-   Think in terms of innovations, not limitations.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-