# Presentation: 352125

## The Development and Evolution of the I-95 Corridor Coalition:  Think Regionally - Act Locally

**John Baniak**
**Executive Director, I-95 Corridor Coalition**
**Multi-State/Jurisdictional Transportation Issues Forum**
**June 18 – 19, 2001**
**Crystal City, VA**

**Notes:**
Introduction of self

## The Coalition is....

**A partnership of transportation agencies from Maine to Virginia**
**A successful model for interagency cooperation and coordination since the early 1990’s**

**Notes:**
Self-explanatory

## Coalition Partners

**Maine**
**Vermont**
**New Hampshire**
**Massachusetts**
**Rhode Island**
**Connecticut**
**New York**
**Pennsylvania**
**New Jersey**
**Delaware**
**Maryland**
**District of Columbia**
**Virginia**

**State and Local Departments of    ****	****Transportation**
**Transportation Authorities**
**Transit and Rail Agencies**
**Motor Vehicle Agencies**
**State Police/Law Enforcement**
**U.S. Department of**
**	****	****Transportation**
**Transportation Industry **
**	****	****Associations**

**Corridor Boundaries**

## Vision

**The transportation network in the corridor will be safe, efficient, seamless, intermodal and will support economic growth in an environmentally responsive manner.**

**We are working together to improve transportation services and operations in the Northeast Corridor through coordinated implementation of advanced technology.**

_***Mission***_

**Notes:**
Both the vision and mission have remained stable since the Coalition’s formation, with occasional word shifts or additions.

## Goals

**Mobility.................*****..Time***
**Safety...................*****..Lives***
**Economic Vitality...*****..$$$$***

**Notes:**
The goals of the Coalition equate to Time, Lives and $

## Why Was the Coalition Formed?

_**The Context**_
**12 State area**
**6.2 % of the U.S. landmass**
**25% of the U.S. population**
**26+ autonomous transportation agencies**

**Notes:**
To understand why the Coalition was formed, it’s important to understand the context:

12 states  (24% of the U.S states) covering only 6.2% of the U.S. landmass, but holding nearly 25% of the population

Transportation services provided by over 26 autonomous agencies

13 major airports

dozens of railway stations, 11 major seaports

30,000 miles of highway

more than 250 billion vehicle-miles traveled annually on the region’s highways  

## If the Corridor were California......it would be analyzed as a single entity

**Notes:**
For comparison, California has many similarities in size, densities and transportation issues, but is a single state.....not 12 states plus a District (DC)

If the Maine - Virginia corridor were California, it would be analyzed as one entity! 

## The Customers

**Needed travel information**
**Concerned about increasing congestion**
**Traveled across multiple jurisdictions**
**Desired improved services**

**Notes:**
Still looking at the context:
What was happening with the customers?

They were not happy campers.
Travel information was not available for pre-trip or en-route use.
Experiencing delays from traffic became the norm
A typical trip meant using at least two or more transportation agencies’ facilities, often paying a toll, with little uniformity in operational approach

Customers weren’t thought of as customers!

Customers expected improved services and didn’t want to hear excuses about who was or wasn’t responsible.  

Customers had a right to expect that then, as they still do today!   

## The Partnering Agencies

**Recognized the impact of congestion**
**  **
**Couldn’t solve traffic issues by just building more capacity**
**Took action to improve operations through information & coordination**

**Notes:**
Agencies recognized that delays from congestion were impacting the economy,  the quality of the air, and the safety of the highway drivers.  Congestion in the corridor was having a negative impact on the quality of life.  

Until then, the approach had been to build out of congestion -- finish the Interstates, build additional lanes and even new roads. 

By this time, agencies were constrained by the geography and density of population in their jurisdictions, so that just building more roads wasn’t the answer. 

Some individual transportation agencies began to recognize that they could expand the capacity of their existing systems by improving their operation and management.   
Some of these approaches were emergency service patrols, computerized signal and intersection improvements.  A few agencies were building Traffic Operations Centers    

## Organizational Structure

**Executive Board**

**Steering Committee**

**Executive Director/Staff**

**Affiliates**

**Program Track Committees**

**PTC #1: Program Management**

**PTC #2: Inter-regional Multimodal Travel Information**

**PTC #3: Coordinated Incident Management**

**PTC #4: Commercial Vehicle Operations**

**PTC #5: Intermodal Transfer of People/Goods**

**PTC #6: Electronic Payment Services**

**Notes:**
The organizational structure has evolved slightly since the Coalition was formed. 

(Point to the part that has stayed constant and highlight that it is the core program implementation structure that has changed.)

## Organization Structure Evolution

**Expanded Role of Volunteers**
**Executives’ Guidance**
**Staff Commitment**
**Consultant Support**

**Notes:**
Volunteers have remained a constant
Executive and Steering levels provide guidance and policy development
All decision-making is by consensus
Initially some Executives had a strong -- passionate -- leadership role
Their leadership helped to insure success
Today’s institutional credibility allows Executives to guide & set priorities
Details are left to staff and committees
Full-time staff began early with one position that was loaned
Staff have expanded to meet needs of program
	Administrative Manager  
	Technical and Program Coordinator
	Executive Director
	Contract Manager  
A team of consultants with broad ITS experience support the Coalition 	  program implementation.

_***Organizational Structure Evolution***_

**Notes:**
Original Business Plan used  4 Working Groups to guide general program
5th group - CVO - was added after study recommendation
Technical Review Committees (volunteers/consultants) led each project
Outcome-based Program Tracks were developed in 1998
used as basis for business plan development and for 		   organizational structure
optimize involvement of agencies without more layers
Highway Operations Group (HOGS) developed regional spin-offs
Commercial Vehicle Operations Working group became a track
Budget and Policy became Program Management with a dual role
	training, cross-cutting, emerging issues,
Public/Private Partnerships as a separate group didn’t work
FRAT dissolved -- didn’t make sense as a stand-along group
new tracks were added:  Intermodal, EPS, and Inter-regional travel info
Programs Tracks are the pivotal balance in the top down/bottom up flow of the program development and implementation

## Program Development Evolution 

**Studies of ITS areas**
**Field tests **
**Highway operations focus**
**Outcome-based projects**
**Facilitating and adding value**
**Multi-modal and Intermodal**

**Notes:**
Program has evolved considerably
Early business plans were laundry list of projects
study of specific areas of ITS such as HAR, surveillance,etc.looking for potential corridor application
This approach was later recognized as solutions looking for problems  
some study results suggested models for new regional operating organizations (thing regionally -- act regionally), but the members didn’t agree 
moved to field tests of specific technological solutions in a coordinated, regional setting -- using multiple agencies with the Coalition “leading”.
Active efforts were still very highway focused and formed the initial credibility of the Coalition 

changed the business approach to a series of outcome-based areas for which specific goals, objectives and tactics could be developed
 more focus on adding value to member agency efforts by facilitating the exchange of information & experiences and supporting projects
Non-highway modes and intermodal links became a program priority
GIVE EXAMPLES here if there’s time  

## Executive Guidance

**Focus on Goals and Objectives**
**Plan for the Longer Term**
**Consider Intermodal Needs**
**Consider Information Exchange, Education and Training Needs**
**Identify Opportunities to Work with Other Organizations**
**Assess Performance**
**Corridor Wide Information**

## Challenges: Administrative

***GOVERNANCE***
**No By-Laws **
**Use Procedural Guidelines**
**Encourage consensus**
***FUNDING***
**Federal Funds flow to States**
**Agencies administer on behalf of Coalition**

**Notes:**

Coalition has deliberately functioned without by-laws - it’s part of the culture of the organization not to have them.

Once processes are used successfully, or questions answered about how the Coalition should function, they are memorialized in procedural guidelines

CHALLENGE:  to function consistently and efficiently, but not to become 	bureaucratic

Administration of federal funds is accomplished through the member States, using the State-federal processes for obligation and reimbursement

Although cumbersome, that process has worked, but the number of active projects is growing, and the processes will soon overshadow the outcomes!

CHALLENGE:  find new ways for federal funds to be administered in an 		appropriate yet streamlined manner

## Challenges: Administrative

***CONTRACTING***
**Individual states procure services**
**Assisted by one large team of consultants****  **
***STAFFING***
**Individual staff “on loan” from members **
**Member agency reimbursed for costs**

**Notes:**
When contracts are needed, a state procures the services on behalf of the Coalition.
To streamline as much as possible, one large team of multi-skilled consultants was sought in 1998 to reduce the number of project-specific full procurement processes required
	and to implement more of a task order approach.

CHALLENGE:  To use competitive procurement processes in a manner that doesn’t drain the administrative and management resources of the Coalition  

Full-time staff are first recruited from member Agencies (as loans) and then from individual contractors as a second choice.

CHALLENGE:  To find the right people for the jobs while minimizing administrative processes to pay them!

## Challenges:  The Future

**Organizational Governance Structure**
**Program Development and Funding**
**Facilitate Integrated Deployment **
**Strengthen Intermodal Seamlessness**

**Notes:**
Challenge:  constantly review the internal structure to optimize input and 		decision-making from volunteers and make best use of staff and 	consultant resources  WHILE STILL MAINTAINING THE 	CULTURE

Challenge:    CONTINUE TO stay responsive to the national agenda, stay responsive to the agencies in a corridor of many regions, many modes, and many needs, undertake or fund what a single agency could not do alone, focus on seamlessness through interconnectivity, interoperability, and integration
ADD VALUE   ADD VALUE   ADD VALUE

Challenge:  Keep aware of emerging technologies and how they can be used....without getting caught in the pattern of identifying solutions looking for problems.

Challenge:  Make a contribution in the multi and intermodal arenas that are as strong as the highway operations legacy for the Coalition

New initiatives such as ISCOM will help to do this.  

## Changing Culture

- _Old_
**Independent Modes**
**Local Focus**
**Independent Jurisdictions**
**Users**
**Build**

- _New_
**Intermodal**
**Regional Focus**
**Coalitions/Seamlessness**
**Customers**
**Manage/Operate**

## The 6 C’s 

**    ****Coordination**
**    ****Communication**
**    ****Consensus**
**    ****Credibility**
**    ****Commitment**

_***The 6 C’s ***_
_***of the I-95 Corridor Coalition***_

**Notes:**
So where did we come from and where are we going?  

From the very early days of the Coalition, the values, program and culture were characterized by what we called the 4 C’s:

cooperation, coordination, communication, and consensus

As we have evolved, we can add two more:

credibility and commitment 

These 6 C’s represent the Coalition today and stand not only for our enduring values, but also for our desired future.

## THINK REGIONALLY

***ACT LOCALLY***

_***I-95 Corridor Coalition Commitment***_

**Notes:**
The Coalition remains a “virtual” organization with many agency members and hundreds of volunteers from those agencies who participate in a variety of ways and who represent an incredible array of transportation modes, issues and interests.  

Each of those member agencies will act locally when it comes to decisions for their own agencies..........but, they have evolved since 1993 into thinking regionally about their operations, and then acting locally....because of their involvement in the I-95 Corridor Coalition..

A FINAL CHALLENGE:  REAUTHORIZATION

The Coalition represents the kind of thinking about regional operations  that USDOT is talking about in its national agenda -- and has demonstrated success and commitment.

The Coalition is up to the challenge of continuing to demonstrate the value of regional coordination in multiple modes and between modes of transportation.    

## Upcoming Event

**Regional Workshop on National Operations Initiative**
**Albany, NY - July 26 & 27**

**www.i95coalition.org**