Chapter Seven

Recommendations

The findings overall point to a number of problems and limitations with transportation system planning practices and funding priorities that affect the state's ability to meet existing and future service demands placed on this system. While a considerable amount of ConnDOT's time, efforts, and other resources are spent on planning, a critical element is lacking. This is the absence of strategic thinking and action, at all levels of decision making, to address the critical issues that impact the performance and productivity of Connecticut's transportation system and have the potential to influence the state's economic success.

As discussed in the previous chapter, the processes, organization and orientation of the state's transportation planning efforts are not sufficiently responsive to the state's overall economic needs. Certainly the department has substantially improved the physical condition of the transportation network compared to 20 years ago. However, the environment surrounding the transportation policy area and the expectations placed on the department have changed considerably. A number of factors including shifting demographics, increased service use and demand, a volatile and competitive global economy, competition for public funds (and budget caps), expanding demands made by underserved populations, and the need to balance modal interests have created a challenging climate that threatens the department's ability to adequately fulfill its responsibilities. Consequently, the state's response to citizen and business mobility requirements and how this is considered in relation to other policy areas requires change as well.

To that end, the committee offers a raft of recommendations that taken together provide a basis for thoughtful, measured, and comprehensive change in how the state approaches the transportation function. It is important to emphasize the proposed changes are to the transportation function and not just the department, though significant changes need to occur in the agency as well.

This enlarged view attempts to account for the blurring of organizational boundaries within this policy area where no one organization is fully in charge, and yet many are involved, affected, or have a responsibility to act. To address this increased jurisdictional ambiguity, the first four recommendations are aimed at improving decision making, by promoting strategic thinking and action, and enhancing organizational response. The last recommendation, after considering a range of options, proposes a new type of entity to act as a change agent, responsible for overseeing and guiding this effort.

Because the last recommendation identifies the organization to be responsible for implementing the initial recommendations, the text of the initial recommendations does not indicate who should implement the recommendations

Create a Vision for the Transportation System and Revise the Mission of the Department of Transportation

The Connecticut Department of Transportation does not have a vision statement for the transportation system and the agency's mission does not fully capture the changed role ConnDOT needs to embrace.

Vision

It is important to identify where the state wants be in the near future. A vision statement provides a future orientation and is a picture of success. It describes where the state transportation network is going and where it should be. A vision statement also has to be realistic and have a probability of coming true in order to be convincing and useful.

Benefits. A number of benefits flow from a clear, succinct, inspiring, and widely shared vision of success. A vision of success makes it easier for people to discriminate between preferred and undesirable actions. The more specific and reasonable the vision, the more organizational members are supported in their pursuit of the vision, and thus the more likely the vision will be realized. It provides a way to claim the future; that is not just predict the future but also make it.

The creation of a vision statement will help foster some consensus and provide inspiration and guidance for the rest of the strategic planning process described in the following recommendation. It will help to provide a better sense for where strategy or an interconnected set of strategies should lead. The vision may be revised or become more detailed as the strategic plan development process proceeds.

Mission

A mission statement is a declaration of organizational purpose. It enables all members of the organization to share in the same view of the goals, philosophy, and direction of the agency.

Benefits. A number of benefits can be identified from clarifying and agreeing on an organization's mission, including:

• helping to focus discussion on what is important;
• clarifying organizational purpose. (Provides more effective leadership by making clear the purpose of the organizational structures and systems and resource allocation system); and
• assisting in getting employees and other stakeholders to invest in a goal other than self-interest and help mobilize organizational energies around a common purpose.

The creation of a vision statement for the transportation system will require a reexamination of ConnDOT's mission statement and how the department relates to the new vision. ConnDOT's stated mission is, "to provide a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system that meets the mobility needs of its users." Concepts such as safe, efficient and cost-effective are important, but fairly narrowly drawn. The current mission statement does not emphasize the transportation's role in economic development.

ConnDOT clearly has a part to play in the economic success of Connecticut from providing mobility and responding to just-in-time economic pressures, to recognizing its role in improving the quality of life within the state. While the department's current mission mentions meeting the mobility needs of users, which is an important aspect of ensuring the productivity of the system, the department relegates specific economic development concerns and the general provision of required capacity to last in its order of investment priorities. In practice, the majority of the funds received by the department have been for the upkeep of the current transportation system.

A well-developed, reliable transportation system is crucial to the growth and economic vitality of the state and requires a comprehensive network of multimodal components to work together to provide the efficient transport of goods, services, and people. Given the success of the department in rehabilitating the transportation system over the last 15 years, the expanding economy, and the increasing pressures on the state to remain competitive within a global context, a reexamination of its mission and function is warranted.

Program review committee recommends:

A vision statement for the state's transportation system and a mission statement be created for the Department of Transportation in conjunction with ConnDOT where the vision emphasizes a picture of success for the transportation system and the mission clarifies the department's purpose including elements that address economic development, customer service, and sensitivity to other societal goals.

This recommendation emphasizes a vision for the transportation system not just the department. This broader view recognizes the impact that other state departments, levels of government, and transportation providers have on the system and the state's economic prosperity.

There is a relationship between the mission and vision. The vision includes the mission but goes beyond it. A mission outlines the organizational purpose of ConnDOT but a vision goes on to describe how the system should look when it is working extremely well in relation to its environment and its key stakeholders. Consequently, stakeholders need to be involved in the process. Stakeholder input and analysis of needs should be considered and can provide useful and valuable information for the preparation for a mission statement.

This new vision and mission should drive the strategic planning process, as described below, and provide the foundation for investment priorities. It also helps to visualize and understand the links between the department's performance and successful accomplishment of strategic objectives.

Develop Strategic Transportation Plan

A considerable amount of ConnDOT's resources as well as those of regional planning organizations are devoted to transportation planning. The result is a number of short-term and long-term plans. However, none of the planning documents produced by ConnDOT could accurately be described as a strategic plan.

Current long-term planning is conditioned by the amount of money projected to be available. Consequently, long-term planning now assumes a posture of more of the same, or how can the department do what it does now only better. It is estimated that the state will have about $13 billion available for capital improvements over the next 20 years and the department and the regions plan around this. At best, this is a form of capital investment planning. However, there is no recognition of the transportation function's broader significance, such as its importance in the economic success for the state.

While there are limited investment priorities, there are no real goals or strategies articulated. There is currently no attempt at gauging the performance of the transportation system as a whole, the department's efforts, or how this relates to a successful system. A shift in thinking and outlook needs to occur that not only considers what will happen in the future but also determines how the outcome can be shaped and influenced.

Moreover, there is a need for greater coordination between DECD and ConnDOT on a strategic level.⁵ The contact between the departments occurs mostly on a project-by-project level. There has not been any assessment or any other effort by DECD or ConnDOT to examine the extent to which the transportation infrastructure is meeting the needs of the economic clusters or the state's broader economic goals.

Strategic planning

There is no universally accepted definition of strategic planning, but strategic planning is not just long-term planning. One practitioner describes strategic planning as "a disciplined effort to produce fundamental decisions and actions that shape and guide what an organization is, what it does, and why it does it."⁶

A preponderance of the planning literature stresses when an organization initiates an effort to forecast and plan for the future it is not enough to create a document (a plan), rather it should engage in a process. For example, the Transportation Research Board advocates for a process it calls strategic management, where a strategic plan is just one element. The board defines strategic management as "the process of articulating a future vision of accomplishment for an organization and planning, directing, and controlling the organization's entire range of activities to work toward the desired state or position."⁷ Similarly, the Connecticut Office of Policy and Management (OPM) defines strategic planning as "a process of organizational self-assessment, goal-setting, strategy development, and performance monitoring."⁸ (For purposes of clarity, references to strategic planning hereafter mean the entire planning process.)

At its core, strategic planning differs from other types of planning because of its focus on the broad policy questions facing an organization or a policy area, such as its basic mission, purpose, and alternative courses of action or strategies to achieve that mission and those purposes. There is an emphasis on the future implications of present decisions as well as foreseeing and reacting to changes that impact on the success of the agency. Strategic planning is conducted at high levels of management. It is comprehensive, includes consideration of a large range of alternatives, covers a fairly long period of time, is characterized by a degree of uncertainty, grapples with more unstructured problems, and takes a broader (in this case, a state and region-wide) perspective.

Elements. While there may not be a universal definition, there are some commonly accepted practices of strategic planning. After defining the department's purpose through a mission statement and the related vision of the transportation system as described above, the following activities are usually conducted:

• Assess the current environment. This is also referred to as an environmental scan and requires an agency to perform an internal and external assessment. The internal assessment identifies the agency's strengths and weaknesses as an organization. The agency determines if its internal capabilities (e.g., work force, organizational structure, managerial style, etc.) are adequate to accomplish its mission and goals. The external assessment examines factors outside the agency that impact the accomplishment of its mission, such as demographics, political climate, the economy, and public opinion.
• Perform a SWOT analysis. Next an agency will identify its strength, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats, also known as a SWOT analysis. The purpose of this analysis is to examine the results of the environmental scan and identify the critical issues or challenges the agency must address to in order to prosper and achieve its mission.
• Map a course of action. In order to take an agency from its current position to a desired position, it must create a course of action. This involves the formulation of goals, objectives, and strategies that are aligned with the vision and mission. Goals and objectives outline what the department will accomplish; strategies indicate how the department will achieve those goals and objectives. Goals and objectives should be quantifiable and measurable.
• Allocate resources. All resources -- human, financial, technological and materials -- must be allocated in accordance with the organization's goals, objectives, and strategies. The strategic planning process should be linked to the budgeting process. It should direct the allocation of resources in accordance with strategies.
• Measure performance. Performance measurement is the process of tracking progress toward the accomplishment of agency goals and objectives.

Benefits

There are a number benefits of strategic planning, including:

• Promotes strategic action and thought. Most of the strategic planning literature points out the process and discipline of strategic planning is as important, if not more, than the plan itself because decision makers develop a deeper understanding of the agency and the environment in which it operates;
• Improves decision-making. This type of planning allows decision makers to focus attention on the critical issues and challenges the organization faces and helps in determining what to do about it; and
• Enhances organization responsiveness. The process ideally allows the organization to clarify and address major issues and respond wisely to internal and external demands and pressures, and deal with rapidly changing circumstances.

Program review committee recommends:

A 10-year strategic plan be developed in conjunction with the Department of Transportation and with consideration of regional long-range plans. The purpose of the strategic plan will be to assist in defining and prioritizing the objectives of the state's transportation system and directing funding toward those objectives. The plan shall address specific areas including, but not limited to, the following:

1) Transportation's role in economic development, specifically

a) promotion of mobility and productivity;

b) linking of transportation modes (connectivity);

c) the state's connection to the national and global transportation network; and

d) support for economic clusters and regional economic priorities.

2) Support for other societal goals, including but not limited to:

a) ensuring safety within the system and maintenance of current transportation assets;

b) balancing transportation improvements, development, and environmental impacts;

c) providing mobility to underserved populations; and

d) encouraging a customer centered orientation.

The strategic plan shall identify objective criteria and procedures for prioritizing Connecticut's transportation needs and expenditures in relationship to the objectives of the strategic plan.

The strategic plan shall also consider and address elements normally outside the department's control, including but not limited to:

• coordination of land use issues with transportation investments;
• coordination with other state departments, including the Departments of Economic and Community Development, Environmental Protection; and Public Safety;
• transportation facilities within the state, such as regionally significant airports and seaports, not under state control; and
• the actions of neighboring states with regard to their transportation networks.

Rationale. Strategic planning is not practiced by the Department of Transportation, but it offers a systematic and rational way for the department to respond to the demands placed on it and shape its role in promoting the transportation function within the state. Certainly the elements of the strategic planning process outlined above should be performed, but there is already ample evidence suggesting attention needs to be paid to economic development issues. For example;

• Mobility and productivity. These issues have been discussed in previous chapters of this report and the briefing document issued on September 20, 2000. Transportation investments targeted toward productivity gains have a positive economic effect and should be factored into the decision making process. Certainly, protecting current assets must continue to be a main concern, but promoting mobility also means confronting congestion issues throughout the state. Opportunities should be identified for targeting transportation investment in such a way as to maximize economic vitality consistent with overall transportation objectives. For example, it would be worthwhile to value competing, significant transportation improvements and rank them to assist in the process of determining what projects should get funded. This does not mean the highest return should automatically get funded but significant projects should at least have some net economic effect. It also does not mean that all investments must have an economic effect, for transportation is still a public function serving a public good. The public sector, after all, primarily provides services or products the private sector cannot or will not provide. However, there is a value in raising the economic development issues and being more explicit about the state's priorities. Any new funding for mobility investments should be subjected to a more rigorous and objective ranking process.
• Connectivity among modes. Because it is generally acknowledged the state cannot build its way out of all its congestion problems, emphasis needs to be placed on an ensuring an expanded, balanced, and integrated multimodal transportation network. This also has serious implications for customer service orientation, requiring a deep understanding of trip patterns, customer preferences, and marketing.
• Connection to national and global network. This too has been discussed in some detail in the briefing document. Michael Gallis, in his report on the state's economic development strengths and challenges, has pointed out, "as globalization and the economic integration of North America continues, access to the international hubs and the continental grid will increasingly drive the location of economic activities.... Gaining a larger share of the New York market and stronger access to the global and continental marketplace will be central to continuing developments of the state's economy."⁹ Improved access to neighboring states, international transportation facilities, and the global network is essential to Connecticut's economic success.
• Support for economic clusters and regional economic priorities. Transportation is part of the basic foundation of Connecticut's economic development strategy. Trends have been noted (such as the shift away from heavy manufacturing to smaller, more decentralized, lighter industrial products with just-in-time delivery requirements; the continued need to respond to the growing tourism industry; and the needs of economic clusters) that demonstrate the necessity for the transportation system to be receptive to new economic patterns. A properly functioning system responsive to the economic clusters in the state and to regional economic priorities, as long as the projects have some positive net economic effect, will serve to further the success of Connecticut business and industry.

Because there are elements outside the department's and even state government's immediate control impacting the functioning of the transportation system, these impediments need to be acknowledged. These issues often can only be effectively addressed by the legislative and executive branches. These issues currently represent significant limitations to the department's effectiveness at achieving larger goals and purposes and provide additional import to consider strategic challenges on a larger platform

There is a value in raising these concerns and making them known. The extent to which these issues are not identified and addressed above the departmental level, the less successful the transportation system will be. If properly structured, the entity to oversee the strategic plan can serve as a catalyst for change in these areas. For example, after appropriate direction is received from the executive and legislative branches, the implementing entity could work towards identifying and developing consensus on issues of multi-state significance.

Examine Department Structure and Other Organizational Issues

As shown in Appendix B, the Department of Transportation is currently organized around five bureaus that include the modes of transportation (public transit, engineering and highway operations, and aviation and ports) and support units (finance and administration, and policy and planning). The structure of the department, similar to its investment priorities, is orientated toward maintaining the current transportation system. Creating a new vision for the transportation system and a new mission for the department as well as the development of a strategic plan will have internal and external organizational ramifications.

A further complication is the current planning structure requires the involvement of 15 regional planning organizations (10 of which are Metropolitan Planning Organizations). An emphasis on fairness in the planning and funding process coupled with the guaranteed involvement of so many planning bodies focused on small geographical areas diminishes ConnDOT's ability to address critical statewide needs.

Program review committee recommends:

An assessment of the organization of the Department of Transportation be conducted to determine if the department is organized appropriately to carry out its new mission and responsibilities under the new strategic plan, and to analyze the adequacy of the department's organization, workforce, structure, managerial style, and competencies and make changes as necessary.

Further, it is recommended an assessment be performed for the legislature and governor aimed at reducing the number of regional planning organizations and Metropolitan Planning Organizations by changing planning boundaries to better reflect the needs and interdependencies of these areas by considering the predominate commuting patterns within regions and concentrations of economic activity or develop alternatives to compel existing regions to respond to the strategic objectives identified in the strategic plan within a larger geographical framework.

Rationale. A new vision for the transportation system and mission for the department will likely suggest a new organizational structure is necessary. For example, it may be appropriate to reorganize the department in a more business-like fashion by consolidating each modal area under one division and creating a new division dedicated to marketing and customer service. This would serve to make an organizational statement about the direction of the department by emphasizing customer relations. It would also begin to introduce a new management cadre that can assist in moving the organization from one that is construction focused to one that is customer focused. Many private sector organizations have had to struggle with this and have increasingly found that operational decision-making power needs to be shifted to units with direct customer contact.

It also must be acknowledged that an organization cannot be all things to all people; trade-offs must be made. The strategies of the organization should establish the criteria necessary for determining the priority tasks to be accomplished. Fundamentally, organizational design needs to reflect the priorities of the department as they are informed by the strategic plan.

The secretary of the Office of Policy and Management designates the state's planning regions. The regions assist in making plans of development for their areas. Ten of the regional planning organizations are also designated as Metropolitan Planning Organizations that have specific transportation planning duties under federal law. Several reasons to consolidate the regional planning organizations and MPOs are offered below:

• while regional representation is important and necessary for an effective, broad-based, and well-supported transportation strategy, the more planning bodies involved in the process, the more complicated, parochial, and lengthy the planning process becomes. The MPOs in particular have veto power, guaranteed in federal statute, over projects that have federal funding. This can blur the focus on critical statewide needs as well as the needs of regions whose decisions have a reach and effect larger than their planning boundaries;
• the boundaries of the MPOs and the regional planning organizations were created in the 1950s and 1960s, but do not make sense for transportation planning purposes. For example, to deal with transportation problems along the southwestern part of the I-95 corridor, ConnDOT must coordinate the activities of four MPOs;
• Connecticut is among the states with the largest number of MPOs. Seventeen states have 10 or more MPOs, and Connecticut is the least populous among these states;
• when the population of each state is divided by its number of MPOs, Connecticut with 328,203 people per MPO is the eighth smallest out of the 50 states. The range runs from 211,222 (North Dakota) to 2,714,471 (New Jersey);
• typically MPOs in Connecticut have small staffs and do not have the capacity to be a significant player in terms of initiating projects in the planning process. Consolidation may allow for larger and better resourced staffs;
• the Gallis study has identified three principle economic regions within the state and has recommended a mechanism be created so strategies can be developed for meeting each region's economic challenges. Among the challenges cited is the need for a better transportation network; and
• consolidation is not a new issue. The Connecticut Progress Council, a statutory body created under P.A. 93-387 to establish goals and benchmarks for state government programs and activities, recognized the need to reduce the number of regional planning bodies. In 1995, the council recommended the number of regions be reduced to five.

While the authority to change regional planning organization boundaries lies with OPM, changing MPO boundaries will not be as easy. In order to alter MPO boundaries, federal law requires agreement between the governor and the affected local governments representing 75 percent of the population in the metropolitan area. If a restructuring of the planning regions proves infeasible, perhaps other methods or incentives could be developed by the state to compel greater cooperation.

Address Adequacy of Funding Needs

Similar to the organizational issues identified above, a new orientation for the department requires an examination of the adequacy of its funding. A major reason for ConnDOT's current investment outlook and actions is because it compares what is currently available to what could be done and believes it can only maintain the current system. Requiring the department to address mobility issues and the other items in the strategic plan in a serious way will most likely require the investment of billions of dollars.

Program review committee recommends:

A 10-year financial plan be created in combination with the strategic plan to identify the level of investment necessary to achieve the strategic plan's goals over that time period. The financial analysis of said plan shall include a consideration of the estimated costs of implementing the goals outlined. At minimum the analysis shall include:

1) the effect of reallocating current resources;

2) an exploration of new funding sources;

3) the potential to increase current fees and charges; and

4) the feasibility of using the state's General Fund.

Recommendations of preferred funding mechanisms shall be developed and submitted to the governor and legislature.

Rationale. Budget allocations have a crucial significance for the implementation of strategies and plans. Budgets usually represent the most important and consequential statements that governments make.

The planning processes at ConnDOT generally revolve around what funds are currently available. This has consequences for how the department comes to view transportation problems. If there is no hope in addressing certain problems, then it becomes moot to consider them - resulting in a frustration that reverberates throughout the planning community. In addition, recent cuts in the department's main revenue source, the gas tax, tend to inhibit imagination and vision. On the other hand, if there is no participant in the system acting as an advocate for the transportation function and if there is no agreed upon vision, any discussion about funding lacks a full understanding of the consequences of policy choices.

Aside from the need to address mobility issues, arguments can be made the state is underinvesting in transportation based on historical spending patterns and by comparison to other policy areas. First, the amount the state spends on transportation in relation to the rest of the budget has declined somewhat over the last 10 years. For example, in 1991 and 1992, transportation fund expenditures represented about 8 percent of total state spending. In the last two years, it has been about 7 percent.

Secondly, the amount of capital investment in transportation projects has declined over the last 16 years, even when not counting the effects of inflation. From 1985 through 1992, total capital investment in the transportation system averaged about $815 million per year. In the last eight years (1993 through 2000), capital investments have been about $603 million per year. Similarly, the state's participation in the capital program through bonding has declined from an average of $355 million in the first eight years to $178 million in the last eight years.

Finally, transportation is a relatively small part of the state's overall budget. In FY 2000, non-capital expenditures of the transportation fund, including debt service, represents about 7 percent of the state's total expenses. Human services represented 29 percent of the state's budget, education 22 percent, and corrections 8 percent.

Without a doubt, planning and budgets must meet at some point. But planning to the budget typically means the plan will be incremental, reactive, and predominately oriented toward accountability rather than long-term, comprehensive, proactive, and oriented toward the accomplishment of broad purposes and goals.

Petroleum-based motor fuel taxes have become the mainstay revenue source for operating, maintaining, and improving the transportation system. While this has proved to be a reliable user-fee approach to financing, it has not been politically popular. Connecticut has also made the choice to remove certain revenue generators from consideration, such as tolls. In addition, the state has relieved local transit districts from having to fully participate in the cost of transit. ConnDOT provides nearly all of the operating subsidy for local transit services. The exploration of new pricing and financing mechanisms is necessary if mobility issues are to be addressed.

Among the options that should be examined is the link between improvements and the benefits derived from transportation programs. Transportation investments generate substantial benefits. If certain improvements are generating benefits in a particular region, perhaps the region should participate in defraying the costs to the state. Some methods could be developed that tie transportation financing to economic growth, environmental preservation, and mobility enhancement by joining financial, investment and managerial strategies to economic, environmental, and mobility goals and objectives. The emphasis would be on delivering a specific level of service improvement in specific corridors or areas within a given program period, in return for the commitment of a specified tax package. These sources of revenue, such as special assessment taxes or value capture increment fees, could represent a fee or assessment on business owners, municipalities, or others who benefit from the transportation system.

Designate Entity Responsible for Developing and Implementing Strategic Plan

Five alternatives are offered for locating the entity responsible for implementing the strategic planning process. These options run the gamut from an in-house strategic planning unit to an independent authority. Table VII-1 provides a description and outlines the advantages and disadvantages of each option.

Highlighted below are a few of the key aspects of each option. Two key questions are driving the choice: What structure is best to facilitate the institution of strategic planning? How can state leaders be assured the structure in place will effectively shape the decisions and behaviors of the organization?

The program review committee found there were more advantages with an independent board (option five). This option offers a more comprehensive approach, yet remains within the system of accountability to state government leaders and would not be influenced by the current culture and practices of ConnDOT.

Option One - Strategic Planning Within the Department

This option would create a unit within the department as either a part of the Bureau of Policy and Planning or attached to the commissioner's office. The main advantage to this option is that the responsibility for the planning function remains under one roof within a department that has a considerable amount of expertise in transportation planning.

Among the principal disadvantages of this option is the lack of external input into the process. For example, a vision for the entire transportation network is difficult for the department to determine. At the program review committee's public hearing on October 12, 2000, the commissioner, citing the constraints on the department, suggested he would find it difficult and possibly inappropriate to construct a vision statement for the department or Bradley International Airport. In addition, this option does not adequately address the need to span organizational boundaries among executive level departments. Finally, this alternative does not allow for meaningful input to the strategic plan from business professionals and others external to the department and truly shape the outcome.

Option Two - Office of Policy and Management (OPM)

This option would require the assignment of specific strategic planning duties to OPM regarding economic development and transportation with mandated deadlines. The office already has a number of responsibilities other than preparing the governor's budget. For example, OPM has a statutory mandate to do strategic planning as well as determine the effectiveness of policies, management, organization, operating procedures, and services of state agencies. An additional function of OPM is to act as the central coordinating entity for executive departments. As OPM's website points out,

another critical role of OPM is that of coordinator/leader of interagency problem solving efforts. Most significant policy issues faced by the State involve the overlapping jurisdiction of more than one State agency, and encompass a range of programmatic, budgetary, and policy concerns. OPM is often called upon to lead, convene or facilitate multi-agency efforts to address these problems. In this role, OPM provides the Governor with an objective view of the issues and a clear assessment of the available policy alternatives. Moreover, OPM is in a position to clearly communicate the Governor's concerns to agencies involved in multi-agency efforts.

While OPM appears to be the most logical option, it has had limited success in actually doing strategic planning. This is evidenced in the emphasis the office affords strategic planning and the current status of strategic planning in state agencies, as described below.

• The office has a strategic management division that, among other things, is involved with, "facilitating the introduction of strategic and business planning in executive branch agencies and assisting in the development of such plans." The unit assigns two people to strategic planning issues. The division's primary activity is to act as a consultant to state agencies thinking about doing strategic planning. Therefore, the initiative to engage in strategic planning lies with the agencies, not with OPM.
• In September 1999, OPM reported the results of a survey it conducted of state agencies. In trying to determine the status of strategic planning and performance measurement in all 65 state budgeted agencies, it found that 30 agencies actually produce what the agencies characterize as a strategic plan. Upon closer examination, OPM found that only five agencies actually produce a plan that could be called strategic.

The office already has all the authority it needs to do strategic planning and establish priorities. If it were truly interested in doing strategic planning, it could or would have done it.

Option Three - Connecticut Progress Council

The Connecticut Progress Council was created by P.A. 93-387 to develop a long-range vision for the state and to define benchmarks to measure the state's progress. The council is composed of 28 members, including legislators and representatives of the executive branch and the private sector. In its 1995 report, a tremendous undertaking, the council identified 300 benchmarks to be used to measure progress toward a long-range vision. A number of observations make the council an unlikely choice to implement the strategic planning initiatives, including;

• the council has had no discernable effect on policy making, budgeting or in holding any executive branch agency accountable;
• the council is still in statute and was supposed to continually monitor progress and submit/revise benchmarks to OPM biennially. It has only submitted the initial 1995 report; and
• the council has not met since it issued its initial report.

Consequently, there does not appear to be much executive or legislative interest in this initiative.

Option Four - Transportation Authority

This option would establish a type of government corporation governed by a separate board of directors appointed by the governor and legislature. It would be independent of many state financial and administrative controls.

There are several reasons why public authorities are established. Such entities minimize regular government controls and procedures. They provide more flexibility and autonomy so they can better respond to market conditions, changing technologies, etc. Most importantly they are empowered to issue revenue bonds that are not typically considered part of state debt. It can also be a vehicle for moving a fiscal activity off budget.

A number of states have used public authorities to oversee and operate many transportation facilities. Often different modes of transportation within the same state are under different authorities.

Massachusetts, for example, has a number of authorities including the Massachusetts Port Authority, which manages a number of airports (including Logan), the Port of Boston, and the Tobin Bridge. The Massachusetts Turnpike Authority is responsible for the Massachusetts Turnpike, while the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority is responsible for providing mass transit service to 175 communities. In addition, the state's highways are maintained by the Massachusetts Highway Department, which is not an authority, but is responsible for the state's largest project, the "Big Dig."

In the state of New York, there are a multiplicity of authorities that have differing scopes of responsibility. They range from the very large, such as the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, to the relatively small, such as the Albany Port Authority and the Fort Erie Bridge Authority.

Each authority has a different relationship to the state government. For example, while they all have some type of revenue raising capacity, a number are completely independent (e.g., the Port Authority of NY and NJ), while others rely in part on a subsidy from state government (e.g., MBTA).

While authorities have several advantages, a change to an authority in this case would not be the best choice because:

• authorities have the power to raise fees on their own, which may be unpopular given ConnDOT's main revenue source is the gas tax;
• the transition to an authority would represent a very dramatic shift in organization (including changing the status of employees) to develop and oversee strategic planning;
• the usual reasons for creating an authority do not apply. ConnDOT already has a dedicated revenue source, issues Special Tax Obligation bonds based on that revenue source, and its debt is not computed in the aggregate indebtedness of the state; and
• an authority does not necessarily solve the problem of the transportation function and approaching the transportation network as a system.

Option Five - Connecticut Transportation Board

This option would entail the appointment of a new board by the governor and the legislature. It would be able to influence investment choices through the planning and budgeting function, while the commissioner would retain administrative functions over the department. The detail and rationale for the proposal are described below in the formal recommendation.

Program review committee recommends the creation of the Connecticut Transportation Board, and it shall have the following characteristics:

Purpose:

To develop a vision for the transportation system and mission for the Department of Transportation, create and update a 10-year strategic plan and financial plan for the operation, maintenance, and improvement of the transportation system that emphasizes a comprehensive and balanced statewide system, oversee any organizational changes, and monitor the plan's implementation as previously described. The board shall also consider the actions of and coordinate its planning efforts as necessary with regional planning organizations, other state departments, neighboring states, and any other organization or agency that may have an affect on the operation and success of the transportation system.

Governing Body:

The Connecticut Transportation Board shall be attached to the Department of Transportation for administrative purposes only.

The board shall consist of nine voting members appointed by the governor and the legislature. In addition, the commissioners of transportation, economic and community development, public safety, environmental protection, and the secretary of the office of policy and management shall serve as nonvoting, ex officio members of the board.

The governor shall appoint five members, one of whom shall be a member of the Bradley Board of Directors. The speaker of the House of Representatives, the president pro tem of the Senate, and the minority leaders of the House of Representatives and the Senate shall each appoint one member. The members of the board shall be knowledgeable of transportation and economic development issues. Appointing authorities shall consider geographical balance of the board in making appointments. No appointed member shall be an employee of the Department of Transportation.

The governor shall appoint the chairperson of the board. The board may create other officers it deems necessary from among its membership. The powers of the board shall be vested in and exercised by not less than five members serving on the board. This number shall constitute a quorum.

The term of office of the members shall be for four years.

Powers and Duties:

The board shall develop a vision, mission, strategic, and financial plan, as described above, within one year of the board's formation or report its progress to the General Assembly and identify why it cannot complete those tasks within that time frame. The strategic and financial plan shall be updated every two years;

As part of the planning process, the board will determine priority programming based on objective criteria with respect to transportation investments as outlined in the strategic plan;

The board shall develop performance measures to track progress toward the accomplishment of goals and objectives outlined in the strategic plan;

The board shall review and approve the proposed operating and capital budget of the commissioner of DOT before submittal to the governor;

The board shall review and approve the Transportation Improvement Program and the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program before submittal to the governor;

The board shall submit to the governor a list of not less than three qualified candidates from which he shall appoint the commissioner of transportation when a vacancy occurs. The commissioner shall continue to serve at the pleasure of the governor. The board may submit to the governor a recommendation for removal of the commissioner upon a finding of failure to carry out the board's policies, incapacity, neglect of duty, or unlawful conduct;

The board shall report annually to the governor and legislative committees having cognizance over transportation and economic development matters on the progress in implementing the strategic plan; and

The board shall establish an advisory committee to advise the board in carrying out its responsibilities. The number of members shall be at the discretion of the board, but at a minimum include representatives from each regional planning organization, rail and bus commuters, truck and rail freight operators, representatives of the port and airline industries, and a representative from a statewide environmental organization having an interest in transportation policy.

Compensation:

The voting members of the board shall be compensated for their attendance at public hearings, executive sessions, or other board business that may require their attendance at the rate of $250, provided in no case shall the daily compensation exceed $250. The annual compensation for any member for attending such meetings shall not exceed $12,500.

Staffing:

The Department of Transportation shall serve as staff to the board. The board may, however, hire any staff it determines necessary to carry out its functions and purposes within the available appropriations of the Department of Transportation.

Sunset Review:

The board shall be scheduled to terminate five years from its effective date, unless reauthorized by the General Assembly. During the year prior to the automatic termination, the Legislative Program Review and Investigations Committee shall conduct a sunset review and report its findings and recommendations regarding the continuation, modification, or termination of the board for consideration by the General Assembly during the next regular legislative session.

Rationale. The rationale and explanation for this approach is explicated within the answers to a series of questions that follow.

A. Why is a board, as described above, the best option? Won't a board just add another layer of bureaucracy?

Aside from the disadvantages already identified in each of the options in Table VII-1, the board is a better choice because:

• the board option helps to span organizational boundaries, which is difficult to do with an in-house alternative. The board will draw attention to issues and develop information that crosses internal and external organizational boundaries without introducing the radical approach of having an authority;
• virtually every strategic issue involves conflicts: what will be done, why it will be done, how it will be done, when it will be done, who will do it, who will be favored or disadvantaged by it. This is best guided by an entity outside the department that can assist in developing consensus around transportation issues before they come to the legislature;
• the purpose of developing a vision and a strategic plan is to establish a new outlook for transportation in the state. Current practices and organizational arrangements are not working well. The culture within and around the department can affect which issues get on the agenda and how they are framed, and it will also affect which strategic options get serious consideration. The task of strategy formulation typically involves highlighting what is good about existing patterns, reframing or mitigating what is bad, and adding what is necessary to complete the picture. The accepted mores become important during strategy formation, because whatever patterns exist are typically manifestations of the organization's culture. A board, then, would not be a layer of bureaucracy but would allow knowledgeable outsiders to assist in resolving standing issues in a new forum for decision making;
• with a vigorous advisory committee assisting, the board can act as an advocate for the transportation system. It is difficult for the department now to be a true advocate given its narrow focus and its need to be responsive to the current budget direction of the executive branch. The members of the board will have a deep understanding of budget issues and use their expertise to promote the objectives of the strategic plan in the larger political environment; and
• it is recognized that the department excels at implementation, but it is not as strong in being visionary.

B. Why does the board have the authority to review the budget and the ability to suggest a commissioner? Shouldn't the board be advisory only?

The board needs to have the appropriate authority to ensure it can carry out its responsibilities and fulfill its vision. Having a say in the appointment of a commissioner and in the development of the budget brings additional credibility to the board. It infuses the board with the authority and credibility to receive the attention of internal and external organizations.

Problems will be experienced if there is no relationship between strategic plans, day-to-day operation of the agency, and the budget of the agency. Budgets are central to implementation of strategies and plans. If the board has no role in the budget or is just advisory, then the strategic planning process could become a paper exercise with the time of the board wasted. Moreover, the state's ability to attract qualified people, willing to put in the necessary time will be diminished, especially if the board's ability to affect the result is uncertain.

An advisory type board would not be successful. Few advisory boards have had an impact on departmental priorities. For example, members of the Bradley Airport Commission (BAC) sent a resolution to the governor in July calling for a strong Bradley Board of Directors. The commission had become frustrated with, in their view, ConnDOT's failure to consult the group on important matters affecting the airport, submit quarterly reports to the BAC on master plan development as statutorily required, and its resistance to accept advice when given. The commission believes the way it is currently structured and functioning is ineffective.

Similarly, the Connecticut Coastline Port Authority (CCPA) was created to promote the economic development of the state's ports. A report issued by the Auditors of Public Accounts in May 2000 found the effectiveness of CCPA limited due to a low level of resources and a lack of organizational independence from ConnDOT. The auditors also found on many occasions the board failed to have a quorum at its meeting, had vacancies, and failed to prepare quarterly reports or an annual report for one of the three years audited. The auditors reviewed CCPA minutes and concluded there was "no great desire within the Board to see the Authority continue in its present state."

In the case of ConnDOT, having people just engage in a dialogue with the department about priorities is not enough. There was interest and momentum with the institution of each of the advisory boards that currently surround the department, when the immediacy and attention to certain issues fade, so too does the impact of an advisory board.

C. Does this board reduce the authority of the legislature?

There is no fundamental reduction of legislative power with the institution of this board. The legislature, for example, still receives and must approve the budget of the department. The purpose of the board is to bring major parties together, develop a strategic vision, and forge a consensus to support a statewide transportation strategy that is visionary, modally integrated, and responsive to customer needs.

D. Why do the voting board members get compensated?

By providing some form of compensation to the board, the legislature signals the seriousness of its intent. It expects results and is willing to pay for it.

In addition, the creation of a vision, mission, and strategic plan will require the intense participation of the board. Strategic planning is different from other planning, management, and administrative processes in that institutionalizing strategic management involves substantially changing an organization's attitudes about nearly everything it does and the way it does it. Hundreds of hours will be required of board members to develop and oversee this effort.

Paying board members is not unusual. There are a number of state boards or commissions whose members are compensated. To cite just two examples, State Properties Review Board members receive a $200 per diem, up to $30,000 annually, and the Connecticut Siting Council members receive $150 per meeting, up to $12,000 annually.

E. Why isn't the board's membership larger?

Certainly there are a number of interests that need to be heard and satisfied in this broad policy area. Although every interest may not actually be represented on the board, the board must still consider and be responsive to various constituencies to be effective. The board must be conscious of the fact those not happy with board decisions will still have the traditional means to influence policy outcomes. The advisory committee to the board will have to be viewed as a partner and have a shared responsibility in fulfilling the duties of the board.

F. Why subject the board to sunset review?

Board activities should be reviewed at the end of five years to determine whether the board achieved its intended purpose. The legislature's sunset review process is a well-established and effective mechanism for carrying out this type of evaluation. The board should not become an obstacle to reforming the department. If it is not performing as expected, the board should either be modified or terminated.

G. Do other states have transportation boards?

The governance structures of any policy area are reflective of the history, culture, and issues within particular states. There are a variety of approaches to the organization of state government functions. However, a number of states do use boards or commissions to oversee the activities of their transportation departments. For example:

• The California Transportation Commission consists of nine members appointed by the governor and two non-voting members appointed by each house of the legislature. The commission is responsible for programming and allocating funds for the construction of highway, passenger rail, and transit improvements throughout California.
• The Texas Transportation Commission consists of three members appointed by the governor, one of which is selected as chair by the governor. All are appointed with the advice and consent of the state Senate. The commission heads the Department of Transportation whose executive director is appointed by the commission. The commission's duties include developing a statewide plan that covers all modes of transportation as well as establishing policy necessary to carry out the duties and functions of the department and the commission.
• The Arizona State Transportation Board is composed of five members appointed by the governor with the advice and consent of the state Senate. The governor appoints the chair. The board is granted general policy powers including the responsibility for establishing policies and criteria to guide the development of the five-year transportation construction program. The director is appointed by the governor from a list of qualified candidates submitted by the board and serves at the pleasure of the governor. The director is responsible for the overall administration of the department.
• The Washington State Transportation Commission consists of seven members appointed by the governor, with the consent of the senate. The commission has the responsibility to direct the department head to prepare and submit to the commission a comprehensive and balanced statewide transportation plan based on the transportation policy adopted by the legislature and applicable state and federal laws. The commission must adopt the plan before submittal to the legislature. The commission appoints the head of the department. The department head serves as the chief executive officer of the department with full administrative authority to direct all of its activities, subject to policy guidance from the commission.

Summary. In short, the Connecticut Transportation Board, as described above, is the best option for initiating, developing and sustaining the strategic planning process. It will act as a "champion" to oversee the process (e.g., environmental scanning, planning and budgeting, goal setting), monitor and hold accountable the participants (e.g., commissioner, senior management, and line mangers), and ensure the products (e.g., vision and mission statements, goals and objectives, organizational structure, budgets, etc.) are created.

⁵ There is also a need for coordination between ConnDOT and other departments but they were not covered in the scope of this study

⁶ John M. Bryson, Strategic Planning for Public and Nonprofit Organizations, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1995, pp. 4-5.

⁷ Gene R. Tyndall, et al, Strategic Planning and Management Guidelines for Transportation Agencies, Transportation Research Board, December 1990, p 9.

⁸ Office of Policy and Management, State of Connecticut, Strategic Business Planning: A Guide for Executive Branch Agencies, September 1998, p. 1.

⁹ Connecticut Strategic Economic Framework, Connecticut Regional Institute for the 21^st Century, November 1999, p. 15.

Return to Year 2000 Studies

Return to Table of Contents