WORKSHOP OBJECTIVES

• To promote cooperation, coordination and consultation between/among various agencies involved in projects at or near the border
• To share experiences of planning and constructing projects and maintenance and operations issues
• To get a better understanding of all the processes and approval requirements
• To identify issues that might need to be addressed to make the process more efficient

WORKSHOP SUMMARY

Opening remarks by Walter Steeves

Session #1: Border Project Identification & Scope

Different missions; e.g., border agencies’ priority is security; MOTs and DOTs look to economic development and traffic flow (safety issue also expressed later).
• This is not necessarily bad; each has its own “expertise” and funding
• Problems arise when this expertise and funding become drivers to solutions
• Important factor is communications – the question(s) are how soon and in what fashion
• A point made later was the need to identify these priorities and responsibilities to identify the “overlap”; these could become areas of conflict or areas where partnering could be advantageous

Money on the table aids the “fluidity” of communications, but most important is that all partners are around the table from the very beginning. Those who don’t identify a role for their agencies can drop out, but it is assured that everyone who needs to be involved is involved throughout the process.

• Need to not miss any key elements
• Need to look at complete system (simple example is that realignment of road or relocation of booths must ensure that they
  both line up; can’t be done independently)
• Should be a way to ensure everyone is at table short of getting politicians or courts involved
• Note from previous day’s site tour: These investments are going to last a very long time; there is a need to get it right at the beginning.

Call for a “champion” to get these messages out; to let people and groups know what groups such as EBTC are doing – call for a “bugle”.

Discussion of projects and at workshops such as this, need to be at the regional or project level rather than national.
• Informal agreements can be as effective as formal agreements and a lot easier to obtain
• Personal relationships are very important and can be very valuable in dealing with problems, particularly in a “crisis” situation
• There is a level of trust and confidence necessary
• These are built as a history is developed

Identification of points of contact:
• This is different from who the public calls, which in the case of back-ups at borders is not always correct
• But is it any easier for professionals?
• To how soon and in what fashion, now add at what level to make a request
• “What level” could refer to the person having sufficient authority to make a decision; also getting to the right person who can sell it to those above

In summary: There is a need for a Team Effort (all the people), Agreements (Commitment), and Getting Agreement from the right person/at the right level.

Data Exchange

The purpose of data is to inform the decision makers; data has a neutral characteristic.
• Data needs to address the “Expectations of Users” – e.g., travelers, localities; borders, corridors.
• Ability to address challenges – What happens when changes are made? Are they needed? What variables are being looked at?
• What are the impacts at the local, system levels? What are the impacts on modes?

Trade: crosses border, but also goes deeper into both countries.
• What are the impacts of delay – to the border? at the border?

Deficiencies, gaps in the data:
• What’s out there? What can be shared
• How can the various agencies cooperate in sharing data? Start with small meetings to discuss what data is required and what might be available for sharing.
• Confidentiality, but also compatibility of data
• Ability to combine data collection needs – more data than any one agency needs, but one collection site to increase compatibility while reducing costs; but not so much that the collection gets unwieldy and conflicts with missions

Data sharing as a method of building “history” between/among agencies; way to connect agencies.

Session #2: Project Planning

Blue Water Bridge:
• Problem is not the bridge; problem is the U.S. plaza
• Plaza owned by Michigan DOT (18 acres)
• Traffic projections to 2030 (but already changing)
• Evolution of process – need to use current facility? Need to have a clearer policy re outbound inspections. Current policy   doesn’t appear to be consistent at all crossings.
• Alternatives vary from 70 to 95 to 145 acres, at existing location or moved 1½ miles to a more rural location
• CBP “comfort zone” of where they are located, sufficient size; impacts to city in general, and specifically to neighborhood

NEPA process: With MDOT as lead, the NEPA process is open; GSA/CBP used to a more closed process of public involvement and information distribution. The key was to look for opportunities to coordinate these processes; invite all stakeholders to work as cooperating agencies on developing NEPA document.

Lessons Learned:
• Local agency decisions need to be approved at higher levels
• GSA/CBP have expertise, but need clarification even between these two
• Project needs to be a priority for every agency involved – need commitments from key agencies
• Keep local stakeholders involved and informed; don’t underestimate their ability to get politicians involved
• Benefits at the regional/national level, but impacts are at the local level
• Need to understand border dynamics: Technologies and organizations change, as well as missions, rules and regulations (e.g.,   US-VISIT, FAST, NEXUS); need to be flexible in contracts
• Environmental approvals – understand roles of others; everyone needs to understand their own roles (responsibilities)

Cascade Gateway

Competing needs:
• Security #1/bolster economies
• Jurisdictional priorities
• Multitude of agencies

Timing of funding (when does it actually come) – impact on scheduling; and the impact of limitations on use.

The timeline is very long term:
• There is a need to get agencies, politicians to realize just how long
• How often to re-run numbers

The following questions were addressed during discussion:
• Joint Facility Plans: Negotiations have been more difficult in part due to a change in Canadian government; announcement concerning Shared Border Management expected December 2006.
• Outbound Inspections: The goal is interdiction of the proceeds of terrorists, stolen vehicles and equipment, and critical products, technology not authorized for export.
o In both cases, there is not necessarily a harmonization of laws, regulations to have other country provide through an agreement.

Session #3: Project Construction

Shared Project Management: Calais-St. Stephen

Rather than funding issues, this project displayed fiscal issues – taxes, duties
• Movement of work force, materials
• Learning process for contractors (a different stakeholder perspective)

Other issues included:
• Labor
• Taxes on materials
• Security on job site – what’s the process? can the project site be fenced?
• Waterways requirements

Queenston-Lewiston

Project summary:
• Widened from 4 to 5 lanes to at least in part accommodate FAST lane
• Bridge has no room for queuing, plus safety concerns to split auto and truck traffic

Was it successful (ahead of schedule, below budget) because of the organizational structure (i.e., an International Bridge Commission)?
• US/Canadian workers each starting in the middle and working back
• Bridge Commission as project manager
• Few 3rd party ownerships
• Dealt only with bridge, but did not touch plazas

Labor: Employing Foreign Workers

Discussed a whole different process and identified a new partner for inclusion when considering the need for everyone to be in the same room.
• Might not need to be there in the beginning or at every meeting
• Like every other agency, also has timelines so need to include early on when building schedule

Session Summary:
• Complexity versus ridiculous – you be the judge
• Does it matter whether facility is tolled or free
• Is an international bridge commission the answer, or is every bridge, every operator different
• Approval requirements – impact on schedule
• Easy to underestimate Presidential Permit requirements
• Need for a “DMZ” for construction, possibly better to work through on the local level
• Don’t involve national level unless absolutely necessary
• Need to streamline process; identify changes in regulations and legislation

There was quite a bit of discussion at this point concerning the need to “memorialize” these proceedings; i.e., develop a “How to” guide for border infrastructure projects.
• Put together a report with sections concerning land/water crossings, construction/operations (e.g., snow plowing)
• This could/should be an EBTC sponsored activity, with participation by others
• Understand that this is a very dynamic process that may not lend itself to best practices, but that it would be valuable as an initial guide because it would identify the process steps

Session #4: Maintenance and Operations

ITS

Included:
• Need for maintenance agreement agreed to by all
• Installation and maintenance responsibilities
• Use of cameras (security issue)
• Focus on travel time – use of alternative crossings
• Making sure that message signs are working and displaying correct information
• Communications Protocol - Incident management; who to call
• Prioritizing ITS investment
• East/West Border Circulation Study
• SAFETEA-LU and Border Infrastructure Funding
• Impact of the continued expansion of FAST/NEXUS
• Snow (and ice) removal – why it can be done at some locations (agreements, understandings; responsibilities); understanding the geometrics involved

Maintenance and MPT (Maintenance and Protection of Traffic), as well as MPT for inspection
• General traffic control issues (safety issue)
• Impact of outbound inspections as a safety issue, and as an incident delay issue (need to inform public). There doesn’t appear to be consistent treatment of CBP outbound inspections at the various crossings.
• First step is to get everyone to sit down together; second is to actually start a meaningful dialogue
• Vermont had offered to train agents in terms of how to safely control traffic (proper signage; use of cones, flags, etc.)
• Understanding that export control and standard border control are two different groupings within CBP

CVO

Included:
• Inspections – local, state police; state inspectors with no police powers
• No fixed facilities, but will have one at Champlain-Lacolle (availability of controlled truck flow)
• Safety as primary focus; security is different
• Just starting to investigate use of data as feed-in to inspections – need more information; quicker and better information
• Opportunities at Champlain to coordinate expanded data collection
• Data collection technology – relational data base provides expanded possibilities
• Linkages of databases (scrubbed for confidentiality); agreements with Quebec
• Permanent facilities at borders but not internal (bad guys learn quickly and can bypass)
• Use of NORPASS, and expand
• Communications in cab very important
• What benefit can you show commercial vehicle industry

Bridge Operator Perspective

Included:
• Service and maintenance needs for Weigh–in-Motion; reliability - reliance on enforcement agencies
• WHTI will reduce traffic by 30% - impact on tolls; impact on local economies
• Impact of Department of Agriculture fee
• Impact of new NYS environmental rules – surcharge on disposal of paint chips, salt management plan
• CBSA labor issues – operator disruption
• Video identification to monitor operations, enhance security

Workshop Wrap-Up Summary and Closing Remarks

Overall comments and discussion indicated that workshop was very successful in getting most everyone into the same room; further, everyone should be commended for the level of participation throughout. Focus was on next steps and the need for follow-up to take the message of this meeting and to begin to communicate them to other responsible agencies, organizations, politicians and the public.

ATTENDEES