The Southern
Prepared for the October 12, 2006 meeting of the Southern California Regional Airport Authority Board
Remarks by Scott A. MacKenzie, Ph.D. Candidate,
Thank you.
My name is Scott MacKenzie. I study politics at the
It is an honor to be present at what will inevitably be an
historic occasion for the
Today I will be presenting work from two recent studies commissioned
by SCAG. The first study, completed in 2005, surveyed airport authorities
around the country and identified appropriate organizational structures for a
new Regional Airport Consortium for
The second study is a work in progress. However, since history is unaccustomed to waiting on scholarship, we thought we would present preliminary findings from our survey of key regional stakeholders. These findings speak directly to issues of membership, mission and powers of the Regional Airport Authority. Our findings also yield insights into how decentralization is viewed in different parts of the SCAG region. I will conclude with a few remarks on the challenges and benefits of regionalization, as these are understood by those on the front lines of the region’s air capacity and ground access realities.
Before I get to the findings, I want to talk briefly about the regional policy context.
We are all here today because we recognize the importance
of airports to the economic vitality and quality of life in
Several solutions to the capacity problem have been
proposed. Regionalization or decentralization – which involves reallocating
current flights from constrained urban airports to inland facilities with
excess capacity, as well as measures designed to encourage distribution of
future flights to these facilities – is just the latest. In terms of sequence, however,
decentralization is essentially Plan C. Plans A and B involved ambitious
attempts to build or expand air capacity in
Plan C, decentralization, is the approach recommended by SCAG in its 2004 Regional Transportation Plan. This approach, which includes setting up a regional body to promote coordination among existing airports, has the advantage of having broad political appeal. The challenges include financing improvements at inland facilities, implementing ground access strategies to enable passengers to reach these facilities at low cost, and establishing coordination mechanisms linking airport operators, ground transportation providers and other key stakeholders.
Since we are talking about regionalization, I should also mention
the current airport debates taking place in
With that said, on to the findings from 2005.
This study was born of the realization that
The scope of work for the 2005 study consisted of three
important tasks. The first task was to identify leading approaches to governing
and coordinating airport structures and related ground access systems. To do
this, we looked at airport governance, ground access systems, and regional
planning approaches in the 18 largest
Based on this research, we narrowed our focus to five
governance exemplars. In selecting these cases, we were interested in certain standout
features that were relevant to the SCAG region.
The third task was to determine the most appropriate management system for the SCAG region. The obvious alternatives were: 1. a “structured” MOU among airport operators and other stakeholders that would provide flexibility, but also specific rules to ensure focus on basic tasks, 2. a reconstituted Southern California Regional Airport Authority with a revamped mission, bylaws and membership, and 3. a new JPA with a more inclusive membership and consensus-building voting rules. The final report recommends the MOU approach as the most desirable form for the proposed Regional Airport Consortium.
Well, history has once again triumphed over scholarship, and here we are, talking about a reconstituted Southern California Regional Airport Authority. In my next set of remarks, I will focus on the Authority’s previous life. The objective is not to provide an exhaustive narrative or analysis of what happened – the full case study is in the 2005 final report – but to highlight some key phases, point out a few problems with the existing structure and suggest several principles to guide the work of the Board going forward.
For the purposes of this presentation, the history of the Southern California Regional Airport Authority might be usefully divided into several phases:
Phase I began in 1985 with the signing of the original joint powers agreement between the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, Riverside and San Bernardino counties. SCAG was later granted ex-officio status. The agreement gave the Regional Airport Authority broad powers like eminent domain and operational authority. From 1985 to 1992, the Authority focused primarily on planning and served as an information forum. It completed airport feasibility and market share allocation studies. It provided the funding to develop the Regional Airport Demand Allocation Model used by SCAG to forecast and allocate air passenger and cargo demand.
In 1992,
During Phase III, the Authority was drawn directly into the
region’s most controversial airport debates. In 2001, the Authority was revived
by
Following the rejection by
This historical digression demonstrates that the Southern California Regional Airport Authority’s promise as a vehicle for regionalization has remained largely illusory. The obvious question is why.
It strikes me that the answer cannot simply be
“irreconcilable differences.” There was and continues to be broad agreement on
the importance of airports to the regional economy, the need for additional capacity
to serve future demand and the importance of regional planning and
decision-making. Moreover, the agreement by five counties and the City of
Many of the disagreements that plagued the previous life of the Regional Airport Authority were disagreements over how to achieve goals that were widely shared. In particular, there were insoluble conflicts over the distribution of burdens and benefits. Why were members unable to find common ground, especially around decentralization and ground access? Several characteristics of the Authority’s structure and mission come to mind. First, the broad powers contained in the original JPA raised questions about the Authority’s intentions. Second, the unilateral veto possessed by voting members made it difficult to undertake collective decision-making. Finally, the perceived lack of responsiveness to local concerns and accountability led some members to withdraw their support and participation.
What lessons does the previous life of the Southern California Regional Airport Authority suggest going forward?
One lesson that emerges from past experience concerns the setting of priorities and framing of the agenda. Over its 20-year history, the Authority’s focus wandered from regional aviation planning to developing new airports to implementing high speed rail. With broad powers and an unclear mandate, the agenda of the organization was easily manipulated to serve short-term political interests at the expense of long-term regional objectives.
Related to setting priorities is the issue of “right-sizing” the mission. It will be important for the Board to specify to the satisfaction of key stakeholders what the Authority will and will not do. Ultimately, the powers of the organization will need to be changed to better reflect this mission.
Finally, the previous life of the Regional Airport Authority sheds light on the efficacy of three approaches to regional governance. The first approach involves no regional coordination. Under this approach, individual airports and affected communities battle fiercely to protect local prerogatives. Intra-regional competition between airports rather than coordinated action to share burdens and benefits is the main dynamic driving airport development. This is essentially the status quo situation in the SCAG region.
I have labeled the second approach regional leviathan, which describes the Regional Airport Authority in its most recent phases. I put the word “leviathan” in quotes because the broad powers in the JPA were tempered by a voting rule that virtually guaranteed they would never be used. Nevertheless, the Authority is perceived by many in the region to be a top-down solution capable of imposing its will on local governments that jealously guard their autonomy.
The third approach establishes coordination at the regional level and important zones of local autonomy. In comparative political analysis, we call this approach to governance consociationalism or power-sharing. Its essential features are three-fold: One, the distribution of powers between levels of government is well-defined and leaves important spheres of decision-making authority to local governments. Thus, what the regional entity will and will not do is precisely spelled out. Two, each constituency with a recognized interest – in this case, airport operators, ground transportation providers, air carriers, local and county jurisdictions – receives a seat at the table. Three, decision rules are set up to require broad consensus. This usually involves some version of proportional representation with supermajority voting rules to ensure that large constituencies do not dominate.
If you are looking for a larger principle or idea to organize discussions concerning changes to the current structure of the JPA or to differentiate the future work of the Regional Airport Authority from its past, this third approach might be it. While no particular set of governing arrangements by itself guarantees success, we feel that any approach that does not incorporate the essential features of power-sharing will ultimately fail.
2006
I would like to move now to a discussion of the 2006
The scope of work for the 2006 study consists of four main
tasks. The first is to conduct a survey of key stakeholders in
The second task is to complete case studies of comparable airport and transportation governance structures in the region and around the country. We will look more closely at the processes and structures for three of the 2005 study’s airport governance exemplars, focusing on the initiating roles played by local airport operators and the maneuvering of these models through the political process.
The third task will be to evaluate and recommend strategies for designing a new regional airport management structure. Much of what we do here will depend on what actions the Board takes in the coming weeks and months. Finally, we will be providing recommendations for structuring the implementation process, including a timeline with milestones to guide decision-making on organizational structure and policy implementation.
Today, I want to share with you some of the work we have completed for the first task in our scope of work – the stakeholders survey. I will quickly run through the purposes of the survey, methods we used, list of contacts, and topics we covered, leaving more time to present our preliminary findings. If there is sufficient interest, I will return to these details later on.
The purpose of the survey was to collect information on
the interests and concerns of
The methods for this project are qualitative. We developed
a brief list of questions and administered these by telephone, in-person and,
in a few cases, over e-mail. We conducted detailed interviews with former staff
and Board members of the Regional Airport Authority. We were also able to meet
with City of
Here is an abbreviated list of the organizations we targeted with the survey. The list includes all 10 of the commercial airports in the SCAG region, the transportation commissions in each of the six counties, federal, state and local transportation officials, former Regional Airport Authority officials, academic experts, consultants and air carriers.
I want to emphasize that these organizations are not the
only ones with views relevant to regionalization. Given additional time and
resources, we would certainly have liked to broaden the sample of organizations
and officials we talked to. We did attempt to talk with those most likely to
have knowledge about particular facilities in
In the survey, we asked questions about the reconstitution of the Regional Airport Authority and the prospects for creating a Regional Airport Consortium. With respect to the Authority, respondents were asked about their views on restructuring that organization’s mission, membership and formal powers. We also asked about their interest in joining the Authority’s deliberations and what conditions they might have for doing so. With respect to the Consortium, we were interested in how respondents felt about the MOU and JPA forms, how issues of mission and membership might be resolved, and their interest in participating in such a forum. In addition to these focused questions, our discussions ranged across a variety of aviation-related issues of concern to airport operators and ground transportation providers across the SCAG region.
Today, I will present our preliminary findings from the subset of questions we asked about reconstituting the Regional Airport Authority.
Defining precisely what the Authority will and will not do is likely to be the single-most important issue in re-designing the organization. Some respondents believe that an overly broad definition of its mission contributed to the Authority’s previous failures.
Most of
Many of the region’s airport operators thought the Authority could address issues not directly related to decentralization. They suggested that the Authority might undertake additional activities, including: coordinating with SCAG on air system and ground access planning, serving as an interface with air carriers, organizing a lobbying presence at the state and national levels, and assisting in planning for local ground access projects.
Most respondents felt that the Authority should take advantage of SCAG’s planning and programming expertise. They also thought that county transportation commissions, FAA and Caltrans officials, public interest agencies and representatives from the private sector might better serve in an advisory capacity.
One of the critical challenges in setting the Authority’s membership is to specify appropriate roles for both elected officials and technical staff. Several respondents argued against mixing elected officials and technical staff.
Southern California’s airport operators, in particular smaller, fast-growing airports, expressed interest in participating in a regional forum like the Authority, whether they have direct representation or not. Operators are open to having direct representation on the Board, though final decisions about this rest with elected officials.
Stakeholders outside of
The broad powers contained in the joint powers agreement that created the Regional Airport Authority are poorly understood. Nor do many of those responsible for operating airports and other transportation agencies understand why the Authority failed during its last go-round. When informed about the current array of legal powers – including the ability to own and operate airports and influence local land use through eminent domain – operators in the region expressed concern about their implications for local autonomy. Alleviating the concerns of local officials will be a precondition for participation by airport operators in the SCAG region.
I would like to finish our presentation by briefly commenting on the perceived obstacles to decentralization and potential benefits of regional coordination as revealed by our survey. Let me emphasize again that we were able to speak with just a small number of stakeholders in each area. The challenges and benefits we identify do not constitute a complete list, nor are they necessarily the most important ones from a regional perspective. They were, however, cited by knowledgeable experts in the region and suggest certain opportunities. We hope this information can inform the Board’s deliberations as it attempts to define an agenda for the coming weeks and months.
Let me begin with
In speaking with members of the March Inland Port Airport
Authority, it became clear that both legal constraints and infrastructure
problems will limit the “regional” role of the
On the plus side, stakeholders in
The challenges to decentralization in
Stakeholders in
In talking with those responsible for operating
The greatest challenge to increasing the “regional” role played
by airports in
The main challenges to decentralization in
While the precise “regional” role of smaller airports in the county is unclear, the benefits of regional coordination are not. Maintaining and upgrading air passenger and cargo services at L.A.’s constrained urban airports and in the outlying areas will be critical to assuring that the SCAG region remains competitive with other regions around the world. Locally, the county’s constrained urban airports will also be looking to the Regional Airport Authority for creative solutions to the traffic and noise concerns generated by airports.
Steve would be quite upset to learn that I had failed to
mention in our presentation the possibility of including
Including
The implications we take from these sub-regional
perspectives are straight-forward. First, there is broad-based consensus on the
need for regional airport and ground access planning and decision-making.
Stakeholders in the SCAG region appreciate the urgency of
Second, there is substantial interest alignment on decentralization. This is the great political and economic opportunity before the Regional Airport Authority. The challenge will be to: A. Build consensus around a concrete mission, B. Build an effective process for collective decision-making and, C. Use that process to structure a solution that equitably allocates burdens and benefits.
Third, the extensive interest in regional planning and decision-making among key stakeholders in the SCAG region means that there is plenty of work for the Authority to do. While focusing the Authority’s time and resources around large objectives will be important, the agenda need not be exclusively decentralization. The Authority will find friendly constituencies for a diverse array of programs and initiatives – such as lobbying for greater federal and state ground access monies – many of which can be achieved in the near term.
Let me wrap up our presentation with just a few final observations.
With broad interest alignment among important political jurisdictions in the SCAG region, the time is clearly ripe for implementing a comprehensive decentralization strategy.
With the Regional Airport Authority now back up and running, the clock is already ticking on how it will be viewed by those most affected by its work. In politics and government, perceptions usually matter. Those operating airports and ground transportation agencies will be closely watching the Authority’s next steps. Perceptions regarding the effectiveness of the Authority and the efficacy of decentralization will be formed sooner rather than later. Since the Authority will need the support and expertise of these organizations, it will need to build a reputation for success. Thus, what the Regional Airport Authority does in its first year of operation will affect what it will be able to do after that.
Last, we think our study will provide timely analysis and recommendations that can inform the Authority’s work and provide input into the 2008 SCAG Regional Transportation Plan. This time around, we hope that history will prove to be a little more cooperative.
Thank you.