REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION PLANNING IN SOUTHEASTERN CONNECTICUT: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE MAC

This project analyzed a regional transportation planning process in Southeastern Connecticut. For two years, the Multi-Modal Advisory Committee (known as the MAC) met, under the direction of a transportation consultant and a facilitator, to address the region ' s traffic congestion. Specifically, their efforts comprised a Major Investment Study (MIS) which is a predecessor to an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The MAC's goal was to reach consensus on which transportation alternatives the consultant should further study in the EIS. This group did not reach consensus. The study looked at two types of factors that may have affected the outcome of the MAC: internal factors and external factors. Internal factors are those which occurred during the process. This entailed an analysis of the groups' common understanding of the problem and objectives, the groups' defined expectations, member' s participation, and the role of the project team. The study found that the MAC lacked agreement on the problem at hand and on many aspects of the process. Additionally , the facilitator and project team did not appear to respond accordingly to address these problems. To assess the effects of external factors , the study analyzed the history of regional cooperation in the study area, regional capacity, power, local politics, and public influence on the process. The findings indicated that a lack of power and funding discouraged the members of the MAC. Also, the group could not separate other problems in the region from the process. The project concludes with recommendations for Southeastern Connecticut and future transportation planning processes. More time should be spent on clarifying the details during the process, such as definitions, evaluation criteria, and the scope of

. The Clean Air Act 2 , the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 3 , and the Council on Environmental Policy 4 all affected who is involved in the transportation planning process. This trend and other trends indicated that transportation planning was not purely technical; transportation planning was evolving into a complex, decision-making process. Additionally, MPOs first appeared during this decade.
The 1980s was the decade of decentralization. The federal government took a more flexible approach to transportation issues, allowing the state and local governments to make major transportation decisions. The trade-off for this flexibility was an increasingly complex and costly planning process.

IS TEA
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) authorized Federal highway and transit funding programs from 199 l to 1997. This policy decentralizes transportation planning, giving states and localities more control over transportation projects to better meet their needs. The legislation was intended to set a framework for "better planning and management of the Nation's transportation system" (USDOT 1995, 1 ). USDOT recognizes that because this approach to transportation planning is new , the process is evolutionary in that implementation will take time (USDOT 1995, 1 + strengthen the relationship between SDOTs and MPOs; and + mandate elements that must be a part of the planning process (public involvement, specific factors that must be considered, major investment studies, management systems, financial plans, and relation to State Implementation Plan).
These elements are mandatory for local and state agencies, and for MPOs involved in the transportation planning process (USDOT 1995, 7).
MPOs are responsible for carrying out the transportation planning process with coordination from SDOTs and other relevant agencies. The Federal government does maintain checks and balances on the process though. MPOs have many requirements under ISTEA but are not told how to carry out the process of decision-making. For example, "MPOs should periodically assess their efforts [based on public feedback] and make necessary adjustments" (USDOT 1995, 12). USDOT does not tell MPOs how to balance this feedback. MPOs must "consider" many aspects during the transportation process, but they are not told what "consider" means. The ISTEA clearly spells out the content of what MPOs must consider, but does not spell out how to do the considering.
USDOT does offer training for MPOs in conflict resolution and publishes a guide on different techniques of consensus building. However, as of 1995, only three MPOs of 339 requested such help (Gage and McDowell 1995, 153). MPOs need to be able to accomplish these tasks to successfully plan under ISTEA and for regional planning efforts. Coordination Throughout the history of transportation planning in the United States, many antagonisms existed between the various interests involved. The tension between city planners and engineers became obvious in the 1930s (Levin and Abend 1971 , 34 ).
Tensions existed between the federal agencies that oversaw various transportation policies, particularly between the Housing and Home Finance Agency and the Bureau of Public Roads (Levin and Abend 1971, 39). These two federal agencies had had little experience with cooperative transportation planning. Further conflict can be expected within and between various levels of government and between the other involved interests as they increasingly work together to address transportation issues.

Group Process in Planning
Group processes are a tool that may help transportation planners, such as MPOs, more effectively make decisions. According to Judith Innes "[c]onsensual groups are playing a growing role in planning" ( 1992,440). Group process has been used for, among other things, land use planning, ad hoc committees, strategic committees, visioning, problem solving, and dispute resolution (Innes 1992, 441). Additionally, regional planning approaches are employing facilitated processes as a means of collaboration (Wallis 1994, 44 7). Group processes can be important when multiple goals are involved in planning or when the means of reaching the goals is uncertain. Bringing together many interests in a group also allows the combination of many types of knowledge, such as technical knowledge and practical knowledge (Innes 1992, 443). 6

Chapter One: Introduction
Innes also points out certain conditions that must be met for a successful group process.
These conditions will be used in this study to analyze the regional transportation planning process that occurred in southeastern Connecticut.

The Southeastern Connecticut Multi-Modal Advisory Committee
The Multi-modal Advisory Committee (MAC) worked for twenty months, from 1994 to 1996, to develop potential transportation alternatives to alleviate southeastern Connecticut' s traffic congestion. This group was comprised of nine municipalities, two Native American tribes , regional groups, state groups, the federal government, and nonprofits groups. A project team, consisting of ConnDOT and the SCCOG, led the group with the help of a hired transportation consultant, Vanasse, Hangen, Brustlin, Inc. (VHB).
The goal of the MAC was to arrive at four to six transportation alternatives that the hired consultant would then further analyze in an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS).
The SCCOG is the MPO for this region who, in cooperation with ConnDOT, identified the need for the MAC to provide ConnDOT with alternatives. Specifically, the MAC "was formed to serve as the core of the community outreach effort" with the community being the region (VHB 1995t, 6). The MAC's second purpose was to " ... foster regional cooperation by engaging in an intermunicipal and tribal collaborative problem-solving process" (VHB l 995t, 6 Southeastern Connecticut will undoubtedly face further regional transportation problems, especially congestion problems, due to the growth in the tourism industry.
Identifying the problems behind this regional process may help the region in the future.

Objectives of the Study
This study has four objectives: l. Describe background information on transportation planning, the study area, and the MAC process as a basis for the rest of the study; 2. Determine which internal factors affected the outcome of the MAC; 3. Determine which external factors affected the outcome of the MAC; and 4. Based on the findings , address the implications for future undertakings in regional planning in southeastern Connecticut.

Methodology/ Approach
This section explains the methodology used to analyze the MAC process.
Resources included minutes from each MAC meeting, minutes from the public meetings held by the MAC, and public response forms and letters submitted to the project team.
Each resource has limitations, which will be discussed shortly.
To understand the internal factors, and many of the external ones, that may have affected the MAC, the study relied upon a content analysis of the MAC's meeting minutes. For each meeting, as series of question were addressed. The questions regarded areas of confusion and disagreement, questions of credibility of other members or outside agencies, concerns over data, negative past experiences, favorable comments about the 8 Chapter One: Introduction process, and so forth. By categorizing the questions, the comments were pieced together to find trends throughout the MAC process. For example, for the questions about process confusion, the answers from each meeting were compiled onto one sheet to see the evolution of confusion during the process.
Next, member analysis sheets were created for each body that the members represent. For example, each town had one sheet, as did each federal , state, and regional agency. Questions included: what did the members see as the problem at hand, what alternatives did they favor or not favor, what appears to be the agency ' s or town's overall policy, did the position change during the process, who were the alliances, and who did they conflict with ?
Member participation was gauged, again by entity, to see which agencies or towns lacked participation. Attendance alone was not considered participation in the process.
If a member spoke at a meeting (as reflected in the minutes) then the agency that member represented received a point. Participation was classified as low , moderate or high .
Public input was compiled by town of residence, using the public meeting minutes, public response forms, and letters submitted to the MAC. Included was a sheet for unknown residence since a large number of comments were not attributed to an individual. The sheets asked what the residents saw as the problem at hand, what alternatives they supported, and what negative and/or positive comments they had about the agencies involved in the study, and the negative comments about the MAC process itself. These results were part of the evaluation of external factors. 9 Chapter One: Introduction

Data Limitations
As with any source of data, there are limitations. First, most of the analysis relies upon the meeting minutes , which were recorded by the consultants. This could introduce bias into which responses were recorded and how they were framed . However, evidence suggests that the minutes were thorough and accurate. Each meeting was recorded in detail , incorporating positive and negative comments. Even comments questioning the consultants and project team are found in the minutes. Members commended the consultant for providing very thorough minutes over the duration of the MAC.
Additionally, each meeting began by soliciting corrections or clarification of the previous minutes.
Secondly, not every comment could be expected to be reflected in the minutes, nor is every comment attributed to an individual (though most are). Therefore, it is assumed that the comments that were relevant for this project were important enough to be recorded in the minutes. Also, comments during small group work were not provided in the minutes, so the group results were used for those sessions.
Finally, not all of my questions were answerable for all members or towns. For example, very little public comment came from Waterford; therefore, I was not able to come to any conclusions about the public attitudes from its residents. Additionally, public participants were most likely those affected by the proposed transportation alternatives. The public input cannot be assumed to represent the entire public.
In all, these resources were the best available and did provide sufficient data to reach firm conclusions.
10 Chapter One: Introduction

Organization of the Study
This study is divided into six chapters. Following the introduction, chapters two and three provide background information on transportation planning, the study area, and the MAC. Chapters four and five contain the analysis of internal factors and external factors respectively. The study concludes with chapter six.
I 1 Chapter Two: Background

CHAPTER TWO: BACKGROUND
This chapter reviews transportation planning and the related problems that southeastern Connecticut is facing. The first part provides background information about federal mandates for transportation planning. The second part gives an overview of transportation planning at the state level in Connecticut and at the regional level in southeastern Connecticut. A discussion on background characteristics of the area and some of the conflicts that the planners face in the area is also provided.

Federal Mandates and Regional Transportation Planning
The Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (!STEA), the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 (CAAA), and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) are federal regulations that exert a large influence on the transportation planning process.
Each of these acts are relevant for this case study and will be discussed briefly.

I STEA
The !STEA decentralizes transportation planning by giving states and sub-state regions more autonomy in their decision-making. In theory, this policy allows state and local governments to tailor decisions to meet their own needs. !STEA also mandates broader participation by the public and other relevant agencies, thus involving more interests in the process from the beginning. Additionally, this legislation fosters coordination between the state and local governments, with metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) being the liaison.

12
Chapter Two: Background As discussed in chapter one, MPOs are governor-appointed bodies that carry out transportation planning for a particular region, but operate under federal regulations.
MPOs cover populations ranging from 50,000 to 10 million (Gage and McDowell 1995, 135). ISTEA classifies MPOs into small or large MPOs and then further categorizes them as in attainment or non-attainment of the 1990 CAAA. As of 1995, there were 339 MPOs nation-wide (Gage and McDowell 1995, 133). The percentage of these MPOs that are regional councils of governments is 44 percent (Gage and McDowell 1995, 135).
Connecticut has ten MPOs.
MPOs were a response to the 1962 Federal-Aid Highway Act which required cooperation between the state DOT and local governments (Pendergast 1994, 40 Planning Work Programs and Transportation Improvement Plans (TIPs), and to achieve air quality conformity. Federal staff oversee the progress of MPOs by visiting state and local agencies involved with transportation planning to identify the strengths and weaknesses of their planning process (Lyons 1994, 24).
This expanded responsibility of MPOs comes with problems (Pendergast 1994, 40). First, they lack funding which can be attributed partly to the increase in the number of MPOs without sufficient increases in federal funding. Second, they can experience "political messiness" of many varieties. The relations between the members of the MPO can cause difficulties, as can the relationship between the MPO and the SDOT. SDOTs

13
Chapter Two: Background traditionally have been in charge of most major decisions, and may be reluctant to give up some power to the MPOs (Pendergast 1994, 41 ). Also, the governor can veto the decision of a MPO. Third, they sometimes lack expertise, since transportation planners must now consider a wider range of issues, including economic, social, and environmental effects. Additionally, in many cases the affected agencies have not completely formalized the new planning processes required under !STEA (Lyons 1994, 24). This is compounded by the fact that federal staff were slow to complete the regulations mandated by ISTEA (Pendergast 1994, 40). Lyons alludes to the possibility that the success or failure of MPOs is tied to the past role of the MPO (Lyons 1994).
Finally, some transportation planning may occur outside of the MPO's hands, such as when a transit operator makes a major decision. These changes may conflict with an MPO's long-range goals (Lyons 1994, 25).
USDOT offers assistance to MPOs regarding public participation and conflict resolution. Only three of 339 MPOs requested such help as of 1995 (Gage and McDowell 1995, 153). USDOT also publishes guides for various facilitation and decision-making techniques to aid MPOs.
Clean Air Act -Amendments of 1990 The Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 affect transportation planning since new transportation projects may not violate the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), worsen existing conditions, or interfere with an area' s efforts to comply with the standards if not currently meeting air quality standards. The study area is a nonattainment area for both ozone and carbon monoxide. This means that new projects must 14 Chapter Two: Background either be proven to improve air quality as compared to a no-build scenario, or a project must be a part of a larger plan that improves the air quality of the area.

NEPA
NEPA, which sets a national policy to protect the environment, applies to projects that constitute a "major federal action." Regulations established by the Council on Environmental Quality defined the processes behind NEPA, including environmental impact statements (EIS) and the scoping process. Through the EIS process, the lead agency must identify and analyze alternatives based on numerous factors, including environmental impacts. A pre-EIS scoping process can narrow the alternatives that will be studied in the EIS. The FHW A has published procedures for implementing these processes (Weiner 1987, 62).
A major investment study (MIS) may be required during the scoping phase, integrating !STEA, CAAA, and NEPA regulations, to avoid a duplication of efforts by creating a single comprehensive process rather than three separate processes. USDOT states that the purpose of an MIS is " ... to analyze solutions to address substantial transportation problems and present this information to decision-makers" (USDOT 1995, 17). USDOT points out that many factors "should" be considered in an MIS including: the overall effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of alternatives; mobility and accessibility improvements; social, economic, and environmental impacts; and safety. (USDOT 1995, 19). The scope of these factors may require the coordination of numerous experts. The MIS should result in a selection of alternatives that will be further studied in an EIS.  (Haase and Johnson 1996).

Statewide Transportation Planning in Connecticut
Connecticut was one of the first states to create a state department of transportation. The intention was to combine the duties of planning, development, maintenance, and improvement of the state's transportation networks into one agency (ConnDOT l 995b, 54). For thirty years before ISTEA, ConnDOT was already pro-active in coordinating local and state activities. ConnDOT required coordination between municipalities and the state and worked with regional planning organizations (RPOs) since 1959 (ConnDOT 1995b, 78 This group came to consensus on six alternatives for further study. Therefore the MAC process was not a new idea for ConnDOT.

Regional Planning in Connecticut: Council of Governments
Connecticut legally allows three types of regional planning organizations (RPOs): regional planning agencies (RP A), councils of elected officials (COE), and councils of governments (COG)9. In general, an RPO ' s main purpose is to carry out planning activities in the particular region by assisting individual municipalities and coordinating intermunicipal issues. The State Office of Policy and Management defines the boundaries of such regions. Municipalities become members of an RPO when they amend their local ordinances accordingly. Since the RPO for the study area is a COG, the rest of this section focuses on the structure and powers of a COG. Overall, a COG's scope includes any matter that a municipality is concerned with , from education, to waste disposal, to economic development. According to Connecticut General Statutes, COGs have the power to consider regional matters, promote economic development, promote cooperation, make recommendations, serve as a forum, develop policies, initiate and coordinate actions, and to carry out regional planning. However, the COG's bylaws require that planning matters are handled exclusively by the regional planning commission (RPC), which is a division of the COG. This branch is comprised of representatives from each member's planning commission. Similar to the COG, each member of the RPC has one vote on issues.
Traditionally COGs have faced many difficulties in accomplishing their goals, with some similar problems to those of MPOs. Additional troubles include: suspicions of self-serving interests, perceptions of ineffectiveness, and the perception of being an impediment to regional decision-making (Wallis 1994). COGs may also suffer from fragmentation due to varying interests of member municipalities.

18
Chapter Two: Background

Overview of Region and Study Area
The southeastern Connecticut region, as mentioned, covers twenty-one municipalities or boroughs and two federally recognized and sovereign native American nations, the Mashantucket Pequot Indians and the Mohegan Indians. Map l illustrates the area. In 1990, 240,432 resided in the region (SCCOG 8, 1996). This population grew by twenty-four percent from 1960 to 1990, while the amount of developed land jumped by 245 percent during the same period (SCCOG 7, 1996). Currently, the region's most prominent land use for developed land is residential (SCCOG 7, 1996).
Nine municipalities in this region comprise the study area: Ledyard, Preston, North Stonington, Stonington, New London, Groton , Norwich, Montville, and Waterford (Mystic is a part of Groton). The SCCOG divides the study area into urban, suburban, and rural towns as follows (refer to Map 2): Urban towns: Groton, New London, Norwich Suburban towns: Ledyard, Montville, Preston, Stonington, Waterford Rural town: North Stonington Almost all of the region's major employers (places employing at least fifty) are located in the study area: (SCCOG 14, 1996). Currently, the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Nation is the region 's largest employer (SCCOG 5, 1996).

Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments
The Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) represents twenty-one municipalities and boroughs. This region is "region 13" in the state. SCCOG

19
Map 1 : Location of Study Area Connecticut has a staff of an executive director, assistant director, planners, and a secretary. A different regional body preceded the SCCOG.
The Southeastern Connecticut Regional Planning Agency (SCRP A) was organized in 1961 , and by 1967 southeastern Connecticut saw its first regional plan.
During this time, the group was responsible for reviewing and commenting on local and state actions, and creating plans and reports. However, the regional body did not have power to implement the plan (SCRPA 1976). In 1973, the Governor appointed SCRPA as the MPO for that region, thus giving the agency an emphasis on transportation.
The SCRP A was reorganized into the Southeastern Connecticut Council of Governments (SCCOG) in 1993, and remained the MPO for this region. This agency reorganized into a COG because its members believed the change would enhance public sector involvement, allow stronger cooperation, and link planning and implementation (SCRP A 1992, 2). In addition to transportation planning, SCCOG provides governmental services such as those mentioned in the previous section on COGs.
Conflict and controversy surrounding the powers of a regional body in this region are not new. A recent proposal by the RPC to strengthen the scope of its own power has been met with resistance by the COG. Specifically the proposal was to give the RPC the right to review projects of a certain size, with the RPCs decision binding on the affected town unless overruled by the town's planning board. The RPC was also seeking to change state law to allow itself a larger role in the regional planning process. Both proposals were opposed by the COG. The first proposal was considered a threat to "[t]he state's long history of local control.. ." (Arellano 1997, B 1 ). One local politician noted other reasons for opposition including "[it] would take away local control, add a layer of 22 Chapter Two: Background bureaucracy and increase development costs for businesses" (Arellano 1997, B 1 ). Also, the COG was founded under an agreement that the group never would have veto power over another town's decision. The editors of the New London Day feel part of this opposition is due to the competition that exists between the municipalities in the region (The New London Day 1997, A8). They go on to note " ... what a fiction regional planning really is in southeastern Connecticut and other areas in the state." Finally, SCRP A itself recognized the regional obstacles any planning body faces: "With its strong, some might say obsessive, tradition of home rule, Connecticut has always posed a challenge to the development of programs to provide services on a regional basis" (SCRPA 1993, 4).
SCRPA did note some of the more successful regional operations in the area though.

These include SouthEastern Connecticut Transit, Southeastern Connecticut Water
Authority, and the Southeastern Connecticut Tourism District (SCRPA 1993, 4).

Background: Southeastern Connecticut's Current Transportation Issues
During the 1990s, defense-related jobs began to decrease, while the tourism industry increased, due to the opening of Fox woods Resort Casino in Ledyard in 1992 and the Mohegan Sun in 1996, in Montville (VHB 1997, I-1). This increase in tourism has greatly affected the transportation systems of the region and is perceived to threaten the rural character that defines much of the area. As the executive director of the Mystic Chamber of Commerce stated, "[ w ]e have confusion and congestion on our roads, threatening to destroy our quality of life and economic opportunity as well" (Peter 1997, Cl).

23
Chapter Two: Background An estimated twenty-five million people visit the region each year (Peter 1997, C4). On a peak day, Foxwoods hosts up to 50,000 visitors (VHB 1997, 1-1). As can be expected, traffic has increased drastically, creating congestion and safety concerns (VHB 1997, 1-1 ). These traffic concerns affect all levels of roads in the study area: two interstate systems, state routes, and local roads.
Certain corridors, particularly Route 2, have a history of summertime congestion from beach traffic . But current problems are worse and/or more frequent than past problems. For example, Route 2 sees two to five times more traffic now than in 1980.
By 2015, this number is expected to double again and most roads will exceed their design capacity (VHB 1997, 11-36). The area is experiencing problems with large vehicles, such as buses and trucks, using secondary routes; roughly ninety buses per day deliver patrons to Foxwoods (VHB 1995d). Additionally, access management becomes an issue with the current and expected growth in these high traffic corridors (VHB 1997, 11-36).
The region can expect to continue to grow with more tourist attractions planned by numerous parties. These include numerous large hotels in Norwich and Montville, further development of Fox woods Resort and the Mohegan Sun, possible expansion of the Groton-New London Airport, the expansion of the Mystic Marinelife Aquarium and Mystic Seaport, and OceanQuest (VHB 1997, 11-25). Due to these future expectations, the current demand must be reduced for these corridors and/or the existing roadway capacities must be improved to meet demand (VHB 1997, 11-38). ConnDOT and both tribes have undertaken some roadway improvements, while more are planned for the immediate future . Finally, the future plans of both tribes create much uncertainty over the 24 Chapter Two: Background location and extent of growth in the region, especially since the tribes collectively own land in all of the nine municipalities in the study area.
ConnDOT conducted an informal study of possible improvements for the stretch of Route 2 through Preston, Ledyard, and North Stonington. An ad hoc advisory group consisting of these three towns, the Mashantucket tribe, and ConnDOT oversaw this study. As a result, ConnDOT proposed a highway bypass plan and a rail plan to address the problems. However, public opinion revealed the controversy surrounding these proposals at the public meetings held by ConnDOT. As a response to these concerns, SCCOG asked ConnDOT to hire a consultant to conduct a formal study of the larger region: nine municipalities and three transportation corridors (Garrett 1997). ConnDOT halted the previous study and turned that information over to SCCOG to be used in this newly initiated study. SCCOG and ConnDOT agreed to use a committee of stakeholders, known as the MAC, to carry out the MIS phase of this project. This committee will be described in chapter three.
25 This chapter explains what the MAC was, what it did, and the outcome.

Purposes and Membership of the MAC
The MAC was formed for two key purposes. First, the MAC was to evaluate transportation alternatives that they would formulate during the process. These alternatives would improve corridor traffic conditions and access in the study area, with a ten to fifteen year implementation period (VHB 1997, I-2). The second purpose of the MAC was " to foster regional cooperation by engaging in an intermunicipal and tribal collaborative problem-solving process" (VHB 1997, I-2). The members of the MAC elected official from each municipality plus one appointee served as members. In most cases, the planner was the appointee. Also, regional , state, and federal agencies, and the two Native American Indian Tribes were represented on the MAC. Table 1 lists the entities represented on the MAC. In total there were forty members and a project team that included the consultant, a facilitator, and ConnDOT. ConnDOT played a dual role as a member of the MAC and as a part of the project team. The MAC determined that the state and federal agency representatives and SCCOG staff would be members as well as provide input on matters within their jurisdiction and expertise (VHB 1997, I-2). Membership changed during the MAC process due to local election results in November 1995 as is explained in chapter four.

MAC Process and Outcome
The MAC met biweekly on average for twenty-one months, from September 1994 to May 1996. During these meetings, which were led by the facilitator, the members outlined the direction of the study, presented data, sought input, defined the transportation problems of the region, developed alternatives, and evaluated the alternatives. This section highlights the steps that the MAC went through.
Step l: Establishing MAC protocol Before beginning work on the problem at hand, the members had to decide on the process itself. Specifically, the MAC had to decide how the public would be involved, the ground-rules for meetings, decision-making criteria, and other rules. The project team assembled these decisions into the MAC Protocol, to which all members were to adhere.
The MAC defined the roles of the members, the project team, and the facilitator.
The members were to: • seek support from constituencies; • "participate in a meaningful way to further the interests and concerns of their constituencies;" • provide information about the MAC to their constituencies; • "come to meetings with the freedom to invent and explore options;" and • provide ConnDOT and SCCOG with alternatives (VHB 1994e).
The project team was to serve two roles: facilitation and technical services. The facilitator would chair meetings, help establish agendas, identify areas of agreement and disagreement, remain non-partisan, and facilitate the exchange of information and consensus building (VHB 1994e).
The MAC decided upon the role of the public during the meetings. Members of the public would be allowed to speak if time were available or if the MAC agreed to hear the comments. Written testimony would also be allowed but "at the discretion of the facilitator [the comments] will be presented to the MAC" (VHB 1994e). These rules for 28 Chapter Three: The Multi-Modal Advisory Committee participation were for the MAC meetings only ; they did not apply to the numerous public information meetings, where they allowed more input from the public.
Finally, the MAC defined consensus to mean " ... decisions that each member can live with. " (MAC l994e). Additionally, the protocol stated that "MAC members agree to support the MAC agreement in that they will not seek additional alternatives" (MAC l 994e).
Step 2: Data collection and discussion to identify existing problems The first six months of the process revolved around collecting and discussing information about existing conditions in the study area. The MAC worked in small and large groups, made presentations to one another, and took a bus tour of the area to learn about the region ' s transportation problems. Toward the end of this stage, the MAC held two public meetings to display this information and to receive input.
Step 3 This combination of existing and future transportation and land use conditions helped the members define the need for the MAC process. It also would be used as a baseline from which to compare the effects of proposed transportation alternatives.
Step 4: Preliminary identification of transportation alternatives The MAC brainstorming efforts resulted in over one hundred ideas for transportation improvements (alternatives) for the region . These potential solutions to the region 's traffic problems ranged from new highways , to railways, to bicycle amenities, to a tunnel. The members sorted the ideas into four lists, with the "A" list containing those alternatives that would be further evaluated since they appeared to be within the scope of the study. After presenting thirty seven alternatives at the next round of public meetings, the MAC incorporated some of the public' s new ideas with their alternatives.
Step 5: Contract with the MAC The consultant prepared the "Contract with the MAC" to outline the study objectives to serve as the framework for the next level of evaluation of the alternatives.
The MAC reviewed and amended this contract. The criteria specified that the alternatives must: 1. meet future demand (safety , operations and congestion, mobility , the number of vehicles entering the region, and traffic volumes on secondary roads); 2. preserve the quality of life (scenic/visual resources, residential environment, and cultural resources); 3. minimize environmental impacts (wetlands, water resources, air quality, noise quality, and undisturbed habitats and open space); 4. maximize cost effectiveness; and 5. address economic and land use concerns (effective land use, jobs and economic development) (VHB 1996, IV-78).
Step 6: First level screening of transportation alternatives The MAC further eliminated alternatives and then combined the remainder into nine packages, each including minor improvements, such as improving intersections, along with a major proposal , such as building a busway. The nine alternatives included: a "no-build" as required by NEPA, four roadway bypass alternatives, and four transit alternatives. This stage lasted roughly seven months. Again , public meetings allowed input from residents of the region.
Step 7: Second level screening of transportation alternatives The nine alternatives, were subjected to a second screening by both the consultant and the MAC, with the hope of selecting four to six to go to the EIS stage. The MAC evaluated the alternatives in more detail , specifically regarding engineering,

31
Chapter Three: The Multi-Modal Advisory Committee transportation, and environmental concerns. This analysis was presented at a public meeting.
Step 8 This stage signified the end of the MAC.
Step 9: The Environmental Impact Statement of selected transportation alternatives The consultant is currently working on the EIS for the six alternatives selected by ConnDOT. This step has a twenty-four month time frame for completion.

Summary of Findings
The twenty-one month process had many positive results including an extensive public outreach effort, the provision of local and regional information to the consultant, and extensive cooperation between the members. However, because the MAC did not reach its goal of consensus on transportation alternatives to be further studied, the process 32 Yacus 1996). These are: • common understanding of the problem and objectives; • defined expectations; • members' participation; and • a responsible project team.
The analysis of each factor begins with a discussion of its importance followed by an examination of how that factor appeared in the MAC.

Understanding of the Problem and Objectives
Sharing common objectives and meanings can foster cooperation, which in turn helps the members feel more committed and motivated, and enables trust (Center for 34

Chapter Four: Internal Factors
Conflict Resolution 1978, 34 ). Differences in definitions will "undoubtedly hinder collaboration among and within agencies" (Emerson 1996, 21 ). Therefore, identifying the group's common problem and objectives and agreeing on the various meanings are critical steps to be undertaken at the beginning of the process. A group should be able to identify the its overall goal and how it will reach that goal. The facilitator must be sure that the members of the group are trying to solve the same problem.
Basic definitions should be established in the process. Often the meanings of terms that the process focuses on seems obvious. However, sometimes such definitions are not clear. Innes discusses an example in Florida where disagreement over the word "sprawl" led the committee to take the time to develop a definition for it (1992,444).
Also, participants should understand the meaning of decision-making terms. When a group is working towards consensus on an issue, each member must understand the meaning of "consensus." When participants must make decisions based on "good reasoning", they must first agree on the definition of "good reasoning" (Innes 1996). Is "good reasoning" based on technical merit, social issues, or politics, for example? The way in which a member defines terms may reflect his or her agency's or town's values and norms.
During the MAC process, the group was often confused or in disagreement over the study's objectives and the meanings of phrases that the process depended upon.
Specifically, problems arose over the definition of the problem, why alternatives should be selected, and who they were planning for.

Definition of the Problem and Objectives
The results indicate that the group was not able to clearly define the problem initially nor did all of the members agree with the definition of the problem. The MAC spent many meetings assessing current traffic problems and projecting future traffic in the area. Areas of agreement emerged, as did many of disagreement. During the first few months of the MAC, the members worked in groups to discuss the current problems.
Each of the three groups framed the region's problems differently. Group 1 identified problems along the region's backroads and the resulting threat to the residential character of the area. Group 2 took a local approach by focusing on the home town of Fox woods, Ledyard. Group 3 addressed the entire study area with an overriding concern for safety (VHB l 994f). These different approaches show that the scope of the problem was not consistent among members (that is, local versus regional problems). However, with the help of the facilitator, the group came to agreement on the problem: traffic on back roads was affecting quality of life. As the process continued, this agreement seemed to be forgotten by the members.
After seeing the future traffic projections prepared by the consultant, many members of the MAC expressed concern. In at least six meetings, some members expressed concern that the numbers were too high; and others thought them to be too low.
If indeed the consultants future traffic projections were too high, then maybe there was not a problem to be addressed. If the numbers were too low, then the problem may be much worse than the participants believed. At the end of the process, one member felt that none of the nine alternatives would solve what he saw as a problem: the traffic along one particular route (VHB 1996a). By the end of the MAC, members from North Stonington did not feel that there was any problem and therefore no need for any solutions--it saw construction of any alternative as the problem (VHB 1996e).
Some did not see traffic as a problem, but rather as an economic opportunity (VHB 1994e). The problem to them was that the drivers were not stopping to spend money. This point of view did not come from the host towns of Preston, Ledyard, Stonington, and North Stonington (towns that would be directly impacted by any transportation improvements).
The MAC appeared to disagree as to whether there really was a problem, and if so, its magnitude. Although there seemed to be agreement at the beginning of the process, such agreement was unclear by the last few meetings. Much of this disagreement came from the host towns.

Alternative Selection and Consensus
During the first MAC meetings the project team explained that the goal of the MAC would be to reach consensus on a range of alternatives to be studied in an EIS . The MAC agreed upon a definition of consensus: decisions that each member can live with (VHB 1994e). The facilitator further noted that the group must agree on the package of alternatives, not each individual one. Despite this definition, the issue of consensus was never clear, nor were the criteria for selecting and then evaluating alternatives.
During brainstorming activities, conflict emerged over the scope of the proposed alternatives. This conflict was not resolved, and remained for the duration of the MAC.
For example, some members were unclear whether they should propose short or long term solutions (VHB l 995a). Others felt strongly one way or the other, either preferring immediate solutions or long term solutions (VHB l 994b). This issue appeared again the following November (VHB l 995n). Then came the question of how specific the alternatives should be. Should the solutions state exactly where the improvements will be, or should the alternatives be more general (VHB l 995g)? All of the planners felt a need for more comprehensive alternatives that would include a land use component (VHB l 995j ).
Once the group developed a list of over one hundred solutions, they established their own criteria for evaluating alternatives. These criteria, listed in chapter three, were spelled out in "Contract with the MAC" in July 1995. By the end of the MAC, these criteria did not appear to be agreed upon: there was disagreement over what exactly the above stated criteria meant; some members were using other criteria; and others did not understand what it meant to forward an alternative. Even in the second to last meeting, a planner asked for clarification on the criteria for forwarding alternatives (VHB l 996d).
Conflict between the members and the consultant became evident during a discussion on the varying meanings of subjective terms such as "reasonable" (VHB 1996e). The project team explained to the members that NEPA requires that the range of forwarded alternatives include "reasonable modes and alignments" (VHB 1996e In the midst of this confusion and disagreement, the time came for the MAC to reach consensus. Numerous times, the facilitator and the members themselves asked other members to state which alternatives they want to be forwarded, rather than which ones they did not want built (VHB l 996d and l 996e). The member analysis showed that by the end, the majority of the MAC favored forwarding a balance of alternatives, recognizing that they did not necessarily have to support its actual construction to see it forwarded to the EIS . However, the host towns did not agree.
After much discussion of who did not want what, the members could not even agree if they had reached consensus. One member felt they had reached consensus; another felt they reached consensus on some alternatives; and others, including the project team, felt they did not reach consensus (VHB l 996e ). This process led to personal attacks, with two members claiming that the consultant and/or SCCOG engaged in the "arm-twisting" of other members to lend their support for roadway alternatives (VHB 1996e).

Who Were They Planning For?
The MAC studied a variety of transportation alternatives. One question that came up many times, was who were these alternatives for? Current tourists? New tourists?
Residents? Commuters? Casino patrons? At least two times members asked this question (VHB l 995n and 1996d). Many other comments alluded to the fact that the MAC did not seem to be on the same wavelength on this matter. A member from New London discussed the possibility of connecting alternatives to the ferry terminal so that tourists from Long Island could take advantage of the ferries . Other members questioned this strategy since it would bring in more people to the area. Most members focused on providing ways to get casino patrons to and from the casinos with the least impacts.
However, toward the end of the meeting, one member from a host town announced that he will not cater to casino patrons (VHB 1996d).

Participant's Expectations
When members have different expectations than the facilitator, or from other members, problems can result. Members of the MAC may have had varying expectations regarding the role of the MAC during the process and in the future, the regional scope expected of all members, and the level of detail in an MIS. As noted earlier, the MAC's self evaluation showed concern over the lack of clarity of the future of the process. However, throughout the process, some members stressed the need for immediate shortterm solutions to alleviate congestion due to the casino (VHB l 994b ). Therefore, their expectations of the type of solutions the MAC should propose did not match the expectations of the project team, or of the other MAC members. At one point, the project team reminded the MAC that all issues will not be solved by the MAC (VHB 1996c).

Most of the members and the project team had expectations about other members
of the MAC. They expected members to look at the whole region, not just local issues.
One planner vented such frustrations (VHB 1995n). She noted at another meeting that some town will have to bear impacts for the good of the region (VHB 1995e ), while other towns felt that it was unfair for a town to tolerate impacts (VHB 1996d). During the last two meetings, the facilitator and other members expressed concern that many members were only protecting their own interests and not thinking of the region as a whole (VHB l 996d).
Other expectations cropped up that may not have been realistic. For example, one elected official stated that the tribes can solve all of the traffic problems along a particular corridor (VHB 1995g agreed to include air quality in the report. Another member felt decisions could not be made without financial information, which would not be analyzed until the EIS (VHB l 996a). The project team had to reiterate that not all information is looked at in the MIS stage (VHB l 996a). In the last meeting, a member of the project team stated that the purpose of an MIS is not to ask the communities what they want, but to see whether the technical numbers warrant further study of an alternative (VHB l 996e). In other words, even the project team had different expectations that the criteria originally set forth in the "Contract with the MAC."

Members' Participation
Participation, for this study, means more than just showing up at the meetings; it requires contributing to the process itself. This may include sharing information, asking and answering questions, stating opinions, and even arguing. For this study, participation of the town or agency was measured rather than an individual ' s level of participation, unless the town/agency was represented by only one person.
Maximum participation and diverse representation in the meetings is integral to a successful group process. Many absences or a lack of participation is an issue that must concern a facilitator (Center for Conflict Resolution 1978). Having a variety of interests involved in the process from the beginning may legitimize the decisions that result from the process (USDOT, FHW A and FT A 1994, G-1 ). For example, if one affected town contributed minimally during the process, that town could claim that the final decision ignored that particular town ' s needs and concerns. On a similar note, each participating town or agency can be viewed as a resource. The group is better equipped to make decisions when all of these resources are available to the group. If a member does not participate until the end of the process, the group may find that this late-comer member would have been an important resource for the group.
Finally, participation may give each member a sense of ownership of the problem at hand, and thus ownership of the process. When members see that the project team responds to their concerns, they may feel that their voice will make a difference in the outcome of the process.
The project team designed the MAC for broad representation from Federal, State, regional, and local interests. However, participation was not equal among these interests and was non-existent for some interest groups. Of twenty-four meetings, seven federal agencies, three state agencies, and one Native American Tribe had minimal participation (they spoke at fewer than five meetings). Collectively, these non-participators comprised forty percent (40%) of the agencies/towns represented on the MAC. Only six agencies/towns participated in more than three-quarters of the meetings. This group of six included the SCCOG and the RPC, three of the four host towns, and New London.
The members themselves were concerned about a lack of participation. As part of the process, the MAC underwent a self-evaluation ten months into the process (VHB 1995g). The group noted the lack of involvement by the chief elected officials and by the Native American Tribes. Though the group did not name those chief elected officials, analysis shows that those officials from Groton, Norwich, Montville, and Ledyard barely participated. Other times throughout the twenty months, members again mentioned the lack of participation by elected officials. The mayors and first selectmen did not deny this accusation; one noted that her busy schedule often conflicted with the meeting times (VHB 1995j). Regarding the tribes, the Mashantuckets participated in just under half of the meetings, while the Mohegans barely participated. The MAC did not appear to be concerned over the lack of participation by numerous state and federal agencies, as there was no mention of it in the minutes.
Over a year after the process began, the project team was confused over who was or was not a member, so they allotted time at the beginning of a meeting to clarify this issue (VHB l 995n). Local elections, which resulted in membership changes for four towns, caused part of the confusion. In addition, the project team was unsure of who the designated members from both tribes were due to their minimal appearances. Also, the MAC received a new member one month before the end of the process (VHB 1996c).
On a positive note, many members of the MAC appeared committed to the process, as gauged by their presence and by comments during the meetings. The MAC did provide a forum for participating members to air their concerns and work toward solving a regional problem.

Project Team
A facilitator guides a group; if she (in this case) goes astray, so will the group.
She must make sure the group agrees on aspects of the process and must address disagreements that arise. Without adequate facilitation the process can become unglued.
The role of the other members of the project team is less critical for this study, therefore this section focuses on the facilitator.
The role of the project team, including both the facilitator and consultant, appeared successful at the surface level. The facilitator followed many of the rules outlined by the Center for Conflict Resolution for successful facilitation. She appeared neutral throughout, pointed out areas of agreement and disagreement, summarized major points, kept the discussion focused on the topic at hand, and provided a variety of formats for group work. All process decisions were given to the MAC, such as the dates of meetings, when to take breaks, the formulation of the alternatives, etc. The protocol outlined the role of the facilitator, assuring that the group understood this role. The self evaluation noted the success of facilitation.
However, after completing the analysis on common meanings , participant's expectations, and participation it is evident that the facilitator did not guide the MAC as effectively as she could have. First, the facilitator did not ensure that a common definition of the problem was reached by the group. Secondly, the project team did not clearly set forth what was expected of the MAC after the process. Finally, when the project team realized that numerous interests were not participating or even attending the meetings, further efforts should have been made to incorporate them. However, since this analysis only reflects the content of the minutes, a clear conclusion cannot be reached as to whether the project team contacted non-participants.
The project team, including ConnDOT, provided the MAC with technical data and analyses needed to make decisions. Innes points out the need for such help with technical data in group processes (1992,441). Perhaps most importantly, the team responded accordingly to data concerns by the MAC. For example, often times a member would question a piece of data or an assumption. The project team would address the concerns, usually by the next meeting.

Summary
The overall process should not be deemed a failure based on the problems highlighted in this chapter. Innes notes that the group processes she studied had limited success. For example, she studied eight groups in California that tackled planning issues.
used, and not all disputes during the processes were solved (1992,451 ). However, the participants did work together.
This analysis of internal factors that may have influenced the MAC process appears to show that many issues were unclear or contentious throughout the process.
These issues included definitions, identification of the problem and common objectives, a full understanding of the MIS process and how the MAC fits into this process. Other internal factors may have been of concern also. However, not every factor was measurable with the data available. The factors that were measured, however, seem to have played a role in the problems the MAC faced.
This chapter analyzes external factors, which are those issues that occurred outside or before the MAC, that may have affected the decisions of the group members and the MAC's outcome. The external factors are categorized into five groups based on a literature review: the history of regional cooperation, regional capacity, power, local politics, and public influence (Pendergast 1994;Pindur and Yacus 1996;Florestano and Wilson-Gentry 1994;Wallis 1994). These factors do not necessarily occur as discrete and identifiable issues, but may be interwoven with other external factors or with internal factors . But for ease of discussion they are addressed categorically. Each section describes the factor and then discusses how it influenced the MAC.

History of Regional Cooperation
The regional history of an area can play a large role in the decision-making process (Florestano and Wilson-Gentry 1994, 26). If past regional efforts have failed, participants may feel that again, their input will not make a difference. For similar reasons, the past relations and reputations of the various agencies involved in the process are also important. Particular attention is paid to ConnDOT's reputation since they are the agency that leads transportation decisions in the state. History also includes the attitudes of the municipalities and agencies regarding transportation issues and regional cooperation. For example, a town may have a history of rejecting or resenting outside "help" to solve its problems.
According to the meeting minutes, many members of the MAC did not have a positive outlook on past regional efforts and transportation projects. One planner highlighted the lack of regional efforts in the study region when she noted that the people in the region say " it' s never been done before" as an excuse not to work together (VHB l 995j) . Three areas of concern arose during the process: members having a negative impression about past efforts and projects, a history of strong local control , and traditional resistance to transit options statewide and in the region.
Comments from members reflected a lack of faith in regional efforts and past transportation projects. Members blamed the state and federal governments for not providing sufficient funding (VHB l 995n). It became clear that the members' perceptions of other transportation projects were not favorable either as they discussed their frustrations over past transportation projects and initiatives. In general, members felt that the state did not allow or consider regional or local input for past projects. For example, one town mentioned how the STC did not incorporate the town ' s concerns into a previous project (VHB l 994e) . Another member noted that private developers seem to have an easier time dealing with the STC (VHB l 996d). Also, many members were frustrated with the past piecemeal approaches to transportation planning due to regional fragmentation (VHB 1996c). One planner noted the lack of regional support for more comprehensive issues such as access management (VHB 1995e).
As discussed in chapter two, the local press highlighted the resistance to cooperation in the area due to a history of strong home rule tendencies. Many of the comments by MAC members illustrated this preference for local control over development. A member from a host town voiced concern that in the past, land in the town had been taken out of the tax base without compensation (VHB 1995n). He did not feel this was a fair practice. Another member brought in his town ' s three-hundred-year history of not developing (VHB 1995d). One member summarized preferences for local over regional control by reminding the other members that the Connecticut state legislature had recently turned down a proposal to give regional planning agencies more power (VHB l 995j).
Finally, the MAC showed disbelief that transit would be viable based on a past lack of support both regionally and at the state level. Overall, members appeared to see a historical lack of support from ConnDOT and the governor for transit alternatives. For example, the state has a bad reputation for cutting money for commuter rail, or not even allotting transit money for towns east of the Connecticut River (VHB l 995a). Others noted the historical lack of federal funding support for mass transit projects, despite proposals from SCCOG (VHB 1995n). Additionally, the member from SCCOG stated mass transit options have never received the support from the towns (VHB l 995a). This issue is further discussed in the section on regional capacity.
How did these negative views affect the MAC process? Some members saw the MAC as an opportunity to change past trends (VHB 1996e). Specifically, the process was allowing the region to have more input than traditionally (VHB l 996d). Others made statements to the effect that the region's past tainted the process: why should they believe that the current attempt is different past ones? The host towns indicated that local sacrifices for the benefit of the region are unreasonable and unfair. However, a member from Groton refuted this attitude by showing that such sacrifices have occurred in the past. She noted that Groton, home to numerous large employers, had taken the brunt of impacts such as new roads to support these large employers. That was a regional issue in which one town sacrificed. Now the towns with the casinos are in that same boat (VHB 1996a).

Regional Capacity
Because the SCCOG, as the MPO, is the regional transportation leader for the study area, its capacity to provide technical and administrative support to achieve regional initiatives was critical. Most importantly, would the SCCOG have the funding to implement the final product of the study? Members needed to believe that their time would be well spent.
Questions over SCCOG' s leadership capacity did not arise during the MAC. The analysis looked for negative comments about the SCCOG in past projects, or concerns over their technical or leadership capacities. However, the MAC spent much of its time discussing funding. This leads to the conclusion that funding, rather than technical and leadership capacities, was of primary concern.
Funding surfaced throughout the entire MAC process; the current funding situation and the region's past financial capacity became evident through the dialogue in the meetings. Discussion centered on the fact that the region receives only twelve million dollars a year for transportation projects, whereas the least expensive alternative (excluding the "no build") would cost over $103 million dollars (VHB l 995n). Funding was a larger issue for transit options since they are more expensive to construct.
Members recognized the lack of federal and state support for transit alternatives since traditionally, most funding went to highways (VHB 1995a). ConnDOT reminded the MAC that there is not a blank check waiting to be spent on an alternative; the MAC should not expect easy financing for the outcome (VHB l 996b ).
Funding issues have created problems in other case examples, such as the transportation steering committee in a Hampton Roads study in Virginia in 1994. This group felt hopeless due to funding uncertainties. They believed they were creating a "financially constrained vision" (Pindur and Yacus 1996, 139). Such feelings may have been present during the MAC. This lack of money caused some MAC members to feel that the process had been useless, while others felt that funding would be found if an alternative had enough support (VHB l 995n). This amounted to a schism between those who felt only fundable alternatives should be forwarded to the EIS , and those who felt ideal solutions should be forwarded in the hope that funding would be found. Some members even concluded that all regional solutions, in general, were too expensive to support (VHB l 995m).

Power
Power, as an external factor, may influence a group process in a variety of forms.
It may mean the power struggles that occur between decision makers at various levels of government. Inherent conflicts between institutions may result in power struggles.
Planners and politicians may fundamentally disagree on issues and policies, as may politicians and transportation planners. The lead agencies of a project may fundamentally disagree. For example, state DOTs may be set in the traditional mode of highways only policy, while the MPO may feel otherwise (Gage and McDowell 1995, 148). All members are supposed to be on equal ground during the meetings, but outside the MAC certain entities have power over the ultimate decisions and the implementation of those decisions. Additionally, decision-makers may feel threatened by private entities who can make major decisions without public input. These private entities may include private transportation providers, or in this case, sovereign tribal nations.
In terms of the MAC, three sources of power loomed over the process: Toward the end of the MAC, the project team and resource agencies explained that it is their institutional policy to evaluate certain alternatives regardless of whether the MAC selects them (VHB l 995n). For example, a member from the Army Corps of Engineers pointed out that the Corps will issue a permit only if the selected alternative is the least environmentally damaging (VHB 1996e). At this point, a member from one town questioned why the MAC existed if the final decision laid elsewhere. Also, the "Contract with the MAC" cited a concern for social issues, but the resource agencies based their concerns on environmental criteria. Again, in the second to last meeting, the resource agencies reiterated this reality, with another member again asking why the MAC was needed (VHB 1996d).

Local Politics
Norris defines local politics as "political events, conditions, and circumstances unique to a local area at a given time" (Norris 1992, 158). Politicians, planners, and the public are all players in local politics. For example, the individual economies of the region may be in conflict, thus affecting local political policies and decisions. Some towns see growth as a threat, while others see it as an economic opportunity. Also, elections may change local politics and thus the policies of the MAC members. These policies then become part of the MAC process through its members.
This study gauged the policies of the towns through the member analysis.
Positions and comments of the members were cumulated under the town they represent to see if there was a common goal or policy for each member town. In general, the host towns' policy was that of no new roads . These four towns are less developed and not seemingly growth-oriented. Montville, New London, Waterford, Groton, and Norwich , however, are more developed towns/cities and seem to view growth as an economic opportunity. These five towns also tended to favor a balanced approach to the alternatives. This comparison of the host and nonhost towns leads to the conclusion that there were conflicting policies over economic growth and preservation that affected the outcome of the MAC.
The decisions and events that occurred before or outside of the MAC seem to further support these local policies. Before the MAC, residents opposed a Route 2A bypass (VHB l 994f). Three of the host towns held referenda during the MAC opposing road improvements and either supporting the "no build" alternative or rail options. In addition, the Ledyard town council passed a resolution endorsing the elimination of a bypass through Ledyard (VHB 1996d). Each host town would not support the forwarding of an alternative if the residents had rejected it. The MAC questioned how these local actions would affect their decisions. Both the project team and the SCCOG responded that the MAC is not bound by these outside decisions (VHB l 995n). One planner acknowledged that the MAC also takes place outside of the meetings: at council meetings, in people's houses, etc. (VHB l 996e). In other words, the MAC really is not a closed process, void of local decisions and opinions.
Regional solutions seemed implausible, since many members could think only of their own town. The facilitator and various members pointed out a few times that each town cannot just protect its own interests (VHB 1996d). Many members could not, or perhaps did not want to, separate local politics from the regional goals.

Public Response
Public input is an external influence since members of the public did not have a formal role in the MAC. However, the MAC received substantial feedback from area residents that may have influenced them directly in their decisions, or at least stimulated discussion. Public involvement introduces many more stakeholders with varying interests into the process. The members must reconcile these often antagonistic views with their own. Elected officials, in particular, may feel directly responsible for addressing their constituents' needs.
The MAC was very concerned with public input. Members spent large parts of many meetings discussing and devising public input strategies. Many were also concerned with their credibility to the public. For example, some members were afraid to show the public their original list of over one hundred brainstormed alternatives since some were unrealistic (VHB 1995e). Another member felt the MAC' s credibility would be questioned if expensive alternatives were presented to the public (VHB 19950).
Members were aware, though, that the input they were receiving was mostly from those members of the public that were most affected by the problem at hand.
The study looked at public opinion on the transportation problem and the alternatives, the public ' s feelings toward the MAC, and their stated opinions on regional issues. Overall, the public did not view themselves as part of the transportation problem or as a user group for the future alternatives. Many felt that the MAC was catering to the tribes. Others thought that there was no problem that needed to be solved and therefore no need for the MAC. However, many others did see a problem, but no one clear public sentiment over the alternatives was evident. Many of the public comments and concerns seemed similar to the questions that the MAC struggled with: who were they planning for and is there even a problem?
The public from the host towns voiced more negative comments than from the other towns, especially regarding the tribes and ConnDOT. Residents from North Stonington believed that the tribe was influencing the decision-makers and the MAC.
They felt that the tribes should deal with the traffic problems and therefore did not support the existence of the MAC.
As mentioned, there was not clear public sentiment except perhaps in the host towns . The host towns used that public sentiment to support their stand for or against certain alternatives. They felt the pressure from the local public to solve the problems at hand (VHB l 995a). Other members realized that the public will never accept any of the alternatives because someone will always be affected (VHB l 996d).

Summary
This chapter shows that the MAC was not able to escape outside pressures and realities. They recognized the limited power they might have in the final selection and implementation of any alternative. Feelings of "why should we even bother" appeared, especially at the end when trying to reach consensus. Others could not set aside their local interests for the benefit of the region, or perhaps did not recognize that benefits must come at a cost to someone. However, as seen, some members did view this collaboration as an opportunity to overcome those external hurdles discussed in this chapter--i.e., let the region's voice be heard.

CHAPTER SIX: CONCLUSION
The problems highlighted in this study are not new problems; transportation planners have encountered these same obstacles in other cases. The purpose of this study was to see which problems affected the outcome of the MAC. This chapter summarizes the findings and discusses implications and recommendations for regional planning in southeastern Connecticut and transportation planning processes in general.

Summary of Findings
The analysis of internal factors suggests reasons why the MAC could not reach consensus on which transportation alternatives to study in an EIS : the lack of agreement on the problem and the process. The lack of an appropriate response by the facilitator and project team probably further impeded the MAC from reaching consensus. The analysis of internal factors, however, highlighted some successes of the MAC. The MAC provided an opportunity for planners, politicians, tribal representatives, and state agencies to discuss the traffic condition in the region. Whether or not the participants agreed on the problem, solutions, or process, they did collaborate and share information. The MAC also fulfilled one of its objectives of providing ConnDOT and the public with information about the region.
The analysis also identified external factors that may have influenced the outcome of the MAC. Particularly, a lack of funding for transportation projects and a lack of knowledge and input on further tribal developments appeared to have created a "why 59 Chapter Six: Conclusion bother?" attitude. This feeling seems to have led many members to feel that the MAC would not be able to influence transportation decisions.
Overall, this analysis showed that the problems confronted by the MAC were not just about traffic congestion. Problems regarding funding, tribal development, growth policies, for example, all affected the participants and their decisions in the MAC.
Additionally, the external factors clearly influenced the internal factors. Members incorporated local politics, ConnDOT's history, and other perceptions into the process.

Implications and Recommendation~_ for Southeastern Connecticut
The stakeholders in the region share many problems that ideally they should address collectively. Regional problem solving in Southeastern Connecticut is not a simple process, as the MAC illustrated; parties must confront and overcome complicated issues in such endeavors. The towns and cities will continue to face uncertainty over the type and enormity of future tribal development and tourists will continue to bring more cars into the area. At the same time, transportation planning at the regional, state, and federal level will continue to emphasize more inclusive methods of decision-making.
Although this study showed what went wrong with this problem-solving process, it demonstrates the benefits such efforts can have in regions facing growth. Benefits included increased public awareness, increased dialogue between the participants, and the provision of information to ConnDOT. In brief, although this process had its faults, it could be a very useful technique for further regional collaboration.
This study generated the following recommendations for the study area: 60 Chapter Six: Conclusion • Many differences between the municipalities must be confronted. The growth policies of the municipalities in the area will continue to be different, with some trying to attract more tourism and others resisting the accompanying growth. These policies conflict. The leaders should work together to identify how these policies can complement one another rather than conflict. Until this fundamental difference is addressed, further problem solving processes could have results similar to that of the MAC.
• The SCCOG staff should take an active role in promoting more group problemsolving processes. This MIS process may have been a foreign concept to the MAC members. Perhaps using problem-solving processes at a smaller scale could help the decision-makers in the region become more accepting of such techniques.

Implications and Recommendations for Transportation Planning Processes
MISs are only three years old, therefore it is unrealistic to expect the process to be perfected, or even smooth. Using one example, in this case the MAC, to make conclusions about the whole MIS concept would not be appropriate. However, this analysis does identify problems that could be addressed for other processes. Most of these problems are also recognized by transportation experts, but are not necessarily accounted for in MIS processes yet.
The following recommendations pertain to the process itself. Although they are based on the MAC, most could apply to other group processes in regional planning and transportation planning.
Most of these recommendations show that regional transportation planning is a very detailed and lengthy process requiring the expertise of many individuals and groups.
To involve a group that are not experts, requires much time for educating. Granted, taking this extra time would lengthen any process, but a longer and successful process is more favorable than a short and inadequate one.
This project looked at the surface of process problems. Further research on the history of regional efforts in the area, and a closer look at other projects of ConnDOT would help lend more insight to the impediments that affected the MAC process. Such an analysis could clarify if the responsibility lied with ConnDOT, the consultant, or the facilitator.
Transportation policy seems to be on the right track regarding its increasing inclusion of various stakeholders. The MAC reflected this improvement, as various members noted how this process let them speak up about the potential choices to be made by transportation officials. The MIS process, as in this case, may be critiqued because it does not always lead to political "consensus". However, the MAC might have seen the success of the MIS by replacing "consensus" with "knowledge", "involvement", "participation", or "collaboration." These words emphasize the positive differences that this process has made.