The Eno Center for Transportation has developed a new training course titled Partnering with the Private Sector.  This online course is 40 hours long, and is delivered over a four week span beginning on March 10th. Despite being entirely online, students interact with others, including course mentors/instructors Roy Kienitz and Dr. Michael Meyer.  Students “learn by doing,” and take on the role of a P3 project manager.  After learning the basics of P3s, students are given exercises in developing project scope and managing the work of private sector partners.  This course is appropriate for mid and senior level professionals, and provides Professional Engineers with 40 PDH (other types of professional education credit may be available).

Registration:  

The course fee is $3,000.  To register, click here. Use Code  “Transportgooru” and receive a $150 discount during registration. 

Deadline to Apply: Wednesday, February 26

Instruction Method and Mentors
This course is conducted online, but features interactivity with other students and course mentors.  Eno developed a course portal that houses all course content.  To see how our online portal works, please click here.  Students in this course learn by doing.  After learning the basics of P3s, students complete mock assignments leading to the delivery of a P3 project.The learning experience is enhanced by two qualified course mentors:Roy Kienitz, Principal of Roy Keinitz LLC, is the former Under Secretary for Policy at the United States Department of Transportation. He also served as former Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell’s Deputy Chief of Staff. Currently Mr. Keinitz works on major project development and implementation strategies, drawing on his diverse transportation policy experience.Dr. Michael D. Meyer is a consultant with Parsons Brinckerhoff. Prior to this position he was a Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at the Georgia Institute of Technology. He also served as Director of Transportation Planning and Development for Massachusetts where he was responsible for statewide planning, project development, traffic engineering, and transportation research.

Who Should Attend
A wide variety of individuals should consider signing up for the course, including: Mid- to senior level professionals and State/City Departments of Transportation, transit agencies, metropolitan planning organizations, and local governments; Federal employees involved in P3s for transportation; and Professionals from the private sector who assist public sector agencies implementing P3s.

Professional Development Hours
Through the course students will be able to earn up to 40 Pofessional Development Hours (PDH). Other types of professional education may be available. To inquire contact Alex Bond, abond@enotrans.org or 202-879-4714.

Course Dates and Schedule
The course will run from March 10 through April 4. Each week has a distinct lesson plan and assignments, although most course activities are flexible or available on-demand. Students should be prepared to devote 8-12 hours per week to course activities.  To see examples of how students receive course material, view these screen captures.

Future Course Offerings
This course will be offered 4-5 times each year. To learn more about future course offerings please contact Alex Bond at 202-879-4714 or abond@enotrans.org

Q: What previous experience do I need to take this course?
A: This course is intended for established transportation professionals who want to expand their knowledge on P3s. No prior experience with P3s is required. However, the course assumes a moderate level of knowledge of transportation systems.

Q: Is this course only about toll roads?
A: This course was designed to be multimodal.

Q: What do I receive upon completion of the course?
A: You will receive a certificate of completion. In addition, your course fee provides you with one year of individual regular membership to the Eno Center (up to a $200 value). Licensed Professional Engineers will receive forty Professional Development Units (PDU). If you are interested in another type of continuing education credit, such as AICP-CM or IACET Continuing Education Units (CEU), please contact Alex Bond at 202-879-4714 or abond@enotrans.org. Eno is in the process of partnering with other organizations that offer P3 professional credentials. All students who have taken the course will be eligible for any credentials established in the future. For more information on P3 credentialing, visit the Institute for Public Private Partnerships.

Q: How much time per week is needed to complete the course? Are times flexible?
A: The course is designed to be flexible, but also keep you on task. You should expect to spend ten hours per week on the course. There are weekly topics and assignments that you are expected to complete. Only an hour or two per week are on a fixed schedule. The remainder will be spent viewing on-demand recorded content, interacting with the course mentors, reading at your own pace, and preparing assignments for review.

Q: What if I need help?
A: Course mentors are available by phone, video chat, and email to provide you as much assistance and advice as you need. They are available by email at any time. You will have tools available to reserve appointment times for deeper discussion with the mentors.

Q: What if I get too busy and cannot complete the course?
A: If you find that you cannot continue, please notify the mentors and CTL staff.  In certain circumstances, extensions can be granted, particularly in the final week of the course. Eno is not able to offer refunds. However, you can enroll in another offering of the course at a later date (the course if offered 4-5 times per year) on a space-available basis.  When re-enrolling, you may be required to begin the course from the start

Q: Why is this course offered online, and over such a long time frame?
A: By offering the course online, you will not incur travel expenses and disruptions to your daily routine.  By offering it over a four-week span, you will be able to keep up with most of your regular work duties. In the future, a compressed version of the course may be offered. Please let us know if you are interested in this type of class. 

The Office of Transportation Policy at U.S. DOT seeks an entry-level transportation economist to join a fast-paced, high-profile office to conduct cutting-edge transportation economic and policy analysis, research, and outreach in priority areas for USDOT, including transportation finance, surface transportation program design, high-speed rail, safety, environment, livability, and freight policy.

This position requires economic research and analysis of current and proposed transportation policies, programs, and regulatory actions and development of recommendations for changes in those policies based upon that analysis.  The position also requires drafting testimony, talking points, and speeches, helping to develop budget and legislative proposals, meeting with key transportation stakeholders, and representing the Department at transportation meetings and forums.

Particular areas of focus include analysis of benefits and costs of transportation regulations, infrastructure investments, and programs, analysis of how to achieve the Department’s strategic goals most efficiently, and analysis of economic impacts of DOT policies and programs.  Candidates should have strong writing, research, analysis, and communication skills, independent judgment, and the ability to apply economic theory and analysis to developing efficient and practical solutions to policy problems.

These positions are at the GS-9 to GS-12 level ($51,630 – $97,333) with excellent benefits.  U.S. citizenship is required.

U.S. DOT is an equal opportunity employer.  CONTACT:  Interested individuals should send a resume to Eric Buchanan via email at eric.buchanan@dot.gov to receive additional information on the application process.

A quick summary of the attached paper:

• A National Infrastructure Bank is just one of several possible instruments in the toolbox of policy makers. On its own, it is unlikely to reverse the steep decline in municipal bond emissions which remain the primary capital market for infrastructure funding in the US. Significantly, the Bank’s mandate and project size requirements all but exclude maintenance of existing assets.
• Comparisons with other Government Sponsored Enterprises (such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) appear largely unwarranted on account of multi-layered risk provisions and the Authority’s one-way relation with the capital markets (it can sell to them, but not borrow from them).
• The Authority complements rather than competes with State Infrastructure Banks for large-scale project funding. SIBs are currently too diverse in size and scope to offer a funding framework commensurate with the country’s infrastructure challenges. Bringing them up to speed across 32 States – and establishing them in 18 others – would take at least as long as creating a new Federal entity. As with the existing SIBs, the Authority’s ability to leverage infrastructure investment would greatly increase were it authorized to recycle project loan repayments (including interest and fees) into new credit.
• An independent Infrastructure Financing Authority is superior in almost every respect to the TIFIA loan program or its Department of Energy counterpart. Through independent project evaluations and innovative financing instruments, AIFA has a far greater ability to tap into a pool of private infrastructure funds worth over USD 200 billion. However, TIFIA’s budget authority can and should be increased for a transitory period while AIFA is ramped up and made fully operational.
• At present, too few surface transportation projects are candidates for AIFA funding as they do not rely on user-based charging mechanisms. This restriction could be lifted altogether, amended to incorporate other PPP arrangements (e.g. shadow tolls) or garnished with a companion Bill to extend tolling options to the interstate highway system.
• EIB offers a convincing compromise between macroeconomic policy objectives and CBA-based project funding decisions. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in tasking AIFA with a mandate to enhance economic competitiveness, mitigate environmental damage and enhance public health. However, individual project decisions must be insulated from political arbitrations and unnecessary Federal requirements, such as “buy America” or wage determination clauses.
• To ensure a shorter phase-in time and a greater degree of private investor interest, AIFA’s official mandate should be extended to include the provision of knowledge dissemination and advisory services to borrowers through a dedicated project preparation facility.
• Although less easily quantified, establishing an Infrastructure Financing Authority will add a new, independent voice on national infrastructure needs and send a strong signal to private sector investors.