Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page R1
NATIONAL
NCHRP REPORT 661
COOPERATIVE
HIGHWAY
RESEARCH
PROGRAM
A Guidebook for
Corridor-Based Statewide
Transportation Planning
OCR for page R2
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*
OFFICERS
CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington
VICE CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore
EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board
MEMBERS
J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY
Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg
Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson
Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA
William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles
Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh
Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of
Virginia, Charlottesville
Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN
Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia
Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC
Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley
Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City
Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka
Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson
Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA
Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA
Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO
Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA
David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA
Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim
Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis
Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI
C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin
EX OFFICIO MEMBERS
Thad Allen (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC
Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT
J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT
Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA
George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary,
National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC
Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC
Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC
John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC
David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT
Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT
William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC
Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT
David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT
Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT
Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT
Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC
*Membership as of June 2010.
OCR for page R3
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
NCHRP REPORT 661
A Guidebook for Corridor-Based
Statewide Transportation Planning
John L. Carr
Carl D. Dixon
WILBUR SMITH ASSOCIATES
Lexington, KY
AND
Michael Meyer
GEORGIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Atlanta, GA
Subscriber Categories
Highways · Planning and Forecasting · Environment
Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD
WASHINGTON, D.C.
2010
www.TRB.org
OCR for page R4
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 661
RESEARCH PROGRAM
Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 8-58
approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614
administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-15479-6
interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2010929232
or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the © 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly
complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These
problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION
cooperative research.
Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining
In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein.
initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this
employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the
understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA,
a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the
FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product,
Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for
Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of
any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission
Transportation.
from CRP.
The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was
requested by the Association to administer the research program
because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of
NOTICE
modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this
purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway
Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of
authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal,
The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this
state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.
relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to
procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved
objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of
by the Governing Board of the National Research Council.
specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of
The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the
research directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation
The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors.
by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research
and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not
needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely
because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State
Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these
needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are
selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and
surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National
Research Council and the Transportation Research Board.
The needs for highway research are many, and the National
Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant
contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of
mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is
intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other
highway research programs.
Published reports of the
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM
are available from:
Transportation Research Board
Business Office
500 Fifth Street, NW
Washington, DC 20001
and can be ordered through the Internet at:
http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore
Printed in the United States of America
OCR for page R5
OCR for page R6
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS
CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 661
Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs
Lori L. Sundstrom, Senior Program Officer
Megan A. Chamberlain, Senior Program Assistant
Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications
Andréa Briere Editor
NCHRP PROJECT 8-58 PANEL
Field of Transportation Planning--Area of Forecasting
George Gerstle, Boulder County, CO (Chair)
Sandra K. Beaupre, Wisconsin DOT, Madison
Arnold R. Burnham, Arizona DOT, Phoenix
Kenneth A. Carlson, New York State DOT, Albany
Barbara K. Fraser, Oregon DOT, Salem
Jack Kinstlinger, KCI Technologies, Inc., Sparks, MD
Jerome M. Lutin, New Jersey Institute of Technology, Newark
Craig B. Newell, Michigan DOT, Lansing
Robert A. Gorman, FHWA Liaison
Kimberly Fisher, TRB Liaison
AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
NCHRP Project 8-58 was performed by Wilbur Smith Associates (WSA) as the primary contractor in
collaboration with Michael Meyer, Ph.D., P.E., of the Georgia Institute of Technology. The Principal
Investigator for WSA was John L. Carr, P.E., and the Deputy Project Manager was Carl D. Dixon, P.E. of
WSA's Lexington, Kentucky, office.
Other contributors from various WSA offices included Don Vary of the Falls Church, Virginia, office
(statewide transportation planning); Rob Bostrom of Lexington, Kentucky, and Dave Powers of Columbia,
South Carolina (travel demand modeling); Paula Dowell of Atlanta, Georgia (economics and freight);
Tim Sorenson of Lexington, Kentucky (transit planning); Jeff Carroll of Columbia, South Carolina (liter-
ature research); Abra Horne of Orlando, Florida, and Bob Hamm of Tallahassee, Florida (Florida
statewide planning); Rebecca Ramsey of Lexington, Kentucky (survey research, literature research, case
study research, and report preparation); and Amanda Spencer of Lexington, Kentucky (corridor plan-
ning, statewide transportation planning, follow-up research, and report preparation).
Special thanks are extended to the transportation agency participants who gave of their time to participate
in interviews for the case study research. Those participants included George Gerstle, formerly with the Col-
orado DOT (currently with the City of Boulder); Jerry Blair and Donna Day, East-West Gateway Council of
Governments (St. Louis MPO); Bob Romig, David Lee, Ed Hutchinson, and Warren Merrell, Florida DOT;
George Schoener, I-95 Corridor Coalition; Eryn Fletcher and Steve Smith, Indiana DOT; Calvin Leggett, David
Wasserman, and Alpesh Patel, North Carolina DOT; and Bob Hannigan, Brian Wall, and Jeff Reid, Pennsyl-
vania DOT. Thanks are also given to the staff from the 33 state DOTs who took the time to respond to our ini-
tial survey; the staff from the state DOTs who participated in our practitioners outreach; and the staff mem-
bers from state DOTs that provided updated and additional information during our follow-up research.
Finally, WSA and Dr. Meyer wish to express our appreciation to the members of the NCHRP Project 8-58
Research Panel who provided valuable guidance, review, and input into this research project and its products.
OCR for page R7
FOREWORD
By Lori L. Sundstrom
Senior Program Officer
Transportation Research Board
This guidebook provides a template for corridor planning that will assist states to better
understand the implications of transportation decisions on mobility, communities, eco-
nomic development, and environmental stewardship. The template can be a useful tool to
help states program funds to meet identified needs and priorities. It should be of immedi-
ate use to transportation decision makers, managers, and planning practitioners involved
in the preparation of statewide transportation plans and priority programs.
Federal law (i.e., ISTEA, TEA-21 and SAFETEA-LU) requires states to develop long-
range, statewide multimodal plans and priority programs. Some states have met this
requirement by developing statewide policy plans while other states have developed
statewide plans that result in lists of transportation projects. Without extensive detailed
planning, neither policy plans nor project-specific plans contain a sufficient basis for deci-
sion making and prioritization.
Statewide corridor planning can be an effective method to (1) understand the relation-
ship between modes of transportation, (2) evaluate transportation system performance, (3)
generate innovative solutions to transportation problems, and (4) aid in preparing an effec-
tive statewide transportation plan. It can serve as the link between broad policies and strate-
gies that serve as the foundation of many statewide transportation plans and the evaluation
of needs and performance expectations that can guide development of priority programs.
Statewide corridor planning can also serve as a mechanism for prioritizing the implemen-
tation of project-specific plans by linking long-range transportation plans to shorter-term
state transportation improvement programs.
Under NCHRP Project 08-58, Wilbur Smith Associates was asked to develop a concep-
tual multimodal statewide corridor planning process and describe how it relates to other
planning and programming activities (e.g., strategic planning, long-range transportation
planning, metropolitan planning organization (MPO) planning, priority programming,
and project development). To meet the project objectives, the research team conducted a
literature review, identified applicable federal requirements and guidance, undertook sur-
veys and case study research to further examine the current state of the practice, identified
effective approaches and practices used by states and MPOs, and conducted a peer review
of the draft guidebook to gather feedback on its content. The contractor's project final
report that contains the results of the literature review and the results of the outreach and
case study efforts is available on the TRB project website.
OCR for page R8
CONTENTS
1 Summary
4 Section 1 Guidebook Organization and Purpose
4 Background
5 Purpose
5 Overview
7 Section 2 Statewide Corridor Planning
7 Why Use an SWCP Process?
9 SWCP Framework
10 Establish Organizing Principles and Institutional Structure
11 Establish a Corridor Network
11 Identify Study Corridors
12 Conduct Corridor Studies
13 Identify Statewide Investment Program and System Management Strategy
14 Development of Technical Guidance
15 Section 3 Technical Guidance for SWCP
15 Establish Organizing Principles and Institutional Structure
16 Establish a Corridor Network
17 Identify Study Corridors
17 Conduct Corridor Studies (Elements Related to the SWCP Approach)
20 Identify Statewide Investment Program and System Management Strategy
21 Section 4 Hypothetical Example: Application of SWCP
Guidance to the State of South Orange
21 SWCP in the State of South Orange
21 Establish Organizing Principles and Institutional Structure
24 Establish a Corridor Network
24 Identify Study Corridors
27 Conduct Corridor Studies (Elements Related to the SWCP Approach)
31 Identify Statewide Investment Program
33 Conclusion
34 Section 5 References
36 Appendix A Transportation Agency Examples
of Corridor-Based Planning
49 Appendix B Levels of Corridor Analysis for Statewide
Corridor Planning
51 Appendix C Analytical Tools for Corridor Analysis
57 Appendix D Public Transit in Statewide Corridor Planning
OCR for page R9
60 Appendix E Freight Transportation in Statewide
Corridor Planning
65 Appendix F Economic Development in Statewide
Corridor Planning
