National Academies Press: OpenBook

Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning

« Previous: Chapter 2 The Visioning Process
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14580.
×
Page 22

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

16 C h a p t e r 3 Introduction The outcome of a visioning process and how the bene fits accrue depend on many factors, including the scope and scale of the project; the transportation agency’s level of involve- ment; the sensitivity of the community to transportation, environmental, and community issues; and the engagement of stakeholders and elected officials. A practitioner must take into account these factors, and others, when assessing the potential positive and negative outcomes of participation in a vision. To help the transportation practitioner determine whether to engage in a visioning process, this chapter presents a set of factors and the basis for assessing those factors, for agency managers to consider. The factors are designed to help answer the following questions when a transportation agency must decide whether to provide support for, participate in, or lead a visioning process. • Would participation in a visioning process improve public perception of an agency, or risk public trust in an agency? • Is a vision likely to improve delivery of a planned or stalled project? • Is a visioning process likely to resolve or renew conflicts? • Would a vision increase public ownership in a planning process and the outcome of that process? • Would a vision enhance future process and project outcomes, or impede efforts? • Are the outcomes of the vision likely to be unduly influenced by participants? • What are the possibilities of arriving at suboptimal solu- tions, from the agency’s perspective? • Is the agency prepared to address related topics within a vision, such as land use, development patterns, or environ- mental issues? transportation perspectives and Considerations The expected benefits of a transportation agency’s involvement in a visioning process tend to accrue in the long run and are subject to uncertainty, whereas the direct resource or oppor- tunity costs are often immediate and known. Given these circumstances, it seems unlikely that these processes would be undertaken by transportation agencies at all, and yet vision- ing in support of transportation decision making is increasingly common across the United States. A transportation agency will choose to become involved in a visioning process when outcomes are expected to be more efficient and more appropriate than what might otherwise occur. The benefits of visioning are related to those of the collaborative, interdisciplinary CSS approach. Consider- able research has documented the benefits and business case of CSS within planning processes. CSS benefits are often counted as direct cost savings resulting from streamlined completion of projects or avoided costs of redesign or litiga- tion. The key characteristics and activities of visioning are similar, including engagement of stakeholders, transparency of discussions, documentation of commitments, creative outreach and involvement, and consensus agreements. These similarities support the use of the existing research on the benefits of CSS practices as a relative (although certainly flawed) proxy for the benefits of visioning. However, from a transportation agency’s perspective, the benefits and business case for visioning are not as clear. CSS approaches tend to identify singular solutions at the project level, and often focus on considerations such as location and design of a transportation project. Visioning processes tend to be geared toward identifying needs and alternatives, and focus on considerations such as community values, long- term development goals, and desired elements and choices of a transportation system. The outcomes of visioning are subject Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning

17 to greater uncertainty; processes are not as strictly managed or defined, and often do not address specific project or design considerations. Because of this uncertainty, quantifiable ben- efits to visioning are less likely to be clear to a transportation agency from the outset of a visioning process. As a result, initial decision-making guidance for involvement is important. The decision factors presented in this chapter include those with clear advantages or potentially positive outcomes and others with obvious disadvantages or possible unintended consequences. However, in each case the actual likelihood of an outcome, positive or negative, must be evaluated by the agency before involvement, considering the unique circumstances of the community, vision scope, and stakeholders. Within this assessment, the agency may identify specific strategies concerning its role and involvement in a visioning process so that the outcome is most likely to be positive, both for the agency and the public. Examples of Transportation Agency Support of Visions In transportation planning, visioning may be undertaken to support a variety of processes, from local area development plans, corridor improvements, and long-range regional trans- portation plans, to statewide coordination efforts. An agency could choose to become involved in visioning for a variety of reasons and assume a range of leadership roles within a process. Listed here are several examples of an agency’s direct involvement with a visioning process at different levels— a project-oriented vision, a community vision, and a com- prehensive regional visioning process. • A state department of transportation may propose a com- munity vision to support a specific project, plan, or pro- cess, particularly one that addresses sensitive community or environmental issues. For example, the Arizona DOT initiated the State Route 179 Corridor Project to address necessary safety and mobility improvements to the desig- nated state scenic byway. Agency managers believed public trust in the agency was at risk because previous proposals were not accepted by affected communities and were deemed insensitive to community values. The visioning and planning exercise culminated in a preferred solution for the scenic corridor, developed in close collaboration with stakeholders. • An MPO may sponsor a visioning exercise to inject new ideas and long-term thinking into a long-range transportation plan (LRTP), corridor, or local area planning processes. For example, the Missoula, Montana, MPO embedded a visioning exercise within an LRTP update that resulted in a change of policy direction and the selection of a different modal mix of projects than previous plans. The MPO had not previously considered visioning as a source of input but acknowledged that the process improved project outcomes. • A state DOT, MPO, or local transportation agency may sup- port a comprehensive visioning process in which transpor- tation considerations are not an explicit focus of the process but are addressed in relation to other issues. For example, the Florida DOT and five regional MPOs were funding partners and participants in Central Florida’s regional visioning process. The vision outcomes have informed local project selections, have been used in LRTP updates, and provided input to the statewide transportation plan. In these examples and others, agency roles ranged from the vision convener to partner to stakeholder to observer to imple- menter. The expected outcomes, advantages, and disadvantages of visioning vary directly with the level of involvement and the role of an agency. In general, the greater the responsibility for the process, the greater the rewards and risks involved. Decision Factors for agency Involvement Participation in visioning may yield benefits to an agency, including reducing project lead time, managing risk better, enhancing planning outcomes, and improving public per- ception. The benefits of visioning accrue to the agency but also to stakeholders by furthering environmental or economic goals, enhancing leadership or organizational capacity, and creating lasting value for communities with appropriate trans- portation solutions. Visioning processes may also result in less than desirable outcomes, including the diffusion of decision-making authority, extended project timetables, risks to public standing, or potential conflicts with standing agency priorities or plans. These unintended consequences tend to affect an agency directly and are not borne by stakeholders or a community as a whole. These advantages and disadvantages are often not clear from project outset and depend on the primary role and level of involvement of an agency, and on the scope and actual outcomes of the visioning process. Decision support for managers may come down to simply knowing the right questions to ask: • How might an agency benefit? • Is the project outcome likely to be better? • What utility might stakeholders derive? • What does the agency risk? These questions may be illuminated by decision factors that help agencies understand and assess the possible outcomes of involvement in any visioning process. The decision factors

18 discussed here are intended to provide agency managers with the arguments for and cautions against participation in visioning in support of transportation planning. However, the likely outcome of a process depends on many factors, including the scope and scale of a vision; the transportation agency’s role and level of involvement; the sensitivity of transportation, environmental, and community issues; the expectations surrounding the process; and the engagement of stakeholders and elected officials. As such, these decision factors do not represent a predetermined business case for involvement in visioning but instead focus on considerations for transportation agency managers. Summary of Decision Factors Improving Project Delivery Visioning processes may enable agencies to advance planning and development processes on predictable schedules, with greater public acceptance or committed financial support. An agency manager may consider whether to participate in a visioning process if the scope and structure appear to support early consensus-building opportunities that, in turn, may streamline the planning and delivery processes. The time and resources involved in advancing transporta- tion projects from planning stages to construction phases are significant. According to the U.S. Government Accountability Office (2002), a transportation project may take up to 20 years to complete, though the time required varies with the scale, complexity, public interest, and range of issues involved. Under most state and federal regulations, agency projects and plans must advance through established stakeholder review and approval phases. Delays to planned projects often emerge owing to public controversy, environmental assessments, or interagency review challenges. The ability of a transportation agency to program and deliver projects reliably within set time limits may be influenced by stakeholder concerns over potential environmental and community impacts. Unaddressed, these concerns may result in organized opposition, political pressure, or litigation that may lead to short delays that extend project design and devel- opment, or extended delays that may impact agency project programming. Visioning and other stakeholder involvement processes have the potential to reduce opposition by addressing concerns and better enabling project development to proceed within a predictable time frame. For example, a corridor visioning process resulting in agree- ment on project specifications or possible alignments can be used as direct input into later project planning stages. Broader processes, such as regional visions, may develop maps of desired conservation areas that can be used by an agency to anticipate environmental concerns when proposing projects. Or a visioning process may just bring stakeholders and resource agencies together early enough to identify possible roadblocks that would otherwise be addressed much later in permitting or approval stages. Visioning processes are not guaranteed to improve project delivery. Any open process risks providing a forum for orga- nized opposition, enlivening stakeholder interest or opposition to planned projects, or extending project timetables, depending on the conclusion of the vision. That risk must be balanced against the likelihood that project completion time frames may be significantly reduced through earlier participation of the public and resource agencies in planning and design phases. With the costs of contracting, construction, and right- of-way acquisition constantly increasing, projects completed on schedule provide long-term benefits by reducing delivery costs and providing mobility benefits sooner. Resolving Conflict Visioning processes that enhance public involvement through cooperative processes may reduce community opposition, mitigate risk of litigation, or help resolve conflicts, therefore enabling the efficient completion of projects. An agency man- ager must consider whether a visioning process is an effective strategy for managing potential conflict among stakeholders, and what the appropriate role of the agency may be within that process. Transportation planning processes are regulated to provide the public with opportunities to contribute to decisions and to ensure an agency considers the broad impacts of those decisions. Avenues for recourse exist if an agency fails to pro- vide either of those steps in the process. Public participation and open planning processes often result in improved project delivery and project outcomes over the long run but may increase the likelihood of initial short-term conflict or negative consequences beyond the project or plan. Documentation of project decisions improves protection against this risk. Records of decisions made throughout the project can be used to support choices and prevent mis- understandings. Tracking of commitments, discussed further in Chapter 8, also may reduce the risk of conflict, because all commitments made and associated solutions will be docu- mented and recorded. Visioning processes also may be an effective technique to engage stakeholders early, actively, and continually in problem solving and conflict resolution during transportation planning and project review phases. Enhancing Process and Project Outcomes Visioning processes are often comprehensive and examine transportation within broader environmental, economic, or

19 societal contexts. Early consideration of issues, partnerships with diverse interests, and improved communication among stakeholders, as well as other aspects of visioning may enhance planning and project outcomes for transportation agencies, as well as provide long-term benefits to communities. An agency manager must consider whether participation in a visioning process may result in improvements to intended outcomes, or if participation risks unintended consequences. Visioning may result in improved outcomes for regions through long-term environmental, economic, or social ben- efits; for communities through context-sensitive design of improvements; or, for individual projects through innovative and creative solutions to challenges. For example, achieving consensus on long-term goals for a community or establishing principles for decision making will enable an agency to better identify or communicate purpose and need when sponsoring a project. A project that emerges from a consensus vision may be more likely to create lasting value for a community by helping move toward long-term environmental, economic, or social goals. Additionally, information-sharing partnerships with resource agencies can result in environmentally sensitive project design that, in turn, reduces mitigation costs while improving the local or regional environment. A review of national visioning examples completed for this project found a commonly cited benefit was the sense that projects sponsored by local governments after participating in a regional visioning process were better suited to communities or more consistent with established goals. As a result, they are more likely to be selected or prioritized within an MPO cost- feasible plan or work program. Increasing Public Ownership Visioning may provide an opportunity to enhance public understanding and ownership in transportation decisions through inclusive and interactive involvement processes. Visioning processes are noted for employing a full range of public and partner involvement strategies to communicate with key stakeholders and with the general public. Agency man- agers must consider whether participating in a vision may improve the outreach and involvement activities of an agency. Innovative technology, such as scenario-planning software and visualization tools, may help the public better understand the impacts of decisions, the range of issues involved, or the specific elements of a proposed project. Simply improving communication with stakeholders can provide meaningful benefits in public trust and perception, the ability to provide appropriate feedback, and a sense of ownership or involvement in decisions. Visioning processes that result in public approval of decision-making principles or long-term transportation goals may improve public opinion and trust in the intentions and future actions of an agency. Similarly, achieving consensus on scope or need of projects may foster a sense of ownership in the process and a desire to see the project through to com- pletion, because input was considered and the project purpose is likely to reflect community values. The transparency of a visioning process, including considering alternatives and decisions in an open forum, and documenting commitments, also can significantly increase trust in an agency and reduce miscommunication about future actions. Additional advantages of visioning may not benefit the transportation agency directly but also could be considered by agency managers. Visioning may provide a framework for future regional or local action by stakeholders or provide the political messaging needed for elected officials to enact policy changes. In these cases, in which collective action is enabled, the transportation agency may benefit later from participating in the visioning process. Implementation of visioning outcomes may also enhance community character and amenities, further establish conservation or environmen- tal goals, and provide sustainable economic and community development, all of which are increasingly considered by transportation agencies when making long-term policy or project decisions. Ensuring Open Processes A visioning process is often open to participation from any member of the public or stakeholder group, and undue influence from any one interest may slant the process in one direction, with variable effects. If a process is viewed as biased, very little can be accom- plished to alter the perception of stakeholders, the media, and the general public, and any subsequent outcomes of the vision essentially cannot be used. Civic, environmental, business, or other interest groups may organize and affect the outcome of a vision, either by opposing the process or gaming it. An open process increases the risk of the vision evolving into a forum for organized opposition that effectively ends the process, or for enlivening stakeholder interest in, or opposition to, previously planned and programmed projects. A vision may be completed successfully, with significant public participation and consensus agreement, but be so completely biased as to be meaningless for input into later transportation plans and priorities. Visions are often supported by both public and private resources, and project sponsors should be aware of the appear- ance of financial contributions from agencies, landowners, or interest groups. Improper influence also may stem from agency involvement, if it is perceived that direct agency funding or support for a process is intended to affect the range of possible solutions, alternatives, or project selections being considered. However, if an open process results in dialogue that may not otherwise occur, outcomes and solutions may be developed

20 that are positive and beneficial to the community, process, and agency involved. For example, a citizen group may become involved in a vision as a means to raise opposition to a project but through participation produce an alternative solution that is acceptable and beneficial to all parties. This outcome arguably has positive effects for the community, and positive outcomes for public perception of the agency involved. Open processes also may bring solutions to the table that the agency thought unacceptable, were not previously considered, or were not feasible without financial or political support from partnerships established within the visioning process. The hallmark openness and intensive public participation in visioning processes may increase the risk of improper influence, but transparency and broad outreach and engage- ment efforts may mitigate negative consequences and produce positive results. An agency manager must consider the public environment and stakeholders involved in an effort before becoming involved. Arriving at Conflicting Solutions A visioning process may arrive at a potential solution or set of preferred alternatives that are optimal from stakeholders’ perspectives but are considered suboptimal from a design, engineering, cost, or systems planning perspective. Visioning processes often look 20 to 50 years in the future and may result in proposed solutions to current transportation challenges that are not fiscally or technically feasible. More likely, visioning processes may propose corridor alignments, design elements, multimodal connections, or street config- urations that an agency may not consider the best fit from engineering or cost perspectives. An agency manager must consider how to address these challenges within the visioning framework, including informing participants of critical tech- nical considerations during the visioning process, and working with participants so that trade-offs are fully understood. Agencies can work with vision facilitators to ensure that the solutions arrived at are posed to provide meaningful input or policy direction for the agency. For example, a broad regional vision is unlikely to produce an outcome resulting in recom- mendations for a specific project but may result in recommen- dations for future project choices. This type of input can be used by an agency without risking negative public perception. Agency managers also may find that public priorities arrived at within a vision may not reflect an agency’s established priorities. This could result in conflicts between statutory requirements of an agency and the vision’s public mandate. If an agency cannot respond to the outcomes of a vision, or if resource allocation to priorities differs, the public may call the agency’s decisions and commitments into question. Arriving at conflicting or compromised solutions is an inherent risk to an agency within a visioning process, but the ideal solution is to arrive at consensus solutions. Active agency participation in vision development may result in solutions acceptable to both stakeholders and agencies, solutions that reflect the desired outcomes of both parties. An agency man- ager should consider not just the risk of possible outcomes but potential strategies for arriving at solutions that benefit and advance the agency’s mission and goals. Addressing Corollary Issues Visioning processes often link transportation with related land use, development, community, or environmental issues. This recognizes the increasingly interrelated aspects of trans- portation planning and is not a far stretch from many existing processes. However, transportation agencies must carefully consider their readiness to become involved in a vision that addresses topics not directly within the agency’s sphere of influence or authority, such as land use and zoning decisions that are often the domain of local governments or regional planning organi- zations. If cooperative interagency relationships are well estab- lished, a transportation agency may readily become involved in a comprehensive vision that addresses many aspects of community livability. However, if working relationships are fragmented or nonexistent, an agency should carefully consider its readiness to assume a lead role in a broad visioning process. Stakeholder involvement and interagency cooperation are keystones of successful vision efforts, and an agency may con- sider whether involvement could assist in efforts to establish relationships with key public, private, and civic partners that do not currently exist. In addition, comprehensive visions addressing multifaceted issues may provide valuable insights and policy direction for an agency. For example, a vision may produce an outcome that helps agencies anticipate which environmentally sensitive areas should be avoided, and which conservation areas need recreational access. These are invaluable outcomes of a vision- ing process that, although not directly related, are corollary issues with clear implications for transportation planning. Increasingly, federal policies favor increased cooperation between public transportation, environmental, and housing agencies to address issues of community livability. Visioning processes represent opportunities for agency engagement with partners on these issues. When considering the benefits and risks of addressing a wide range of issues within a vision, many factors must be taken into account, not least the agency’s readiness to become involved in other issues of importance. The unique charac- teristics of a community or the scope and scale of a vision will help determine the case for transportation agency involvement in broad visioning efforts. Table 3.1 presents examples of how these decision factors have come into play in completed visioning efforts.

21 Table 3.1. Decision Factors in Practice Decision Factor Example Visioning Process Improving project delivery In 2000, Florida DOT evaluated its entire transportation planning process and concluded that projects were often delayed, experienced cost overruns, or became mired in permitting processes. The most significant problem identified was the lack of early partner engagement, particularly with state resource agencies. As a result, the department reengineered its project planning process and instituted a program of effi- cient transportation decision making (ETDM), which, in part, emphasized early engagement with stake- holders through a variety of alternative involvement techniques. “The ETDM Process has allowed us to be more resourceful by focusing our efforts on the most important issues in project development. By identifying and resolving issues prior to the production phase, we are improving project delivery and realizing cost and time savings” (Florida Department of Transportation 2012). Resolving conflict The Collaborative Effort, a committee of interested parties along the I-70 Mountain Corridor in Colorado, was convened to reach consensus on a recommended transportation solution for the I-70 Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement. The Colorado DOT and FHWA were active participants in this working group, which was established after decades of distrust, misunderstanding, and contention about transportation options, environmental protections, and economic impacts of the highway corridor. The group was convened by the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, which in a summary report noted, “Discussions were inhibited by a lack of a corridor-wide vision for population growth, economic development environmental protection, and the transportation systems which will accommodate this vision” (The Keystone Center n.d.). Enhancing an open process and project outcomes The Denver, Colorado, area’s MPO, The Denver Regional Council of Governments, established explicit project prioritization criteria for work program selection, which reflect the outcomes of the region’s ongoing Metro Vision process. Agency staff suggest that this commitment has improved the variety and scope of projects submitted by local governments, in favor of regional vision values and principles. As a result, projects are more likely to support MPO or state goals to reduce congestion, minimize environmental impacts, discourage unsustainable land development, and support a multimodal transportation system. Arriving at conflicting solutions In Missoula, Montana, agency officials suggested that the Envision Missoula process was influenced by significant participation from organized bicycle, pedestrian, and smart growth interests. Intense participation from these active and educated stakeholders in scenario development workshops may have influenced vision outcomes in favor of pedestrian and transit alternatives. Significant statistical differences in support of transit alternatives were noted between the results of a random telephone survey of all residents and the preferences of attendees of vision workshops. Addressing corollary issues The Montana DOT was a funder and project supporter of the Missoula MPO’s Envision Missoula visioning exercise. This process looked at transportation and land use as interrelated and inseparable issues, and resulted in preferred scenarios and policies that addressed future land use and transportation decisions. The DOT was hesitant to fund the visioning component of Missoula’s LRTP update because of the attention paid to future land use decisions when developing alternative scenarios, believing land use the domain of local governments. The DOT is not likely to participate in future visioning processes that emphasize local issues. Summary of Decision Factors The benefits of agency involvement in visioning processes are subject to uncertainty, whereas the resource and oppor- tunity costs are often known. Agency managers must bal- ance those immediate costs with the potential for long-term gains. The information presented here does not attempt to balance these resource costs with possible cost savings or to present a quantifiable record of successful visioning processes. Instead, the likelihood of productive vision outcomes depends on many factors, including the scope and scale of a vision, the transportation agency’s role, its level of involvement, the sensitivity of transportation, environmental, and commu- nity issues, and the engagement of stakeholders and elected officials. A manager may take into account these decision factors, which are often unique to the situation, when assess- ing the potentially positive outcomes or possible unintended consequences of participation. To a certain extent, the involve- ment of an agency and the characteristics of visioning present opportunities or strategies that may help avoid negative and ensure positive outcomes. To assist managers in assessing decision factors, Table 3.2 presents decision factors with key questions and potential strategies to help avoid negative outcomes and ensure positive outcomes.

22 Table 3.2. Decision Factors for Transportation Agency Involvement in Visioning Decision Factor Key Questions Strategies to Avoid Negatives Strategies to Ensure Positives Improving project delivery • Is a current project stalled or considered likely to stall? • Is there a need to advance a project quickly? • Develop linkages between vision outcomes and concurrent processes. • Make transportation solutions and alternatives explicit priorities. • Maximize opportunities for early partner and stakeholder involvement. • Identify priorities early. Resolving conflict • Is there a lack of consensus? • Is opposition anticipated? • Are current conditions adverse? • Use vision process as consensus-building technique. • Develop goals, principles, and policies early in process. • Promote early involvement of partners. • Communicate expected outcomes. Enhancing process and project outcomes • Will a vision in place help advance projects? • Will the vision result in a better mix of projects? • Enable discussion of alternative approaches. • Encourage participation from diverse stake- holders. • Develop links between vision and related processes and plans. Increasing public ownership • What is the current perception of the agency? • Does the vision address contentious topics or stakeholders? • Use process as a part of a broad agency outreach strategy. • Maximize opportunities for interaction and communication. • Manage expectations of participants. • Clearly communicate outcomes and processes. Ensuring open processes • How active and organized are interest groups? • Will an open process result in new ideas? • Develop relationships with stakeholders and partners. • Encourage alternative perspectives. • Maintain transparency and clearly communicate methods. • Develop broad outreach and input techniques. Arriving at conflicting solutions • What is the agency’s ideal solution? • How receptive to change is the agency? • Encourage strategic, policy-level outcomes. • Develop out-of-the-box approaches. • Inform public about agency’s role and priorities. • Focus on developing guidance, not directives. Addressing corollary issues • What is the status of interagency working relationships? • Would project benefit from addressing multi- faceted topics? • Develop connections between transportation and related issues. • Establish interagency partner groups. • Communicate roles and responsibilities early in process. • Demonstrate willingness to explore linkages between topics.

Next: Chapter 4 Vision Guide »
Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C08-RR-1: Linking Community Visioning and Highway Capacity Planning explores community visioning efforts, identifies steps and activities that might be considered when engaging in visioning, and highlights the links between vision outcomes and transportation planning and project development processes.

The report also presents a model—the Vision Guide—that is a blueprint for preparing, creating, and implementing a visioning process. As part of the project that produced Report S2-C08-RR-1, a companion web tool was also developed. The web tool, Transportation—Visioning for Communities (T-VIZ), is the interactive version of the Vision Guide.

Appendixes to the report, which are available only in electronic format, are as follows:

• Appendix A: Case Study Summaries

• Appendix B: Considering Communities

• Appendix C: Stakeholder Outreach Resources

• Appendix D: Commitment Tracking

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, iTunes, and Amazon.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!