TCAPP and Integrated Ecological Framework Pilot Projects: Synthesis of Lessons Learned (2013)

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 Context for Success The TCAPP and IEF pilot studies offered a view of some of the critical elements necessary for successful application of TCAPP and the IEF. These are elemental factors that can drive the pilot study forward; they can make or break the ability of the pilot study to achieve its objectives. Contextual success factors were culled from the pilot-project stories and are noted here to provide a basis for comparing and contrasting the results of the pilot studies. TCAPP Success Factors The TCAPP pilot projects identified three critical factors that influence success. Importance of Relationships First, when beginning a project, there needs to be at least a foundation for trust and collaboration and a willingness to work together toward new outcomes. In the case of the Pike’s Peak Area Council of Governments (PPACG), there seemed to be a sense of wariness, a lack of trust, and a strong investment in the way the plan had been developed in the past. The use of TCAPP tools and guidance was un able to penetrate this stalemate, despite early training for project stakeholders in environmental conflict resolution, ongoing dialogue and self-assessment, and structured exposure to the consensus-building principles of TCAPP collaboration. By contrast, the Minnesota DOT project team had strong working relationships at the beginning of the project that just got stronger as the TCAPP planning process unfolded. Simi- larly, the Washington State DOT team had worked together in the past, was enthusiastic about working together again, and was open to adding new perspectives that could help advance the project toward its next milestone goal. Need for Shared Goals A related factor for success is a common goal. This includes an understanding of the benefits of a collaborative process and an appreciation for the need to work together in partnerships to achieve a broad goal. At least two people interviewed about the PPACG Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) commented that, at the outset, there was universal approval of a collaborative approach to planning, but over time, it became apparent that a growing number of the local entities did not actually like the results from the changes in the planning process. The entities made statements that they did not “understand the point” and did not see any potential benefits to transportation projects. The entities also commented that they were not comfortable with federal resource and regulatory agencies being involved in the long-range planning process, since the vast majority of the project funding was anticipated to be local sales tax initiative and, therefore, have no state or federal action. In hindsight, it seems that the local perspective remained focused solely on transportation projects that could benefit locally driven land use, while the federal, state, and PPACG perspective sought to broaden the goal to include conservation of sensitive habitat and a broader lens for economic and social considerations. By contrast, the Minnesota DOT project team had a shared vision for the city of Grand Rapids and this starting point allowed for focus and intention as they moved toward the goal of developing a fiscally constrained Complete Streets plan. Washington State DOT stakeholders shared the goal of advancing the project to the legislature and agreed on the need for improvements to SR-509, even while possibly having different goals of what ultimately would be constructed. This shared goal of collaboration can even be enough to advance. Political Stability A third factor needed for success, notable in the PPACG pilot study, is political stability. Local elections brought in new Findings

17 council members just before the start of the C18 pilot study, and many of these elections were won on the rallying cry of “local control.” With new leadership and direction and a lack of continuity or understanding of the potential benefits of collaboration, it was difficult to keep the RTP process focused on the benefits of expanding the planning process beyond solely transportation concerns. By contrast, the presence of political stability served the PSRC pilot project. While initial controversy about the RTP prioritization process spurred the application to conduct a TCAPP pilot study, the use of a transparent and structured process for collaboration assuaged fears and led to a success- ful outcome. Integrated Ecological Framework Synthesis of the findings from the IEF pilot projects reveals an additional three factors for success. The IEF projects were more similar in scope, and three out of four of them focused on the development of a new tool for the use in analysis within their own state. Need to Leverage Existing Tools and Processes First, the IEF pilot projects all revealed the importance of lever- aging existing tools and processes. In the case of West Virginia, the process of the pilot project helped the West Virginia DOH identify the fact that the DOH did have relevant tools in house that could be adopted to achieve their goals. It was much easier to engage agencies by showing them a new way to use a trusted tool, rather than convincing them to understand and adopt a whole new tool. The RVCOG project team expressed that their project was supported by and tied into many of the efforts under way at the Oregon DOT. This meant that the project went smoothly, and it is hoped that it will translate into similar efforts on a larger scale. Project Focus A second factor for success was the existence of an actual proj- ect to focus on. In the case of the Colorado pilot project, the team did not have a specific project that was large enough to test its crediting strategy. The team pointed out that the IEF tool was difficult to use in the absence of one large project, but that the Colorado DOT is often engaged in these smaller- scale efforts. For the California pilot project, the team explored alternatives for a corridor that were far in the future (and were not officially on the Caltrans list for consideration). This made it difficult to engage some of the partners, particularly the reg- ulatory agencies that were focused on permitting processes and not necessarily interested in an exercise for only academic purposes. While use of the IEF tool is not impossible, it was advised that the IEF tool is better suited to situations with a specific project to analyze. Access to Data The final success factor revealed through the IEF projects was the access to good data. Both the Colorado DOT and the RVCOG found that they could only go as far as the data would take them and that the availability of good data will always be a limitation. It was noted that often access to good data is highly dependent on strong relationships with staff at the partner agencies. Benefits of a Collaborative approach Refining and Expanding the List of Stakeholders For the Washington State DOT TCAPP project, an early achievement of the project team was recognition that addi- tional partners and stakeholders needed to be brought into the planning process if it were to adequately support consensus- building efforts. This stakeholder expansion was built atop an already collaborative group of partners. A similar benefit of stakeholder involvement was noted with the PPACG project. Despite the fact that expanded stakeholder involvement exacerbated some existing conflict, stakeholder input was taken and integrated into the planning process at several points, which resulted in the stakeholders being more confident that their input was being used at the regional level. In addition, when the selection of the preferred scenario was completed, most stakeholders felt comfortable with the deci- sion, even though there were shortcomings to the final sce- nario, because they understood why and how this scenario was selected. The Minnesota DOT pilot study put it a little differently: “The greatest and most lasting contribution of applying the TCAPP model is likely that bringing the stakeholders and part- ners together in a long-term, iterative process created a venue for continued dialogue and collaboration out of which new and creative solutions were found. The TCAPP tools provided valuable guidance on effective collaboration techniques with the community that was instrumental in developing alterna- tives beyond ‘traditional’ highway improvements. Applying the TCAPP tools helped identify multimodal options, additional enhancement features, and innovative solutions that were criti- cal to developing a successful Complete Streets plan for the City of Grand Rapids.”

18 For PPACG, better collaboration, improved understanding and buy-in, and increased trust were seen as benefits of TCAPP. One point of contention was establishing and agreeing on the level of definition of collaboration for all participants. Several entities retreated from their earlier position of strong supporter of collaboration when the process began to have a noticeable impact on which projects were “good” and which ones were not. Their position was they agreed to share information with other nontransportation agencies but not have their views change which projects should be implemented. In the California IEF pilot, the project team noted the importance of and value realized by bringing NGOs and other nonregulatory agencies to the table. Through this process, they were able to realize new strategies and form new relation- ships that would otherwise never have existed. Clarification of Decision-Making Authority One of the key takeaways of the TCAPP pilots was a strong understanding of the importance of clarity around roles and responsibilities. For the Washington State DOT team, which had to modify the roles to acknowledge the fact that ultimate decision-making authority rested with the state legislature, the fact that everyone understood their role helped promote consensus-building and focused the team’s efforts. The clari- fication offered gave the Minnesota DOT team an ability to forge new and innovative ideas and policies. In the case of PPACG, the discussion of decision-making authority provided a first clue about underlying conflicts and concerns. In hindsight, there may have been a need for addi- tional clarification of decision-making authority that acknowl- edged the predominance of local funding. Focus on Key Decisions Provides Needed Structure The transparent and structured key decisions supported PSRC in its efforts to rebuild trust and develop an agreed-upon pri- oritization process for LRTP project selection. The PSRC pilot study also illustrated that, while the key decisions were excel- lent guideposts for a macro-level process, such as develop- ment of an LRTP, the decisions were not particularly helpful for a micro-level process that honed in on the specifics of one key decision (LRP-3). By contrast, the Minnesota DOT team found that the Deci- sion Guide steps could be applied effectively at the micro (project-level) scale while continuing to make progress at the macro (plan-level) scale. In other words, the Decision Guide could be used to assist decision making regardless of scale. The Complete Streets plan provided the impetus and “road map” for making progress across the city. Developing the plan also created opportunities to bring different subsets of stakeholders and partners together to address individual proj- ects whose successful completion would greatly enhance the success of the overall Complete Streets effort. In the cases of the Minnesota DOT, the Washington State DOT, and, to some degree, PPACG, the key decisions served as punctuation marks for their project schedules and served as milestones that provided structure and transparency to the project processes. PPACG staff stated that interactive tools and scenario modeling supported collaboration and more informed decision making. The tools were exceptionally use- ful, especially in creating and evaluating scenarios for devel- opment and mitigation of impacts. Ongoing Assessment of Collaborative Approach Of the four TCAPP pilot studies, three reported that the ongoing assessment of collaborative approach was very help- ful. In the case of the Washington State DOT, responses from the first survey indicated that the vast majority of partici- pants were comfortable with the process being followed, understood their role in that process, had confidence in their ability to both participate and represent their agency, juris- diction, or organization, felt that their concerns would be heard and considered, and felt that they could thus influence the project’s development. This beneficial feedback countered the few respondents who did not agree with a survey statement and indicated that they were not certain that they understood the process by which they could influence the decision-making process. The project team took these results to mean that the majority of the participants were happy with both the execution of the TCAPP process and the information being provided to the project participants, but that there were at least a few areas where improvements could be made in the project team’s approach. The project team understood that unless these issues were addressed, they would become detrimental to the project’s success. The results of the second and third surveys indicated that the committees agreed with the direction of the project team and the proposed future direction of the work to be performed. At the third steering committee meeting, the project team added a question to gauge the stakeholders’ willingness to compro- mise in reaching consensus if there is disagreement among different jurisdictions. It was interesting to note that one of the committee members indicated that the member’s agency would not compromise. Upon a closer examination, the team found that this member was representing FHWA and that the reason for the survey response was that FHWA maintained a very keen interest in making sure that design standards are followed. This response is what the project team expects from FHWA, so this particular negative survey response turned out to be of no major significance to the project.

19 PSRC also lauded the collaboration assessment tool, stat- ing that the collaboration assessment tool helped staff achieve a greater understanding of the necessary underpinnings of an effective collaboration process. Furthermore, the use of the tool helped set a tone and atmosphere within which stake- holders felt comfortable in providing frank and useful input and feedback during the course of the prioritization process update. It was only through a truly collaborative process that a consensus was reached among the varied perspectives on the updated Transportation 2040 prioritization scheme. Ulti- mately, the success of this process will facilitate future trans- portation planning processes in the Puget Sound region, particularly the development of LRTP updates. Paving the Way Creating and pursuing a collaborative approach takes time and a great deal of effort. The IEF pilot-project teams all expe- rienced challenges along the way, but realized success at the end. As a result, the teams felt that this experience would only make it easier during the next process to get the necessary support and participation for such an effort. In the case of Colorado, the project team recommended completing the process to create a similar tool on a larger scale (which would realize an even higher value-to-effort ratio). West Virginia’s experience showed the team that bringing partners together can help the partners realize that they have useful and neces- sary tools in hand; the tools just need to be looked at creatively to find new applications for them. The more agencies adopt- ing collaborative approaches to address their issues, the easier it will be the next time to follow the same approach. Lessons Learned Flexibility Flexibility Is Critical to Successful Application of TCAPP and the IEF Two of the TCAPP pilot studies and one of the IEF studies recommended that greater flexibility be incorporated into TCAPP and the IEF, because practitioners will want to try it for a variety of types of projects, some new start projects, but also updates, redo loops, or a continuation of a planning pro- cess. Not only does the tool need to be flexible, but the Rogue Valley COG also expressed the importance of marketing it this way. Otherwise, potential users get one impression about its function and may not understand how it could creatively be applied to their particular needs. In the case of the Min- nesota DOT, flexibility was required to ensure use of TCAPP for an innovative application for the development of a Com- plete Streets plan. One Area Requiring Greater Flexibility Is the Establishment of Decision-Making Authority In the case of the Washington State DOT, decision-making authority was ultimately held by the state legislature so defini- tions of partners and stakeholders required some refinement. In the case of PPACG, local governments were accustomed to primary decision-making authority given the prominence of local funding sources. Another Area Requiring More Modular Interpretation Is the Decision Guide The Minnesota DOT noted that it had some confusion about the TCAPP Decision Guide as a way to illustrate the planning decision process (44 boxes). Specifically, the process appeared linear upon first viewing. The Minnesota DOT suggested a conspicuous statement encouraging users to organize in a more modular fashion and showing practitioners a hypotheti- cal planning process to illustrate how various key decisions along multiple lines could be applied to assist in the collabora- tive decision-making process. Third Area Requiring Flexibility Is Stakeholder Involvement In the case of the Washington State DOT, the DOT augmented the stakeholder collaboration of its committees with a public opinion survey to support its project findings. Offering Flexible Approaches to Customize How Users Can Access and Use Materials also Was Recommended In the PPACG pilot study, the project team wanted a different way to transmit TCAPP materials (via e-mail) and found that its stakeholder group resisted all the “click down” required to get to material. The group wanted the material to be more nimble and customizable. Convenience and Simplicity Users of TCAPP Expect Convenience and Easy Customization PPACG found that stakeholders complained incessantly about the inability to download items and to have self-assessments easily e-mailed, among other things. PSRC staff and stakeholders wanted the ability to customize the standard TCAPP materials to make them their own. They also were disappointed in the lack of pathways for drilling down deeper into one key decision.

20 The Washington State DOT offered some suggestions to make the TCAPP corridor-planning tools more useful in this regard: • Downloadable web content by key subject areas that can be used as handouts; • In-depth discussion, perhaps through case studies, on how performance measures, including quantitative and qualita- tive measures, are integrated to help reach consensus and decisions; and • More real-world examples, perhaps by commonly encoun- tered corridor study types on key subjects (e.g., problem statements, goals and objectives, performance measures, and analysis methodologies). Keeping Things Simple Ensures Wide Acceptance In Rogue Valley, the concern that the raster analysis was going to be too simplistic proved to be unfounded. Instead, the fact that the analysis was simple made the tool more accessible to a wider audience and, therefore, more widely used and under- stood. In addition, all IEF teams felt that simplicity could be key to facilitating quick guidance for users with time con- straints. If the information in TCAPP/IEF is complicated and difficult, it will present a barrier for the resource agencies. Therefore, there is a need to guide people quickly to the spe- cific information they need. Challenges and Strategies Data Maintenance and Ownership Will Be an Ongoing Challenge The IEF pilot-project team in Colorado expressed challenges regarding this issue. Any data-driven tool that brings data together from different sources will be continually burdened with an ongoing need for updates and maintenance. One agency will have to take ownership, to keep the tool relevant and usable. Start with What You Have and Add on as Necessary In the case of West Virginia, the project team found that stick- ing with tools that everyone was comfortable with (instead of imposing something new) was the most effective strategy for ensuring a useful product. If the existing tools can be aug- mented or improved on, at least partner agencies are familiar with the basic premise and structure. Self-Assessment Tools Are an Excellent Mechanism for Engagement and Constructive Feedback Despite some functional issues with the TCAPP tools, all of the pilot projects that tested the tools cited the benefits of the self-assessment tools.