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.
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2014 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M RepoRt S2-C01-RR-1 Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity ICF InternatIonal Research Triangle Park, North Carolina UrS CorporatIon Morrisville, North Carolina
Subscriber Categories Environment Highways Planning and Forecasting Society
SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.mytrb.org/store Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2 The Second Strategic Highway Research Program Americaâs highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technologyâsuch as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection tech- nologies, and human factors scienceâoffer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of significant transportation problems, however, requires concentrated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large-scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission-oriented, discipline-based research programs that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time- constrained, management-driven program designed to com- plement existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behavior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disruptions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce congestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new trans- portation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memo- randum of understanding among the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit-based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-C01-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12896-4 Library of Congress Control Number: 2014956079 Â© 2014 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copy- right to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this 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, or FHWA endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in âwâ are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturersâ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report.
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Victor J. Dzau is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academyâs purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. C. D. (Dan) Mote, Jr., are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Boardâs varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. The project was managed by Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director. SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Cynthia Allen, Editor Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity and Reliability Eduardo Cusicanqui, Financial Officer Richard Deering, Special Consultant, Safety Data Phase 1 Planning Shantia Douglas, Senior Financial Assistant Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal and Safety James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Alyssa Hernandez, Reports Coordinator Ralph Hessian, Special Consultant, Capacity and Reliability Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Linda Mason, Communications Officer Matthew Miller, Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity and Reliability Rachel Taylor, Senior Editorial Assistant Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator
F o r e w o r d Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director âElected officials and the public are demanding that highway projects be delivered both faster and in a more environmentally friendly manner. If we are going to meet both expectations, our profession will need to change the way we develop projects. The SHRP 2 Capacity program developed a collaborative decision-making process that is based on sound research and will serve as the new way of doing business in highway project development in the 21st century.â â Neil Pedersen, Former Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, and Former Co-Chair, SHRP 2 Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee role of Capacity Project C01 in SHrP 2 SHRP 2 was intended to address the most critical needs associated with the nationâs highway system. One of the critical needs identified was being able to provide highway capacity in sup- port of the nationâs economic, environmental, and social goals, and Congress specified the Capacity focus area as one of four focus areas for SHRP 2. Projects to expand highway capac- ity were frequently having difficulty obtaining approvals in a timely manner. In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, Congress accepted TRB Special Report 260 (1), which specified the following goal for the Capacity focus area: âDevelop approaches and tools for systematically integrating environ- mental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacityâ (emphasis added). SHRP 2 Project C01, A Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity, describes foundational research for the SHRP 2 Capacity program. Its scope spans long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, project programming, and environmental review and permitting. The project provides a framework for collabora- tive decision making by identifying 44 decision points that are common or similar across all states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). On the basis of research from 23 successful complex capacity-expansion projects, it was recognized that at each of these points, collaboration is usually required to get the sign-off of key decision makers; it was a common characteristic of the successful process followed in each of the projects. The frame- work that was developed is used to organize the case study information on decision making, gathered under Capacity Project C01, according to the point in the highway delivery process where it is most useful. The case study material in this report is organized by preselected topics likely to be of use to the reader. However, because of the magnitude of the number of topics to which the case study material could apply, the information is also available in a searchable, web-based form: Transportation for CommunitiesâAdvancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP; http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166046.aspx). The full case studies are provided in TCAPP and on the SHRP 2 website (http://www.trb.org/Strategic
HighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Pages/Case_Studies_in_Collaboration_373.aspx). Note that TCAPP has since been renamed PlanWorks and will be made available under that name by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). About This report This report describes a decision-making framework that supports collaborative business practices for reaching decisions on how to add highway capacity when it is deemed neces- sary. The framework consists of the key decision points in the various processes at which approvals are required to advance. This framework provides structure for all the insights from the 23 case studies in which collaborative methods were successful in achieving con- sensus and delivering needed highway capacity expansions. The report summarizes the find- ings from these case studies, discusses barriers and how they were overcome, and describes how technologies were used to assist in reaching decisions. The report concludes with a description of the web tool, now called PlanWorks, which helps practitioners diagnose their business practices that either require or would benefit from collaboration. The collaborative entities include state and local transportation agencies; FHWA, including division offices and resource centers; the public; nongovernmental organizations; state resource agencies; and federal environmental regulatory agencies. reaching decisions That deliver Capacity The demographic, social, and economic forecasts through the middle of the 21st century indicate that additional highway capacity will be needed, and experience indicates that col- laboration and compromise will be needed to achieve it. Over the next four decades, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 40% to 420 million in 2050 (2). Between 1985 and 2005, vehicle miles traveled increased 80%, but lane miles increased only 4% (2), thus consuming much of the highway capacity built during the Interstate construction period. It is estimated that an 80% expansionâan additional 173,000 Interstate lane milesâwill be needed to meet the demand for car and freight travel through the middle of the century (3). In addi- tion, the population is not expected to grow evenly but to cluster in megaregions (2). The demands on highway capacity in these regions will be particularly great. Although much of the projected expansion of highways involves only widenings and upgrades, the public demands that we get the most out of our existing highways through better operations and management before they will consider supporting expansion. There is also an expectation to do more than just mitigate impacts. Transportation agencies are expected to be stewards of the environment with respect to natural habitats, wetlands, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the agencies are expected to enhance communities, delivering transportation capacity that people want and that makes their communities more desirable places to live. Because many interests are represented, finding the most appropriate solutions only gets harder. The price for failure to work together is endless redo loops in the planning and design processes, lawsuits, delays, and cost escalation. Many of the strategies involved are familiar: consultation, ecological approaches to miti- gation, practical or context-sensitive design, broad-based performance measurement, envi- ronmental justice, integrated corridor management, rightsizing, integrating planning and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), commitment tracking,
and others. âSystematicallyâ is emphasized because these strategies are often not woven into the planning and programming processes. Transportation agencies today are charged with faster delivery of the right transporta- tion solutions. To speed project delivery and have the flexibility to consider nontraditional solutions, the entire organization needs a systematic approach to collaboration, ensuring that the right people are engaged at the right time with the right information. The collab- orative decision-making framework provides this systematic approach. It is delivered as a web-based resource that can be used as a troubleshooting guide or a road map to changing a business process. How do we translate the most successful of these practices into business as usual? How can 50 states and more than 350 MPOs, at least six federal agencies and their many regional offices, and hundreds of state environmental organizations do this efficiently and repeat- edly? And should they? What is the business case for this approach from all perspectives? Will a transportation or environmental agency be better off if these strategies are adopted? The case studies on which the framework is based and eight subsequent pilot tests of Plan- Works indicate that agencies would be better off. Planworks The framework is made accessible as an integrated web-based resource designed primarily for practitioners. As noted above, it identifies key decision points in four phases of transpor- tation decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, program- ming, and environmental review and permitting. Key decisions are those that require review and approval from higher levels of authority or a consensus among diverse decision makers before the project can advance. They effectively link the many steps of planning and project development. Many key decision points are common to most transportation agencies. Some are defined by law; others follow established practice. The framework offers detailed information for each key decision point, such as the following: â¢ The outcomes of each key decision point; â¢ The decisions made at each key decision point; â¢ The roles and responsibilities of the formal decision makers; â¢ Stakeholders or project champion roles and relationships; â¢ Supporting data, tools, and technology; â¢ Planning processes other than transportation; â¢ Primary products of the step; and â¢ Associated case studies of effective practices. Integrating the research The decision-point structure underpinning PlanWorks serves a larger purpose as well. The results from 10 other SHRP 2 studies were integrated into PlanWorks over a four-year period as each was completed. The decision points provide the organizational structure for these SHRP 2 products by calling the userâs attention to them at the point or points in the highway delivery process where the information is needed and by making it all accessible through a general search.
The products and outcomes of other SHRP 2 research are integrated into the framework to strengthen the basis for decisions about when, where, and how much capacity is needed; what the economic impacts will be; and how to build capacity in ways that enhance com- munities and the environment. These products include the following: â¢ A customizable performance measurement framework with links to key decision points and case studies of expedited decision making. â¢ Guides for integrating freight demand, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use issues, and travel time reliability performance measures into transportation planning and programming. â¢ Tools for estimating the economic impact of new capacity; for implementing an ecosys- tem approach to environmental review and permitting; for determining driver responses to congestion and pricing; and for analyzing the effect of operations, technology, and design on highway capacity. â¢ Strategies for linking community vision to transportation decision making; for minimiz- ing disruption by managing construction at corridor and network levels; and for improv- ing freight demand models and data. â¢ Major advances in travel demand modeling that will be sensitive to policies such as pric- ing, telecommuting, time and route choices, and mode selection. Along with the collaboration tools, the research outcomes of these other SHRP 2 projects collectively map a route to decisions that deliver highway capacity. references 1. Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D. C. 2001. 2. Transportation for Tomorrow: Report of the National Surface Transportation Policy and Revenue Study Com- mission. December 2007. http://transportationfortomorrow.org/final_report/. 3. PB Consult, Inc., Cambridge Systematics, Inc., A. E. Pisarski, and K. E. Heanue. Future Options for the National System of Interstate and Defense Highways. Task 10 Final Report. Prepared for National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project 20-24(52), May 2007. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/trbnet/acl/ NCHRP_20-24_52task10_NCHRPFinal.pdf.
C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 1 Contribution of Case Studies 2 Framework Design 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 7 CHAPTER 2 Approach 7 Contribution of Case Studies 10 Insight from Practitioners 11 CHAPTER 3 Barriers to Delivering a Project or Program 11 Cross-Phase Issues 11 Lack of Integration with External Factors 12 Insufficient Involvement of the Public 13 Insufficient Engagement of Agency Partners 13 Turnover and Loss of Key Leaders 14 Funding Constraints 14 Challenges in Solution Screening 15 Data Availability 17 CHAPTER 4 Success Factors That Foster a Collaborative Process 17 Manage Risks 20 Use a Context-Sensitive Approach 22 Link Phases of Transportation Decision-Making Process 25 Integrate Transportation, Land-Use, and Environmental Issues 27 Structure Decision Making/Use a Formal Process 28 Use Performance Measures and Evaluation Criteria 30 Collaborate with Agency Partners and the Public 32 References 33 CHAPTER 5 The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework 33 Moving Beyond Individual Barriers and Success Factors 33 Structuring the Framework Around Key Decision Points 36 Building on the Key Decision Points 36 Using the Framework 38 Reference 39 CHAPTER 6 The Web Tool: Transportation for Communitiesâ Advancing Projects through Partnerships 39 Description of TCAPP 43 Beta Test Release of TCAPP 43 Future Expectations for TCAPP
44 CHAPTER 7 Conclusion 45 Appendix A. General Strategies from the Case Studies for Working Well with Agencies and the Public 52 Appendix B. Technology and Transportation Decision Making 65 Appendix C. Project Methodology 79 Appendix D. Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool 84 Appendix E. Bibliography