National Academies Press: OpenBook

Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity (2014)

Chapter: Appendix C - Project Methodology

« Previous: Appendix B - Technology and Transportation Decision Making
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Appendix C - Project Methodology." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 78

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.

65 Introduction The methods used to carry out SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01 are summarized in this appendix. SHRP 2 SHRP 2 was created to address the challenges of moving people and goods efficiently and safely on the nation’s highways. It is a targeted, short-term research program that addresses four stra- tegic focus areas: the role of human behavior in highway safety (Safety); rapid highway renewal (Renewal); congestion reduc- tion through improved travel time reliability (Reliability); and transportation planning that better integrates community, eco- nomic, and environmental considerations into new highway capacity (Capacity). Capacity Focus Area The overall goal of the Capacity focus area is to develop approaches for systematically integrating environmental, eco- nomic, and community requirements into the analysis, plan- ning, and design of new highway capacity. The scope of the SHRP 2 Capacity focus area extends from the early stages of the transportation planning process, when many potential alterna- tives are being considered, through project development. When decisions include a major highway component, further develop- ment of the highway option is within the scope of the program. SHRP 2 Capacity Project C01 The first project in the Capacity focus area, Project C01, Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity, was designed to develop an integrated, systems-based framework that transportation practitioners can use to reach decisions regarding highway capacity expansion projects as a joint effort with stakeholders. A systems-based approach takes into consideration the transportation network as a whole and its relationship with the community, environ- ment, and economy. The result of this effort is a collaborative business process that goes beyond incremental improvements of existing processes and supports a substantially better way to approach, develop, and manage complex highway capacity enhancement projects. The project was divided into four phases. As stated in the request for proposal, the objectives of each of the phases were as follows: • Phase 1: Identify key decision points in the project approval process, identify the elements common to successful out- comes, and prepare insightful case studies from which others can learn. • Phase 2: Identify the critical barriers to a better analytical process grounded in the principals of environmental stew- ardship for screening transportation solutions. Recommend products appropriate for SHRP 2 that will have a maximum positive impact on the state of the practice. • Phase 3: Develop a framework or frameworks that sup- port collaborative decision making in transportation and address system-level integration of transportation, protec- tion of the human and natural environment, land develop- ment policy, and economic development strategies (called the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework, or CDMF or Framework). • Phase 4: Disseminate the results of the project and encour- age their adoption into practice. This appendix includes a description of the methods used in each of these phases and a summary of the resulting prod- ucts. The project culminated in a stand-alone web tool, Trans- portation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnership (TCAPP), which is described in Chapter 6 of this report. (Note that since the writing of this report, TCAPP has been renamed PlanWorks.) a p p e n D I x C Project Methodology

66 least one project with a multistate setting and at least one design-build project. To capture detailed information that would help in devel- oping the collaborative decision-making framework, the case studies were divided into comprehensive and phase case studies. • Comprehensive case studies examine the entire transporta- tion decision-making process starting with concept devel- opment in a planning study (long-range, corridor, and/or subarea) through project planning, design, and permitting. • Phase case studies focus on just one phase of the overall process, to better extract detailed information on key deci- sion points. Specifically, planning phase case studies focus on long-range planning, corridor planning, or visioning processes. Project development/permitting case studies focus on the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, design, and permitting. Phase case studies were intended to help gather in-depth information about the data, analyses, processes, and tools that supported technical and policy decisions and to yield detailed information for each decision point. Ultimately, 15 case studies were selected and developed: • Four comprehensive case studies. • Seven planning phase case studies, including 44 Three corridor studies; 44 One visioning process study; and 44 Three metropolitan transportation plans (MTPs). • Four project development/permitting phase case studies. Development of Case Studies The process for developing the case studies involved interviews with stakeholders, including transportation agency staff, resource agency staff, local officials, representatives of interest groups, and others. To guide case study development, the team developed a detailed research plan, which contained compre- hensive questions for the interview process and a “straw man” key decision point framework. The straw man was intended to serve as a baseline reference point for data collection. It repre- sented common key decision points in the transportation decision-making process that could be modified (added to, subtracted from, and rearranged) to represent the specific key decision points for each case. Interviews were conducted primarily by phone, though some were performed in person, usually with two interviewers present to record information, ask questions, and facilitate follow-up. All interview guides and questionnaires met the requirements of the federal Policy for Protection of Human Subjects, 45 CFR 46. This policy worked against the inclusion research approach Phase 1 In Phase 1, the research team conducted 15 detailed, in-depth case studies of transportation decision making that involved highway capacity projects. The purposes of these case studies were to provide insights into key factors that contribute to deliv- ering successful highway capacity improvements, to identify key decision points in the transportation decision-making process to support development of a collaborative decision-making framework, and to provide lessons from which others can learn. The products resulting from Phase 1 included the 15 individual case studies, a summary report describing the process used to select and develop the case studies, and the key success factors and lessons learned from the case studies that would inform the development of the CDMF in Phase 3 of the project. Identification of Case Studies Thousands of highway capacity projects implemented across the United States could serve as potential case studies on proj- ect decision making. The goal of Phase 1, however, was to conduct very detailed case studies to examine in depth the decision-making process, institutional structures, time frames, and issues faced. Consequently, the focus of this effort was to conduct a limited set of case studies, rather than a broad scan. The research team used a systematic process to identify case studies for detailed analysis, beginning with the identification of over 400 potential case studies addressing projects, planning, and programming processes, drawn from literature and con- tacts with Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and state department of transportation (DOT) staff. These potential cases were screened using the following criteria: • Potential contribution to advance state of the practice, including potential to provide lessons learned about fac- tors that led to success in developing highway capacity projects, while meeting community, social, economic, and environmental considerations; • Incorporation of context-sensitive solutions (CSS), sound project management principles, and high levels of collaboration; • Ability to contribute to the identification of key decision points that will form a basis for developing a more collab- orative decision-making framework; and • Availability of information, as well as potential transfer- ability of lessons learned. In addition, cases were selected to ensure an overall diversity of geography, urban/rural setting, passenger/freight focus, and other contextual considerations, as well as to address topics of special interest to the committee overseeing C01, including at

67 delivery of transportation projects were reviewed, and solu- tion screening processes documented in this research were identified. Sources included documentation from metropoli- tan planning organizations (MPOs) and state departments of transportation (DOTs), the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Environmental Excellence, the Federal Highway Administra- tion (FHWA) Environmental Review Toolkit, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) research efforts. Solution screening processes that were included among the extensive list of case studies identified in Phase 1 of the project were also identified in this step. The initial process list was vetted with the project team to ensure that the 100-plus screening processes identified cap- tured the diversity of project types, processes, geography, issues, and approaches encountered in capacity improvement projects nationwide and internationally. This approach ensured that the initial pool of potential processes for study was sufficiently broad to reflect the spectrum of diversity in context and practice across the country and abroad. Initial Screening of Solution Screening Processes After identifying the 100-plus list of solution screening pro- cesses, the list was narrowed to a more manageable number for inclusion in the preliminary assessment. Two separate scoring approaches were used to rank the long list of processes based on their relevance and their use of elements considered key to a viable system-based solution screening process. The project team reviewed the rankings and made a final determination as to whether the processes should be included in the preliminary assessment. The team ensured that the rec- ommended processes represented the following requirements: • Use performance measures; • Use technology; • Use early/joint agency coordination; • Use public involvement; • Integrate land use with transportation; • Integrate community values with transportation; and • Are used in the planning, programming, and project devel- opment phases. The final summary evaluation of the two ranking methods resulted in a total of 26 processes that were recommended for inclusion in the preliminary assessment. Preliminary Assessment and Selection of Processes for In-Depth Study A preliminary assessment of the 26 processes was con- ducted to ensure that each identified process is truly used for of directly attributable quotes in the case studies but it likely encouraged candor and greater comfort among the interviewees. Each case study also involved a review of public record information, such as transportation plans and programs, NEPA documents, and resource agency plans. Special care was taken throughout the data gathering to understand “bumps in the road” and stumbling blocks, as well as how these issues were addressed, to dig deeper into issues that are not typically reported in short, best-practice case studies. Case studies underwent a lengthy review process, both by the research team and by independent reviewers. They will be made available on TCAPP. In addition, the methods used to select and develop the case studies and the key success factors, lessons learned about transportation decision making, and guidance for the development of a collaborative process gained from the case studies were summarized in the Phase 1 Case Study Sum- mary Report (unpublished) and informed the development of the CDMF in Phase 3. Phase 2 Solution screening is the most complex and difficult compo- nent of transportation decision making. A collaborative, systems-based approach to solution screening must draw a substantial number of partners into a process that (1) consid- ers a broad range of potential solutions, including operational improvements, transit, demand management, nonhighway freight options, and highway construction; and (2) evaluates community, economic, and environmental effects. Balancing the multiple and potentially unrelated goals can be extremely challenging. To fulfill the ultimate goal of the C01 project, the CDMF designed in Phase 3 must incorporate the “best of the best” in solution screening processes and support technology. In Phase 2, the research team conducted nine detailed, in-depth case studies of solution screening in transportation decision making. The purposes of these case studies were to assess the state of the practice in solution screening, including a specific focus on technology; identify the barriers and success factors in solution screening; identify areas that are ripe for future research; and provide lessons from which others can learn by informing the Framework. Four reports (unpublished) were submitted in Phase 2 to document methods and provide recommendations as the phase progressed. In this section, these reports are described along with a summary of the meth- ods used in Phase 2. Identification of Solution Screening Processes As a first step, more than 100 solution screening processes were identified for potential inclusion as a case study. To iden- tify processes, literature and case studies related to improving

68 Generalized interview questions were developed for use during the study. Teams were responsible for tailoring the generalized interview questions for their process. Before interviews, the team members reviewed pertinent available documentation related to the process and answered the inter- view questions to the extent possible using that information. During interviews, the team members sought answers to the remaining questions and verified the information they had gathered through documentation. At least one response was sought for every question. Some questions were asked of mul- tiple interviewees to gain perspective. In most cases, individu- als interviewed included the main user or owner of the process with the transportation or planning agency. When the use of a decision support tool or technology was a main component of the process, someone knowledgeable about the technology was interviewed. If public involvement or agency collaboration was a key component, a public stakeholder and/or representative of a stakeholder agency was interviewed. When possible, inter- views were conducted on-site with both team members pres- ent. Telephone interviews were used for follow-up questions and clarification. Team members recorded their findings in case study sum- maries and data collection forms. The case studies will be avail- able on TCAPP and focus on aspects of the solution screening processes considered key for this project: (1) scope, or how the screening process is integrated with other planning activities (e.g., land use, economic development, and growth man- agement), at what stage (planning, programming, project development) the screening process occurs, and the types of solutions or alternatives screened; (2) communications, including agency and public involvement; (3) technology; and (4) metrics and data. The summaries also provide a brief context of the solution screening process and summarize les- sons learned, barriers and solutions, and recommendations for disseminating a similar process to other users. The meth- ods used in the in-depth study and the case study summaries were documented in the second interim report for Phase 2, Findings from the In-Depth Study of Solution Screening Pro- cesses (unpublished). Informing C01 and the SHRP 2 Program In addition to the case study summaries, two capstone reports were prepared in Phase 2 to inform the development of the CDMF and the direction of future research in the SHRP 2 program. The first report, Barriers and Recommendations to an Improved Decision-Making Process for Additions to High- way Capacity (unpublished), was developed to (1) provide an assessment of gaps in scientific knowledge, data shortfalls, weaknesses in analytical tools, problems with access to data, lack of connectivity with other planning activities, and other solution screening and that enough information would be available to perform an in-depth study. Team members gath- ered basic information for each of the 26 processes using available literature and telephone interviews. Another rank- ing process was used to determine how well each of the cases included in the preliminary assessment met the following criteria: • Transferability; • Agency coordination; • Integration of the process with other planning processes (e.g., land-use planning); • Integration of the process with other phases of transporta- tion decision making; • Range of alternatives; • Use of metrics/performance measures; • Data quality; • Communications support; • Success in practice; and • Innovative use of technology. The recommended processes along with the rankings and documented answers to the preliminary assessment questions were shared with the project team. The project team discussed each recommended process to be sure it warranted inclusion in the in-depth study. The team also reviewed the processes that were eliminated from further study to ensure that they should be eliminated. The resulting list of recommendations was reviewed by team leaders to ensure that several were selected at the project development, planning, and programming levels. A total of nine solution screening processes were rec- ommended for the in-depth study. One was later dropped due to the inability of key individuals to participate in the study. This approach and the resulting recommendations were described in detail in the first interim report of Phase 2, Summary of Preliminary Assessment and Recommenda- tions of Solution Screening Processes for In-Depth Evalua- tion (unpublished). In-Depth Study and Development of Case Studies The in-depth study began with a kick-off meeting on July 30, 2007. During the meeting, the in-depth study team became familiar with the purposes of the project, the purposes of Phase 2, and the methods and materials that would be used to conduct the study. The in-depth study was carried forward in teams of two. Each team consisted of one individual with experience in technology and decision support tools and one individual with experience in planning and NEPA. In almost all cases, the individual who conducted the preliminary assess- ment for each process was part of the team conducting the in-depth study.

69 The design goals fall into five categories: collaboration, implementation, integration, project delivery, and systems based. The design goals by category are as follows: 1. Collaboration • Establish a tiered decision-making approach to capacity improvements which encourages binding decisions at the earliest possible point even when these decisions are only partial or qualified due to timing or level of infor- mation available to support them. • Establish a decision-making approach which is built on early and ongoing involvement of formal decision makers and individuals in positions of authority who have the potential to veto or significantly affect the timely and cost-effective delivery of transportation improvements. • Establish a decision-making approach which identifies participant roles and responsibilities, including the scope and extent of decision-making responsibility at each key decision point. • Establish collaborative decision-making practices. 2. Implementation • Establish a decision-making approach based on fulfill- ing the intent of legal and regulatory requirements. • Provide implementation flexibility and adaptability consistent with the design goals. 3. Integration • Encourage a decision-making approach which evalu- ates transportation needs within broader community and natural contexts. • Integrate land planning and development policy. • Integrate capital improvement planning. • Address sustainability issues to the greatest extent possible. • Integrate protection and enhancement of the human and natural environment. • Support community goals and visions. 4. Project delivery • Encourage early and comprehensive agreement on data sources, level of detail, evaluation criteria, and perfor- mance measures that will be used to support the deci- sion-making process. • Ensure transfer of information and decisions between phases of the decision-making process. • Encourage timely and cost-effective project delivery. • Establish a comprehensive and proactive risk manage- ment strategy to minimize potential for legal challenge and/or failure to meet project delivery goals. 5. Systems based • Encourage consideration of a wide range of options to address capacity problems during the planning phase of decision making. barriers to transportation decision making; (2) recommend solutions to removing barriers; (3) prioritize solutions; and (4) develop problem statements as recommendations to guide future research and the allocation of SHRP 2 Capac- ity funds. This report drew on barriers and solutions iden- tified through both the Phase 1 and Phase 2 case studies. Recommendations for future SHRP 2 research were in the form of short project statements and were presented to the Technical Coordinating Committee for the SHRP 2 Capac- ity program. The second report, State of the Practice: Solution Screen- ing Processes and Decision Support Tools for Transportation Capacity Planning (unpublished), is the culmination of work conducted under Phase 2. The purposes of this report were to (1) document the work conducted under Phase 2; (2) present the state of the practice in system-wide performance-based solution screening processes and decision support tools used in transportation capacity planning; and (3) provide guid- ance for future SHRP 2 work that supports the development of decision support tools. This report is divided into three main sections. A background of the research is provided in the first section. In the second section, the state of the practice in solution screening is presented through a synopsis of the main barriers and solutions identified in eight solution screening case studies. The third section presents guidance for future SHRP 2 work that supports the development of decision support tools. Phase 3 The CDMF was developed in Phase 3 of the project. The CDMF was designed in a series of six workshops. The work- shops consisted of facilitated discussions among transporta- tion professionals on specific aspects of the CDMF. They were guided by a set of design goals established at the outset of Phase 3 and approved by the oversight committee. The case studies and reports developed in Phases 1 and 2 served as input for the workshops. Defining Goals The project team and the oversight committee jointly created a set of goals (design goals) for the CDMF. The design goals pro- vided the vision of what the CDMF should achieve when com- pleted and implemented. Each workshop commenced with an introduction to the design goals to ensure that each participant understood the ultimate vision for the CDMF. The design goals were reviewed again at the conclusion of each workshop in an exercise in which participants described how their efforts were consistent with and addressed the goals. In this way, the CDMF could be created by multiple teams in multiple settings because they were all working toward the same vision.

70 Workshop 1: The Basic Design The basic design of the CDMF (i.e., the individual key decision points and their order) was the focus of the first workshop. Workshop participants, shown in Table C.2, included represen- tatives from MPOs, state DOTs, FHWA, and an advocacy group. The workshop included four full days of discussions and decisions related to the design of the baseline CDMF. During this workshop the design team • Identified all key decision points for the CDMF; • Wrote a purpose statement that describes the activities or actions that should occur at each key decision point so that users can understand why the decision is made; • Drafted an outcome statement that describes the results of the actions taken at each key decision point so that users know the products resulting from each decision; • Identified the decisions made at every key decision point to illuminate the crucial information needed to move forward in the decision-making process; and • Identified the vital linkages between key decision points within the phases of the CDMF to indicate where existing information should be pulled forward to enable tiered decision making, ensure consistency between phases, and minimize risk (or the risk of controversy). • Encourage early and ongoing incorporation of opera- tional elements as a part of the overall decision-making approach. Designing the CDMF Six workshops were held to design the different components of the CDMF. The focus of each workshop, along with the work- shop date and location are shown in Table C.1. The workshops are described in further detail below. Following the initial workshops, the consultant team pro- duced a memo highlighting the major outcomes of the work- shop and the ways in which these outcomes helped achieve the design goals for the project. These memos provided the basis for two conference calls with the Capacity Technical Coordi- nating Committee (TCC): 1. The first conference call was held on April 4, 2008, follow- ing the first workshop. This call covered the development of the original CDMF. 2. The second conference call was held on June 5, 2008, and covered the second and third workshops, which provided details on integrated planning and solution screening. These conference calls provided the Capacity TCC the opportunity to comment on and critique the outcomes of each workshop and to provide additional guidance on the development of the CDMF to the consultant team. Following Workshops 4 and 5, the Capacity TCC determined that the CDMF would be most useful for transportation profes- sionals in a web-based format. The project team was asked to develop a concept for a web tool product and present this con- cept at the October 2008 TCC meeting. In lieu of a summary memo and conference call discussion, the principal investigator presented the information as it might appear in a web-based application. Following this presentation, the TCC targeted addi- tional funding for development of a web tool and added require- ments as a supplement to the existing project scope. The outcomes of Workshops 4–6 have been integrated into the web tool design and are not recorded in memorandum format. Table C.1. Overview of Phase 3 Workshops Workshop Date Location Topic Workshop 1 Feb. 18–23, 2008 Raleigh, NC Designing the base CDMF Workshop 2 April 14–18, 2008 Raleigh, NC Integrating sub- and influencing planning processes Workshop 3 May 5–9, 2008 Raleigh, NC Understanding solution screening and the dynamics of collaboration Workshop 4 June 23–27, 2008 Raleigh, NC Understanding the roles and relationships of the formal decision-making partners Workshop 5 July 14–18, 2008 Raleigh, NC Understanding the roles and relationships of stakeholders Workshop 6 April 14–17, 2009 Washington, DC Determining the tools and technologies needed to support the CDMF Table C.2. Participants in Workshop 1 Title of Participant Organization Director North Carolina DOT (NCDOT), Office of Environmental Quality Assistant Division Administrator FHWA, West Virginia Division Cofounder Envision Sustainability Tools Principal Planner Puget Sound Regional Council Executive Director North Carolina Metropolitan Coalition Location Engineer Mississippi DOT, Environmental Division

71 conservation planning the team integrated the “Eco-Logical” process into the CDMF. Eco-Logical is an integrated trans- portation/conservation planning process developed by FHWA in partnership with representatives of all the federal resource agencies. These federal agencies have signed a memorandum of understanding to support implementation of Eco-Logical. Building the CDMF on this previous part- nership will support existing streamlining and stewardship activities and advance implementation of both Eco-Logical and the CDMF. Because of limited air-quality experience on the workshop team, the consultant team convened a separate panel of air- quality experts to detail the interactions between the air- quality subprocess and the CDMF. The consultant team, as well as participants in each of the remaining four workshops, validated this air-quality integration information. Detailing the interaction between these subprocesses and influencing processes and the CDMF included indicating the key decision points at which decision makers should look to one of the subprocesses or influencing processes for informa- tion. The workshop team identified which key decision points require information from the specific sub- or influencing process as well as those that have output to a subprocess or influencing process. They also indicated the type of informa- tion decision makers need; that is, whether the information needed is data, analysis, or decision input (or output). “Bring- ing in data” signifies that the CDMF decision makers need data from the subprocess or influencing process; “analysis” indicates that decision makers are using an analysis that was conducted in the subprocess or influencing process as a part of transportation decision making; “decision” indicates that decision makers are accepting a decision made in the subprocess or influencing process. Using the case study information from Phases 1 and 2, as well as their own experiences and expertise, the work- shop team updated and validated the key decision points identified in the straw man created in Phase 1 and sequenced and explained each key decision point. On completion of this workshop, the workshop team had developed the basic structure and underlying information to support the CDMF. Workshop 2: Integrated Planning Many agencies invest in comprehensive, data-driven planning. The outputs from these plans represent a substantial asset and data source for better transportation decision making. Integrated planning focuses on the interaction between sub- and influencing processes and the transportation decision- making process by identifying specifically where these outside processes link to the CDMF. A subprocess is a process that contains a step that is critical to the transportation decision-making process and results in a key decision point for transportation decision making. One example of a subprocess is the land-use planning pro- cess. In contrast, an influencing process, such as conserva- tion planning, affects transportation decision making but is not critical to advancing the transportation decision-making process. The goal of integrating sub- and influencing planning processes into the CDMF was accomplished through the second workshop. The workshop participants identified at which key decision point each subprocess or influencing process intersects with the CDMF, and provided detailed information about what that interaction should involve. This information will allow decision makers to identify when engagement of an outside process is critical to the success of the transportation process. The second workshop included participants representing state DOT’s, FHWA, MPOs, resource agencies, and consulting firms. The participants are included in Table C.3. The workshop team identified seven subprocesses and influencing processes that were integrated into the CDMF: 1. Land-use planning; 2. Environmental resources/conservation planning (Eco- Logical); 3. Capital improvement planning; 4. Human environment; 5. Fiscal constraint; 6. Safety and security; and 7. Air quality. The workshop team detailed the interactions between each of these processes and the CDMF. For environmental resource/ Table C.3. Participants in Workshop 2 Title of Participant Organization Director, Office of Project Development FHWA, Ohio Division Regulatory Program Manager and National Transportation Liaison U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Planning Program Manager Piedmont Triad Council of Governments Director of Research and Analysis Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Transportation and Land Use Coordinator Pennsylvania DOT Director of Transportation Planning HNTB Consulting Team Leader, Planning Over- sight and Stewardship FHWA, Office of Planning, Environment and Realty

72 scales, provide a framework for understanding collaboration when making decisions about what are often incommensu- rable alternatives. The scales represent five characteristics which can be evaluated from low to high: decision-making authority, participant stability, role clarity, shared goals, and sense of ownership. The dynamics of collaboration scales can be used at the ini- tiation of the decision-making process or at any point in the decision making when collaboration is at risk, including solu- tion screening. The scales cover five characteristics that poten- tially affect both the speed and quality of the decision-making process. The speed of a decision refers to the ability to reach a decision quickly, without revisiting issues or elevating deci- sions to a higher level of authority. A quality decision is one that all participants accept and agree to support through deci- sions made in other processes. The dynamics of collaboration scales were further refined and built on in Workshops 4 and 5. Workshops 4 and 5: Roles and Responsibilities Workshops 4 and 5 focused on roles, responsibilities, and relationships of the formal decision-making partners and stakeholders. Formal decision makers are those agencies that either act as the lead agency or are required to take legal action in the decision-making process. Four formal decision makers meet these criteria: FHWA, the MPO, the state DOT, and the resource agencies with jurisdiction (e.g., USACE and state historic preservation offices, or SHPOs). Stakeholders are all groups that may be affected by a transportation plan, program, or project. Stakeholders can include government agencies that are not part of the formal decision-making partnership, formal advocacy groups, and informal groups that come together around transportation decision making (e.g., neighborhood associations). These workshops provided key decision point–level infor- mation on how the roles, relationships, and responsibilities of stakeholders and formal decision-making partners within the transportation decision-making process affect collaboration. Both workshops relied on the dynamics of collaboration scales created in the solution screening workshop to frame collabo- ration and interactions between decision makers and between decision makers and stakeholders. In Workshop 4 (formal decision makers) participants identified • The interests of formal participants in each phase of deci- sion making; • The questions asked at each key decision point by the for- mal decision makers to support their interests; and • The role each formal partner plays at each key decision point. Workshop 3: Solution Screening Solution screening involves refining potential solutions using both broad-based goals and established criteria at every phase of transportation decision making. The outcome of solution screening is a decision identifying the preferred solution(s) to address transportation deficiencies and opportunities. Solution screening occurs at the key decision points at which decision makers must balance dissimilar, and sometimes contradictory, goals or criteria to decide on the best option. Decision making at these key decision points generally requires trade-offs among transportation, environmental, and community values, goals, or criteria. Collaboration becomes especially challenging at these key decision points if decision makers are striving to max- imize benefit for their agency’s goal or mission as opposed to finding a solution that optimizes benefit across all criteria. In the solution screening workshop, participants identified the key decision points at which solution screening is occur- ring, linked solution screening across decision-making pro- cesses to maintain coordination and consistency of decisions, and generated information and discussion around the poten- tial risk to collaboration at these key decision points. Participants in the solution screening workshop are listed in Table C.4. Because of the risk that solution screening poses to collabo- ration, the consultant team invited an organizational develop- ment expert to discuss decision theory with the workshop team. This expert described three theories: contingency theory, game theory, and social network theory. These theories aid the under- standing of the dynamics of decision making. By understanding these theories, the workshop participants better understood the environment in which collaboration occurs (contingency the- ory), the motivations and rationales of decision-making part- ners (game theory), and the role that relationships play in decision making (social network theory). On the basis of this information, the workshop participants developed five scales relevant to transportation decision mak- ing; these scales, known as the dynamics of collaboration Table C.4. Participants in Workshop 3 Title of Participant Organization Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Program Manager Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation Policy Manager The Louis Berger Group Technical Services Unit Head NCDOT, Transportation Planning Branch Environmental Program Manager FHWA, Pennsylvania Division Research and Financial Service Team Leader FHWA

73 Although these two styles of stakeholder involvement were originally developed using the same dynamics of collaboration scales created in the solution screening workshop, it became clear in Workshop 5 that modifications and an additional scale were necessary to capture specific stakeholder dynamics of collaboration to support the scales developed to understand collaboration among the formal decision-making partners. The stakeholder dynamics of collaboration scales maintained the participant stability scale, but replaced the shared goals scale with common interests, and the sense of ownership scale with level of commitment. In addition, workshop participants added a new scale: informed participants. This scale incorporates the notion that access to information and a willingness by the deci- sion maker to provide information are key enablers of stake- holder involvement. Workshop 5 participants identified a lack of information as a major stumbling block for many in the community. This scale identifies an opportunity to enhance the relationship with stakeholders and to help them decide why a project is good for their community. In addition to creating scales tailored to collaboration with stakeholders, the partici- pants identified at what point on those scales the formal and informal stakeholder involvement would lie. After defining the differences between the two forms of stakeholder involvement, the participants discussed the pros and cons of each type. The workshop participants identified both advantages to formal stakeholder involvement as well as disadvantages. The team for Workshop 4 (formal decision makers) included representatives from FHWA, two MPOs, a state DOT, and a resource agency. Participants are listed in Table C.5. The par- ticipant from URS Corporation provided NEPA practitioner experience. Workshop 5 was set up differently than the prior work- shops to accommodate volunteer stakeholders; their insights were important to provide a full understanding of stake- holder interests, but for the most part these participants were not available for the full length of the workshop. To accom- modate the stakeholder representatives, the workshop was In developing this information, the workshop team assumed an ideal decision-making environment, in which partners are committed to participating in the process and have high decision-making authority, shared goals, and a sense of own- ership over the process. These assumptions define an ideal decision-making environment. Removing any or all of these assumptions creates an acceptable decision-making environ- ment: one in which the risks inherent to transportation deci- sion making, such as delay and budget overruns, increase. Since an ideal environment does not always exist, the consul- tant team facilitated a discussion around how roles and respon- sibilities change in an acceptable decision-making environment. The acceptable decision-making environment still allows the planning, programming, and project development processes to proceed, but it introduces increased risks to the processes. Without shared goals, participant stability, and a high level of decision-making authority, the processes are at risk of delay, redo loops, and the likelihood that decisions made in one phase cannot be carried forward into the next phase of decision mak- ing. These risks highlight why shared goals, participant stabil- ity, and high decision-making authority are important to the transportation decision-making process. In Workshop 5 (stakeholders) participants identified • The key decision points at which stakeholders should be engaged; • Questions about stakeholder interests that partners should ask; and • Questions partners should ask stakeholders to understand/ gather information about their interests. Because there are many ways to involve stakeholders, both formally and informally, the original information obtained in Workshop 5 was premised on the assumption of an infor- mal stakeholder involvement process; under an informal approach to stakeholder involvement, there is no formal group or committee responsible for representing stakeholder views. Thus, the formal decision makers neither invite indi- vidual stakeholders to formally participate in the process nor grant stakeholders an official role in the decision-making process. Referring to the dynamics of collaboration scales, informal stakeholder involvement inherently has low par- ticipant stability, most likely lacks shared goals, and has little reason to collaborate. Conversely, formal stakeholder involvement entails having an organized group of individuals invited to participate in the process by the formal decision-making partners; these par- ticipants are expected to represent community interests larger than their own. This group is managed by the legally consti- tuted decision-making body (or a project team) and assigned an official role by the agency to advise on one or more issues or projects. Table C.5. Participants in Workshop 4 Title of Participant Organization Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Senior Transportation Planner Grand Valley Metropolitan Council Manager, Environmental Plan- ning and Analysis Group URS Corporation Deputy Executive Director, Programming and Operations Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning Administrator, Planning and Programming Idaho Transportation Department Division Administrator FHWA, Arkansas

74 of the tools and technologies in the transportation industry. The participants in Workshop 6 are listed in Table C.8. Because this workshop focused on tools to help decision making, the consultant team also invited an expert in group decision making. This expert presented the analytical hierarchy process (AHP), a quantitative method for successful and col- laborative group decision making. This presentation helped the workshop participants understand all the aspects to consider when making a decision in a group setting. AHP was considered throughout the workshop as a supporting tool for collaborative decision making. Before the workshop, the consultant team developed the list of data that should be presented to decision makers at each key decision point. During the workshop, the participants validated this list, adding and removing items as appropriate. Then, the participants determined what types of tools or technologies would be appropriate to use at each key decision point, based on the data that would be presented and the questions the decision makers would be considering. Fifteen tools and/or technology types were identified: demographic tool, stakeholder engage- ment tool, commenting tool, public survey technique, data- base tool, financial planning tool, technical analysis tool, synthesis tool, infrastructure management tool, GIS interface, visualization tool, sketch planning tool, decision support tool, documentation tool, and information search tool. The workshop participants also categorized each tool type as a gathering, analyzing, or communication tool; the assigned category could be different from key decision point to key deci- sion point depending on the purpose of the tool at each key decision point. Gathering tools present decision makers with raw data. Analyzing tools take raw data that is unusable to deci- sion makers and evaluate the data in a way that is helpful to decision makers. Communication tools convey information divided into two parts: from Monday through Wednesday pub- lic involvement practitioners detailed the key decision point information, and on Thursday and Friday volunteer stakehold- ers joined them to validate and complete the data. The partici- pants representing the practitioner perspective are listed in Table C.6. Workshop participants representing stakeholders are listed in Table C.7. This group was joined by an experienced NEPA practitioner from ICF International to include the SHPO perspective. Although SHPO is one of the formal decision makers, the design team was unsuccessful in identifying a workshop par- ticipant in this role. Workshop 6: Data, Tools, and Technology The focus of Workshop 6 was to validate the data identified to support collaborative decision making at each key decision point and to determine the type of tool or technology neces- sary to support these data and aid in decision making. For this purpose the consultant team identified the need for two differ- ent participant groups: (1) practitioners heavily involved in the use and development of tools that support the technical pro- cess, and (2) former workshop participants who could bring a strong understanding of the CDMF to this final workshop. Along with previous participants, four representatives from the FHWA Resource Center were invited for their knowledge Table C.6. Practitioner Participants in Workshop 5 Title of Participant Organization Public Involvement Program Manager Atlanta Regional Council Chief, Bureau of Public Involvement Kansas DOT Division Administrator FHWA, Nevada Division Principal Planning Communities Table C.7. Stakeholder Participants in Workshop 5 Title of Participant Organization Senior Attorney Southern Environmental Law Center Urban Designer Public Interest Projects, Inc. President Coalition of Asheville Neighborhood Former Citizens Transportation Advisory Committee members Charlottesville-Albemarle MPO Coordinator, Housing Options Livable Communities, AARP Transportation Planner City of Cambridge, MA Executive Director Livable Streets Alliance Table C.8. Practitioner Participants in Workshop 6 Title of Participant Organization Principal Planner Puget Sound Regional Council Public Involvement Program Manager Atlanta Regional Council Director NCDOT, Office of Environmental Quality Environmental Program Manager FHWA, Pennsylvania Division Senior Transportation Planner Parsons Brinckerhoff, Inc. Fish and Wildlife Biologist U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Metropolitan Planning Specialist FHWA, Resource Center Technical Analyst FHWA, Resource Center Modeling Technical Specialist FHWA, Resource Center Technical Analyst FHWA, Resource Center

75 CommuniCation StrategieS The primary communication strategy for the project was pre- sentation format. Attendance at various conferences, work groups, and meetings over the 2-year period provided strong opportunities for outreach. Written materials provided sup- port for these presentations as well as general requests for information. Individual conversations with interested practi- tioners and consultants also helped inform a small section of the target audience. In Phase 5 of the project, the communi- cation will shift to focus primarily on Internet-based out- reach led by engagement in the TCAPP web tool, the Google project website, and the associated blog forum. target audienCeS The following groups were identified as representing the full potential audience for the CDMF: • Executives. The senior leaders of state and local transporta- tion agencies who are charged with developing, imple- menting, and guiding the transportation planning and decision-making processes. • Managers. Midlevel leaders at state and local transportation organizations who are charged with day-to-day oversight or support for capacity improvement projects and who are in a decision-making role at their respective agencies. • Supervisors and staff. The personnel at state and local trans- portation agencies charged with day-to-day implementation or support of decisions made by managers and executives. • Staff at MPOs, resource agencies, and community groups. These groups often play key roles in the transportation plan- ning and project development process and often are charged with making decisions concerning land use, environmental or community issues, and economic development. key meSSageS The goal of this project is to increase the use of collaborative decision making within transportation planning and project development for projects to increase highway capacity. To meet this goal, all outreach for this project includes the fol- lowing key messages: • This Collaborative Decision-Making Framework is intended to help agencies go beyond incremental improvements in how they do business, to support a substantially better way to approach, develop, and manage complex highway capacity enhancement projects. • This Collaborative Decision-Making Framework is not just a concept but is implementation guidance that can be used by any transportation agency to improve decision making at a single decision point, a specific phase of the decision-making process, or over the entire transportation decision-making process. from decision makers to stakeholders and the public to build trust and collaboration. The tool categories provide addi- tional understanding of the need for particular types of tools and how individual tools may be used to meet several needs. The products of Workshop 6 were the individual tool types needed to support each key decision point as well as more detailed information about types of tools and their uses. Phase 4 Communication of both the need for collaboration in trans- portation decision making and the potential for the CDMF to meet this need was identified as an essential aspect of the proj- ect from the outset. Because the CDMF represents a new way of engaging in transportation decision making, change man- agement support may be needed for those agencies willing to undertake this shift in business process. The product of Phase 4 is a Final Communication Plan. It provides for the communi- cation and outreach of the project to develop interest in the CDMF, to disseminate the research outcomes, and to provide a high-level change management plan to support its use. Communications Plan An initial communication plan was drafted early in the proj- ect to serve as the backbone of the team’s communication and outreach efforts. This plan was used to identify, define, and record the target audiences, key messages, and other informa- tion needs to ensure that the final products and outreach materials developed were designed and distributed to meet the needs of all anticipated audiences. The communication approach followed a specific develop- ment process comprising the following components: com- munication goals and objectives, communication strategies, target audiences, key messages, outreach tactics and scope, and implementation timeline. CommuniCation goalS and objeCtiveS The overall goal of the communication plan is to describe the various outreach materials and mechanisms used to increase awareness among the target audiences about the availability and utility of the research results and the decision-making framework. By implementing the various components in this commu- nication plan, the following objectives were met: • Raise awareness and enthusiasm about the CDMF and related project presentations to be conducted at various meetings and conferences. • Increase the willingness of the transportation community to integrate the Framework into the core production processes of the formal decision-making partners, MPOs, state DOTs, FHWA, and federal permit-issuing resource agencies.

76 the capabilities of the CDMF web tool under construction. A full list of presentations through 2009 is provided in Table C.9. In addition to these formal opportunities to engage large groups of professionals, there were many other interactions with practitioners and consultants on an individual basis that further disseminated the intent and products of this research. This form of communication was supported by written materials developed at various stages of the project to provide both the intent and the status of development. outreaCh taCtiCS and SCope Presentations to a wide variety of audiences provided the centerpiece of communication efforts. The goal of the presentations was to target the key audiences that must understand and endorse the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework before it can be implemented successfully. The presentation content includes the goals of the project, the intent of the larger group of Capacity program research that will enhance the project, an understanding of the information that the CDMF will make available, and demonstration of Table C.9. CDMF Outreach Presentations Date Outreach Activity Location Target Audience Presentation Highlights June 25–28, 2007 Presented SHRP 2 project overview to AASHTO Standing Committee on Environment Asheville, NC Managers, super- visors, and staff • Overview of SHRP 2 Capacity proj- ects (C01–C08) January 2008 Provided status report to IT Commit- tee at Transportation Research Board (TRB) Annual Meeting Washington, DC Managers, super- visors, and staff • Summary of the interesting tech- nology supports identified during Phase 2 case studies January 2008 Conducted TRB Annual Meeting ses- sion on Phase 2 case studies Washington, DC Managers, super- visors, and staff • Three PowerPoint presentations: 4 Overview and status of C01 proj- ect with particular focus on Phase 2 case studies 4 Case study 1: Texas Kelly Park- way (GIS application) 4 Idaho Visioning: MetroQuest March 2008 Presented C01 project to Massachu- setts Highways Boston, MA Managers and staff • General overview and status of project May 12–15, 2008 Attended Strategic Management and Management and Productivity Committees’ Midyear Workshop and Joint Meeting Woods Hole, MA Executives and managers • Discussion on applicability of C01 Framework to strategic initiatives under discussion by the committees May 29–30, 2008 Attended AASHTO Mid-Country CSS Peer Exchange Indianapolis, IN Managers and staff • Discussion of CSS integration into the C01 Framework June 2–3, 2008 Attended AASHTO CSS Peer Exchange Reno, NV Managers and staff • Discussion of CSS integration into the C01 Framework September 3, 2008 Facilitated discussion of barriers and presented case study examples at TRB Conference for Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Atlanta, GA Managers and staff • Sharing of key points captured from case studies, including examples of 4 Stakeholder involvement 4 Resource agency involvement 4 Project champions 4 Collaboration 4 Integration with other plans October 2008 Presented to the TCC and demon- strated the intended web-tool application for the CDMF Irvine, CA Executives and managers • Demonstration of CDMF web-tool flexibility in addressing transporta- tion challenges • Review of draft User’s Guide for streamlining a bottleneck project, case studies and best practices related to integrated planning, and a brief overview of the diagnostic tool January 11–15, 2009 Presented at TRB Annual Meeting poster session Washington, DC Executives, man- agers, and staff • Introduction of CDMF web tool, including screenshots of wireframe site to demonstrate the tool’s draft functionality (continued on next page)

77 article, The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework: Evolving Product of SHRP 2 Capacity Research, has stimu- lated interest on the topic of collaboration and provides an advance look at what the CDMF will provide. exhibitS and diSplayS at ConferenCeS Beginning with the poster session at the 2009 TRB Annual Meeting, opportunities to provide written materials/displays at conferences and meetings have provided additional out- reach for the project. Examples include the 2009 AMPO and AASHTO annual conferences. Continued CommuniCation and outreaCh In October 2009, the Capacity TCC identified the need to more closely align the CDMF with the ability to advance transporta- tion projects. As a result of this identified need, the SHRP 2 Capacity program staff developed a two-page brief to become an aspect of every form of outreach used. This included the Google website, the web tool, and any presentation or publica- tion developed within the project. High-Level Change Management Approach The significant case study and practitioner experience–based research conducted during Phases 1, 2, and 3 provide insights into the benefits of collaboration and detailed guidance on how collaboration can be integrated into transportation deci- sion making. However, the primary product of this research, the TCAPP website, is only a tool. To realize the intended ben- efit from TCAPP, transportation agencies and their partners must establish relationships that support collaborative deci- sion making. State DOTs, MPOs, and their partners are at varying levels of readiness to evolve their decision making to the level of collaboration described in TCAPP. Some agencies have a his- tory of collaboration with their partners and stakeholders; others have a more hands-off or even adversarial relationship. When the project scope was expanded to include develop- ment of the web tool, the outreach focus shifted to an Internet- based format. A Google website for the project was launched in 2009 with the intent to initiate a blog forum as the web tool became available. The blog will be a part of further communi- cation efforts in Phase 5 of the project. outreaCh timeline Over the 2-year period between 2007 and 2009, 13 presenta- tions were developed and delivered to a variety of audiences. Additional Outreach Activities There have been several unique opportunities during the initial project period to communicate the goals and poten- tial of the CDMF. These were not envisioned within the communication plan but have further expanded the engaged audience toward the launch of the web tool. uSer interviewS aS foCuS group repreSentativeS The inclusion of a web-based application to support the CDMF has presented new opportunities for engaging mem- bers of the target audience. In advance of the design and devel- opment of the web tool, individuals representing each of the formal transportation decision makers were interviewed to identify how they might use the CDMF and how they would best engage with this information. Again following the design and preliminary development, additional individuals were interviewed to respond to the tool and what the CDMF could provide for their use. These individuals not only informed the design but helped identify the needs of and ways to engage similar potential users. tr newS artiCle During 2008, the SHRP 2 Capacity program manager and the C01 project principal investigator were invited to submit a feature article for TR News, January–February 2009. This April 20, 2009 Presented project progress to the TCC Woods Hole, Mass. Executives and managers • Overview of new design features of the web tool • Summary of project updates to date, including web-tool develop- ment, user interviews, communica- tion plan, and project next steps July 20, 2009 Presented at TRB Summer Conference Seattle, WA Executives, managers, and staff • Overview of C01 modification con- tract (web tool and integration of other Capacity program research) October 22, 2009 Presented at Association of Metro- politan Planning Organizations (AMPO) Annual Conference Savannah, GA Managers and staff • Illustration of stakeholder support in transportation decision making Table C.9. CDMF Outreach Presentations (continued) Date Outreach Activity Location Target Audience Presentation Highlights

78 tailored to their specific circumstances. The Change Manage- ment Approach includes a summary of the rationale and ben- efits for implementing collaboration from the national perspective, as well as suggestions for tailoring this national case for change to the individual implementing agencies. In addi- tion, the approach describes a four-step change management planning process that agencies can use to identify, prioritize, and manage the changes needed to support implementation of collaboration among partners and stakeholders through- out transportation decision making. Moving along this spectrum to improve the level of collabora- tion needs more than the “how to” information that TCAPP provides. It requires institutional and relationship-building support so that the staff and policy decision makers come to the table with the right perspective and attitude to collaborate. The C01 Change Management Approach provides trans- portation agency executives and managers with an under- standing of the importance of change management for supporting implementation of collaboration; it also serves as a basic primer for developing a change management plan

Next: Appendix D - Supporting Material for the Collaboration Assessment Component of the Web Tool »
Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity 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-C01-RR-1: Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity describes a framework—including for long-range planning, corridor planning, project programming, environmental review, and environmental permitting—that supports collaborative business practices for reaching decisions on adding highway capacity when necessary.

The framework delivers case studies and supportive materials in a searchable, web-based, format called Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP). TCAPP is organized around decision points in the planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting processes. TCAPP is now know as PlanWorks.

  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!