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

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.

84 a p p e n D I x e Sources for phase 1 report on Case Study recommendations These sources provided the basis for recommendations on case studies that would be conducted under Phase 1. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO). The Changing State DOT. AASHTO, Washington, DC. 1998. AASHTO. Handbook on Integrating Land Use Considerations into Transportation Projects to Address Induced Growth. Prepared by ICF Consulting, Fairfax, VA. 2005. http:// www.trb.org/NotesDocs/25-25%283%29_FR.pdf. AASHTO. Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multi-modal Decision Making: The Case for Freight. Prepared by Trans- Management, Inc., Bethesda, MD. 2006. http://freight .transportation.org/doc/freight/reports/case_freight.pdf. AASHTO and FHWA. AASHTO/FHWA Peer Exchange: Context Sensitive Solutions. Washington, DC. 2006. http:// environment.transportation.org/pdf/css_peer_exchange/ css_agenda_final.pdf. AASHTO. Land Use/Smart Growth: Success Stories. http:// environment.transportation.org/environmental_issues/ land_use_sg/success_stor ies .aspx#bookmark4# bookmark4 (as of February 6, 2007). American Planning Association. Winners of APA’s 2007 National Planning Excellence, Achievement, and Leader- ship Awards. http://www.planning.org/newsreleases/2006/ ftp121506.htm (as of February 6, 2007). Baird, M. E., and Stammer, Jr., R. E. Conceptual Model to Sup- port Systematic Use of Performance Measures in State Transportation Agencies. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1706, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 2000, pp. 64–72. Baird, M. E., and Stammer, Jr., R. E. Measuring the Perfor- mance of State Transportation Agencies: Three Perspec- tives. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1729, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 2000, pp. 26–34. Barrett, K., and Greene, R. Applauding a Performance. Gov- erning Magazine. 2004. Batson, R. G., and Madan, A. Infrastructure Project Cost/ Schedule Management Tool. UTCA Report Number 01117. Department of Industrial Engineering, University of Ala- bama, Tuscaloosa, AL. Prepared by University Transporta- tion Center for Alabama (UTCA), University of Alabama, University of Alabama in Birmingham, and University of Alabama at Huntsville. 2002. Battelle Corporation. Performance Based Contracting for the Highway Construction Industry: An Evaluation of the Use of Innovative Contracting and Performance Specification in Highway Construction. Final Report. 2003. Buggie, F. D. Beyond “Six Sigma.” Journal of Management in Engineering, Vol. 16, No. 4 (July/Aug. 2000), pp. 28–31. California Department of Transportation. Project Delivery Acceleration Tool Box, Improvements to the California Department of Transportation’s Project Delivery Process. 2005. Campbell, M. Improving Agency Performance and Service Delivery. Journal for Quality and Participation, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Winter 2004), pp. 43–49. Chittenden County MPO. Chittenden County Land Use: Transportation Decision Support System. http://www .ccmpo.org/activities/Modeling/dss.html (as of February 6, 2007). Cluett, C., and Baker, K. Managing Change in State Depart- ments of Transportation: Scan 6 of 8—Innovations in Orga- nization Development as a Result of Information Technology. NCHRP Web Document 39 (Project SP20-24[14]). NCHRP, TRB, Washington, DC. 2001. http://onlinepubs .trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w39-6.pdf. The Conservation Fund and USDA Forest Service. Green Infrastructure. http://www.greeninfrastructure.net/ (as of February 6, 2007). Bibliography

85 FHWA and American Planning Association. Transportation Planning Excellence Awards 2004 and 2006. http://www .fhwa.dot.gov/planning/tpea/index.htm (as of February 6, 2007). FHWA. Statewide Transportation Planning. http://www .planning.dot.gov/state.asp#case (as of February 6, 2007). FHWA. GIS in Transportation. http://www.gis.fhwa.dot.gov/ (as of February 6, 2007). FHWA. Planning: The Tools. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ Planning/landuse/tools.cfm#fund1#fund1 (as of Febru- ary 6, 2007). FHWA. Analysis of Long-Range Transportation Plans. http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep10/state/anaswplans.htm#type #type (as of February 6, 2007). FHWA. ACTT website. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/ accelerated/ (as of February 6, 2007). FHWA. Domestic Scan Tour Report: Land Use and Transporta- tion Coordination—Lessons Learned from Domestic Scan Tour II. http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/Domestic Scan/DomScanES.htm. FTA. Linking the Transportation Planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Process. http://www .environment.fta.dot.gov/streamlining/lpn_guidance.htm (as of February 7, 2007). Fletcher, D. Environmental Spatial Information for Transpor- tation: A Peer Exchange on Partnerships. TRB, Washington, DC. 2004. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/ reports/cpw_1.pdf. Flowers, D., and Otto, S. L. Arkansas Combines Best Practices for an Innovative Interstate Rehabilitation Program. Public Roads, Vol. 65, No. 5 (March/April 2002). https://www .fhwa.dot.gov/publications/publicroads/02mar/02.cfm. Fong, L. The Design Sequencing Pilot. California Department of Transportation Journal, Vol. 2, No. 1 (July–August 2001). Georgia DOT. Fast Forward: Georgia’s Congestion Relief Pro- gram. http://www.timedla.com/upload/files/news/TIMED_ AR_2005.pdf. Gilliland, C., and Weatherby, A. Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation: Scan 5 of 8—Innovations in Work Force Strategies, NCHRP Web Document 39 (Project SP20-24[14]). NCHRP, TRB, Washington, DC. 2001. http:// onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w39-5.pdf. Goodrum, P., Yasin, M., and Hancher, D. Kentucky Transpor- tation Cabinet’s Statewide System for Lessons Learned. In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transporta- tion Research Board, No. 1900, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2004. Goodwin, A. Design-Build Cuts Street-Widening Project Time. Better Roads, Vol. 74, No. 2 (February 2004). Hancher, D. E., and Werkmeister, R. Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation: Scan 2 of 8— Innovations in Private Involvement in Project Delivery. NCHRP Web Culp, M., and Humeston, J. Planning and Environment Link- ages: Case Studies. 2006. http://www.environment.fhwa .dot.gov/integ/case_pel.ppt. Dallas Area Rapid Transit. www.dart.org (as of February 6, 2007). Deloitte and Touche LLP. Management Review Study of Hampton Roads District for the Virginia Department of Transportation. 2004. Dock, F., Zimmer, C., Becker, S., and Abadi, F. Lake Street Lessons. Civil Engineering Magazine, Vol. 1, No. 2 ( February 2007). Farrow, K. M. A Toolbox for Environmental Streamlining: What Worked for Pennsylvania’s Corridor O. Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) 2003 Technical Confer- ence and Exhibit, Fort Lauderdale, FL. 2003. FHWA. Accelerated Bridge Repairs: Meeting the Challenge in Oklahoma, Focus. 2002. http://www.tfhrc.gov/focus/ aug02/index.htm. FHWA. ACTT Interim Report. Spring 2004. FHWA. Freight Planning: List of Projects. http://www.fhwa .dot.gov/freightplanning/lop.html (as of February 7, 2007). FHWA. Domestic Scan Tour II Report Integration of Land Use and Transportation Planning: Lessons Learned from the Second Domestic Scan Tour. Prepared by the Domestic Scan Tour Team. 2004. http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/ DomesticScan/domscan2.htm. FHWA. Integrating Health and Physical Activity Goals into Transportation Planning: Building the Capacity of Planners and Practitioners—Proceedings of the Portland Roundtable. Prepared by Volpe National Transportation Systems Cen- ter Research and Special Programs Administration. 2004. http://www.planning.dot.gov/Documents/Health/ IntHealthTA.htm. FHWA. Geospatial Technology for Improved Decision Making in Transportation: Executive Scan Tour Report. Washington, DC. 2005. FHWA. Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects. 2006. http://www.environment .fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp. FHWA. Transportation Collaboration in the States. Prepared by National Policy Consensus Center, Portland, OR. 2006. http://www.policyconsensus.org/publications/reports/ docs/TransportationCollaboration.pdf. FHWA. Integration of Context Sensitive Solutions in the Trans- portation Planning Process. Prepared by the Center for Transportation and the Environment, North Carolina State University. 2006. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd/ integrat.cfm. FHWA. Doing the Right Thing: Improving Transportation and Enhancing Ecosystems—Exemplary Ecosystem Initiatives. 2007. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/ecosystems/ index.htm.

86 MnDOT. Project Delivery Streamlining: Design, Right-of-Way, and Environmental Focus Areas. Center for Transportation Studies. 2002. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/pds/ files/feb2002.pdf. MnDOT. Best Practices for Project Construction Streamlining. Final Report. 2005. MnDOT. Economic and Risk Assessment of Accelerating the Roc52 Design and Construction Process. 2006. National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). National Site Visits on Transportation and Growth. Prepared by Cambridge Systematics. 2005. http://environment .transportation.org/pdf/NCHRP_Booklet_02-07-05.pdf. NCHRP. NCHRP Project 20-24(31) Project Description. www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/All+Projects/NCHRP+20-24(31). Nature Conservancy. North America: United States. http:// www.nature.org/wherewework/northamerica/states/. Nelson, B. L., Johns, R. C., and Benke, R. J. Challenges of Upgrad- ing Strategic Capability in the Public Sector. In Transporta- tion Research Record 1558, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 1996, pp. 122–129. New Hampshire DOT. Rebuilding I-93: Salem to Manchester. http://webster.state.nh.us/dot/10418c/default.htm. North Central Texas Council of Governments. http://www .nctcog.org/trans/landuse/ (as of February 6, 2007). Northeastern Illinois Planning Commission. Common Ground. http://www.nipc.org/cg/ (as of February 6, 2007). PB Consult. Scoping Study for an AASHTO Guide on Accelerat- ing Project Delivery. AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways. 2006. http://www4.trb.org/trb/crp.nsf/reference/ boilerplate/Attachments/$file/20-07(211)_FR.pdf. Poister, T. H., and Van Slyke, D. M. Managing Change in State Departments of Transportation: Scan 1 of 8, Innovations in Strategic Leadership and Measurement for State DOTs. NCHRP Web Document 39 (Project SP20-24[14]). NCHRP, TRB, Washington, DC. 2001. http://onlinepubs .trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_w39-1.pdf. Poister, T. H. NCHRP Synthesis 326: Strategic Planning and Decision Making in State Departments of Transportation. NCHRP, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 2004. Postma, S., Carlile, F., and Roberts, J. Use of Best Value Selec- tion Process for the I-15 Design/Build Project. Utah Depart- ment of Transportation Report No. UT-98.16. Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. 1998. Postma, S., Cisneros, R., Roberts, J., Brantley, R., Anderson, D., and Boyd, B. I-15 Corridor Reconstruction Project Design/Build Evaluation 2000 Annual Report. Utah Depart- ment of Transportation Report No. UT-01.08. Prepared by Carter & Burgess, Inc., Salt Lake City, UT. 2001. Rivard, H., et al. Case Studies on the Use of Information Technology in the Canadian Construction Industry. ITcon, Vol. 9 (February 2004), p. 19. http://www.itcon.org/2004/2/. Document 39 (Project SP20-24[14]). NCHRP, TRB, Wash- ington, DC. 2001. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/nchrp_w39-2.pdf. I-93/I-95 Interchange Transportation Study. www.9395info .com (as of February 6, 2007). Keever, D. B., Weiss, K. E., and Quarles, R. C. Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transporta- tion in Communities. FHWA. 2001. www.fhwa.dot.gov/ reports/movingahead.pdf. Kempton, W. Joint Legislative Audit Committee Testimony. California Department of Transportation. 2005. http:// www.dot.ca.gov/baybridge/kemptonJLACtestimony.htm. Kerins, T. F. Constructability Reviews Speed Bridge Project. Better Roads, Vol. 73, No. 11 (2003). Khwaja, N., and Nelson, J. Innovative Strategies on Dallas High Five Project. In Transportation Research Record: Jour- nal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1900, Trans- portation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2004. Louis Berger Group. Design-Build Environmental Compliance Process and Level of Detail: Eight Case Studies. 2005. http:// www4.nationalacademies.org/trb/crp.nsf/reference/boiler plate/Attachments/$file/25-25(12)_FR.pdf. Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development. Accelerating Completion of the TIMED Program. Louisi- ana Secretary of Transportation to Members of the Joint Legislative Transportation Committee. 2002. http://www .dotd.state.la.us. Louisiana Transportation Research Center. Designing a Com- prehensive Model to Evaluate Outsourcing of DOTD Func- tions and Activities. Research Project 00-2SS. 2000. MacDorman & Associates, Inc. Transit Cooperative Highway Research Report 8: The Quality Journey—A TQM Roadmap for Public Transportation. Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC. 1995. Massachusetts Executive Office of Transportation. www.eot .state.ma.us (as of February 6, 2007). Massachusetts Highway Department. Project Development and Design Guidebook. http://www.vhb.com/mhdGuide/ mhd_GuideBook.asp (as of February 6, 2007). Meyer, M. Measuring System Performance: The Key to Estab- lishing Operations as a Core Agency Mission. In Transporta- tion Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1817, Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2002, pp. 155–162. Minnesota Department of Transportation (MnDOT). A Progress Report. Prepared for the Management Leadership Team. 2001. MnDOT. Program Delivery Streamlining Task Force Final Report and Recommendations. 2001. MnDOT. Pre-Construction Streamlining at Mn/DOT. 2002. http://www.dot.state.mn.us/tecsup/pds/files/may2002.pdf.

87 USDOT, FHWA, and FTA. Communications for Intelligent Transportation Systems: Successful Practices. A Cross-Cutting Study. Reaching Cost-Effective Solutions Through Better Decision-Making Techniques. FHWA-JPO-99-023, EDL 11488, FTA-TRI-11-00-02. November 2000. USDOT and FHWA. 2001 Contract Administration Scan: Executive Summary. 2001. USDOT and NASA. Achievements of the DOT-NASA Joint Pro- gram on Remote Sensing and Spatial Information Technolo- gies. April 2002. http://www.ncgia.ucsb.edu/ncrst/synthesis/ SynthRep2002/. USDOT. Executive Order 13274: Integrated Planning Work Group Baseline Report and Preliminary Gap Analysis. Pre- pared by ICF Consulting, Fairfax, VA. March 2005. http:// www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/workgroups/planning.htm. USDOT. Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infra- structure Projects Reviews: Priority Project Transition List. November 2006. http://www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/ projects/pptranslist/index.htm. USDOT. Transportation Case Studies in GIS. http://tmip.fhwa .dot.gov/clearinghouse/docs/gis/flyer/flyer.pdf. U.S. General Accounting Office. Appendix: Leading Commer- cial Practices for Acquiring Information Technology Services. Information Technology: Leading Commercial Practices for Outsourcing of Services. Report to the Chairman and Rank- ing Minority Member, Subcommittee on Readiness and Management Support, Committee on Armed Services, U.S. Senate. GAO-02-214. October 2001. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. EPA’s Smart Growth INDEX in 20 Pilot Communities: Using GIS Sketch Model- ing to Advance Smart Growth. February 2003. http://www .epa.gov/smartgrowth/pdf/Final_screen.pdf. U.S. Senate Committee on Governmental Affairs, 106th Con- gress. Total Quality Management: State Success Stories as a Model for the Federal Government. Hearing before the Oversight of Government Management, Restructuring and the District of Columbia Subcommittee of the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate. July 1999. Washington State DOT. Overview of Environmental Permit- ting for Transportation Projects. Report 05-4. State of Washington Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC). 2005. http://www.leg.wa.gov/JLARC/AuditAnd StudyReports/2005/Documents/05-4.pdf. Washington State DOT. I-405 Final Recommendation Report: Chapter 1. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ C34E71C8-EA30-4E2B-9EFA-0D1FA5012103/0/chp1.pdf. Washington State DOT. I-405 Final Recommendation Report: Chapter 3. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/ 57F7D2A9-913B-4C73-8EED-31FA09719A86/0/chp3.pdf. Whitesel, A. L. The Big I: I-25 and I-40 System-to-System Inter- change, Albuquerque, New Mexico–A New Management Model. New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD). 2001. Saenz, A., Jr., Fuller, D. A., Gookin, S. E., Stevens, B., and Wiste, D. Supersizing Design/Build. Civil Engineering, Vol. 75, No. 4 (April 2005). Salem, S., and Miller, R. Accelerated Construction Decision- Making Process for Bridges. Final Report. Midwest Regional University Transportation Center and University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. 2006. Semones, P., and Slijepcevic, S. Miles from Delay. Roads and Bridges (June 2004). http://www.roadsbridges.com/rb/ index.cfm/powergrid/rfah=cfap=/fuseaction/showArticle/ articleID/5232. South Carolina Department of Transportation. 27 In 7 Peak Performance. Mid-Term Progress Report. July 2002. State of Arizona, Governor’s Office for Excellence in Gov- ernment. Competitive Government: A Tool for Developing an Effective Management Strategy. Program Handbook, Version 4. June 2001. www.governor.state.az.us/excellence. Transportation Research Board (TRB). Special Report 249: Building Momentum for Change: Creating a Strategic Forum for Innovation in Highway Infrastructure. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 1996. TRB. NCHRP Research Results Digest Number 236. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 1999. http:// www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/41B541FE-8B75-4C57- B884-B33C7629579F/0/ERP_Notebook_tab1_June2006 .pdf. TRB. Access Management. http://www.accessmanagement.gov/. TRB. 86th Annual Meeting Interactive Program. 2007. http:// www.trb.org/AM/IP/assembly_detail.asp?id=8116. TransTech Management, Inc. Strategic Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation: A Handbook for CEO’s and Executives. Prepared for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program Project No. 20-24(20). Trans- portation Research Board, Washington, DC. June 2003. Transportation Solutions: Collaborative Problem Solving for States and Communities. Prepared by the National Policy Consensus Center. http://www.policyconsensus.org/ publications/reports/docs/TransportationSolutions.pdf. Travis, J. Building Quality Relationships: The Effects of Envi- ronmental Stewardship. http://cms.transportation.org/ sites/quality/docs/JTravis_EnviroStewardship.pdf. Tri-County Regional Planning Commission. Tri-County Growth Product Publications. http://www.mitcrpc.org/ publications.html. University of Kentucky. NCHRP Project 20-24(14). Department of Civil Engineering, University of Kentucky. April 2001. URS. Special Study for State Highway, Bridge, and Roadway Con- struction Contract Plans. Prepared for MnDOT. April 21, 2003. U.S. Department of Transportation (USDOT). An Overview: Land Use and Economic Development in Statewide Trans- portation Planning. May 1999. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ hep10/state/lu.pdf.

88 Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Wilson Bridge Project Wins National Transportation Award for Overcoming Environ- mental Challenges in Construction. September 9, 2004. http://www.wilsonbridge.com/pdfs/pressReleases/pr2004- 0909.pdf. WSDOT. I-405 Corridor Program Final Recommendation Report. 2002. Sources for phase 1 Case Studies Binghamton Metropolitan Transportation Study: Scenario Planning Yields Community Vision of Revitalized Urban Centers. No sources beyond those referenced in the case study. California I-710: Engaged Community Supports Corridor Study Partnership. No sources beyond those referenced in the case study. Colorado STEP UP: Environmental Collaboration Supported by Web-Based Technology. No sources beyond those referenced in the case study. Colorado US-285: Foxton Road to Bailey—Using Context Sensitive Solutions Approach to Highway Capacity. Carter & Burgess, Inc. US-285 (Foxton Road to Bailey), Jefferson and Park Counties, Colorado, Environmental Assessment. Technical report prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation Region 1 by Carter & Burgess, Inc., Denver, CO. August 2004. Carter & Burgess, Inc. US-285 Foxton Road to Fairplay Feasibil- ity Study. Technical report prepared for the Colorado Depart- ment of Transportation Region 1 by Carter & Burgess, Inc., Denver, CO. March 2002. CDOT. Annual Report 2006. 2006. http://www.coloradodot .info/library/AnnualReports/2006AnnualReport.pdf/view. CDOT. Evaluation and Mitigation of Environmental Impacts Prior to Project Selection: US-24, MP 311.7 T0 MP 339.0, Results of an Assessment of the Corridor Approach for Early Evaluation of Environmental Resources. Report No. CDOT- 2007-6. Environmental Programs Branch, Colorado Depart- ment of Transportation. Prepared in cooperation with the USDOT, FHWA. April 2007. CDOT. US-285 Environmental Study Honored with National Award. Press release. December 14, 2006. FasTracks. Transit Oriented Development. Regional Transpor- tation District of Denver, Colorado. 2007. http://www.rtd- denver.com/. FHWA. Public Roads, Vol. 70, No. 6 (May/June, 2007). Gaskill, C. Cost-Benefit Study of Applying Context Sensitive Solutions to US-285, West of Denver, Colorado. Paper 07-0098. Presented at TRB Annual Meeting. 2007. Wilmot, C. G., and Naghavi, B. N. Evaluating the Performance of Existing Local Transportation Funds. State and Local Government Review, Vol. 32, No. 1 (Winter 2000). Wilmot, C. G., Deis, D. R., and Rong, X. Assessing Outsourcing Potential in a State DOT. Presented at TRB Annual Meeting, Washington, DC. 2003. Wilson, B. Not a Plain Order. Roads and Bridges (June 2003). http://www.roadsbridges.com/rb/index.cfm/powergrid/ rfah=cfap=/fuseaction/showArticle/articleID/4216. Wilson-Orndoff, C. J. Citizen Based Priorities in Transporta- tion: A Study in Customer Focus. Public Works Manage- ment and Policy, Vol. 7, No. 4 (2003), pp. 256–266. Zeitz, R. Right Away. Roads and Bridges (April 2003). http:// www.roadsbridges.com/right-away. Source for phase 1 Draft Case Study research plan The case study research plan outlined the process for devel- oping the Phase 1 case studies and provided supporting material that was used in case study development. Smith, S. A. NCHRP Report 435: Guidebook for Transportation Corridor Studies: A Process for Effective Decision-Making. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, DC. 1999. Sources for phase 1 Case Study Summary report This report summarized the findings of Phase 1, which pro- duced 15 case studies of transportation decision making that involved highway capacity projects. Campbell, S., et al. From Handshake to Compact: Guidance to Foster Collaborative, Multimodal Decision Making. TCRP Report 106/NCHRP Report 536. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2005. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_ rpt_536.pdf. Environmental Law Institute. Wetland Mitigation Banking Study. The Federal Context for In-Lieu-Fee Mitigation. http://www2.eli.org/wmb/StateFedb.htm. Gaskill, C. Context Sensitive Solutions and Value Engineering in the U.S. 285 Corridor. Presented at TRB Annual Meeting. 2007. National Policy Consensus Center. Transportation Collabo- ration in the States. June 2006. TrafficLand.com. Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Demoli- tion. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmpHlkEhqbU. White, P. On the Road to Conservation: State Conservation Strat- egies and Applications for Transportation Planning. Road Ecology Center eScholarship Repository, John Muir Institute for the Environment, University of California, Davis. 2005. http://repositories.cdlib.org/jmie/roadeco/White2005b.

89 CH2M HILL. I-5/Beltline Interchange Project: Recom- mended Problem Definition. July 2000. CH2M HILL. Presentation given by March Schwartz I-5/ Beltline Interchange Project: Stakeholder Involvement Facil- itates Context Sensitive Design. Context Sensitive Highway Design Workshop, Missoula, MT. September 6, 2001. Criterium DecisionPlus. http://www.infoharvest.com/ihroot/ index.asp. FHWA and Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/ Beltline Interchange Project: Environmental Assessment. May 2002. FHWA and Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Interchange Project: Revised Environmental Assessment. July 2003. Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Develop- ment. Statewide Planning Goals and Guidance: Goal 1— Citizen Involvement. 1973. http://www.lcd.state.or.us/ LCD/docs/goals/goal1.pdf. Oregon Department of Transportation. Beltline Manage- ment Team Meeting Notes. Prepared by CH2M HILL. December 30, 1999–June 28, 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. Interstate-5/Beltline Interchange Facility Plan. January 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Inter- change EA Management Team Charter, Phase 1. Chartering Meeting. January 6, 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Inter- change Project: Beltline Decision Team Protocols. Pre- pared by CH2M HILL. April 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. Beltline Decision Team Meeting Notes. Prepared by CH2M HILL. April 7, 2000, September 25, 2000, and October 8, 2002. Oregon Department of Transportation. Beltline Stakeholder Working Group Meeting Notes. Prepared by CH2M HILL. April 18, 2000–September 8, 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Inter- change Project: Stakeholder Working Group Protocols. Prepared by CH2M HILL. May 2000. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Inter- change Project: Alternatives Evaluation and Screening Technical Report for the I-5/Beltline Interchange. Final Report. Prepared by CH2M HILL. June 2001. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Inter- change Project: Decision Document. Revised Final Report. Prepared by CH2M HILL. November 2002. Oregon Department of Transportation. Interstate-5/Beltline Interchange Fact Sheet. Highway Project Information Series, Area 5 Project Office. February 2005. http://www .lcog.org/meetings/mpc/022005/MPC4aAttachment1I- 5BeltlineProjectFactSheet.pdf. Oregon Department of Transportation. I-5/Beltline Project Fact Sheet 2005. http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/HWY/ REGION2/I_5_Beltline_Interchange.shtml. Kullman, J. Application: AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence National Context Sensitive Solutions Competi- tion. 2006. Grand Rapids, Michigan: US-131 S-Curve Replacement— Collaborative Design and Construction Closure of Central Urban Access. No sources beyond those directly referenced in the case study. Idaho’s Transportation Vision: An Inclusive Process Brings Together Stakeholders to Create a Shared Vision. No sources beyond those directly referenced in the case study. Maricopa County, Arizona: Regional Transportation Plan— Consensus-Driven Effort to Balance Regional Needs. No sources beyond those directly referenced in the case study. NJ-31 Integrated Land Use and Transportation Plan: New Approach to Highway Capacity Expansion. New Jersey DOT. New Jersey FIT: Future in Transportation, About NJFIT. http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/ njfit/about/. New Jersey DOT. New Jersey FIT: Future in Transportation, Route 31 Land Use and Transportation Plan (case study). http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/works/njfit/case/ route31.shtm. Origin-Destination Survey Summary Report. Draft. Prepared for NJDOT by McCormick Taylor, Inc. January 2005. Route 31 Land Use and Transportation Plan. Draft land-use component. Prepared for Raritan Township by McCormick Taylor, Inc. June 2007. Route 31 Land Use and Transportation Plan: Concept Develop- ment Workbook. Draft. July 23, 2004. Route 31 Land Use and Transportation Plan: Market and Fiscal Analyses. Summary of findings. Prepared for NJDOT by Robert Charles Lesser & Co., LLC. January 24, 2006. Traffic Analysis Summary Final Report for the NJ Route 31 Inte- grated Land Use and Transportation Framework Plan. Pre- pared for NJDOT by McCormick Taylor, Inc. March 2006; revised May 2006. North Carolina US-64: Development of Asheboro Bypass and Application of Merger Process. Abbreviated Final Environmental Impact Statement for US-64 Improvements: Asheboro, Randolph County, North Carolina. Prepared by USDOT, FHWA, and NCDOT. March 9, 2007. Draft Environmental Impact Statement for US-64 Improve- ments: Asheboro, Randolph County, North Carolina. Pre- pared by USDOT, FHWA, and NCDOT. June 23, 2002. Oregon I-5/Beltline Interchange: Structured Decision Making Using Community Values as Performance Measures. CH2M HILL. Memorandum from Marcy Schwartz to I-5/ Beltline Interchange EA Project Management Team: Sum- mary of Stakeholder Interviews. February 2000.

90 Ohio Department of Transportation. Transportation Review Advisory Council Policies and Procedures. June 30, 2006. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/trac/. Ohio Department of Transportation. US-24 History. http:// www.us24.org/Indiana-Defiance/history/historymain.htm. Ohio Department of Transportation. US-24 New Haven to Defiance Draft Environmental Impact Statement. July 2003. http://www.us24.org/Indiana-Defiance/index.htm. Ohio Department of Transportation. US-24 New Haven to Defiance Final Environmental Impact Statement. November 2005. http://www.us.24.org/Indiana-Defiance/index.htm. Ohio Department of Transportation. US-24 Preliminary Alter- natives Summary. July 1999. http://www.us24.org/Indiana- Defiance/history/historymain.htm. Ohio Department of Transportation, US-24 Vehicle License Plate Survey. August 2001. http://www.us24.org/Indiana- Defiance/index.htm. Utah I-15 NOW: Calculated Engineering and Design-Build for Rapid Delivery of Improvements. Carter & Burgess. Inter-Regional Corridor Alternatives Analy- sis. 2002. http://www.mountainland.org/index.php?option= com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=22. Carter & Burgess. Utah County I-15 Corridor Management Plan. 2001. Dye Management Group. Rural Transportation Planning Work- shops: Colorado Workshop, including Arizona, Texas, and Utah. Report prepared for FHWA. 1999. Envision Utah. Wasatch Choices 2040: A Four County Land Use and Transportation Vision. 2007. http://www.wfrc.org/ cms/publications/wasatchchoices2040report.pdf. Fehr and Peers Associates Inc. 2001/2002 Travel Demand Model. Computer software. (Adapted from Wasatch Front Regional Council Travel Demand Model, 2001.) FHWA. ACTT Workshop: Utah Spanning the Future. http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/construction/accelerated/wsut0500.cfm. FHWA. ACTT Now. 2005. http://www.tfhrc.gov/FOCUS/ oct05/01.htm. FHWA. I-15, 31st Street to 2700 North in Farr West, Weber County, Utah, Final Environmental Impact Statement and Final Section 4(f) Evaluation. 2004. FHWA and USACE. Legacy Parkway Final Supplemental EIS/ Revaluation and Section 4(f), 6(f) Evaluation. 2005. Intermountain Contractor. Special Report: Intermountain Con- tractor’s Top Projects of 2006 in Utah and Idaho. McGraw-Hill Companies, Inc. 2006. http://intermountain.construction .com/features/archive/06_Top_Projects.asp. State of Utah. Now You’re the Expert: Construction Photos, Weber River Girders. UDOT website. 2007. http://www.udot .utah.gov/i15now/photos/31st_Street.pdf. Stop the Legacy Highway. http://www.stoplegacyhighway.org/. Taxpayers for Common Sense. Road to Ruin. Legacy Highway Project, Utah, Cost to Federal Taxpayers $1.4 Billion. San Antonio, Texas: Kelly Parkway—The Importance of Community Involvement and Environmental Justice. The Alamo Regional Mobility Authority. 2007. http://www .alamorma.org/. Environmental Insider News. Environmental Justice in San Antonio. May 2003. Kelly Parkway, from US-90 to SH 16, San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas: Final Environmental Impact Statement. Report prepared by FHWA and TxDOT, in cooperation with the Air Force Base Conversion Agency. http://kelly- parkway.com/ADAcompliant/index_a.htm. Mobility 2030: San Antonio–Bexar County Metropolitan Transportation Plan. 2005. Monitoring Urban Freeways in 2003: Current Conditions and Trends from Archived Operations Data. A Cooperative Study by the Texas Transportation Institute of Texas A&M University and Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Sponsored by FHWA. Report No. FHWA-HOP-05-018. http://mobility .tamu.edu/mmp/. Public Involvement Plan for the Kelly Parkway Corridor Study Context Sensitive Design. Paper presented at the Second Urban Street Symposium, Anaheim, CA. June 2003. http:// www.urbanstreet.info/2nd_sym_proceedings/Volume% 202/Rivera.pdf. Purcell, B. San Antonio Area Freeway System: Tollway System. Texas Highway Man website. 2005. http://www.texashigh wayman.com/tollsys.shtml. San Antonio–Bexar County MPO. 2008–2011 Transportation Improvement Plan. http://www.sametroplan.org/Plans/ TIP/tip.html. US-24: New Haven, Indiana to Defiance, Ohio—The 9-Step Transportation Development Process. Indiana Department of Transportation, Ohio Department of Transportation, and FHWA. United States Route 24 Improvement Feasibility Study. 1994. Ohio Department of Transportation. Draft Purpose and Need Statement: US Route 24 Highway Improvement— US-24 from Defiance to Napoleon. Agreement No. 9268, PID No. 19779. Prepared by HNTB Ohio, Inc., for the Ohio Department of Transportation. May 2000. Ohio Department of Transportation. Ohio Department of Transportation Office of Systems Planning and Program Management Public Involvement Process. January 2007. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/planning/PIP/ODOTPIP.pdf. Ohio Department of Transportation. Project Development Process. http://www.dot.state.oh.us/pdp/. Ohio Department of Transportation. Project Schedule and Cost. http://www.us24.org/Indiana-Defiance/index.htm. Ohio Department of Transportation. The 9-Step Transporta- tion Development Process for Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. Interim Guidance. Office of Environmental Services. April 2000.

91 Settlement Agreement Between the City of Alexandria, Vir- ginia and the United States Department of Transportation. March 1, 1999. Stakeholder Participation Panels in the Public Involvement Pro- cess. Prepared for FHWA by Potomac Crossing Consul- tants. November 1998. Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project Overview. Prepared for USDOT-FHWA, Virginia Department of Transportation, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, and District of Columbia Department of Public Works by Potomac Crossing Consultants. 2007–2008. Sources for phase 2 Summary of preliminary assessment of and recommendations for Solution-Screening processes for In-Depth evaluation Phase 2 supported the Phase 3 design by (1) screening a wide range of state-of-the-practice systems-based solution-screening processes; (2) documenting the most promising screening pro- cesses in use today through in-depth evaluations; and (3) iden- tifying barriers to developing and deploying such processes. This report documented the results of the initial screening and recommended the most promising screening processes to carry forward for in-depth evaluation. Amekudzi, A., and Meyer, M. NCHRP Report 541: Consider- ation of Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, DC. 2005. http://onlinepubs.trb .org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_541.pdf. Accessed 2007. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Center for Environmental Excellence. http://environment.transportation.org/. An Overview of Scenario Screening and Performance Mea- surement Applications at DOTs. Memorandum from Marie Venner, ICF International, as part of Phase 1 of SHRP 2 C01: A Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. March 2007. Application of Decision Analysis to Intelligent Transportation System Societal Issues. Final Report. Prepared for the IDEA Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, by Office for the Study of Automotive Transporta- tion, University of Michigan Transportation Research Institute. March 14, 1997. Blueprint for Tomorrow. Addressing Transportation Needs. http://www.rcip.org/cetap.htm. Accessed 2007. Boston MPO. A Decade of Change: Community Profiles. http://www.mapc.org/data_gis/data_center/data_center_ publications.html/. 2004. http://www.taxpayer.net/road2ruin/roads/legacy highway.htm. Washington I-405 Corridor Program: Reinventing NEPA. Growth Management Hearing Boards. http://www.gmhb .wa.gov/gma/. Accessed July 27, 2007. I-405 Corridor Program Final Recommendation Report. 2002. I-405 Corridor Program Public Involvement Plan. Working Paper No. 1. Prepared by Pacific Rim Resources. July 19, 1999. I-405 Corridor project website. Frequently Asked Questions. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/corridor/faq.htm. Office of Urban Mobility. Project Newsletter, Vol. 1, No. 1 (January 1995). Revised Code of Washington 36.70A. Growth Management Act. http://www.gmhb.wa.gov/gma/index.html. Samdahl, D. R. Making the Right Decisions in the I-405 Corridor. Mirai Associates, Bothell, WA. No date. Smith, B. The Washington State Experience with Re-inventing NEPA: Lessons Learned. Draft. Washington State DOT, Office of Environmental Affairs. July 31, 2002. Transportation Decision Making Process: NEPA Process Improve- ment Handbook. October 9, 1998. USDOT, FHWA, and Federal Transit Administration. I-405 Corridor Program. Record of Decision. October 9, 2002. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/AC2D34D8-43AA- 4760-92B8-DF85E3D190AA/0/I405_RecordOfDecision_ Final.pdf. USDOT, FHWA. SAFETEA-LU Environmental Review Pro- cess (Public Law 109-59). Final Guidance. November 15, 2006. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/section6002/. Washington State DOT. Congestion Relief and Bus Rapid Transit Program Final Environmental Impact Statement. June 28, 2002. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Projects/i405/ corridor/feis.htm. Woodrow Wilson Bridge in Maryland and Virginia: FHWA Leads the Planning Process for Bridge Redesign. City of Alexandria, Virginia, et al., Appellees v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary, USDOT, et al., Appellants, United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia. Opinion No. 99-5220. December 17, 1999. Final Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement/ Section 4(f) Evaluation, Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Prepared by USDOT-FHWA, Virginia Department of Trans- portation, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, and District of Columbia Depart- ment of Public Works. April 4, 2000. Record of Decision, Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Pre- pared by USDOT-FHWA in cooperation with Virginia Department of Transportation, Maryland Department of Transportation, State Highway Administration, and District of Columbia Department of Public Works. June 16, 2000.

92 .environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_pel.ppt#314,1, Plan- ning and Environment Linkages: Case Studies. Culp, M., FHWA Office of Project Development and Environ- mental Review. Implementing the Concepts. Environment Pre-Conference Workshop, TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference. August 27, 2006. http://www.environment .fhwa.dot.gov/integ/mpo_pf06.ppt#314, 1, Implementing the Concepts Environment Pre-Conference Workshop TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference. August 27, 2006. Accessed April 26, 2007. Cumulative Impacts Advisory Panel. Partnership for Integrated Planning: Merced Pilot. 2002–2004. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/tpp/offices/orip/WhitePaper.pdf#search=’merced%20 county%20integrated%20planning’. Eastside Corridor Project Initial Screening Analysis. Draft Final Report. Prepared for Washington State DOT by URS Corporation and INCA Engineers, Inc. Revised August 3, 2001. http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/789253FS- 38F0-448E-A76E-5E0978B24D9C-2021/initialScreen1.pdf. FHWA, Office of Project Development and Environmental Review, National Policy Consensus Center. Transportation Collaboration in the States. June 2006. http://www.policy consensus.org/publications/reports/docs/Transportation Collaboration.pdf. FDOT. ETDM Progress Report 3. October 2007. http://etdm- pub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. FDOT Research Center. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/ research-center/. Accessed 2007. FDOT. ETDM Manual. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo. FDOT. ETDM Overview. September 2006. http://etdmpub .fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Performance Management Plan. April 2005. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/Final%20PMP%20 Report_April%202005.pdf. Fung, C., FHWA, Office of Planning. Environmental Consid- erations in Planning: New Momentum. Environment Pre- Conference Workshop, TRB MPOs Present and Future Conference. August 27, 2006. http://www.environment .fhwa.dot.gov/integ/mpo_06conf_p1.pdf. Howard, R. Cities and Transportation: Choices and Consequences—Exploring Alternative Models and Best Practices for Sustainable Urban Transportation and Land Use. http://www.sfu.ca/dialog/cities/session3.htm. Accessed 2007. Idaho Transportation Department, Division of Transportation Planning. Idaho Corridor Planning Guidebook. February 19, 1998. http://itd.idaho.gov/planning/reports/corrplan/title .html. Accessed May 10, 2007. Indiana Department of Transportation. SR37 Feasibility Study from Noblesville to Marion: Alternatives Screening Analysis. Prepared by Wilbur Smith Associates. August 2005. Kansas Department of Transportation and Kansas Turnpike Authority. KAW Connects Topeka/Lawrence/Kansas City Boston MPO. A Decade of Change: Growth Trends in the Greater Boston Area—1990 to 2000. http://www.mapc .org/data_gis/data_center/data_center_publications.html. Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency and Califor- nia Environmental Protection Agency. Goods Movement Action Plan. http://www.arb.ca.gov/gmp/docs/gmap-1-11- 07.pdf. Accessed 2007. Caltrans, EPA, Merced County Association of Governments, U.S. Department of Transportation. Merced Partnership for Integrated Planning. Slideshow. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ dist05/planning/gappt/epiphany/sld020.htm. Accessed 2007. Caltrans. Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency Per- formance Improvement Initiative. http://www.bth.ca.gov/ pii/caltrans.asp. Accessed 2007. Caltrans. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process. Slideshow. California Regional Blue- print Planning Program Workshop. http://www.dot.ca.gov/ hq/tpp/offices/orip/Blueprint_Planning_August_2005_ with_notes.pdf. Accessed 2007. Capital District Transportation Committee (New York) MPO. 2005–2010 Transportation Improvement Program. Appen- dix G—Selection of New Projects. http://www.cdtcmpo .org/tipdoc05/contents.html. Accessed May 3, 2007. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. CMAP’s Regional Snapshot. http://chicagoareaplanning.org/snapshot/. Chittenden County (Vermont) MPO. Chittenden County Land Use–Transportation Decision Support System. http:// www.ccmpo.org/modeling/dss.html. Accessed May 3, 2007. Cho, H., and Mehta, S. Corona Council Keeps Option Open for a Future Freeway. http://www.rcip.org/Documents/Corona_ Council_Future_Freeway_08_21_03.pdf. Accessed 2007. City of Houston Planning and Development Department and Environmental Simulation Center. Main Street Cor- ridor Revitalization Project. Final Summary Report. http:// www.houstontx.gov/planning/planning_studies/main_st/ newMain_tools.htm. Colorado Department of Transportation. Northwest Corridor EIS. http://www.dot.state.co.us/NorthwestCorridorEIS/ index.cfm. Colorado Department of Transportation. Northwest Corri- dor EIS Alternative History. http://www.dot.state.co.us/ northwestcorridoreis/alternatives/alternativesHistory.cfm. Accessed May 3, 2007. Columbia River Crossing Screening and Evaluation Frame- work. http://www.columbiarivercrossing.org/FileLibrary/ GeneralProjectDocs/ScreeningEvaluationFramework.pdf. Columbia River Crossing Screening Project website. http:// www.columbiarivercrossing.org/Default.aspx. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). CETAP Fact Sheet. http://www.rcip.org/ Documents/CETAP_Fact_Sheet_032603.pdf. Accessed 2007. Culp, M., and Humeston, J., FHWA. Planning and Environ- ment Linkages: Case Studies. November 2, 2006. http://www

93 MnDOT, Office of Investment Management. 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan. http://www.oim.dot.state.mn.us/ StatePlan/index.html. Accessed April 26, 2007. New York MTA. Lower Manhattan–Jamaica/JFK Transpor- tation Project Proposed Screening Criteria. Draft. Septem- ber 30, 2005. http://www.mta.info/mta/planning/lmlink/ documents/evaluation_criteria.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2007. New York Thruway Authority and Metro-North Railroad. Tap- pan Zee Bridge/I-287 Environmental Review Draft Level 1 Screening Criteria. http://www.tzbsite.com/tzblibrary/ stage1/2003-03-level1-screening-criteria.pdf. Office for Southeast Europe. Regional Balkans Infrastructure Study: Transport. Appendix 5: Methods for Project Screen- ing and Pre-feasibility Analysis. http://www.seerecon.org/ infrastructure/sectors/transport/documents/REBIS. Accessed May 3, 2007. Oregon DOT and Washington State DOT. Columbia River Crossing Screening and Evaluation Framework. http://www .columbiarivercrossing.org/Materials/Projectdocuments/ CRC_032206_EvaluationFramework_Final.pdf. Partnership for Integrated Planning (PIP) Merced County Association of Governments Pilot Project. FHWA, Cal- trans, MCAG, and EPA. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/ offices/orip/PIP.pdf. Accessed 2007. Peace Bridge Expansion Project Final Scoping Document/ Alternative Screening Report. October 29, 2003. http:// www.peacebridgeex.com/files/sdasr/October/sdasr 031029exsum.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2007. Personal communication. E-mail and questionnaire from Kacey Lizon, SACOG, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 12, 2007. Personal communication. E-mail between Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 13, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Candice Steelman, Merced County Association of Governments, and David Griffin, URS Corp. June 12, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Cathy Bechtel, Riverside County Transportation Commission, and David Griffin, URS Corp. June 12, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Chris Ratekin, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 18, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Hubert Morgan, Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, and Ruth Roaza, URS Corp. to discuss CMAP Decision Sup- port Tools for Public Participation. June 29, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Jay Norvell, Caltrans, and David Griffin, URS Corp. June 12, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Joan Sollenberger, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 13, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Morten- son, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 12, 2007. Major Corridor Study. http://www.ksdot.org/burtransplan/ mcsesummary.pdf. Land Development Today. Partnership for Integrated Plan- ning. http://www.landdevelopmenttoday.com/index.php? name=News&file=article&sid=56. Accessed 2007. Land Development Today. The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) Has Implemented a Unique Approach to Collaboration That Is Being Tested with a Current Project. LDTonline. http://www.landdevelop menttoday.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid =56&theme=Printer. Accessed 2007. MacDonald, T., and Lidov, P. STEP UP Phase I Report. Report No. CDOT-DTD-2005-03. May 2005. http://www.dot .state.co.us/Publications/PDFFiles/stepup.pdf. McCoy, M. C., and Steelman, C. Integrating Community Val- ues and Fostering Interagency Collaboration Through Outreach with Interactive GIS Models. Ecology Center, University of California, Davis. http://repositories.cdlib .org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1282&context=jmie/ roadeco. Accessed 2007. Mehta, S. With Eye on Possible Freeway, Corona May Freeze 500 Acres. http://www.rcip.org/Documents/With_Eye_ on_Possible_Freeway_08_2003.pdf. Accessed 2007. Memorandum of Understanding between the Arizona Depart- ment of Transportation, FHWA, Arizona, and the Bureau of Land Management, Arizona. http://www.environment.fhwa .dot.gov/strmlng/PDFs/az_coop_mou.pdf. Accessed April 26, 2007. Merced County Association of Governments. Regional Transportation Plan for Merced County. August 2004. http://www.mcag.cog.ca.us/publications/2004/mattrtp/ RTP%20final%20draft .pdf# search= ’merced%20 county%20integrated%20planning’. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. The 2001 Regional Transportation Plan Equity Analysis and Environmental Jus- tice Report. http://www.census.abag.ca.gov/library/2001_ rtp/downloads/EJ/EquityReport.pdf. Accessed 2007. Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission. Long Range Transportation Plan: TransAction 2030. http://www.mvrpc .org/lrp/transAction2030.php. Miami Valley Regional Planning Commission. Regional Land Use Planning. http://docs.mvrpc.org/landuse/Conceptual_ LU_Scenario.pdf. Michigan Department of Transportation. Alternative Analy- ses Procedures: Transportation Asset Management. http:// www.michigan.gov/documents/procedures_16586_7.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2007. Mineta Transportation Institute. Best Practices in Developing Regional Transportation Plans. MTI Report 01-10. http:// transweb.sjsu.edu/mtiportal/research/publications/ documents/01-10.pdf. Accessed 2007.

94 South Jersey Transportation Planning Organization. Trans- portation Improvement Program Project Selection Process. http://www.sjtpo.org/Project%20Rank%20&%20 Process.pdf. Southern California Association of Governments. 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP): Destination 2030. http://www.scag.ca.gov/rtp2004/2004/FinalPlan.htm. Accessed 2007. Toledo Metropolitan Area Council of Government. On the Move: 2007–2035 Transportation Plan. 2007. http://www .tmacog.org/Transportation/2035/Final%20Draft/Draft_ TMACOG_2007-2035_Transportation_Plan.pdf. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. NCHRP 8-36, Task 47: Effective Organization of Performance Mea- surement. Prepared by Robert Padgette, Cambridge Sys- tematics, Inc. February 2006. http://www.transportation .og/sites/planning/docs/NCHRP%208-36%2847%29%20 Final%20Report.doc. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Research Results Digest 304: Technologies to Improve Consideration of Environmental Concerns in Transportation Decisions. Prepared by Marcy Schwartz, CH2M HILL. June 2006. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_ rrd_304.pdf. Transportation Research Board, Spatial Data and Informa- tion Science Committee and Ecology and Transportation Task Force. Environmental Geospatial Information for Trans- portation. Edited by Elizabeth Harper. May 2006. http:// onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/circulars/ec106.pdf. University of California, Davis. Information Center for the Environment. Partnership for Integrated Planning. http:// ice.ucdavis.edu/project/caltrans-pip. Accessed 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Environmental Review Toolkit: State Practices Database. http://www .environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/es3stateprac.asp. Accessed 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA/Federal Transit Administration. Transportation Planning Capacity Build- ing Program. Peer Roundtable Report: Linking Planning and NEPA. June 7, 2005. http://www.planning.dot.gov/ Peer/Pittsburgh/pittsburgh_2005.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA/Federal Transit Administration. Transportation Planning Capacity Build- ing Program. Peer Exchange Report: FHWA Resource Center Peer-to-Peer Workshop—Georgia Department of Transportation Peer Exchange to Improve Environmental Processes. November 2005. http://www.planning.dot.gov/ Peer/Atlanta/atlanta_2005.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA/Federal Transit Administration. Transportation Planning Capacity Building Personal communication. Telephone call between Naresh Amatya, Southern California Association of Governments, and David Griffin, URS Corp. June 13, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Pat Weston and John Wolfe, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 14, 2007. Personal communication. Telephone call between Walter Gonzales, BART, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. June 15, 2007. Policy Consensus Initiative and National Policy Consensus Center. http://www.policyconsensus.org/index.html. Accessed April 26, 2007. Public Policy Institute of California, Ellen Hanak, Mark Baldassare. California 2025: Taking in the Future. 2005. http://www.ppic.org/content/pubs/report/R_605MB2R .pdf. Accessed 2007. Public Policy Institute of California, Elisa Barbour, Michael Teitz. Blueprint Planning in California: Forging Consensus on Metropolitan Growth and Development. 2006. http://www .ppic.org/content/pubs/op/OP_606EBOP.pdf. Accessed 2007. Puget Sound Regional Council. From Scenarios to Alterna- tives. VISION 2020+20: Issues for the Future. May 20, 2005. http://www.psrc.org/projects/vision/outreach/index.pdf. Accessed May 3, 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). Fre- quently Asked Questions for CETAP. http://www.rcip.org/ pdf_files/CETAP_FAQ_04_14_03.pdf. Accessed 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). CETAP Alternatives Map. http://www.rcip.org/Documents/ cetap_shaded_relief.pdf. Accessed 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission (RCTC). CETAP Internal Corridors Recommendations. http://www .rcip.org/pdf_files/cetap_staff_report.pdf. Accessed 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission Board. Plans and Programs Committee Recommendations. http://www .rcip.org/Documents/rctc.htm. Accessed 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission. Meeting Min- utes, Wednesday, Feb. 12, 2003. http://www.rcip.org/pdf_ files/02_12_03_minutes.pdf. Accessed 2007. Riverside County Transportation Commission. Meeting Notes, CETAP Advisory Committee for the RCIP. http:// www.rcip.org/pdf_files/transportation/CETAPMtgNotes 03052002(dm).pdf. Accessed 2007. Rogue Valley MPO (RVMPO). Regional Transportation Plan 2005–2030. http://www.rvmpo.org/files/rtp%20with%20 reso%20april%202005.pdf. Accessed 2007. Sacramento Council of Governments (SACOG). Blueprint website. http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/home.cfm. Sacramento Region Blueprint, Transportation and Land Use Study. http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/sacregionblue print/home.cfm. Accessed April 26, 2007. San Francisco Metropolitan Transportation Commission. 2030 Transportation Plan website. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/ planning/2030_plan/index.htm.

95 2006. http://wfrc.org/SL%20COG/Final%20Project%20 Prioritization%20Process%20-%2012-19-06.pdf. WSDOT. SR 28 (Sunset Highway) Eastside Corridor Project Final EIS and Section 4(f) Evaluation. October 2006, pp. 2.1–2.4. Yentzer, D. A., and Clark, R. The “Hierarchy of Needs” Screen- ing Process: A Method for Rapid Development and Ratio- nalization of Reasonable Alternatives. Environmental Practice, Vol. 8, No. 4 (December 2006). Sources for State of the practice: Solution Screening processes and Decision Support tools for transportation Capacity planning This report (1) documented the work conducted under Phase 2; (2) presented the state of the practice in systemwide performance-based solutions screening processes and deci- sion support tools used in transportation capacity planning; and (3) provided guidance for future work that supports the development of decision support tools. This report was largely based on earlier project reports and case studies. In addition to those materials, the following sources were used. ESRI Transportation Data Model. http://support.esri.com/ index.cfm?fa=downloads.dataModels.filteredGateway& dmid=14. European Communities. European ITS Framework Architec- ture: Overview. 2000. http://www.frame-online.net/Karen_ doc/d36final.pdf. Federal Geographic Data Committee. National Digital Geo- spatial Data Framework. http://www.fgdc.gov/framework/ frameworkoverview. Geospatial One Stop. www.geodata.gov. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Research Results Digest 304: Technologies to Improve Consideration of Environmental Concerns in Transportation Decisions. Trans- portation Research Board. June 2006, pp. 5–6. The National Map. http://nationalmap.gov/. National Spatial Data Infrastructure (NSDI). http://www .fgdc.gov/nsdi/nsdi.html. Personal communication. Nancy McKeever, I-PLACE3S pro- gram manager, California Energy Commission, and Ruth Roaza, URS Corp. Simmons, L. The National ITS Architecture: A Framework for ITS Infrastructure. 1997. http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/ pr97-10/p15.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Scenario Plan- ning Peer Workshop. http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ scenplan/flscenplanrpt.htm. Program. Peer Exchange Report: Tennessee Department of Transportation and NCDOT Peer-to-Peer Exchange— North Carolina Peer Exchange to Improve Environmental Processes. December 2003. http://www.planning.dot.gov/ Peer/NC/NC_DOT.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Memorandum of Agreement. Early Mitigation Planning for Transporta- tion Improvements in California. http://www.fhwa.dot .gov/cadiv/pre/moajoan.htm. Accessed April 26, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Environmental Review Toolkit. Planning and Environment Linkages: Initiatives—Linking Planning and NEPA, Progress Report, FY2005/Quarter 4. http://www.environment.fhwa.dot. gov/integ/workshop_fy05q4.asp. Accessed March 22, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, Office of Safety Research and Development, Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center. SafetyAnalyst. http://www.tfhrc.gov/ safety/pubs/06124/index.htm. Accessed May 3, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Environmen- tal Review Toolkit. Planning and Environment Linkages: Initiatives—Linking Planning and NEPA, Progress Report, FY2006/Quarters 2 and 3. http://www.environment.fhwa .dot.gov/integ/workshop_fy06q2_3.asp. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Community and Environmental Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP). http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/ca22-a.html. Accessed 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. GIS Tools for Transportation and Community Planning. http://www .fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/case7.html. Accessed 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Case Studies: Riverside County Integrated Project (RCIP). http://www .environment.fhwa.dot.gov/integ/case_riverside.asp. Accessed 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA. Scenario Plan- ning Peer Workshop. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ scenplan/chscenplanrpt.htm. Accessed 2007. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GIS Screening Tool (GISST) User’s Manual. Region 6 Compliance Assurance and Enforcement Division, Office of Planning and Coordi- nation, NEPA Compliance Team, Dallas, TX. http://www .epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/xp/enxp2a3.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. GISST Fact Sheet. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/xp/enxp2a3.htm. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol (TEAP) Report. EPA 906-C-05-001. http://www.epa.gov/region6/6en/xp/enxp2a4.htm. WFRC. 2007–2030 Draft Regional Transportation Plan. http://wfrc.org/cms/index.php?option=com_content&tas k=view&id=86&Itemid=38. WFRC. Transportation Project Prioritization Process: Salt Lake County 1/4 Cent Sales Tax Increase. December 19,

96 FDOT. ETDM Progress Report No. 1. October 2001. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url= library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Progress Report No. 2. April 2002. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url= library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Progress Report No. 3. October 2006. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url= library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Public Website Brochure. October 2006. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url= library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Quick Reference Guide. March 2007. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url= library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Status 2007. July 2007. FDOT. Performance Management Handbook. Draft. Sched- uled for publication in September 2007. FDOT. Project Development and Environment (PD&E) Man- ual. April 2007. www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/pdeman/ pdeman.htm. FDOT. Public Involvement Handbook. May 2007. www.dot .state.fl.us/emo/pubs/public_involvement/pubinvolve.htm. FDOT. Sociocultural Effects Evaluation Handbook. November 2005. www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/sce/sce.htm. Personal interview. Representative of FDOT. August 16, 2007. Personal interview. Representative of Florida Department of State. August 15, 2007. Personal interview. Representative of Capital Region Trans- portation Planning Agency. August 16, 2007. I-69 Trans-Texas Corridor Study: Using GISST, TEAP, Quantm, SAM, and ProjectSolve Technologies. I-69 TTC NEPA and Project Development Process: Process Manual. September 2003. I-69 TTC Corridor Alternatives Evaluation Report. May 2006. Interview with I-69 TTC project team. August 16–17, 2007. GISST User Manual. http://www.epa.gov/earth1r6/6en/xp/ enxp2a3.htm. GISST Questionnaire completed by Sharon Osowski, EPA Region 6. June 19, 2007. TEAP Questionnaire completed by Sharon Osowski, EPA Region 6. June 19, 2007. Texas Ecological Assessment Protocol (TEAP) Pilot Project Report. March 2005. Illinois Prairie Parkway Project: Developing Comprehensive Transportation System Improvements Using an In-Depth Screening Process. Personal interview. IDOT representative. August 30, 2007. Personal interview. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers representa- tive. August 30, 2007. Personal interview. Project consultant. August 29, 2007. U.S. Department of Transportation. Key Concepts of the National ITS Architecture. http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/ html/static/key_b.htm. U.S. Department of Transportation. National ITS Architec- ture, Version 6.0. 2007. http://www.iteris.com/itsarch/. Sources for phase 2 Case Studies Caltrans: Corridor System Management Plan—Using Perfor- mance Measures to Conduct Analysis and Make Decisions. California Center for Innovative Transportation. PeMS. http://www.calccit.org/projects/pems.html (accessed Sep- tember 10, 2007). Caltrans. Interim Instructions for Preparing Corridor Man- agement Plans (CMP), Corridor Mobility Improvement Account Program (CMIA). No date. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. MTC Freeway Performance Initiative: Traffic Analysis Performance and Analysis Framework. Draft. No date. Personal interview. Deputy Director of Operations of Cal- trans. August 22, 2007. Florida’s Efficient Transportation Decision-Making Process: Achieving Early Agency and Community Participation. FDOT. Cultural Resource Management Handbook. Novem- ber 2004. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/cultmgmt/ Handbook_11-04.pdf. FDOT. Environmental Screening Tool Handbook. April 2007. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index .jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. EST ISDM Documentation. April 2007. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. EST Tip Sheets. December 2005. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Agreements. ETDM Library at http://etdm pub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. Accessed August 23, 2007. FDOT. ETDM Dispute Resolution Brochure. June 2004. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/ETDM_Dispute_ Brochure_Web.pdf. FDOT. ETDM Funded Positions Reference Manual. March 2005. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/fdot_funded_ positions_reference_manual.pdf. FDOT. ETDM Overview. September 2006. http://etdmpub .fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp. FDOT. ETDM Performance Management Plan. April 2005. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/Final%20PMP%20 Report_April%202005.pdf. FDOT. ETDM Planning and Programming Manual. March 2006. www.dot.state.fl.us/emo/pubs/etdm/etdmman.htm. FDOT. ETDM Process Brochure. May 2003. ETDM Library at http://etdmpub.fla-etat.org/est/index.jsp?url=library.jsp.

97 Puget Sound Regional Council. Destination 2030: Update. April 5, 2007, pp. i–vi. http://www.psrc.org/projects/mtp/ D2030update/D2030_2007Update.pdf. Puget Sound Regional Council. Membership Directory. www .psrc.org/about/members.htm. Puget Sound Regional Council. Policy Framework for PSRC’s Federal Funds. February 23, 2006. http://www.psrc.org/ projects/tip/selection/2006/CallMaterials/PolicyFramework .pdf. Puget Sound Regional Council. VISION 2020 (1995 Update): Growth Management, Economic, and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. May 1995. www.psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/1995update/index .htm. UrbanSim website. http://www.urbansim.org/. Sacramento Region, California: Blueprint Project—Using I-PLACE3S to Create a Regional Vision. Personal communication. Interview with director of commu- nity planning and operations, SACOG; urban planner, URS Corp.; and transportation industry manager, ESRI, Inc. Discussed the Blueprint Project. August 15, 2007. Personal communication. Interview with director of model- ing and data, SACOG; urban planner, URS Corp.; and transportation industry manager, ESRI, Inc. Discussed the Blueprint Project. August 15, 2007. Personal communication. Interview with implementation manager, SACOG; urban planner, URS Corp.; and trans- portation industry manager, ESRI, Inc. Discussed the Blue- print Project. August 15, 2007. Personal communication. Interview with supervising senior research analyst, SACOG; urban planner, URS Corp.; and transportation industry manager, ESRI, Inc. Discussed the Blueprint Project. August 15, 2007. Personal communication. Interview with Joan Sollenberger, planning director, Caltrans, and Kory Wilmot, URS Corp. Discussed the Blueprint Project. June 13, 2007. Sacramento Region Blueprint Transportation and Land Use Study. www.sacregionblueprint.org. Accessed August 27, 2007. Wasatch Front Region, Utah: Regional Transportation Plan—A 10-Step Planning Process. Envision Utah website. http://www.envisionutah.org. Personal interview. Senior level planner, Wasatch Front Regional Council. August 27–28, 2007. Personal interview. Mid-level planner, Wasatch Front Regional Council. August 27–28, 2007. Personal interview. IT representative, Wasatch Front Regional Council. August 27–28, 2007. Personal interview. Representative of Utah Department of Transportation. August 28, 2007. Personal interview. Public stakeholder. August 28, 2007. Personal interview. MPO representative. August 29, 2007. Personal interview. Interest group representative. August 29, 2007. Project website. http://www.prairie-parkway.com. Project website. http://www.dot.il.gov/press/r030304.html. MetroQuest: Examples from Idaho and Calgary—Interactive Regional Scenario Analysis Software. Idaho’s Transportation Future: Getting There Together. 2004. Idaho’s Transportation Future: The Process for Getting There Together. Appendix B. 2004. National Cooperative Highway Research Program. Research Results Digest 304: Technologies to Improve Consideration of Environmental Concerns in Transportation Decisions. Trans- portation Research Board. June 2006, pp. 5–6. Personal interview. Consultant team representative. Septem- ber 5, 2007. Telephone interview. Idaho Transportation Department rep- resentative. June–August 2007. USDOT, FHWA website. http://wwwcf.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/ scenplan/flscenplanrpt.htm. Puget Sound Region, Washington: Regional TIP Policy Framework and VISION 2040—Using Paint the Region to Evaluate Scenarios. Parametrix. CMART (Comment Management and Response Tool). http://www.aboutcmart.com/. Personal interview. Principal planner, Puget Sound Regional Council, and project manager, VISION 2020 Update. August 8, 2007. Personal interview. Public involvement coordinator, Puget Sound Regional Council. August 10, 2007. Personal interview. Principal planner, Puget Sound Regional Council, and project manager, VISION 2020 Update. August 28–29, 2007. Personal interview. Long-range growth planning director, Puget Sound Regional Council. August 29, 2007. Personal interview. Public involvement coordinator, Puget Sound Regional Council. August 29, 2007. Personal interview. TIP program manager. September 5, 2007. Personal interview. Transportation program manager. Sep- tember 5, 2007. Puget Sound Regional Council. VISION 2020 Update: Draft Environmental Impact Statement. Executive Summary. Includes CD. May 2006. www.psrc.org/projects/vision/ deis/index.htm. Puget Sound Regional Council. VISION 2040: Supplemental Draft Environmental Impact Statement. July 2007. www .psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/sdeis/index.htm. Puget Sound Regional Council. VISION 2040: The Growth Management, Economic, and Transportation Strategy for the Central Puget Sound Region. Draft. July 2007. www .psrc.org/projects/vision/pubs/draftV2040/index.htm.

98 Bens, I. Facilitating with Ease: Core Skills for Facilitators, Team Leaders and Members, Managers, Consultants, and Trainers. Jossey-Bass, San Francisco, CA. 2005. Cummings, T. G., and Worley, C. G. Organization Develop- ment and Change. 2001. Devane, T. Process Redesign. In Performance Intervention Maps. Edited by E. S. Sanders and S. Thiagarajan. 2001, p. 155. Kraemer, J. Building Villages to Raise Our Children: Collaboration. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Family Research Project. 1993. Maleyeff, J. Improving Service Delivery in Government with Lean Six Sigma. IBM Center for the Business of Govern- ment. 2007. Marquardt, M. Action Learning. In Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools. Edited by D. Langdon, K. Whiteside, and M. McKenna. 1999, pp. 52–58. Rummler, G., and Brache, A. Improving Performance: How to Manage the White Space on the Organization Chart. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. 1995. Sujansky, J. G. Partnering Agreements. In Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools. Edited by D. Langdon, K. Whiteside, and M. McKenna. 1999, pp. 273–279. Udayasankar, K., and Das, S. Competitive Institutional Strat- egies: A New Generic Typology. Nanyang Business School, Nanyang Technological University, Singapore. 2004. Whiteside, K. In Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools. Edited by D. Langdon, K. Whiteside, and M. McKenna. 1999. Personal interview. Former planner, Wasatch Front Regional Council. August 28, 2007. Utah Department of Transportation. Utah’s Unified Trans- portation Plan. July 2007. Utah Department of Transportation. Wasatch Choices 2040: A Four County Land Use and Transportation Vision. November 2006. Utah Department of Transportation website. http://www .udot.utah.gov. Wasatch Front Regional Council. Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan 2007–2030 Technical Report. May 2007. Wasatch Front Regional Council website. http://www .wfrc.org. Sources for Draft Final report, appendix D: Supporting Material for the Collaboration assessment Component of the Web tool This report appendix (1) provided a list of the criteria state- ments that enable self-evaluation and (2) illustrated an assess- ment example. Barbazette, J. Employee Orientation. In Intervention Resource Guide: 50 Performance Improvement Tools. Edited by D. Langdon, K. Whiteside, and M. McKenna. 1999, p. 155.