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.

1“Effective and efficient delivery of transportation improvements” has become a mantra in the transportation profession. This desire has been supported by legislative mandate to become more inclusive of broader interests and needs at the earliest possible time. Successful plans and projects have demonstrated that if everyone is brought into the discussion of how to support transportation system needs, the right solutions will be found. This means the right solution the first time. The implementation of transportation improvements has a profound impact on quality of life. Although there is universal recognition of the value of a robust transportation system, the agencies responsible for delivering the transportation system often meet with resistance because of environmental, social, or financial impacts. Transportation decision making must combine an interest in the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system with an interest in quality of life. The perceived interest in one at the expense of the other by individuals or groups has often resulted in stalled or eliminated improvement projects that are actually needed by all. The research conducted for this project indicates that at least part of the answer to delivering the necessary capacity with increased environmental and community integration lies in system- atically institutionalizing collaborative decision making. It is essential to have the right people at the table at the right time with the right information to make good choices that will stand up to scrutiny. Collaboration among decision-making partners, as well as stakeholders, has one essen- tial commonality: involvement is based on what matters to them. It is not necessary that the interests are common to all, but rather that the importance of individual interests are acknowl- edged, respected, and included in the process. This report describes a flexible and adaptable Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF or Framework) that provides specific infor- mation on how to support collaborative decision making within existing laws and regulations. Contribution of Case Studies From a real-world perspective, 23 case studies provide examples of and data about successful collaborative decision making. The selected case studies represent a diverse group of highway planning and projects ranging from a simple bridge reconstruction to a full corridorwide plan- ning program. Eight case studies focused specifically on solution screening—possibly the most complex and difficult component of transportation decision making. In addition to identifying successful examples of collaborative decision making, the case studies provide: • Key findings regarding the transportation decision-making process; • Barriers that agencies frequently face; and • Factors that significantly contribute to a project’s success. Executive Summary

2In the case study examples, decision making varied considerably when it came to timing—some processes took considerably longer and several required a redo. Environmental and community impacts and the general lack of integration of transportation decision making with other processes, such as land-use planning, stood out as significant barriers. Other barriers included lack of collabo- ration across the phases (i.e., long-range planning through environmental review) of transporta- tion decision making, turnover and loss of key leaders, funding constraints, challenges in solution screening, and insufficient involvement of both partner agencies and the public. The success of many projects is traced to a number of contributing factors. They include the following: • Responding well to a proactive approach or a sense of urgency, especially when delays were beyond agency control; • Making an effort to link long-range transportation planning and project development; • Using corridor planning to bridge the scale difference between long-range and project planning; • Following a structured decision process; • Having effective project management skills, specifically identifying and managing risk; • Having leaders and project champions, within the political arena or business structures; • Developing and using context-sensitive solutions; and • Having technology support, performance measures, and evaluation criteria. The case studies also reinforced the perception that available funding and political support can either propel a project forward or significantly hold it back. A strong environmental ethic was commonplace—whether that happened through early coordination with resource agencies or by taking an ecoregional approach to project delivery. Collaboration was a consistent theme throughout the case studies. State departments of trans- portation (DOTs) and their project stakeholders collaborated in a variety of ways. Emphasis was placed on compromising to reach consensus, employing skilled facilitators, and thinking cre- atively about how best to engage others. Collaborative processes were often well-organized and structured. Collaboration was encouraged by showing flexibility and responsiveness, working early with advocacy groups, and taking advantage of opportunities that otherwise might have been overlooked. To systematize the successful practices embodied by the cases, the fundamentals of each approach needed to be extracted and incorporated into a widely applicable framework built around key deci- sion points. Practitioners are eager for examples of successful practices that they can use to enhance their own decision making. However, case studies have their individual contexts, and even the most carefully documented case does not provide sufficient insights on how to collaborate successfully in other situations. A further difficulty for individual practitioners is finding the time and resources to extract useful and applicable information from this vast case study literature and hone it to support the unique process in which they work. These problems are addressed in the CDMF by delivering the case study and supportive material in a searchable, web-based format organized around decision points in the planning, programming, environmental review, and permitting processes. Table ES.1 identifies how the Framework addresses the major barriers identified in the case studies and incor- porates the success factors. A description of the actual design of the Framework follows the table. Framework Design The Framework is a set of 44 key decision points common to all states. This structure is useful for organizing the insights found in the case studies, as well as for practitioners to perform a gap analysis by comparison with their existing process. The Framework was designed by groups of professionals working together as peers, bringing knowledge from different processes and per- spectives. Their charge was to imagine how it could work. The final design of the Framework is the result of their collaboration.

3 To make the Framework applicable to the entire universe of transportation participants, the structure had to be somewhat generalized. Individual agency procedures must fit under the col- laborative umbrella without requiring wholesale upheaval of the current process. For this reason the Framework is organized to support collaboration leading up to key decision points that require approval from a higher level or external authority, need consensus among decision mak- ers, or are required by law or regulation. The philosophical basis of the Collaborative Decision- Making Framework is that by institutionalizing collaboration at key decision points, collaboration in the supporting technical process will follow. Exactly how collaboration is implemented will vary from state to state or region to region. The Framework is a structure of key decisions beginning with the initiation of a long-range plan (LRP) and concluding at a Record of Decision (ROD) in the environmental review process. Between these two milestones are many key decisions that can be grouped into individual areas, or phases, of transportation decision making: long-range planning, corridor or subarea plan- ning, programming, and environmental review merged with permitting. The Framework is built on the foundation of decision processes in the case studies, addresses the major barriers, and incorporates the success factors identified in the case studies; it was refined and vetted through practitioners’ workshops. Each key decision contains extensive information for practitioner use. The basic information captured at each key decision answers three main questions: • Who are the collaborative decision-making partners? • What information do the decision makers need? • How does the technical process support making the decision? Engaging with the Framework in its entirety is not necessary or even advisable. It is possible to select a series of individual key decisions, either within a phase or across phases, to address a particular challenge or need. Examples of these applications include linking long-range planning and the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), project streamlining, and stakeholder col- laboration. In addition, the web tool offers a collaboration assessment that both practitioners and stakeholders can use to evaluate their transportation decision-making processes and find strategies for improvement. As practitioners become more familiar with the tool, new applica- tions can be designed to support any individual process or need, providing professionals support tailored to their individual process. Table ES.1. How Framework Addresses Major Barriers and Incorporates Success Factors Barrier Identified in Case Studies Applicable Solutions from Case Studies Cross-phase issues • Link phases of transportation decision making • Structure the decision-making process Lack of integration with external processes • Use a context-sensitive approach • Integrate transportation, land-use, and environmental issues Insufficient engagement of the public and agencies • Collaborate with agency partners and the public Turnover and loss of key leaders • Structure the decision-making process Funding constraints • Manage risks Challenges in solution screening • Use performance measures and evaluation criteria • Link phases of transportation decision making Data availability • Link phases of transportation decision making • Integrate transportation, land-use, and environmental issues • Structure the decision making • Collaborate with agency partners and the public

4Because the Framework is an organizing structure for data that supports collaboration, more data will be added over the life of the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) and perhaps beyond. Other SHRP 2 Capacity research projects provide support and enhancement of the Framework. Research topics that will be integrated into the Framework include performance measurement, economic impacts, visioning, greenhouse gas emissions, freight mobility, and system reliability, among others. The Framework has the ability to transform individual business processes in transportation agencies by driving collaboration back into the small steps of making decisions. A change in busi- ness process will result from voluntary organizational evolution as more experience and success are achieved. What may begin as an interest in the selection of alternatives during environmental review may migrate back into the planning phase to the collection of scenario information. This can only happen when the full transportation decision-making partnership is engaged with the necessary support to make the right decisions.