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.

7Most transportation professionals would say they are interested in collaboration. They often cite two reasons: (1) an interest in the efficiency and effectiveness of the transportation system, and (2) an interest in quality of life. There are good examples in practice of how collaborative approaches benefit the transpor- tation decision-making process by supporting both of these interests. In fact, case study examples contribute to the belief that collaboration is a key ingredient in successful transporta- tion projects. But what makes these situations successful when so many others are not? The Framework is meant to be a useful tool that advances the state of the practice in transportation decision making. One way of achieving that goal was to use actual case studies and input from practitioners to identify the barriers, success factors, and structure of successful collaborative decision making in practice. By using case studies and input from practitioners to build the Framework, the Framework speaks to real needs and helps implement collaborative practices on a broad scale. Contribution of Case Studies The development of the Framework began with the collection of case study examples of collaboration in all phases of trans- portation decision making. The initial list of cases to consider represented several hundred examples. Ultimately, 23 case studies were selected, providing geographic diversity, a bal- ance between planning and project development examples, and special focus on solution screening. To capture detailed information that would help in devel- oping the Framework, the case studies were categorized as comprehensive cases, phase cases (planning and project development), and solution screening cases. • Comprehensive case studies examine the entire transportation decision-making process, starting with concept development in a planning study (long-range, corridor, or subarea) through project planning, design, and permitting. • Phase case studies focus on just one phase of the overall pro- cess, to better extract detailed information on key decision 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, pro- cesses, and tools that support technical and policy decisions, and to yield detailed information for each decision point. • Solution screening case studies focus on one of the most dif- ficult aspects of transportation decision making—the selec- tion of a preferred option from all those considered. These case studies span all phases of transportation decision mak- ing (including visioning) but focus solely on the solution screening process within each phase. The innovative use of technology for solution screening was a key factor in the selection of these cases. A brief summary of each case study is provided below. The case studies, in their entirety, are available online at http:// www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/ Pages/Case_Studies_in_Collaboration_373.aspx. Comprehensive Case Studies • Utah I-15 NOW. Utah DOT’s primary objective for the Interstate 15 New Ogden Weber (I-15 NOW) improvements was the fast and effective delivery of upgrades. Accelerated Construction Technology Transfer (ACTT) workshops and a design-build approach along with supplemental legislative funding streamlined the project development process. • US-24 New Haven, Indiana, to Defiance, Ohio, Environmen- tal Impact Statement (EIS) Transportation Development Pro- cess. The US-24 corridor runs between Ft. Wayne, Indiana, and Toledo, Ohio, as a largely rural facility, providing a crucial link to the Port of Toledo. Ohio DOT followed a C h a p t e r 2 Approach

8Federal Transit Administration (FTA), Sound Transit, King County, and local governments joined to assess improve- ments needed in the I-405 corridor in Seattle. As a pilot study for improved transportation decision making, Reinventing NEPA developed solutions through a programmatic EIS. • New Jersey Route 31 Integrated Land Use and Transporta- tion Plan. New Jersey DOT (NJDOT) embarked on one of its first efforts to respond to the state’s smart growth prin- ciples within the project EIS through collaboration with Flemington Borough and Raritan Township. • Colorado STEP UP. The North Front Range Metropolitan Planning Organization (NFRMPO) partnered with Colo- rado DOT and FHWA to pilot an integrated planning project called STEP UP, which was aimed at getting early involve- ment of resource agencies. This effort was supported by interactive web-based geographic information system (GIS) technology. Colorado DOT is pursuing statewide availability of this type of technology interface. • Binghamton Transportation Plan. The Binghamton Metro- politan Transportation Study (BMTS) in New York State nine-step collaborative process to streamline environmen- tal review, as depicted in Figure 2.1. • Colorado US-285 Corridor. This project is a highly successful example of planning and development of additional highway capacity in an area with significant environmental issues. The project planning process combined project development, environmental review, and solution screening into a single interactive and highly collaborative process. • Texas Kelly Parkway. This corridor study aimed at develop- ing a new highway in San Antonio in response to the closing of the Kelly Air Force Base. The project highlights the rela- tionship between economic redevelopment initiatives and local participation. It catalyzed the community through direct involvement in developing project criteria and in screening design alternatives. Planning Phase Case Studies • Washington I-405 Corridor Study. Washington State DOT (WSDOT), Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Source: US-24 New Haven to Defiance Draft Environmental Impact Statement, Ohio Department of Transportation, July 2003. Figure 2.1. US-24’s nine-step transportation development process.

9 Solution Screening Case Studies • Caltrans’s Corridor System Management Plan. California Department of Transportation’s (Caltrans’s) corridor system management plans (CSMPs) focus transportation planning efforts on the use of all facilities within an urban corridor. The process is used during corridor planning to select a pre- ferred congestion management strategy. The CSMP for I-880 in Alameda County was based on a series of performance measures in three key areas: mobility, reliability, and safety. • Florida’s Efficient Transportation Decision-Making Process. Florida’s Efficient Transportation Decision-Making (ETDM) Process is the transportation planning process Florida uses to accomplish early agency participation, efficient environ- mental review, and meaningful dispute resolution. The process involves screening transportation projects during long-range planning and programming. The ETDM Process is supported by an Internet-accessible interactive database and mapping application called the environmental screening tool (EST). • Idaho’s Transportation Vision 2033. See above: Investigated as both a planning phase case study and a solution screen- ing case study. • Puget Sound Regional Council’s VISION 2020 and Regional Transportation Improvement Program Policy Framework. The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) in Washington estab- lishes regional policy direction for both transportation and land use. The 2002 Regional Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Policy Framework established regional policy direction and project selection criteria to ensure that trans- portation projects selected to receive federal funding through PSRC are consistent with the regional long-range growth management plan (VISION 2020) and the regional long- range transportation plan (Destination 2030). • Sacramento Area Council of Government’s Blueprint Project. The Sacramento Region Blueprint is the result of a vision- ing effort spearheaded by the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) in California. The blueprint iden- tifies the region’s preferred growth strategy. I-PLACE3S, a land-use projection visualization tool, was used to help compare different growth scenarios. The blueprint is cur- rently being used in programming to guide the selection of transportation projects for placement on the metropolitan transportation plan (MTP) 2035. • I-69 Trans-Texas Corridor Study. The I-69 Trans-Texas Corridor encompasses 15 sections of independent utility (SIUs). The Texas DOT proposed a tiered environmental review of the project. The first tier of the process (Tier 1) is under way and will select a preferred corridor(s) for the various SIUs. This single NEPA study and document will be followed by subsequent alignment-level NEPA studies (Tier 2) for each SIU. The Quantm System, an alignment optimization technology, generated potential routes that used scenario planning to engage business leaders, economic development professionals, health-care organizations, arts advocates, and others. Transportation investments focus on the region’s urban centers during a time of population loss. • California I-710 Corridor Study. Improvements to a con- gested freeway in Los Angeles were almost abandoned due to public mistrust. The study was redirected to arrive at a solution supported by all stakeholders by adopting collab- orative guiding principles. • Maricopa Regional Transportation Plan (RTP). In Arizona, the Maricopa metropolitan planning organization (MPO) included members of the business community on the pol- icy board in an effort to gain support from both the public and the legislature for the new RTP and the funding it required. The result was broad acceptance for identified transportation system improvements supported by sales tax revenue for implementation. • Idaho’s Transportation Vision 2033. This project was inves- tigated as both a planning phase case study and a solution screening case study. The Idaho Transportation Depart- ment (ITD) initiated an extensive dialogue and strategy process to create Idaho’s transportation vision through 2033. In this visioning exercise, MetroQuest, interactive regional scenario analysis software, was used to create and evaluate alternative scenarios in real-time based on input from stakeholders. Project Development/Permitting Phase Case Studies • Oregon I-5 Beltline Interchange. Interstate 5 divides the cities of Eugene and Springfield in west-central Oregon. Oregon DOT used a community-based decision-making process to get buy-in from diverse stakeholders to complete an envi- ronmental assessment (EA). • North Carolina US-64 Bypass. North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) followed a merged NEPA and Section 404 permit application process to conduct the environmental review process for the bypass, meeting the needs of the North Caro- lina Zoo and a Hispanic community along the corridor. • Michigan US-131 S-Curve. US-131 faced serious structural damage due to settlement of a bridge pier in downtown Grand Rapids. Michigan DOT, through collaboration with the MPO, local leaders, and business community, success- fully replaced the bridge and 1.2 miles of associated road- way in less than 3 years without detrimentally affecting the downtown economy. • Woodrow Wilson Bridge Project. Carrying traffic between Maryland and Virginia as part of the I-95 system, the Wood- row Wilson Bridge routinely experienced heavy congestion and major traffic delays. FHWA developed a collaborative approach which resulted in consensus on a high-quality design for the bridge.

10 as overall successful practice within the constraints of current law and regulation. The intent was to extract the detailed data from the case studies to populate the preliminary structure. When all the individual project context, nuances, and details are pulled away, just the data are left: who made the decision, how it was made, and what supported the decision makers. This represents the beginning of a collaborative decision- making database. The resulting combination of case study data and decision-making structure was the foundation of the Framework. Insight from practitioners Twenty-three case studies divided into many individual deci- sion points do not include everything required for collabo- ration. They represent a good start, but the real extensive knowledge lies with the practitioners. Transportation profes- sionals who engage in decision making over long periods of time are the true experts. Even if their processes have not been highly collaborative, they know where to look for the land mines and what can go wrong. This knowledge goes well beyond what case study examples can provide. Take these professionals out of their day-to-day process and ask them to imagine the way it could work, and the resulting information is truly instructive. Even better, put them in a group of peers that bring knowledge from a different process or perspective, and the outcome is enlightening. Six workshops—bringing together representatives from transportation agencies, resource agencies, and the public— were held to design key elements of the Framework: • Designing the base Framework; • Integrating sub- and influencing planning processes; • Understanding solution screening and the dynamics of collaboration; • Understanding the roles and relationships of the formal decision-making partners; • Understanding the roles and relationships of stakeholders; and • Determining the tools and technologies needed to support the Framework. The data collected from the case studies served as a starting point in the workshops but were refined and elaborated on using the collective thoughts of the workshop participants. planners, environmental scientists, and engineers used to determine corridors in Tier 1. • Illinois Prairie Parkway Project. The Prairie Parkway is a pro- posed new location highway currently under study led by the Illinois DOT (IDOT)–District 3. The project began as a Feasibility Study and progressed into a Corridor Protection Study. The environmental review phase is now under way, as the final EIS is currently being developed. • Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan: 2007–2030. The Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) is the MPO responsible for developing area-wide long-range transporta- tion plans for Salt Lake, Davis, and Weber counties in Utah. Three screening processes were used during long-range plan- ning to develop the Wasatch Front Regional Transportation Plan 2007–2030 (2030 RTP): (a) system needs assessment, (b) evaluation of alternatives, and (c) project selection and phasing. Multiple Purposes of the Case Studies The case studies served multiple purposes. In their entirety, they are resources for practitioners looking for detailed examples of success stories in collaboration. However, if every state and MPO tried to use examples of barriers and success factors from case studies to design their own approach to collaboration, it is extremely unlikely this disparate guidance would result in a cohesive framework for institutionalizing collaboration into the transportation decision-making process. Examined collectively, the common barriers to project or program delivery serve as targets that an effective framework for collaborative decision making should address. Common success factors become the tools or approaches that the framework should emulate. In addition to the barriers and success factors, the case studies provide examples of decision processes for every phase of transportation decision making. Case study research and interviews were conducted using a straw man framework to follow the step-by-step decision making in each examples. This universally applied structure allowed comparisons between the examples instead of approaching each case study as a represen- tation of how collaboration might occur in a given context. The collected data from all case studies offer strong insight into both the successes and the challenges to collaboration at each individual key decision point in the transportation process. A transportation decision-making structure was drafted on the basis of the decision structures in the case studies, as well