National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework

« Previous: Chapter 4 - Success Factors That Foster a Collaborative Process
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 5 - The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2014. Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22851.
×
Page 38

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.

33 Moving Beyond Individual Barriers and Success Factors The case studies show that there are strong motivations to col- laborate. Collaboration is not a new topic for the transporta- tion industry. The discussion really began in 1991 with the enactment of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA). With the first acknowledgement that decision making about transportation improvements is not conducted in a vacuum, this early transportation legislation represented something of a sea change in the industry. By the late 1980s the interstate system was largely funded or under construction, allowing the federal gasoline tax revenues to be redirected to other needs. At the same time, public concern over environ- mental issues such as acid rain led to amendments to the Clean Air Act in 1990. As ISTEA was drafted, environmentalists and others urged Congress to emphasize the needs of people rather than automobiles and to make the environment an integral part of transportation decision making. As a result, the new transportation legislation focused on improving transporta- tion not as end in itself but as the means to achieve important national goals, including economic progress, cleaner air, energy conservation, and social equity (1). Considering the stringent requirements for engagement, an apparent willingness of professionals to collaborate, and actions taken to support collaboration, why do most transpor- tation professionals still see this as a weak link in the decision- making process? Why can’t we just do it? The difference that collaboration made in many of the case studies is clear. Would these specific approaches work for every state or region? Probably not. However, when studied in depth, specific examples of successful collaboration offer many insights into how to get it right, as well as what may undo the best laid plans. Practitioners are hungry for examples of suc- cessful projects that they can imitate to enhance the possibility of success. Well supported case study reports are an invaluable resource to transportation professionals at all levels. However, transportation practitioners are also keenly aware of the differences between individual projects and plans. What works well in one instance can prove woefully inadequate in another. All projects have individual contexts, and even the most carefully documented project does not provide suffi- cient detail on how to collaborate in each step of each phase of decision making. The challenge is to turn successful proj- ect examples into the systematic inclusion of collaboration in the entire transportation process. The value that case study examples provide is in their collective wisdom. The answer lies in systematically institutionalizing collab- orative decision making as a business practice and providing user-friendly guidance in the form of the Framework. It is absolutely 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. The Framework helps practition- ers do this at all levels; it is flexible and adaptable, is usable by all transportation agencies, and provides specific informa- tion on how to support collaborative decision making within the existing laws and regulations. The Framework directly responds to the main barriers to project or program delivery identified in the case studies and described in Chapter 3. It encompasses the success factors found in practice and described in Chapter 4. The connection between barriers and success factors in the case studies and components in the Framework is described in Table 5.1. The Framework itself is described in the following sections. Structuring the Framework around Key Decision points To make the Framework applicable to the entire universe of transportation participants, the structure must be rather high level. This can be problematic. The way of implement- ing transportation improvement projects may be quite dif- ferent in Kansas and Kentucky. Transportation regulations map out the requirements, and these have been interpreted C h a p t e r 5 The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework

34Table 5.1. Connection of Barriers and Success Factors Identified in Case Studies to the Framework Barrier Identified in Case Studies Applicable Solutions from Case Studies Relationship to the Framework Cross-phase issues Link phases of transportation decision making Structure decision-making process The Framework encompasses the key decision points in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range planning, corridor planning, programming and fiscal constraint, and environmental review. The linkages between these four phases are identified in the Framework along with details surrounding transfers of data, analysis, and decisions. In addition, the roles and interests of key partners—FHWA, state transportation agencies, MPOs, and resource agencies—are specified for each phase, giving all partners an awareness and mutual understanding of each other’s interests and role. Use a context-sensitive approach Integrate transportation, land-use, and environ- mental issues For each key decision point, the Framework describes where the inputs and outputs of data, analysis, and decisions occur between transportation decision making and the following issues: • Human context (including land-use planning); • Ecological planning; • Air quality; • Capital improvement planning; and • Safety and security planning. In addition, the Framework broadly identifies the partners who should be at the table at each key decision point and specifies their roles (decision maker, adviser, or observer). Bringing these partners into the transportation process at key decision points ensures that their missions as conservation planners, land-use planners, and so forth are represented. The Framework is the structure of key decision points that constitute the transportation decision-making process. Further structure could be built around the Framework, such as the use of formal agreements; however, this is better accomplished by each implementing organization. Insufficient engagement of the public and agencies Collaborate with agency partners and the public The fundamental principle behind the Framework is collaboration—both with the public and with partners in decision making. To support collaboration with the public, the Framework provides two sets of questions related to collaboration with the public at every applicable key decision point: (1) questions about stakeholder interests that partners should ask, and (2) questions partners should ask stakeholders to under- stand/gather information about their interests. Eventually the Framework will be accessible in a pub- licly available web tool. One section of the tool will be devoted to collaboration with stakeholders in transportation decision making. It will link to a diagnostic tool that will help users gauge the level of collaboration in their processes and provide recommendations for improvement. For every key decision point, the Framework assigns a role (observer, adviser, decision maker, or no role) to each of the partners in transportation decision making: FHWA, state DOTs, MPOs, and resource agencies. Corresponding questions are provided which represent each partner’s interests in that key decision point. The interests of each partner are described by phase. By integrating trans- portation decision making with other processes such as land-use planning and capital improvement planning, other partners are necessarily brought into the decision-making process. The Framework provides information at the key decision point–level of how these processes should be integrated with transportation decision making. The diagnostic tool will provide the same function for collabo- ration with partners as with the public: it will allow users to gauge the level of collaboration in their processes and provide recommendations for improvement. (continued on next page)

35 Table 5.1. Connection of Barriers and Success Factors Identified in Case Studies to the Framework (continued) Barrier Identified in Case Studies Applicable Solutions from Case Studies Relationship to the Framework Turnover and loss of key leaders Structure the decision-making process The collaborative approach to transportation decision making lessens the risk of turnover and loss of key leaders by streamlining the decision-making process. One principle of the structured approach of the Framework is that once a key decision has been made, it is not revisited. This diminishes the redo affect when new leadership wants to take a new look at past decisions. While the Framework does not recommend specific documentation, the approach could be further strengthened in its implementation by instituting formal agreements at key decision points or to the overall structure of the decision-making process. Funding constraints Manage risks Decisions made in every phase of the transportation process should be based in fiscal reality, but, typi- cally, only minimal information from the fiscal constraint process is transferred beyond the planning phase. The Framework links the phases of decision making by integrating the programming and fiscal constraint processes and specifying the flow of data, analysis, and decisions between long-range planning, programming/fiscal constraint, corridor planning, and environmental review. In this way, fiscal constraint can be considered in the development of corridor plans, and anticipated revenues, costs, and sequencing are provided for consideration in the environmental review process. Challenges in solution screening Use performance measures and evaluation criteria Link phases of transportation decision making Solution screening is a key focus of the Framework and its applications and case studies. Every phase of transportation decision making encompassed by the Framework includes two key deci- sion points in some form that involve approving a vision and/or goals and approving evaluation criteria methodology and performance measures that can be used to determine how well each pos- sible solution meets the vision and goals. These key decision points are connected through the transfer of data, analysis, and decisions to the vision, goals, evaluation criteria, and performance measures used in earlier phases. In subsequent phases, any solutions that were eliminated early in the decision-making process are known, along with a reason for that elimination. In addition, the specific contribution of each key decision point to solution screening is specified. These data will eventually be presented in one place through an application on the web tool. Case studies that focus specifically on solution screening will also be accessible from the tool. Data availability Link phases of transportation decision making Integrate transportation, land-use, and environ- mental issues Structure decision making Collaborate with agency partners and the public While the goal of the Framework is not to provide actual data, the approach fosters making data more accessible by (a) linking the phases of transportation decision making, (b) integrating transportation decision making with external processes, (c) cultivating a collaborative approach that enables better access to data from partners and stakeholders of the decision-making process, and (d) detailing the data needed at each key decision point.

36 Building on the Key Decision points What exactly is in each key decision point that supports col- laboration? The basic information in each key decision point 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? Answering these questions is not quite as simple as it sounds. Knowing who the partners are requires understanding their roles and the information they bring to the process. Respond- ing to the needs of decision makers requires an understanding of the data, analysis, and decisions that are available to con- sider. The technical process must be able to provide this infor- mation through data collection, analysis, and communication to decision makers. Because the Framework represents an organizing structure for data that supports collaboration, more data can be added over time. Many SHRP 2 research projects support and enhance the basic Framework data. For example, the SHRP 2 Capacity Project C02 creates a framework for performance measurement for additions to highway capacity. The use of performance measures applies to specific key decision points. Supporting information from the C02 project about the performance mea- sures to consider and the data needed to implement individual performance measures is incorporated into the key decision point structure. Collaboration is enhanced when many rele- vant topics can be considered at the appropriate point in the decision-making process. The key decision point structure, therefore, allows the decision-making process to connect to existing technical pro- cesses. This connection helps transform individual processes by driving collaboration back into the small steps of making decisions. Although this represents a top-down approach, it is not prescriptive. A change in the underlying technical process represents an evolution as more efforts are made to collabo- rate over time. 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 transporta- tion decision-making partnership is engaged with the neces- sary support to make the right decisions. Using the Framework The Framework and the content within it are of little value if not understood, accessed, and applied by practitioners. The Framework serves as a common foundation on which tools by individual agencies into supporting procedures. For the Framework to be useful, these individual procedures must fit under the collaborative umbrella without requiring whole- sale upheaval of the current process in individual agencies. For this reason, changes in the procedural steps, or technical process, must be targeted to support collaboration at key decisions. Decisions that require approval from a high level of author- ity, need consensus among decision makers, or are required by law or regulation can be identified as key decisions. Between these key decisions are many smaller decisions and process steps that represent the technical transportation process. The philosophical basis of the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework is that collaboration at the highest level within any process requires collaboration at the steps that support the key decisions. In essence, institutionalizing collaboration at the key decision points is expected to foster collaboration in the supporting technical process; however, exactly how col- laboration is implemented in the technical process will vary from state to state or region to region. The Framework represents a structure of the key deci- sions which are common to all transportation agencies and which support the transportation decision-making process. The 44 key decision points that constitute the Framework are shown in Figure 5.1. The analogy of a file drawer with individual folders is useful in understanding the informa- tion contained within a key decision. The folders in each key decision contain information on the purpose and outcome of the decision; the specific roles of each of the decision- making partners; the potential for integrating external pro- cesses and linking individual key decisions; the questions that policy makers must address to make the decision; and the data, tools, and techno logy that may be used to support the decision. This concept is further illustrated in Chapter 6 of this report. The relationships between key decisions and the support- ing processes that exist within an individual agency can be confusing. Most practitioners are primarily concerned with the individual steps that guide their day-to-day work. This is clearly evident to the NEPA practitioner following the highly structured steps that dictate the progression through environmental review. It is equally true in long-range plan- ning, corridor planning, and programming. Many individ- ual decisions are made before a more encompassing decision (such as the approval of the project purpose and need) is elevated to the decision-making authority within the pro- cess. In this way the technical process may be said to exist between the boxes of the Framework. The individual pro- cesses of 50 state DOTs and more than 300 MPOs can there- fore be mapped to the Collaborative Decision-Making Framework, providing a common foundation for integrating collaboration universally.

37 DECISION GUIDE LRP-4LRP-3LRP-2LRP-1 LRP-11LRP-10 LRP-8 LRP-9LRP-7LRP-6 Approve Transportation Deficiencies Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Vision and Goals Approve Scope of LRTP Process Approve Conformity Analysis Adopt LRTP by MPO Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO Approve Plan Scenarios Approve Strategies Approve Financial Assumptions LRP-5 PRO-1 PRO-2 PRO-3 PRO-4 PRO-5 PRO-6 PRO-7 PRO-8 Approve Revenue Sources Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set Approve Project Prioritization Reach Consensus on Draft TIP Adopt TIP by MPO Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP Reach Consensus on Draft STIP Approve STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint PRO-9 COR-1 COR-2 COR-3 COR-4 COR-5 COR-6 COR-7 COR-8 Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities Approve Goals for the Corridor Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Range of Solution Sets Adopt Preferred Solution Set Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures for Prioritization of Projects Adopt Priorities for Implementation COR-9 ENV-1 ENV-2 ENV-3 ENV-4 ENV-5 ENV-6 ENV-10 ENV-11 ENV-12 ENV-13 ENV-14 ENV-15 ENV-7 ENV-8 Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review Approve Notice of Intent Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose Reach Consensus on Study Area Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Full Range of Alternatives Approve Preferred Alternative/LEDPA Approve Final Jurisdictional Determination Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization for the LEDPA Approve Final EIS Approve the Record of Decision Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation Approve Resource Agency Public Notice ENV-9 LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW / NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING CORRIDOR PLANNING $ Figure 5.1. The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework. (Note that since the writing of this report, the Framework has been renamed Decision Guide.) and applications that are ready to implement in practice can be built. The tools and applications with the most pressing need and broadest applicability were developed first. For example, applications have been developed around using the Framework to streamline the transportation decision-making process for a corridor or bottleneck project, link MPO long-range planning and environmental review, and diagnose (and remedy) less- than-satisfactory collaboration in any stage of transportation decision making (see the Collaboration Assessment section in Chapter 6 for details). To make these products readily available and to foster ongoing growth and development of the Frame- work and its applications, they will be packaged into a publicly available web tool. An example of a Framework application is provided in this section. The web tool is described in Chapter 6. The Framework consists of 44 individual key decisions, each one containing extensive information for practitioner

38 use. This vast amount of data can be overwhelming if consid- ered in its entirety. However, that is not necessary or even advisable. The most beneficial aspect of the Framework is that it is highly flexible and adaptable. It is possible to select a subset of individual key decisions, either within a phase or across phases, to address a particular challenge or need. For example, many agencies have a strong interest in linking long-range planning and NEPA. Specific key decisions offer the most support for this challenge, and these can be com- bined to form an application of the Framework. Linking planning and environmental review is a systematic approach that transfers information, analysis, decisions, and products created during long-range transportation planning to NEPA as the starting point for the environmental review (NEPA and permitting) process. Linking planning and envi- ronmental review benefits practitioners in both phases. Long- range planners see that the technical work and stakeholder input is acknowledged and built on and results in the eventual selection of project alternatives. NEPA practitioners avoid duplicative work, have a better foundation for their decisions, build public trust, and increase the efficiency of the environ- mental review process. The most recent transportation legisla- tion also encourages the participation of resource agencies in the planning process. These collaborative relationships can greatly enhance the ability to integrate the two processes. This interface between planning and environmental review makes it possible to streamline the project development pro- cess by incorporating documented early decisions into the NEPA process. In linking planning and NEPA, the development and transfer of information between long-range planning and environmental review involves less than 20 key decisions across all phases. The Framework provides information needed at each key decision, as well as what should be transferred across phases. The use of the Framework as an application provides the most powerful example of the flexibility it offers. The topics listed below are those applications of the Framework that will be available in the initial version of the web tool: • Project streamlining for a corridor or bottleneck project; • Integrated planning (i.e., integrating transportation decision making with other planning processes); • Linking planning and NEPA; • Stakeholder collaboration; • Corridor planning; • Long-range planning; • Environmental review (NEPA merged with permitting); and • Integrated programming and fiscal constraint. Users will find that the Framework can be applied to any topic area of interest. Over time, as practitioners become familiar with the tool, they will develop applications to sup- port their specific needs and interests tailored to their own individual process. reference 1. Solof, M. History of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. North Jersey Transportation Planning Authority, Newark, N.J., 1998.

Next: Chapter 6 - The Web Tool: Transportation for Communities Advancing Projects through Partnerships »
Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C01-RR-1: Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity describes a framework—including for long-range planning, corridor planning, project programming, environmental review, and environmental permitting—that supports collaborative business practices for reaching decisions on adding highway capacity when necessary.

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

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!