Pilot Test of the TCAPP Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Including a Self-Assessment Methodology: Washington State’s SR 509 Project (2013) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 5-59
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 5... ...
Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 Project Background 1 Features and Functionality of TCAPP Used 2 Value of TCAPP to the Project 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction 5 Project Background 7 Statement of the Planning Problems Addressed in the Pilot Test 10 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Pilot Test and Summary of Results by TCAPP Task 10 Stakeholder Involvement 18 Key Decision Point Based Project Schedule 21 Web Content 28 COR-2: Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities 29 COR-3: Approve Goals for the Corridor 30 COR-4: Reach Consensus on Environmental Review and Analysis 31 COR-5&8: Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodologies, and Performance Measures 38 COR-6: Approve Range of Solution Sets 38 COR-7&9: Adopt Preferred Solution Set and Priorities for Implementation 40 ENV-1: Reach Consensus Scope of Environmental Review 42 Collaboration Assessment Module 44 CHAPTER 3 Overall Outcomes of the Pilot Test 44 What Happened as a Result of Using TCAPP? 45 Project Outcome 45 Additional Comments from the Independent Assessment 47 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendations 49 APPENDIX A Public Opinion Survey Questions
|
From page 6... ...
1 Executive Summary The Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) selected the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT)
|
From page 7... ...
2 • Corridor planning Decision Guide; • Stakeholder collaboration assessment; and • Examples included in case studies. Value of TCAPP to the Project Through this pilot test, the WSDOT project team found TCAPP to be helpful in many ways.
|
From page 8... ...
3 decision-making constraint does limit the "ability to move forward" of the project team, as no matter how great a local desire there is to accept and support the project team's consensus recommendations, the final decision to move forward rests with the full state legislature and the governor. Stakeholder Collaboration: Building Consensus around Key Decision Points The project team found the sequence of corridor planning key decision points (KDPs)
|
From page 9... ...
4 week following the meeting to listen to his or her concern and determine how future meetings could be modified to make sure all stakeholders had sufficient chance to be heard. Case Studies The project team found the case study examples helpful.
|
From page 10... ...
5 CHAPTER 1 Introduction The Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) selected Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT)
|
From page 11... ...
6 Figure 1.1. Vicinity map of the SR 509 project.
|
From page 12... ...
7 Figure 1.2. Aerial view of the I-5/SR 509 Corridor Completion and Freight Improvement Project.
|
From page 13... ...
8 would also serve as a reliable alternative to I-5 for moving freight from the Port of Seattle marine port terminals to the region's major warehouse district in the Kent Valley. Since 2003, state and local partners have made several unsuccessful attempts to fund and build this critical missing link in the regional transportation system.
|
From page 14... ...
9 • Impacts on wetlands and wildlife habitats; and • The amount of new impervious surfaces. Institutional Context The Washington State Transportation Commission sets toll rates and exemptions.
|
From page 15... ...
10 CHAPTER 2 Description of the Pilot Test and Summary of Results by TCAPP Task The project team worked collaboratively with the stakeholders using many of the tools and techniques provided on the web under the TCAPP corridor planning protocol. The most important features and functionalities we used included the following: • Stakeholder involvement techniques; • Decision-making authority definition; • Corridor Planning Decision Guide; • Stakeholder collaboration assessment; and • Examples included in Case studies.
|
From page 16... ...
11 • Port of Seattle; • Sound Transit; • King County; • Puget Sound Regional Council; • Federal Highway Administration; • Federal Aviation Administration; • Washington State Department of Transportation; and • Business, freight, and citizen representatives. The project team also paid particular attention to the inclusion of representatives from environmental agencies on the steering committee.
|
From page 17... ...
12 Based on the results of the assessment, the project team decided to revise the existing committee. Following the ideas provided by the NJ Route 31 case study, the project team expanded the steering committee membership to include representatives from three interest groups - freight, local businesses, and local residents.
|
From page 18... ...
13 Figure 2.1. Organizational structure for project decisions.
|
From page 19... ...
14 Table 2.1. Stakeholder Survey Questions Strongly Disagree Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Agree N/A The problem I am helping to solve is clear Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I agree with the problem statement Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I am clear about my role in the project Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο The SR 509 project goals and objectives are clearly defined Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο The decision-making process is defined correctly so that it will achieve the goals and objectives Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I understand the decision-making process, the proposed plans, and the purpose of those plans Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I understand the process I can use to influence the decision-making process Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I feel I will have adequate opportunity to voice my concerns and inputs Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I am confident my opinions and those of the people I represent will be effectively considered Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο The data and information presented in this meeting is clear and logically organized Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο I am able to identify, recognize, and accept interests of others and work from common interests Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο Ο The second survey removed a few questions while added the following: • I have the authority to represent my agency/jurisdiction/group so that decisions I make to support or not support this project represent that group's position on the project; • I have access to the information I need to make informed choices; • I understand the roles of others (other stakeholders, decision makers)
|
From page 20... ...
15 • The team members advocate for the project; and • Changing requirements and/or expectations are clearly communicated in a timely manner. The fourth survey added: • Tools and technology that the team has available are supportive of decision making; • There is a high level of buy-in among team members; • Agencies respond to requests for clarification from the team members; and • Key decisions are supported by the data and information presented.
|
From page 21... ...
16 however, was that we did not know which individuals had concerns/issues and therefore the project team could not communicate directly with those individuals to learn the specifics of their concerns or directly address those concerns. The first survey was designed to be anonymous in order to encourage honest answers.
|
From page 22... ...
17 Figure 2.2. Stakeholder survey responses.
|
From page 23... ...
18 Public Outreach – Opinion Survey Since legislators often make decisions based on public opinion in addition to technical results, the project team thought that it was important to understand public opinion about tolling as well as the overall project. As a result, a statistically valid phone survey of residents in the vicinity of the SR 509 project was conducted in June, 2011.
|
From page 24... ...
19 corridor planning process", which had already been defined in the original EIS. Additionally the team tested and evaluated one KDP from the "Environmental Review/NEPA Merged with Permitting" section of TCAPP.
|
From page 25... ...
20 Figure 2.5. SR 509 project collaboration schedule.
|
From page 26... ...
21 On the computer screen, the initial version of TCAPP's information was reader friendly, but in a meeting environment, most participants did not have access to a computer. While the information on the website is readable, that is not the case when the information is printed from the website.
|
From page 27... ...
22 Figure 2.6. TCAPP key decision points (does not allow drill down or access)
|
From page 28... ...
23 Figure 2.7. TCAPP key decision points (allows access)
|
From page 29... ...
24 Figure 2.8. Link to Decision-Making Authority.
|
From page 30... ...
25 Figure 2.9. Link to Decision-Making Authority.
|
From page 31... ...
26 The case studies posted under the Library tab of the TCAPP tool showed if there were any case studies for a specific subject area (see Figure 2.11)
|
From page 32... ...
27 Figure 2.12. Messages when clicking the links for case studies.
|
From page 33... ...
28 Figure 2.13. The Decision Guide Basics information as handouts.
|
From page 34... ...
29 What Did the Project Team Use? The project team reviewed the Decision-Making Questions in the COR-2 module of TCAPP.
|
From page 35... ...
30 • Design the project in an environmentally responsible manner; and • Provide cost-effective alternatives and solutions. What Did the Project Team Use?
|
From page 36... ...
31 environmental review process, the project team reviewed the information in TCAPP procedures with regard to the acceptable level of detail for the corridor study analysis. This was done to determine the data, information, and level of analysis needed for the environmental reevaluation, which includes re-evaluation of the social, cultural, and natural environment.
|
From page 37... ...
32 What Did the Project Team Use? The project team reviewed the information in the performance measures section under the applications tab of the tool.
|
From page 38... ...
33 Table 2.2. Performance Measures for the SR 509 Project Criteria Measure Data/Methodology Applications Initial Screening Alternative Analysis Consistency with local, regional, and state plans and standards Yes, or No.
|
From page 39... ...
34 Analysis of return on investment (Table 2.2) includes a number of performance measures.
|
From page 40... ...
35 Figure 2.14. SR 509 study area.
|
From page 41... ...
36 Figure 2.15. Selected corridors for performance measures.
|
From page 42... ...
37 How Did the TCAPP Tool Work? The TCAPP tool provides performance measures that cover areas such as transportation, environment, economy, community and project cost.
|
From page 43... ...
38 Recommendations for Improvements The process of developing evaluation criteria and performance measures could be easier if the TCAPP website included: • Sample sets of criteria, methodologies and performance measures. This would be even more helpful if sample sets of criteria/measures are provided to match different project types such as existing roadway improvements, constructing new links/roads, etc.
|
From page 44... ...
39 sets for the corridor was used to inform this key decision. This key decision was a shared decision by project partners and stakeholders.
|
From page 45... ...
40 ENV-1: Reach Consensus Scope of Environmental Review What Did the Project Team Use? Since the final EIS was prepared eight years ago, many of the environmental aspects needed to be revisited to ensure the original assessments and conclusions are still valid and, if needed, identify additional impacts and mitigation strategies.
|
From page 46... ...
41 TCAPP includes one case study in this module. When clicked, the case study takes a user directly to the scope of the environmental review section.
|
From page 47... ...
42 consensus on the scope of the environmental review under the KDP of ENV-1 (Figure 2.18)
|
From page 48... ...
43 The surveys helped the team and committee members evaluate how well the project was progressing. Using the survey results, the project team was able to identify and address issues at their early stages before they developed into bigger issues.
|
From page 49... ...
44 CHAPTER 3 Overall Outcomes of the Pilot Test TRB selected WSDOT to perform the pilot test of the TCAPP corridor planning tool. WSDOT applied the methodologies and techniques of the tool in making collaborative decisions regarding Phase 1 of the SR 509 project.
|
From page 50... ...
45 Project Outcome In addition to conducting the pilot test of the TCAPP decision-making tool developed under the SHRP 2 program corridor planning element, the project team had two goals for the I-5/SR 509 Corridor Completion and Freight Improvement Project in order to move the project forward: • Define Phase 1 of the Project for implementation by taking tolling into consideration, and • Make a recommendation on a preferred tolling option for legislative consideration (this was contingent on additional funding from the 2011 Washington State legislature that did not materialize) The project team achieved the first goal through the consensus decisions made by the stakeholders group regarding the first phase of the project.
|
From page 51... ...
46 Performing the routine collaboration assessments actually provided several benefits, some of them unintentional. One of the unintentional benefits was that the survey and response process helped build trust between the stakeholders and the project team.
|
From page 52... ...
47 CHAPTER 4 Conclusions and Recommendations The TCAPP corridor planning tool provides step by step guidance for conducting corridor studies and reaching decisions collaboratively. The stakeholder collaboration techniques provided under the Collaboration Assessment tab of the initial TCAPP website were found to be very helpful.
|
From page 53... ...
48 • In-depth discussion, perhaps through case studies, on how performance measures, including quantitative and qualitative measures, are integrated to help reach consensus and decisions; and • More real world examples, perhaps by commonly encountered corridor study types on key subjects (i.e., problem statements, goals and objectives, performance measures, and analysis methodologies)
|
From page 54... ...
49 APPENDIX A Public Opinion Survey Questions SR 509 Extension – Survey Questions Hello, my name is _____ and I'm calling for the Washington State Department of Transportation to get opinions on issues regarding a project that would extend State Route 509 from SeaTac to I-5 south of the airport. This is not a sales call.
|
From page 55... ...
50 - Take light rail - Bicycle - Other (specify) The Washington State Department of Transportation has been planning an extension of State Route 509 that would connect with I-5 south of Sea-Tac Airport.
|
From page 56... ...
51 7. On a scale of 1-7, with 1 being ‘do not support at all' and 7 being ‘very supportive', how much would you support tolls on the new State Route 509 extension to help pay for the project?
|
From page 57... ...
52 - Wouldn't matter either way - Don't know 11. Would you be more or less supportive of using tolls to fund the State Route 509 project if transit, carpools, and vanpools were exempt or received a discounted toll?
|
From page 58... ...
53 - More supportive - Less supportive - Neither more nor less supportive - Don't know (DO NOT READ)
|
From page 59... ...
54 - Over 65 - Refused 20. Which of the following best describes your ethnic/racial background?
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.