SHRP 2 was intended to address the most critical needs associated with the nation’s highway system. One of the critical needs identified was being able to provide highway capacity in support of the nation’s economic, environmental, and social goals, and Congress specified the Capacity focus area as one of four focus areas for SHRP 2. Projects to expand highway capacity were frequently having difficulty obtaining approvals in a timely manner. In the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) of 2005, Congress accepted TRB Special Report 260, which specified the following goal for the Capacity focus area: “Develop approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity” (emphasis added). SHRP 2 Project C01, A Framework for Collaborative Decision Making on Additions to Highway Capacity, describes foundational research for the SHRP 2 Capacity program. Its scope spans long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, project programming, and environmental review and permitting. The project provides a framework for collaborative decision making by identifying 44 decision points that are common or similar across all states and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs). On the basis of research from 23 successful complex capacity-expansion projects, it was recognized that at each of these points, collaboration is usually required to get the sign-off of key decision makers; it was a common characteristic of the successful process followed in each of the projects. The framework that was developed is used to organize the case study information on decision making, gathered under Capacity Project C01, according to the point in the highway delivery process where it is most useful. The case study material in this report is organized by preselected topics likely to be of use to the reader. However, because of the magnitude of the number of topics to which the case study material could apply, the information is also available in a searchable, web-based form: Transportation for Communities–Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP; http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/166046.aspx). The full case studies are provided in TCAPP and on the SHRP 2 website (http://www.trb.org/StrategicHighwayResearchProgram2SHRP2/Pages/Case_Stu… ). Note that TCAPP has since been renamed PlanWorks and will be made available under that name by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). This report describes a decision-making framework that supports collaborative business practices for reaching decisions on how to add highway capacity when it is deemed necessary. The framework consists of the key decision points in the various processes at which approvals are required to advance. This framework provides structure for all the insights from the 23 case studies in which collaborative methods were successful in achieving consensus and delivering needed highway capacity expansions. The report summarizes the findings from these case studies, discusses barriers and how they were overcome, and describes how technologies were used to assist in reaching decisions. The report concludes with a description of the web tool, now called PlanWorks, which helps practitioners diagnose their business practices that either require or would benefit from collaboration. The collaborative entities include state and local transportation agencies; FHWA, including division offices and resource centers; the public; nongovernmental organizations; state resource agencies; and federal environmental regulatory agencies. The demographic, social, and economic forecasts through the middle of the 21st century indicate that additional highway capacity will be needed, and experience indicates that collaboration and compromise will be needed to achieve it. Over the next four decades, the U.S. population is expected to grow by 40% to 420 million in 2050. Between 1985 and 2005, vehicle miles traveled increased 80%, but lane miles increased only 4%, thus consuming much of the highway capacity built during the Interstate construction period. It is estimated that an 80% expansion–an additional 173,000 Interstate lane miles–will be needed to meet the demand for car and freight travel through the middle of the century. In addition, the population is not expected to grow evenly but to cluster in megaregions. The demands on highway capacity in these regions will be particularly great.Although much of the projected expansion of highways involves only widenings and upgrades, the public demands that we get the most out of our existing highways through better operations and management before they will consider supporting expansion. There is also an expectation to do more than just mitigate impacts. Transportation agencies are expected to be stewards of the environment with respect to natural habitats, wetlands, air quality, and greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the agencies are expected to enhance communities, delivering transportation capacity that people want and that makes their communities more desirable places to live. Because many interests are represented, finding the most appropriate solutions only gets harder. The price for failure to work together is endless redo loops in the planning and design processes, lawsuits, delays, and cost escalation. Many of the strategies involved are familiar: consultation, ecological approaches to mitigation, practical or context-sensitive design, broad-based performance measurement, environmental justice, integrated corridor management, rightsizing, integrating planning and the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), commitment tracking, and others. “Systematically” is emphasized because these strategies are often not woven into the planning and programming processes. Transportation agencies today are charged with faster delivery of the right transportation solutions. To speed project delivery and have the flexibility to consider non-traditional solutions, the entire organization needs a systematic approach to collaboration, ensuring that the right people are engaged at the right time with the right information. The collaborative decision-making framework provides this systematic approach. It is delivered as a web-based resource that can be used as a troubleshooting guide or a road map to changing a business process. How do we translate the most successful of these practices into business as usual? How can 50 states and more than 350 MPOs, at least six federal agencies and their many regional offices, and hundreds of state environmental organizations do this efficiently and repeatedly? And should they? What is the business case for this approach from all perspectives? Will a transportation or environmental agency be better off if these strategies are adopted? The case studies on which the framework is based and eight subsequent pilot tests of PlanWorks indicate that agencies would be better off. The framework is made accessible as an integrated web-based resource designed primarily for practitioners. As noted above, it identifies key decision points in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range transportation planning, corridor planning, programming, and environmental review and permitting. Key decisions are those that require review and approval from higher levels of authority or a consensus among diverse decision makers before the project can advance. They effectively link the many steps of planning and project development. Many key decision points are common to most transportation agencies. Some are defined by law; others follow established practice. The framework offers detailed information for each key decision point, such as the following: • The outcomes of each key decision point; • The decisions made at each key decision point; • The roles and responsibilities of the formal decision makers; • Stakeholders or project champion roles and relationships; • Supporting data, tools, and technology; • Planning processes other than transportation; • Primary products of the step; and • Associated case studies of effective practices. The decision-point structure underpinning PlanWorks serves a larger purpose as well. The results from 10 other SHRP 2 studies were integrated into PlanWorks over a four-year period as each was completed. The decision points provide the organizational structure for these SHRP 2 products by calling the user’s attention to them at the point or points in the highway delivery process where the information is needed and by making it all accessible through a general search. The products and outcomes of other SHRP 2 research are integrated into the framework to strengthen the basis for decisions about when, where, and how much capacity is needed; what the economic impacts will be; and how to build capacity in ways that enhance communities and the environment. These products include the following: • A customizable performance measurement framework with links to key decision points and case studies of expedited decision making. • Guides for integrating freight demand, greenhouse gas emissions, land-use issues, and travel time reliability performance measures into transportation planning and programming. • Tools for estimating the economic impact of new capacity; for implementing an ecosystem approach to environmental review and permitting; for determining driver responses to congestion and pricing; and for analyzing the effect of operations, technology, and design on highway capacity. • Strategies for linking community vision to transportation decision making; for minimizing disruption by managing construction at corridor and network levels; and for improving freight demand models and data. • Major advances in travel demand modeling that will be sensitive to policies such as pricing, telecommuting, time and route choices, and mode selection.Along with the collaboration tools, the research outcomes of these other SHRP 2 projects collectively map a route to decisions that deliver highway capacity. (Author/publisher)
Abstract