TABLE OF CONTENTS
- 7. APPENDICES
- Appendix A. List of Sounding Board Members
- Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography from Literature Review
- Appendix C. Definitions of Survey Terms
- Appendix D. List of States Represented by Each FHWA Regional Resource Center
7 APPENDICES
Appendix A. List of Sounding Board Members
List of Sounding Board members as of February 2002.
| Name | Title | Employer |
|---|---|---|
Thomas B. Brigham |
Director, Division of Planning |
Alaska DOT & Public Facilities |
Carol D. Cutshall |
Director, Bureau of Environment |
Wisconsin DOT |
Andras (Andy) Fekete |
Manager, Bureau of Environmental Services |
New Jersey DOT |
Gerald Gallinger |
Director, Real Estate Services Office |
Washington DOT |
Rob Hanson |
Assistant Manager, Project Development Branch |
North Carolina DOT |
David Y. Harris |
Transportation Planning Specialist, Office of Planning and Environment |
FHWA Florida |
Timothy M. Hill |
Administrator |
Ohio DOT |
Wayne W. Kober |
Environmental Specialist |
AASHTO |
Richard W. Lee |
Super-Valve Engrg/Utilities |
New York State DOT |
James E. Lewis |
Rights of Way Administrator, Bureau of Engineering and Highway Operations |
Connecticut DOT |
John Merriss |
Manager, Policy Division of Transportation Development |
Oregon DOT |
Frank Pafko |
Area Manager for Metropolitan Division |
Minnesota DOT |
Neil J. Pedersen |
Planning Director |
Maryland DOT |
Larry Piche |
Chief of Environment |
Illinois DOT |
Lloyd Rue |
Safety Traffic and Design Engineer |
FHWA Montana |
G. Alexander Taft |
Executive Director |
AMPO |
Kenneth M. Towcimak |
Director, Office of Right of Way |
Florida DOT |
Larry Velasquez |
Director, Engineering Design Division |
New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Dept. |
Appendix B. Annotated Bibliography from Literature Review
Borkenhagen, Keith. Value Engineering: An Incredible Return on Investment . Public Roads Magazine. Retrieved November 27, 2001 from http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/septoct99/valu-eng.htm .
This paper provides a description of what Value Engineering (VE) Analysis is and the history of its use by the Federal Highway Administration and FHWA's mandates for its use by the states under certain circumstances. The paper also provides a few specific examples of projects that illustrate the value of value engineering.
Value Engineering is a concept that is somewhat related to the integration approach being explored by this project. VE is a team-oriented, multi-disciplinary, systematic tool that is very useful for identifying, analyzing and solving problems. Understanding techniques such as VE analysis that are already being used by state DOTs is helpful to this project because it provides a context within which to discuss the integrated decision-making techniques promoted by this project. This document provides a good background discussion of the VE process and its utility.
Context Sensitive Design Website , Federal Highway Administration http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/csd .
This website provides a definition of context sensitive design (CSD), its history, principles, implementation actions, descriptions of projects undertaken by pilot states, efforts undertaken by lead organizations, and other state and other organization efforts implementing CSD. Beyond this information, the site provides links to the pilot states; related publications, presentations and sites; and information about CSD conferences/meetings/training opportunities.
Context-sensitive design is a concept that is somewhat related to the integration approach being explored by this project. Context sensitive design involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in which citizens are part of the design team. It is a philosophy that considers the impact a travelway will have on the area it traverses, including the people who live, work or pass through the area. Understanding project development techniques, such as context sensitive design, that are already being used by state DOTs could be helpful to this project in providing a context within which to discuss the decision-making techniques promoted by this project. This document provides much useful information about what CSD is, how its use has evolved and real-world examples of its implementation. Moreover, it demonstrates the commitment to and belief in this technique by the Federal Highway Administration, AASHTO and many state DOTs.
Draft Script on Smart Growth , Federal Highway Administration. Forwarded via email from Glenn Bridger.
This document defines what the terms "Smart Growth" and "sprawl" mean to FHWA and the relationship between these concepts and the provision of transportation services in general. Generally, the document concludes that Smart Growth and sprawl mean different things to different people and groups, but that transportation is some how involved regardless of your definition. Moreover, FHWA believes that it is up to state and local officials to decide how best to address their unique set of land use, transportation, population, housing and other circumstances and that it is FHWA's role to help them once those decisions have been made. FHWA strongly believes that land use decisions are state/local decision and should remain that way. The ways in which FHWA can provide assistance to their state and local customers include providing technical assistance and training concerning the linkages between transportation and land use.
This document is of little direct relevance to this project but it does address the issue of the integration/coordination between transportation plans (part of the transportation decision-making process) and land use plans. Many of the concepts discussed in the definition of smart growth such as "managing and operating existing highway, transit and other transportation modes to maintain or improve performance for each mode without adversely affecting neighborhoods or urban centers" or "knitting transportation improvement projects and public/private investments so that they merge as seamlessly as possible into the communities" are related to the overall concept of utilizing the expertise of as many different involved disciplines as early in the process of the development of any sort of transportation solution as possible.
European Right of Way and Utilities Best Practices , U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, February, 2002.
This paper presents the findings from an international scanning tour of right of way (ROW) and utility coordination practices in four European countries. This identified practices that could be implemented in the U.S. to improve the ROW and accommodation of utilities by ensuring timely procurement and clearance of highway right of way and adjustment of utilities. The intended audience is state and local agencies that could use this information to potentially adopt European ROW and utilities techniques and best practices to enhance their ability to streamline delivery and improve the quality of ROW services. This paper is part of the National Strategic Plan to enhance communities through highway transportation projects using innovative acquisition of ROW, sensitive and effective relocation of affected residences and businesses, and relocation and accommodation of utilities with minimal impact and disruption to the communities.
The findings and observations cover: appraisal & acquisition, compensation & relocation, training, utilities, project development. With appraisal & acquisition, there was an underlying philosophy of sensitivity to the needs of the property owner. All countries also had a framework for compensation similar to that in the U.S.; however, their compensation included provisions for payment for land acquired, damages to remaining property and relocation reimbursements. With training, requirements varied in each of the countries; however, all placed great emphasis on formal training and continuous employee development. With utilities, the strategies used were improved coordination, cooperation and communication. Jurisdiction-wide master agreements with each utility company were used to avoid having to develop new utility agreements on every project. Several of the countries established ROW and Utilities Databases, including GIS, for project development, tracking, and management. Of particular interest in this paper, several of the countries adopted a project management approach for project development, which included the use of multidisciplinary teams. Practices include ROW participation beginning at the planning stage, budget and schedule commitments with a sign-off by functional representatives and project managers, and accountability for delivery on these commitments.
This document provides useful background information on the right of way and utilities practices in Europe and ways in which they can be applied in the US.
Examples of Statewide Transportation Planning Practices , U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration and Federal Transit Administration, January, 1995.
This paper presents examples from several states of innovative statewide transportation planning approaches and practices as developed under the requirements of ISTEA. The intended audience is other state transportation planners with the hope being that, with this information, states will be better able to assess their own efforts and make modifications as deemed necessary to improve or streamline their own practices. This document, in conjunction with four other studies undertaken by FHWA, FTA, and/or NCHRP, will result in a broad set of documentation of good ISTEA transportation planning practices.
Eight categories of planning factors were developed. Efforts by States demonstrating unique and quality practices and approaches under each of these categories are described in this paper. The 8 categories are: Coordination of Statewide and Metropolitan Planning (Florida and Iowa presented as exemplary); Form and Content of Statewide Transportation Plans and Improvement Programs (Florida and Texas discussed); Comprehensive Transportation Planning (Washington and Wisconsin discussed); Management Systems (California, Colorado, Missouri, and New Jersey described); Public Involvement (Idaho, Iowa and Wisconsin described); Social. Economic and Environmental Issues (Oregon, Washington and Wisconsin presented); Transportation Systems Management and Operations (Arkansas, Washington and Wisconsin presented); Investment and Finance Issues (Colorado and Wisconsin presented as exemplary).
This document provides useful background information on the transportation planning process and the ways in which it can be flexible to different state circumstances.
FDOT Streamlining, More Efficient Transportation Decision Making While Protecting the Environment, Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) Process . Florida Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://fdotenvironmentalstreamlining.urs-tally.com/Library/.
The State of Florida Department of Transportation, working in conjunction with the Federal Highway Administration and other Federal, State and local agencies, developed a refined and improved methodology for effecting improved transportation decisions. This document explains FDOT's new process that redefines how the State of Florida will accomplish transportation planning and project development within its current statues and regulations. The new methodology is called the Efficient Transportation Decision Making Process (ETDM) and it creates linkages between land use, transportation and environmental resource planning initiatives through early, interactive agency involvement. This process is expected to improve decisions and greatly reduce the time, effort and cost of developing transportation solutions. A key aspect of the ETDM process is the establishment of an Environmental Technical Advisory Team (ETAT) which performs two major screening events during planning - one is the Long Range Transportation Plant (STRP) screen and the other is the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) screen.
The ETDM website provides other information about the ETM process including an interactive database system, the ETAT's NEPA review and other components of the process. The website is helpful to this project in terms of providing a specific example of a process being developed and implemented by a state considered to be on the forefront of integration in the transportation decision-making process.
Finnish Road Administration Environmental Policy and Action Plan 2001-2005 , Finnish Road Administration, Helsinki 2001, Finnra Publications Sales, telefax int. +358 204 22 2652, email julkaisumyynti@tiehallinto.fi .
This document is the Finnish Road Administration's management statement on environmental aspects of its development of an efficient and flexible transport system. The plan is a basis for programming and is further defined and implemented in the Road Administration product guidelines - for maintenance, investments and traffic management. The document defines the Road Administration's environmental policy which it states, is in accordance with the principles of sustainable development.
The plan covers the Road Administration's environmental policy principles of action; strategic planning; procurement practices including planning and design, construction and maintenance and day-to-day maintenance; road network management; and development. The plan includes documentation of extensive consultation with other organizations in the formulation of the plan. These organizations include regional environment centers, regional councils, museums, nature protection districts and province administrations, the Ministry of Transport and Communications, the Ministry of the Environment, the Finnish Road Association, the Association of Finnish Local and Regional Authorities, the National Research and Development Center for Welfare and Health, the Finnish Environmental Institute, the Finnish Nature Protection Association, the Finnish Council for Natural Resources, the Confederation of Finnish Industry and Employers, the Sami Delegation, the Finnish Trucking Association, the Finnish Marine Administration and the Finnish Road Enterprise.
Though this document focuses only on the integration between transportation development solutions and environmental considerations, it does highlight the types of efforts undertaken by transportation entities outside of the U.S. with regard to coordination of effort and integration of environmental considerations in the development of transportation solutions. The introduction to the plan mentions that the plan's fundamentals will be further defined and implemented in the Administration's guidelines for maintenance, investments and traffic management. Perhaps these other guidelines indicate an overlap in the coordination of environmental considerations with other areas involved in the development of transportation solutions.
This document was recommended for review by a member of this project's Sounding Board. One of the plan's principal authors is a member of a group called the World Road Association (PIARC). PIARC deals with road infrastructure planning, design, construction, maintenance and operation and was founded in 1909. PIARC has 97 national or federal government members, 2,000 collective or individual members in 129 countries, and over 750 experts in 20 standing Technical Committees. The official languages of PIARC are French and English and its central office is located in PARIS, France. Members of PIARC were identified as potential respondents for the survey being conducted under this project.
Guide to the Transportation Decision Making Process . NEPA Process Improvement Team Handbook, April 12, 2000. Washington State Department of Transportation.
This paper documents the Wisconsin State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT) effort to improve the application of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) during the early states of long-range planning for transportation projects. WSDOT chartered a Transportation Decision Making Process Improvement Team (PIT) to develop and test the new process. The PIT surveyed WSDOT's major customer's to determine how WSDOT and FHWA were meeting their needs in terms of communication, competence, consistency, clarity, decisiveness, flexibility, input at right points, integrity, reliability, speed, safety and value.
The revised process developed in WSDOT involves: integrating planning and NEPA by moving NEPA to the start of the planning process; creating a Project Management Team (PMT) of WSDOT and FHWA to manage project logistics; creating a Steering Committee; establishing consensus points for various decisions made by Steering Committee; establishing concurrence points for agencies, local governments and tribes with jurisdiction over certain project and permitting decision; and developing a public outreach plan. Most notably to this project, the PMT is a multi-disciplinary management team that oversees the development of corridor studies. The PMT concept was developed in order to improve decision making by reducing the gaps often encountered as projects are "handed-off" from one discipline to another. The PMT has representation from at a minimum, the planning, design and environmental disciplines. The document provides detailed descriptions of the roles and responsibilities of the various components of the new process.
This document provides an excellent example of a new, more integrated approach to transportation decision making being implemented by a state DOT.
Innovative Practices to Reduce Delivery Time for Right-of-Way in Project Development, A Synthesis of Highway Practice , NCHRP Synthesis 292, Project 2-5 FY 1998; Topic 30-04. Transportation Research Board, 2102 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington 20418, 2000.
This report documents a study performed by a consultant specializing in public sector real estate practices. Its audience is federal and state departments of transportation administrators, supervisors and staff as well as the consultants that work with them in the project development process.
The study investigates specifically the right-of-way function as an element of the transportation project development process. It examines the delivery of right-of-way and property interests for project construction and mitigation activities and reports on successful strategies employed by State Departments of Transportation to accelerate this process. The primary source of information for the report is a survey mailed to right-of-way managers of transportation agencies in all 50 states, Puerto Rico and the District of Columbia. In addition, right-of-way managers in five states (California, Iowa, Utah and Washington) provided detailed information through in-person interviews about innovative and successful approaches implemented by their agencies in the delivery of right-of-way services.
This study is very applicable to the current project both in terms of subject matter and methodology. The survey questions provide useful examples of terminology and practices followed by STD right-of-way staff in the project development process. The conclusions of this study substantiate the premise that including the right-of-way discipline in an integrated approach towards transportation decision making is an effective strategy for advancing the goals and missions of a state transportation agency.
Integrating Right of Way and the Environment for Better Results , October 16, 2001. Live Webcast presented by Center For Transportation and the Environment, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University. Webcast viewed via http://webcast102.itre.ncsu.edu/CTE/Presentations/TC26-16October2001/archive_16October2001.html.
This national satellite broadcast featured a panel discussion, led by CTE Senior Research Associate Janet Myers (former ROW director for Maine DOT). The panel explored the right-of-way and environmental aspects of transportation programs and opportunities for enhancing program performance. Topics covered included: how right-of-way and the environment interface with other project development activities, including planning and design; common pitfalls to avoid; and how the project development process can be improved including tools to build flexibility and efficiency into the right-of-way and environmental functions.
Panelists included: Cynthia Burbank, Program Manager, Planning, Environment and Right-of-
Way, Federal Highway Administration; Carol Cutshall, Director, Bureau of the Environment, Wisconsin Department of Transportation; Deolinda Jones, Right-of-Way Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation; Nancy Maieski, Director, Bureau of Highway Real Estate, Wisconsin Department of Transportation; Michael Replogle, Transportation Director, Environmental Defense, Lori Sundstrom, Environmental Service Manager, Oregon Department of Transportation, Kenneth Towcimak, Director, Office of Right-of-Way, Florida Department of Transportation, Gary Winters, Chief, Division of Environmental Analysis, California Department of Transportation.
Though the webcast addressed primarily integration between only the disciplines of right-of-way and environment, it provided useful information on specific efforts currently being implemented by the states represented in the panel in the area of increased integration in the transportation decision-making process. It highlighted issues important to the states and provided ideas for questions related to current efforts to be included in the survey. Due to the interactive nature of the webcast (viewers could submit comments and questions) it provided an opportunity to introduce this project effort to individuals who later became part of the project's Sounding Board.
Integrating Right of Way and Environment in Project Development , Presentation by Cynthia Burbank as part of Webcast entitled Integrating Right of Way and the Environment for Better Results , October 16, 2001. Presented by Center For Transportation and the Environment, Institute for Transportation Research and Education, North Carolina State University. Retrieved from http://www.itre.ncsu.edu/cte/burbank.pdf . and http://www.itre.ncsu.edu/cte/burbank_talkingpoints_oct16.html
Ms. Burbank's presentation at the CTE webcast describes the typical or formerly accepted "stove-piped" project development process. This process is characterized by each participant in the process handing off their portion to the next participant with little interaction between all parties. This process is juxtaposed in Ms. Burbank's presentation with the "new" way of delivering projects which is represented by an overlapping series of waves. The waves included in her graphic include planning, environment, right-of-way, final design and construction, and operations. Ms. Burbank provides several points highlighting why it is important to involve right-of-way staff earlier in the project development process. She also provides two examples of projects in which FHWA was involved where there was an innovative use of real estate and right-of-way expertise in the successful development of the project.
Ms. Burbank's presentation provides good graphical interpretations of two different project development processes - the stove-pipe project development process and the wave process. Her comments and participation in the webcast exemplify FHWA, Office of Planning, Environment and Real Estate's commitment to promoting integration amongst many disciplines in the transportation decision-making process.
Project Development Guidebook , Oregon Department of Transportation, Office of Project Delivery, Project Systems Unit, September 2000 .
This guidebook is designed to provide citizens, organizations, elected official and ODOT management and staff with key information about how transportation projects are developed within ODOT. The Guidebook details the project development activities, which are the planning and design steps of a project. They cover all major activities between the time a project is first identified as an idea through the time it is documented in a set of plans and specifications to be bid upon by contractors that seek to build it. Specifically, the Guidebook details the four project development phases which are: planning and management systems, program development, project alternative selection, and project design. The Guidebook is intended to provide information about project development at a number of levels for readers with varying levels of knowledge and interest. To achieve this, it is separated into two sections entitle General Approach and Specific Approaches.
This Guidebook is extremely helpful in developing a definition of "project development" in terms of that phrases use in the survey for this project. The Guidebook provides a framework under which to discuss the overall process that is the subject of the survey. The Guidebook is also useful to this project in terms of providing a specific example of a process being developed and implemented by a state considered to be on the forefront of integration practices in the transportation decision-making process.
Research Needs for Transportation and Integrated Environmental Decision Making , Prepared for the Transportation Environmental Research Needs Conference of the TRB, March 21-23, 2002.
This paper is intended to highlight the unmet research needs in the area of environmental analysis and the practice of policy-making, regulating and integrating the needs of both the environment and the nation's transportation systems. Recognizing this is a huge topic, the paper develops a matrix to illustrate the complexity of the field, propose techniques for managing that complexity and to list some of the more urgent questions that need to be addressed. The basic premise of the paper is that research is needed in the best ways to measure, manage, and motivate the achievement of society's environmental and transportation objectives. The matrix proposed consists of 8 dimensions including: 1) the level of analysis (policy, management, technical), 2) the level of organization involved (federal, local, etc.), 3) desired end use of research (lobbying, industry best practice, etc.), 4) the objectives being met (economic, social, environmental), 5) the timeframe of the subject being researched (short, medium or long term impact or effect), 6) the various planning and development process steps (design, construction, operation, etc.), 7) modes of transportation (air, water, rail, road, etc.) and 8) the various environmental media (air, water, etc.).
Though generally related to transportation decision making, this paper is not particularly relevant to this project effort.
Right of Way Quality Management System, The Journey of Five States, July 28, 1999. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
This paper describes the types of management systems and best management practices present within State Departments of Transportation right-of-way (ROW) divisions. It also makes recommendations on how to plan, implement and measure a management system. Finally, the paper profiles 5 state ROW divisions in various phases of implementing their management systems. The states investigated are Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Florida, Louisiana and Oregon.
This paper is focused on strategic planning and management efficiency efforts rather than transportation project development. It is not relevant to this project beyond providing a background on the organizational structure of five states that could at some point be further investigated under this project.
Sound Land Use Implementation Plan November 1 - October 31, 2002 , Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
This paper documents the efforts undertaken by PennDOT over the period November 1 - October 31, 2002 to meet the state's goals of incorporating the principles of the state's land use policy into their plans, projects, and programs and policies as defined in the state's Interagency Land Use Team Supplementary Report of August 2000. The Report requires that Commonwealth agencies develop an Implementation Plan for incorporating land use principles into all agency programs and policies. The Plan must contain the following three items: 1) education of agency staff, 2) incorporation of local land use planning into agency decision and 3) identification of actions likely to have significant impact on land use. This document details the 8 sound land use actions that have been completed within the last year, are underway or on-going, and future actions to be implemented within the next year. Actions under each of the three items are briefly described.
The coordination between transportation and land use is a concept that is somewhat related to the integration approach being explored by this project. Land use issues involve developing methods and policies that improve or sustain environmental quality and other quality-of-life considerations while allowing for enhanced economic and social progress. Understanding project development techniques, such as land use policies that are already being used by state DOTs could be helpful to this project in providing a context within which to discuss the decision-making techniques promoted by this project. This document provides a good example of the ways in which a particular state is addressing its land use policy and how that policy interacts with its other policies, programs and actions. For example, under the category of Educating Agency Staff, PennDOT lists activities such as conducting a conference that highlighed and promoted land use and transportation best practices, developing other conferences to communicate the integration of land use and transportation planning, and developing internal agency training courses on the concept of integrating land use/transportation decision-making.
Statewide Transportation Planning Under ISTEA (n.d.), U.S. Department of Transportation. Retrieved from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/statewide/guide5.pdf .
This document provides a detailed description of the transportation planning process under the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Statewide planning under ISTEA, as explained in this document, is multi-faceted, includes consideration of all modal options (e.g. highway, transit, rail roads), and is characterized by input and participation from stakeholders and the public. This document provides a discussion of the two principal products of the statewide planning process; the statewide transportation plan and the statewide transportation improvement program (STIP). The purpose, time-line, coordination requirements, inputs and content of these plans are detailed.
In addition to the discussion of the planning products, this document describes four key elements or planning factors that are part of ISTEA and how their integration into the planning process contributes to the development of a comprehensive transportation plan. These planning factors include: management systems (including performance and asset management systems), major investment studies in metropolitan planning areas, environmental considerations, and linking transportation and air quality planning.
Finally, the document provides a discussion of transportation financing techniques and a sample of communication tools utilized by various states. Interspersed throughout the document are state-specific examples of the implementation of various planning techniques required under ISTEA.
Again, in the context of this project, this document provides a useful and detailed background of the transportation planning process and examples of representative processes implemented by specific states.
Summary of Peer Exchange on Improving Transportation Decision-making through Planning, NEPA and Project Development Linkage, Baltimore, Maryland May 22 - 23, 2001 , June 8, 2001, U.S. DOT Volpe Center. Forwarded via email from Glenn Bridger.
On May 22 nd and 23 rd , 2001, the U.S. DOT hosted a Peer Exchange in Baltimore, Maryland for state DOTs to share information about how they are linking the planning, NEPA and project development processes in order to improve transportation decision-making. There were 17 people in attendance including planning and environment representatives from seven state DOTs (California, Florida, Indiana, Maryland, North Carolina, Oregon and Washington); representatives from U.S. DOT Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Office of NEPA Facilitation, FHWA Office of Metropolitan Planning, FHWA Office of Statewide Planning, FHWA Easter Resource Center, Federal Transit Administration (FTA) Office of Planning and Volpe Center; a representative from the Center for Transportation and the Environment; and one facilitator.
This paper presents a summary of the findings of this meeting including: 1) Factors for Success - institutional and technical factors common to states that can be used in developing new approaches to transportation decision-making; 2) State Strategies - a review of the particular strategies implemented by the seven participating states to improve decision-making; 3) Opportunities for Improvement -ways in which FHWA and states need to work together to improve the linkage between planning and NEPA; 4) Proposed Next Steps - a series of next steps identified by the group to further educate each other and the U.S. DOT of on-going efforts to improve the transportation decision-making process.
Though this paper is geared specifically towards the linkage between transportation planning and environmental issues, there are still many points applicable to the concept of integration in transportation decision-making in general. Similar to the document focusing on the contribution of the Right-of-Way discipline to transportation decision-making, this document provides an excellent background discussion of the environmental issues critical to transportation decision-making and the insights and concerns of individuals working in that discipline. Specifically, some of the efforts documented under the State Strategies section are useful. Some of the strategies described in that section involve disciplines in addition to planning and environment, providing an excellent context for the formulation of survey questions about such strategies.
Thinking Beyond the Pavement: A National Workshop in Integrating Highway Development With Communities and the Environment , University of Maryland Conference Center, May, 1998 .
This brochure presents the topics covered and conclusions drawn at a national workshop held in Maryland in May of 1998 on the topic of Context Sensitive Design (CSD). The conference included 325 invited participants from 39 states and the District of Columbia. Participants included chief engineers, senior designers and planners from 29 state departments of transportation, representative of national transportation organizations, and a variety of stakeholders from government, the private sector and citizens' organizations. The brochure details the goals of the workshop, what the workshop developed, the workshop participants' vision of quality of excellence in transportation design and of the characteristics of the process that would yield excellence. The workshop also presented case study examples from around the country of projects involving CSD. Various types of projects were described including: freeway design, suburban and rural roads, the commercial arterial, bridges and their approaches and a small town Main Street. The brochure summarizes a few of these case study examples. The workshop produced a list of specific implementation recommendations, along with who should undertake them. These are listed in the brochure.
Context-sensitive design is a concept that is somewhat related to the integration approach being explored by this project. Context sensitive design involves a collaborative, interdisciplinary approach in which citizens are part of the design team. It is a philosophy that considers the impact a travelway will have on the area it traverses, including the people who live, work or pass through the area. Understanding project development techniques, such as context sensitive design, that are already being used by state DOTs could be helpful to this project in providing a context within which to discuss the decision-making techniques promoted by this project. This document provides a useful working definition of CSD and good case study examples of its implementation. Moreover, it demonstrates the commitment to and belief in this technique by the Federal Highway Administration, AASHTO and many state DOTs.
Transportation Decision Making - Policy Architecture for the 21 st Century , U.S. Department of Transportation , July 28, 2000.
This document describes the national and international level issues that affect transportation decision making and provides a framework for future decision making based on changes brought about by globalization. It addresses the decision-making roles of the both the public- and private-sectors and establishes a framework for making decisions specifically aimed at future outcomes to and impacts on the U.S. transportation system in 2025.
The document contains a discussion of the evolution of public sector transportation decision making including a review of Federal transportation policy development. This includes an overview of recent developments in public sector decision making including discussion of the various transportation Acts and other national regulatory reforms and their impacts on urban transportation decision making, state and regional transportation decision making, national transportation decision making and private sector transportation decision making.
The document is aimed at the general public and provides a useful overview of the issues involved in transportation planning and policy development at any level. It provides a context for the research goals of this project in relation to overall U.S. DOT goals and efforts.
Transportation Projects: From Idea to Construction, Project Development Process , Oregon Department of Transportation, Office of Project Delivery, Project Systems Unit.
This booklet is a brief introduction to the project development process that is fully documented in the Oregon Department of Transportation's (ODOT) Project Development Guidebook . The booklet defines project development as practiced by ODOT and highlights the first four phases of the lifecycle of transportation projects in Oregon, which are collectively known as project developments. These phases included: planning and management systems, program development, project design alternative selection, and project design. In addition to describing the main activities that are conducted under each of these four phases, the booklet explains the other 10 processes that - much like extended activities - overlap the other activities and last throughout the project development. These processes include: project decision structure, project financial plan, intergovernmental agreement, public input and involvement, environmental, project scoping, project teaming, right-of-way, review and permitting. The booklet also describes the two types of participants in the project development process: those that are an ODOT work unit and those that are not. Several specific participants falling under these two categories are listed. Finally, included in the booklet is a description of the five principal types of projects: modernization, bridge, preservation, safety, and operations.
This booklet is extremely helpful in developing a definition of "project development" in terms of that phrases use in the survey for this project. The booklet provides a framework under which to discuss the overall process that is the subject of the survey.
The Value Engineering (VE) Process and Job Plan . U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration. Retrieved on November 27, 2001 from http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/veproc.htm and http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ve/vejob.htm .
These FHWA websites explain the Value Engineering process, the projects to which is should (and must) be applied and its utility in finding and eliminating unnecessary costs in a project. The eight phases of a VE analysis and the activities that should take place under each are detailed in these two documents. Each phase is discussed in terms of its objective, the key questions addressed, the techniques used and the specific tasks undertaken.
Value Engineering is a concept that is somewhat related to the integration approach being explored by this project. VE is a team-oriented, multi-disciplinary, systematic tool that is very useful for identifying, analyzing and solving problems. Understanding techniques such as VE analysis that are already being used by state DOTs could be helpful to this project because it could provide a context within which to discuss the decision-making techniques promoted by this project. This document provides a good background discussion of the VE process and its utility.
Appendix C. Definitions of Survey Terms
The survey uses several terms that are unique to the FHWA Integration Solutions Survey and/or to the transportation community. This section provides definitions for those terms as they are used in the survey.
Centralized - a type of administrative process in place in a transportation agency where agency-wide decisions, policies, procedures, processes, etc. are made, established and monitored by a central unit, location or headquarters. It is used in the survey in contrast to a decentralized environment.
Decentralized - a type of administrative process in place in a transportation agency where agency-wide decisions, policies, procedures, processes, etc. are made, established and monitored at the field unit (e.g. district or division) level. It is used in the survey in contrast to a centralized environment.
Functional Discipline - a project management style in which different portions of a project have a different individual serving as project manager (PM) based on that individual's expertise and the functions performed by the various aspects of the project, e.g. a bridge PM, a roadway design PM, a geotech PM, a right-of-way PM, etc.
Integrated (or Integrated Process) - the decision-making process in which the players (in this case the disciplines explored by the survey) coordinate their expertise throughout the development of a transportation project or throughout certain portions of the project development. The timing of each discipline's contribution(s) overlaps with those of the other disciplines. The process is a more iterative one (as compared to the linear process) where various disciplines are consulted and resulting changes are made before the process moves on to the next step.
Linear - used in the survey synonymously with the term "stove-piped" to describe a decision-making process in which the players (in this case the disciplines explored by the survey) contribute their expertise during one particular part of the process and pass that interim result on to the next discipline to use in the next phase of the process with little to no interaction between the disciplines. The process moves in only one direction with little to no overlap in the efforts of one discipline with the others. The linear process is juxtaposed in the survey with the integrated process.
Phased - project management style in which each phase of a project, e.g. scoping, design, construction, etc. has a separate individual serving as manager.
Single Point - project management style in which one project manager is assigned to lead a project from beginning to end, throughout all project phases and functions. Also called "cradle to grave" project management.
Stove-piped - used in the survey synonymously with the term "linear" to describe a decision-making process in which the players (in this case the disciplines explored by the survey) contribute their expertise during one particular part of the process and pass that interim result on to the next discipline to use in the next phase of the process with little to no interaction between the disciplines. The process moves in only one direction with little to no overlap in the efforts of one discipline with the others. The linear process is juxtaposed in the survey with the integrated process
Transportation Decision-making Process - used synonymously in the survey with "transportation solutions", this is the process including all planning phases, design/development, construction/implementation, and maintenance of a transportation system improvement. It refers to all or any mode of transportation.
Transportation Solutions - used synonymously in the survey with "transportation decision-making process", this is the process including all planning phases, design/development, construction/implementation, and maintenance of a transportation system improvement. It refers to all or any mode of transportation.
Uniform - the situation where transportation decision-making processes are followed similarly, if not exactly the same, in all districts/divisions/field units of a transportation-related entity and on all projects, regardless of the type or of any other project attribute.
Appendix D. List of States Represented by Each FHWA Regional Resource Center
The Western Resource Center represents the following 14 states: Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, North Dakota, Oregon, South Dakota, Utah, Washington, and Wyoming.
The Eastern Resource Center represents the following 14 states: Connecticut, District of Columbia, Delaware, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Virginia, Vermont, and West Virginia.
The Southern Resource Center represents the following 14 states: Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Puerto Rico, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Texas.
The Midwestern Resource Center represents the following 10 states: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, Ohio, and Wisconsin.
Previous | Table of Contents | Next
To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Janis Gramatins (janis.gramatins@fhwa.dot.gov), or call 202-366-2030.
For Office of Real Estate Service program information, products,
and publications please visit our website at
www.fhwa.dot.gov/realestate/index.htm.
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION HEADQUARTERS PLANNING, ENVIRONMENT and REALTY CONTACTS:
