PHASE I: Case Studies in Decision Making For Highway Projects.
Decision making is not a one-size-fits-all process, but successful outcomes share common elements. Phase I of the project consists of an in-depth study of successful projects to increase highway capacity and a review of some cases experiencing protracted delays.
For successful projects, the nature of the planning and decision-making process that led to success will be documented. Common elements of success will be highlighted, including how compromise was reached on difficult issues, how conflicting positions were reconciled, how barriers were overcome, who made the decision, the information needed to reach the decision, communication tools and processes, how institutional barriers were overcome, and observation on what could be done better.
For cases of protracted or still-unresolved delay, barriers will be identified. The controversial issues, financial obligations, organizational behaviors, information needs, communications, and the decision-making process will be reviewed and compared to successful projects.
Phase I Objectives: The objectives of Phase I are to identify key decision points in the project approval process, identify the elements common to successful outcomes, and prepare insightful case studies from which others can learn.
Phase I Tasks
Task descriptions are intended to provide a framework for conducting the research. SHRP II is seeking the insights of proposers on how best to achieve the research objective. Proposers are expected to describe research plans that can realistically be accomplished within the constraints of available funds and contract time. Proposals must present the proposers' current thinking in sufficient detail to demonstrate their understanding of the issues and the soundness of their approach to meeting the research objective.
Task I-1: From a literature search and knowledge of the consultant team, identify as potential case studies capacity-expansion projects that include a major highway element that have been successfully implemented or that are caught (or were caught) in protracted delay. In consultation with TRB, FHWA, and the project owners, propose at least 10 locations for case studies. Submit the recommended cases for review and approval.
Task Note: In the proposal, describe the criteria and strategy for screening and selecting cases and how you would conduct the case studies. Case studies should be distributed among the four AASHTO regions with no more than one case study per state, unless a rational is provided. (Such a rational might be a pairs analysis of two projects in the same state.) The purpose of the case studies is to demonstrate principles of good practice that can be transferred. Absolutely unique circumstances are not desirable unless a lesson can be learned. Select diverse cases, including passenger and freight capacity issues, metropolitan and non-metropolitan locations, non-highway alternatives considered in the planning process, varying project sponsors (public/private partnerships, municipal, toll authority, port authority.)
Task I-2: Prepare a case study research plan. The plan should cover recommended sites, expected groups/people to interview, interview guide(s), issues, and expected benefits of each case study. During preparation of the case study plan, consult with DOTs, FHWA, or other partners regarding any outstanding legal issues or pending law suits. Approval by SHRP II staff will be required.
The research team must also work with SHRP II staff to comply with requirements for review of interview plans, guides, and questionnaires by the National Academies’ Institutional Review Board, which is subject to federal requirements. (See Special Note G.)
Task I-3: Prepare the case studies in the approved case study plan. For each case study:
1. Describe the initial needs (passenger capacity, rush hour congestion, freight capacity, safety, delay, etc.) that caused planning to be initiated.
2. Describe the institutional framework for decision making, specifically, which agencies had approval authority, how the lead agency structured the process, how resource agencies were engaged, community involvement, major stumbling blocks along the way, compromises reached, legal challenges, etc.
3. Describe the steps in the planning process in a financially constrained environment and the environmental review and permitting process. Was a corridor-level analysis of alternatives conducted? Describe alternatives considered within NEPA or in a prior planning process, especially non-highway alternatives.
4. Describe how forecasts of future highway use, capacity, right-of-way needs, environmental impacts, and economic and land use impacts were organized and brought to bear on the decision process. How were environmental problems resolved? What information systems are in use? Were systems-based performance measures used to aid decision making? What data or knowledge base is lacking to satisfactorily evaluate alternatives? What tools were used to communicate with the public? What works well and what needs to be improved in the area of data, data analysis, and communication.
5. Identify the critical decision points.
6. Conduct interviews with agency staff, citizens groups, Indian Nations, consulting engineers, etc. to identify and characterize values, issues and organizational behaviors. Describe how the mission and governing legislation/regulations for key agencies (e.g., State DOT, FHWA, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, local governments, state environmental agencies, US Army Corps of Engineers, EPA) affect institutional relationships. Describe the range of public perceptions of the decision-making process.
7. Prepare a draft report for each case study that describes the circumstances, issues, and lessons learned that can be used in developing a collaborative decision-making framework. The case studies will be published. They should be readable, focused, informative, and based on facts documented in the public record. Opinions of individuals that cannot be referenced to the public record should not be included.
8. Submit case studies for review as they are completed. Once approved, they will be made available on the SHRP II web site.
Task I-4: Participate in a joint workshop with the researchers on Project CO2, A Systems-Based Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making. The purpose of the workshop is to integrate the performance measures and their data needs into the developing collaborative decision-making process. This workshop will be scheduled by the SHRP II staff in consultation with both research teams. The Research Team for this project has responsibility for organizing the workshop and documenting decisions that each research team agrees to follow in the completion of their work.
Task I-5: Prepare a summary Phase I Report of the case studies that distills the key decision points in reaching consensus and the elements common to reaching those decisions. Submit to SHRPII staff for review.
Task I-6: Prepare a Phase I Final Report.
PHASE II: Needs Analysis for an Improved Systems-Based Solution Screening Process
Conflicting positions on adding transportation capacity are reconciled through development and screening of alternatives until a plan is achieved that provides the desired transportation capacity, is financially feasible, satisfies community concerns, and addresses environmental problems. This cannot succeed as a one-way process in which a highway agency presents a near-final plan to the public and describes the screening process that led to the solution. The constituencies involved now demand an interactive process. The interactive process must occur within the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act, the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act Amendments, the Executive Order on Environmental Justice, the Executive Order on Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews, and other laws, regulations, and guidance. It must also communicate benefits and impacts clearly to non-technical audiences.
A systems-based solutions screening process is desired that uses performance measures to assess, for each alternative, the costs, economic justification, capacity added, and impact on the human and natural environment. However, as stated in the project background, the institutional agreements, data, tools, communication, standards, and scientific knowledge are not universally in place to achieve it. Recognizing this, Phase II will gather information from the states, metropolitan areas, and selected other countries to document the state of the practice in system-based analysis, identify potential models, and identify barriers that must be overcome. Phase II will prioritize activities that could be undertaken in future SHRP II projects to have maximum positive impact on the state of the practice. The recommendations will be submitted to the Capacity TCC in a free-standing report.
Phase II objectives: (1) Identify the critical barriers to a better analytical process, grounded in the principals of environmental stewardship, for screening transportation solutions; (2) Recommend products appropriate for SHRP II that will have maximum positive impact on the state of the practice.
Phase II Tasks
Task II-1: Gather information from state DOTs, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and selected other countries to identify problems and successes with system-wide analytical solution/alternatives screening processes. Assess gaps in scientific knowledge, data shortfalls, weaknesses in analytical tools, problems with access to data, lack of connectivity with other planning activities, and other barriers to system-wide, integrated assessment of transportation alternatives, environmental impacts, and community impacts. The assessment should include but not be limited to transportation issues, economic development issues, and protection of the human and natural environment. (Note: Some of these states may be the same as case study states from Phase I. If so, contacts should be coordinated with the case study.)
Task II-2: From Task II-1, identify the most mature system-wide, performance-based processes and supporting information systems. Examine the data structures, system logic, and analysis methods that could form a starting place for a transportation decision-making support system with elements transportable to other jurisdictions.
Task II-3: Recommend solutions to removing barriers identified in Task II-1, including but not limited to basic scientific work, technical support systems, and analytical tools, institutional relationships, and information technology. The recommendations should be prioritized according to potential for improving the state of the practice in the next 5 years.
Task Product: Prepare a freestanding report to the Capacity TCC that makes the case for devoting future SHRP II Capacity funds to each recommendation. The product will be reviewed by SHRP II staff prior to release. Make an oral presentation to the Capacity TCC.
Task II-4: Prepare a State of the Practice Report on system-wide solution screening processes and decision support systems in transportation capacity planning. The audience includes transportation agencies, resource agencies, and community groups. Emphasize elements of effective practice. Include a separate section on guidance for future SHRP II work (or work by third parties) in the developing decision support tools. (The audience for this section is the information technology staff in participating agencies.) The purpose of the guidance is to establish the desirable characteristics of open architecture decision support systems and data sets that will yield maximum transferability and access to data. Discuss:
- Web-browser-based, service oriented solutions
- Ability to configure and customize
- Ability to Interface with legacy systems and external modeling tools
- Structure—Separation of business layers and data layers
- Standards—J2EE, JAVA, TransXML. etc,
- Data schemas, class and object diagrams
- Role of business intelligence tools (composer tools, management of changes and versions
Submit the State of the Practice report for review.
Task II-5: Following review, prepare a Final State of the Practice Report on Solution Screening.
PHASE III: Collaborative Decision Making Framework
Objective: Develop a framework or frameworks to support collaborative decision making in transportation that address system-level integration of transportation, protection of the human and natural environment, land development policy, and economic development strategies.
Phase III Tasks
Task III-1 Using insights from Phases I and II and building on experience reported in the literature on collaborative decision making in public policy, develop a framework or frameworks for collaborative decision making in transportation that addresses the Phase III objective. As stated in the introduction, such a framework addresses:
- existing processes that influence or are influenced by transportation planning and project development (e.g., statewide and metropolitan planning, project development, project engineering, corridor planning, NEPA and permitting processes, economic development, and resource management.
- decision points in each process and connectivity across processes. The proposed framework should include decision points that are often external to transportation planning that can heavily influence transportation planning.
- the relationships among stakeholders—elected officials, agencies, businesses, interest groups, citizens
- strategies for interactive communication
- supporting information technology, analysis tools, and data
Task III-2: Develop a “table top” planning exercise or an equivalent to test and vet the framework. One such exercise should be planned in each AASHTO region (four regions) and should involve representatives of all the stakeholder groups. Select exercises that involve various transportation capacity and environmental (human and natural) issues. Submit the plan for review and approval.
Task III-3: Conduct the four exercises and capture feed back.
Task III-4: Modify the collaborative decision making framework based on the four exercises. Prepare a Phase III Draft Final Report that describes the framework and the decision support system. Submit for review and approval.
Task III-5: Following approval, prepare a final report for the entire project (Phases I, II, and III) that describes the decision-making framework and decision support system. (The final report will not include case study reports or the special report to the Capacity TCC. Draw from them as needed.)
Phase IV: Dissemination
Objective: Disseminate project results to encourage adoption into practice.
Task IV-1: Prepare dissemination materials using appropriate media, targeted at state DOTs, MPOs, resource agencies, and community groups. Following review, print copies for distribution. (Propose copies based on budget availability.)
Task IV-2: Conduct five presentations, including the AASHTO Annual Meeting, key AASHTO committee meetings, and other appropriate national meetings, including those attended by staff of resource agencies.
SUMMARY OF DELIVERABLES:
Phase I: Draft and Final of 10 Case Study Reports, Draft and Final Phase I Summary Report, participation in a joint workshop and documentation of agreements.
Phase II: Draft and Final State of the Practice Report on Solution Screening; special report to the Capacity TCC recommending future SHRP II Capacity investments.
Phase III: Plan for table top exercises to vet the framework; conduct four table top exercises. Draft and Final Report on the entire project describing the framework.
Phase IV: Dissemination materials and five presentations.
