www.rapidshift.net Open in urlscan Pro
72.167.126.225  Public Scan

Form analysis
1 forms found in the DOM

GET http://www.rapidshift.net/

<form method="get" id="searchform" class="form-search" action="http://www.rapidshift.net/">
  <label for="s" class="visually-hidden">Search</label>
  <input type="text" id="s" name="s" class="search-query" placeholder="Search">
</form>

Text Content

Rapid Shift Navigation
 * About

 * About

Home Blog Next Generation Scenario Planning: a Transportation Practitioner's
Guide



NEXT GENERATION SCENARIO PLANNING: A TRANSPORTATION PRACTITIONER’S GUIDE

Also: The Rethinking Streets Project is soliciting examples of completed street
or intersection retrofits for possible inclusion in a new book project,
“Rethinking Streets for Bikes.” This project builds on the success of the
original effort, “Rethinking Streets: An Evidence-Based Guide to 25 Complete
Street Transformations.” The new book will be available for free download.

Table of Contents, FHWA Fall 2017

 * 1 What is Scenario Planning?
   * Introduction
   * Community Issues and Scenario Development
   * Use of Scenario Planning in Long Range Transportation Planning
   * Reported Challenges of Using Scenario Planning in Transportation
   * The Next Generation of Scenario Planning: Addressing Challenges and
     Emerging Issues, different kinds of scenario futures–probable, desired, and
     exploratory–and describes how those can be used to address common issues
     facing transportation organizations. It emphasizes the importance of
     clearly setting expectations about the purpose, goals and expected outcomes
     of a scenario planning process and includes real-world, recent examples of
     addressing emerging trends, crafting a new vision or desired future, and
     dealing with uncertainty
 * 2 Why Use Scenario Planning to Support Transportation Planning?
   * Addressing Changing Community Goals
   * Ensuring Resilience
   * Supporting Visioning and Consensus-Building
   * Fostering Performance-Based Planning & Programming
   * Continuing Federal Commitment
 * 3 How Can You Scope a Scenario Planning Process to Best Meet Your Needs?
   * Defining the ‘Why’
   * Scoping the Scenario Planning Process
   * Setting Process Goals and Defining Outcomes
   * Identifying a Future Orientation
   * Scaling and Detailing Key Planning Elements of the Scenario Process
     Workplan
   * Utilizing New Tools and Methods
 * 4 Planning with Foresight
   * How to Put the Six-Phase Scenario Planning Workplan into Action?

Scenario planning involves an informational and direction-setting process that
aims to create more informed decision-making about transportation priorities and
investments. In some cases, it is incorporated directly into an existing
transportation planning process like the update of a long range transportation
plan, where its purpose is to influence policy changes and transportation
project priorities. In other cases, it can be applied in parallel with or before
a specific decision or policy change to better understand “What if” or to
address emerging trends. Regardless of the process goals as described in the
previous chapter, all scenario planning efforts benefit from utilizing the
six-phase approach and framework as illustrated in Figure 4. This diagram is
based on FHWA’s 2011 Scenario Planning Guidebook,[18] but it integrates
additional considerations regarding project goals and future orientations and
reflects a greater diversity of options, deriving from the planning elements
previously described.

Each scenario planning phase can vary in terms of the iterative needs and
feedback loops required to move on to the next step. Additionally, defining the
specific next steps or implementation actions needed to address probable
futures, desired futures or uncertain futures can take on multiple forms
depending on the decision-making and informational focus areas. To illustrate
these variations, real-world examples are interspersed throughout.

Figure 4 Next Generation Scenario Planning and the Six-Phase Process[19] Figure
5 How Do We Get Started?

WASHINGTON STATE FREIGHT MOBILITY PLAN

Washington State DOT

PROBLEM OR DRIVING ISSUE:

As a precursor to updating the State of Washington’s freight mobility plan,
stakeholders wanted to better understand how external global trade forces could
influence freight demands across the state relative to an emphasis on ports,
rail, and interstate trucking routes. Doing so could create new insights on the
state freight plan relative to the emphasis of different modes and routes as
well as help to create a more resilient plan considering somewhat uncertain
global conditions.

SUMMARY:

The foundation of WSDOT’s process was to use scenario planning to better prepare
for an uncertain future instead of trying to predict the future and plan for it.
To do this, WSDOT created four long-range scenarios: “One World Order,”
“Naftastique!,” “Technology Savior,” and “Global Marketplace.” These scenarios
were used to try and understand the implications of combinations of events on
the state’s freight system. The results of the scenario analysis were compared
with trends analyses and near-term industry trends to ground in truth what
appeared to be probable outcomes (based on current data) and to test the
validity of scenario assumptions.

PROCESS GOALS:

Exploratory/Informational and Decision Support

FUTURES ORIENTATION: UNCERTAIN

Scenario Process Outcomes: The Washington State Mobility Plan used scenario
planning to prepare the state’s freight systems for future uncertainty.
Additional process goals included meeting federal MAP-21 guidance for state
freight plans; providing strong, fact-based evidence to secure federal funding
for Washington’s freight priority projects; and guiding investments made in the
state’s freight system.

Figure 6 Where Are We Now? Figure 7 Where Do We Want to Go?


ENVISION UTAH

PROBLEM OR DRIVING ISSUE:

The Salt Lake City region of Utah continues to seek opportunities for creating
more sustainable growth patterns. Recognizing some of the challenges with
implementation of the Envision Utah vision crafted more than 20 years ago, and
emerging new issues and opportunities associated with transportation funding,
housing affordability, technology advances, and other factors, planners used a
scenario planning process. The process helped to further identify implementation
opportunities and build support for achieving the desired vision and doing so
considering some variability associated with future uncertainty and shifting
trends.

SUMMARY:

One of the earliest scenario planning efforts, Envision Utah brought together
people from all walks of life, including developers, conservationists, business
leaders, and the public to consider alternative futures for the growth of Utah
and to create a “Quality Growth Strategy” rooted in community values and
informed by data. In 2015, Envision Utah’s “Your Utah, Your Future” effort
significantly expanded and updated the Quality Growth Strategy. “Your Utah, Your
Future” included eleven topics ranging from water, transportation, and land use
to housing, agriculture, education, public lands use, and more.

PROCESS GOALS:

Informational/Exploratory and Decision Support

FUTURES ORIENTATION:

Desirable and Uncertain

SCENARIO PROCESS OUTCOMES:

Between 1997 and 1999, Envision Utah held over 200 workshops and obtained input
from 20,000 residents to create the Quality Growth Strategy, a shared vision for
the future of Utah. A wide range of quality-of-life measures were projected for
each scenario that allowed participants to understand the consequences of the
land-use and transportation strategies embodied in each scenario. The 2015
Envision Utah’s “Your Utah, Your Future” process included eleven topic areas and
each issue area had three to five scenarios that presented alternative sets of
choices and outcomes for that topic and modeled those out to 2050. These
scenarios demonstrated specific implementation strategies and options that
reinforced long-term vision goals in light of future uncertainties.


VTRANS2040 SCENARIO ANALYSIS

Virginia Office Of Intermodal Planning And Investment

PROBLEM OR DRIVING ISSUE:

Virginia’s multimodal long range plan for 2040 acknowledges that projecting
current trends beyond 10 years doesn’t account for changes to values, travel
behavior, and the global economy. Therefore, the 2040 component of the plan
incorporated scenario-based analysis. The analysis combined alternative
assumptions for each of four types of drivers: demographic and social changes,
economic changes, influences of technology, and energy and environment
considerations. The results of the scenario analysis are being used to gauge the
resilience of the transportation investment plan and to identify policy
recommendations that address the implications of the scenarios.

SUMMARY:

The VTrans2040 scenario analysis used a sketch planning, data-driven
quantitative and qualitative approach. For each scenario driver, the project
team pulled from existing and new research, expert panels, focus groups and
other public outreach to develop scenario assumptions and alternatives. Scenario
components included different development place types, population generational
variations, different job industry types and growth rates, and related
differences reflecting specific geographies and influences on travel behavior.
To address technology drivers, the analysis included extensive research on
autonomous and connected vehicles and related topics such as mobility-on-demand
services. This research provided insights on specific components of future
travel demand that the technology drivers would likely affect, allowing for the
project team to incorporate assumptions into each of the scenarios.

PROCESS GOALS:

Informational/Exploratory and Decision Support

FUTURES ORIENTATION:

Desirable and Uncertain

SCENARIO PROCESS OUTCOMES:

Scenario Process Outcomes: The scenario planning effort will conclude in 2017
with an interactive, web-based exercise that provides information and gathers
input from the public on the most pressing driver opportunities and threats, and
what they might mean for investment decisions. This information will be factored
into the state plan update process and shared statewide with MPOs that have
expressed interest in making use of the research, assumptions and insights for
use in their own scenario planning efforts.

Figure 8 What Could the Future Look Like?


AUTOMATED VEHICLES/CONNECTED VEHICLES (AV/CV) DEPLOYMENT SCENARIOS

Texas A&M Transportation Institute

PROBLEM OR DRIVING ISSUE:

The transportation industry sought to understand the potential implications of
the deployment of autonomous/connected vehicles relative to different rates of
deployment over time. Scenarios helped to explore specific actions DOTs might
need to take to address infrastructure, operational, and organizational
adaptation needs.

SUMMARY:

A strategic road map was developed to help state and local agencies explore
potential implications of the deployment of AV/CV technology using two extreme,
but plausible, scenarios: “Revolutionary” and “Evolutionary.” To measure
possible impacts, several “influencing areas” were identified, including
society, technology, economy, and policy. For each influencing area, factors and
projection metrics were developed to evaluate outcomes under the two scenarios.
Reactions to scenarios were gauged and potential organizational changes were
evaluated to help design a set of next steps for agencies looking to prepare for
these emerging technologies.

PROCESS GOALS:

Informational/Exploratory

FUTURES ORIENTATION:

Uncertain

SCENARIO PROCESS OUTCOMES:

This process was a research effort that can be utilized by MPOs or other
transportation agencies seeking information on plausible futures concerning the
deployment of AV/CV technology. It included information on potential areas of
policy change, design, and operational strategies in response to the two AV/CV
deployment scenarios to help transportation agencies be better prepared in the
face of uncertainty.

PROBLEM OR DRIVING ISSUE:

With a strong growing region, local community members sought to identify a plan
for more sustainable growth that would help mitigate factors contributing to
climate change. Additionally, the region continues to experience impacts of
climate change and therefore wanted to better understand how future growth could
be oriented to adapt to those changing conditions.


CENTRAL NEW MEXICO CLIMATE CHANGE SCENARIO PLANNING PROJECT (CCSP)

US DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center and the Mid-Region Council
of Governments (MRCOG)

 

SUMMARY:

The Central New Mexico region is an environmentally delicate area that is
greatly affected by climatic extremes such as heat waves, droughts, and floods.
This area is additionally experiencing significant population growth, which is
expected to continue. To support the sustainability of this sensitive region,
the MRCOG undertook a scenario planning process, supporting the organization’s
metropolitan transportation plan, to identify new actions or strategies to help
achieve community sustainability goals, reduce carbon emissions, and prepare for
the likely challenges associated with climate destabilization.

PROCESS GOALS:

Informational/Exploratory and Decision Support

FUTURES ORIENTATION:

Desirable, Probable

SCENARIO PROCESS OUTCOMES:

The CCSP process elevated the discussion of climate change in the region and
strengthened support for stronger land use and transportation integration.
Stakeholders recognized that more analysis on specific climatic impacts may be
needed to further inform policy changes over time.[20] While the trend scenario
assumptions were ultimately used in the development of the Futures 2040
Metropolitan Transportation Plan, plan incorporated several new strategies to
support long-term achievement of the preferred scenario as identified by the
public and stakeholders which also includes more cross-agency coordination and
efforts to achieve shared goals.

Figure 9 What are the Impacts of Each Future?

Figure 10 How Do We Achieve the Future We Want?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[18] FHWA. (2011). “FHWA Scenario Planning Guidebook.” Federal Highway
Administration, Washington, DC.

[19] Adapted and excerpted from FHWA Scenario Planning Guidebook (2011); see
Footnote 19.

[20] Rasmussen, B.K., et al. (2015). “Integrating Climate Change in
Transportation and Land Use Scenario Planning: An Example from Central New
Mexico.” U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, DC.

Conclusion

Bibliography, Suggested Reading and Websites

Figures

 * Figure 1 GOALS OF SCENARIO PLANNING
 * Figure 2 PHASES OF PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING AND SCENARIO
   PLANNING
 * Figure 3 SCOPING THE SCENARIO BASED PLANNING PROCESS
 * Figure 4 NEXT GENERATION SCENARIO PLANNING AND THE SIX-PHASE PROCESS
 * Figure 5 HOW DO WE GET STARTED?
 * Figure 6 WHERE ARE WE NOW?
 * Figure 7 WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO?
 * Figure 8 WHAT COULD THE FUTURE LOOK LIKE?
 * Figure 9 WHAT ARE THE IMPACTS OF EACH FUTURE?
 * Figure 10 HOW DO WE ACHIEVE THE FUTURE WE WANT?


TABLES

 * Table 1 FUTURE ORIENTATION OF SCENARIOS
 * Table 2 PLANNING ELEMENTS TO CONSIDER WHEN SCOPING YOUR SCENARIO PLANNING
   PROCESS. 31
 * Table 3 EXAMPLES OF PLANNING ELEMENTS TAILORED TO KEY ISSUES. 39


PURPOSE:

In 2011, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed the “Scenario
Planning Guidebook,” detailing a method to conduct a basic scenario planning
process. This document attempts to build on that foundational work and define
the “next generation” of scenario planning to support improved transportation
planning and decisionmaking. “Next Generation Scenario Planning: A
Transportation Practitioner’s Guide” highlights the history and benefits of
scenario planning, making the case for its increased use and application in
light of several driving issues challenging communities today. It emphasizes the
importance of scoping and scaling the planning process to align with specific
community or organizational needs. It also demonstrates how the set of future
orientations (what is likely to happen, what we want to happen, and what could
happen) affect how a practitioner might work through the six-phase scenario
planning process. Finally, it profiles recent examples of scenario planning in
action.

GOALS:

 * The primary goals of “Next Generation Scenario Planning” include:
 * Describing the evolution of scenario planning and the characteristics of the
   next generation of scenario planning in response to emerging issues.
 * Identifying the planning elements important in developing a scenario planning
   workplan.
 * Providing a framework for scoping a scenario-based planning process based on
   the questions a community is trying to answer, driving issues and goals
   related to decisionmaking and information sharing.
 * Providing example applications of scenario planning that address emerging
   issues and support the creation of scenario-based plans and implementation
   strategies.

AUDIENCE: METROPOLITAN PLANNING ORGANIZATIONS (MPOS), STATE AND LOCAL
DEPARTMENTS OF TRANSPORTATION (DOTS), TRANSIT AGENCIES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS.

This document can be used by transportation practitioners seeking to understand
how scenario planning can be incorporated into existing transportation planning
processes, and how best to design and apply a scenario planning process tailored
to their planning goals or challenges. It serves as a resource geared towards
agencies and practitioners, including those with limited resources, providing a
scoping framework to help transportation planning practitioners and agencies
design the right type of scenario planning process to overcome common
challenges, address emerging issues, and further build support for
transportation plan implementation.

2017 Review of Statewide Plans

This report synthesizes key findings and trends from the 2017 Statewide
Long-Range Transportation Plan (SLRTP) Database, which represents key
observations identified through a review of all 52 SLRTPs and Statewide
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) published as of December 31, 2016.
The research analyzed SLTRPs and STIPs to provide examples of individual States’
approaches to incorporating important transportation planning topics and trends
into their plans, highlighting planning topics addressed in innovative or
noteworthy ways. The research team found diversity in the approach, content, and
emphasis of SLTRPs, with plans varying by structure, initiatives and goals,
topics addressed, and horizon date. Analyses also revealed consistency among the
SLRTPs. For example, the majority of plans referenced multiple modes and the
overarching policies, goals, or visions guiding decision-making, and many plans
referenced Federal planning factors and financial planning or analysis. This
report is intended to be a technical resource for DOTs, statewide planners, and
their partners to aid in developing and managing planning programs as they
update their SLRTPs by highlight examples of approaches taken by their peers and
providing insights to the content, structure, and approach of SLRTPs nationwide.

This report presents syntheses and observations from a comprehensive assessment
of 52 current SLRTPs from all 50 States, the District of Columbia (D.C.), and
Puerto Rico, identifying examples of how individual States approach important
transportation planning topics in their plans. This report was developed by the
Volpe Center for FHWA’s Office of Planning.

The effort builds on earlier in-depth analyses conducted in 2002, 2005, and 2012
that reviewed SLRTPs to identify national trends and innovative examples of
planning practices. The research team developed this report with a companion
searchable database containing information on all SLRTPs. These products will be
complementary resources for peer DOTs and other interested transportation
organizations and are available at the FHWA and FTA Transportation Planning
Capacity Building (TPCB) website
at www.planning.dot.gov/stateplans/default.aspx along with any future updates to
the report and database.

Federal legislation under the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act
and implementing regulations require that States develop statewide
transportation plans and outline ten factors that States must consider during
transportation planning.[1] However, States have latitude in choosing what to
include in the SLRTP. This research explores the diversity of State approaches
to SLTRPs, including responses to Federal regulations and the unique
transportation needs and priorities of each State. The intent is to provide
insights into continuing and emerging planning trends as reflected in the
SLRTPs. It is important to note that the research was not based on a
comprehensive review of the planning process of each State, including the
development and implementation of each SLRTP. Instead, it was limited to an
in-depth assessment of each SLRTP as one key product of the planning process.
The research team also reviewed all 52 Statewide Transportation Improvement
Program (STIPs) for references to performance-based planning elements from the
SLRTPs and conducted some limited review of related plans referenced in SLRTPs.
To the extent possible, the team also made observations on the planning process
based on evaluation of the SLRTPs.

This research will serve as a technical resource for State DOTs and their
partners, FHWA, and other planners and researchers.

This report includes eight synthesis topics focusing on different SLRTP topics
identified as of national interest by FHWA. Each synthesis assesses overall
trends from the review of all 52 plans and provides examples of how SLRTPs
address each topic. The syntheses cover the following topics:

 1. Plan attributes: focuses on the approaches States took in developing the
    plans, plan update timeframes, and notable planning products.
 2. Systems planning: provides information on plans that emphasize systems
    planning; for example, through reference to multimodalism, intermodalism,
    modal connectivity, and network-focused performance measures. Examples of
    plans that emphasize a modal focus are also provided.
 3. Performance-based planning and programming: explores how plans incorporate
    performance-based elements such as goals, performance measures, and targets,
    into their SLRTPs.
 4. Implementation approaches: explores how plans discuss implementation
    strategies and connections between the plans and States’ transportation
    decision-making processes.
 5. Financial analysis and funding strategies: identifies some examples of how
    SLRTPs discussed financial planning and analysis, including overall trends
    in these discussions and examples of plans that conducted financial scenario
    planning. Describes examples of funding strategies SLRTPs describe to
    address funding shortfalls.
 6. Challenges and trends: provides information on SLRTPs that discuss
    particular challenges and trends impacting the transportation systems, with
    notable examples.
 7. Noteworthy and innovative methods: provides notable examples of SLRTPs that
    use methods, such as GIS, data visualization, and scenario planning, to
    inform and communicate complex planning topics.
 8. Special topics: provides summaries of special long-range transportation
    planning topics with notable examples, including travel and tourism,
    community development, and safety.

The companion database provides an easily searchable resource to explore key
aspects of the 52 SLRTPs in detail. The database includes information on SLRTP
plan type, modes, performance-based planning and programming, and other goals
addressed in the SLRTPs.

The study team concluded that States are taking a number of approaches to
develop SLRTPs. Plans vary widely in terms of their content, structure,
initiatives and goals, and other factors. Additionally, plans are evolving over
time in response to Federal or State transportation planning requirements,
changing needs, and the state-of-the-practice in approaches to transportation
planning topics. For example, SLRTPs have more comprehensive approaches to
performance-based planning and programming than the research team observed when
reviewing SLRTPs in 2012.

Continue to Contents…

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[1] The ten planning factors include economic vitality, safety, security,
accessibility and mobility, environment, multimodal connectivity, system
preservation, resiliency and reliability, and travel and tourism.


TRENDS IN STATEWIDE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANS: CORE AND EMERGING TOPICS IN
2017


TABLE OF CONTENTS

 * Introduction
 * Purpose
 * Background
 * Background
 * Overall Trends in SLRTP Topics
 * 1. Synthesis Topic 1: Plan Attributes
   * 1.1 Plan Type
   * 1.2 Overall Trends Related to Plan Type
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Performance Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Policy Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Corridor Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Needs-Based Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Vision Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Financially Realistic Approach
     * SLRTPs Incorporating a Project Approach
   * 1.3 Plan Update Cycles
   * 1.4 Novel Planning Products
 * 2. Synthesis Topic 2: Systems Planning
   * 2.1 Modes Covered
     * Intercity Passenger Service
     * Ports
     * Connected/Autonomous Vehicles
   * 2.2 Multimodal and Intermodal Systems Planning
 * 3. Synthesis Topic 3: Performance-Based Planning and Programming
   * 3.1 PBPP Elements by Goal Area
     * Performance Targets and Monitoring Plans
   * 3.2 Comprehensive Approaches to PBPP
 * 4. Synthesis Topic 4: Implementation Approaches
   * 4.1 Policy and Practices
     * Changes to Internal Processes
     * New Policy Directions
   * 4.2 Investment Strategies
     * Linking Transportation Investments to Performance-Based Planning
     * Cross-program Allocation of Funds
   * 4.3 Implementation Plans
 * 5. Synthesis Topic 5: Financial Analysis and Funding Strategies
   * 5.1 Projection of Funding Needs
   * 5.2 Funding Strategies
 * 6. Synthesis Topic 6: Challenges and Trends
   * 6.1 Challenges
   * 6.2 Trends
 * 7. Synthesis Topic 7: Noteworthy and Innovative Methods
   * Geographic Information Systems (GIS)
   * Visualization
   * Scenario Planning
 * 8. Synthesis Topic 8: Special Topics
   * 8.1 Travel and Tourism
   * 8.2 Community Development
   * 8.3 Safety
 * 9. Conclusion
   * Directions for Future Study
 * Appendix A: State Long-Range Transportation Plans
 * Appendix B: Synthesis Topics


LIST OF FIGURES

 * Figure 1: Frequency of SLRTPs incorporating plan type approaches (percentages
   are out of 52 SLRTPs) (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 2: Performance Framework from Georgia’s SLRTP (Source: Georgia DOT)
 * Figure 3: Performance Management Dashboard from Georgia’s SLRTP (Source:
   Georgia DOT)
 * Figure 4: Policy Framework from California’s SLRTP (Source: California DOT)
 * Figure 5: Most recent SLRTP publication year by State (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 6: Number of years between SLRTP updates (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 7: Frequency of SLRTP plan horizons (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 8: SLRTPs using novel planning products (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 9: Modes covered in SLRTPs (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 10: SLRTP with PBPP elements, including vision statement, goals,
   objectives, performance measures, and performance targets (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 11: General Model for Evolution of a PBPP Approach (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 12: SLRTPs with goals, performance measures, and targets associated
   with national goals (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 13: SLRTPs with goals, performance measures, and targets associated
   with goals in other than the six national goals in the FAST Act (Source:
   FHWA)
 * Figure 14: Image of Mississippi’s SLRTP performance dashboard related to
   infrastructure condition (Source: Mississippi DOT)
 * Figure 15: Number of STIPs that reference SLRTP goals, performance measures,
   and targets in relation to project selection (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 16: frequency of specific challenges mentioned in SLRTPs (Source:
   FHWA)
 * Figure 17: Emerging trends mentioned in SLRTPs (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 18: Noteworthy and innovative methods mentioned in SLRTPs (Source:
   FHWA)
 * Figure 19: GIS map of forecasted changes in population density from
   Washington D.C.’s SLRTP (Source: District DOT)
 * Figure 20: GIS map of forecasted trip flows from Washington D.C.’s SLRTP
   (Source: District DOT)
 * Figure 21: GIS map of transportation network plan from Washington D.C.’s
   SLRTP (Source: District DOT)
 * Figure 22: Examples of visualization from Mississippi’s SLRTP (Source:
   Mississippi DOT)
 * Figure 23: SLRTPs with Goals related to Community Development (Source: FHWA)
 * Figure 24: Performance-based Plan components of SLRTPs (Source: FHWA)


LIST OF TABLES

 * Table 1: SLRTP elements associated with PBPP
 * Table 2: SLRTPs Comprehensiveness of Approach
 * Table 3: Performance-based plan components in the 2014 and 2017 SLRTP
   analyses
 * Table 4: SLRTPs Included in the 2017 SLRTP Database
 * Table 5: SLRTPs addressing each synthesis topic


INTRODUCTION


PURPOSE

This report presents a synthesis of key findings and trends from the 2017
Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (SLRTP) Database. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) developed
this database to provide an updated scan of the state of the practice for
statewide long-range transportation planning and to inform Performance-Based
Planning: A Report to Congress, due to Congress in October 2017. This database
represents key observations from a review of all 52 SLRTPs and Statewide
Transportation Improvement Programs (STIPs) that were published as of December
31, 2016.[2] The research team reviewed a wide range of topics in the SLRTPs but
limited the analysis of the STIPs to whether they incorporated performance-based
planning elements into project programming.

The purposes of this research are to provide insights into the content,
structure, and approach of SLRTPs nationwide and provide a technical resource
for State DOTs and their planning partners, as well as a resource for FHWA staff
to assist in developing and managing planning programs.

The research team analyzed 52 SLRTPs to identify examples of how individual
States approach important transportation planning topics in their plans and
identify continuing and emerging trends. The research also identified States
whose SLRTPs referenced planning topics in innovative or noteworthy ways. The
review was limited to an assessment of SLRTPs, a limited review of whether STIPs
incorporated performance-based planning elements, and a review of related
documents (e.g., technical appendices or other documents) referenced in the
SLRTPs. This research does not assess or evaluate broader statewide
transportation planning processes or the extent to which these processes meet
Federal planning requirements. However, the team used the reviews of the SLRTPs
to reach some limited observations on the processes used to develop and
implement these plans.


BACKGROUND

Federal regulations require States to conduct continuing, comprehensive, and
collaborative intermodal statewide transportation planning (the “3 C process”)
that facilitates the efficient, economic movement of people and goods in all
areas of the State, including metropolitan areas. These requirements, which are
codified in the United States Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) under Title 23,
Section 135 (f)(1), also require that “each State shall develop a long-range
statewide transportation plan, with a minimum 20-year forecast period for all
areas of the State, that provides for the development and implementation of the
intermodal transportation system of the State.”

State DOTs have latitude in choosing the structure, content, and issues to
include in the SLRTP; however, the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation
(FAST) Act of 2015 outlines ten factors (“planning factors”) that States must
consider during transportation planning, including development of the
SLRTP.[3] All SLRTPs address these factors to some extent, but States take a
wide range of approaches in doing so. Exploring the diverse approaches States
take to respond to the general SLRTP requirement and to FAST Act planning
factors, and adapt to additional statewide priorities, can provide insight into
continuing and emerging planning trends nationwide.

This report provides synthesis, observations, and insights for DOTs and their
planning partners based on a comprehensive assessment of SLRTPs nationwide. The
report is intended to be a resource for DOTs as they develop and update their
SLRTPs based on approaches taken by their peers. It builds from earlier in-depth
analyses conducted by the Volpe Center for FHWA in 2002, 2005, and 2012. The
2002 evaluation reviewed all SLRTPs to identify national trends and innovative
transportation planning practices. The review also produced a database with
detailed information on major characteristics of the SLRTPs. The 2005 analysis
reviewed a subset of recently updated SLRTPs to identify trends and examples of
planning practice in three areas: plan type, multimodal planning, and
incorporation of planning factors from SAFETEA-LU. The 2012 analysis reviewed
all SLRTPs and focused on eight synthesis topics:

 * Plan types;
 * Focus on implementation;
 * Guiding principles, objectives, and strategies;
 * Performance measures;
 * Financial planning and analysis;
 * Systems planning;
 * Livability and sustainability; and
 * Climate change.

This report builds upon the findings from these previous analyses and provides
updated insights. The report includes a synthesis of eight different topics from
the SLRTPs, most of which are related to topics in the previous reports. The
synthesis provides background and context for each topic and details
observations and trends from the overall review of all 52 plans. The syntheses
also provide examples of SLRTPs that address the topic using a noteworthy or
innovative approach.

The synthesis topics in this report are:

 1. Plan attributes: focuses on the approaches States took in developing the
    plans, plan update timeframes, and notable planning products.
 2. Systems planning: provides information on plans that emphasize systems
    planning; for example, through reference to multimodalism, intermodalism,
    modal connectivity, and network-focused performance measures. Examples of
    plans that emphasize a modal focus are also provided.
 3. Performance-based planning and programming: explores how plans incorporate
    performance-based elements such as goals, performance measures, and targets,
    into their SLRTPs.
 4. Implementation approaches: explores how plans discuss implementation
    strategies and connections between the plans and States’ transportation
    decision-making processes.
 5. Financial analysis and funding strategies: identifies some examples of how
    SLRTPs discussed financial planning and analysis, including overall trends
    in these discussions and examples of plans that conducted financial scenario
    planning. Describes examples of funding strategies SLRTPs describe to
    address funding shortfalls.
 6. Challenges and trends: provides information on SLRTPs that discuss
    particular challenges and trends impacting the transportation systems, with
    notable examples.
 7. Noteworthy and innovative methods: provides notable examples of SLRTPs that
    use methods, such as GIS, data visualization, and scenario planning, to
    inform and communicate complex planning topics.
 8. Special topics: provides summaries of special long-range transportation
    planning topics with notable examples, including travel and tourism,
    community development, and safety.


BACKGROUND

In addition to this report, the analysis includes a searchable,
companion database that provides comprehensive information on the 52 SLRTPs
reviewed. The searchable database is organized according to the following
categories:

 * Plan attributes
 * Goals
 * Modes Addressed
 * Financial and Investment Analysis
 * Challenges
 * Trends
 * Performance-based Planning and Programming
 * Innovative Methods
 * Special Topics (travel and tourism, community development, and safety)

FHWA plans to continue to update the database periodically to reflect
availability of new SLRTPs and emerging planning trends.


OVERALL TRENDS IN SLRTP TOPICS

The previous analyses in 2002, 2005, and 2012 analyses found great diversity in
SLRTP approach, content, and emphasis. This analysis led to a similar finding.
Most SLRTPs vary widely in terms of their structure, initiatives and goals,
topics addressed, and other factors. Additionally, SLRTP dates vary greatly. At
the time of the research, the approval or completion date of the plans ranged
from 2006 to 2016. Several States were in the process of updating their SLRTPs.

There were many topics that were consistently addressed in all plans; examples
include the following:

 * Reference to planning factors. Many plans explicitly referenced Federal
   planning factors. Others use these factors as a framework to organize plan
   goals and transportation planning policies.
 * Reference to multiple modes. The majority of plans consider multiple modes
   either by incorporating descriptions of the multimodal transportation system;
   by referencing multimodal goals, recommendations, trends, or challenges; or
   by referencing modal plans that detailed goals, objectives, and needs for
   specific modes.
 * Description of major policies, goals, or visions. The vast majority of plans
   referenced overarching policies, goals, or visions to guide decision-making.
   In many cases, these policies and goals were directly related to FAST Act
   planning factors (e.g., support mobility and accessibility; improve safety).
 * Reference to financial planning or analysis. Although Federal regulations do
   not require SLRTPs to present financial analysis or demonstrate fiscal
   constraint (i.e., revenues balanced against expenses), many States include or
   summarize financial plans in a chapter or appendix or else present
   financially realistic SLRTPs describing a balance between projected revenues
   and capital and operating expenses.

The analysis indicated that plans evolve over time in response to Federal or
State requirements, changing needs, and the transportation planning
state-of-the-practice. For example, this analysis shows an increased use of
performance-based planning and programming, which reflects both increasing state
of the practice by State DOTs and recent requirements in 2012’s Moving Ahead for
Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and 2015’s FAST Act.

Overall, this report provides a resource to identify examples of SLRTPs from
around the country that are addressing planning topics in noteworthy ways. In
offering insights on planning topics and trends from a comprehensive review of
SLRTPs, the report will help statewide planners and their partners to understand
how SLRTPs are evolving nationwide, with examples of approaches taken by peer
DOTs. It will also help these stakeholders to strengthen statewide planning
processes, specifically the SLRTPs that are key products of these processes.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[2] The SLRTPs and STIPs represent all 50 States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto
Rico.

[3] The ten planning factors include economic vitality, safety, security,
accessibility and mobility, environment, multimodal connectivity, system
preservation, resiliency and reliability, and travel and tourism.

6.1 Challenges

In their SLRTPs, State DOTs often discuss long-term or emerging challenges,
their implications for the transportation system, and potential strategies for
addressing them. Five prominent challenges discussed in the SLRTPs include:

 * Revenue shortfalls for transportation;
 * Inflation (increasing the price of construction and operations);
 * Aging infrastructure;
 * Aging populations; and
 * Climate change.

The majority of SLRTPs discuss the challenge of revenue shortfalls (85 percent,
or 44 plans), revealing that most States recognize similar problems of funding
their transportation systems to reach their SLRTPs’ goals. Nearly half of the
SLRTPs (48 percent) discuss the need to provide new transportation options for
aging populations. Figure 16 shows the distribution of challenges mentioned in
SLRTPs. Ninety-two percent (48 plans) discussed at least one of these challenges
in their SLRTPs, with a majority of the plans discussing more than one.

Figure 16: frequency of specific challenges mentioned in SLRTPs (Source: FHWA)

Florida’s SLRTP identifies and discusses several examples of challenges,
including revenue shortfall, an aging population, aging infrastructure, and
climate change. The plan mentions previous trends of reduced revenues; State
transportation revenues reduced significantly during the recession, and Florida
DOT expects revenues to decline in the future due to improved fuel efficiency,
new technologies, and increasing use of transit and non-motorized modes, which
reduce gas tax revenues. The SLRTP suggests that gas tax revenues may not be
viable “as the primary state and federal revenue source for transportation
improvements.” Florida DOT plans to address the challenge of revenue shortfalls
through various methods such as identifying alternative revenue and funding
sources, using updated, accurate financial forecasting, and prioritizing future
transportation investments. Florida’s SLRTP also addresses the challenges
associated with an aging population, stating that “by 2030, 26 percent of
Floridians will be over the age of 65, compared with about 20 percent
nationally.” The plan recognizes the need to “provide reliable transportation
options to meet the unique mobility needs of…older adults.” Florida plans to
engage citizens to ensure the transportation systems in communities are
appropriate for its residents and accommodate users’ mobility needs to address
this challenge.

Florida’s SLRTP addresses the challenge of aging infrastructure, stating “the
excellent condition of state transportation facilities will be increasingly
difficult to maintain over the next 50 years due to increased travel, rising
costs, funding constraints, and aging infrastructure.” The plan notes the
importance of continually monitoring the condition of the State’s transportation
systems, prioritizing infrastructure maintenance needs, and minimizing damage to
existing systems through enforceable regulations to address this challenge.
Lastly, Florida’s SLRTP recognizes the need to “reduce the vulnerability and
increase the resilience of critical infrastructure to the impacts of climate
trends and events” given that “a changing global climate may impact Florida more
than any other state due to its many miles of coastline and its low elevation.”

6.2 Trends

SLRTPs also discuss a variety of trends, including:

 * Technology: the use of engineering or applied sciences for practical purposes
   in transportation;
 * Congestion management: managing congestion through a systematic approach that
   provides up-to-date, accurate information on transportation system
   performance and assesses alternative management strategies that satisfy local
   and state needs;[11]
 * Demand management: improving travel reliability by maximizing effective
   choices provided to travelers;[12]
 * Freight: transportation of goods and cargo by truck, train, aircraft, or
   ship;
 * Asset management: resource allocations and programming decisions aimed at
   providing increased satisfaction for end users and greater system value by
   improving system performance and program effectiveness;[13]
 * Emerging mobility: new uses of the current transportation system, such as
   car-sharing and transportation network companies, that allow users to travel
   in faster or more cost-efficient ways; and
 * Megaregions: a collection of areas and/or geographic locations grouped based
   on mutual interests and similar characteristics.[14]

Half of the plans (26 SLRTPs) mention technology as an emerging trend, which
illustrates States DOTs’ attention to developing intelligent transportation
systems (ITS) and other emerging technologies in the long term horizons of the
plans. While technology the most commonly referenced trend, several SLRTPs
focused on congestion management and demand management. Ten SLRTPs (19 percent)
discussed congestion management, and 9 SLRTPs (17 percent) discussed demand
management. This analysis revealed that 21 SLRTPs (40 percent) discuss one of
these emerging trends, and 17 plans (33 percent) discuss two or more of these
emerging trends in transportation (Figure 17).

Figure 17: Emerging trends mentioned in SLRTPs (Source: FHWA)

Washington D.C.’s SLRTP identifies and discusses several emerging trends,
including technology, demand management, freight, and asset management. This
SLRTP includes recommendations for transportation technology integration
policies. One such recommendation is to “encourage open data to stimulate public
and private collaboration in data exchange and creation of valuable information
for operators and consumers” since “getting data out of systems and having it
available for use in analytical and operational purposes can have tremendous
benefits in terms of delivering more effective and efficient transportation
solutions.” The other technology recommendation is to “support autonomous
vehicle implementation and connected vehicle research, using D.C. as a test bed
for the nation.” This SLRTP addresses freight, emphasizing the importance of
designated, strategic freight routes. The plan also details its approach to
transportation demand management (TDM) throughout, stressing that “the entire
transportation network operates best when supply and demand are managed… TDM
seeks to maximize travel opportunities within the transportation system through
strategic programs, policies, and services.”

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[11] “Congestion Management Process.” Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/focus_areas/cmp.htm. Accessed 13 July
2017.

[12] “Transportation Demand Management.” Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), https://ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/trans_demand.htm. Accessed 13 July
2017.

[13] “Asset Management Overview.” Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/if08008/amo_02.cfm. Accessed 13 July
2017.

[14] “Megaregions.” Federal Highway Administration
(FHWA), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/megaregions/. Accessed 13 July 2017.


SYNTHESIS TOPIC 1: PLAN ATTRIBUTES

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®


1.1 PLAN TYPE

States take many different approaches in developing SLRTPs. These approaches can
generally be organized into seven major types of plans:

 * Performance-based SLRTPs: use quantifiable metrics, targets, or timeframes to
   guide planning, project development, maintenance, and operations decisions.
 * Policy-based SLRTPs: provide strategies to outline general transportation
   directions for the State, address transportation needs, or meet projected
   demands. While all SLRTPs reference policies to some extent, policy-based
   SLRTPs are primarily focused on outlining policy directions and typically do
   not include highly detailed references to elements (e.g., investment
   scenarios, performance measures, specific projects) that are included in
   SLRTPs representing other plan types.
 * Corridor-based SLRTPs: focus on specific transportation corridors (e.g.,
   single modal, multimodal, and intermodal transportation networks within a
   specific geographic area) through description of major corridors, project
   needs, consideration of corridor conditions, or description of potential
   corridor projects.
 * Needs-based SLRTPs: analyze transportation needs for the State by considering
   available or alternative revenue sources or through reference to demographic
   or travel demand projections.
 * Vision-based SLRTPs: identify an ideal future State transportation system,
   often through incorporating public input on a preferred vision.
 * Financially realistic SLRTPs: set long-term directions for the State’s
   transportation system through analysis of projected capital and operating
   costs and revenues of the plan’s time horizon.
 * Project-based SLRTPs: reflect assessment of alternative investments to meet
   the SLRTP’s transportation policies or goals.

It is important to note that plan types are not rigid; most SLRTPs incorporate a
variety of plan types. The categories, which are adapted from the earlier FHWA
SLRTP analyses, are descriptive, and are applied to help DOTs understand the
range of approaches taken by peers. For this report, the research team
considered plan types as broad characterizations that describe the plan’s
primary focus, approach, or orientation and allow better understanding of
general trends in how States chose to develop the plan.


1.2 OVERALL TRENDS RELATED TO PLAN TYPE

Of the 52 SLRTPs reviewed, the majority incorporated a combination of plan types
(see Figure 1). This might be due to the fact that States have significant
latitude in determining what planning approach to take and what content to
include in the SLRTPs, although they must also address several Federally
required elements. States likely choose a variety of approaches when developing
their SLRTPs to better meet States’ complex transportation needs and objectives.

Figure 1 shows the number of plans that apply each plan type. It shows that the
most common plan types are policy-based (52 percent of all plans), vision-based
(40 percent), needs-based (37 percent), and performance-based (35 percent).
Fewer plans include corridor-based (21 percent), financially realistic (15
percent), or project-based (13 percent) approaches.

Figure 1: Frequency of SLRTPs incorporating plan type approaches (percentages
are out of 52 SLRTPs)(Source: FHWA)



Certain combinations of plan types were more common than others, suggesting that
some approaches to developing SLRTPs are complementary. For example, 8 SLRTPs
(15%) include elements of a financially realistic approach. Of these, 5 SLRTPs
also incorporate elements of a needs-based approach. The frequency with which
SLRTPs combine needs-based and financially realistic approaches indicates that
States find it important to assess transportation needs as a means to establish
a long-term financial direction for the State’s transportation system.

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A PERFORMANCE APPROACH

Performance-based SLRTPs incorporate performance measures in a range of ways,
including associating goals with measurable outcomes (e.g., reduction of
injuries for a safety goal), setting targets for improved performance through
project selection criteria, or setting goals for facility maintenance or
operations decisions. A performance-based plan might also describe approaches or
criteria for developing performance measures; it might consider linkages between
performance objectives and overall plan goals or policies.

States reference different types of performance measures. For example,
plan-related performance measures include project delivery timelines or
percentage of projects completed within budget. System-related performance
measures include congestion rates or infrastructure conditions.

Of the 52 SLRTPs reviewed, twelve percent of plans (six plans) were strongly
oriented towards a performance-based approach; but overall, 35 percent of SLRTPs
(18 plans) incorporated some elements of a performance-based approach.

Georgia’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a performance-based
approach. This SLRTP details the steps of the performance-based planning process
including goals and objectives, performance measures, target setting, resource
allocation, and measurement and recording of results. The performance measures
in Georgia’s plan “reflect a discrete set of evaluation criteria used to
evaluate performance tradeoff of potential investment scenarios in context of
long-range goals.” The plan defines specific tangible measures to evaluate
various investment needs. For example, discussion of each element of the highway
program (pavement, bridges, roadway capacity, roadway operations, and safety)
details specific performance measures:

 * Pavement: ratings using the International Roughness Index (IRI)
 * Bridge: percent of bridge deck area rated as Structurally Deficient (SD) or
   Functionally Obsolete (FO)
 * Capacity: roadway Level of Service (LOS) ratings
 * Operations: monetary user benefits resulting from reduced user delay through
   traffic signal coordination, incident response, and ramp metering
 * Safety: number and rate of fatalities as well as property damage crashes and
   injuries of varying levels

Each element of the highway program includes a performance curve demonstrating
performance impacts in the projected year 2040 at various funding levels.

This SLRTP includes a performance framework (Figure 2) that links plan goals to
objectives to performance measures and provides recommendations on funding
allocations based on performance measures and targets. The performance
management dashboard included in this SLRTP (Figure 3) provides the user with an
easy-to-understand guide to the performance measures considered, targets, and
monitoring status.

Figure 2: Performance Framework from Georgia’s SLRTP (Source: Georgia DOT)
Figure 3: Performance Management Dashboard from Georgia’s SLRTP (Source: Georgia
DOT)

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A POLICY APPROACH

Policy-based SLRTPs provide overarching strategies for future directions and
discussion of options for how to proceed. Policy-based SLRTPs might provide
official public policies and priorities for solving problems or meeting
projected demands related to future provision of the statewide transportation
system. Policies could range from improving mobility or accessibility to
enhancing safety or addressing environmental protection. In many cases, the
SLRTP might describe investments, strategies, or programs to accomplish these
policies.

Thirty-nine percent of plans (20 plans) were strongly oriented towards a
policy-based approach; but overall, 52 percent of SLRTPs (27 plans) incorporated
some elements of a policy-based approach. Most SLRTPs developed policies related
to the planning factors in the FAST Act.[4] Some, however, developed policies
focused on other topics, including social equity, energy conservation and
climate change, public health, and partnerships and coordination.

California’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a policy-based approach.
The SLRTP aims to better serve the population of California through effective
communication efforts and identification of shared stakeholder interests.
Focused around the broader contexts of economy, environment, and quality of
life, the policy framework focuses on six core goals:

 * Improve multimodal mobility and accessibility for all people;
 * Preserve the multimodal transportation system;
 * Support a vibrant economy;
 * Improve public safety and security;
 * Foster livable and healthy communities and promote social equity; and
 * Practice environmental stewardship.

The plan details each goal further, including policies and recommendations aimed
at achieving the transportation vision, and has strong considerations for the
future direction of California’s transportation systems (Figure 4). California’s
SLRTP has a large focus on sustainable growth, highlighting efforts and
strategies to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion to better
serve the population.

Figure 4: Policy Framework from California’s SLRTP (Source: California DOT)

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A CORRIDOR APPROACH

Corridor-based SLRTPs are organized around specific transportation corridors
within the State. In some cases, this could be a compilation of major corridors
from regional or district plans incorporated in the SLRTP. Typically, corridors
presented in SLRTPs are multimodal and provide a statewide synthesis of major
corridors and their condition, projected use, and financing. Corridor-based
SLRTPs might also describe analysis methods and results to assign priorities for
corridor improvements or expansion based on factors such as unmet or projected
future demand.

Four percent of plans (2 plans) were strongly oriented towards a corridor
approach. Overall, 21 percent of plans (11 plans) incorporated some elements of
a corridor approach. Of all 11 plans, most focused on multimodal/intermodal
transportation corridors.

Puerto Rico’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a corridor-based
approach. This plan highlights the importance of the multiple transportation
modes in Puerto Rico to the island’s economy. The plan discusses each mode for
trade and travel in detail, including highway systems, public transportation,
bicycle and non-motorized pedestrian facilities, seaports, airports, and
freight. The plan discusses the interdependency of the modes and the importance
of transportation systems on the future of the island and its residents.

The SLRTP elaborates several transportation corridors, especially for highway
systems and public transportation. For example, the SLRTP discusses the
importance of the PR-2/PR-22 Northwest Corridor and considerations for upgrading
the system to increase capacity and operational safety. This corridor serves as
a vital connection for trucking freight between San Juan and the western half of
the island, though improvements are necessary to upgrade expressway standards.
Puerto Rico’s SLRTP addresses intermodal connectivity and discusses necessary
improvements to accommodate the growth of Rafael Hernández International Airport
to support increased tourism and economic development in the west coast.

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A NEEDS-BASED APPROACH

Needs-based SLRTPs analyze the transportation needs forecast for the State by
considering demographic trends and available facilities to select policies,
strategies, and investments to meet those needs. A needs-based SLRTP might
assess the travel needs of the State by measuring current travel patterns for
all modes, anticipating future needs based on demographic forecasts, and
projecting future travel patterns. Current and future performance of the
multi-modal system can be specified in terms of levels of service or other
measures. SLRTPs may also include cost projections and considerations of
available or alternative revenue sources.

Twenty-seven percent of plans (14 plans) are strongly oriented towards a
needs-based approach. Overall 37 percent of plans (19 plans) include elements of
a needs-based approach. In most cases, these SLRTPs use financial scenario
analysis to identify how different investment levels might impact State DOTs’
abilities to address transportation needs.

North Carolina’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a needs-based
approach. The 2040 Plan identifies long-term needs for each mode on a statewide,
regional, and sub-regional basis. The plan details each mode of transportation
to include projected future growth and economic conditions. The plan discusses
the level of service (LOS) for each mode extensively, providing definitions for
each LOS within modes and each mode’s target LOS. The 2040 Plan incorporates
elements of a financially realistic approach by detailing funding necessary to
maintain the current LOS for each mode and to achieve the target LOS, as well as
outlining various potential investment scenarios and revenue sources.
Additionally, this plan discusses three recommendations to achieve the described
improvements and changes: embrace ongoing major policy and process initiatives;
pursue focused, strategic investment priorities; and pursue policy, process, and
program changes to implement the SLRTP.

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A VISION APPROACH

Vision-based SLRTPs identify an ideal or preferred future State transportation
system, considering such questions as: “what should the State’s future be and
what transportation system is required to support this vision?” SLRTPs
incorporating this type of approach might offer visions for economic
development, land use, quality of life, environmental protection, or other
concerns. These types of plans might also involve active stakeholder and public
participation to identify and select alternative scenarios, perhaps contrasting
system performance with costs or identifying new revenue sources. One scenario
can be selected as an agreed-upon “vision.” Vision-based plans can function to
secure public and political support for the selected vision. A vision-based plan
might also include needs-based or financially realistic approaches to contrast
choices, costs, and performance results of alternatives.

Twelve percent of SLRTPs (6 plans) are strongly oriented towards a vision
approach. Overall, 40 percent of SLRTPs (21 plans) include elements of a
vision-based plan type. Many of these SLRTPs include vision statements that
frame subsequent policies, guidelines, or action steps. Others summarized
citizens’ preferences for paths forward. Many of the vision plans rely on
extensive public involvement to articulate elements of the vision, including
strategies to obtain public feedback such as scenario planning exercises, focus
groups, workshops, and surveys.

Louisiana’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a vision-based approach.
Louisiana DOT engaged stakeholders throughout the development of the SLRTP and
utilized a variety of methods to understand the State’s transportation needs.
These included a legislative questionnaire, public telephone surveys, the plan
website, policy committee meetings and advisory council meetings, executive
staff interviews, visioning sessions and workshops, and tribal consultation.
These outreach activities solicited feedback from a variety of transportation
stakeholders at state, regional, and local levels, and ensured that the
developed SLRTP would incorporate the needs of individuals living, working,
doing business, and visiting the state. Louisiana DOT then held a visioning
workshop with a range of stakeholders to “discuss future demographic trends,
challenges, and possible growth scenarios, and to assess what the transportation
system should look like to realize those possible futures.” Feedback received
from the various public engagement activities aided in the development of the
SLRTP vision, goals, objectives, and performance measures. This SLRTP also
incorporated needs-based approaches in addition to the vision-based approach,
identifying many needs of the State as well as four different funding scenarios
detailing how the needs can be met.

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A FINANCIALLY REALISTIC APPROACH

SLRTPs incorporating a financially realistic approach set long-term directions
for the State’s transportation system based on policies, goals, investments, and
strategies, and match them to projections of associated capital and operating
costs. These costs are then typically adapted to reasonably available revenues.
Often, a financially realistic plan discusses risks and probabilities of
projected costs and revenues, attempting to balance both.

Four percent of SLRTPs (2 plans) are strongly oriented towards a financially
realistic approach. Overall, 15 percent of SLRTPs (8 plans) incorporate elements
of this approach. Many of these types of SLRTPs use revenue scenarios as methods
to compare and contrast financial alternatives. Other SLRTPs include extensive
discussions on funding, financing, or revenue alternatives. A few States
incorporate a financial focus throughout the plan, using financial alternatives
as a framework for developing guidelines, policies, or action steps.

Iowa’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a financially realistic
approach, as a large portion of the plan discusses the anticipated shortfalls
between future costs and revenues, and implications to the future of the state.
The plan estimates costs and revenues for each mode, including aviation, bicycle
and pedestrian, highway, public transit, and rail, with figures highlighting the
funding shortfalls for each mode. The plan also discusses the various
consequences for the shortfall for each mode, conveying potential negative or
disruptive impacts to the future transportation system in the state.

Since “current revenues are not adequate to maintain and improve Iowa’s
multimodal transportation system now and into the future,” the SLRTP identifies
potential options for moving forward. In the SLRTP’s implementation plan, Iowa
DOT includes three steps to address the funding shortfall:

 * finding additional financial revenue sources, with recommendations and
   suggestions included;
 * programming future investments by developing Iowa’s Five-Year Transportation
   Improvement Plan; and
 * continuous performance monitoring to determine how the transportation system
   is performing compared to stated expectations and goals for measurements of
   safety, efficiency, and quality of life for each mode.

SLRTPS INCORPORATING A PROJECT APPROACH

Project-based SLRTPs develop and select specific projects to be undertaken over
a long-term planning horizon to meet the SLRTP’s transportation policies or
goals. Projects might be grouped by mode or category (e.g., bicycle/pedestrian,
freight, port access).

Four percent of SLRTPs (two plans) are strongly oriented towards a project
approach. Overall, 14 percent of SLRTPs (seven plans) incorporate a project
approach. Most SLRTPs closely tie their project focus to financially realistic
elements. Most project-based SLRTPs also focus on highway needs and projects
rather than multimodal projects.

Rhode Island’s SLRTP offers an example for incorporating a project-based
approach. Part Three of the plan, Transportation Financing, covers several
projects and funding sources available over the long term. For example, the plan
discusses five large highway program projects, including the I-195 Relocation,
Route 403 Extension, Freight Rail (FRIP), Sakonnet Bridge, and Washington Bridge
projects, and the approval for funding through Grant Anticipation Revenue
Vehicle (GARVEE) bonds, which “enabled the State to implement five projects
critical to rebuilding the infrastructure of Rhode Island, fostering economic
development and improving our quality of life.” The plan also discusses several
transit projects, including bus and bus related transit, fixed guideways for
streetcars and rail, and future rail projects needed to meet future commuter
rail service demands for Pawtucket, Kingston, Westerly, Cranston, East
Greenwich, and West Davisville.


1.3 PLAN UPDATE CYCLES

The 52 SLRTPs reviewed were published between 2006 and 2016, with the majority
of plans (79 percent, 41 plans) published in or after 2010. Figure 5 shows the
distribution of plan publication years. The average and median age of the SLRTPs
is four years.

Figure 5: Most recent SLRTP publication year by State (Source: FHWA)

To understand the frequency of updates, the research team was able to locate the
previously published plans for 39 SLRTPs. Of these 39 plans, the maximum number
of years between plans is 15 years, and the average number of years between
plans is 6.8 years. The most common number of years between updates is five
years (26 percent, or 10 plans). Figure 6 shows the distribution of the years
between plan updates.

Figure 6: Number of years between SLRTP updates (Source: FHWA)

Figure 7 shows the distribution of plan horizons. Over 60 percent of SLRTPs fell
within a planning horizon of 20 to 24 years, and 31 percent fell within a
planning horizon of 25 to 29 years.

Figure 7: Frequency of SLRTP plan horizons (Source: FHWA)


1.4 NOVEL PLANNING PRODUCTS

SLRTPs use various techniques to communicate SLRTPs to different audiences,
including use of plain language, foreign language translations, videos,
interactive content, and a performance dashboard/table. Of the 52 SLRTPs
reviewed, 64 percent (33 plans) utilize at least one novel planning product
(Figure 8).

Figure 8: SLRTPs using novel planning products (Source: FHWA)

Nineteen percent of SLRTPs (10 plans) include the use of plain language. For
example, the SLRTPs for Iowa, Louisiana, Ohio, Tennessee, Utah, and Washington
all contain a summary version that provides an easy-to-understand synopsis of
the plan, and Virginia’s SLRTPhas a public facing version that includes more
visuals.

Ten percent of SLRTPs (5 plans) provide foreign language translation. For
example, Massachusetts’s SLRTP includes fact sheets available in English,
Portuguese, Russian, Spanish, Vietnamese, Haitian Creole, and Chinese.
Additionally, Puerto Rico’s SLRTP is available in both English and Spanish, and
the thirty-page executive summary in Wisconsin’s SLRTP is available in both
English and Spanish.

Fourteen percent of SLRTPs (7 plans) include videos. For example, the SLRTPs
for Kentucky, Michigan, and Missouri provide videos explaining the need for a
transportation vision and planning.

Twelve percent of SLRTPs (6 plans) include interactive content. For example, New
Jersey’s SLRTP includes links throughout the plan to provide more information or
to direct users to more detailed studies. Other state SLRTP websites provide
interactive content, such as Alabama’s, which has an interactive site where
users can learn more about different modes, and Tennessee’s, which provides an
overview of the long-range planning efforts and suggestions on ways to be
involved.

Forty percent of SLRTPs (21 plans) include a performance dashboard or table. For
example, the SLRTPs for both Nebraska and Texasinclude a clear, easy-to-read
performance table. Some state SLRTPs also discuss the progress towards or status
of various performance measures and targets,
including Florida, Georgia, Michigan, Wyoming.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[4] 23 U.S.C 135 (d).


SHARE THIS:

 * 
 * 
 * Share
 * 
 * Save
 * Print
 * 


LIKE THIS:

Like Loading...
Search

RECENT POSTS

 * Do trees really communicate and cooperate through a fungal web? Not everyone
   is convinced
 * ‘True crime’ makes entertainment of tragedy
 * Exploring the big myth of free-market neoliberalism
 * Fracking Wastewater Causes Lasting Harm to Key Freshwater Species. Chevron
   talks about being “a water company that skims oil.”
 * Farmers of color urge Congress to fund land access

CATEGORIES

 * 1.5C and 2C limits (343)
 * 100% Renewable Energy (473)
 * Access (10)
 * Accountability (45)
 * Adaptation (84)
 * Affordable Housing (124)
 * Africa (15)
 * Agriculture (168)
 * AI: Artificial Intelligence (8)
 * Air Pollution and Health (378)
 * Aviation (42)
 * AVs – Autonomous Vehicles (114)
 * Banks (43)
 * Bans (27)
 * Behavioral Change (9)
 * Bikes (185)
 * Bills/legislation (9)
 * Biodiversity (11)
 * Biofuel (2)
 * Blockchain (2)
 * Book highlights (33)
 * Business (189)
 * Capitalism (142)
 * Car sharing (73)
 * Carbon budget (25)
 * Charging (49)
 * Children (56)
 * China (7)
 * Cities (505)
 * Civil Disobedience (58)
 * Clean Energy (598)
 * Climate Now (274)
 * Climate science – latest (113)
 * Coal (172)
 * Colorado (173)
 * Commons (98)
 * Communication (259)
 * Community building (47)
 * Conservatives (35)
 * Cooperatives, Cooperation, and Sharing (88)
 * Corruption (25)
 * Cost Benefit Analysis or Accounting (CBA) (145)
 * Curb space/management (9)
 * Data (103)
 * Debt (36)
 * Decolonization (20)
 * Democracy (155)
 * Density (23)
 * Design (50)
 * Development and housing (101)
 * Direct Action (10)
 * Distributed renewables (DRE) (36)
 * Drawdown (151)
 * Drought (20)
 * Economics (170)
 * Education (86)
 * Efficiency (178)
 * EJ – Environmental Justice (70)
 * Elections (11)
 * Electric vehicles (EVs) (497)
 * Electrify Everything (85)
 * Emergency declaration (16)
 * Energy Democracy (36)
 * Energy4all (36)
 * Environment (54)
 * Equity (4)
 * Ethics (94)
 * Extractive economy (193)
 * False Solutions (9)
 * Fascism (7)
 * Financing (169)
 * Fleets (34)
 * Flooding (45)
 * Food and Agriculture (99)
 * Fossil fuels (297)
 * Fracking (71)
 * Freight (37)
 * Gender (2)
 * Geothermal (4)
 * Governance (91)
 * Green Building (219)
 * Green New Deal (210)
 * Grid (198)
 * Health (280)
 * Heat (100)
 * History (114)
 * Housing/Homelessness (67)
 * Human Geography (5)
 * Hydroelectric (1)
 * Hydrogen (6)
 * Immigration (24)
 * Impacts (312)
 * Incarceration/Prisons (15)
 * Indigenous – Original Nations & Peoples (146)
 * Inequality (399)
 * Infrastructure (171)
 * Innovation (20)
 * Internet/wifi (74)
 * Jobs/employment (215)
 * Justice (417)
 * Labor (129)
 * Land (119)
 * LandBack (4)
 * Leadership (44)
 * Legislation (37)
 * Liability (122)
 * Life (69)
 * Local self reliance (9)
 * Lyft (2)
 * M4All (15)
 * Management (31)
 * Manufacturing (27)
 * Metrics (17)
 * Microgrids (64)
 * Micromobility (14)
 * Mobility on Demand (1)
 * Mobility on Demand/MaaS/TaaS (29)
 * Monetary policy (20)
 * Monopolies (or open markets) (38)
 * Nature (44)
 * Negative Emissions (3)
 * Neoliberalism (42)
 * New Tech (57)
 * News (1,024)
 * Oceans (24)
 * Offsets (3)
 * Organizing (142)
 * Ownership (36)
 * P2P (12)
 * Parking (41)
 * People first (95)
 * Performance Measurement (6)
 * Philosophy (43)
 * Planning (85)
 * Platforms (23)
 * Police (41)
 * policy (247)
 * Pollution (87)
 * Poverty (75)
 * Pricing (correct) (43)
 * Psychology (142)
 * Public banking (40)
 * Public ownership (77)
 * PUC (2)
 * Race (221)
 * Rapid transition (23)
 * Recovery (55)
 * Regenerative Future (49)
 * Regulation (19)
 * Religion (37)
 * Remote Work/Teleworking (1)
 * Reparations (30)
 * Resilience (56)
 * Rights of Nature (28)
 * Road pricing (8)
 * Rural (44)
 * Safety (83)
 * Sea level rise (47)
 * Shared mobility (31)
 * Socialism (114)
 * Soil (41)
 * Solar (262)
 * State DOTs (39)
 * State level policy (59)
 * Stimulus – public investment (44)
 * Storage (160)
 * Story (12)
 * Streets and Public Space (101)
 * System change (299)
 * Taxes (183)
 * TDM – Transport Demand Management (45)
 * TNCs (66)
 * Training (18)
 * Transit (224)
 * Transition (329)
 * Transport(ation) (755)
 * Trees (56)
 * Uber (12)
 * Universal Basic Income (38)
 * US political reform (330)
 * Utilities (417)
 * Violence (38)
 * VMT (11)
 * Voting (82)
 * Walking (93)
 * War & Peace (56)
 * Waste (33)
 * Water (105)
 * Well-being (76)
 * White Supremacy (3)
 * Wind (61)
 * Women (4)
 * Youth (21)

RECENT COMMENTS

ARCHIVES

 * February 2023 (15)
 * January 2023 (3)
 * December 2022 (10)
 * November 2022 (2)
 * October 2022 (4)
 * September 2022 (3)
 * August 2022 (1)
 * June 2022 (4)
 * May 2022 (3)
 * April 2022 (3)
 * March 2022 (10)
 * February 2022 (7)
 * January 2022 (15)
 * December 2021 (6)
 * November 2021 (8)
 * October 2021 (6)
 * September 2021 (18)
 * August 2021 (42)
 * July 2021 (26)
 * June 2021 (110)
 * May 2021 (33)
 * April 2021 (44)
 * March 2021 (127)
 * February 2021 (104)
 * January 2021 (181)
 * December 2020 (114)
 * November 2020 (134)
 * October 2020 (121)
 * September 2020 (39)
 * August 2020 (96)
 * July 2020 (152)
 * June 2020 (196)
 * May 2020 (42)
 * April 2020 (45)
 * March 2020 (81)
 * February 2020 (134)
 * January 2020 (20)
 * December 2019 (64)
 * November 2019 (70)
 * October 2019 (72)
 * September 2019 (139)
 * August 2019 (175)
 * July 2019 (207)
 * June 2019 (176)
 * May 2019 (325)
 * April 2019 (123)
 * March 2019 (167)
 * February 2019 (276)
 * January 2019 (144)
 * December 2018 (37)
 * November 2018 (47)
 * October 2018 (30)
 * September 2018 (86)
 * August 2018 (136)
 * July 2018 (85)
 * June 2018 (61)
 * May 2018 (46)
 * April 2018 (102)
 * March 2018 (96)
 * February 2018 (162)
 * January 2018 (154)
 * December 2017 (115)
 * November 2017 (110)
 * October 2017 (182)
 * September 2017 (227)
 * August 2017 (145)
 * July 2017 (131)
 * June 2017 (141)
 * May 2017 (118)
 * April 2017 (44)
 * March 2017 (82)
 * February 2017 (53)
 * January 2017 (66)
 * December 2016 (133)
 * November 2016 (63)
 * October 2016 (22)
 * September 2016 (21)
 * August 2016 (153)
 * July 2016 (20)
 * June 2016 (36)
 * May 2016 (22)
 * April 2016 (45)
 * March 2016 (55)
 * February 2016 (39)
 * January 2016 (54)
 * December 2015 (12)
 * November 2015 (15)
 * October 2015 (10)
 * September 2015 (19)
 * August 2015 (13)
 * July 2015 (10)

META

 * Log in
 * Entries feed
 * Comments feed
 * WordPress.org

 * About




Toggle the Widgetbar

%d bloggers like this: