Factors that Support the Planning-Programming Linkage (2007)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

TRANSPORTAT ION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2007 www.TRB.org N A T I O N A L C O O P E R A T I V E H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M NCHRP REPORT 591 Subject Areas Planning, Administration, and Environment • Public Transit Factors that Support the Planning-Programming Linkage CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC. Bethesda, MD W I T H HDR, INC. Anchorage, AK Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration

NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective approach to the solution of many problems facing highway administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of Transportation. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board’s recognized objectivity and understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in a position to use them. The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America NCHRP REPORT 591 Project 8-50 ISSN 0077-5614 ISBN 978-0-309-09901-1 Library of Congress Control Number 2007935688 © 2007 Transportation Research Board COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. NOTICE The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval reflects the Governing Board’s judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report.

CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 591 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Ronald D. McCready, Senior Program Officer Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Editor Beth Hatch, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 8-50 PANEL Field of Transportation Planning—Area of Forecasting Jay Klagge, University of Phoenix, Phoenix, AZ (Chair) Michael S. Bruff, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh, NC Michael W. Hancock, Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, Frankfort, KY Rosemary Ingram, Kansas DOT, Topeka, KS Donna M. Lewis, Mercer County (NJ), Trenton, NJ Matthew T. Selhorst, Tetra Tech, Columbus, OH Rick Smith, Washington State DOT, Seattle, WA Thomas TenEyck, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg, PA Danyell Diggs, FHWA Liaison Kimberly M. Fisher, TRB Liaison C O O P E R A T I V E R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M S

This report contains a list of 39 factors that influence the linkage between programming and long-range plans. This list was developed from recent literature and extensive interviews with agency staff and other experts in the field. While the discussion of the critical factors is helpful, the report takes this topic one step further by providing suggested paths for improv- ing the linkage between planning and programming. This report should be of significant use to transportation planners, project programmers, and the leadership in transportation agencies. It is generally acknowledged that a stronger link should exist between planning and pro- gramming of transportation projects to ensure that long-range transportation plans direct the selection of the projects that are included in priority programs. In reality, there are nearly as many forms of linkage between planning and programming as there are states. Without strong planning-programming links, the results of statewide and regional plans can fail to be properly reflected in priority programs, thereby jeopardizing the ability to ensure timely progress in implementing those plans. This research is based on the hypoth- esis that organizational and other factors can contribute to a strong connection between the outcomes of long-range plans and the projects that are included in priority programs, thereby ensuring progress in implementing those plans. The objective of this research was to develop a guidebook to explore the factors that influ- ence the connection between planning and programming. Under NCHRP Project 8-50, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., with the assistance of HDR, Inc., identified 39 factors. The factors (both positive and negative) were ranked by their effect on the linkage and their existence in real practice was gauged. The final objective of this research was to provide guidance on the steps that transportation agencies can take to strengthen the linkage between planning and programming. Transportation planners, project programmers, and the leadership in transportation agencies will find this report of significant use. As these transportation professionals struggle to be good stewards of growing transportation systems with limited funding, the report will provide methods and tools to improve the connection between planning and programming. F O R E W O R D By Kimberly M. Fisher Staff Officer Transportation Research Board

C O N T E N T S 1 Summary 8 Section 1 Introduction 8 1.1 Project Description 8 1.2 Project Purpose 8 1.3 Approach 9 1.4 Organization of the Report 10 Section 2 Context: “Assuming” the Link 10 2.1 What Constitutes Linkage? 11 2.2 Linkage in the Traditional Planning Literature 14 Section 3 Identifying Factors that Support the Planning-Programming Linkage 14 3.1 Views from Practicing Experts 14 3.2 Summary of Survey Results 15 3.2.1 State DOT Responses 21 3.2.2 MPO and RPA Responses 24 3.2.3 Ranking the Importance of Individual Linkage Factors 29 Section 4 Overview of Planning-Programming Linkage in Selected Agencies 29 4.1 Overview of Selected State Planning and Programming Processes 29 4.1.1 Colorado Department of Transportation and Denver Regional Council of Governments 31 4.1.2 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet 33 4.1.3 Minnesota Department of Transportation and Metropolitan Council 35 4.1.4 Missouri Department of Transportation 37 4.1.5 Oregon Department of Transportation 39 4.1.6 Vermont Agency of Transportation 40 4.2 Addressing the Key Linkage Factors 40 4.2.1 Structure and Content of Plans and Programs 49 4.2.2 Communications 50 4.2.3 Leadership 51 4.2.4 Organizational Structure 51 4.2.5 Organizational Culture 51 4.2.6 External Influences 51 4.2.7 Stronger Data/Analytics 52 4.3 Actions in Other States 52 4.3.1 Policy-Oriented, Performance-Based Plans 53 4.3.2 Investment Categories 54 4.3.3 Fund Allocation

55 4.3.4 Systems of Statewide Significance 55 4.3.5 Corridor-Based Planning and Programming 55 4.3.6 Decentralized Responsibilities and Communications 56 4.3.7 Intermediate-Range Plan Documents 57 Section 5 Conclusions and Major Themes 57 5.1 Initial Hypotheses 58 5.2 Conclusions 58 5.2.1 General Themes 59 5.2.2 Plan and Program Content 59 5.2.3 Technical Aspects 60 5.2.4 Organizational and Institutional Aspects 61 5.3 TRB Committee Member Observations 62 Section 6 A Guide to Strengthening the Planning-Programming Linkage 62 6.1 The “Head Start” Agenda 62 6.2 The “Upward Bound” Agenda 63 6.3 A Central Focus for Strengthening the Planning-Programming Linkage 63 6.3.1 Performance Measurement and Applications 64 6.3.2 Communications 65 6.3.3 Leadership 65 6.4 How to Proceed: A Guide to Strengthening the Planning-Programming Linkage 65 6.4.1 Self-Assessment 65 6.4.2 Development of a Strategy and Actions to Strengthen Key Aspects and Factors 65 6.4.3 An Implementation Plan 66 References A-1 Appendix A Expert Interviewees B-1 Appendix B Survey Instruments C-1 Appendix C Detailed Survey Results D-1 Appendix D Agency Interview Highlights E-1 Appendix E Additional Selected References