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.

81.1 Project Description NCHRP Project 8-50, “Factors that Support the Planning- Programming Linkage,” identified factors that enhance (or detract from) the linkage between long-range (statewide) transportation plans (LRTPs and SWTPs) and the shorter- term STIPs and metropolitan TIPs that establish priorities and timetables for actual project-level investments. The project was undertaken with several initial assump- tions or hypotheses in mind: • It is desirable (and required in Federal Joint Planning Regulations) that long-range plans, both statewide and regional in scale, directly influence the programming of projects for implementation; • Absent a strong link between long-range planning and pro- gramming, progress in implementing long-range plans and meeting established plan goals will be slowed or jeopardized; • If, in fact, long-range plans have little impact on project selection, it is fair to question the purpose of long-range plans beyond the need to satisfy federal requirements and public-relations needs; • Many factors affect the degree of linkage between plans and programs; and • Organizational and related factors play a significant role in the strength and effectiveness of planning-programming linkage. Conclusions regarding these hypotheses are presented in Section 5. 1.2 Project Purpose The purpose of NCHRP Project 8-50 was to: • Describe those factors that appear to be central to a strong, effective linkage between plans and programs, and those factors that threaten the linkage; • Gauge which factors are considered to be most important (or damaging) in the opinion of practicing planners and program managers; • Gauge how widely key factors exist in current state and regional planning and programming processes; and • From this assessment, provide guidance on steps that might be taken to strengthen supportive factors and mini- mize those that may weaken the planning-programming linkage. 1.3 Approach The project proceeded through two phases. In Phase I, the research team developed a comprehensive typology of factors that may influence, positively or negatively, the linkage between programming and long-range plans. This typology was developed through three activities undertaken in parallel: • A number of experts in the field were consulted, including practicing state and local planners and programming man- agers as well as nationally known observers, analysts, and researchers. In addition, each member of the NCHRP Project 8-50 panel was interviewed. All were asked to iden- tify factors they believe to be most important in establish- ing and maintaining a strong planning-programming linkage. Their thoughts and ideas were synthesized as a starting point for the project. • Recent literature on planning, programming, and priority- setting practices was reviewed to further expand perspectives on what factors are important in creating a strong linkage. • Surveys were attempted with state DOTs as well as selected MPOs, regional planning agencies (RPAs), and transit authorities to gather information on specific aspects and the dynamics of planning-programming linkages at the state and regional levels. The result of these activities provided an initial critical review of current practice and perspectives that was used as S E C T I O N 1 Introduction

9the basis for the more detailed, in-depth interviews of indi- vidual agencies undertaken in Phase II of the project. In Phase II, candidate agencies were selected for in-depth interviews on their planning and programming processes. While the focus was on state DOT processes and proce- dures, representatives of associated MPO staff members were interviewed in several cases. Six state DOTs—Colorado, Kentucky, Minnesota, Mis- souri, Oregon, and Vermont—were the subject of detailed interviews carried out largely in the early months of 2006. These states were selected based on familiarity with their planning and programming processes and preliminary dis- cussions with agency staff around several broad criteria, in- cluding: • Population and developmental character of the state; • Geopolitical boundaries, i.e., number and sizes of urban areas; • Governance traditions in DOT and MPO relationships; • Relative level of sophistication in technical planning and related processes; • Preliminary understanding of existing or emerging plan- program linkage; • Preliminary understanding of how technical versus politi- cally based factors entered into planning and program- ming processes; and • General agency capacity to manage and carry out planning and programming activities. Part of the intent in selecting candidate states was to engage some that are generally considered to be on the cutting edge with respect to planning and programming processes and procedures, and some that may be behind the curve by their own admission. Detailed documentation of the interviews was compiled and summaries prepared for comparison and analysis by the research team. To broaden the project, the research team expanded the assembly of information on planning and programming processes beyond the six state DOTs inter- viewed to include brief observations on the activities and initiatives under way in a number of other states with respect to the factors identified earlier in the study. 1.4 Organization of the Report This report provides findings and conclusions from both phases of NCHRP Project 8-50. It serves as a point of depar- ture for both state DOTs and MPOs seeking ways to strengthen the link between long-range planning, project- level prioritization, programming, and resource allocation. Findings and conclusions of the project are presented in the following sections: • Section 2 reviews the federal impetus for establishing and maintaining the link between long-range plans and pro- grams and provides a preliminary definition of linkage and how it might be measured. • Section 3 presents the factors that emerged from the study as important to establishing and maintaining a strong link between long-range plans and programs. It summarizes survey responses in terms of factors considered most important, those most in evidence, and those least in evidence in current agency processes. • Section 4 summarizes the conclusions drawn from the detailed interviews of the six state DOTs and associated stakeholder organizations and also briefly describes actions and initiatives in other states that parallel the activities noted in the interviews. • Section 5 presents the results of the project in terms of emerging themes in the planning-programming continuum as well as a summary of reactions to these emerging themes taken from presentations before the TRB Committee on Statewide Multimodal Transportation Planning (ADA10) and the TRB Committee on Transportation Programming, Planning, and Systems Evaluation (ADA50) at the TRB 2006 Joint Summer Meeting held July 9 through July 11, in San Diego, California. • Section 6 contains recommendations and guidance on steps that might be taken to strengthen those factors that enhance the linkage of long-range plans and programs as well as steps to minimize the impact of conditions that may weaken the linkage. • Appendixes list expert interviewees (A), present the survey instruments (B), provide detailed survey results (C), in- corporate agency interview highlights (D) and provide se- lected references (E).