Project Planning and Programming
While transportation planning and implementation processes differ significantly from state to state, they all focus on developing increased capacity and efficiency in the transportation system. They do this by developing long-range transportation plans (LRTP), transportation improvement program plans (TIP), unified planning work programs (UPWP), and in some cases congestion management system (CMS) plans.
Transportation management and operations (M&O) processes are increasingly important to the planning professional. Metropolitan areas account for 75% of the nation’s population and 83% of its economic output. They are centers for social as well as economic activity and are the hubs of the national transportation system. In addition, they are portals for people and freight moving between the United States and other countries. To meet the challenge of continued social mobility, the planning community will need to take an active role in the development and implementation of transportation system M&O strategies.
The complexity of our transportation systems and the impact of congestion on our nation will necessitate input from planners during the project development process in order to better assess and manage work zone impacts. The following are some example roles for planners:
- Using analytical traffic models to assess the system-wide impacts of specific project requirements.
- Evaluating programming estimates to ensure that the proper level of funding is included to mitigate traffic congestion and improve safety through work zones.
- Providing the critical “bridge” of knowledge between the planning world and the design world to reduce the impacts of work zones on the traveling public.
Figure 3 shows the average rating by question for 2005 and 2006 for the Project Planning and Programming section. Table 6 shows the actual values along with the percent change in average rating from 2005 to 2006 for each question. The average ratings increased for four of the six questions, with a slight decrease in the rating for two questions. While the national average score for the question regarding the use of analytical modeling tools remained significantly lower than the other questions, this item showed the largest increase (12%) of any of the planning and programming questions.
Figure 3. Results for Project Planning and Programming Section
| Section | 2006 | 2005 | Change | % Change |
|---|---|---|---|---|
4.2.1 |
6.0 |
5.4 |
0.6 |
12% |
4.2.2 |
6.7 |
6.5 |
0.2 |
3% |
4.2.3 |
7.5 |
7.4 |
0.1 |
1% |
4.2.4 |
6.8 |
6.9 |
-0.1 |
-2% |
4.2.5 |
7.3 |
7.1 |
0.2 |
3% |
4.2.6 |
7.3 |
7.6 |
-0.3 |
-4% |
4.2.1 Does the agency’s planning process actively use analytical traffic modeling programs to determine the impact of future type I and II road construction and maintenance activities on network performance? About half of the agencies (54%) actively use analytical traffic modeling programs to determine the impact of future type I and II project activities. The average rating for this question in 2006 increased by 12% due the increase in rating by 15 agencies, with especially strong increases shown by 5 of these agencies. No agency ratings decreased for this question. One agency cited use of travel demand models to predict future traffic in combination with use of microscopic traffic models to estimate the impacts from a traffic control plan. Another agency said that the models are used mainly in the preliminary design stage to predict performance of the work zone in the areas of travel time, delay, and queue length. Several agencies noted use of modeling on a project by project basis and for the localized project area as opposed to the system-wide level.
4.2.2 Does the agency’s planning process include developing alternative network options (e.g., frontage roads, increased capacity on parallel arterials, beltways, or strategically placed connectors) to maintain traffic volumes caused by future road construction and maintenance? Fifty-four percent of the agencies reported using tools to determine alternate network options for traffic volumes that could be delayed due to road construction. One agency said that they improve alternate routes to accommodate additional traffic volume during mainline construction. One agency noted consideration of these strategies during design but that use is limited due to a low number of parallel routes and frontage roads.
4.2.3 Does the agency’s planning process manage the transportation improvement program to eliminate network congestion caused by poorly prioritized and uncoordinated execution of projects? Thirty states (60%) indicated they make efforts during the planning process to manage the transportation improvement program to eliminate network congestion caused by poorly prioritized and uncoordinated execution of projects. One agency noted that, during the planning process, input from various disciplines on network performance overall is considered. One agency cited the use of enhanced coordination practices across agencies (e.g., state DOT and local MPO). In some cases, to address potential network congestion from a new development, a developer may pay impact fees for roadway improvements (e.g., an interchange to provide access to the interstate from the development). One agency noted use of a systems management process, especially in major metropolitan areas, where officials from state, city, and county transportation departments meet regularly to plan and coordinate construction activity system wide so that an optimum level of safety and mobility is maintained.
4.2.4 Does the agency’s transportation planning process include a planning cost estimate review for work types I, II, and III that accounts for traffic management costs (e.g., incident management, public information campaigns, positive separation elements, uniformed law enforcement, and intelligent transportation systems [ITS])? Twenty-five states (50%) have a process for estimating traffic management costs during the transportation planning process. Some agencies do this on Type I and II projects, but not on Type III projects. One agency cited a recent process review that incorporated traffic management costs and public information campaign costs in the process. Another agency noted that funds are budgeted in the preliminary engineering stage for use of law enforcement personnel during construction. One agency cited a recent FHWA process review on estimating procedures and identified it as an area for improvement. Some agencies noted use of cost estimate reviews during the design stage.
4.2.5 Does the agency’s transportation planning process include the active involvement of planners during the project design stage to assist in the development of congestion mitigation strategies for type I and II projects? Planners assist in developing congestion mitigation strategies in 62% of reporting agencies. Strategies can be developed from the early design phase, with designers, field personnel, and other partners working with planners. One agency noted that planners routinely analyze networks to ensure adequate levels of service during construction and also propose mitigation strategies that can be incorporated into the design. Agencies also involve local planners (MPO representatives) in the process for state projects.
4.2.6 Does the agency’s transportation planning process engage planners as part of a multidisciplinary/multi-agency team in the development of Transportation Management Plans involving major corridor improvements? In 56% of the responding agencies, the transportation planning process engages planners as a part of a team in the development of Transportation Management Plans. Planners and designers often meet during the development of the TMP. One agency stated that no specific policy exists, but that Origin/Destination studies, travel surveys, and access management considerations are part of the TMP.
previous | next
