Lewis Grimm, of the Federal Lands Highway Eastern Division of the Federal Highway Administration, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.
AWS Community Day CPH - Three problems of Terraform
Grimm rpo2012
1. Development and Implementation
of an Initial Transportation
Planning Process for Federal
Land Management Agencies
Lewis G. Grimm, P.E.
Planning Team Leader
FHWA - EFLHD
2. Transportation Planning Directive
(23 U.S.C. Section 204)
In consultation with the Secretary of each
appropriate Federal land management agency,
the (DOT) Secretary shall implement
transportation planning procedures for Federal
lands and tribal transportation facilities that are
consistent with the planning processes required
under sections 134 and 135 (State and
Metropolitan Transportation Planning
regulations).
3. FLH/Federal-Aid Similarities & Differences
Similarities
FLH and Fed-Aid planners are responsible for the oversight of Title
23 and 49 funds.
They are also responsible for providing guidance to partner agencies
interpreting federal regulations and implementing the planning
process.
Differences
Geography
Partner agencies’ missions
Level of involvement in plans and TIP/STIP development
The question is:
How do we better coordinate the similarities and bridge the differences, as
appropriate at the various levels of planning?
4. Why Now?
New initiatives underway by FLH to promote long
range planning
– National, regional and unit (local) level planning
– Demonstrate “real” benefits from specific project
coordination
Linkages with FLH management systems and
Federal-aid requirements
– GIS Applications and data integration
– FLH CMS requirement and metro CMPs
Common Bottom line
– Limited resources requires better leverage of knowledge
and funding across both programs
5. Integrated State/Regional/Local
Transportation Planning Process
Fed-Aid Stewardship and Oversight Umbrella
Statewide Long Range
Transportation Plan*
*Long-Range Plans
(20-30 yr Horizon, MPO MPO Regional
Is fiscally constrained or Transportation Plan*
“reasonably available”)
City/County General Plan
Transportation Element*
Project
Planning and
Implementation
Public Involvement
MPO Transportation Improvement
Integrated at each level
Program (TIP)**
**Project Identification, Statewide Transportation
Selection, & Programming Improvement Program (STIP)**
(4-6yr Horizon, fiscally constrained)
6. Proposed Multimodal Transportation Planning
Process for FLMAs
FLHD Stewardship and Oversight Umbrella
National Transportation Plan*
Regional Transportation
*Long Range Plans Plan (RTP)*
(20-30 yr Horizon, not
fiscally constrained or
‘reasonably available’) Unit Transportation Plan
(NPS GMP or FWS CCP)*
Project
Planning and
Implementation
**Project Identification,
Selection, &
Programming
Regional Trans. Improvement ( -6yr
(3-6yr Horizon,
Program (RTIP)** fiscally constrained)
Public Involvement National Transportation Improvement
Integrated at each level Program (TIP)**
11. Transportation Planning
Guidance for FLMAs
“Transportation planning with FLMAs needs to be
conducted in conjunction with governing FLMA
policies and with general comprehensive or master
planning for FLMA units. The coupling of U.S.
DOT regulations with FLMA policy and practices
has been undertaken to make FLMA transportation
planning unique, challenging, and beneficial to all
overseeing Departments and corresponding
agencies.”
Transportation Planning Guidance for Federal Land Management Agencies,
Final Draft for Review, 12-09-2011
12. Regional Long Range
Transportation Plan Elements
Minimum 20-year horizon
Process for updating every four to five years, or as
determined to be appropriate by the agency
Operational and management strategies
Financial plan that demonstrates how the transportation plan
can likely be implemented, indicates the identification of all
public and private resources that are reasonably expected to
be available to carry out the plan, and recommends any
additional financing strategies for needed projects and
programs.
13. LRTP Elements (Cont’d)
Public involvement process
Defined elements (as appropriate) of the respective FLMA’s
national plan.
For all regionally significant projects, the FLMA region or
unit should consider all elements of the project and
collaborate with appropriate stakeholders early in the
planning process.
Existing conditions review and future forecast of conditions
Natural and cultural resource analyses and preservation /
improvement strategies
14. Public Involvement
“FLMA agencies shall include reasonable and
appropriate opportunities for public involvement
in the development of their transportation plans.
This action should be coordinated with state DOT
and MPO activities where appropriate. Citizens
and other interested parties shall be provided with
a reasonable opportunity to comment on the long-
range plans.”
Transportation Planning Guidance for Federal Land Management Agencies,
Final Draft for Review, 12-09-2011
15. Specific Actions for FLMAs
At a minimum, the public involvement plan component of any
FLMA transportation plan should include the following :
Documentation of the public involvement process
Stakeholder plan to determine appropriate stakeholders
Adequate public notice of public involvement activities and ample
time for public review and comment at key decision points
Early and continuous public involvement opportunities throughout
the planning and programming process
Explicit consideration and response to public comment
Consideration of the needs of traditionally underserved population
groups, including low‐income and minority citizens
16. Typical Public Involvement
Processes Being Employed
State DOT coordination/collaboration using
Statewide multimodal LRTP update processes
MPO/RPO RTP development/update processes
FLMA national and regional websites (NPS
Planning, Environment, and Public Comment
(PEPC) website, FWS Visitor Surveys, etc.)
Federal Register Notices (Alaska LRTP)
Outreach to “Friends Groups” and general public
via brochures, e-mail, and social media sites
17. Experiences to Date
Assessment of effectiveness still being
determined
No obvious “best” techniques have yet
been identified
Each FLMA unit, regional, and national
planning and public involvement process is
relatively unique to some degree
Stay tuned for updates
