Download as PDF, PPTX
More Related Content
Similar to Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Brian Hare
Not Your Grandfather's DOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences--Brian Hare
- 1. Not Your Grandfather’sDOT: The FDOT District 5 and PennDOT Experiences pro walk pro bike pro place | 9.9.2014
- 2. Question What bestdescribes your area of specialty a. Land Use b. Transportation c. Economics d. All of the above e. None of the above
- 3. Linking Planning andNEPA: Integrating Land Use and Transportation & More… Pro Walk Pro Bike Pro Place Pittsburgh, PA September 9, 2014 Steven B. Deck, AICP Parsons Brinckerhoff Camp Hill, PA Brian D. Hare, P.E. PennDOT Program Center
- 4.
- 5. Only 50-60% havezoning Nearly 2,600 municipalities 67 counties 24 MPOs/RPOs 11 PennDOT Engineering Districts Only county comprehensive plans required Municipalities regulate land use Land Use/Transportation Integration Challenges: Many municipalities lack full-time staff
- 6.
- 7. 14% 4% 21% 20% 41% Adopted plan or ordinance Considered adoption of a plan or ordinance Still considering adoption of plans or ordinances Private sector - work with municipalities or counties using the training tools No action taken PennDOT Educational Outcomes:
- 8. Educating local officialson integrated transportation and land use Addressing community goals through transportation planning & programming Integrating regional transportation planning with localized land use management Incentivizing multimodal, non-conventional transportation solutions Building partnerships for comprehensive solutions Ongoing Integration Challenges:
- 9. Primary Objectives ofLPN Changing the Rules Where we’ve been… Where we’re going… Content for Discussion 1 2 3 4
- 10. Primary Objectives of Linking Planning and NEPA 1
- 11. More than 4,000of Pennsylvania’s bridges are structurally deficient. Pennsylvania ranks last in the nation in this statistic.
- 12. Photographer: penywise. Usedthrough license agreement with morguefile.com Limited Financial Resources.
- 13. Transportation Technology ischanging
- 14. Public Expectations arechanging
- 15. Changing the Rules 2 “….Partnering to build great communities for future generations of Pennsylvanians by linking transportation investments and land use planning and decision making.”
- 16. Changing the Rules Smart Transportation Guidebook •Flexible design on all projects •Increase coordination with local municipalities •Link land use contexts and roadway design values
- 17. Money counts Chooseprojects with high value/price ratio Enhance the Local Network Look beyond level-of-service Safety first and maybe safety only Accommodate all modes Leverage and preserve existing investments Build towns not sprawl Develop local governments as strong land use partners Understand the context; plan and design within the context Land Use, Transportation & Livability Themes
- 18. Understand the Contextin Planning Context MUST consider: Land Use Community Environment Transportation Financial Integrating the New Approach
- 19. Linking Planning andNEPA Where we’ve been… 3
- 20. • Increasing Collaboration • Earlier Collaboration • Following the Process Linking Planning and NEPA Implementation 2 1 3
- 21. Development of theNew Process •2009 – 5 Regional Workshops •2010 – 2 Regional Summits Intensive COLLABORATION….. Linking Planning and NEPA Implementation
- 22. Intensive Collaboration…. LinkingPlanning and NEPA Implementation •15 Metropolitan Planning Organizations •8 Regional Planning Organizations •Environmental Resource Agencies •11 Engineering District Offices •Central Office Technical Staff
- 23. The Process Frameworkfor Change Linking Planning with NEPA
- 24. FINAL PRODUCTS…..September 2010 Linking Planning and NEPA Implementation
- 25. Linking Planning andNEPA •LPN Goals –“Connect” Planning and NEPA –Incorporate Smart Transportation into our Process –Improved Joint Responsibility for Financial Planning –Streamline the Environmental Process –Select Best Value Projects
- 26.
- 27. Level 2 Screening– Environmental Data
- 28. Level 2 Screening– Design Criteria
- 29. Linking Planning andNEPA •LPN Objectives…… –Define the Purpose and Need –Better understanding of Scope –Better handle on the Schedule –Better handle on the Budget
- 30. Linking Planning andNEPA What we’re hearing… 4
- 31. 3 Years intothe LPN Process •What we’re hearing… –All Districts and Planning Partners have implemented the Process –Good starting point for PM’s when assigned a project –Encourages communication between Districts and MPO/RPOs –A few Districts have met with MPO/RPOs to agree on the process of completing forms
- 32. 3 Years intothe LPN Process •What we’re hearing… –Large amount of time up front, presumably saves time in the end –Don’t see value in having forms for every project –Straight forward rehab or replacement project should not necessarily need a form
- 33. 3 Years intothe LPN Process •What we’re hearing… –What is the need for involving MPO/RPOs on maintenance/asset management type projects? –Many counties (esp. rural) are not involved in the process – Ped/Bike information is important to identify demand for accommodations
- 34. Linking Planning andNEPA Where we’re going… 5
- 35. Where we’re going… •Learning from our experiences •Implementing best practices •Revising the policies/practices, accordingly •Focusing on the value •Greater effort on the right projects versus minimal effort on ALL projects…
- 36. 2008 Transportation PlanningExcellence Award 2012 National Environmental Excellence Award Category of Planning NATIONAL RECOGNITION
- 37.