Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Grimm rpo2012


Published on

Lewis Grimm, of the Federal Lands Highway Eastern Division of the Federal Highway Administration, at the 2012 National Rural Transportation Conference.

Published in: Technology, Real Estate
  • Be the first to comment

Grimm rpo2012

  1. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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)**
  7. 7. Fish & Wildlife Service Regions
  8. 8. Transportation PlanningGuidance for FLMAs“Transportation planning with FLMAs needs to beconducted in conjunction with governing FLMApolicies and with general comprehensive or masterplanning for FLMA units. The coupling of U.S.DOT regulations with FLMA policy and practiceshas been undertaken to make FLMA transportationplanning unique, challenging, and beneficial to alloverseeing Departments and correspondingagencies.”Transportation Planning Guidance for Federal Land Management Agencies,Final Draft for Review, 12-09-2011
  9. 9. Regional Long RangeTransportation 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.
  10. 10. 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
  11. 11. 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
  12. 12. Specific Actions for FLMAsAt 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
  13. 13. Typical Public InvolvementProcesses 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
  14. 14. 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
  15. 15. Questions/Discussion