Home

About This Site

Noteworthy Practices

Resources

Contacts

Scenario Planning Peer Workshop Sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration

Summary

The following report summarizes a Peer Workshop on tools and effective practices for scenario planning. The Workshop was coordinated and supported by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The FHWA Iowa Division Office and the East Central Intergovernmental Association hosted this one-day workshop in Dubuque, Iowa. Presenters at the workshop provided participants with an overview of the scenario planning process, shared examples of scenario planning efforts from elsewhere in the country, described available resources and tools to assist with scenario planning analysis, and participants then brainstormed ideas for scenario planning in the Dubuque region.

I. Introduction

Jody McCullough of the Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning opened the workshop by presenting an overview of scenario planning and the FHWA's role in supporting its use.

Scenario planning is a process in which transportation professionals and citizens work together to analyze and shape the long-term future of their communities. Using a variety of tools and techniques, participants in scenario planning assess trends in key factors such as transportation and congestion, land use, safety, demographics, health, economic development, and the environment. The participants bring the factors together in alternative future scenarios, each of these reflecting different trend assumptions and tradeoff preferences. In the end, all members of the community - the general public, business leaders, and elected officials - reach agreement on a preferred scenario. This scenario becomes the long-term policy framework for the community's evolution, and is used to guide decision-making in the present since the effect of these decisions today may not be realized for several years to come.

Discussing the benefits of effective scenario planning, McCullough noted that it

• provides an analytical framework and process for analyzing complex issues and responding to change;
• facilitates consensus building by giving communities the capacity to participate actively in planning;
• includes tools to assess transportation's impact on communities;
• improves communication and understanding in a community; and
• yields an enhanced decision making framework for a community and ensures better management of increasingly limited resources.

FHWA is offering technical support, information, and research to state and local partners as they undertake scenario planning and is also encouraging the use of metropolitan planning (PL) and other transportation funds to implement scenario planning. Efforts in FY 2004 include

• $560 million in funding was made available for state and metropolitan planning (PL and surface transportation planning [STP] funds);
• a report on a National Peer Roundtable of policymakers, community leaders, and technical experts, that discussed the key points to effective scenario planning;
• National Panel Sessions at APA, TRB, National Smart Growth Conference, and other locations; and
• FHWA coordination and support of FHWA/Federal Transit Administration Peer Workshops on scenario planning in New York, Rhode Island, and Hawaii.

Efforts in FY 2005 include

• funding the Coalition for Utah's Future's "2005 Greater Wasatch Land Use and Transportation Vision" and the Sacramento Area Council of Government's "Blueprint Project;"
• a national broadcast on scenario planning that was held on March 3, 2005;
• conducting four new workshops, in Florida, Illinois, Iowa, and North Carolina; and
• a new website on scenario planning.

II. Local Planning Efforts

Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (part of ECIA)

Allen May, Transportation and Planning Director, Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study

Dubuque has faced significant challenges in the past 30 years, and has overcome many of them over the past decade. In the 1980s, Dubuque's economy was struggling. Unemployment in the region averaged 8.9%, with a high of 14% in 1983. The region also lost 7.8% of its population over this decade. Its transportation system had shortcomings as well. There were no four-lane highway connections to nearby cities or interstates, the airport was in need of upgrades, and the street system was decaying faster than it was being rebuilt. The real estate market was struggling as well: the average value of a home fell 9% from FY 1985 to FY 1986 and did not rise again until 1993. Annexation was almost non-existent, there were many vacant and abandoned homes in the region, and hundreds of homes were vulnerable to storm water flooding. Tourism was also struggling. The downtown was blighted and there were many vacant storefronts; dilapidated buildings, abandoned storage tanks, and polluted land lined the riverfront; and the area had a minimal and aging park system.

Starting in the 1990s, the Dubuque region reversed many of these trends. The region invested in public and infrastructure improvements, business growth, and new projects. Public improvements included four-lane highway connections, airport improvements, and barge/freight improvements to better serve and connect the business community and major employers in the region. Infrastructure improvements included the River Front Project, which includes a museum, aquarium, hotel and waterpark, a meeting facility, and a Riverwalk; downtown revitalization, which has brought new construction, real estate sales, and jobs to the downtown; and the Heritage Trail, which spans 26 miles and averages 150,000 visitors per year. Investment in business growth occurred in the Dubuque Industrial Center, the Dubuque Technology Park, and the Peosta Technology Park, which resulted in a number of companies locating in these areas.

Investments by the cities' of Dubuque, Asbury, and Peosta and the county in these improvements caused real estate values and construction to increase throughout the region. These changes have also led to more annexation of surrounding areas and a higher tax base. Finally, the region's metropolitan planning organization (MPO), the Dubuque Metropolitan Area Transportation Study (DMATS, see Figure 1), has invested and will invest in new roads and trails throughout the region, such as the building of a bridge next to the Julian Dubuque Bridge; the Southwest Arterial (Iowa Route 32); and the development of the Mississippi River Trail (which will span 10 states and over 2000 continuous miles along the river).

Today, the region's population and employment is expected to rise steadily over the next 25 years. However, this growth will not occur uniformly in the region. While most of the growth is centered on the downtown area, other areas of concentrated growth will be in dispersed locations and along various corridors throughout the region. In part due to this dispersed growth, US 20 West is likely to become more congested and perhaps less safe. In addition to dispersed areas of growth, certain portions of the population, such as the elderly, are expected to grow at a disproportional rate. Despite these trends, ridership on fixed route transit service decreased significantly throughout the late 1980s and 1990s while ridership on higher cost paratransit service has increased steadily since the mid-1990s. These unique trends should be considered as the region plans for the next 25 years.

III. Panelist Planning Practices and Observations

A. Peer Presentation - Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

Paul Hamilton, Chief Planner, Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

Background

The Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (TCRPC) is the MPO for the three-county region surrounding Lansing, Michigan. Though larger in population than the Dubuque region, TCRPC has faced and addressed many of the issues that the Dubuque region faces. The Lansing region, like Dubuque, is projected to continue to grow in employment and population over the next 25 years. However, their downtown area is projected to decline in population and employment while the surrounding areas grow, especially outside of current urbanized areas. In fact, for every new household added in the region, about four acres of land will be urbanized, and rural lands are being developed about five times the rate of lands in the urban area.

Planning Process

In the late 1990s, TCRPC decided to develop a scenario planning approach to address the issues that their region faced. Before TCRPC began, they compiled case studies from other regions that had also undertaken scenario planning approaches. From these case studies, they learned that successful implementation came down to two factors: building consensus and outlining specific implementation actions (who does what, how, when, and with what resources). TCRPC also determined that they needed to integrate land use and transportation planning efforts, which they accomplished through

1. parallel planning processes and committees with interlocking members;
2. extensive public involvement, public opinion research, and outreach components (Box 1);
3. alternatives analysis for land use and transportation;
4. an integrated planning process that resulted in an integrated land use/ transportation plan;
5. integrated regional goals and objectives for land use and transportation, along with short and long term investment strategies that were crafted by an Advisory Committee based on a trends data book and vetted in Town Hall Forums with over 775 participants;
6. common project selection criteria and performance measures; and
7. a regional concept of management and operations.

As part of this effort, TCRPC took drafts of the goals and objectives to a first set of town hall forums that were attended by a total of over 400 people. TCRPC used live voting technology in these meetings so that facilitators could quickly find the pulse of the participants' views as they emerged. The facilitators at the meetings then built on and adapted to the input provided by the participants. After this process was completed in 2001, TCRPC adopted the revised goals and objectives for their "Regional Vision" project.

TCRPC then created four scenarios: one based on current trends, another based on regional buildout under current zoning and two alternatives based on the goals and objectives mentioned above. These two alternative scenarios were based on the same total growth in population and employment as in the trends and buildout scenarios, but the growth was reallocated to a more environmentally-conscious, city-centered land use pattern that was based on a land use suitability model. TCRPC then entered these two alternative scenarios - termed "wise growth" and "wise growth buildout" - and the "business as usual" scenarios into transportation and emissions models. Results of

this model analysis were presented to the public through a second set of town hall forums, which showed side-by-side comparisons of the scenarios' impacts on a number of categories when projected into the future and when they reached build-out (Box 2). These categories included: land consumed and preserved, access to transit, vehicle miles traveled, air quality, and percent of households in the water and sewer service areas. Presented with these findings and maps of what the future growth scenarios would look like (Figure 2), the public then voted for their preferred growth scenario. Seventy-nine percent of those polled preferred the wise growth scenario.

TCRPC then established principles based on the wise growth scenario and map and held a third set of town hall forums to solicit the public's feedback. Based on these meetings, 29 principles were grouped into five "themes" for regional land use: governmental, growth and redevelopment, transportation and other infrastructure, open space and resource protection, and health economy and healthy environment. Together, the goals and objectives, policy map, themes, and principles now compose the Regional Vision for the TCRPC three-county region and have been adopted by the MPO as part of the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan. When TCRPC asked focus groups representing the public and leadership whether the region should adopt the Regional Vision, 92% voted yes.

To ensure that these principles will be implemented in the region, TCRPC

• considers the Regional Vision as part of transportation project selection criteria and also considers the adoption or endorsement of the Regional Vision by local governments and transportation agencies as project selection criteria;
• screened current and future improve-expand projects to ensure that they are consistent with the Regional Vision;
• integrated the Regional Vision with the 20- and Five-Year Investment Strategies and performance measures across 23 program categories of project types, from bridges to safety, to transit and system operations; and
• developed over 200 action steps, some of which may take decades to fulfill. To ensure that each of these steps are in fact fulfilled, TCRPC is now creating action teams to be responsible for various groups of action steps.

Conclusions and Observations

Several aspects of TCRPC's scenario planning approach (Box 3) worked well. The media plan and public outreach/involvement activities were successful, especially for bringing new stakeholders and partners into the process. TCRPC's regional composite GIS maps, which reflected changes in land use/cover, zoning, and comprehensive land use plans, proved particularly illustrative and valuable for the public and leadership forums as well as for the focus groups. The town hall forums (with a facilitated modified nominal group process) also worked well, especially when paired with the real-time electronic voting system. The use of this technology in these forums and the use of focus groups also helped in building consensus among the participants throughout the process. Overall, the alternative scenario analysis worked well, especially for the build-out analysis. TCRPC's development of the policy map and related principles was also well received by the public and leadership. Based on all of these efforts and findings, TCRPC's integration of the land use (wise growth) alternative in the Regional 2025 Transportation Plan also worked well.

Despite these successes, several aspects of TCRPC's scenario planning approach did not work as well as hoped. An over-reliance by the project consultant on scheduling software and a work plan led to an over-optimistic schedule and timeline and unmet expectations. Once off course, the extended schedule and timeline had far-reaching impacts on the staff, consultant, budget, and committees. Related to this issue, the consultant's project manager needed to better serve as a "quarterback" who would coordinate the work between all of the staff and consultants. Instead, the project manager left the delivery of the work to sub-contractors who were not able to see the entire picture and coordinate when necessary. TCRPC's GIS analysis of roadway construction impacts on sprawl did not work as planned due to a lack of historic roadway construction data. Due to an inadequate budget and untested proprietary web-based communications software, neither the internal project communications web site nor the external public website provided the functionality desired, such as being another method for surveying the public. Oblique 3D visualization tools that did not require parcel based data were not available at the time. Because parcel based data were not available for the entire region, the public and leadership did not have the benefit of oblique 3d imagery; other imagery was used instead. TCRPC also believes that the ambassadors trained by the speakers' bureau were underutilized. Last, the transition into implementation has yet to be realized, mainly because that step takes a lot of time to gain local government buy-in.

TCRPC learned several lessons throughout the process. These include

• General/Process
  1. Scenario planning works - it can alter land use/transportation decision patterns and lead to reduced transportation costs and the mitigation of adverse environmental impacts
  2. The process matters - it is important to have the public, staff, consultants, and elected officials all involved in the process; also, get final public acceptance to build support
  3. Public involvement and consensus building are critical components to the success of the effort
• Project Planning and Funding Considerations
  4. To arrive at reasonable expectations, it is necessary to provide a realistic budget, schedule, and staffing
  5. Likewise, it is important to consider how to best implement results of the scenario planning effort early while planning for the staffing and funding of the effort, so that resources are available to implement the results in regional plans, ordinances and policies
  6. Because it is a data-driven process, also consider short-term, intermediate, and long-term data needs
  7. To mitigate staffing and funding needs, look for non-traditional partners, such as a university extension program, county public health departments, and environmental and non-motorized transportation advocacy groups
  8. Web sites should have tested software and ample budgets to enable them to do what they are supposed to do

B. Scenario Planning Tools

Brian Betlyon, Metropolitan Planning Specialist, FHWA Resource Center

The premise of scenario planning is that it is better to "get the future imprecisely right" than to "get the future precisely wrong" when developing transportation plans. Tools can help people involved in scenario planning get the future as "imprecisely right" as possible. These tools can provide decision-makers and the public with the information they need to make educated decisions. Scenario planning can help communities plan by design instead of by default, meaning that they can make informed decisions on how the actions (or inaction) that they take today will affect the future.

A variety of technology tools can help communities consider scenarios and make better decisions. Betlyon provided examples of several different kinds:

• information resources, including websites such as http://www.placematters.com, http://www.smartgrowthamerica.com, http://www.sustainable.doe.gov, http://www.fgdc.gov, and http://egis.hud.gov/egis/;
• visualization tools and techniques, such as photo montage, architectural drawings, visual preference surveys, visual kiosks, and Box City;
• mpact analysis and GIS modeling using software such as INDEX, Paint the Town, What If?, MetroQUEST, UrbanSim, and CommunityViz; and
• process tools and techniques such as civic participation, the PLACE³S process developed in California, and methods for finding common ground. For example, establish a neutral community meeting place, conduct large-scale town meetings, or establish a civic learning center.

Betlyon presented several examples of how scenario planning has been used. The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission is using scenario planning to assist in the development of a new long-range plan for the Philadelphia area. In Charlottesville, Virginia the Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative created a modeling tool capable of concurrently evaluating transportation and land use options, known as CorPlan. Using CorPlan-generated scenarios, they developed a 50-year transportation and land use vision for the five-county region surrounding Charlottesville. Lastly, Envision Utah, a public-private partnership "working to keep Utah beautiful, prosperous and neighborly for future generations," involved over 100 partners and the general public in a statewide scenario planning effort.

IV. Opportunities for Action

In the afternoon, participants broke into three groups to discuss issues surrounding scenario planning in the Dubuque region. Discussion was based on ten questions, which are outlined below, along with participants' responses.

1. How can we (DMATS) integrate scenario planning in our region?

   DMATS can integrate scenario planning into the Long Range Transportation Plan update and into corridor planning. DMATS could consider undertaking scenario planning incrementally with a demonstration project leading the way. The foundation of DMATS' effort could be through local visioning and should focus on transportation and the rebound of the local economy in light of current land use and transportation policies.

   DMATS can follow these steps when undertaking a scenario planning effort: establish groups with elected officials/decision-makers, concerned citizens, community leaders, special interest groups, and members from underserved populations. Next, define a strategy by assembling and disseminating information through a data book that outlines current trends and by establishing a timeline. After this step, hold group meetings at various locations and times to ensure that a diverse group of participants have access to the process.

2. How can we include scenario planning in our Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP)?

• Get the public more involved, perhaps through surveys, even though it may take a good deal of effort to do so
• Make a good connection with land use through maps and other visuals and tools, such as CorPlan functioned in Charlottesville
• Involve the media as much as possible
• Consider the following factors: land use, safety, the economy, the environment, freight (rail), and transit passengers
• Review development in the region and consider demographics when making assumptions for forecasting
• Perform an alternatives analysis for the entire region, or target an area and carry that success into other regions

3. How can we address corridor preservation of Hwy 20, IA 32 NW Arterial, and the proposed IA 32 Southwest Arterial?

   To address the preservation of these corridors, DMATS can learn from past projects and consider what is currently working or not working. Also, DMATS should consider that scenario planning may work better for unbuilt highways than for existing highways. To preserve these corridors, DMATS may consider the following:

• develop a plan and prioritize the corridors;
• solicit public input and get all jurisdictions on board;
• develop land use maps to outline preferred developments/scenarios;
• explore the differences and implications of there being a bypass versus an arterial;
• perform access management and require internal circulation plans with site development;
• evaluate highway design - elevated interchanges versus at-grade and possibly having more frontage roads;
• tie design to projected land use and growth;
• try to preserve unbuilt areas along built roads;
• concentrate on management and operations of corridors;
• follow the plan and make sure that money follows in the TIP; and
• find alternative sources of funding if necessary.

4. How can we address transit issues in the DMATS region?

   To address transit issues, DMATS could determine whether transit is a priority and how transit will expand to reach new growth areas. When doing so, DMATS should consider

• the region's aging population and pursue transit-oriented development where possible;
• how a rider's travel time can be minimized so transit can better compete with driving;
• coordinating between urban and rural service providers; and
• the advantages and disadvantages of fixed-route versus demand-response service.

  Next, DMATS could solicit feedback from transit stakeholders to establish and implement goals. To fund transit in the region, DMATS could explore a fee-based transit district in which employers and developers would contribute to providing transit to their area.

5. How can we address the impact of the following routes in supporting or limiting growth in the area: Asbury Rd., JFK Rd., Pennsylvania Ave., University Ave., and North Cascade Rd.?

   DMATS can perform a corridor study to determine each road's current and future capacity. DMATS should then develop alternative growth scenarios and generate public awareness of the situation. Options for these routes include having Park and Ride lots and implementing ITS/operational improvements. Throughout this process, DMATS should ensure that there is collaboration on growth assumptions among the various jurisdictions involved.

6. What are the specific factors that could influence different scenarios?

• Funding in general, and funding between and across various jurisdictions
• The economy (local, regional, national, and global)
• Local politics and the location of roadways in multiple local, county, and state jurisdiction(s)
• Land use plan/development controls
• Local regulations, such as subdivision regulations
• Tourism (roadways to get in and out)
• Freight (rail vs. truck vs. river) and related congestion
• The impact of regional transportation connections
• Cultural changes and community values
• Demographics, especially an aging population
• Community input and design choices
• Safety issues
• Energy shortages
• Topography

7. What tools or resources are necessary for us to accomplish scenario planning?

• Integrated/innovative funding
• Software programs and visual aids, such as cameras
• Available staff
• Buy-in of leadership
• Success stories
• A detailed public participation plan that includes holding design charrettes
• Public and private outreach
• Energized public and private participation, interest, and support
• Academic partners and human asset mapping (what expertise is available within the community)

8. Who should be involved? How do we involve them?

   DMATS can involve the following groups in a scenario planning process:

   Government/Politicians Elected officials and decision-makers State, county, and city governments (planning, engineering, and education staff) Federal resource agencies Transit stakeholders

   Private Sector Freight carriers and shippers Developers (business and residential) Chamber, bankers, and realtors Agricultural interests Tourism industry (including casinos) and outdoor recreation groups (river, parks, trails) Airport

   Academia Colleges and universities (and their interns) Private and public community schools

   The Public Neighborhood groups and Main Streets group Environmental justice and underserved communities Concerned citizens Community leaders Special interest groups

   DMATS can involve these groups by

• Establishing new groups and committees with these stakeholders represented;
• Inviting these groups to regional stakeholder meetings, neighborhood meetings, workshops, and/or focus groups; and
  • Group meetings should be held at alternative locations at various times to overcome scheduling problems and
  • Meetings should be as frequent, small, visual, and applicable to the participants as possible.
• Add others to their a newsletter.

9. Are there any real or perceived obstacles?

   Participants noted the need to prioritize projects due to the perception of high costs and limited staff. To keep costs low, DMATS may be able to take advantage of interns who are able to assist through the local colleges. In addition to limited funding, other obstacles include

• an undertaking like this may be off limits politically;
• the nature of the region is unique;
• time is not infinite;
• the public's apathy may lead to limited involvement - some people may feel excluded from giving input (this can be influenced through education and by building trust with the community);
• this process may not be sustainable; and
• there may be a lack of a champion for this cause.

10. What are our next steps?

    Ideas for next steps include

• expand awareness of the outcomes of today's meeting;
  • DMATS can distribute information and ask for feedback
• follow-up with focus groups that involve stakeholders;
• hold more peer exchanges and gather input;
• find a champion for the cause;
• encourage more citizens to participate in making the plan;
• proceed incrementally - one step at a time;
• focus on high-interest projects to bring in as many people and special interests as possible;
• outline a work task as a Unified Work Planning activity; and
• implement scenario planning incrementally since it can not be done all at once.

V. For More Information

VI. Attachments

A. Agenda

Scenario Planning Peer Workshop
May 13, 2005

B. List of Participants

Presenters

Exchange Attendees

To provide Feedback, Suggestions or Comments for this page contact Jody McCullough at jody.mccullough@dot.gov