| | |
 | TCSP-1999 Grant ProposalsTransportation and Community Sustainability Plan |
1999 Transportation and Community and System Preservation Program
Proposal:
A Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan for
Laurel, Montana
Type of Request: Planning grant
Project Name and Location: Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, City of Laurel, Montana
Organization: The Incorporated City of Laurel, Montana
Key Contact: Cal Cumin, Planning Director
Phone/Fax/email: (406) 245-5843; fax: (406) 256-2777; email: cumin@wtp.net
Grant Request: $85,000
Introduction:
The Setting:
Laurel is an incorporated community of approximately 7,000 people. It is bisected by State Highway 10 west to east which is also the frontage road to Interstate Highway 90. North and south, the community is divided by State Highways 212/532. Between Highway 10 and the Interstate east and west is the southern main line of the Montana Rail Link Railroad. In addition, a new interstate interchange for the largest community in Montana, Billings, is under construction seven miles to the east.
Project Overview:
The project will address the impacts of the above-described transportation system elements on the short- and long-term sustainability of the commercial and residential fabric of Laurel and the viability of the community to survive the continuing influence of the in-place transportation system.
The primary product of this project will be a "Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan" for the City of Laurel. This plan will consist of seven primary elements: (1) an analysis of the traffic and community impacts of the major transportation features; (2) an analysis of Laurel's overall transportation system (current and planned) and its implications for sustainability; (3) an analysis of Laurel's land use patterns and their contributions to the traffic situation; (4) an analysis of the sustainability of the community's commercial core in the face of transportation-related threats; (5) an analysis of non-motorized travel in Laurel; (6) an analysis of how different assumptions in transportation and land use can lead to more sustainable scenarios for Laurel's future; and (7) an action plan for creating a more sustainable Laurel. The evaluation process will be described in the separate Project Evaluation Plan.
Several of the processes this project will set in motion will have long-term ramifications outside the confines of the project itself. For example, work with Walkable Communities and the Local Government Commission will help Laurel citizens build their own vision of the community's future and may spawn new organizations and new projects. Work with the National Main Street Center in assessing the downtown's sustainability will help train local business leaders to build a strong commercial center. These leaders will broaden their task by perhaps working on a downtown events calendar. Work with the National Center for Appropriate Technology and the LGC will help local planners and developers incorporate sustainability into their planning and building processes. Developers who participate may well produce examples that other communities will want to learn about and emulate.
Oversight Committee:
The project will be overseen by a cooperative group which will take part in all major project decisions and will be expected to help implement the action plan created through the process. Involved members will include Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Board, Planning Director, Mayor, three City Council members, Laurel Revitalization Association, Laurel Public Works Director, District Engineer for the Montana Department of Transportation, members of the North First Avenue Task Force, member of the Board of County Commissioners, and business and industry leaders (including Cenex and Montana Rail LinKB) and commercial property owners.
Advisory Panel:
Because of the diversity of issues to be considered in the creation of the plan, project staff will be assisted by a panel of advisors, whose primary role will be to offer guidance, suggest processes, and review progress. In some instances, panel members and their organizations will provide additional assistance in the creation of specific plan elements. Members of this panel will include:
Chris Allen, National Center for Alternative Technology
Dan Burden, Walkable Communities
Hank Dittmar, Surface Transportation Policy Project
Kathy Harris, P.E., Carter-Burgess, Inc., of Helena, Montana
Marla Larson, Montana Department of Environmental Quality
Barron Parks, P.E., Montana Department of Transportation
Stephanie Redman, National Main Street Center
John Williams, Tracy-Williams Consulting
Paul Zykofsky, Center for Livable Communities
Project Objectives:
Within the context of the development of Laurel's Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, the project's objectives are to:
1. Improve the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system by:
(a) Studying the impacts of the numerous barriers and discontinuities on the efficiency of the current system and developing a set of recommendations for reducing the impacts of these problems on the community.
(b) Studying local transportation-related patterns, as well as agency and organization practices and policies and developing a set of recommendations that will encourage greater efficiency in the system.
2. Reduce the need for motorized trips to satisfy basic needs by:
(a) Studying the strengths and weaknesses of Laurel's downtown and preparing a set of recommendations for enhancing its viability.
(b) Studying Laurel’s land use patterns, particularly those elements likely to affect the community's sustainability and developing recommendations based on sustainable development concepts.
3. Empower Laurel residents to more effectively create a sustainable future for their own community by:
(a) Conducting a visioning process through an intensive workshop to help identify local visions for a sustainable Laurel future and assisting in the recruitment and training of residents, business owners, local government officials, and members of the development community to join the long-term effort to craft detailed strategies for implementing a sustainable future for Laurel.
(b) Provide continuing opportunities for members of the public to get involved in the process and to have their voices heard.
(c) Seriously consider input from members of the public in the development of the alternative scenarios and the final preferred scenario.
(d) Conducting specialized outreach efforts on key aspects of the project, like sustainable development and downtown revitalization.
The Process:
As has been shown in numerous communities, local ownership of the process is the most viable way to make things happen. For this reason, the involvement of an inclusive oversight committee and an extensive outreach program are key ingredients of the Laurel Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan.
Public Involvement:
A successful public involvement strategy uses a variety of means to bring a broad range of participants to the table. Beginning with the passage of ISTEA in 1991, transportation planning has had, as a major goal, providing the public with full information in a timely fashion, access to the process at all key decision points, the involvement of all affected parties—including the traditionally underserved, and meaningful opportunities to affect project outcomes. To accomplish this purpose within the context of the Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, the Project Team will to complete the following activities.
1) With assistance from the Center for Livable Communities (CLC) and Walkable Communities, the Project Team will host an initial visioning workshop, involving residents of all ages to help Laurel create its own vision of a sustainable community future. The primary components of the workshop will be a visual preference survey and a charette on community design and transportation.
2) With assistance from the CLC, Walkable Communities, the National Center for Appropriate Technology, the Surface Transportation Policy Project, and the Main Street Center, the Project Team will give follow-up presentations on specific elements of the Plan, including one that focuses on downtown revitalization, one on sustainable transportation options, and one on sustainable land use practices.
3) Finally, the Project Team will, on a regular basis, provide information on the progress of the project through news releases; give presentations to a variety of groups; provide key documents at accessible locations around the community; and create and distribute a project update that will go out to interested groups and individuals.
Analysis of Laurel’s Transportation System:
Currently, the circulation system is characterized by severe fragmentation, caused in large part by the presence of major regional and national transportation corridors that bisect the community.
It is more than likely that the efficiency of Laurel's transportation system is seriously compromised by the effects of this fragmentation, to the extent that many trips must be longer than otherwise needed. And, in some cases, requiring travelers to use a motorized mode to reach a particular destination where a simple walking journey may suffice.
1) Motorized Travel Demand and Capacity: This task will collect the available data for traffic growth, travel demand, and proposed infrastructure improvements. The data collection will focus on utilizing available data from sources including the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT); land use changes identified; City-County Planning efforts, development projections, local school projections and safety route(s), etc.. After a review of the available data, additional data may be collected by local sources. Additional data could include: vehicle turning movement counts, tube counts, travel time or route, existing access, truck routes and volumes, bicycle volumes, pedestrian counts or route (especially near schools), inventory of vehicle and bicycle parking, selective license plate surveys, etc..
Typical roadway level-of-service will be analyzed for key components of the transportation system for existing and future travel demands.
Based on the proposed construction and the projected growth, the transportation network will identify sections with capacity or safety problems, with a focus on the links between rural and urban, interstate and local and on intermodal links. Local streets will be reviewed to determine which facilitates have capacity for non-motorized travel, parking, and additional roadway capacity.
2) Define and Evaluate Alternatives: Develop conceptual long-term mobility alternatives for east/west and north/south travel for both motorized and non-motorized travel. Based upon public input and data analyses, route/strategies will be evaluated to determine if they meet project goals for community sustainability. Evaluate conceptual mobility alternatives based on development of preliminary screening criteria, develop in conjunction with study goals and objectives. Agreement by the Oversight Committee will confirm the screening criteria and the relative weighting of the criteria. (For example, pedestrian safety may rate stronger than intersection level-of-service at downtown sites but may have equivalent ratings at interstate intersections.)
The Team will also conduct a detailed telephone survey of residents and small-scale trip diary study in order to gain further insight into the community's travel behaviors, needs, and desires.
The results of this analysis will be used by the Project Team to project trends in local travel and to explore alternative means of satisfying the community's resulting needs.
Analysis of Downtown Sustainability
Working with the Laurel Revitalization Association, Laurel’s Public Works Department, planned CDBG funding, and the Main Streets Center of the National Trust for Historic Preservation, the Project Team will analyze the strengths and weaknesses of Laurel's commercial core through the creation of a Main Street Assessment.
In preparing a Main Street Assessment, the Team will look at the impacts of transportation features on the viability of downtown; the physical appearance of the district, including its buildings and public infrastructure; the downtown's economic base and the impacts of highway-related commercial development; unique opportunities presented by the downtown; and the level of community support of—and visions for—the district. The Project Team will also produce a set of recommended actions for revitalization of the district and will help set in motion the process for implementation.
Analysis of Land Use
Working with the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Office and the Board of County Commissioners of Yellowstone County and with help from the Center for Livable Communities and the National Center for Appropriate Technology, the Project Team will create a baseline picture of existing and projected land use in the Laurel community, both within the city limits and on the periphery.
Much of the data gathering is taking place through current planning efforts and is being integrated into local Geographic Information System databases. For the purposes of the Laurel Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, however, the Team will focus on those elements of land use that, according to the literature and the Advisory Panel, influence the sustainability of a community, the vitality of its core, traffic generation rates; and the ability of residents to choose among a variety of transportation modes. These include considerations like residential density and lot sizes; proximity between different land uses; and commercial density and off-street parking.
In addition to analyzing current land uses, the Project Team will look at existing plans, codes, and policies to determine how well the current regulatory framework fosters sustainability. And, using tools like the Smart Places program, the Local Government Commission's Compact Development Survey, and the Case for Sustainability, the Team will prepare a set of recommendations that are likely to improve the sustainability of Laurel by minimizing adverse environmental impacts and encouraging innovative development practices. To this end, the Project Team anticipates hosting a training session for local developers and others in order to highlight sustainable practices.
Analysis of Non-Motorized Travel
During the analysis of non-motorized travel, the Project Team with the assistance of Tracy-Williams Consulting, will look at the extent of the existing pedestrian and bicycle systems. For the pedestrian system, the Team will perform a walkability audit and conduct an NHTSA/EPA "Pedestrian Roadshow" with assistance from the Montana Department of Transportation's bicycle/pedestrian coordinator. The Team will also look at compliance with ADA regulations. For the bicycle system, the Project Team will use elements of the Bicycle Compatibility Index process (FHWA, 1998) to determine basic suitability of the major street system, combined with a mapping exercise to identify specific hazards.
To determine baseline levels of non-motorized travel, the Project Team will use available data sources (e.g., the 1990 Census Journey to Work Survey) and data from the travel survey and trip diary studies discussed earlier.
The Project Team will also evaluate opportunities for bicycle- and pedestrian-related improvements such as potential trail corridors; possible links to particular destinations; and particular roadways that have extra space. From this study, the Project Team will produce a set of recommendations that are likely to lead to greater use of non-motorized modes for a variety of purposes.
Creation of Alternate Scenarios
Current trends, events, and processes will give Laurel a relatively predictable set of future outcomes. To some extent, all of the following characterize Laurel: high levels of motor vehicle travel and increasing need for expensive infrastructure to accommodate such travel; a declining downtown core; increased commercial development along major transportation corridors; primarily large lot single use residential development on the outskirts; and few non-motorized trips and little provision for such trips. The Project Team will create a "build-out" scenario that projects current trends into the future.
Through the public involvement process and in consultation with the Oversight Committee and the Advisory Panel, the Project Team will create two alternate visions of Laurel's future for debate, discussion, and modification. Ultimately, one preferred scenario will be incorporated into the Plan's vision, goals, objectives, and performance criteria.
While the development of the specifics of the alternate scenarios will come through the planning process, some typical elements that are likely to be discussed and may be included in some way are:
• A more "community-friendly" set of roadway design standards that emphasize lower traffic speeds and a more flexible reliance on the functional roadway hierarchy
• Solutions to currently identified transportation problems and needs (e.g., the elimination of major barriers) that balance transportation needs and community sustainability
• Compact development patterns that emphasize easy access; a fine-grained transportation system; a de-emphasis of large public works solutions to Laurel's transportation problems
• Pedestrian-oriented commercial areas that include minimum setbacks for storefronts; sidewalk-facing front doors and display windows; on-street parking; and pedestrian amenities like benches
• Mixed commercial and residential land uses; this may include provision of apartments adjacent to businesses and compatible business uses near most residential areas
• Mixed residential uses, combining, for example, accessory dwelling units and carefully placed and well-designed multifamily dwelling units.
A growing body of literature can help show the performance differences of alternate scenarios. This literature will be used to project differences in congestion, motor vehicle use, energy consumption, infrastructure needs, and land consumption.
For example, the LUTRAQ process developed in the Portland Metropolitan Region has identified a series of Pedestrian Environment Factors that correspond with reduced numbers of motor vehicle trips. Similarly, work conducted in the San Francisco Bay area has shown significant differences between alternate development styles. Even here in relatively rural Montana, preliminary research has shown that residential areas that are close to employment centers and adhere to a more traditional community development pattern generate significantly lower levels of motorized travel than nearby neighborhoods that are more auto-oriented.
In the development of the alternate scenarios, the Project Team will explore the use of software like the Smart Places package, as well as more traditional sketch plan approaches, to generate a set of likely impacts for each scenario. To determine the most applicable approach, the panel of advisors will help weigh the benefits vs. costs in light of the availability of usable local data.
Next, the scenarios will be presented to the public and a wide variety of local audiences. The purpose will be to generate discussion of alternative Laurel futures and to learn how residents of Laurel want the community to grow. Through survey work and extensive public and oversight committee involvement, the project team will prepare a preferred scenario based on a consensus process.
This scenario will then be compared with what is allowed under existing regulations, plans, and policies in order to determine what needs to change in order for it to happen. The outcome of this process will be an action plan that includes: a list of changes; who must make them; and how they can be made. A key ingredient of this process is to involve those bodies responsible for updating such plans, policies, and regulations in the process from the beginning. As has been stated before, the Oversight Committee contains many of the key players and others will be approached to participate.
Action Plan for a Sustainable Laurel
Once a preferred alternative has been identified and its components generally described, the Project Team will work with the Oversight Committee to create an Action Plan. For transportation-related projects, this will mean preparing proposed modifications to long-range transportation plans and a prioritized list of projects for the local TIP and State TIP, or STIP. For land use proposals, it means preparing a list of the major suggested changes to the comprehensive plan and subdivision and zoning regulations.
A detailed timeline will be a key component of the Action Plan. The timeline will identify tasks that must take place by certain times (e.g., TIP project proposals must generally be submitted by a particular date in order to be considered) and tasks that must be addressed as components of certain processes (e.g., comprehensive plans are typically updated on a multi-year schedule). Preparing a timeline will assure that deadlines are met and projects addressed as needed.
The Action Plan will also identify the agencies and groups that control implementation of each proposed action. Since the Oversight Committee membership includes many of the key players, this task will help to assign responsibility. It will also help identify tasks for which the responsible parties are external to the process. It will be critical, however, that these parties be invited to participate early in the process. Hence, the importance of early and continuing outreach and public involvement.
Evaluation
The evaluation component of this project will be described in detail in the Project Evaluation Plan.
Relationship with the TCSP Purpose and Criteria:
#1: Improve the efficiency of the transportation system
The Project will analyze the impact of the existing transportation system and the new interstate interchange with the focus of maintaining the integrity of Laurel as a residential community. There are historical, current, and future assessments that must be completed before determining how to best improve the movement of people within and to and from the community. Because of the location of the existing transportation systems, extreme fragmentation exists with the old downtown in decline and haphazard new interstate-oriented commercial development sapping the traditional strength of the core community.
#2: Reduce the impacts of transportation on the environment
Non-motor vehicle transportation will be analyzed to determine possible mitigation of the fragmentation problem created by the existing transportation system. Links necessary to alleviating adverse existing impacts of transportation circulation will be studied in conjunction with land development patterns and regional circulation needs and influences.
#3: Reduce the need for costly future investments in public infrastructure
Traditional transportation infrastructure improvements dictate expensive underpass or overpass needs at the railroad interface and additional interstate interchange access ramp construction. The project will analyze community growth patterns, core community sustainability requirements, and land development anticipation to determine methods of minimizing costly public transportation infrastructure requirements.
#4: Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers of trade
The project will focus on the sustainability of Laurel as a community in which people—not necessarily vehicles—can work, obtain necessary services, and provide for the interaction required to maintain a viable and vital community core. The existing transportation system and the new interstate interchange affect the provision of jobs, services, and regional economic patterns of trade. Without this project, most of the impacts will be negative, and Laurel as an integrated community will decline—without costly infrastructure improvements.
#5: Examine development patterns and identify strategies to encourage private sector development which achieves the goals of the TCSP.
The land use pattern around and in Laurel will be analyzed. Most important among the land uses is transportation and its paramount influence on commercial, industrial, and residential patterns. The private sector responds to existing or perceived needs or provisions mostly generated by the availability of public infrastructure. Project results will, among other objectives, promote land use patterns that sustain sound community growth without requiring the constant infusion of expensive public infrastructure.
Project Logistics:
Coordination
A primary purpose of this project is to develop projects for inclusion in local long-range transportation plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs). For this reason, staff from the Laurel-Yellowstone City-County Planning Office, Yellowstone County Commissioners, and the Billings District of the Montana Department of Transportation are included on the Oversight Committee.
Partners
As mentioned earlier in this proposal, the project will be coordinated by an Oversight Committee, consisting of agencies and organizations representing a broad range of constituencies.
Budget and Resources:
Non-Federal resources include $10,000 that Laurel has budgeted to initiate planning analysis of continued community sustainability and viability. The Laurel Business Improvement District is raising an additional $10,000 to provide on-going budgetary assistance to determining direction for the commercial community to address the fragmentation and possible opportunities caused by the transportation system-induced community fragmentation. The Public Works Department of Laurel is putting $5,000 into the study.
| Project Element: |
|
| |
| Public Involvement: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $4,000 |
| Travel: | $1,000 |
| Professional Services (Walkable Communities) | $9,000 |
| Evaluation Services: | $500 |
| Subtotal: | $14,500 |
| |
| Analysis of Major Transportation Features: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $1,000 |
| Travel: | $500 |
| Professional Services (Carter-Burgess, Inc.) | $9,000 |
| Evaluation Services | $300 |
| Subtotal: | $10,700 |
Note: Laurel Public Works' $5,000 contribution to be used on this element. | |
| |
| Analysis of Laurel's Transportation System: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $3,000 |
| Travel: | $2,000 |
| Professional Services (STPP, Tracy-Williams, MSU surveying) | $19,500 |
| Evaluation Services: | $500 |
| Subtotal: | $25,000 |
Note: City of Laurel's $10,000 contribution to be used on this element. | |
| |
| Analysis of Downtown Sustainability: | |
| Personnel costs: | $1,000 |
| Travel: | $1,000 |
| Professional Services (Main Street Center): | $8,000 |
| Evaluation Services: | $300 |
| Subtotal: | $10,200 |
Note: Laurel Revitalization Association's $10,000 contribution to be used on this element. | |
| Analysis of Land Use: | |
| Personnel costs: | $7,500 |
| Travel: | $1000 |
| Professional Services (Center for Livable Communities, Nat'lCenter for Alternative Technology) | $5,000 |
| Evaluation Services: | $500 |
| Subtotal: | $14,000 |
| |
| Analysis of Non-Motorized Travel: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $1000 |
| Travel: | $300 |
| Professional Services (Tracy-Williams Consulting): | $5,200 |
| Evaluation Services: | $300 |
| Subtotal: | $6,800 |
| |
| Creation of Alternate Scenarios: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $3,500 |
| Travel: | $1,000 |
| Professional Services (STPP) | $14,000 |
| Evaluation Services: | $500 |
| Subtotal: | $19,000 |
| |
| Action Plan for a Sustainable Laurel: |
|
| Personnel costs: | $3,000 |
| Travel: | $0 |
| Professional Services (STPP): | $3,500 |
| Evaluation Services: | $500 |
| Subtotal: | $7,000 |
| Evaluation: | |
| Personnel costs: | $1,800 |
| Travel: | $1,000 |
| Professional Services: | $0 |
| Evaluation Services: | $0 |
| Subtotal: | $2,800 |
Note: Does not include Evaluation Services listed under other elements. | |
| Total Budget: | $110,000 |
| Local Contribution: | $25,000 |
| Grant Request: | $85,000 |
Project Schedule
The planning phase of this project will take eighteen months to complete along the following timeline:
1. Startup, analysis team selection, and public coordination: 3 months
This step will include the preparation of a detailed workplan, production of the initial visioning workshop, and initial public outreach. A report on the workshop and an evaluation of that process will be prepared for submission at the end of the period.
2. Analysis and mapping: 4 months
This step involves gathering the data and resources for the development of the scenarios, preparing the analyses on transportation (motorized and non-motorized), land use, and downtown viability. The three scenarios will be prepared for presentation. And a brief evaluation of the data gathering and analysis process will be prepared for submission at the end of the period.
3. Community presentation and education: 3 months
This step includes publicizing the scenarios and their meanings and soliciting comment from a wide range of residents, business owners, and others with a stake in the process. A report on the preferences of the various publics will be prepared, as will an evaluation of the communication processes used.
4. Refinement and plan consensus building: 6 months
Further work on the scenarios and the preferred alternative will take place in this step and will particularly involve working with the Oversight Committee to develop the Action Plan.
5. Publication of the Action Plan: 2 months
The details of the preferred scenario will be further clarified, based on feedback from the previous step, and will be presented to the community in a widely-available publication. At this point, the final evaluation of the project will be prepared and will include a compilation of the previous reports as well as a report on the process as a whole.
Evaluation Plan
Introduction:
The evaluation processes described below will be conducted by the Project Team, in particular Cal Cumin, Laurel’s Planning Director; Hank Dittmar, Campaign Director for the STPP’s Transportation and Quality of Life Campaign, and John Williams, vice president of Tracy-Williams Consulting.
Much of the basic evaluation work will involve counting participants; summarizing comments received; producing, distributing and analyzing questionnaires for participants in the various sub-processes of this project; and cataloguing local agency and group decisions. These evaluation processes will be conducted on an on-going basis as part of the project.
More involved evaluation processes, like the analysis of long-term changes in land use patterns or travel demand, will be conducted as part of on-going planning function of the Laurel Planning Office and will be aided through the increasing use of the City’s Geographical Information System.
At this time, the City is starting to build a GIS database, and the current grant will help staff collect particular kinds of data relating to the linkage between transportation and land use. These data will help form the basis of forecasting future trends and effects of changes introduced through this project.
Evaluation Reporting:
The Project Team will prepare monthly progress reports on the project and will compile an initial evaluation report for delivery at the end of the grant period. This report will describe the entire process and discuss results of the various elements.
In the longer term, the Laurel Planning Office will produce an annual summary of trends (e.g., land use changes, downtown viability, and travel patterns). In addition, the Planning Office will include evaluations of land use and transportation aspects in future long-range transportation plan updates and comprehensive plan updates.
Evaluation and Project Objectives:
The following section presents each of the project objectives listed in the main body of the proposal and discusses, generally, how each will be evaluated.
Project Objectives:
Within the context of the development of Laurel’s Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan, the project’s objectives are to:
1. Improve the efficiency of Laurel’s transportation system by:
(a) Studying the impacts of the numerous barriers and discontinuities on the efficiency of the current system and developing a set of recommendations for reducing the impacts of these problems on the community.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
How do the project recommendations compare to earlier concepts put forth as solutions?
Performance Measures: innovativeness of approaches (e.g., solutions that satisfy goals through non-standard public works projects); low cost (e.g., compared to estimated costs of previous approaches); consideration of sustainability impacts (e.g., involves comparatively little disruption of downtown).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study identify the major barriers and discontinuities?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all barriers identified by the Oversight Committee have been included); satisfaction of public (e.g., all barriers identified through public processes have been included)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council; approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in local long-range transportation plan and TIP); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters in support of projects, resolutions of groups in support of projects)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the solutions, once implemented, improve the efficiency of Laurel’s transportation system?
Performance Measures: traffic changes at key locations (e.g., volume changes, accident records, violation records)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of implemented projects will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel Public Works Department as part of the long-range planning and TIP preparation process.
(b) Studying local transportation-related patterns, as well as agency and organization practices, and policies and developing a set of recommendations that will encourage greater efficiency in the system.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations, adequacy of survey sample sizes); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings, rates of completion of surveys); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
How do the project recommendations compare to more traditional transportation planning processes?
Performance Measures: breadth of approach (e.g., includes solutions other than just large public works projects); range of scales (e.g., includes small projects that "fine tune" system); considerate of sustainability impacts (e.g., involves comparatively little disruption of downtown and gives travelers options).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study deal with Laurel’s transportation system?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all major traffic concerns identified by the Oversight Committee have been discussed and resolved); satisfaction of public (e.g., all major traffic concerns identified through public processes have been discussed and resolved)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council; approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in local long-range transportation plan and TIP); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters of support for major initiatives, resolutions of groups in support)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the recommendations, once implemented, improve the efficiency of Laurel’s transportation system?
Performance Measures: changes in travel patterns (e.g., reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in number of trips per household); changes in overall traffic congestion (e.g., general improvement in level of service)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The initial evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Changes in long-term patterns will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of its on-going transportation planning function.
2. Reduce the need for motorized trips to satisfy basic needs by:
(a) Studying the strengths and weaknesses of Laurel’s downtown and preparing a set of recommendations for enhancing its viability.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to downtown businesses); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
How successful was the project in coordinating with other downtown initiatives?
Performance Measures: level of cooperation (e.g., with the CDBG process); little duplication of effort (e.g., study not reproduced in other grant processes)
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study identify the downtown’s strengths and weaknesses?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., elements identified by the Laurel Revitalization Association have been included); satisfaction of public (e.g., elements identified through public processes have been included)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council; approval by Laurel Revitalization Association; inclusion of public elements in Laurel’s CIP, approved by the County Commissioners); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters in support of projects, resolutions of groups in support of projects)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the solutions, once implemented, reduce the need for motorized trips?
Performance Measures: expansion of downtown’s ability to meet basic needs (e.g., increases in business diversity, reduction in distances required to satisfy key needs); increases in use of downtown among residents (e.g., greater numbers of residents reporting trips to downtown destinations)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel Revitalization Association as part of the downtown revitalization process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(b) Studying Laurel’s land use patterns, particularly those elements likely to affect the community’s sustainability and developing recommendations based on sustainable development concepts.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to key organizations, adequacy of survey sample sizes); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at important meetings, rates of completion of surveys); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
How do the land use recommendations compare to more traditional community planning processes?
Performance Measures: breadth of approach (e.g., effectively links land use recommendations with transportation implications); considerate of sustainability impacts (e.g., takes into account long-term costs of land use development patterns).
Product Evaluation:
How completely did the study deal with Laurel’s land use planning process?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., all major livability concerns identified by the Oversight Committee have been discussed and resolved); satisfaction of public (e.g., all major livability concerns identified through public processes have been discussed and resolved)
How satisfactory are the solutions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the report by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption by City Council; approval by Oversight Committee; inclusion in the comprehensive plan); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters of support for major initiatives, resolutions of groups in support)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the recommendations, once implemented, reduce the need for motorized trips?
Performance Measures: changes in development patterns (e.g., different mixtures of land use) changes in travel patterns (e.g., reduction in vehicle miles traveled, reduction in number of trips per household)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The initial evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Changes in long-term patterns will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of its on-going land use planning function.
3. Empower Laurel residents to more effectively create a sustainable future for their own community by:
(a) Conducting a visioning process through an intensive workshop to help identify local visions for a sustainable Laurel future and assisting in the recruitment and training of residents, business owners, local government officials, and members of the development community to join the long-term effort to craft detailed strategies for implementing a sustainable future for Laurel.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to downtown businesses); level of involvement (e.g., attendance at visioning workshop); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
How successful was the project in ensuring participant buy-in?
Performance Measures: level of acceptance (e.g., adoption of key visions by local agencies and groups), inclusion of elements in local budgets); creation of "spin-off" efforts (e.g., groups working on individual elements, volunteer efforts involving creation of vision-related new projects)
Product Evaluation:
How well did the workshop identify a cohesive vision that came from the participants?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters and workshop evaluations testifying to the genuine nature of the process and the result); high ratings of project’ value); satisfaction of key decision-makers (e.g., identification of vision as right for Laurel rather than imported; adoption as part of City charter); satisfaction of public (e.g., letters identifying vision as uniquely appropriate for Laurel)
How satisfactory are the visions proposed?
Performance Measures: acceptance of the visioning process results by key decision-makers (e.g., adoption of vision-related projects by City Council; approval of results by Oversight Committee modification of current and future projects as a result of the process); acceptance by the public (e.g., letters and resolutions of groups in support of vision)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the visions empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable future?
Performance Measures: expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces devoted to community affairs within existing groups)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office in cooperation with the Laurel Revitalization Association as part of the comprehensive planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(b) Provide continuing opportunities for members of the public to get involved in the process and to have their voices heard.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups); level of involvement (e.g., number of people requesting notification and documents); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
Product Evaluation:
How well do the on-going opportunities reflect a commitment on government’s part to take public opinions into account?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters testifying to the satisfactory resolution of issues); standard procedures for dealing with concerns (e.g., records of concerns received and actions taken); satisfaction of public (e.g., letters expressing satisfaction with local government responsiveness)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the on-going involvement activities empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable future?
Performance Measures: expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces devoted to community affairs within existing groups); inclusion of involvement activities in an expanded range of governmental activities (e.g., use of announcement and literature outlets for other kinds of announcements, news paper articles about other local issues)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(c) Seriously consider input from members of the public in the development of the alternative scenarios and the final preferred scenario.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups); level of involvement (e.g., number of people requesting information on scenarios); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from constituents, comments at public meetings).
Product Evaluation:
How well do the consideration of scenario comments reflect a commitment on government’s part to take public opinions into account?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., letters testifying to the satisfactory resolution of issues); standard procedures for dealing with concerns (e.g., records of concerns received and actions taken)
Outcome Evaluation:
How do the on-going involvement activities empower the residents of Laurel to create a more sustainable future?
Performance Measures: expanded involvement in local processes (e.g., increased participation in local government and issues, creation of new organizations devoted to community affairs, creation of task forces devoted to community affairs within existing groups); inclusion of involvement activities in an expanded range of governmental activities (e.g., use of announcement and literature outlets for other kinds of announcements, news paper articles about other local issues)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
(d) Conducting specialized outreach efforts on key aspects of the project, like sustainable development and downtown revitalization.
Process evaluation:
How successfully have the general public and key implementors been included in the process?
Performance Measures: effectiveness of outreach (e.g., newspaper articles, letters to community groups); level of involvement (e.g., number of downtown business owners or local developer participating); satisfaction with the process (e.g., letters from participants, comments at public meetings).
Product Evaluation:
How well did the specialized outreach efforts meet the needs of the participants?
Performance Measures: satisfaction of participants (e.g., positive participant evaluations, letters); interest in future workshops (e.g., suggestions in evaluations, follow-up letters)
Outcome Evaluation:
How did the specialized outreach efforts change development patterns and downtown characteristics?
Performance Measures: new kinds of project proposals (e.g., more sustainable developments, new downtown project proposals, new businesses that serve more sustainable development patterns); interest in inclusion of sustainability factors in local plans and codes (e.g., letters from constituents, creation of task forces)
Roles/Responsibilities/Commitments:
The process and product evaluation of this task will be performed by the Project Team as part of this grant. Effects of long-term outcomes will be evaluated by the Laurel Planning Office as part of the comprehensive planning process and the long-range transportation planning process.
About the Advisory Panel Members:
Chris Allen has ten years of experience in management and communications for sustainable development. He is a project manager in the National Center for Appropriate Technology's (NCAT) Sustainable Energy Program. Since its founding in 1976, the goal of NCAT's energy-related work has been to efficiently research, synthesize, and convey usable technical information to a national audience to help advance the understanding and applications of renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies. This focus complements NCAT's mission to serve primarily low-income audiences through national technical assistance services, training programs, demonstration programs, and clearinghouse projects.
Dan Burden is the founder of Walkable Communities, Inc. a non-profit consulting firm in High Springs, Florida. He has spent the last twenty-five years developing, promoting and evaluating alternative transportation and sustainable communities at national, regional, state and local levels. He specializes in transportation and land use planning, research and implementation of pedestrian, bicycle traffic calming and street improvement projects. He has communications expertise in public involvement, design charrettes and visioning. He serves as an expert witness and has produced videos on street design process.
Hank Dittmar is Campaign Director for the Surface Transportation Policy Project's Transportation and Quality of Life Campaign. Mr. Dittmar was the executive director of STPP from 1993 until TEA-21 passed in 1998, when he moved to New Mexico, and was formerly Manager of Legislation and Finance for the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in Oakland, California. STPP is a non-profit, public interest coalition of over 200 groups devoted to ensuring that transportation policy and investments help conserve energy, protect environmental and aesthetic quality, strengthen the economy, promote social equity, and make communities more livable.
Kathy Harris, P.E., of Helena, Montana is a senior transportation engineer with Carter & Burgess, Inc., and will provide traffic analysis and transportation engineering. Her fifteen years in the transportation field provides a background encompassing planning, design, and environmental analysis of highway, roadway, transit, and pedestrian transportation projects in Montana, Colorado, and Nevada. Recent relevant projects include: Colorado Springs, Phase 2, Downtown Business Improvement Project; Traffic engineering for pedestrians and vehicles during reconstruction of Denver’s Broadway Viaduct; Traffic Engineering for the Pedestrian Grade Separation on the Las Vegas Strip, which included defining pedestrian needs during construction; Kathy is past president and one of the founding members of the Montana Chapter of the Institute of Traffic Engineers and is active in the Intermountain Section.
Marla Larson is an economist with the Pollution Prevention Bureau of the Montana Department of Environmental Quality, where she works on transportation issues including alternative fuels and vehicles, transportation system issues including community design, planning and zoning, and on the economics of pollution prevention. Projects include participating in steering committee for the Greater Yellowstone-Teton Clean Cities Coalition; working with the city of Bozeman on the pilot testing of the Smart Places system for creating resource and fiscal impact scenarios of different types of development; and serving on the multi-agency core planning team for the Greening of Yellowstone Workshops, held in Oct 1996 and May 1998.
Barron Parks, P.E., is the Billings District Engineer for the Montana Department of Transportation.
Stephanie Redman is the program manager for technical services for the National Trust’s National Main Street Center. Her work with more than 250 diverse communities in 33 states across the country has included a variety of commercial district revitalization technical assistance and training. The National Trust for Historic Preservation’s National Main Street Center provides assistance to states and communities in establishing comprehensive downtown revitalization programs. Since 1980, the Center has helped more than 1,300 communities, ranging in size from a few hundred to several million people.
John Williams of Tracy-Williams Consulting, has edited Bicycle Forum since 1979. He spent seven years as the Missoula, Montana, bicycle coordinator, has taught bicycle and pedestrian planning courses for the National Highway Institute and numerous state departments of transportation, and has consulted with many local governments on their bicycle and pedestrian needs. Tracy-Williams Consulting works on bicycle and pedestrian projects and programs with agencies, ranging from the North Carolina DOT, to Carson City, Nevada.
Paul Zykofsky is the Director of the Center for Livable Communities (CLC). He is author of Building Livable Communities: A Policymaker's Guide to Transit Oriented Design and has worked in land-use, air quality, and transportation planning at the New York City Economic Development Corporation, the Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality Management District, and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments. The CLC is a branch of the Local Government Commission, a non-profit, non-partisan membership organization with over 16 years experience helping local government officials identify cost-effective solutions to diverse environmental and social problems.
[ Previous Page | TCSP Home ]
 | TCSP Home | FHWA Home | Feedback | Privacy Notice | Site Map Federal Highway Administration - United States Department of Transportation |