The page you requested has moved and you've automatically been taken to its new location.
Please update your link or bookmark after closing this notice.
This study was conducted by Jack Faucett Associates (JFA) under contract to the United States Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Office of Real Estate Services. The principal investigators for JFA were Ms. Mary Chou and Ms. Kristin Noyes.
We are grateful to all members of the project Sounding Board and the FHWA for their numerous contributions and guidance throughout the length of the project. Their expertise and accomplishments in the development of transportation solutions were integral to the development of this report.
We also wish to extend our appreciation to members of the State Departments of Transportation (STDs), Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional Planning Organizations, U.S. Department of Transportation agencies, Canadian Departments of Transportation, International Organizations, and other transportation agencies for their participation in the FHWA Integration Solutions Survey, conducted as part of this study during the summer of 2002. Their complete and candid responses provided the information necessary to conduct the analysis presented in this report.
|Table 4.1||Number and Percent of Survey Responses from STDs and Other Transportation Related Entities 16|
|Table 4.2||Frequency in Number of Field Units in each Agency 17|
|Table 4.3||Frequency in Number of Agencies with which Each Entity Coordinates in the Formulation of their STP and STIP 18|
|Table 4.4||Percentage of Integrated and Non-Integrated Approach in Centralized and Decentralized Agencies 25|
|Table 4.5||Percentage of Integrated and Non-Integrated Approach in Centralized Agencies with Either Uniform or Non-Uniform Processes 25|
|Table 4.6||Percentage of Project Development Styles in Integrated and Non-Integrated Agencies 28|
|Table 4.7||Responses Indicating Whether or Not a Multi-Disciplinary Approach is Useful, Percentage by Discipline 39|
|Table 4.8||Responses Addressing the Impact of a Multi-Disciplinary Approach, Percentage by Discipline 40|
|Table 4.9||Frequency of Responses as to why a Multi-Disciplinary Approach was Not Adopted, Percentage by Discipline 42|
|Table 5.1||Role of Disciplines in Each Phase in the Project Development Process 48|
|Chart 4.1||Number and Percent of Survey Responses from STDs by Discipline 16|
|Chart 4.2||Number and Percent of Survey Responses from STDs by Geographic Location 17|
|Chart 4.3||Percentage of Integrated Agencies based on Number of Field Units 18|
|Chart 4.4||Percentage of Integrated Agencies based on Number of Coordinating Entities 19|
|Chart 4.5||Percent of Centralized vs. Decentralized (Uniform vs. Non-Uniform Procedures across Field Units) Agencies 20|
|Chart 4.6||Most Frequently Listed Factors Affecting the Transportation Solution Development Process 23|
|Chart 4.7||Factors Most Frequently Listed as the Number One Influential Factor Affecting the Transportation Solution Development Process 23|
|Chart 4.8||Percent of Agencies with Integrated vs. Non-Integrated Processes 24|
|Chart 4.9||Percentage of Decision-making Processes in Integrated and Non-Integrated Agencies 26|
|Chart 4.10||Development Styles, Percentage of Responses 27|
|Chart 4.11||Impact of Integrated Approach on Each Discipline's Timing of Involvement in the Development of Transportation Solutions 29|
|Chart 4.12||Impact of Integrated Approach on Each Discipline's Level of Involvement in the Development of Transportation Solutions 29|
|Chart 4.13||Impact of Integration on Each Discipline's Level and Timing of Involvement 30|
|Chart 4.14||Impact of Integrated Approach on the Effectiveness of Each Discipline's Contribution to the Development of Transportation Solutions 32|
|Chart 4.15||Impact of Integrated Approach on the Efficiency of Each Discipline's Contribution to the Development of Transportation Solutions 33|
|Chart 4.16||Impact of an Integrated Approach on Contributions to the Development of Transportation Solutions 34|
|Chart 4.17||Impact of Integration on the Effectiveness and Efficiency of Each Discipline's Contribution 34|
|Chart 4.18||Efforts Taken to Measure Results of the More Integrated Approach 36|
|Chart 4.19||Planning and Transportation Entities Consulted in the Development of an Integrated Approach 37|
|Chart 4.20||Impediments Encountered when Implementing an Integrated Approach 38|
|Chart 4.21||Reasons Multi-Disciplinary Approach Not Adopted, Percentage of Responses 42|
This executive summary highlights the findings of a study of current practices in the development of transportation solutions in State Departments of Transportation (STDs) and other transportation agencies. This "State of the Practice" synthesis report is the first of three products developed for the United States Department of Transportation's Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) project, "Integrating and Streamlining Transportation Development and Decision-making." The project focuses on the integration of the disciplines of planning, environment, engineering and real estate in the development of transportation solutions. Findings in this report were developed based on a review of available literature, an analysis of results from the FHWA Integration Solutions Survey, and the input and suggestions from a Sounding Board of nationwide transportation professionals.
Major Study Finding 1: A review of existing literature revealed that there are disparities among the states in their approaches to the development of transportation solutions.
Major Study Finding 2: A group of federal, state and regional level transportation professionals are dedicated to the concept of promoting integration in the transportation decision-making process.
Major Study Finding 3: The United States Department of Transportation and certain states - Oregon, Wisconsin, Florida, Pennsylvania, Washington and California, as a few examples - are in the forefront of the movement to promote integration in the transportation decision-making process.
Major Study Finding 4: While there is a fair amount of disparity among states in the processes they use to develop transportation solutions, there are also notable similarities.
Major Finding 5: Even among states reporting themselves to be non-integrated, respondents recognize value of an integrated approach.
Major Finding 6: Survey results provide a basis for identifying the most frequent types of processes and development styles currently in use in integrated agencies.
Major Finding 7: Integrated agencies are less likely to have a functional discipline project management style.
Additional Findings from Qualitative Survey Responses: Qualitative comments from survey respondents provide more detailed information about the uniform processes utilized in both integrated and non-integrated agencies, as well as the general responsibilities of each discipline throughout different stages of the process.