Skip to Content Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration
FHWA Home  |  FTA Home  |  Feedback   
 

Peer Exchanges, Planning for a Better Tomorrow, Transportation Planning Capacity Building

Transportation Planning Capacity Building Program

— Peer Exchange Report —

Developing Statewide Long Range Transportation Plans

Location: Lansing, Michigan
 
Date:
 
June 14-15, 2005
 
Exchange Host Agencies:    
 
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
Federal Highway Administration Michigan Division
Exchange Participants: Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT)
Federal Highway Administration Michigan Division (FHWA MI Division)
Federal Highway Administration Illinois Division (FHWA IL Division)
Federal Transit Administration Region 5 (FTA Region 5)
Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT)
Indiana Department of Transportation (INDOT)
Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT)
Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT)
Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT)
Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG)
US DOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center
Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
Wisconsin Department of Transportation (WISDOT)

Table of Contents

  1. Summary
  2. Long Range Plan Overviews
    1. Colorado
    2. Florida
    3. Minnesota
    4. Washington
    5. Ohio
    6. Michigan
  3. Panel Discussions
    1. Visioning
    2. Developmental Logistics
    3. Freight and Economics
    4. Public Involvement
    5. Approaches
  4. Factors that Support the Planning-Programming Linkage
  5. For More Information
  6. Attendees List
  7. Agenda

I. Summary

The Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) is preparing to update its Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan (SLRP). MDOT requested a peer exchange to obtain guidance from other states in preparing their plan. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) sponsored the exchange through the Transportation Planning Capacity Building (TPCB) Program. MDOT and FHWA Michigan Division co-hosted the event. Six states (Colorado, Florida, Minnesota, Washington, Ohio, and Michigan) presented their SLRPs and other nearby DOTs (Illinois, Indiana, and Wisconsin) and FHWA and FTA staff members attended.

Figure 1. Statewide Long Range Planning Peer Exchange Participants
Figure 1. Statewide Long Range Planning Peer Exchange Participants

The two-day peer exchange focused on how state DOTs develop SLRPs. Representatives from the state DOTs shared their approaches and discussed the successes and challenges experienced in plan development. The agencies demonstrated how planning activities are used in different economic and political situations and focused on the benefits provided by the plans. The goal of the exchange was to share practices to assist states in developing efficient and productive SLRPs.

The discussion during the peer exchange covered many aspects of the plan development process including: visioning; technical developmental logistics (e.g., use of consultants, coordination with other transportation agencies, incorporation of non-highway modes); integration of freight and economics; approaches used for long range plans (i.e., corridor, project focused, policy driven, multi-modal, or mixed); and successful public involvement techniques.

MDOT videotaped the peer exchange proceedings and has made the presentations and video available on the MDOT State Long Range Plan website.

back to top

II. Long Range Plan Overviews

  1. Colorado

    Moving Colorado — Vision for the Future, 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan, Adopted February, 2005

    Moving Colorado was developed using a corridor-focused regional visioning approach to identify transportation needs throughout the state. In Colorado, the governor-appointed Transportation Commission oversees transportation activities. The Commission set the policies used to guide CDOT's development of the Statewide Transportation Plan (STP) and corridor visions. Safety, system quality, and mobility were identified as priority investment categories and performance measures and objectives were developed to monitor progress.

    In addition to its headquarters staff, which is responsible for the STP, CDOT has six engineering regions. Prior to the visioning process, regional staff spent several months in intense collaboration with CDOT headquarters to learn about each other's tasks, including the connectivity between the long-range plan and regional implementation of the projects.

    Colorado has fifteen Transportation Planning Regions (TPRs) that generally overlap with six CDOT regions. CDOT headquarters and regional staff worked with the TPRs to develop corridor visions and plans that reflected both the local and statewide needs. Using special software designed by CDOT, the TPRs created visions for over 350 corridors throughout the State. Each corridor vision included a vision statement, goals and strategies that support one or all of the investment categories identified by the Transportation Commission. Figure 2 illustrates the connectivity between planning activities.

    Figure 2: Flowchart of Colorado Regional and Statewide Transportation Planning Process.  Transportation Commission and public input feed into the New Corridor Visions. Corridor Visions feed into Regional Transportation Plans, which feed into the Statewide Transportation Plan.  The Statewide Transportation Plan is the basis for the STIP which leads to projects.  The public has input at all levels, and the Transportation Commission is involved in the Statewide Transportation Plan and STIP.
    Figure 2. Colorado Regional and Statewide Transportation Planning Process


    CDOT worked with the Transportation Commission, MPOs and regional representatives to develop revenue projections and resource allocation policies. The policies tie project funding, as identified in the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), to the corridor visions and investment categories. For projects to be incorporated into the STIP, they must:
    • be consistent with the corridor vision, goals and strategies
    • have funding available from the appropriate investment category
    • be included in a local TIP (in MPO areas)
    After the corridor visions were developed, CDOT worked with the TPRs to allocate funding based on performance measures supporting the investment categories. The concept that corridor visions would control project selection was a struggle for many of the TPRs, who were used to proposing specific projects to the STIP.

    During the process of allocating funds, CDOT and the TPRs struggled to balance the mobility needs of urban areas with the system quality preservation needs of rural areas. Both the corridor visioning process and public input recognized that urban and rural areas had disparate interests and needs regarding the three investment categories. Once the funding was allocated, TPRs developed fiscally constrained Regional Transportation Plans (RTPs), which were incorporated into the final STP.

    While the RTPs are fiscally constrained, Moving Colorado included a financial analysis to illustrate future conditions with existing funding levels ($75 billion), what would be needed to maintain existing conditions ($123 billion), and the cost to implement the full vision plan (more than $178 billion). This analysis contributed to public pressure and legislative attempts to increase transportation funding.

    More information on Moving Colorado — Vision for the Future can be found on the CDOT 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan website.
  2. Florida

    The Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) presented its Transportation Policy Framework and introduced the goals identified in the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan Update (FTP), adopted in December 2000. The presentation focused on the subsequent development process of the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) and then discussed the implications of the SIS on the 2025 FTP, which is currently under development.

    Florida's Planning Framework
    Florida's Transportation Plan (FTP) is a top-down policy framework that guides program funding for all modes of transportation within the context of the state Comprehensive Plan. The policies set forth in the FTP are used to develop financially constrained objectives (i.e., 90% of bridges meet FDOT standards) for the Short-Range Component, which is updated annually and serves as FDOT's performance report. Projects identified to support these objectives are implemented through the work program and monitored for future planning activities. (Illustrated in Figure 3.)

    Figure 3: Flowchart of Florida Policy Framework.  The Policy Framework for Investment Decisions illustrates the top down connectivity between the following documents and activities: Florida Transportation Plan (20 year horizon), Florida Transportation Plan Short-Range Component (5-10 year horizon), Program and Resource Plan, which leads to both the 5-Year Work Program and Annual Budget. Both go to the Legislature, Adopted Work Program and Budget and Performance Monitoring.
    Figure 3. Florida Policy Framework


    Strategic Intermodal System
    One of the key programs developed from the 2020 FTP was the Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), a statewide system of high-priority facilities. SIS was created as a multi-modal framework to consider the FTP goals, particularly economic competitiveness. Figure 4 illustrates that the FTP and SIS act as overarching policy frameworks for modal planning activities.

    Figure 4 illustrates the overarching relationship of the Florida Transportation Plan and Strategic Intermodal System to the Modal Systems and Plans.  Passenger and Freight Trips are considered across modes.  Highway plans include the FIHS Modal Plan. Rail includes the State Rail Plan and High Speed Rail.  Transit has the Transit 2020 Plan.  Seaport has the Seaport Mission Plan, Intermodal Plan and Freight Plan.  Air and Space has the Aviation System Plan and Spaceport Master Plan.  Other plans include the Bicycle/Pedestrian Plan and ITS Strategic Plan.
    Figure 4. Florida Transportation Planning Framework


    FDOT organized a 41-member steering committee representing a wide range of public and private sector interests to develop criteria and standards for the SIS. The committee developed quantitative measures to define a multi-modal network of high priority transportation hubs, corridors, and connectors crucial to supporting economic prosperity and growth 1. SIS investment needs were identified and a framework developed for selecting projects. The steering committee also developed guidance to implement the plan, including financial strategies for both FDOT and its partners. Building on the policy identified in the 2020 FTP, development of the SIS was seen as a three-step process consisting of "a Plan, a Law, and an Investment Policy," with all three components needed for success. SIS strategies have been adopted by the legislature and incorporated into program and resource planning.

    The SIS provides a foundation for a new way of planning and managing Florida's transportation system. Table 1 shows the key changes in perspective reflected the SIS strategy.

    Table 1. Strategic Intermodal System Perspective Change
    From ... To ...
    Individual modes and facilities Complete end-to-end trip
    Individual jurisdictions Economic regions and trade corridors
    Facility design standards User-oriented service standards
    Capacity and throughput Reliability and bottlenecks
    Travel time and vehicle operating costs Business logistics and economic competitiveness
    Reacting to economic growth and community and environmental impacts Proactive planning for economic, community and environmental goals

    A secondary but crucial outcome of Florida's recent planning activities is that it has created an enduring constituency of public and private stakeholders who are working together to address the state's transportation needs. Florida has taken the position that the more people who are involved the better. There are currently 47 active members on the 2025 FTP steering committee representing a broad array of state, local, modal, industry, and non-profit interests, and over 80 individuals participated in the 2020 FTP steering and advisory committees. With the breadth of interests participating in the planning process, Florida has been successful in gaining support for and implementing its policies and plans.

    More information on the 2020 Florida Transportation Plan and 2025 Florida Transportation Plan can be found on FDOT's Florida Transportation Plan website. FDOT also has information available on-line regarding its Strategic Intermodal System.
  3. Minnesota

    Moving People and Freight from 2003 to 2023, Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan, Adopted in 2003

    The goals for the 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan (STP) included creating stronger links to the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Strategic Plan and being multi-modal and performance-based. A key component of the STP process was development of the performance measures and their impacts on Mn/DOT's eight district Long Range Plans. Figure 5 illustrates the links between the various planning activities.

    Figure 5 illustrates Minnesota DOT's Planning and Programming Process. The Mn/DOT Strategic Plan influences the Statewide Transportation Plan which impacts MPO, RDC, Tribal Governments and Other Local Plans; District Long-Range Plans; Interregional Corridor Managment Plans; and Modal Plans (Freight, Transit, Motor Carrier & Aeronautics).  These plans lead to the 10-Year Programs of Capital and Service Improvements and 1-3 year Statewide Transportation Impvrovement Program.
    Figure 5. Mn/DOT's Planning and Programming Process


    Mn/DOT organized a Statewide Planning Steering Committee consisting of representatives of Mn/DOT, other state agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs), Regional Development Commissions (RDCs), cities, and counties to oversee development of the STP. Ten plan policies and desired outcomes were identified by Mn/DOT to support its three Strategic Directions:
    • safeguard what exists;
    • make the network operate better; and
    • make Mn/DOT work better.
    For each of the policies, performance measures and realistic targets were set to monitor progress. In addition, the STP includes guidance for the use of the policy and example strategies for implementing it. In developing the policies and performance measures, Mn/DOT struggled to balance the need for system preservation in Greater Minnesota and mobility issues in the Twin Cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul. Balancing the needs of the Interregional Corridor (IRC) System and projects identified by regions as high priority was also a struggle. Adopted as part of the 2000 STP, the IRC is a set of key transportation corridors connecting regional trade centers that have specific mobility performance measures.

    Mn/DOT discussed the process of developing district Long Range Plans since they rely heavily on the policies identified within the STP. The purpose of the District Plans is to:
    • provide objective and consistent statewide estimates of investments needed to meet performance targets for the legislature
    • prioritize investments for available funding
    • identify gaps by performance category to which additional funding could be applied
    Using data collected by Mn/DOT headquarters, districts worked with stakeholders to analyze existing conditions and identify safety and mobility deficiencies. Each district plan includes strategies and cost estimates needed to meet performance targets. The plans identify district investment priorities given a fiscally constrained revenue forecast and the gap between funding needs and currently projected funding levels.

    While stakeholders were involved in developing the performance measures, developing an investment strategy using the performance measures was more difficult than anticipated. Several iterations were needed to make the performance measures comprehensive and implementable. Not all of the performance targets were directly related to investments (e.g. safety) and some key community concerns were not expressed by the targets.

    In some cases, high priority projects did not meet performance targets. To moderate this, regions were allowed to use between three and five percent of forecasted available funding to implement Community Improvement Projects that did not meet performance targets. Another barrier to using performance targets was the fact that existing formulas for distributing funding did not match the needs identified by the performance measures.

    In addition to the above challenges, the overall transportation budget is well below what is needed to meet the performance goals. Under this constraint, pavement and bridge preservation were designated as top funding priorities. Between pavement and bridge preservation and Community Improvement Projects, little money was available for other projects, including those along the state's high priority IRC.

    More information on Moving People and Freight from 2003 to 2023 and other statewide planning in Minnesota can be found on Mn/DOT's Office of Investment Management website.
  4. Washington

    2005 Washington Transportation Plan (2007-2026), in development

    Since the early 1990's Washington's transportation plan has evolved from a highway plan to a compartmentalized multi-modal plan and later to an integrated multi-modal, financially unconstrained plan. The 2005 plan update will include financially constrained program and investment proposals that are data driven and linked to major issue areas. Figure 6 provides a summary of activities leading into the adoption of the 2005 Washington Transportation Plan (WTP), which is expected to be complete by the end of 2005.

    Figure 6 provides an illustration of the work flow for Washington State's Transportation Plan Development. which started in April 2004 and is expected to be completed in December 2005.  Early steps include Data development and analysis; Commission conducts monthly workshops leading to tenative outline decisions in September 2004 and concurrence with overall approach in October 2004; and preliminary and emerging information availabale for decision-making and budget decisions for the 2005 legislative session towards the end of 2004.  WSDOT develops investment plan, including project lists and programs working with the RTPOs between Sept. 2004 to Aug. 2005.  Commission workshops on emerging directions and proposals for targeted investment and Commission matches priorities to funding scenarios takes up early to mid-2005 with a draft Plan by September and Fianl Plan in December.  Involement of RTPOs, interest groups, tribes, community groups and local officials continues from the beginning of the project through development of the draft report.
    Figure 6. Washington Transportation Plan Development Process


    Transportation planning and policy setting is centralized through the Washington State Transportation Commission. The Commission works with the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) to develop the WTP and ten-year investment plan. Project delivery is decentralized; Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) submit their Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) directly to the Governor for approval and incorporation into the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).

    WSDOT has made major efforts to work with MPOs and Regional Transportation Planning Organizations (RTPOs), which had felt disengaged from previous planning activities. The legislature funded RTPOs to participate in the development of the WTP. As part of their participation, they have met with WSDOT modal directors for the first time and been briefed on the WTP regularly. RTPOs are working with WSDOT to develop areas of targeted investment. Additional outreach efforts have been directed at specific interest groups including Tribal Transportation Planning Organization, safety groups, and freight customers.

    WSDOT has focused on developing a statewide transportation data library to support decision-making. This centralized information source is designed to facilitate sharing of information and includes source data to allow additional analysis and verification of the data. Current categories include population, economy, transportation facilities and system, and use of transportation facilities and systems. A data category relating to costs of providing a transportation system is currently under development.

    From the information collected for the data library, WSDOT developed a profile of current and future conditions for each of nine strategic issues:

    • System Preservation
    • Safety
    • Transportation Access
    • System Efficiencies
    • Bottlenecks & Chokepoints
    • Moving Freight
    • Building Future Visions
    • Strong Economy & Good Jobs
    • Health & the Environment
    The profiles include summaries of what has been found and "emerging directions" for future consideration, including potential areas of targeted investment. Discussions with the Transportation Commission and other outreach activities have relied on the profiles to discuss the strategic issues.

    WSDOT found the process of creating profiles relating the strategic issues to be useful in providing a clear understanding of issues for its stakeholders. MPOs had not understood the state efforts towards preservation and safety. Even before completing the WTP, the profiles were able to clearly express expected needs and funding gaps, prompting the legislature to increase the gas tax and pass a significant capital funding package.

    It was expected that once the Transportation Commission had approved the emerging directions and areas of targeted investment, they would work with WSDOT to prioritize projects matched to funding sources, which were expected to be financially constrained. Of the needs identified in the developing WTP, 85% were met with the legislature's funding package. The final WTP will highlight the remaining gaps and include a 10-year investment package.

    WSDOT's Transportation Plan Update website provides more information about the WTP update, including the transportation data library.
  5. Ohio

    Access Ohio 2004-2030, Statewide Transportation Plan, Adopted November 2004

    Access Ohio is a multi-modal financially constrained plan. The plan develops policy and project specific recommendations based on existing conditions and measurable objectives, which support goals identified by working with MPOs and public input. Projects were developed and grouped using a concept of trade and travel corridors in coordination with MPO Regional Transportation Plans. Figure 7 illustrates the process used to develop Access Ohio and its relationship to other planning activities.

    Figure 7 is a Flowchart of the planning process used to develop Access Ohio 2004-2030. The flowchart illustrates integrated coordination of planning activities highlighting customer and stakeholder opinion surveys in developing goals and objectives which lead into projects and the statewide transportation plan and later program and project activities.  Analysis of system conditions influence projects.
    Figure 7. Ohio's Transportation Planning Process


    Based on ODOT policy, new projects are funded after system preservation needs have been met. New capacity building projects are chosen by the Transportation Review Advisory Council (TRAC), which is composed of the director of the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT), and eight appointees — six chosen by the governor, one by the Ohio Senate president, and one by the speaker of the Ohio House. TRAC prioritizes new capital projects based on performance measures. Before Access Ohio had been written, the Governor had identified major projects in his Jobs and Progress Plan. Access Ohio reconfirmed the need for these projects. ODOT started its planning efforts with public outreach by:
    • conducting 1,200 phone surveys of the general population,
    • involving over 1,000 high-school students in focus groups, and
    • sending mail surveys to transportation stakeholders such as elected officials, freight carriers, MPO representatives and ODOT staff.
    ODOT based its goals on this input and existing federal, local and state visions and goals. For each goal, measurable objectives were defined.

    An important component of Access Ohio is describing the existing conditions and trends, which was feasible since ODOT collects a great deal of data. Statewide analyses of demographics, economics, travel patterns and trends were conducted.

    Access Ohio has a chapter on each mode that includes:
    • Travel patterns and rates
    • Existing sources of revenue
    • Key performance measures
    • Existing and future infrastructure conditions
    • Sufficiency analyses using performance measures
    • ODOT's roles and policies
    • Strategies, policy direction and recommendations
    Within the Highway Chapter, corridors crucial to trade and travel were identified and designated as Macro Highway Corridors. The process of agreeing on criteria and designating the corridors was challenging and took over a year to complete. Once identified, these corridors are given priority relative to equivalent needs on lesser roads. When considering new capital projects, Macro Highway Corridors receive additional TRAC points.

    After the modal analyses were conducted, Macro Highway Corridors and the parallel travel facilities were identified as 26 Trade and Travel Corridors. Each corridor was profiled and primary objectives stated. Specific projects that support Access Ohio goals and corridor objectives were identified. Project costs and expected construction timeframe were identified and matched to funding. In addition to creating a financially constrained plan, a financially unconstrained project list was developed.

    Funds are distributed to each district based on its level of need in meeting specific goals. Funds may be spent on any projects within the district that support the goal for which the funds were designated. As a part of the Business Plan, key managers' job performance reviews are tied to performance goals identified in the plan to keep overall goals in sight. Table 2 describes how Access Ohio has become integrated into ODOT's day-to-day activities.

    Table 2. Uses of Access Ohio
    ODOT Activities Access Ohio Contribution
    Business Plan Strategies and performance goals
    Strategic initiatives
    State of the Transportation System Report
    Financial Plan 10-year forecast
    Allocations tied to asset management needs
    Safety and Congestion Programs Actions tied to sufficiency
    Low, medium and high cost solution options
    Jobs and ProgressProject Development Process Projects identified
    Purpose and need justification

    Access Ohio can be downloaded from ODOT's Division of Planning, Urban & Corridor Planning website.
  6. Michigan

    Michigan DOT gave a brief summary of their existing State Long Range Plan and discussed some of the issues on which they are focusing for the update that is now beginning. The State Long Range Plan, adopted in 2002, focused on border issues and commerce and included the following components:
    • A transportation vision tied to federal requirements (such as safety),
    • An overview of infrastructure conditions and major corridors,
    • Strategies to make improvements,
    • Performance measures designed to monitor progress (not set as performance targets)
    • "Ribbon charts" to help map the current and desired investments and compare them to funding availability.
    Asset management has been a primary focus for MDOT since it adopted its previous plan. Goals for the upcoming plan update include better modal integration; balancing preservation vs. increasing capacity; consideration of safety and elderly mobility; border capacity and freight movement; quantifying economic impacts; and more representative public participation.

back to top

III. Panel Discussions

The second day of the peer exchange included panel discussions on five specific topics:

  • Visioning Process
  • Developmental Logistics
  • Integration of Freight and Economics
  • Approaches to Long Range Plans
  • Successful Public Involvement Techniques

For each topic, several questions were asked of the state DOTs that presented the previous day. MDOT's State Long Range Plan Planning Team developed the questions after the first day's presentations in order to assist MDOT in its upcoming long range plan activities. For each question a table lists the responses of each state that answered the question and provides supplemental information from the previous day's discussions. Washington State was unable to participate in the panel discussions. In this section, "SLRP," or "plan" are used to generically refer to statewide long range transportation plans.

  1. Visioning

    1. How did you involve internal and external stakeholders in your visioning process? Who did you involve?
    Ohio ODOT's vision incorporated the visions of MPOs and local, state, and federal transportation agencies. ODOT also included visioning questions in surveys and public meetings. Since there were no major policy changes expected, ODOT relied on its departmental mission statement as its vision.
    Minnesota The vision for the STP was carried over from other existing planning documents, including the Mn/DOT Strategic Plan and Interregional Corridor Guidance.
    Florida Stakeholders participated in the steering committee to develop the FTP goals. The FTP develops policies to guide future activities as opposed to outlining a specific vision of the future.
    Colorado Since it is difficult for the public to think with a statewide perspective, Colorado's Transportation Commission sets the overall vision. Stakeholders are involved in developing corridor visions. In the future, CDOT would like to involve environmental groups and consider National Environmental Protection Agency requirements earlier in the planning process.


    1. If your SLRP is based on a vision that requires significant new funding, how can it also guide investments of existing revenues? Can it accomplish both goals well?
    Ohio Ohio relied on performance measure targets, which were based on realistic funding scenarios. Funding was distributed to hit performance measures.
    Minnesota Minnesota used performance targets to articulate its vision. Districts were responsible for developing fiscally constrained project lists based on a prioritization of performance targets and unconstrained project lists to determine how much of a funding gap existed. Performance targets were designed to guide investment and articulate goals, which is particularly important when different districts have different goals.
    Florida Florida's SIS prioritizes projects based on funding availability to advance the articulated goals.
    Colorado It is mandated that Moving Colorado be fiscally constrained. Financially unconstrained scenarios are included to illustrate the resources needed to maintain existing conditions and support the vision.


    1. Many of you stated that your plan is a state plan, not a DOT plan. How does the plan approach differ based on who delivers the system (e.g. state roads; local transit)? How do local system providers use the plan to guide their decisions/investments?
    Ohio In Ohio, local systems look to DOT for leadership and use tools and policies used by ODOT. ODOT collects local and modal specific data and provides it to municipalities and modal agencies for their own analysis. Some funding sources (e.g., state gas tax) and programs (e.g., urban paving) create overlap between ODOT and local agencies.
    Minnesota The STP incorporates Mn/DOT district plans. There is still a struggle between the relative needs of local areas (some local "major issues" are minor in comparison to needs in other districts), which is why Minnesota is moving towards a more data driven process to help explain these issues. The STP analyzes the conditions and funding available for non-highway programs, including the state resources available to support each mode.
    Florida The FTP recommends policy to prioritize Florida's overall transportation needs. While the focus of the FTP is statewide, the policies emanating from the FTP impact state, regional (including MPO), and local transportation agencies. In addition, the SIS identifies transportation facilities of statewide importance regardless of whether they are controlled by the state. Incorporating non-state facilities in the SIS has created more interaction among local, regional, and state agencies.
    Colorado Moving Colorado includes topics over which CDOT has no jurisdiction, including transit and rail. Needs analyses were conducted for county and city transportation facilities. CDOT worked with modal programs to incorporate planning activities from these organizations. Since CDOT does not control funding or activities, they felt it was important to work with the other modes and locals in order for the plan to be meaningful. A broad group of stakeholders was included in developing the corridor visions, which discuss solutions to transportation needs regardless of mode.

  2. Developmental Logistics

    1. Could you clarify when you used consultants and why you use consultants at certain milestones in the SLRP process? How did you manage the overall methodology of your transportation plan when you hired several consultants? Are there any elements of the plan development for which you would recommend using a consultant?
    Ohio ODOT had a frustrating experience with its previous plan, which was primarily developed by consultants. For the most recent plan, ODOT did not use consultants to conceptualize or write the plan. Consultants were used to assist with specific tasks including:
    • research in a specific area (freight)
    • development of a public involvement plan
    • creation of software tools for public involvement activities
    • final document editing and formatting
    While ODOT used consultants to help support the public involvement campaign, ODOT ran meetings themselves, as if felt that ODOT staff should be the "face" of the project.

    ODOT felt that developing the plan in-house created a stronger state team and increased motivation for implementing tasks. ODOT believes that consultants can be useful for completing specific tasks (e.g., data analysis) in a given timeframe, which was sometimes difficult for ODOT employees who were working on many other projects simultaneously.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT used consultants to develop the performance measure component of the plan and to facilitate focus groups. Due to shortages in staffing/resources, consultants were used for forecasting, market research and project cost estimation for the district plans.

    Mn/DOT feels that consultants are useful to meet staffing needs and to provide technical capabilities, but are less beneficial for tasks that are inherently the responsibility of an agency. In those cases, the consultant supports the process by asking questions, but the agency must still make the decisions and "do the work."
    Florida Florida relied heavily on consultants for technical support and staffing needs. State staff and consultants were completely integrated into project teams, which were given decision-making authority. FDOT felt that consultants were particularly useful in developing a process and providing momentum. However, they recognize that strong state project managers are important to successful collaboration with consultants.
    Colorado CDOT relied primarily on internal staff. Consultants were used for
    • Public surveys
    • Regional planning assistance in non-MPO areas
    • Local needs assessments
    • Public relations
    • Document writing and graphics
    Future use of consultants would likely be similar.


    1. What role did external agencies (MPOs, RPOs, Tribal Government, Resource Agencies), and DOT Regional offices play in the process and at what point were they involved in the SLRP process?
    Ohio Access Ohio's goals and objectives incorporated the visions of MPOs and local, state, and federal transportation agencies. Trade and Travel Corridors were developed in conjunction with MPOs and ODOT district offices. ODOT relied on modal expertise where appropriate. Traditionally, there has been little collaboration between ODOT and non-transportation state agencies and departments.
    Minnesota The statewide planning commission included natural resources and economic development agencies. It was not clear how much information was passed from commission representatives to appropriate staff. While commission input was useful, providing too much information shifted the focus away from conceptual buy-in.

    District plans were developed jointly with MPO and regional planning activities. Mn/DOT and the MPOs worked collaboratively and shared modeling resources.
    Florida Representatives of external agencies were fully involved on the steering and sub-committees. District staff acted as advisors and collaborated with local organizations to present public meetings. External agencies, including FDOT modal offices incorporate the FTP's policies into their planning activities.
    Colorado Regional agencies were highly involved in resource allocation and revenue forecasts. CDOT district staff participates in MPO committees and transmits regional comments back to CDOT headquarters. Transportation Planning Regions develop regional plans which are the foundation of the statewide plan.


    1. What prompted the update of the SLRP?
    Ohio The Federal Highway Administration required ODOT to develop a new SLRP before it would approve the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.
    Minnesota Minnesota was legally required to update the plan and also wanted to incorporate performance measures into the plan. In the future, Mn/DOT is thinking of matching updates to gubernatorial election cycle.
    Florida FDOT is required to maintain a 20-year horizon by state, as well as federal, law and regulations.
    Colorado CDOT updated its plan in order to match and support the MPO Long Range Plan triennial update cycle.


    1. How did you set performance measures?
    Ohio ODOT relies heavily on performance measures because "what you measure is what gets done." Performance measures are set to maintain a steady state and are used to distribute funds. Performance measures are continually monitored and are tied to employee performance evaluations.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT tried to set performance measures by what the public sees as important, not by what Mn/DOT would like to provide. (e.g., The public is ok with snow clearing taking 8-12 hours on smaller roads, but districts would like to provide better service.)
    Florida FDOT uses simple "measures of effectiveness" developed in conjunction with the Florida Transportation Commission and through the process of implementing the "Sterling Business Model." Measures currently focus on safety, mobility and simple measurement of economic impacts, but will be expanded in the future.
    Colorado The process of developing performance measures was difficult, but important. CDOT started by developing performance objectives, without financial constraint but then realized that it could not meet those goals with existing source of money. CDOT is not using existing management systems to set reasonable performance measures.

    CDOT used fairly standard performance measures for pavement management and bridges but is still struggling to find a good measure for congestion. CDOT identifies road congestion by the number of vehicle miles traveled that experience volume to capacity ratios over 0.85. They are currently working with MPOs to determine if additional data collection would be useful.


    1. Have you used any innovative techniques for displaying or forecasting travel demand or financial information, or communicating with the public?
    States found Geographic Information Systems (GIS) and maps were very effective tools for communicating both to the public and to legislatures. Graphs and projections showing gaps between funding scenarios made needs clear. Interactive tools allowing people to visualize the impacts of their recommendations/scenarios were useful.

    Colorado provided base data and developed software to assist districts in creating their corridor visions. The program presented a series of questions and used the answers to populate a standardized vision statement format. Districts could then modify their vision statement if desired. CDOT found that the software was useful for smaller districts but that the larger more sophisticated districts needed more flexibility.
  3. Freight and Economics

    1. Describe the level of economic analysis completed as part of your SLRP development process. Were alternative policy scenarios modeled to assess the economic impacts and if so, what methodologies and tools were used?
    Ohio ODOT worked closely with freight carriers to understand industrial trends in Ohio. Ohio conducted a detailed analysis of existing freight activities in the state to identify potential economic opportunities from the high level of "through traffic." While no extensive modeling was conducted, basic analyses were used to:
    • Make policy changes to redirect truck traffic from local roads onto the Ohio Turnpike,
    • hange operating policies to keep at least one travel lane open at all times, and
    • Better identify intermodal projects.
    Minnesota Minnesota considered timesavings in travel and the importance of "the last mile" of the journey, which is often slowed by urban congestion. Rural communities identified transportation infrastructure as a local community development benefit. Mn/DOT felt that it was difficult for them to support business needs since business needs change rapidly but transportation planning has a much longer planning horizon.
    Florida Florida characterizes the trends and conditions for freight movement and recognizes changes in key variables such as volume to value ratios and the use of just in time shipping.
    Colorado The scale of freight movement was characterized but there was little additional information available. CDOT worked with a freight advisory committee but the freight community considers long range planning to be 6 months, not 20 years from now. They were interested in understanding how data was to be used before agreeing to collect it.


    1. How did you get the industries interested in participating in the freight portion of the plan? Did the freight industry see the benefit of the planning process? If they did see a benefit, how are you keeping them engaged?
    Most states struggled to interest industries in participating in SLRP activities because industry's planning time frame is very different than that used in transportation. Discussing transportation needs twenty years into the future does not align with business planning which looks six to twelve months in the future

    Ohio Ohio felt that it was better to engage industry in specific tasks as opposed to struggling to have their ongoing involvement. ODOT organized forums to allow industry to share their issues. Since industry is not continually involved, it is important that they be able to figure out who to work with when they do have an issue. Currently, industry goes to the governor, as opposed to working with ODOT.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT has a statewide freight plan and engages the industry proactively through the Minnesota Freight Advisory Council (MFAC). MFAC is designed to facilitate discussions between industry and Mn/DOT on daily policy issues. Each MPO has an appointed freight representative. In general it is recognized that improvements geared toward commuter travel also benefit freight.
    Florida FDOT's relationship with the freight industry is just beginning. Activities of a freight stakeholders task force began the process, but there is little coordination at the MPO level. Modal freight organizations are beginning to recognize the benefit of working with FDOT and have begun to set up lobbying arms, with which FDOT hopes to work. FDOT expects that industry will focus on corridor planning.
    Colorado CDOT found involving industry difficult because industry representatives did not have time to participate and struggled with the generality of long-range planning. During freight advisory committee meetings, CDOT felt that providers were less willing to talk about their plans since their competition was also there. CDOT was more successful with focus groups that had a shorter commitment and focused on a specific activity. Industry is now waiting to see if CDOT will follow through with the projects that were identified.


    1. hat are the advantages/disadvantages of toll roads relative to the movement of freight?
    Ohio "No new toll roads!" Toll roads are politically infeasible in Ohio at this time.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT is considering high-occupancy toll lanes, which industry is interested in using. Minnesota sees truck-only lanes as an up-and-coming topic of national discussion.
    Florida Toll roads are common in Florida. The state plans to do more research on road pricing and how it affects the freight industry.
    Colorado Colorado expects to implement toll roads in the near future. While the freight industry is not supportive of the concept, it wants to make sure that the toll roads are designed to accommodate trucks.


    1. How do you prioritize the economic value of each corridor?
    Ohio Macro Highway Corridors/Trade and Travel Corridors were identified but there was no prioritization of one of these corridors over another. The TRAC scoring system, which include economic criteria, is used to prioritize projects.
    Minnesota Freight traffic levels are considered in overall fund distribution. Adjacent land uses, traffic mix and freight traffic levels are considered when prioritizing projects.
    Florida FDOT is currently developing measures to be used to measure the economic value. They are working with Enterprise Florida, a public-private economic development entity, to use transportation investments to support economic development, particularly in rural areas and places where transportation costs represent a high proportion of business costs.
    Colorado Economic value is not currently a major factor in prioritizing corridors. Some funding is distributed based on truck vehicle miles traveled.


    1. What is the role of state DOTs in smaller projects such as interchanges designed to benefit industry?
    Ohio ODOT has a standard process in which communities must prove the need for a bypass before ODOT will approve the project.
    Minnesota In Minnesota, interchanges are seen as an economic development project. It is expected that support and funding should come from local sources.
    Florida It is understood that FDOT's emphasis is on infrastructure that provides statewide benefits. Local and regional organizations are responsible for land use plans/policy that can be supported by local roads or existing state-highways.
    Colorado CDOT policy is that it will not fund new interchanges. In some cases, the state's no new interchange policy has caused major congestion at existing intersections adjacent to new developments since local governments do not require developers to pay for the cost of interchange improvements.
  4. Public Involvement

    1. How did you keep input focused on the big picture instead of individual projects?
    Ohio Initially, ODOT conducted a general survey to understand citizen's concerns. Later public involvement efforts focused on responding to a draft of the plan instead of starting with a blank sheet of paper.
    Minnesota Public involvement is seen as ongoing, focusing on market research. Major issues were brought to the public using established venues.
    Florida FDOT found that it was helpful to have trained facilitators and a clear definition of roles and responsibilities of participants. Florida incorporated long range planning discussions into local meetings and had staff to present and respond to the big picture implications of projects.
    Colorado Colorado struggled to engage the public as they moved from a project based plan to a corridor level. They began to ask, "Who the audience of the strategic plan is? Is it a general citizen or members of the broader transportation community?"

    CDOT focused its efforts on involving elected officials who have a clear understanding of the public's interest. In addition, CDOT compared the corridor visions with input from market research to check that the plans aligned with public interests.


    1. Did you have any innovative strategies for working with hard to reach groups?
    Ohio Ohio conducted visioning exercises in public high schools but found it difficult to reach out to this population. Phone surveys were conducted to validate recommendations.
    Minnesota Minnesota sees a consistent set of interested individuals participating in meetings and on-line activities. Surveys, market research and special focus groups were used to reach a broader audience. While not currently done, Mn/DOT should consider working with the transportation writers for two of the major newspapers.
    Florida Florida has an inclusive process but does not focus on who is being missed since state-level plans are complemented by extensive local planning, which involves hard to reach groups.
    Colorado Working with cities through the Colorado Municipal League was successful in engaging communities in planning activities. CDOT meetings with small communities (pop. <5,000) were successful, particularly in educating these communities about the process itself. In order to involve low-income, minority and tribal groups in planning activities, CDOT found that it needed to hold meetings within the community and provide childcare and food.


    1. How do you keep people engaged throughout the process?
    Ohio Not available for question.
    Minnesota This is an issue with which Minnesota has struggled. Minnesota found that activities that eventually linked to money (e.g., designation of Interregional Corridors, development of performance measures), kept people participating.
    Florida Florida found that once people began participating, such as on the steering committee, they became engaged in the process and interested in continuing. Participants felt responsibility to represent their constituency and share information and provide feedback.
    Colorado Colorado struggled to keep people involved and also found that activities tied to funding had the best participation. CDOT relied on the State Transportation Advisory Committee and CDOT district staff attending already scheduled meetings to act as regional liaisons for ongoing public input.


    1. Could you give more definition to the process of gaining transportation provider, MPO, RPO involvement in the SLRP process?
    All states identified the importance of educating non-technical stakeholders in the SLRP process. Local and mode-specific stakeholders need to understand:
    • how the process works,
    • how they fit into the planning activities, and
    • how they will be affected by the outcome of the plan.

    1. How did you incorporate visualization techniques other than maps into public involvement?
    Both Mn/DOT and FDOT had used videos in the past but found that it was more effective to use public meetings of elected officials for collecting input from the public, rather than talking directly to them. FDOT uses storyboards to provide information that can be absorbed as desired and has staff available to answer questions and capture comments.

    1. Any thoughts on the use of technology for interacting with the public?
    Ohio Not available for question.
    Minnesota The web provides a publicly accessible resource repository, but Minnesota has struggled with how to manage and analyze web-based feedback.
    Florida While it is not good to over-rely on the web, FDOT has been able to effectively compile and analyze web feedback. They have also used automated e-mail messages to keep people up to date and use the web as a repository for both the public and active stakeholders.
    Colorado Colorado has found the web to be a useful internal resource, but don't feel that the public is likely to search for information.
    Wisconsin WISDOT mentioned that it relied heavily on the web and an e-mail distribution list for public outreach.


    1. What changes would you make to your public participation activities?
    Ohio Ohio would do a better job tracking and responding to public input.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT would focus more on educating transportation stakeholders. Stakeholders had difficulty grasping the performance-based strategy during the initial planning stages.
    Florida FDOT is interested in refining its evaluation process to review public involvement activities.
    Colorado CDOT recognizes that different groups need different approaches. What works for trade groups is different than what works with environmental groups. CDOT plans to focus on using elected officials to provide the public perspective and validate public support of the plan using survey data.

  5. Approaches

    1. Why did you choose the methodology that you used for your SLRP?
      SLRP Primary Methodology  
    Ohio Performance measures / projects The most useful component of previous plans had been the corridor analyses.
    Minnesota Performance measures Mn/DOT focused its efforts on performance measures to make the decision-making process more defined.
    Florida Policy FDOT sees planning as a family of documents. Its long-range plan is focused on policy because it provides the best way to make long-term impacts on the transportation system. Strategies outlined in the LRP have been adopted into state laws.
    Colorado Corridors In previous project-based plans, few looked at the planning elements, but instead focused on the appendix listing the projects. Corridors were a level to which people could relate and for which they could create a vision. At this level, people could develop reasonable goals and have policy discussion about how to allocate funds. When specific projects have been identified, it is difficult to think rationally about distributing resources.


    1. For the states that included all transportation revenues and expenditures regardless of the level of government, what was the driving force for going beyond the state's responsibility?
    Ohio ODOT focused on transportations funding controlled by the state.
    Minnesota Minnesota's STP discusses funds available through Mn/DOT.
    Florida Florida did not include funding sources that were not controlled by FDOT.
    Colorado Colorado is legally required to consider all transportation systems. Beyond that requirement, CDOT felt that it needed to consider the entire transportation system concurrently in order to have an integrated transportation system. The corridor approach allowed planners to think multi-modally.


    1. How can we be more effective in dealing with the gap between available revenue and needed revenue — and communicate with the decision-makers who fund transportation?
    Ohio ODOT felt that it was important to show how the future needs were determined in addition to clearly stating the needs.
    Minnesota Mn/DOT identified the overall gap. A supplemental white paper was written to discuss additional funding sources.
    Florida Theoretically, growth should not happen if there isn't funding to build the infrastructure to support it. In reality, demand is so high it is difficult to stop growth. The state has benefited from a strong economy and has been able to support growth, but not significantly reduce its backlog of projects. Recent additional revenues and growth management changes may help correct this problem.
    Colorado CDOT presented where the state was going and what the needs were. The gap between desired conditions and available funding as a choice to be made by the legislature. The media construed the difference as a "need," which encouraged the legislature to put a tax increase on the ballot.
    Washington WSDOT was very successful in clearly describing transportation trends and needs.


    1. How did you incorporate land use and smart growth into your SLRP?
    Ohio Not available for question
    Minnesota Minnesota does not use the term smart growth but supports land use decisions that align with the transportation system. One performance target is that a certain percent of local plans are consistent with state plans.
    Florida The state has tried to manage land use by setting concurrency requirements tied to level-of-service. New policies will allow FDOT to participate in development approval of projects that affect the SIS.
    Colorado Local control of land use is strong in Colorado. The corridor visioning process was an attempt to discuss local land use with local governments. In some instances, local governments have made land use plans based on CDOT corridor optimization plans that look at the discrepancies between local land use policy and existing transportation infrastructure.


    1. How is transit incorporated into the SLRP?
    Ohio ODOT has a chapter focusing on transit and incorporates transit projects into the Trade and Travel Corridors chapter.
    Minnesota Minnesota has a separate transit plan for Greater Minnesota at the county level that includes performance measures. Each district has a transit service coordinator. Transit has conducted a gap analysis to request additional funding from the legislature.
    Florida FDOT modal offices participated in the development of the FTP and SIS. Modal plans support these planning documents.
    Colorado Each region has a fiscally constrained transit element. CDOT administers the state's Elderly and Disabled Transportation Assistance Program Grants (Section 5310) and Nonurbanized Area Formula Program (Section 5311). Historically, local agencies are responsible for providing the local match for federal funds.

back to top

IV. Factors that Support the Planning-Programming Linkage

At the conclusion of the peer exchange, Bob Stanley of Cambridge Systematics, Inc., presented his work for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), Project 8-50. NCHRP Project 8-50 looks at the factors that support strong links between plans and programs. Through literature reviews and interviews with "experts," the following seven broad categories were identified as impacting the planning-programming link:

  • Structure and content of plan goals, objectives, measures of success
  • Analytical approaches to data and mechanics
  • Planning and programming processes and organizational structure
  • Communications
  • External influences
  • Leadership, both political and professional
  • Organizational culture

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. is in the process of surveying practitioners to determine the factors that are most important for each of these categories. In addition, Cambridge Systematics is determining the prevalence of these factors amongst organizations.

back to top

V. For More Information

Key Contact(s): Tim Ryan,
Transportation Planner,
Bureau of Transportation Planning
Tamiko Burnell, Transportation Planning Engineer
Host Agency: Michigan DOT FHWA — Michigan Div.
Address: 425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050
Lansing, MI 48909
315 West Allegan Street, Rm 201
Lansing, MI 48933
Phone: (517) 241-2245 (517) 702-1823
E-mail: RyanTi@michigan.gov Tamiko.Burnell@fhwa.dot.gov

back to top

VI. Attendees List

MDOT
Rob Abent, MDOT
Director, Multi-Modal Transportation Services Bureau
Aeronautics Building
2700 East Airport Service Drive
Capital City Airport
Lansing, MI 48906
(517) 335-9568
AbentR@michigan.gov
Ray Lenze, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4166
LenzeR@michigan.gov
Niles Annelin, MDOT
Transportation Planner,
Intermodal Policy Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-1973
AnnelinN@michigan.gov
Zoe Lorca, MDOT
Aviation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 241-3874
LorcaZ@michigan.gov
Melinda Ball, MDOT
Student Assistant
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 241-0006
BallM@michigan.gov
Dalrois McBurrows, MDOT
Manager, Statewide Planning & Research Programs
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-9055
McBurrowsD@michigan.gov
Garth Banninga, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2956
BanningaG@michigan.gov
Pauline Misjak, MDOT
Administrator, Aviation Services Division
Multi-Modal Transportation Services Bureau
2700 E. Airport Services Drive
Lansing, MI 48906
(517) 335-9952
MisjakP@michigan.gov
Mark Bott, MDOT
Engineer - Manager Traffic Control Devices
Highway Delivery/Traffic and Safety
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2625
Bottm@michigan.gov
Connie Morrison, MDOT
Manager, Intermodal Policy Section
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2640
MorrisonC2@michigan.gov
Ron DeCook, MDOT
Director, Governmental Affairs
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-3946
DeCookR@michigan.gov
Susan Mortel, MDOT
Director, Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 W. Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-0343
MortelS@michigan.gov
Sharon Edgar, MDOT
Administrator, Passenger Transportation
Multi-Modal Transportation Services Bureau
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-0471
EdgarS@michigan.gov
Craig Newell, MDOT
Manager, Statewide Systems Management Section
Statewide Planning Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-9074
NewellC@michigan.gov
Dusty Fancher, MDOT
Legislative Liaison
Office of Governmental Affairs
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 241-0230
FancherD@michigan.gov
Ron Overton, MDOT
Supervisor, Field Operations Unit
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 241-2333
OvertonR@michigan.gov
Aarne Frobom, MDOT
State Legislative Specialist
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2908
FrobomA@michigan.gov
Bob Parsons, MDOT
Public Hearing/Public Involvement Specialist
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-9534
ParsonsB@michigan.gov
Susan Gorski, MDOT
Manager, Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis Section
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2958
GorskiS@michigan.gov
Tim Ryan, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 241-2245
RyanTi@michigan.gov
Leon Hank, MDOT
Chief Administrative Officer
Michigan Department of Transportation
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-2114
HankL@michigan.gov
Suzanne Skubick, MDOT
Media Production Specialist
F & A/B & A Srvs Administration
MDOT Photo Lab
7050 Harris Drive
State Secondary Complex
Lansing, MI 48918
(517) 322-1903
SkubickS@michigan.gov
Tim Hoeffner, MDOT
Administrator, Intermodal Policy Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-6672
HoeffnerT@michigan.gov
Marsha Small, MDOT
Manager, Statewide Planning Section Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-9193
SmallM@michigan.gov
Andrew Huddy, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2974
HuddyA@michigan.gov
Bill Tansil, MDOT
Administrator, Asset Management
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2639
TansilW@michigan.gov
Andy Irwin, MDOT
Manager, Project Planning Section
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2935
IrwinA@michigan.gov
Cyndi Vonklingler, MDOT
Departmental Analyst, Project Planning Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-3532
VonklinglerC@michigan.gov
Denise Jackson, MDOT
Administrator, Statewide Planning Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2962
JacksonDe@michigan.gov
Matt Webb, MDOT
Transportation Planning Specialist
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-4627
WebbMa@michigan.gov
Dennis Kent, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Grand Region Bureau of Highway Operations
1420 Front Avenue, NW
Grand Rapids, MI 49504
(616) 451-4994
KentD@michigan.gov
Bob Wilks, MDOT
Media Production Specialist
F & A/B & A Srvs Administration
7050 Harris Drive
State Secondary Complex
Lansing, MI 48918
(517) 322-1682
WilksR@michigan.gov
Polly Kent, MDOT
Manager, Intermodal Policy Section
Bureau of Transportation Planning
(517) 335-2640
KentP@michigan.gov
Brad Winkler, MDOT
Transportation Planner
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2932
WinklerB@michigan.gov
Ben Kohrman, MDOT
Director of Communications
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-3084
KohrmanB@michigan.gov
Lyle Witherspoon, MDOT
Supervisor, Statewide Model Unit
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2955
WitherspoonL@michigan.gov
Robert Kuehne, MDOT
Passenger Policy Specialist
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 335-2926
KuehneR@michigan.gov
Dave Wresinski, MDOT
Administrator, Project Planning Division
Bureau of Transportation Planning
425 West Ottawa
P.O. Box 30050,
Lansing, MI 48909
(517) 373-8258
WresinskiD@michigan.gov
Jason Latham, MDOT
Region Planner Supervisor
Southwest Region
1501 E. Kilgore Road
Kalamazoo, MI 49001
(269) 337-3792
LathamJ@michigan.gov
Jenny Yung, MDOT
State Block Grant Program Specialist
Multi-Modal Transportation Services Bureau
2700 East Airport Service Drive
Lansing, MI 48906
(517) 335-9570
YungJ@michigan.gov
Participating States
Douglas Dalton, WISDOT
Bureau of Planning,
Urban Planning Section
Room 933
4802 Sheboygan Ave.
P.O. Box 7913
Madison, WI 53707
(608) 266-3662
Douglas.Dalton@dot.state.wi.us
Suzann Rhodes, ODOT
Administrator
Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Urban and Corridor Planning
1980 W. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
(614) 644-7093
suzann.Rhodes@dot.state.oh.us
Kathy Engelson, CDOT
Statewide/Regional Planning Section
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas Ave., EP-B606
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757-9770
Kathy.engelson@dot.state.co.us
Elizabeth Robbins, WSDOT
Strategic Planning & Programming
310 Maple Park Ave., S.E.,
P.O. Box 47370,
Olympia, WA
98504-7370
(360) 705-7371
Robbinis@wsdot.wa.gov
Leonard Evans
Administrator, Systems Analysis Planning
Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Urban and Corridor Planning
1980 W. Broad Street
Columbus, Ohio 43223
(614) 466-8993
Leonard.evans@dot.state.oh.us
Robert Romig, FDOT
Director, Office of Policy Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, MS #28
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
(850) 414-4800
Robert.romig@dot.state.fl.us
George Gerstle, CDOT
Intermodal Planning Branch Manager
Colorado Department of Transportation
4201 East Arkansas Ave., EP-B606
Denver, Colorado 80222
(303) 757-9795
George.Gerstle@dot.state.co.us
Keith Sherman, IDOT
Deputy Director
Office of Planning and Programming
Illinois Department of Transportation
2300 S. Dirksen Parkway
Springfield, IL 62764
(217) 782-6332
shermankm@nt.dot.state.il.us
Terry Kraft, Senior Transportation Planner, FDOT
Office of Policy Planning
Florida Department of Transportation
605 Suwannee Street, MS #28
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-0450
(850) 414-4801
terry.kraft@dot.state.fl.us
Steven Smith INDOT
Indiana Department of Transportation
Long Range Transportation Planning Division
100 North Senate Ave., Room N901
Indianapolis, IN 46204-2217
(317) 232-5646
ssmith@indot.state.in.us
Peggy Ann Reichert, MnDOT
Statewide Planning & Analysis
Minnesota Department of Transportation, MS 440395
John Ireland Boulevard
Saint Paul, Minnesota 55155
(651) 284-0501
peggy.reichert@dot.state.mn.us
 
FHWA — FTA — US DOT/ VOLPE
Tamiko Burnell, FHWA
Transportation Planning Engineer
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1823
Tamiko.Burnell@fhwa.dot.gov
Jim Kirschensteiner, FHWA
Assistant Division Administrator
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1835
James.Kirschensteiner@fhwa.dot.gov
Don Cameron, FHWA
Planning & Program Development Manager
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1826
Donald.Cameron@fhwa.dot.gov
Jason Newman, FHWA
Transportation Planner
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1859
Jason.Newman@fhwa.dot.gov
Jim Cramer, FHWA
Transportation Planner
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1827
James.Cramer@fhwa.dot.gov
Rhonda M. Reed
Director, Planning & Program Development
Federal Transit Administration
200 West Adams Street, Suite 320
Chicago, IL 60606
(312) 353-2789
Rhonda.Reed@fta.dot.gov
John Donovan
Transportation Planning Specialist
Illinois Division
3250 Executive Park Drive
Springfield, IL 62703
(217) 492-4642
John.Donovan@fhwa.dot.gov
Jim Steele, FHWA
Division Administrator
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1845
JamesJ.Steele@fhwa.dot.gov
Cindy Durrenberger, FHWA
Transportation Planner
Michigan Division
315 West Allegan Street, Room 201
Lansing, MI 48933
(517) 702-1829
Cindy.Durrenberger@fhwa.dot.gov
Frances Switkes
Operations Research Analyst
U.S. DOT Volpe Center
55 Broadway
Cambridge, MA 02142-1093
(617) 494-2213
switkes@volpe.dot.gov
Additional Participants
Jennifer Evans, SEMCOG
Coordinator of Plan Development and Implementation
Transportation Department
535 Griswold Street, Suite 300
Detroit, MI 48226-3602
(313) 324-3306
Evans@semcog.org
Robert Stanley
Principal
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
4445 Willard Avenue, Suite 300
Chevy Chase, MD 20815
(301) 347-0100
rstanley@camsys.com

back to top

VII. Agenda

Michigan State Long Range Plan PEER Exchange
Kellogg Hotel and Conference Center, East Lansing, Michigan
June 14, 2005

AGENDA — Day 1
7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Registration &38212; Continental Breakfast - Lincoln Lobby
8:00 - 8:15 a.m. Welcome — Lincoln Room
Leon E. Hank, MDOT Chief Administrative Officer
8:15 - 8:20 a.m. Welcome
Jim Steele, FHWA Michigan Division Administrator
8:20 - 8:30 a.m. Purpose of PEER Exchange
Susan P. Mortel, Director, Bureau of Transportation Planning
8:30 - 8:40 a.m. Introductions and Overview for Day
Susan A. Gorski, Manager, Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section
8:40 - 9:45 a.m. 2030 Statewide Transportation Plan Presentation
Kathy Engelson and George Gerstle, Colorado DOT
9:45 - 10:00 a.m. BREAK
10:00 - 11:05 a.m. 2020 Florida Transportation Plan Presentation
Robert Romig and Terry Kraft, Florida DOT
11:05 - 12:10 p.m. Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan Presentation
Peggy Ann Reichert and Tim Henkel, Minnesota DOT
12:10 p.m. - 1:10 p.m. LUNCH — Networking Session — Red Cedar B
1:10 - 2:15 p.m. Washington Transportation Plan 2003-2022 Presentation
Elizabeth Robbins,Washington DOT
2:15 - 3:20 p.m. Access Ohio 2004-2030 Presentation
Suzann Rhodes and Leonard Evans, Ohio DOT
3:20 - 3:35 p.m. Q&A, Wrap Up — Closing Remarks Overview Agenda for Day 2
Susan A. Gorski, Manager, Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section
3:35 - 5:00 p.m. Sponsor Meeting, (MDOT) — Room 107
5:30 p.m. Networking Dinner
Location yet to be determined
AGENDA — Day 2
7:00 - 8:00 a.m. Check in — Continental Breakfast — Lincoln Lobby
8:00 - 8:05 a.m. Welcome & Overview for Day — Lincoln Room
Susan A. Gorski, Manager, Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section
8:05 - 8:25 a.m. 2000 - 2025 Michigan State Long Range Plan Presentation, Mobility is Security
Susan P. Mortel, Director, Bureau of Transportation Planning, MDOT
Round Table Discussions
8:25 - 9:25 a.m. Discussion Topic: Visioning Process
Facilitator: Ray Lenze, MDOT
9:25 - 10:25 a.m. Discussion Topic: Developmental Logistics
(In-House or Outsource?)

Facilitator: Connie Morrison, MDOT
10:25 - 10:40 a.m. BREAK
10:40 - 11:45 a.m. Discussion Topic: Integration of Freight and Economics
Facilitator: Matt Webb, MDOT
11:45 a.m. - 12:45 p.m. LUNCH — Networking Session — River Cafe
12:45 - 1:45 p.m. Discussion Topic: Approaches to Long Range Plan (Corridor, Project Focus, Policy Driven, Multi-Modal Concepts or Mixture)
Facilitator: Marsha Small, MDOT
1:45 - 2:45 p.m. Discussion Topic: Successful Public Involvement Techniques
Facilitator: Bob Parsons, MDOT
2:45 - 3:00 p.m. BREAK
3:00- 3:35 p.m. Cambridge Systematic — Linking, Planning and Programming a State Long Range Plan.
Bob Stanley — Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
3:35 - 4:00 p.m. Wrap Up — Closing Remarks
Susan A. Gorski, Manager, Statewide & Urban Travel Analysis Section
  Evaluations

back to top


Footnotes

1 Infrastructure not controlled by FDOT were included in the SIS, and were made eligible for Transportation Trust Funds in 2004 legislation. (back)

back to top


FHWA Home   |  FTA Home   |  Privacy Statement   |  Website Feedback   |  Site Map
  United States Department of Transportation