1 / 19

Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range Planning

Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range Planning. NCHRP 25-25/Task 87. July 2014. What is “Long Range Transportation Planning?”. Twenty-Year Planning Horizon Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Planning Statewide Long Range Planning

winter
Download Presentation

Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range Planning

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Coordination of Section 106 and Long Range Planning NCHRP 25-25/Task 87 July 2014

  2. What is “Long Range Transportation Planning?” • Twenty-Year Planning Horizon • Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Long Range Planning • Statewide Long Range Planning • Relationship to Programming and Project Development

  3. NCHRP Study Goals and Objectives • Identify state DOTs and MPOs that consider historic preservation during long range planning. • Describe the programs/approaches they use to consider historic preservation during long range planning. • Discuss the types of historic preservation information used in long range planning.

  4. NCHRP Study Goals and Objectives (continued) • Examine the role of SHPOs in long range planning. • Identify the benefits of considering historic preservation in long range planning.

  5. Study Approach • Literature review • Initial survey of DOTs and MPOs • Interviews of DOTs, MPOs and SHPOs • Development of case studies

  6. “And the Survey Says…!” • 52% of state DOT cultural resource management offices, 40% of the DOT planning offices, and 27.7% (i.e., 101) of MPOs responded to the survey. • Around 50% of the DOTs and 60% of MPOs consider historic preservation in long range planning.

  7. “And the Survey Says…!” (continued) • Reasons DOTs and MPOs do not consider historic preservation during long range planning: • It is not a priority, or • It is not seen as useful. • More than 50% of the DOTs and MPOs said the SHPO does not participate in long range planning.

  8. DOTs and MPOs that Consider Historic Preservation during Long Range Planning: Why and How?

  9. Why? Benefits of considering historic preservation during long range planning: • Identifying and avoiding potential fatal flaws and “red flags.”   • Streamlining and enhancing Section 106 project reviews.

  10. Why? (continued) More Benefits: • Having a more realistic scope, cost, and schedule for project development. • Acknowledging historic preservation goals and values.

  11. How? • Geographic Information Systems. • Scales of analysis – corridors and regions.

  12. How? (continued) • Consultation with SHPOs • Consultation with local stakeholders.

  13. Example Case Study – Pennsylvania • Linking Planning &NEPA (LPN) process • On-line forms linked to the state’s cultural resource GIS • Cultural resource proximity analysis • Benefits: • Consistent means of collecting information • Better project scoping, scheduling and budgets • Reduce project overruns and project schedules

  14. Example Case Study - Oregon • Facility plans with 20-year planning horizon. • Environmental background reports for facility plans. • Information in facility plans refined as projects are programmed in the STIP. • Benefits: • Determining types of reviews required during project development/NEPA. • Defining level of effort, cost, and scheduling of projects. • Addressing public expectations.

  15. Challenges and Hurdles • DOTs and MPOs view other environmental issues as more important. • SHPOs see no value in participating in long range planning. • SHPOs do not have the staff or resources to participate.

  16. Advancing the Consideration of Historic Preservation During Long Range Planning • Presentations at national meetings: • Transportation Research Board • American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials • Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations • National Conference of State Historic Preservation Officers • Facilitated workshops with FHWA division offices, state DOTS, MPOs, and SHPOs.

  17. Some Final Observations • Risk Management • Historic Preservation, Local Governments, and Long Range Planning

  18. NCHRP Study Panel • Gail D’Avino, Chair, Georgia Department of Transportation • Margaret Barondess, Michigan Department of Transportation • Craig Casper, Pikes Peak Area Council of Governments • Paul Herskowitz, CDM-Smith • Carolyn Holthoff, Oregon Department of Transportation • Andrea MacDonald, Pennsylvania Historic Preservation Office • Elizabeth B. Rushley, Lawhorn & Associates • Mario Sanchez, Texas Department of Transportation • Lynn Zanto, Montana Department of Transportation • MaryAnn Naber, Federal Highway Administration

  19. Study Project Team • Terry Klein, SRI Foundation • David Cushman, SRI Foundation • Marie Venner, Marie Venner Consulting • Beverly Bowen, ICF International

More Related