Strengths of
Existing Process |
Shortcomings of
Existing Process |
Strategies/Actions |
Priority |
Benefits |
Responsible Person(s) |
Action Date |
| Planning decisions generally stand up over time — but not always. |
Planning studies can get stale due to time lag between planning and NEPA
|
Corridor preservation ... try to get local commitment to projects and protect right of way. Champion and develop recommendations
|
Low
|
|
David Blakeney
AngieByrne
|
|
| |
No filtering process for low impact projects.
|
Develop filtering mechanism to eliminate proposals that are unpromising with input from others |
High |
|
|
|
| Develop filtering mechanism to identify simple, low impact projects for streamlined processing |
High |
| Planning is GPG (generally pretty good) at establishing Purpose & Need statements. |
Could do better job of defining problems in planning.
|
Use FHWA Purpose and Need checklist to make sure everything is covered. Identify specific things that may hinder projects. |
High |
|
|
|
| Planning and environmental sections should work together to identify what matters, using interdisciplinary teams. |
High |
| Develop purpose and need statements on longer segments — overarching P&N statement for whole corridor rather than individual segments of independent utility. |
Medium |
| AHTD is using corridor studies to eliminate corridor alternatives in planning — considering environmental factors. Not trying to select alignment in planning. |
No interdisciplinary approach to corridor selection. AHTD and MPOs have no mechanism to invite resource agency participation in planning studies. Lack of environmental analysis in planning — esp. cumulative impacts. Alternatives are dismissed too quickly.
|
Environmental section and surveys should share GIS data sets with planners. Need agreements between AHTD sections on workload sharing. |
High |
|
|
|
| Planning needs timely assistance from design and survey divisions to assess alternatives early. |
High |
| AHTD should give MPOs guidance/assistance on analysis needed to eliminate alternatives in planning. |
Medium |
| AHTD and MPOs should share plans with resource agencies. |
Medium |
| |
No State or regional process for assessing cumulative impacts.
|
Establish a QIP team to see what other states are doing and to start developing AHTD process
|
Medium
|
|
|
|
| |
Context sensitive design is an afterthought. No opportunity to rethink designs based on new information.
|
Develop context sensitive design (CSD) process — screening to identify suitable projects for CSD.
|
High
|
|
|
|
| AHTD & FHWA are developing one seamless PI process covering planning through project development. |
Lack of early public involvement at present time. PI is not done in planning studies to determine project feasibility.
|
AHTD should proceed with QIP team developing Phase 2 of PI process improvement. Expand to include planning, project development and design. One integrated process. Bring in MPOs and development districts.
|
High
|
|
|
|
| AHTD uses management team approach on selected high profile projects — teams include survey, environment, roadway and bridge design, R-O-W, construction. |
AHTD planning section and MPOs are not part of the teams. Teams do not start early enough in process. There is little feedback from design/construction to planning.
|
AHTD should look at its organization structure and improve collaboration between the planning and environmental divisions. |
High |
|
Convince Scott Bennett of need for structural change. |
|
| This could include project management teams for appropriate projects. Teams should include all AHTD disciplines, and MPOs and resource/regulatory agencies when appropriate. |
High |
| Look into staff sharing across organizational units — "service center" concept. |
Medium |
| Planning needs timely assistance from design and survey divisions to assess proposals early. Specific staff should be designated for this function. |
High |
| Make sure all staff units have sufficient time to participate in teaming activities — give this priority. |
High |
| Look at staff utilization and cross training. |
Medium |
| Develop structured written procedures detailing each division’s actions as projects move from concept to final. |
Medium |
| Consider AHTD orientation for planners and environmental staff — like engineers get now.
|
High |
| AHTD held high level summit meeting with resource agencies 3 years ago, leading to MOAs. |
Other than project-specific actions, there have been no subsequent summit meetings to evaluate success of collaboration.
|
Follow up on Summit Meeting with staff level coordination meetings.
|
Low
|
|
|
|
| |
AHTD planning branch has insufficiently trained staff — retention problem. |
Use Arkansas Assoc. of MPOs as vehicle for training and information sharing. |
High |
|
|
|
| Obtain training in non-modeling travel demand forecasting. |
Medium |
| Obtain training in use of Census Transportation Planning Package. |
Medium |
| Look at workload and redistribute and/or hire more AHTD staff in planning, public involvement, GIS |
High |
| |
External trip data are not available |
Look into developing statewide traffic projections |
Low |
|
|
|
| |
Employment Security Data (ESD) not available. |
Develop agreements for acquisition of ESD data. |
Medium |
|
|
|
