Matches in Library of Congress for { <http://lccn.loc.gov/2006372514> ?p ?o. }
Showing items 1 to 30 of
30
with 100 items per page.
- 2006372514 abstract "Within the structure of state government, some amount of transportation planning is usually performed within separate modal administrations, which may include aviation, bus, highway, ports, and rail, as well as separate toll agencies. Some states coordinate these planning efforts through a single office responsible for statewide multimodal planning; other states work to achieve such coordination without a centralized unit (described herein as the decentralized approach). To determine if there is value to centralizing statewide multimodal planning efforts within a single office, representatives from 50 states were surveyed regarding the utility of centralized versus decentralized multimodal statewide planning. Responses, in the form of written questionnaires and/or telephone interviews, were obtained from 41 states. Advantages of centralization included consistency of modal plans, better modal coordination (including detection of modal conflicts earlier in the process), an ability to examine the entire transportation system holistically, collective attention brought to smaller modes that otherwise might be overlooked, economies of scale for service delivery and employee development, and a greater likelihood that long-range planning will be performed instead of being eliminated by more immediate tasks (which might occur if such planning were located in an operational division). Advantages of decentralization included greater ease of obtaining modal support for the long-range plan since the planners and implementers are in the same functional unit, greater ease of tapping modal-specific expertise, an ability to focus on the most critical mode if one such mode is predominant, and organizational alignment with mode-specific state and federal funding requirements. Equally important were respondents' explanations of how the question of a centralized versus a decentralized approach may be overshadowed by external factors. These included constraints on how various transportation funds may be spent; the fact that having persons in the same office does not guarantee multimodal coordination; the recommendation that some efforts should be centralized and some should be decentralized; the increasing importance of MPOs, districts, and public involvement in planning efforts; and the suggestion that even after a solid analysis of alternatives, there may be cases where the recommendation is the same as what it would have been under traditional planning. In some instances, the use of performance measures may change the recommended approach. Finally, a subset of the free responses indicated that centralized multimodal planning can be beneficial but only if four constraints are met: modal staff work collaboratively, the centralized unit has funding or other authority, necessary modal-specific planning is not eliminated, and there is a clear linkage between the centralized unit and the agencies that perform modal-specific planning such that the latter can implement the recommendations of the former.".
- 2006372514 contributor B10564209.
- 2006372514 contributor B10564210.
- 2006372514 created "2005.".
- 2006372514 date "2005".
- 2006372514 date "2005.".
- 2006372514 dateCopyrighted "2005.".
- 2006372514 description "Final report.".
- 2006372514 description "Includes bibliographical references (p. 24-26).".
- 2006372514 description "Sponsored by Virginia Department of Transportation and U.S. Federal Highway Administration 72993".
- 2006372514 description "Within the structure of state government, some amount of transportation planning is usually performed within separate modal administrations, which may include aviation, bus, highway, ports, and rail, as well as separate toll agencies. Some states coordinate these planning efforts through a single office responsible for statewide multimodal planning; other states work to achieve such coordination without a centralized unit (described herein as the decentralized approach). To determine if there is value to centralizing statewide multimodal planning efforts within a single office, representatives from 50 states were surveyed regarding the utility of centralized versus decentralized multimodal statewide planning. Responses, in the form of written questionnaires and/or telephone interviews, were obtained from 41 states. Advantages of centralization included consistency of modal plans, better modal coordination (including detection of modal conflicts earlier in the process), an ability to examine the entire transportation system holistically, collective attention brought to smaller modes that otherwise might be overlooked, economies of scale for service delivery and employee development, and a greater likelihood that long-range planning will be performed instead of being eliminated by more immediate tasks (which might occur if such planning were located in an operational division). Advantages of decentralization included greater ease of obtaining modal support for the long-range plan since the planners and implementers are in the same functional unit, greater ease of tapping modal-specific expertise, an ability to focus on the most critical mode if one such mode is predominant, and organizational alignment with mode-specific state and federal funding requirements. Equally important were respondents' explanations of how the question of a centralized versus a decentralized approach may be overshadowed by external factors. These included constraints on how various transportation funds may be spent; the fact that having persons in the same office does not guarantee multimodal coordination; the recommendation that some efforts should be centralized and some should be decentralized; the increasing importance of MPOs, districts, and public involvement in planning efforts; and the suggestion that even after a solid analysis of alternatives, there may be cases where the recommendation is the same as what it would have been under traditional planning. In some instances, the use of performance measures may change the recommended approach. Finally, a subset of the free responses indicated that centralized multimodal planning can be beneficial but only if four constraints are met: modal staff work collaboratively, the centralized unit has funding or other authority, necessary modal-specific planning is not eliminated, and there is a clear linkage between the centralized unit and the agencies that perform modal-specific planning such that the latter can implement the recommendations of the former.".
- 2006372514 extent "vi, 65 p. :".
- 2006372514 hasFormat "Also available online via the VTRC website.".
- 2006372514 identifier 06-r13.pdf.
- 2006372514 isFormatOf "Also available online via the VTRC website.".
- 2006372514 isPartOf "VTRC (Series) ; 06-R13.".
- 2006372514 isPartOf "VTRC ; 06-R13".
- 2006372514 issued "2005".
- 2006372514 issued "2005.".
- 2006372514 language "eng".
- 2006372514 publisher "Charlottesville, Va. : Virginia Transportation Research Council,".
- 2006372514 relation "Also available online via the VTRC website.".
- 2006372514 spatial "United States".
- 2006372514 subject "Choice of transportation Planning.".
- 2006372514 subject "HE336.C5 M55 2005".
- 2006372514 subject "Interagency relations. trt".
- 2006372514 subject "Multimodal transportation. trt".
- 2006372514 subject "Transportation United States Planning Surveys.".
- 2006372514 title "Multimodal statewide transportation planning : a survey of state practices / John S. Miller.".
- 2006372514 type "text".