Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

A Framework for Developing a Shared Vision for the Future
A Framework for Developing a Shared Vision for the Future 3

Contents i

The Challenges Planners Face I

How Scenario Planning II

Can Make a Difference

Public Involvement in Scenario Planning III

Technology Tools for Scenario Planning IV

Conclusion: Next Steps V

S

cenario planning is a process in which transportation professionals

and citizens work together to analyze and shape the long-term future

of their communities. Using a variety of tools and techniques, participants in scenario planning assess trends in key factors such as transportation, land use, demographics, health, economic development, environment, and more. The participants bring the factors together in alternative future

scenarios, each of these reflecting different trend assumptions and tradeoff preferences. In the end, all members of the community—the general public, business leaders, and elected officials—reach agreement on a preferred scenario.

This scenario becomes the long-term policy framework for the community's evolution, and is used to guide decision-making. 

Scenario planning expands upon traditional planning techniques by focusing

on major forces or drivers that have the potential to impact the future. By developing scenarios to tell a story of the future, planners are better able to recognize these forces and determine what planning activities can be done today

and be adapted in the future. Scenario planning is not intended to replace traditional planning practices. It is a tool that can be applied to recognize the

range of outcomes in the future, beyond what traditional planning can create.

On September 25, 2003, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and

the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) brought transportation leaders and

other specialists together for a one-day roundtable exchange on scenario planning. The roundtable included experts’ views on trends that are the focus of scenario planning, discussion of how to do scenario planning effectively, presentations of successful experiences with scenario planning, and a description of

available technical tools. Denise Bednar of the FHWA facilitated the roundtable, which concluded with the identification of next steps that can promote

and support effective scenario planning. 

The Need for Scenario Planning

Planning for the future is a daunting task. However, experts do have some notions

about what might be in store. FHWA Associate Administrator Cindy Burbank opened

the Roundtable by likening the dilemmas that transportation planners currently face to

those of the commercial fishermen who encountered what has become known as the

“perfect storm” on the Atlantic Ocean in October 1991. Population growth, changing

demographics, a growing interest in environmental quality, and fiscal pressures at all

levels of government are among the forces that may converge to create demanding

conditions for the transportation industry. Regional leaders should keep an eye on

transportation and land use forecasts, and engage in thoughtful planning in order 

to weather any “storm” that may hit. 

By considering the various factors that will shape the future, scenario planning analysis can help inform decision makers who must accommodate future transportation

needs, ensure a quality environment, and provide for an aging population. A number

of jurisdictions have used scenario planning successfully already. To encourage others,

Burbank proposes that the Federal government help identify opportunities for using

scenario planning and provide technical assistance for transportation planning.

Roundtable participants brainstormed a number of other specific actions to help

improve the planning process, which are summarized at the end of this report.

Cynthia J. Burbank

Federal Highway Administration

Ms. Burbank has worked for the 

U.S. Department of Transportation for 

28 years, at the Federal Aviation

Administration, the Federal Transit

Administration, the Office of the Secretary,

and the Federal Highway Administration.

She currently serves as Associate

Administrator for Planning, Environment,

and Realty for the FHWA. In this capacity,

she supervises a staff of over 100, and

oversees Federal policies, programs,

research, training, and guidance for the

acquisition of real property by all Federal

agencies; FHWA’s statewide, international,

and metropolitan planning programs; and

FHWA environmental programs and policies. Ms. Burbank graduated magna cum

laude from Georgetown University, with a

degree in Economics. She is a member of

Phi Beta Kappa. She also attended Duke

University and Boston University.
5

I The Challenges Planners Face

Economic, demographic, health, and environmental trends are all important

factors in determining future demands on the country’s transportation system,

and its role in people’s lives. During the morning session, three experts presented some of the trends that they have observed. 

Demographics

Alan Pisarki pointed out that the United States adds the equivalent of the population

of Canada to its population every 10 years, and that U.S. transportation infrastructure

is not expanding at nearly the same rate. Current growth patterns are different than in

the past because growth is more spread out across the country; in the last decade,

every state in the country experienced growth. Based on year 2000 statistics, more

than half of the country’s population lived in the suburbs. Half also worked outside the

county in which they live.

Extensive investment may be necessary to keep pace with projected growth. However,

planners must anticipate and account for key demographic trends. Among the most

significant trends Pisarki discussed were the following: 

• Slowing labor force growth;

• Reduction in the rate of domestic 

migration; 

• Continuing high rates of immigration;

• Democratization of automobile use, 

as the racial gap among zero-vehicle 

households continues to narrow;

• Increasing spread of affluence; 

• Lower population density;

• More dispersed trip destinations; and

• Age distribution more oriented to 

automobile use.

Alan Pisarki

Mr. Pisarki has supported Federal 

decision makers with expertise on transportation policy for almost 40 years, holding positions in the Office of the Secretary

of the U.S. Department of Transportation

(DOT) and as a consultant. He has

advised the U.S. Census, the DOT, the

National Academy of Sciences, the World

Bank, and the United Nations, as well as

numerous state and local governments. He

is best known for his demographic

approach to public policy questions, particularly commuting and travel behavior,

including his successful Commuting in

America series.

We add the equivalent of the population of

Canada to the United States each decade. 

“Do we add Canada’s transportation 

system?” Pisarki asked.

Casey Hannan

Mr. Hannan serves as the Team 

Leader for the Office of Policy, 

Evaluation, and Legislation, Division 

of Nutrition and Physical Activity, at 

the Centers for Disease Control and

Prevention (CDC). Hannan is a 16-year

veteran of the public health workforce,

and has experience working with 

community-based, university, healthcare,

and government organizations.

Two-thirds of the U.S adult population is 

overweight, incurring a huge cost to society,

Hannan pointed out.

In addition to these key trends, Pisarki noted a positive correlation between income,

and transportation expenditure and annual trips per household. Pisarki’s overall 

forecast points to increasing automobile affordability, more trip destinations, more 

time sensitivity, increasing freight value, and increasing democratization of mobility. 

The end result is likely to be significantly increased pressure on the nation’s 

transportation systems.

Health and Activity

According to Casey Hannan, obesity is on the rise. The number of states in the country

in which more than 15 percent of the adult population is obese has grown from four in

1991, to every state nationwide in 2002. Furthermore, in three states over a quarter

of the population was obese in 2002. Nationwide, at least two-thirds of adults are

overweight, as well as 15 percent of children and adolescents. Obesity is a major risk

factor for many serious health problems, such as diabetes, hypertension, and psychosocial problems. Hannan pointed to altered dietary intake and decreased physical

activity as key factors that influence obesity. Obesity trends matter to transportation

planning because infrastructure investments may have an impact on people’s lifestyles.

Hannan suggested that built environment changes, such as providing sidewalks, bike

trails, parks and recreational facilities, neighborhood safety, and thoughtful design,

can help encourage active lifestyles.
I The Challenges Planners Face

7

Discussion Topic: Trends

In response to the issues raised by Hannan, Pisarski, and Meyer, participants engaged

in a discussion of the importance of various factors affecting the future of our transportation systems. In particular, participants further discussed several trends that might

be relevant to transportation planning:

• There has been a large increase in home ownership, which could affect 

development patterns and demand for transportation services. One participant 

pointed out that public policies can effectively influence home ownership choices. 

Right now, our policies make it hard to do the “right” thing and easy to do the 

“wrong” thing.

• Water quality is a growing concern. Transportation investment decisions affect 

the expanse of impervious surfaces and runoff. One participant’s experience with 

transportation modeling in the Chesapeake Bay area showed that newer, more 

sprawling developments scored better on some water-quality performance 

measures than older, denser developments. Therefore, runoff challenges may 

prove difficult to reconcile with smart growth.

• Shifts in public attitudes toward an emphasis on the environment may have large

impact on future legislation. For example, currently there is great interest in land

use, but concerns about congestion or water quality may become more important 

issues in the future.

• Security and terrorism have become important priorities. Analyses may need 

to consider how these concerns may affect the way we live and the way we 

build communities.

Land Use, Freight and Financial Capacity

Michael Meyer forecasted that many of the land use trends we observe today will

continue in the future. According to Meyer, we can expect to see continuation of the

“donut” effect, that is, growth in far suburbs and central city areas with little to no

growth in inner suburbs. Fiscal limitations will likely induce newer development to 

congregate around current infrastructure. 

As a tool for shaping land use, monetary incentives, such as location-efficient mortgages, may become favored over regulation. He also predicted that the focus of

smart growth efforts may shift from density goals to urban design goals. Meyer also

pointed to ethnicity and environmental considerations as important factors in future

land use patterns. In particular, environmental analysis will continue to recognize the

complex network that comprises an ecological system. Even as advances in technology greatly reduce the effects of transportation on the natural environment, water quality/quantity may become a crisis issue. 

According to Meyer, economic growth will continue to place great pressure on transportation system performance. Urban goods movement will continue to increase at

high rates. He predicted that trucking would continue to be the mode of choice,

although rail–truck intermodal service will continue to have an important place in

long-distance markets. Given the increasing numbers of truck trips, metropolitan-area

planners will likely pay more attention to freight-only road infrastructure. In addition,

increased global trade will place greater emphasis on port access and efficiency.

Meyer suggested that transportation needs likely will continue to outpace financial

capacity. In particular, long-term substitutes for petroleum-based fuel will create a crisis

in transportation finance. Local, state, and Federal governments will be hard pressed

to provide significant increases in transportation funding. User-based revenue sources

will continue to be the foundation of transportation financing. Nontraditional sources

of funding will become more important, and metropolitan-based dedicated transportation funding sources will become more common, Meyer suggested.

Michael Meyer

Dr. Meyer is a professor of Civil and

Environmental Engineering at Georgia

Institute of Technology and has authored

hundreds of technical articles and numerous texts on transportation policy and

planning, including Urban Transportation

Planning: A Decision-Oriented Approach,

with Eric Miller. He has also served as

Director of Transportation Planning and

Development for the state of Massachusetts

and as a professor at the Massachusetts

Institute of Technology.
9

II How Scenario Planning Can Make 

a Difference

Effective scenario planning begins with the recognition that transportation professionals cannot precisely predict the long-term future. The best they can do is

to imagine a variety of possible, loosely-defined scenarios that represent a

range of conditions, and then consider how well plans perform under the different conditions. However, the process of vividly imagining alternative stories

encourages people—whether citizens, transportation professionals, or elected

officials—to proactively shape their futures rather than simply responding to

what comes. In this way, scenario planning can help influence land use, economic development, and infrastructure investments, both at the state level and

in individual communities. Roundtable participants offered and engaged in a

series of questions on the foundations and value of scenario planning.

Contributing to the process were keynote remarks from Frank Beal and Robert

Grow, who shared quite different though equally successful experiences with

scenario planning. 

Chicago Metropolis 2020

It was private sector decision makers who first explored the idea of using scenario

planning as a framework for making choices about the future. Frank Beal related his

experience with a Fortune 100 steel company that, like many public-sector agencies,

faced important investment decisions. 

Since forecasting can be unreliable, rather than focusing on a specific prediction,

company executives considered all that might happen in the steel industry, and then

tried to position the company to be prepared for multiple eventualities. Company

executives had to identify what forces were important in shaping the future of the steel

industry, and then address uncertainties. One possibility they considered was a total

collapse of the industry. To company executives, this was a disastrous prospect that

was hard to imagine, but it was a possible outcome. In the end, company executives

chose not to invest, because it was not the most robust response to multiple alternatives. 

Scenario planning has proven to be an enormously successful way for the private 

sector to think about the future, but public-sector planners can also apply this strategy.

For example, Beal guided scenario analyses conducted for the Chicago area in 

developing the Chicago Metropolis 2020 plan. The plan used economic, land use,

and transportation models to help the project participants evaluate future conditions.

Participants then considered how they might choose to respond to those future conditions, taking into account the existing situation, public preferences, expert opinions,

experiences elsewhere, the results of computer modeling, and their own innovative

ideas. They developed a plan that performed well against indicators such as total

miles traveled during peak hours, tons of carbon monoxide, and transit use. 

According to Beal, one of the most useful aspects of scenario planning is that stories

resonate with people, helping to fully engage the decision makers. Beal imparted 

several lessons about the process. He observed that most of the current planning

processes focus on whether or not to build, and not on how to use existing resources

more efficiently. On the importance of data to scenario planning, he noted that 

transportation models tend to penalize transit, and that missing data can make asset

management difficult to model. Finally, Beal concluded with the warning that 

enormous structural impediments to making good decisions still remain.

Frank Beal

Mr. Beal is Executive Director of Chicago

Metropolis 2020, a nonprofit organization born of an extra-governmental regional

planning effort that promotes civic entrepreneurship and coordinated planning. As

a former executive with Ryerson

International Inc. and Inland Steel, Mr.

Beal brings extensive private sector experience to his service in the public sector.

Scenarios are not plans. They are possible

futures, Beal explained.
II How Scenario Planning Can Make a Difference

11

Envision Utah 

Like many regions, Utah faces serious challenges with rapid growth and infrastructure

deficits. According to Robert Grow, the premise of the Envision Utah project was that

the public has the right to choose its future, and that officials should serve that vision.

However, growth issues have natural boundaries that are not aligned with existing

political boundaries, Grow said. Since the Envision Utah group believed that the public would make good choices if presented with real options, they introduced a format

to involve the public and to bridge the disconnect between those that control land

use—local governments and the private sector—and those that control transportation

planning—state and Federal governments and metropolitan planning organizations

(MPOs). According to Grow, it was important that no public or private stakeholder

group control the partnership, whether in appearance or reality. At the same time, the

project had to include all stakeholders that could affect, or would be affected by the

outcome. The partnership had to be trustworthy, transparent, and inclusive, representing a broad scope of community interests, Grow explained. It was also important that

funding come from multiple sources, including a balance of public and private funds. 

Whereas a typical approach to planning involves one forecast and one solution,

Grow said, it was better to develop a range of scenarios. Envision Utah organized

initial hands-on public workshops that allowed people to explore the options.

Informed by the workshop results, participants developed four scenarios for future

growth in Utah, and offered evaluation criteria with which to assess each scenario

(such as total land consumption and average daily vehicle miles traveled). A major

public outreach survey then had Utahans vote for a scenario. Including the media

early in the process helped the public outreach effort, Grow noted. Another helpful

strategy was to stick to a lexicon of words that the public had already selected 

to describe their values—Envision Utah used the same vocabulary to describe the

attributes of the different options under consideration. Based on the scenario chosen,

Envision Utah then generated a vision document, supported with 42 specific strategies.

As a result of the Envision Utah project, there has been a sea change in attitudes

toward transit, including support for sales tax increases for transit and more long-range

plans, according to Grow. Sixty percent of communities have used Envision Utah tools

in their plans and ordinances. Statewide, Utahans now aim to reduce the amount of

land consumed by nearly 100 square miles by 2030. 

Robert Grow

Mr. Grow is an attorney at O’Melveny

and Meyers, LLP and a founding chair of

Envision Utah, a public–private partnership seeking to develop long-term, quality

growth in the greater Wasatch area. In

prior years, Grow was appointed by two

governors to serve on the Utah State

Economic Development Board, and was

named Utah’s Entrepreneur of the Year in

1994. As former Chief Executive Officer

of Geneva Steel, Grow served as elected

Chair of the American Iron and Steel

Institute, and as a director of the National

Association of Manufacturers. He is currently chairing Envision Utah’s Assessment

and Renewal Subcommittee, which 

is planning the partnership’s strategy for

the future.

Land use factors are issues that individuals

care about for their quality of life. Land use

planning isn’t bucking the market, Grow

argued, but getting government out of the

way to reflect true market forces, that is,

what people really want. 

Utahans selected Scenario C as a preferred

growth paradigm for their state, which 

featured more infill and redevelopment 

and new growth focused into walkable, 

transit-oriented communities.
Changing people’s behavior is possible,

many agreed, but may take some work. 

As one participant explained, since people

really care about their values, “we have 

to convince them that our elegant solutions

are worthwhile.”

Discussion Topic: How to Bring About Regional Planning?

Participants raised the concern that, in many areas, regional planning is generally

lacking because regional issues do not fall under any one government’s jurisdiction. 

As one participant explained, the government framework is divided into Federal, state,

and local jurisdiction. However, the impacts of transportation and land use planning

do not respect such boundaries; they unfold across global, regional, and neighborhood lines. This gap between the governance structure and reality is a challenge for

transportation policy makers. For instance, one participant observed that planning 

officials are often limited in how far they can pursue truly regional planning, since they

are chartered to represent a local jurisdiction.

Some participants felt that MPOs could take more of a leadership role in developing

and implementing regional visions. Others agreed that MPOs are best equipped to

provide a regional context for decision making. They noted that the legislative requirements that govern MPOs are flexible, suggesting that citizens should become more

involved in their MPOs to help influence the regional planning process.

Ideas for facilitating regional planning included the following:

• Local elected officials might better serve as regional planners if regional 

planning were somehow a part of their required tasks.

• Collaboration between MPOs, land use planners, and the state DOT 

is beneficial. Consider multi-state coalitions with a particular focus on 

economic development.

• States could give most of the authority to MPOs for planning in their region.

• Use training exercises to educate staff on the use of planning tools. 

• The Federal government could use different terminology to help bridge 

the local–regional divide, helping people to think more regionally, rather 

than inviting people to bring their individual perspectives to the table.

Discussion Topic: Can Planning Shape the Future?

One question relevant to transportation planning that often goes unexamined is

whether policies have the power to change behaviors and shape a future society.

Experience suggests that people and businesses often resist what they perceive are

government efforts to dictate outcomes and influence private life. With this in mind,

participants debated the importance of transportation as a factor in people’s personal

decisions and what role transportation policy can play. Overall, the discussion indicated optimism about the impact and value of scenario planning: 

• Participants pointed to the success of the anti-smoking campaign in the public

sector, and everyday marketing in the private sector as evidence that it is possible for public information to effect large-scale change in individual behavior.

This suggests that the process of educating citizens through scenario planning

can meaningfully affect choices and collective outcomes.

• In making planning decisions, decision makers can consider ways to harness

market forces to move society in a desirable direction. Tax policy is one tool for

effecting change. Our existing tax policies give us the shape of metropolitan

America, pointed out one participant, but is it the shape we want? Providing

incentives and disincentives can be an effective means of influencing the choices

that both businesses and individuals make.

• Demographic trends are clearly important in shaping our environment, and

those trends may be influenced by policies relating to land use, immigration,

and transportation. Those interested in implementing scenario planning should

utilize the tools that are available. 

• Some participants doubted that transportation is a deciding factor in where most

people choose to live and work, so transportation policy may have a limited

effect on development trends. One participant argued that school quality, perception of personal safety, and housing costs are more important than commute

considerations. Participants agreed that more research is needed on the influence of urban design on travel behavior.

• In response to those who doubt the potency of transportation policy, one 

participant reminded the group that we do not yet know how large an impact

transportation policy might have, if a comprehensive policy is executed since

this has never been attempted.

• Participants seemed to agree that transportation policy would be most effective if

implemented in conjunction with complementary policies, across agencies and

throughout all levels of government.

13

II How Scenario Planning Can Make a Difference

Success Story

The Metropolitan Washington COG

In the recent preparation of an

Environmental Impact Statement for 

a bridge project, the Metropolitan

Washington Council of Governments used

a facilitator, who was able to establish 

a high degree of trust among all participants. A question arose about whether

other bridge crossings in the area might

help alleviate traffic. At first the participants

considered the question out of the project

scope, but then recognized it as an opportunity. The process established by the facilitator helped produce regional planning,

something that is rarely part of a corridor

study. 
Jacky Grimshaw

Ms. Grimshaw is Vice President 

of Policy, Transportation, and 

Community Development at the Center for

Neighborhood Technology in Chicago.

The Center’s mission is to invent and implement new methods for creating livable

urban communities. A longtime social and

political activist, Grimshaw has worked for

the Chicago mayor’s office, the state of

Illinois, and the Federal government. 

In Chicago, we brought together both the

professional participators and people that

had never been to a meeting and never

knew their opinion mattered, Grimshaw

explained.

Sharon Richardson

Ms. Richardson is Mayor Pro Tem of

Federal Heights, Colorado, and has represented her jurisdiction on the board of

directors of the Denver Regional Council 

of Governments for 12 years. A community

activist for over 17 years, she has contributed to a number of local and regional

organizations, and has represented five

western states on the board of directors 

of the National Association of 

Regional Councils. 

Richardson noted that the public helped

shape the Metro Vision 2020 by participating in task forces that envisioned different

scenarios for the Denver region.

15

III Public Involvement in Scenario Planning

Public involvement is an essential part of any planning process, whether for

transportation or land use. Scenario planning is particularly well-suited to public participation, because the process centers on constructing and exploring stories about the future. And these are stories about citizens’ immediate environment—neighborhoods, districts, and towns. Thus, people respond energetically to the task. Moreover, participants agreed that citizens can do an effective

job if given the proper tools and background.

Public involvement is critical to the ultimate success of scenario planning, in

part because participation gives citizens a sense of ownership in the outcome

of the planning process. That sense smoothes the path to building consensus

and obtaining buy-in from stakeholders. Participants also observed that public

involvement can get a scenario planning effort back on track, in situations

where the usual players may have reached a stalemate.

The roundtable received two presentations that centered on effective practices

for public involvement in scenario planning. The presentations fed a discussion

of several issues relating to public involvement. 

Citizen’s Leadership Commission

Jacky Grimshaw explained that the opportunities for engaging people in the public

process are as varied as the people you want to involve. In organizing the Citizen’s

Leadership Commission, which was charged with developing public consensus for a

Regional Long-Range Transportation Plan in the Chicago area, Grimshaw started with

eight focus groups. The focus groups were asked who the stakeholders were, and

they came up with a list of 152 organizations or representatives as a basis for learning about what citizens valued. Another method Grimshaw has implemented is to

select groups by geography, dividing the region into 11 areas. In each case,

Grimshaw explained, community members helped to plan the meeting, including

important logistical details such as location and time. Including a review cycle, generating the final report was a 21-month process. 

Grimshaw recommended that any public recruitment process must begin with an

understanding that there are a lot of issues, and that it will be necessary to build trust

and credibility. Identify special specific populations, such as youth, older people, couples with or without children, and disabled people, and find a way for your message

to resonate with each of those groups, she suggested. You may need to spend time

building the educational background needed for participation. Then cultivate long-term

involvement with continuous renewal. As a result of public participation, Grimshaw

advised, participants receive an education, they feel like their voices matter, and the

plan is better than it otherwise could have been.

Metro Vision 2020 

Sharon Richardson explained that when Denver-area planners put together a composite map of all of the local plans of the municipalities in the region, they realized they

needed a regional vision. The composite map indicated more growth than was

expected, and an imbalance of residential and non-residential uses. Over several

years, task forces and committees comprised of local governments, business interests,

and environmental groups cooperatively developed the Metro Vision 2020 plan to

serve as a guide for local planning efforts. In the process, several different scenarios

were developed. In order to involve citizens in the decision-making process, each

alternative was publicized by way of fliers and public displays. In the end, the best

features of the various scenarios culminated in a final plan. 

Richardson reported that some of the major challenges along the way were “not in my

backyard” attitudes among the public at large, and the difficulty for business representatives to devote a lot of time to the effort. Interest groups proved to be a key component in connecting to the regional community. 
17

Discussion Topic: Public Participation Goals 

Participants identified several challenges related to public involvement.

The Diversity of the Represented Voices

One challenge to public involvement is ensuring that diverse members of the

community participate in the process. Participants explained that self-selecting

advocacy groups tend to dominate public involvement processes since they

are well-practiced and well-informed. However, these groups do not necessarily represent all constituents’ interests. Some observed that business groups

tend to shy from participation in debates involving esoteric questions and 

do not have time for participation in lengthy planning procedures. Another

participant pointed out that elected officials are often overlooked as effective

public representatives.

To ensure a diversity of views, one participant advised that outreach efforts

should target groups other than those that normally participate. Also, a 

consideration of a range of needs and perspectives should be reflected in the

outreach phase, and in the project outcome. In particular, planners should

consider the following throughout the project:

• Underrepresented or specific groups such as elderly, youth, immigrant, poor, 

and disabled constituents.

• Elected officials (both to educate them about issues and to expose them to 

constituents’ views).

• Other decision makers, including city planners and all stakeholders.

Educating the Participants

Another challenge identified was how to empower those that have little experience with the issues at hand to make informed decisions. Education is key

in any collective decision-making process. It is important to educate the public so that they can become involved in the planning process, so that they

can make better decisions in their own lives, and because their preferences

drive the choices of elected officials. It may also be important to educate the

decision makers, as many officials are only part-time, have busy schedules,

and turn over rapidly due to term limits. 

Resources such as technical assistance, facts and data, staff time, and leadership help support scenario planning and other collaborative decision-making

processes. Organizers should keep in mind that people with different experiences and demographic backgrounds may require different kinds of information.

Mitigating Conflict

Participants proposed several strategies that can help:

• It is best to move the public involvement process upstream, focusing on longterm priorities and goals. Short-term decisions can bring out “not in my 

backyard” attitudes.

• The role of the public should be to identify collective goals. The experts 

should provide forecasts and options; the public should respond and express 

preferences. Planning bodies can then collectively decide how to modify their 

plans in order to reach their goals.

• Establishing relationships with all stakeholders early, before the planning process

becomes politicized and challenging, can help ensure their participation.

Discussion Topic: How to involve the public?

Participants emphasized the need to make participation easy. The following

strategies were suggested for scenario planning and other collaborative decision-making activities:

• Visual and hands-on presentations are most effective. Consider using maps, 

graphics, simulations, animated simulations, physical pieces people can place 

on maps, and three-dimensional models. 

• Talk about people’s own neighborhoods; mention details that they can relate to.

• Fully engage the media to work for you to educate the public. The web can also 

be a supplemental outreach tool.

• For conveying national trends, maps are effective because people identify 

with their state and are interested in how it fares in relation to other states.

• Focus on the problem first, then the vision.

• Monitor the retention of your participants. If a participant disappears, call to 

find out why, thank them for their participation, and ask if they can recommend 

a replacement. 

III Public Involvement in Scenario Planning

An MPO can consider appointing a 

committee comprised of all the viewpoints

that ought to be represented, rather than 

relying on volunteers.

Success Story

Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Dallas Area Rapid Transit (DART) has a

community affairs group in their service

area, which helps them identify obstacles

early in the planning process. “We’ve 

got the pulse,” Trip Brizell, Senior Manager

of Capital Programming, explained, which

helps ensure that DART does not design or 

suggest solutions that are not accepted by

the community. 

Success Story

Envision Utah

In recruiting participants for Envision Utah,

staff members would ask their contacts,

“Who should we invite?” Inevitably, the

contacts would end up recommending

themselves for the project, without having

felt the pressure of a direct request.
19

IV Technology Tools for Scenario Planning

Two experts, Jean Brittingham and Chris Sinclair, presented information on

tools that can aid in the scenario planning process.

Sample Tools and Techniques

For effective outreach, it is essential to have things that people can see, hear, and

feel, Jean Brittingham explained. Photo simulations help dramatize the built effect,

allowing people to visualize different options and evaluate alternatives at a relatively

low cost. Other effective tools include simulated animation, building height shape files,

and the integration of these visual simulation tools with geospatial databases.

In addition, software such as Quest provides a Scenario Engine that allows models 

to talk to each other and generate visual representations of the consequences of the

complex set of choices that planners must juggle, Brittingham explained. Using the

software, planners can choose what options to explore, and then see the results of 

different choices.

Jean Brittingham

Ms. Brittingham is Vice President of the

Transportation Business Group at CH2M

HILL, a firm that supplies engineering, construction, operations, and related services

to public and private clients, with a particular focus on applying technology and

safeguarding the environment. She is also

a faculty member in the Prince of Wale’s

Business and Environment Programme at

the University of Cambridge, United

Kingdom. With over 17 years of service

in the public and private sectors,

Brittingham is an experienced practitioner

of future search, systems thinking tools,

scenario planning, visioning techniques,

and stakeholder involvement. Brittingham

was a key contributor to the creation of

new models for program implementation

at the Utah Department of Transportation, 

in Camp Lejeune, North Carolina, and 

in Puerto Rico.

It is essential to have things that people can

see, hear, and feel, Brittingham advised.

Experience in Charlottesville, Virginia

Chris Sinclair shared his experience in shepherding the Jefferson Area Eastern

Planning Initiative through the development of a 50-year vision for the Charlottesville

area. To assess public preferences, they began by asking people to react to photos

depicting different types of places. They found consistent preference for a human-scale,

walkable, mixed-use paradigm with more of a focal point and a better use of open

space. Sinclair’s group then used the CorPlan software tool to generate different 

scenarios of the area’s future under a variety of circumstances, using Geographic

Information System mapping of land use regulations, traffic modeling, and demographic statistics as inputs. 

In the figure below, the Dispersed Scenario (left) is the projected “Business as Usual”

results for the four-county area by 2050. In this scenario, all new development would 

be suburban, and 15 percent of farms and forests would be lost. Alternatively, the 

Nodal Scenario (right) developed in a public workshop slates all new development 

to be urban or enhanced suburban, with just 5 percent of existing farms and forests

lost to development. 

In considering the different scenarios, the participants arrived at a consensus in favor

of compact development at key crossroads. According to Sinclair, this choice will have

significant implications for the magnitude of both transit and roadway investments 

in the area. 

Chris Sinclair 

Mr. Sinclair is President of the consulting

firm Renaissance Planning Group, Inc. He

has over 20 years of experience managing

transportation and land use planning 

projects for local governments, MPOs, 

and state and Federal departments of 

transportation. Sinclair recently helped

develop CorPlan, a regional land use 

planning model. 

In Charlottesville, Sinclair saw that only after

maps and graphics were put up did the consensus-building process begin. The scenarios

help put some reality behind the words and

ideas, Sinclair noted.

BEFORE AFTER
Legal or Administrative Action

• Clarify what scenario planning is and what initiatives are underway and 

encouraged at the Federal, regional, and local levels.

• Coordinate a coalition of organizations that would collectively sign off on a 

statement of support for scenario planning.

•Increase efforts to encourage regionalism at the Federal level, perhaps by 

speaking out and favoring efforts with funding opportunities.

•Encourage regionalism in Federal publications and regulations by incorporating

additional language regarding its benefits.

•Since air quality conformity requirements and the fear of lawsuits may inhibit

MPOs from using scenario planning tools to consider a large range of alternatives,

provide statutory shelter that is connected to the scenario planning process. In the

long run, the process may help to avoid lawsuits.

•Encourage scenario planning in the Federal recertification process.

21

V Conclusion: Next Steps

The roundtable closed with participants brainstorming recommendations for

action to promote and support effective scenario planning. The group offered

recommendations for information sharing, resources and technical assistance,

and legal or administrative action. 

Information Sharing

• Continue to discuss points raised in this roundtable with the participants’ respective organizations.

•Publicize places where agencies have tried scenario planning. In particular, provide examples in which agencies have undertaken scenario planning while

addressing air quality conformity challenges.

• Compile information on the values expressed by the public and other "lessons

learned" by those who have implemented collaborative planning processes, so

that others can learn and incorporate relevant factors into their models.

• Gather and distribute research on the influence of urban design on travel behavior.

•Bring more outreach to decision makers, particularly elected officials, at events

such as those sponsored by the Association of MPOs, the National Association of

Regional Councils, and the National League of Cities.

Resources and Technical Assistance

•Establish a dialogue about scenario planning with research centers, including a

discussion of how to do it well, how to make it inclusive, and how to use it to

achieve desirable outcomes.

•Provide a range of tools and training to MPOs. They need a bigger tool chest,

especially in high-growth areas.

• Consider providing Federal resources to support those who want to do 

scenario planning.
Presenters

Frank Beal, Chicago Metropolis

Jean Brittingham, CH2M Hill 

Jacky Grimshaw, Center for Neighborhood Technology

Robert Grow, Envision Utah

Casey J. Hannan, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention

Dr. Michael Meyer, Georgia Institute of Technology

Alan Pisarski, Transportation Consultant

Sharon Richardson, City of Federal Heights, Colorado 

Christopher H. Sinclair, Renaissance Planning Group

Participants

Michael A. Allegra, Utah Transit Authority

Wendy Blair, W.L. Blair Development

Trip Brizell, Dallas Area Rapid Transit

Viola Brooks, Cardozo High School Transportation and Technology Academy

Anne Canby, Surface Transportation Policy Project

Charles Dickson, Community Transportation Association of America

Janet D'Ignazio, North Carolina Department of Transportation

Gerald Donaldson, Advocates for Highway and Auto Safety

Bob Dunphy, Urban Land Institute

Bob Fogel, National Association of Counties

Vineet Gupta, Boston Transportation Department

Charlie Howard, Washington Department of Transportation

Jean King, American Association of Retired Persons

Ronald Kirby, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments

Honorable John Mason, Former Mayor, City of Fairfax

Abigail McKenzie, Minnesota Department of Transportation

Ed Mortimer, U.S. Chamber of Commerce

Janet Oakley, American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials

Peggy Tadej, National Association of Regional Councils 

Alex Taft, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations

Federal Highway Administration

Cindy Burbank

Gloria Shepherd

Robert Ritter

Felicia Young

Sherry Ways

Denise Bednar

Bruce Spear

Federal Transit Administration

Terry Rosapep

Charlie Goodman

Paul Verchinski

Carolyn Mulvihill

Volpe National Transportation Sysytems Center

John Boiney

Kristin Lovejoy

For more information, contact the FHWA Office of Planning

(HEPP) at 202-366-0106. Look for other scenario planning

resources at http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/index.htm.
Federal Highway Administration

Federal Transit Administration

Publication Number FHWA-HEP-04-027