Transportation and

Community and

System Preservation

Pilot Program

Third-Year Report
TABLE OF CONTENTS

SUMMARY 1

1. TCSP PROGRAM OVERVIEW 3

2. TCSP PROJECTS 6

3. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED 11

4. TCSP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION 31

5. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE 35

APPENDIX FISCAL YEAR 1999–2001 TCSP PROJECTS 37

THIRD-YEAR REPORT

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Human Environment

400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3301

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone 202-366-0106

November 2001

TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNITY AND

SYSTEM PRESERVATION PILOT PROGRAM
The Transportation and Community and System

Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program provides funding

over five years to States, local and tribal governments,

and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) to

develop innovative strategies that use transportation

to build livable communities. Created by Section 1221

of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21), $120 million of funding is authorized to

respond to the concerns of communities from across

America that transportation investments should be

used to achieve strong, sustainable economic growth

while simultaneously protecting the environment and

ensuring a high quality of life.

This report reviews the accomplishments of the TCSP

program following its first three years of implementation.

Between Fiscal Year (FY) 1999 and 2001, a total of 199

grants valued at $91.1 million have been awarded to

government agencies throughout the United States.

These grants are supporting a wide range of transportation planning and implementation projects with

the following objectives:

• Improve the efficiency of the transportation system;

• Reduce the environmental impacts of transportation;

• Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments;

• Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers

of trade; and

• Examine development patterns and identify

strategies to encourage private-sector development

patterns that achieve these goals.

A review of project status and accomplishments to

date, as well as interviews with grantees, Federal program

partners, and stakeholder groups, suggests that TCSP

projects are indeed accomplishing these objectives.

TCSP projects funded in the first three years of the

program have helped to bring innovation to transportation practice in the following ways:

• By expanding the range of partners involved in

planning, including “non-traditional” partners

such as economic development organizations,

community groups, and private developers;

• By expanding and introducing new techniques for

public involvement and community participation;

• By developing new analytical tools to assess the

impacts of transportation and land use alternatives

on mobility, economic development, community

character, and the environment;

• By demonstrating design practices such as traffic

calming, pedestrian linkages, intermodal transit

facilities, and bicycle paths that increase travel options

and improve the character of local communities; and

• By helping communities as well as the private

sector re-examine their land development practices,

in order to reduce transportation impacts and

better complement public-sector investments.

Furthermore, the TCSP program is disseminating the

effective practices developed through individual TCSP

projects by sponsoring a web site, workshops, case

studies, and project evaluations to share knowledge

about accomplishments and lessons learned. The

impacts of the TCSP program, as a result, reach well

beyond the scope of its individual projects.

TCSP Third–Year Report 1

TCSP projects are helping communities link transportation and land

use strategies.

TCSP projects are demonstrating transportation design practices that

increase travel options and enhance community character.

SUMMARY

Salt Lake City, Utah metropolitan area.Courtesy Envision Utah

Design for Main Street in Houston.Courtesy Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects
While enthusiasm for the objectives and accomplishments of the TCSP program is widespread, the

program’s mix of projects has changed in significant

ways between FY 1999 and 2001. These changes have

accompanied a shift in the way grants are awarded

from a competitive application process to Congressional

earmarking. Over this three-year period, there has

been a strong shift away from projects focused on

regional transportation planning and on grants

awarded to MPOs. The share of projects developing

planning tools, methods, and handbooks also has

declined. There has been a corresponding increase

in location-specific planning and implementation

grants to cities and counties, with an emphasis on

public-sector transportation and capital investments

such as bicycle paths, streetscapes, transit facilities,

and roadway improvements. While interviewees

did not fault the Congressionally selected projects,

they felt that the TCSP program’s intended focus

on planning innovations, non-traditional partnerships, project evaluation, and knowledge transfer

is decreasing, and that the program may be losing

many of its unique and most beneficial aspects as

a result.

Looking ahead to the last two years of the TCSP

Pilot Program in FY 2002 and 2003, and to the reauthorization of TEA-21 in advance of FY 2004,

interviewees made a number of suggestions for

maximizing the effectiveness of the program in the

future:

• Award future grants through a competitive process.

Projects have shifted from being awarded almost

entirely through a competitive process in FY 1999 to

being awarded entirely through Congressional

earmarks in FY 2001.

• Continue to emphasize learning and knowledge

transfer. The innovative work undertaken in the

first three years of the TCSP program is now bearing

fruit; documenting and disseminating the results of

this work will multiply the benefits of TCSP.

• Maintain a focus on both planning and implementation. TCSP projects should continue to

emphasize planning innovations, while at the

same time supporting specific community and

system preservation implementation practices.

Widespread implementation, however, will require

either an increase in TCSP funding or the funding

of projects through other sources.

• Move TCSP into the mainstream of transportation

planning practice. TCSP has been a successful

pilot program. The approaches demonstrated by

TCSP projects should, in the future, be fully

integrated into transportation planning practice.

TCSP projects are introducing new public involvement techniques.

TCSP projects are developing new analytical tools.

The CorPlan model in Charlottesville, Virginia.Courtesy Renaissance Planning Group

Summary

2 TCSP Third–Year Report

Public charrette in Saginaw, Michigan.Courtesy Glatting Jackson Kercher Anglin Lopez Rinehart
INTRODUCTION

The Transportation and Community and System

Preservation (TCSP) Pilot Program provides funding

over five years to State, local, and tribal governments

to develop innovative strategies that use transportation

to build livable communities. Created by Section 1221

of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century

(TEA-21), $120 million of funding is authorized to

respond to the concerns of communities from across

America that transportation investments should be

used to achieve strong, sustainable economic growth

while simultaneously protecting the environment and

ensuring a high quality of life. Grants provided by

TCSP support projects that improve linkages among

transportation and community planning and system

preservation practices.

In the first three years of the program, 1,114 applications

requesting $739 million in funds were received from

States, local governments, tribal governments, and metropolitan planning organizations (MPO) throughout the

United States. A total of 199 grants valued at $91.1

million have been awarded over this three-year period.

These projects are listed in Appendix A. TCSP grants

are supporting a wide range of transportation planning

and implementation projects that:

• Integrate land use and transportation planning;

• Balance economic growth, the environment, and

community values;

• Create a long-range vision for a community or region;

• Increase travel options in urban, suburban, and

rural areas;

• Reuse existing infrastructure; and

• Establish non-traditional partnerships to meet

TCSP goals.

This Third-Year Report reviews the results of the TCSP

program after implementation of the program in Fiscal

Years (FY) 1999 through 2001. Key questions addressed in

this report include:

• What are the characteristics of projects funded in

FY 1999 through 2001?

• What have TCSP projects accomplished, both individually and collectively?

• What lessons have been learned from implementing

TCSP projects?

• Are learning and knowledge transfer activities successfully transferring TCSP experience to other areas?

• Is the TCSP program as a whole accomplishing its

defined goals and objectives?

• How can the TCSP program continue to effectively

address its goals and objectives in the future?

To gather insights into the accomplishments and lessons

learned from the TCSP program to date, applications

and progress reports submitted by FY 1999 and 2000

TCSP grantees were reviewed. In addition, interviews

were conducted with staff from Federal Highway

Administration (FHWA) headquarters and Division

offices, each of the Federal program partner agencies,

TCSP stakeholder groups, and local agencies involved in

implementing specific TCSP projects.

TCSP PROGRAM OBJECTIVES

Communities across America increasingly want to

achieve strong, sustainable economic growth in ways

that preserve community character and ensure a high

quality of life. Federal livability programs, including

TCSP, aim to help citizens and communities preserve

green space, ease traffic congestion, restore a sense of

community, promote collaboration among neighboring

communities, and enhance economic competitiveness.

The particular focus of TCSP is to strengthen the link

between transportation and community preservation.

TCSP Third–Year Report 3

1. TCSP PROGRAM OVERVIEW

TCSP Projects by State
TCSP recognizes the fundamental role of transportation

in shaping communities, the economy, and the environment. Designing transportation systems that enhance

mobility, economic opportunity, and community livability, while minimizing environmental impacts and

lifecycle costs, is a major challenge for the future.

Responding to this challenge, the TCSP program

emphasizes strategies that:

• Improve the efficiency of the transportation system;

• Reduce the environmental impacts of transportation; 

• Reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure investments;

• Ensure efficient access to jobs, services, and centers

of trade; and

• Examine development patterns and identify strategies

to encourage private-sector development patterns

that achieve these goals.

TCSP projects are intended to meet all of these

objectives rather than just one or two. TCSP is not

simply an economic development or environmental

preservation program. Instead, project sponsors should

search for ways to reconcile transportation system

performance, infrastructure costs, economic needs, and

environmental impacts.

An effective planning process is key to successfully

achieving these objectives under the TCSP program.

TCSP is designed to support and enhance existing

State and metropolitan planning processes, in part by

engaging a broad range of partners. These include the

general public as well as non-traditional partners, such

as the business community, public health agencies, and

private developers. TCSP also is designed to add value

to planning processes, for example, by introducing greater

consideration of the land development and community

impacts of various transportation investment alternatives.

Finally, the TCSP program places a strong emphasis on

evaluation and learning. The authorizing TEA-21

language explicitly recognizes that the complex set of

relationships among transportation, land development,

and the factors influencing community livability are

not fully understood. Thus, research and individual

grant evaluations to determine which transportation

and community design practices are most successful

are important elements of the TCSP program. The

knowledge gained from TCSP should assist communities

nationwide in developing and implementing their own

transportation and community preservation practices.

HOW DOES THE PROGRAM WORK?

TCSP is a five-year pilot program, extending from 1999

through 2003. The program is managed by FHWA in

cooperation with the Federal Transit Administration

(FTA), the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), the

Office of the Secretary (OST), the Research and Special

Program Administration (RSPA), and the Environmental

Protection Agency (EPA). TCSP grants are available to

States, local and tribal governments, and MPOs, and

may be spent over a period of up to two years.

For each of Fiscal Years 1999, 2000, 2001, and 2002, an

announcement was published in the Federal Register

requesting applications for the TCSP program, with the

first announcement for FY 1999 funds published in

September 1998. Applications underwent an interagency

review process, in which FHWA, FTA, and EPA field

staff reviewed and provided comments on these

submissions to a 20-person technical review panel

comprised of program experts from FHWA and its

partner agencies. This technical panel then evaluated

the final proposals.

In FY 1999, $13.1 million in TCSP funds were awarded

to 35 projects through this competitive application

process. In FY 2000, a total of $21.8 million was

awarded at the direction of Congress to 39 projects. An

additional $9.3 million in FHWA administrative funds

was awarded to fund 45 projects selected through the

competitive process described above. In FY 2001, all 80

grants totaling $46.9 million were directed by Congress;

these awards were announced in October 2000.

Following the award of an earmark, FHWA requested

that each grantee develop and submit a project

application—describing the project’s goals, objectives,

approach, timeframe, and budget—similar to the

applications submitted for the competitive award

process. TCSP projects also need to meet other Federal

aid requirements, including National Environmental

Protection Act (NEPA) and U.S. Department of

Transportation (DOT) statewide and metropolitan

planning requirements.

The deadline for applications for FY 2002 TCSP funds

was January 31, 2001, and the announcement of FY 2002

TCSP grant awards is expected after October 2001.

STATUS OF TCSP PROJECTS

As of the end of summer 2001, most of the first-year

TCSP projects are well underway, and more than onethird have been completed. Work also has begun on

4 TCSP Third–Year Report

TCSP Program Overview
TCSP Third–Year Report 5

nearly all of the FY 2000 awards. The

complexity of many TCSP projects—

involving a number of different partner

agencies and organizations, and

addressing issues not typically addressed

in transportation planning—has meant

that project implementation is sometimes

slower than expected. On the other hand,

the successes being demonstrated by many

first-year projects are leading to follow-on

work to implement recommendations of

these projects. The accomplishments of

many TCSP projects and the challenges

faced by these projects are explored in

greater detail in this report.

OTHER PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

The role of FHWA and its Federal partner

agencies in the TCSP program has been not only to

review applications and administer projects, but also to

assist in disseminating information about TCSP

program accomplishments. To accomplish this task,

FHWA has sponsored two workshops for TCSP

grantees and potential applicants: one in Denver,

Colorado in May 1999; and one in Washington, D.C. in

September 2000. These workshops, with more than 200

attendees at each, provided an opportunity for

grantees to share information about their projects and

lessons learned.

FHWA also maintains a web site that provides

summary information and contacts for each TCSP

project, as well as resource materials for grantees such

as Federal Register notices, evaluation guidance, and

workshop proceedings. In addition, to highlight successful TCSP projects, FHWA has developed a series of

case studies on completed or nearly-completed FY 1999

projects. These case studies have been disseminated in

hard copy format, and have been posted on FHWA’s

web site.

TCSP funds also are available to support research. One

TCSP research project was funded in FY 2000. A consultant was selected to summarize existing modeling

methods that measure the impacts of regional transportation on land use and development. The study is

documenting current practices for estimating the

effects of land use changes on travel patterns, energy

use, and emissions. A small number of planning-oriented

TCSP projects also contain research components, for

example, an FY 2000 project is assessing the impact of

the Virginia Railway Express Commuter Rail on land

development patterns in Northern Virginia.

TCSP Projects and Funding by Fiscal Year

TCSP Program Overview
To characterize the range of projects funded in FY 1999

through 2001, TCSP projects are categorized according

to the following characteristics:

• Type of grantee (city/county, MPO, State DOT, etc.);

• Area type (urban, suburban, rural, or regional);

• Area size;

• Type of project; and

• Type of products anticipated.

The 199 TCSP projects awarded in FY 1999, 2000, and

2001 are listed in Appendix A.

TYPE OF GRANTEE

Counties and cities represent the most common type of

grantee (94 projects, or 55 percent of known grantee

types) in the first three fiscal years of the program. MPOs

represent the second largest type (33, or 19 percent).

Twenty-five projects (14 percent) were awarded to State

DOTs. A small number of grants were also awarded to

other State agencies, tribal governments, and transit

agencies. In a few cases, a joint application was submitted

by more than one lead agency. Based on a more detailed

analysis of the 524 TCSP letters of intent received for FY

1999, the distribution of agencies applying for funds was

similar to the distribution of agencies awarded funds.

The mix of grantees has changed significantly as the

TCSP program has progressed. For example, the share

of grants awarded to cities and counties grew from 40

percent in 1999 to 51 percent in 2001. At the same time,

the share of grants awarded to MPOs decreased

dramatically, from 48 percent in 1999 to 17 percent in

2000, and only two percent in 2001. Also in 2001, a

number of grants (14 percent) were awarded to other

governmental organizations such as universities and

economic development agencies. In a few cases, nongovernmental organizations such as environmental or

community groups have taken the lead in initiating a

project, partnering with a governmental organization

to apply for the grant and carry out the project.

AREA TYPE

Area types include:

• Urban—In the central city of a metropolitan area

(for example, a revitalization plan for an urban

neighborhood);

• Suburban—In a suburban setting of a metropolitan

area;

• Rural—In a small city/town (less than 50,000

population) or rural area; and

• Regional—Encompassing more than one area type

(for example, a regional visioning project that includes

the entire metropolitan area).

Ninety projects (46 percent) awarded funds in years 1999,

2000, and 2001 were located in urban settings, 13 projects

(seven percent) in suburban settings, and 47 projects

(24 percent) in small town/rural settings. Most of the

remainder (45 projects, or 23 percent) were of a regional

nature. (A small number of projects were statewide in

nature and not associated with a particular region.) This

mix has changed significantly, however, over the first

three years of the TCSP program. The share of projects

in urban settings more than doubled from 26 percent in

FY 1999 to 57 percent in FY 2001, and the share of projects

6 TCSP Third–Year Report

2. TCSP PROJECTS

TCSP Projects by Type of Grantee

FY 1999–2001 Projects

TCSP Projects by Area Type
in small town or rural settings also increased from 11

percent to 27 percent. In contrast, the share of projects that

are of a regional nature declined from 57 percent of all FY

1999 projects to only seven percent of all FY 2001 projects.

AREA SIZE

Areas receiving grants are classified as:

• Large metropolitan—One of the 50 largest metropolitan areas as identified by the U.S. Bureau of the

Census, corresponding to a population of roughly

one million or greater;

• Small metropolitan—Metropolitan areas with

more than 50,000 inhabitants but not one of the 50

largest; and

• Non-metropolitan—Projects located in nonmetropolitan cities or towns of less than 50,000

inhabitants, rural areas, or statewide projects.

Just over three-fifths of grants (125) in FY 1999, 2000, and

2001 were awarded to agencies in metropolitan areas,

with the majority of these (76) awarded to agencies in

large metropolitan areas. The share of projects located in

large metropolitan areas has declined, however, from 46

percent of all projects in FY 1999 to 30 percent of all

projects in FY 2001. During this same time period, the

share of projects located in non-metropolitan areas grew

from 17 percent to 42 percent. The average dollar award

per project was similar across area sizes.

TYPE OF PROJECT

TCSP projects are categorized according to a variety of

types. Project types and corresponding examples of

“typical” TCSP projects include: 

• Regional planning—Conduct a regional transportation and land use “visioning” exercise, with

the objectives of creating alternative transportation

and development scenarios, analyzing their impacts,

and building public support to implement a

“preferred” alternative;

• Corridor/area planning—Conduct a study to

improve transit, pedestrian, and bicycle infrastructure and connectivity in a corridor or neighborhood;

• Urban revitalization—Identify infrastructure

improvements, including roadway, transit, bicycle,

pedestrian, and/or freight access, to improve the

livability of an older urban neighborhood enhance

access to that neighborhood, and promote community redevelopment;

• Transit-oriented development—Develop model

plans, zoning ordinances, and/or capital improvements for transit station areas to promote transitoriented development;

• Highways/roads—Develop a redesign for an arterial

roadway incorporating access management, pedestrian improvements, and aesthetic improvements;

• Bicycle/pedestrian/traffic calming—Design and

implement pedestrian facilities and amenities or a

greenway/multi-use path;

• Freight—Design freight-related improvements,

such as a grade-crossing separation or improved

truck access to an industrial area, to increase safety

and enhance economic development opportunities;

• Transit—Design and implement intermodal transit

facilities, often focused on the renovation of an

historic train station or bus depot;

• Tools/models—Develop and demonstrate a computer model (such as a geographic information

system (GIS)-based land use model) to help illustrate

and quantify the community and transportation

impacts of alternative land development scenarios;

• Outreach/public involvement—Develop and

implement an innovative public involvement

process that utilizes hands-on techniques, such as

charrettes or visualization techniques, to help the

public understand the community impacts of

various land development and transportation

alternatives; and

TCSP Third–Year Report 7

TCSP Projects by Area Size

FY 1999–2001 Projects

TCSP Projects
• Other—Other types of projects

include redevelopment of Brownfields

sites, transportation and community

design approaches that mitigate

environmental impacts, projects to

improve access to jobs via transit or

other transportation alternatives, and

preservation of green space.

Each project was identified as having a

“primary” project type and up to two

secondary types. For example, a corridor

planning project might also have a

significant and innovative public involvement component. Overall, the most

common primary project types included

corridor/area planning (46, or 26 percent

of known projects), bicycle/pedestrian

facilities or traffic calming (36, or 20

percent), regional planning (20, or 11

percent), and transit (18, or 10 percent).

Including secondary as well as primary

project types, a significant number of

projects (more than 10 percent each) also

include components of public involvement and outreach, urban revitalization,

highway/road design or construction,

and the development of modeling tools.

Comparing project types across years

shows a significant decline in projects

that include regional planning, transitoriented development, modeling tool

development, and innovative public

involvement approaches. While more

than half of all FY 1999 projects included

one or more of these components, almost none were

included in FY 2001 projects. Conversely, there was a

strong increase in projects with components of

bicycle/pedestrian/ traffic calming (from 14 percent in

FY 1999 to 31 percent in FY 2001), highway/road

projects (from zero to 14 percent), and freight (from

three to 10 percent). (It should be noted that 24 percent

of FY 2001 projects could not be characterized with a

specific type, because insufficient information was

available about the project.) This trend can be

characterized in general terms as a shift away from

multimodal, area-wide planning efforts and planning

methods, and toward the design and implementation

of specific projects.

TYPE OF PRODUCT

Each project is identified as having up to two types of

products, one primary and one secondary. These product

types include:

• Plan or planning study, e.g., regional transportation/ land use plan, area plan, site plan,

conceptual design, transportation facility design,

or alternatives evaluation;

• Construction project, e.g., pedestrian bridge, bicycle

path, street scaping, or interchange improvements;

• Planning model, e.g., travel demand model, land

use model, or GIS decision support tool;

• Handbook/guidebook, e.g., “best practices” guide

or strategy toolkit; and

8 TCSP Third–Year Report

TCSP Projects by Project Type

TCSP Projects

Note: Some projects may be classified in more than one category
• Research study, e.g., study of land use impacts of

a transportation project.

Among the FY 1999 and 2000 TCSP projects, the most

common primary products were plans or planning

studies (60 projects, or 51 percent), with actual construction projects (28, or 24 percent) and handbooks/

guidebooks (19, or 16 percent) also common. A smaller

number of projects involved a research study or the development of a modeling tool.

The share of products in these years resulting in plans

(as a primary or secondary product) remained stable,

but the share of projects including actual construction

increased from 11 percent to 32 percent. Five projects

with a research emphasis were funded in 2000, while

none were funded in 1999. In contrast, the share of

projects resulting in handbooks or guidebooks decreased

from 40 percent to 13 percent. The share of projects

resulting in quantitative models also decreased from 11

percent to six percent.

FUNDING BY PROJECT CHARACTERISTIC

In addition to examining the total number of projects

by characteristic, the total funded grant amount also

was tabulated by area size, area type, and grantee type

to see if there are significant differences in the average

size of the award by any of these characteristics.

Across all projects, the average dollar value of the

award remained stable between FY 1999 and FY 2000,

at $375,000 and $370,000 per award, respectively, but

increased in FY 2001 to $586,000 per award. The average

dollar value of awards to cities and counties increased

over this three-year time period but remained stable or

declined for other agency types.

CONCLUSIONS

TCSP projects have been initiated primarily by MPOs,

cities, and counties, but also in some cases by State

DOTs and tribal governments. The geographic

diversity of projects has been broad, with projects

centered in both large and small urban areas as well as

rural areas, and located throughout the United States.

Some projects have focused on the relationships

between transportation and community throughout a

region, while others have focused on a specific site,

neighborhood, or transportation corridor. Most sitespecific projects have been located in urban settings or

small towns, rather than suburban areas, reflecting the

program’s emphasis on redeveloping and revitalizing

older areas with existing infrastructure.

The types of projects funded have ranged from regional

land use and transportation visioning exercises to the renovation or construction of an intermodal transit facility.

Different projects have attempted to achieve TCSP’s five

objectives in different yet related ways—by facilitating

alternative modes of transportation, promoting more

compact and pedestrian-friendly development, encouraging infill and redevelopment of urban centers, and

affecting the design of transportation and development

to reduce environmental impacts and better integrate

with the community.

The products of these projects most often are a planning

study, plan, or proposed design, although many grants

have funded the actual construction of a facility. A

number of TCSP projects also are producing “best

practices” handbooks or planning models for transportation and/or land development, not only for use

locally but also for the use of other communities.

TCSP Third–Year Report 9

TCSP Projects by Product Type

TCSP Projects

Average Award Value of 

TCSP Grants by Year

Note: Some projects may be classified in more than one category
10 TCSP Third–Year Report

There is a clear shift over the first three years of the

program toward local projects, such as local area plans

or facility construction, and away from projects of a

regional nature, such as regional visioning and

planning. This shift also is reflected in the types of

grantees; consistent with a decline in the share of

regionally-focused projects to almost zero in FY 2001,

the share of grants awarded to MPOs has declined to

almost zero while the share awarded to cities and

counties has increased. Along with this shift in the

geographic scale of projects has come an increased

emphasis on project implementation rather than

planning, with the proportion of grants dedicated to

construction projects growing significantly. While a

sizeable number of earmarked projects are still for

planning activities, the nature of these activities has

shifted away from regional transportation and land

use policy issues and also away from the development

of planning tools, methods, and handbooks. In their

place has been a shift towards more locality-specific

corridor, area, or neighborhood-level planning, with an

emphasis on public-sector transportation and capital

investment alternatives.

TCSP Projects
The TCSP First-Year Accomplishments Report identified

six types of benefits resulting from the TCSP program:

1) Encouraging innovation in planning and implementation practices;

2) Creating partnerships among a broad range of

public, private, and non-traditional groups;

3) Leveraging opportunities by adding value to

larger projects;

4) Strengthening the transportation planning process

at all levels;

5) Building the knowledge base on successful strategies

for achieving TCSP goals; and

6) Demonstrating results that will help other communities develop successful strategies.

These benefits are affecting transportation planning in

a way that works towards TCSP’s objectives: to

improve the efficiency of the transportation system;

reduce the environmental impacts of transportation;

reduce the need for costly future public infrastructure

investments; ensure efficient access to jobs, services,

and centers of trade; and affect private-sector development patterns to achieve these goals. The innovations

and accomplishments of TCSP projects are resulting in

effective practices that can be applied in transportation

planning nationwide. This Third-Year Report takes a

fresh look at the impacts TCSP projects are having in

each of these areas, and how they are developing

effective practices for transportation planning.

INNOVATION

The TCSP program, first and foremost, is intended to be a demonstration program designed to

stimulate new and innovative activities. A

review of TCSP projects undertaken to date suggests

that the “pilot” aspect of TCSP has indeed encouraged

a willingness to experiment and develop new ideas.

TCSP projects are demonstrating innovative practices

in a variety of ways: by addressing a broader range of

issues in transportation planning; focusing attention

on the relationships between transportation and

development patterns; shifting the mix of projects that

are considered and funded; introducing innovations to

transportation and community design; and developing

new planning tools.

Addressing a broader range of issues. TCSP projects are

leading to greater acknowledgment of a broad range of

issues to be considered in the planning and design of

transportation facilities and services. In particular, many

TCSP projects are working to balance mobility needs

with environmental quality and community livability.

A regional visioning project in Salt Lake City, Utah has

developed indicators not only of transportation conditions, but also of air quality, water supply, infrastructure costs, and agricultural and open space land

conversion resulting from future transportation and

land use scenarios. Watershed-based projects in suburban

Illinois and rural Pennsylvania are developing road

design and land development standards that will

minimize environmental impacts resulting from road

widenings and will preserve environmental resources

in the face of increased development.

While environmental impacts have been addressed for

many years in transportation planning, especially at

the project planning level, TCSP projects are introducing

these issues earlier in the planning process and addressing them in a more comprehensive manner. In Riverside

County, California, the Community and Environmental

Transportation Acceptability Process (CETAP) is an

effort to identify and preserve transportation right-ofways that will not only serve future transportation and

development needs, but also minimize impacts on sensitive habitats and preserve valuable open space. In addition to addressing technical issues, CETAP project participants have placed a strong emphasis on process,

especially on creating dialogue between neighboring

counties. The project’s involvement of a wide range of

stakeholders early in the process allows transportation

and environmental issues, concerns, and needs to be

raised and discussed from the beginning.

Attention to transportation and development relationships. Many TCSP projects are focusing greater

attention on the relationships between transportation

and development patterns. Development patterns affect

transportation demand, while conversely, transportation

improvements affect the location of development. Yet

there is often a “disconnect” between transportation

and land use planning: major transportation improvements are planned at a regional-level, while land use

TCSP Third–Year Report 11

3. ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND LESSONS LEARNED

“Through the CETAP process, county planning

boundaries have begun to dissolve and a better

understanding of the interdependency and regional

focus of transportation planning has emerged.”

—Cathy Bechtel, Director of Planning and

Programming, Riverside County

Transportation Commission
12 TCSP Third–Year Report

decisions are made locally. To address this disconnect,

planners in a seven-county region surrounding Lexington,

Kentucky are developing strategies and conducting

outreach to coordinate transportation and land use policies among jurisdictions in the region. A project in Clark

County, Washington is working to develop strategies

that balance the sometimes conflicting objectives of transportation concurrency requirements—which restrict

development based on local transportation capacity—

with growth management—the desire to steer growth

into existing developed areas and limit urban sprawl.

Shifting the mix of projects. There is a growing sense in

communities throughout America that while maintaining

highway mobility is important, we can no longer “build”

our way out of traffic congestion. At the same time, people

believe that greater attention to alternative modes such as

transit, walking, and bicycling can help reduce the

demand on our highway system and make for more

pleasant and livable communities. An innovative project

in Denver, Colorado, for example, is enhancing the city’s

historic Union Station to include a neighborhood electric

vehicle hub, a full-service bicycle station, and local trolley

FOCUS ON TCSP OBJECTIVES:

Improving the Efficiency of the Transportation System

In the Greater Wasatch region of northern Utah, a public-private

partnership known as Envision Utah is studying the effects of longterm growth in the region and is developing strategies to address

growth-related issues. FY 1999 and 2000 TCSP grants totaling

$630,000 are supporting this effort. Through a series of GIS-based

modeling systems, Envision Utah participants analyzed the

transportation efficiency, land use, air quality, water use, and

infrastructure cost implications of alternative regional transportation

and land use scenarios. Four combination transportation/land use

scenarios were compared, and the findings from this initial

comparison were used to develop a final “Quality Growth Scenario.”

The Envision Utah project investigated how transportation system performance varied depending upon land development and transportation investment patterns. Compared to a “baseline” scenario with trend development patterns

and supporting infrastructure, the Quality Growth Scenario included an expanded transit system, a higher proportion

of multi-family housing and small-lot homes, and greater clustering of new housing in villages and towns along major

roads and rail lines. Measures of transportation system efficiency included vehicle miles of travel (VMT), average

peak-hour travel speeds, average trip times, and access to transit.

Transportation modeling for the Quality Growth Scenario showed a reduction of 2.4 million vehicle miles of travel per

day or 3.0 percent relative to the baseline. At the same time, average speeds increased by 12.5 percent and commute

times declined by 5.2 percent. This improvement in mobility came with a reduction in infrastructure costs compared to

the baseline scenario. The Quality Growth Scenario included a reduction in regional road spending of approximately

$3.5 billion and an increase in transit spending of $1.5 billion, for a net savings of $2.0 billion for transportation

infrastructure. The Quality Growth Scenario also was estimated

to achieve further savings of $2.5 billion from reduced water,

sewer, and utility infrastructure costs due to more compact

development patterns.

After analyzing the impacts of future scenarios, Envision Utah

participants developed an implementation plan known as the

Quality Growth Strategy and are working to promote this

strategy throughout the region. Implementing the Quality

Growth Strategy will help the region to improve the efficiency

of its transportation system, and will significantly reduce the

costs of transportation and other infrastructure required to

support future growth and development.

Salt Lake City, Utah

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Quality Growth Strategy

Transportation Impacts

Courtesy Envision Utah
service. The project will create additional transportation

alternatives for a rapidly growing residential community,

an established entertainment district, and the region’s

most concentrated employment center.

TCSP projects in locations such as Anchorage, Alaska;

Tempe, Arizona; Washington, D.C.; Omaha, Nebraska;

and Arlington County, Virginia are developing and

implementing streetscape, pedestrian, and bikeway

improvements to make urban neighborhoods more

attractive to walking, bicycling, and transit use. Bus and

rail transit hubs are the focus of projects in El Segundo,

California; Raton, New Mexico; Providence, Rhode

Island; and Morgantown, West Virginia. Often, these

projects are intended not only to improve the quality of

transit service, but to serve as a catalyst for economic

revitalization in the surrounding neighborhood.

Design innovations. Anumber of State DOTs are beginning to apply “context-sensitive design” principles, which

recognize that road standards such as curve radii,

design speeds, and lane widths may need to vary to

better allow the road to fit the character of the community through which it passes. Projects in Mono County,

California; Centreville, Delaware; and Cleveland, Ohio

are grappling with high-traffic roads running through

community centers, and are investigating design changes

that can improve safety and pedestrian friendliness

while still maintaining traffic flow. Other projects have

addressed the design and integration of transit and

pedestrian facilities into a neighborhood. New Jersey

Transit (NJT) is working with community partners to

make New Jersey towns more “transit friendly,” by

building on NJT’s initiatives to make train stations

themselves “passenger friendly” as well as on statewide

“smart growth” initiatives to reduce sprawl and encourage new development within walking distance of

transit stations. TCSP is making an important link

between the fields of transportation engineering and

city planning by introducing insights gained by urban

design professionals (into the design of transportation

facilities) such as elements that make a public space

attractive, or features that encourage people to walk.

New planning tools. TCSP is helping to introduce a

new generation of analytical tools; especially those that

link transportation with development and growth, and

the use of simplified rather than highly complex and

detailed modeling systems. Quantitative models are

being developed in Gainesville, Florida and the

Willamette Valley region of Oregon to predict the

impacts of development patterns on transportation

demand and traffic conditions. GIS-based decision

support tools are being applied in San Diego,

California; Concord, New Hampshire; Charleston,

South Carolina; Salt Lake City, Utah; Charlottesville,

Virginia; and Madison, Wisconsin to provide

indicators of a range of transportation, community,

and environmental impacts of alternative development

patterns. These models are increasing our ability to

understand the future impacts of transportation and

development scenarios. Furthermore, these GIS-based

models present information in a graphical way that can

be readily understood. As a result, agency planning

staff, elected officials, and the public become more

informed and are better able to understand the

implications of particular decisions for their community.

TCSP projects in Lexington, Kentucky; Lansing,

Michigan; and Charlestown, South Carolina are

utilizing visual preference surveys to assess peoples’

preferences for alternative growth patterns. “Best

practices” approaches to transportation and land

development policy are being assembled in Kansas

City, Missouri; Hartford, Connecticut; and Salt Lake

City, Utah. Perhaps just as important as the development of these tools is how they are being used to

enhance planning. TCSP projects have emphasized

public involvement approaches that include more extensive and earlier involvement, so that people can use

these tools to help understand the impacts of current

choices on the future of their community. Furthermore,

many of the TCSP projects are producing their findings

on the Internet or CD-ROM, so that other communities

can benefit from their knowledge.

TCSP Third–Year Report 13

Screen shot of the PLACE3S model applied in the Mid-City neighborhood of San Diego, California. Shading indicates the redevelopment

potential of individual land parcels.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Courtesy California Energy Commission
Modeling techniques have not focused solely on urban

issues. Other examples of new analysis methods include

a rural traffic shed analysis approach to assess development capacity and transportation needs near Little

Rock, Arkansas. This approach allows rural communities to

balance development with transportation capacity. In

North Dakota, the Standing Rock Sioux Tribe will be

able to use a GIS-based tribal roads management system

to track the location and condition of roads, related infrastructure, and development served and to select and

implement projects. It also will assist with economic

development in this economically disadvantaged area, by

allowing the tribe to map and describe to potential

businesses where there is good road access. Other tribal

governments in western States have expressed an interest

in implementing similar GIS-based management systems.

PARTNERSHIPS

One particular innovation promoted by the

TCSP program is the creation of new public

and private partnerships, especially with nontraditional partners. “Non-traditional” partners involved

in TCSP projects include non-profit organizations, community groups, environmental organizations, representatives of the development community, and universities.

While some of these groups have had previous

involvement in transportation planning, they have not

always been a regular and integral part of the project

selection and design process. TCSP projects have focused

on involving non-traditional partners from an earlier

stage of the process, and in a more systematic manner.

The benefits of partnerships. TCSP partnerships are

helping link transportation and community preservation

in many ways. The formation of partnerships can help

build consensus by bringing together groups with

different viewpoints to discuss common visions and

solutions. For communities discussing alternative

transportation investment and land development

scenarios, outreach to developers, financial institutions,

and real estate professionals is critical. Forming partnerships across geographic boundaries is instrumental to discussing regional issues and solutions.

Non-traditional partners also can help broaden the

range and depth of issues considered in transportation

planning. Community development organizations, for

example, can identify needs such as access to affordable

housing or catalytic investment to spur economic

revitalization; while environmental groups can help

identify key environmental concerns and mitigation

approaches before a project has reached the design stage.

Finally, partnerships can help integrate the needs of

business and industry with transportation and community concerns—facilitating goods movement, access

to jobs, and economic development.

According to people interviewed for this report, one of

the most significant benefits of the competitive grant

application process is that it has prompted people to

form partnerships with agencies and groups with

whom they would not normally interact. Many of

these partnerships, awkward at first, have since led to

unexpected benefits. Hartford’s TCSP project provides

an example of these benefits. Two separate FY 1999

applications—one submitted by the Capitol Region

Council of Governments (CRCOG) on regional growth

issues, and the other by the City of Hartford on behalf

of Parkville neighborhood groups—were combined when

the agencies involved realized that both applications

were not likely to be accepted. Parkville was selected to

serve as one of three “prototype” urban, suburban, and

rural communities in CRCOG’s regional project. Parkville

neighborhood representatives, the City of Hartford,

and CRCOG have since established a collaborative

working relationship praised by all participants for the

level of responsibility given to the neighborhood in

helping plan local transportation improvements.

The type of collaborative approach exemplified in

Hartford can require a considerable amount of time

and effort, as well as committed leadership, to maintain.

But in Hartford’s situation, it also has led to what

neighborhood representatives, the city, and CRCOG all

agree to be a deeper understanding of planning issues

and better planning outcomes. Some of these outcomes

have included the redesign of a Connecticut DOT

busway station and a new gas station to better integrate

with their urban surroundings, as well as pedestrian

and traffic calming to make the neighborhood safer and

more walkable. Other TCSP grantees have reached

similar conclusions: involving a broader range of

interests requires time and effort, but pays off in the long

run with greater buy-in and better outcomes.

14 TCSP Third–Year Report

“Because of the TCSP project, we have a better

understanding of transportation issues. . . we as

a neighborhood are able to take part in what is

happening within the neighborhood.”

—Joe Langlais, Chair, Parkville Community

Association, Hartford, CT

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
TCSP Third–Year Report 15

Involving “non-traditional” players. A wide range of

groups throughout the country have expressed interest

in TCSP. These groups include smaller agencies of local

government and organizations traditionally less involved

in transportation planning. The result has been to broaden

the range of interests that are taking part in the transportation planning process. For example, the National

Congress for Community Economic Development

(NCCED), which represents 3,600 community development organizations throughout the country, has noted

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

FOCUS ON TCSP OBJECTIVES:

Involving the Private Sector

Motivations for private-sector involvement in transportation and land use planning vary. In some settings, such as older

urban neighborhoods of Hartford, Houston, Providence, and San Diego, business owners see public investment in

transportation and community infrastructure as a catalyst for private redevelopment. In Laurel, Montana, a town of

6,500 near Billings, the ideas generated by a TCSP project motivated a group of downtown business people to form

the Laurel Revitalization League. The League has raised over $100,000 to renovate a vacant lot in the core of

downtown and to start other downtown redevelopment projects.

In other settings, such as the Greater Wasatch region of northern Utah, businesses see growth pressures as affecting

the region’s quality of life, thereby threatening the same growth that has increased their prosperity. Their goal is not

to shut off growth, but rather to accommodate it in a manner that preserves mobility as well as community and

environmental quality. Businesses in New Orleans also fear “sprawl,” but for a different reason: they are concerned

that continued out-migration from the city, leading to a further decline of urban neighborhoods, will undermine

New Orleans’ attractiveness as a tourist destination, threatening their primary economic base. These concerns have

motivated the business community to contribute $250,000 to the development of “sustainability indicators” for the

region—multiplying the initially modest $50,000 proposed for this effort in New Orleans’ TCSP application.

Even where members of the business community are convinced of the need to change practices, the challenge remains

of reaching out to the others who actually make development happen—developers and financiers. Developers and

financiers are traditionally reluctant to consider new and untested patterns for commercial or residential development.

The responsiveness of the development community to new ideas varies from region to region. TCSP project sponsors

in Boise and Kansas City note that most commercial development is undertaken by small-scale developers without

an umbrella organization. They have had more success involving residential developers in discussions, primarily

through homebuilders’ associations. Project sponsors in Hartford, in contrast, note that commercial developers have

been receptive to ideas such as “town center”—style development (instead of suburban plazas), but that residential

developers are skeptical that people will buy anything except a “single-family home on a one-acre lot.”

One way of demonstrating that “alternatives” to established practice are marketable and profitable is to sponsor a

market study. The Mid America Council of Governments in Kansas City, Missouri included a “cost of development”

study in its TCSP project to assess the costs of alternative development proposals for specific sites. In Salt Lake City,

the Envision Utah project has conduced a market study for future

housing demand. The study found that while single-family

housing was expected to continue to predominate, the share of

demand for multi-family housing would increase beyond

projections, increasing the potential feasibility of transit-oriented

development (TOD).

Developers appear most receptive to change in high-growth

areas with limited land, favorable policies, and existing or

committed transit infrastructure. One example is Seattle, where

following a 10-year period of regional commitments to transit

and local commitments to zoning changes in station areas, the

development community has turned from being skeptical of

TOD to actually initiating many TOD proposals. The Metropolitan Place in downtown Renton, Washington,

across from the newly expanded Renton Transit Center.

Courtesy King County Planning Department
widespread interest in the TCSP program among its

members. Outreach by NCCED and the U.S. DOT on

the TCSP program has broadened the understanding

of the metropolitan transportation planning process

among community development organizations, along

with their understanding of the potential community

benefits of appropriate transportation investment. These

organizations, which serve predominantly urban, low

income, and often minority communities, view the types

of projects funded through TCSP as improving pedestrian

and transit mobility in their neighborhoods and providing

a catalyst for economic redevelopment—a change from

the effects of many past transportation investments on

urban neighborhoods.

The involvement of community and economic development organizations also has benefited transportation

agencies by providing expertise related to the development of land around transportation facilities. In the

Philadelphia region, the Delaware Valley Community

Reinvestment Fund—the leading non-profit community

development financial institution in the region—has

partnered with the Delaware Valley Regional Planning

Commission to provide its expertise in developing a

Location Efficient Mortgage program. This program

recognizes that people who choose to live in a transitand pedestrian-accessible neighborhood will not need

to own a car or will drive less, and applies the savings

in these expenses towards home ownership.

Facilitating dialogue. The “disconnect” between regional

transportation planning and local community planning

can be a particular challenge when there are tens or

even hundreds of local jurisdictions with responsibility

for land use, along with regional, State, and national

transportation and environmental agencies interested

in specific aspects of each project. A number of TCSP

projects, especially those funded in FY 1999, have led

to new and expanded partnerships among MPOs, local

jurisdictions, community groups, and the business community to address issues of “smart growth,” livability,

and urban sprawl. Examples of such projects span a

wide range of areas—including Phoenix, Arizona;

Houston, Texas; Boise, Idaho; New Orleans, Louisiana;

Lansing, Michigan; Kansas City, Missouri; RaleighDurham, North Carolina; Charleston, South Carolina;

Salt Lake City, Utah; and Charlottesville, Virginia. Project

sponsors in each of these areas hope that an open

dialogue will be the first step in developing mutually

beneficial policies and practices among the separate

agencies and jurisdictions.

MPOs have a strong interest in these issues, because of

the transportation implications of regional development

patterns. At the same time, they realize that regional

growth patterns are affected not just by transportation

investments but by land use policies made at the local

level. TCSP funds have assisted MPOs in bringing together

all of the actors involved in local land use decisionmaking—including local jurisdictions, developers, and the

general public—to discuss the benefits and impacts of

alternative forms of growth from a regional perspective.

Early experiences from these projects indicate that the

process of establishing partnerships and dialogue at a

regional-level can be slow and painful, but nevertheless extremely valuable in the long run. In RaleighDurham and Salt Lake City, efforts initiated in the mid1990s have paid off through changes to local land

development practices. The City of Durham, for example,

has established a Transit-Oriented Development/

Compact Neighborhood Overlay District, and two new

traditional neighborhood development projects are

now being built consistent with this code. In these

neighborhoods, changes to design practices compared

to suburban-style development will make walking,

bicycling, and transit service more viable while reducing

land consumption, the loss of open space, and environmental impacts. Raleigh-Durham’s TCSP project is

helping to spread these innovations to other cities in

the region. In the Salt Lake City area, local planners are

now approaching the Envision Utah project team and

asking them to review their comprehensive plans for

consistency with “quality growth” principles. Project

sponsors in other areas know that similar changes will

not occur overnight, but they are firmly convinced that

the only way such change ever will happen is through

regional dialogue. In many areas of the country,

alternatives (such as a State requirement to establish an

urban growth boundary) currently are viewed as

politically difficult or infeasible to achieve.

Leadership from the private sector. TCSP projects also

are resulting in successful partnerships between transportation organizations and the business and real estate

16 TCSP Third–Year Report

“Partnerships and inter-jurisdictional cooperation

are the main ingredients of lasting solutions.

Establishing and maintaining these partnerships

takes hard work, sweat, and political capital. But

we are spending that capital on Smart Growth.”

—Brent Coles, Mayor, Boise, Idaho

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
development communities. In many areas, private interests have actually played a lead role in initiating and

implementing the TCSP projects. The private sector is

frequently skeptical of change at first, but in many

areas there is an increasing realization of the need to

“do” transportation and development differently.

TCSP projects in Houston, Fort Worth, New Orleans,

San Diego, and Salt Lake City are examples where

involvement from the business community has been

strong. In Houston, participants have focused on

redeveloping the Main Street Corridor, the historic

commercial core of the region. While the City of

Houston is the sponsoring agency for the project, a

group of local businesses and property owners

initiated redevelopment activities in the corridor. The

private initiative encouraged the city to form a privatepublic coalition with the objectives of promoting

housing and commercial development; incorporating

transit, pedestrian, and roadway improvements; and

coordinating the design of development in such a way

as to create vibrant public as well as private spaces.

TCSP-related objectives for this project include not

only to revitalize the area but also to create transit and

pedestrian-accessible development in the region’s core,

as an alternative to sprawling development on the

urban fringe. TCSP funds have supported the development of a master plan for the corridor as well as pilot

implementation projects to improve pedestrian

linkages among neighborhoods.

State DOT involvement. One of the most challenging

tasks, especially for cities, counties, and community

organizations, has been to fully involve the State DOT

in the community-level aspects of a project. A number

of TCSP projects involve settings in which the goal of

providing traffic mobility appears, at first glance, to

conflict with the goal of preserving and enhancing the

local community environment. What happens, for

example, when a State highway with ever-growing

traffic volumes runs through a small town center? Is

the road widened, is the town bypassed, or is traffic

slowed and pedestrian improvements implemented?

The challenge faced by State DOTs and local

transportation agencies has been to find the balance

between traditional highway design solutions and new

creative alternatives. Delaware DOT, for example,

agreed to an island gateway with landscaping at the

entrance to Centreville, “marking” the border between

country and village, and causing traffic to slow down

before entering.

When controlling traffic is infeasible, communities have

considered land use instead of transportation design

alternatives. For example, a conceptual plan for Starr,

Idaho, re-orients the business district perpendicular to

and one block off of the State highway—providing

good visibility and access to passing traffic, yet preserving

the commercial district as a low-speed, walkable area.

LEVERAGING RESOURCES

Consistent with the focus on creating partnerships is the practice of combining funding from

a number of different sources. TCSP funding is

not sufficient, by itself, to implement new transportationrelated community preservation practices nationwide,

or in many cases even to completely cover the entire

project cost within an individual area. TCSP funding

does, however, permit the pilot testing of new

transportation approaches as part of larger community

development initiatives, and is being used by applicants

to leverage other public and private moneys. As a

result, many TCSP grants support a particularly

innovative portion of a larger project. Project funds

most commonly have been contributed by the MPO;

city or county; other Federal highway and transit

programs such as Congestion Mitigation and Air

Quality, Transportation Enhancements, and Livable

Communities; and local businesses. In some cases,

grants have added value to activities that also are

funded through sources such as EPA grants or

Department of Housing and Urban Development

TCSP Third–Year Report 17

Concept for a State route entryway to Centreville, Delaware. Landscaping

and pavement markings delineate the boundary between countryside and

village, encouraging traffic to reduce speed.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Courtesy Wilmington Area Planning Commission
18 TCSP Third–Year Report

(HUD) grants. The opportunity to mix funds from

different sources has led to projects that cover many

different issue areas—for example, transportation,

housing, economic development, and the environment—

rather than addressing just one area in isolation.

Promoting Smart Growth and livable communities.

Many of the efforts that TCSP funds have supported can

be described as part of the emerging “Smart Growth”

movement. Smart Growth objectives include reusing

previously-developed land and infrastructure whenever

possible through infill and redevelopment; limiting

suburban “sprawl”; and designing both existing and

new communities to be more accessible to pedestrian,

bicycle, and transit travel. These objectives coincide with

TCSP’s objectives of reducing infrastructure costs and

environmental impacts. Other Federal programs related

to Smart Growth include FHWA’s Transportation

Enhancements program, FTA’s Livable Communities

initiative, EPA and HUD grants for brownfields cleanup

and redevelopment, and HUD programs to rehabilitate

and create new affordable housing in urban neighborhoods. These have complemented State and local

initiatives, such as State-led Smart Growth programs in

Maryland and New Jersey to preserve open space and

agricultural land and to focus State infrastructure

investment in developed areas.

The Watershed Planning System project in Maryland is

one example in which TCSP funds are leveraging other

Federal and local resources. In this project, TCSP funds

are being used to integrate transportation models into

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

FOCUS ON TCSP OBJECTIVES:

Reducing Impacts on the Environment

An innovative project is underway in Tampa, Florida to preserve greenways through the avoidance and

minimization of ecosystem fragmentation by infrastructure. The Hillsborough River Greenways Task Force

(HGRTF), in conjunction with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), is working to develop a

model program to coordinate infrastructure projects crossing greenways. The purpose of this voluntary, incentivebased program, known as Coordinated Linear Infrastructure Projects (CLIPS), is to encourage coordinated planning,

siting, design, permitting, maintenance and financing of linear infrastructure corridors such as roadways, railways,

power-lines, pipelines, and trails.

CLIPS is part of an ongoing effort in Florida to link natural areas with a network of greenspaces of greenways.

Inevitably, large-scale infrastructure development will have to cross one or more of these greenways. Providing for

a CLIP corridor will decrease the number of linear crossings and avoid or minimize greenway fragmentation. A FY

1999 TCSP grant of $120,000 is helping project participants implement CLIP concepts in a real-world setting in the

Tampa area. An approach developed by HGRTF describes

siting methodologies, design criteria, permitting issues,

incentives to encourage participation, financial issues, and

legislative actions required to facilitate CLIP establishment

and development. An example CLIP for the Hillsborough

River Greenway is going through a mock team permitting

process involving the Florida DEP, the Southwest Florida

Water Management District, the Florida Game and Fresh

Water Fish Commission, and the Hillsborough County

Environmental Protection Commission.

As a result of this project, the built and natural environments are anticipated to benefit from the establishment

of a network of corridors that minimize environmental

impacts and habitat fragmentation. Project sponsors

hope to ultimately develop the process as a national

model that can be applied in other areas of the country. Proposed CLIPS projects crossing the Hillsborough River Greenway. Courtesy Progressive Development Group, Inc.

“TCSP funds have been instrumental in helping

us undertake the Envision Utah project.”

—Kristin Thompson, Governor’s Office of

Planning and Budget, Utah
a watershed-based modeling system, developed with

funding from State agencies and non-profit environmental organizations, that predicts the environmental

impacts of land development patterns. This modeling

system will allow the impacts of alternative transportation investments on land use and its associated

environmental impacts to be tested. The PLACE3S

project in San Diego, California has combined funding

and in-kind contributions from the California Energy

Commission, California Air Resources Board, San

Diego Association of Governments, and the City of San

Diego to add transportation considerations to a study of

economic and environmental impacts of redevelopment

policies in a San Diego neighborhood. In Houston, $3.4

million in TCSP funds have leveraged over $800,000 in

local contributions of cash and in-kind services from the

City of Houston, the Houston METRO transit agency, the

Texas DOT, and private sources to design and implement

pedestrian, transit, and urban design improvements to

the Main Street Corridor. HUD and local contributors are

funding a related study of economic activity and

opportunities in the Near Northside neighborhood in this

corridor. Interviewees noted numerous other examples of

projects that either would not have been possible or

where the transportation component has been strengthened because of the availability of TCSP funds.

A seat at the table. Several interviewees for this report

noted TCSP’s critical role in giving the U.S. DOT, and

most significantly FHWA, a “seat at the table” of the

Smart Growth movement. Rather than simply being

perceived as the “highway builder,” TCSP allows the

DOT to introduce transportation design and investment

policies as a legitimate—and important—component

of community preservation activities. While funding

for TCSP has been modest relative to many other DOT

programs, it is an important acknowledgement of the

linkages among transportation, land use patterns, and

environmental quality. Interviewers commented that

the large amount of overall resources directed by the

DOT, as well as the significant physical presence of

transportation facilities within local communities, make

the DOT’s entry into Smart Growth and community

preservation concerns all the more significant.

STRENGTHENING PLANNING

The innovations and broader partnerships

introduced by TCSP projects are intended to

enhance and strengthen the existing State and

metropolitan transportation planning processes. TCSP

projects are bringing a more wholistic approach to planning by considering a broader range of community and

environmental impacts, not only for individual projects

but for the transportation system as a whole. TCSP

projects are also further expanding and emphasizing

public involvement, and are developing new analysis

techniques to inform the planning process.

A more holistic approach. Environmental, community,

and economic development issues have been considered

in the planning of individual major projects for three

decades because of requirements introduced by the

National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). In

some cases these issues are considered in depth only

after the specific type of project and alignment have

been identified. Much less consideration is given to the

secondary and cumulative environmental and community impacts of multiple projects over an extended

period of time. TCSP projects are introducing the

consideration of a broader range of environmental and

community issues, not only in the planning of

individual major projects, but also in systems-level

planning at the metropolitan or State level. This means,

in part, reconsidering the overall mix of projects for an

area, including the nature of projects, their location,

and their design. It also means more fully considering

environmental, community, and economic criteria in

the setting of general policies, investment strategies,

and design approaches, in contrast to evaluating these

impacts only after a specific project has been proposed

to address a mobility or safety problem. Finally, this

means considering the transportation/land use system

as a whole, rather than proposing transportation

projects regardless of their potential impact on

development patterns.

An illustration of this more “holistic” approach is

provided by the many regional-scale TCSP projects

that are developing alternative “transportation and land

use futures,” assessing the various impacts of these

futures, and establishing regional policy directions based

on the findings. Many residents of the Salt Lake City

metropolitan region, for example, want to see light rail

transit and commuter rail as a part of future transportation solutions. The Envision Utah project has helped to

educate people that concentrating development around

TCSP Third–Year Report 19

“Thanks in large part to TCSP, we are able to

have a discussion of transportation and land

use issues at the regional-level.”

—Ben Hitchings, Triangle J Council of 

Governments, Raleigh, NC

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
20 TCSP Third–Year Report

transit stations is an important strategy in reducing

vehicle trips, along with their associated environmental

impacts and highway infrastructure requirements. The

project is resulting in proposed changes to land use

regulations that would allow more transit-supportive

development to occur in station areas. In Maryland, the

development of an integrated transportation, land use,

and environmental modeling system is intended to allow

the State to systematically examine the secondary and

cumulative environmental impacts of highway projects.

Specific changes also may be required to transportation

planning procedures to reflect broader regional objectives. In northern New Jersey, sponsors of a TCSP project

focusing on freight-related brownfields redevelopment

are working to change the criteria for selecting transportation projects within the State and regional planning

processes. Their objective is to establish criteria that

adequately reflect the benefits of infrastructure projects

that facilitate access to the brownfields sites.

Involving the public. In recent decades, and especially following passage of the Intermodal Surface

Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) of 1991, transportation planning practice increasingly has emphasized

the importance of public involvement at all stages of

the process. Yet obtaining input from the public is

sometimes a challenge, especially when the subject is

as abstract as a regional transportation plan or a local

comprehensive plan. The challenge taken on by many

TCSP projects has been to develop creative and

meaningful approaches to public involvement.

TCSP projects in locations such as Madison County,

Indiana; Lexington, Kentucky; Saginaw, Michigan; and

Charlottesville, Virginia have experimented with innovative techniques such as design charrettes and visual

preference surveys to help engage the public in a more

hands-on and interactive way. Citizens in Charlottesville

participated in a game to create development scenarios

for the region. In this game, people worked with different

“community elements” that represent prototypical development patterns such as urban mixed use or suburban

retail. These elements were arranged to create themes

named after old television shows. In the St. Lucie

County, Florida Town of Ft. Pierce—where seven of 10

families do not own a car—teenagers were recruited to

make recommendations for pedestrian and bicycle

TCSP IS STRENGTHENING THE PLANNING PROCESS:

The TEA-21 Planning Factors

The TCSP program is strengthening the transportation planning process by supporting the seven planning factors

identified under TEA-21. Furthermore, individual TCSP projects are helping introduce greater consideration of these

seven factors at all stages of planning. TEA-21 identifies the following factors to be considered in the statewide and

metropolitan planning process:

1) Support the economic vitality of the metropolitan area, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity,

and efficiency;

2) Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized and nonmotorized users;

3) Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for freight;

4) Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and improve quality of life; 

5) Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system, across and between modes, for people

and freight;

6) Promote efficient system management and operation; and

7) Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

The objectives of the TCSP program are consistent with these factors, and grants have been awarded to projects that

provide benefits in all of these areas.

“What has been rewarding is seeing the

realization by the people of the community that

the way a community looks is not something

over which they have no influence... The TCSP

process has helped empower the people with a

sense that they can influence community

development for the positive.”

—Cal Cumin, Planning Director,

City of Laurel, Montana

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
improvements and to help engage adults in thinking about

the issues facing their community. In neighborhoods of

Hartford, Connecticut; Springfield, Massachusetts; and

Cleveland, Ohio, a focus on community-identified needs

such as traffic calming and pedestrian and streetscape

improvements has helped to engage people.

Involving the public from the beginning of a project not

only helps to engage people, but also gives people a

feeling of responsibility for the project. The objective of

the Mapping for a Millennium project in Teton County,

Wyoming is to better coordinate the community’s land

use and transportation planning so that developing land

use patterns support transportation goals and vice versa.

Local land use plans and transportation corridor plans

are being produced via several charrette processes in

which citizens participate in designing the plans. Project

sponsors note that while Teton County always has

invited public involvement in planning, the process for

the TCSP project has been more highly participatory than

normal. According to the county’s planning director,

“people are excited; they feel that they are beginning on

the ground floor and helping build.” In Laurel, Montana,

a project to develop a plan for sustainable growth that

preserves the character of the community also has helped

to increase citizen involvement.

Linking regional transportation planning with community planning. Communities across the country

routinely develop comprehensive plans that identify

policies and strategies for land use, transportation,

infrastructure, housing, and environmental preservation.

These plans are integrated across issue areas, but are

sometimes developed in geographic isolation from

neighboring communities. In contrast, statewide and

metropolitan transportation plans focus on one specific

issue (transportation), but attempt to link this issue

across jurisdictional boundaries.

The challenge taken on by many TCSP grantees has

been to link these two levels of planning. Local planning

decisions affect regional transportation demand, while

conversely, regional transportation facilities affect local

community character. TCSP grantees do not want to

dictate local land use decisions in order to achieve

regional transportation objectives, or to base regional

transportation decisions solely on local community

concerns. Instead, they hope to increase awareness and

consideration of the impacts of regional transportation

projects on local communities; and conversely, to better

evaluate the impacts of local land use decisions on

regional transportation efficiency. Ultimately, their intent

is to achieve greater coordination in the development of

local and regional transportation and land use plans as

well as broader consistency between the objectives of

these plans.

One way in which TCSP projects have linked local and

regional planning is to undertake regional visioning

projects and dialogue efforts. In the Salt Lake City,

Utah metropolitan area, Envision Utah participants are

working with local governments to revise comprehensive

plans consistent with principles outlined in a “quality

growth scenario” that the participants developed for

the region. Coordination and consistency may also be

pursued through changes to planning process and

structures. In St. Tammany Parish near New Orleans,

citizens on the comprehensive plan steering committee

now are asking the parish to restructure the comprehensive planning process so that transportation and

land use planning are done in combination, by establishing a combined land use/transportation committee,

compared to the existing separate “stovepipe” committees. Modeling tools also can help: in Charlottesville,

Virginia, the ComPlan model is helping citizens understand the implications of 50-year population growth

forecasts, the effects of different land use decisions, and

the resulting implications for transportation investment.

BUILDING THE KNOWLEDGE BASE

The TCSP program, as a pilot program, places a

strong emphasis on evaluation and learning.

TCSP projects are intended to provide measurable results and examples of successful practices that can

be adopted by other areas. To achieve this objective,

each TCSP grant application is required to include an

evaluation component that describes the applicant’s

plans for monitoring, evaluating, and analyzing the

grant activity and for making the results of this

analysis available for others to use. TCSP program

TCSP Third–Year Report 21

“If there are options available to respond to the

social, environmental, and economic concerns

associated with current growth trends, what

makes them difficult to use? Stated another way,

what gets in the way of creating the kind of

communities described in comprehensive plans

throughout the Treasure Valley?”

—Benchmark 3 task description, Treasure Valley

Futures Project, Boise, Idaho

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
22 TCSP Third–Year Report

sponsors have emphasized evaluation because they

believe that the benefits of innovation, expanded

partnerships, leveraged resources, and a strengthened

planning process will be multiplied if more areas can

adopt the approaches taken by TCSP grantees.

FHWA has published guidance, available on the TCSP

web site, to assist grantees in designing and implementing a project evaluation. The guidance suggests that a

TCSP project evaluation focus on three primary components: 1) the process by which a project is implemented;

2) the products that result from the project; and 3) the

outcomesin terms of either projected or actual benefits and

costs. The guidance further suggests that, within each

of these three components, grantees define goals and

objectives for their project; identify a focused list of

performance measures corresponding to these goals

and objectives; and identify evaluation methods for

each measure. A review of project evaluation plans as

well as discussions with grantees suggest that FHWA’s

guidance has been useful to grantees in helping them

to think through and structure an overall approach to

evaluating their project.

Evaluating the process and products of a grant. Most

evaluations carried out within the scope of funded

TCSP projects have focused on the first two evaluation

components—process and products. Examples of key

questions regarding the process include the number

and types of groups or persons involved, the manner

in which these groups were involved, and the degree to

which stakeholder commitment and buy-in were

FOCUS ON TCSP OBJECTIVES:

Increasing Access to Jobs, Services, and Centers of Trade

Planners in northern New Jersey are leading an innovative regional effort to facilitate the redevelopment of

abandoned industrial brownfield sites by freight-related businesses. Their goal is to decrease the amount of truck

travel in the region by locating distribution and manufacturing sites close to existing seaport, air, and rail terminals,

rather than at more distant greenfields sites. In addition to reducing demands on the transportation system and increasing

its efficiency, this strategy will preserve undeveloped land and provide greater access to jobs for urban residents.

Northern New Jersey has the largest port on the North American Atlantic seaboard and one of the fastest growing

air cargo hubs in North America. Port, air, and rail traffic are expected to continue to grow substantially in the future,

generating intense demand for new distribution support services and light manufacturing activities. Planners are

concerned, however, that much of the economic development associated with port traffic will occur on “greenfields”

on the outer edges of the northern New Jersey metropolitan area, or even outside of the region. Long-distance trucking

of goods to and from the core port district will increase, compounding congestion, worsening air quality, and

wearing out aging infrastructure. Residents of urban areas near the port will be left with fewer job opportunities.

The alternative that planners hope to achieve is to utilize existing abandoned land in the core area near the port.

While there are many promising sites for development in proximity to transportation terminals and arteries, their

redevelopment is complicated by the need to cleanup contaminants and upgrade often outdated and deteriorated

transportation infrastructure. If cleanup can be achieved and new port-related economic activity created in this area,

however, the benefits to the region will be significant. Truck traffic between the port and outlying areas will be

greatly reduced; open space in these outlying areas will be preserved; and residents in the older cities in the port area

such as Newark and Elizabeth will have access to a broader range of jobs.

An FY 1999 TCSP grant of $700,000 to the North Jersey

Transportation Planning Authority and the New Jersey

Institute of Technology is supporting this brownfields

redevelopment effort. Project sponsors currently are

surveying businesses regarding their transportation, land,

and workforce needs; selecting brownfields sites for further

investigation; and identifying potential strategies to promote

cleanup as well as transportation projects to facilitate redevelopment. In the future, they hope to estimate the reduction in

transportation and environmental impacts that will result

from the brownfields redevelopment strategy. Railyards in Northern New Jersey

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Courtesy Michael Williamson
achieved. Product evaluation focuses on what was

produced by the planning or implementation process.

The evaluation may describe the plan that was

developed or the project that was implemented, and

how it represents a change from existing conditions.

Approaches to process and product evaluation have

differed, with some grantees conducting the evaluation

internally and others hiring a consultant or university

to conduct an independent evaluation. In Boise, Idaho

and Washington, D.C., a consultant has attended all

project meetings and activities and conducted interviews

with staff of different agencies involved in the project.

The result is a critical evaluation of what was effective

and what might have been done differently or better.

The evaluation reports from each of these projects also

have been made available to the public, so that others

interested in undertaking similar projects can learn from

the grantees’ experiences. Internal evaluations also can

be effective and—especially when done continuously,

rather than waiting toward the end of the project—can

help grantees to make mid-course adjustments. In

Teton County, Wyoming, grantees are maintaining a

chronological notebook that will be used as the basis

for an evaluation report. The report will describe each

step of the project, how it was originally envisioned, and

how it was actually conducted, as well as an explanation

of any differences. Grantees in Saginaw, Michigan and

Hartford, Connecticut also have taken this internal

approach to evaluation. Regular internal evaluation is

especially important in projects that involve a range of

both traditional and non-traditional partners or the

demonstration of new planning approaches or methods.

Periodic evaluation allows grantees to address misunderstandings or disagreements that could threaten to

sidetrack or even derail a project.

Evaluating project outcomes. The ultimate outcomes

of TCSP projects, such as reductions in VMT, increased

pedestrian travel, improved access to jobs, or economic

revitalization of a neighborhood, may take many years

to be fully realized. Furthermore, the effects of the TCSP

project may be difficult to separate from the effects of

other changes that are occurring at the same time. As a

result, most TCSP projects are not attempting to

measure actual outcomes. Projects that have attempted

to measure outcomes have done so primarily through

quantitative modeling to forecast the impacts of the

project. A project in Phoenix, Arizona is running a land

use and transportation model, based on existing and

revised local general plans, to forecast the outcomes of

proposed regional growth strategies. Projects in Salt

Lake City, Utah and the Willamette Valley region of

Oregon are undertaking similar modeling efforts.

One TCSP project that is measuring actual impacts is

focused on the Olneyville neighborhood of Providence,

Rhode Island. In fall 2000, students at a local university

collected “baseline” data on travel patterns and on

residents’ and businesses’ perceptions of the neighborhood. After transit, pedestrian, and streetscape

improvements are implemented, another set of students

will collect “after” data on these same measures and

compare changes. Sponsors of a bicycle and pedestrian

trail in Pinellas County, Florida are conducting

surveys, interviews, and traffic counts before and after

construction of the trail. The Oregon Department of

Energy, which is developing telecommuting centers in

rural Oregon, will conduct telephone surveys of

peoples’ travel characteristics to determine the impact

of the centers on travel patterns. A number of other

TCSP projects, including those in New Orleans and

Teton County, Wyoming, are establishing a set of

“regional indicators” and collecting baseline data on

these indicators. Long-term tracking of these indicators

will help each region measure their overall success at

achieving transportation and community and system

preservation objectives.

Experience suggests that some quantitative outcomes

are easier to evaluate than others. Transportation models

have historically been designed to project overall traffic

volumes for the purposes of road capacity analysis; they

are less effective at predicting the impacts of pedestrian

facilities or urban design changes on travel patterns.

Variables such as the ridership impacts of improved

intermodal transit connections, the number of people

using a bicycle path, or the growth in businesses catalyzed by a renovation project depend on a range of

variables that are difficult to forecast. Furthermore, it is

important to note that not all benefits of TCSP projects

can be readily quantified. Factors such as “livability” or

“community character,” for example, represent qualitative attributes that are difficult to forecast or measure.

Furthermore, the importance that people place on these

attributes may change over time. As a result, it is often

difficult to objectively or consistently measure the full

range of benefits of a particular project.

Commitment to evaluation varies. A review of project

evaluation plans and actual experiences suggests that

some grantees have made a stronger commitment to

evaluation than others. Of the successful FY 1999 and

TCSP Third–Year Report 23

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
24 TCSP Third–Year Report

2000 grantees that included budgets for evaluation

activities, these budgets have typically ranged from

five to 15 percent of the total grant award. A strong

interest in and commitment to performing the evaluation,

however, is perhaps even more important than the

nominal allocation of resources. Some grantees (such

as Providence) have performed insightful evaluations

on a very small budget. Sometimes, it can be tempting

to spend limited project resources on the project itself,

and when budgets are reduced, to view evaluation as a

“non-essential” component. Furthermore, grantees who

receive earmarks have less incentive to develop a strong

evaluation component because their projects were not

selected or judged on this application component.

DEMONSTRATING RESULTS

Roughly 23 percent of TCSP projects awarded

in FY 1999 and 2000 focused primarily on

project implementation (e.g., construction, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operations), while the

remaining 77 percent focused on planning. (Product

types for FY 2001 projects are not yet known.)

Especially in the case of a planning grant, it may be five

to 10 years before widespread implementation of results

are achieved and concrete benefits observed and

measured. TCSP planning projects, however, are

already demonstrating results in a variety of ways:

through new ways of doing business; new partnerships

formed; greater understanding of transportation and

community and system preservation relationships;

recommendations for changes to policies and practices;

and plans for specific implementation projects.

On-the-ground products. Examples of specific transportation and community implementation projects

completed or underway include the renovation and

restoration of an historic roundhouse in Wheeling, West

Virginia as an intermodal terminal; the construction of a

passenger comfort and information center for a waterbased transportation system in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma;

FOCUS ON TCSP OBJECTIVES:

Reducing the Need for Costly Future Investment in Infrastructure

The Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments in Shreveport, Louisiana, is working to establish Shreveport’s

core inner-city neighborhoods as a regional technology and residential center. Their focus is on the 2,400-acre

“InterTech” area that once thrived as an urban industrial district. This area has atrophied in recent years as businesses

have moved out to the perimeter into modern industrial parks, and several sites in this area are designated as

brownfields sites in need of remediation. The surrounding neighborhoods have also experienced residential

dislocation and disinvestment because of the loss of jobs.

Local planners expect that redevelopment of this area will reduce the need for regional infrastructure investment.

The InterTech area is in a central location with existing infrastructure that includes electric, water, sewer, gas, public

transportation, and two interstate highways. The potential exists to create 5,000 new jobs in this area as an alternative

to continued suburban employment growth and sprawl. In addition, economic development in this area will provide

jobs for inner-city residents in adjacent neighborhoods,

where unemployment levels are high and many people are

dependent upon public transit.

The InterTech community redevelopment project is supported by a FY 2000 TCSP grant of $225,000. This grant is

being used to create an economic and transportation plan

for the InterTech area as well as a community preservation

and transportation plan for the surrounding neighborhoods.

As part of the evaluation of this project, project sponsors

plan to create a “comparative infrastructure index.” This

index will compare the cost of installing new infrastructure

in a comparable greenfield-type development with the cost

of augmenting and updating existing infrastructure in

InterTech, thus yielding an estimate of the cost savings

resulting from the project.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

InterTech study area.

Courtesy Northwest Louisiana Council of Governments
and the construction of a pedestrian/bicycle bridge linking parks and pathways in downtown Fairbanks, Alaska.

In the Howard University/LeDroit Park neighborhood

of Washington, D.C., streetscape design, traffic calming,

and pedestrian improvements are complementing initiatives to rehabilitate and construct housing in this historic

and predominantly African-American community.

Construction is scheduled to begin early in 2002 on

projects to improve pedestrian safety and streetscape

aesthetics along North Street in Burlington, Vermont’s

Old North End Enterprise Community. The revitalization

plan for North Street was developed through an interactive and inclusive neighborhood planning process that

has resulted in a high-level of satisfaction with the

planned components from the community.

Plans for implementation. While some TCSP grants

are funding on-the-ground products, the funding

available through TCSP is far too small to support a

significant number of implementation projects. While

implementation projects may illustrate the types of

products desired from TCSP efforts, TCSP’s more

significant influence has been on planning for transportation and community investment. Many TCSP

projects are resulting in plans for projects that could in

the future be funded through other Federal sources

such as Surface Transportation Program (STP),

National Highway System (NHS), or transit funds, as

well as through State and local matching funds.

Examples include designs for a pedestrian plaza in

Rockville, Maryland; a system of bikeways proposed

for Whatcom County, Washington; and the integration

of transit service among parishes in rural Louisiana.

Other TCSP projects have focused on earlier stages of

planning, for which the products may be a conceptual

plan for an area or a set of recommended policies and

practices. In Saginaw, Michigan, participants in a

charrette examined possible transportation and land

use design changes to make a suburban shopping area

pedestrian- and transit-accessible. The outcome of the

charrette was a set of recommendations and next steps

to facilitate a long-term transition of the area’s character;

these recommendations include revisions to transportation facility design practices and local zoning codes;

public investments; and outreach to property owners

and developers. While projects such as the Saginaw

charrette have resulted in conceptual plans that stir the

imagination, further work is often required to develop

more concrete plans and implementation steps to achieve

the desired vision for an area.

Achieving implementation commitments. One

finding from this review of TCSP experiences is that

commitments to move forward into implementation

have been more difficult to achieve, and have taken

longer, than initially anticipated. This is partly because

the projects often result in proposed changes to

transportation and development practices that differ

from the usual way of doing business. Implementing

entities, such as State DOTs, county road commissions,

planning and zoning boards, and developers, are

understandably hesitant to make changes to their “tried

and true” approaches. Also, the nature of the

partnerships involved in the projects is often complex.

Regional scale projects, in particular, require obtaining

commitments from multiple jurisdictions as well as

State implementing agencies. In the Greater Wasatch

Front region of northern Utah, participants are working

to obtain buy-in to their vision of a preferred “quality

growth scenario” from a total of nearly 100 jurisdictions

in the region. Obtaining the necessary agreements to

change zoning codes, design practices, infrastructure

investment policies, or the mix of funded transportation

projects therefore can take years.

TCSP Third–Year Report 25

Proposal for a pedestrian plaza over Rockville Pike in Rockville, Maryland.

The plaza would connect a redeveloping town center with a Metrorail

transit station.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Courtesy City of Rockville
26 TCSP Third–Year Report

HOUSTON, TX

From Planning to Implementation

Houston’s Main Street Corridor Planning and Research Project demonstrates how a TCSP project can progress from

corridor planning, to project design, to implementation of improvements. The eight mile-long corridor, once the

economic core of the region, declined in the mid-1900s as development spread outward and shifted to other parts of

the region. Renewed interest and private investment in the early 1990s, however, stimulated private and public

efforts to guide the revitalization and redevelopment of the Main Street Corridor. As an alternative to continued

haphazard and fragmented development, local business and civic leaders formed the Main Street Coalition to create

a unified vision for development in the corridor; coordinate development with roadway, transit, and pedestrian

improvements; and work with land owners and public agencies to achieve this vision.

The first step in this process, supported by FY 1999 and FY 2000 TCSP grants totaling $935,500, was to create a Master

Plan for the corridor. Completed in August 2000, the Master Plan establishes a number of principles for the corridor,

such as higher density, a mix of uses, and emphasis on the public environment. It also includes conceptual designs for

each part of the corridor showing locations of new development, public spaces, and transportation improvements. To

complement the Master Plan, a Strategic Plan was created containing steps to implement the Master Plan.

Following the development of these plans, the Coalition initiated a set of pilot implementation projects. The purpose

of these implementation projects is to demonstrate specific physical improvements that can serve as prototypes for

additional improvements. One example is the Third Ward Connectivity Project, which will improve pedestrian links

between the Third Ward neighborhood and Main Street. This project is supported by $2.4 million in Federal funds,

including an FY 2001 TCSP grant of $703,075, as well as $5 to $10 million in local capital improvement funds. 

Implementation of the Master Plan will ultimately require a total of $200 million over 20 years in public and private

resources and will require the cooperation of multiple public agencies as well as private developers. Staged public

infrastructure improvements by the City of Houston, the Houston METRO transit agency, and the Texas DOT are central

to implementing the plan. These, in turn, will be coordinated with the establishment of guidelines and regulations for

specific development districts. The local development community—led by larger institutions and property owners

concerned about creating a high-quality urban environment—has played a significant role in planning for the corridor,

and will continue to be instrumental in persuading other property owners to adopt and apply Master Plan principles.

Master Plan for Midtown District

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned

Courtesy Ehrenkrantz, Eckstut & Kuhn Architects
TCSP Third–Year Report 27

Broader influence. Despite the often long timeframe to

achieve implementation commitments, TCSP projects

appear to be influencing, both directly and indirectly,

other transportation projects and development programs.

Areas of influence include the design elements considered, the manner in which effectiveness is assessed,

the approach to involving various interest groups, and

the decisions made. In Saginaw, for example, a TCSPfunded design charrette has had broader educational

value for local planners and elected officials. The

township’s community development director “is now

talking about pedestrian issues and building setbacks,”

and a new master plan for the township is expected to

reflect many of the principles discussed in the design

charrette. In New Orleans, discussions of regional

growth issues are being reflected in a comprehensive

plan update for St. Tammany Parish, which is

experiencing strong growth pressures. This parish is

using a computer model to assess the transportation

and other community impacts of growth occurring in

different locations and with different densities and

design characteristics. In Mono County, California,

local planners believe that their community-oriented

planning approach, which has focused on improvements

related to a State highway through the town of Lee

Vining, is beginning to affect the way that the district

office of the California DOT (Caltrans) does planning.

They believe that the TCSP-funded planning work is

resulting in greater community input into projects,

rather than taking a “one-size-fits-all” design approach.

CONCLUSIONS

An overriding objective of the TCSP program has been

to stimulate innovation in transportation planning. In

particular, TCSP projects are creating effective practices

that link transportation planning with system and

community preservation considerations. Projects

funded in the first three years of the program have

helped to bring innovation to transportation planning

by expanding the range of partners involved in planning;

by introducing a greater consideration of the relationship

between transportation and development patterns; by

expanding public involvement, and community participation; and by developing new modeling tools to assess

the impacts of transportation and land use alternatives

on mobility, economic development, community character, and the environment.

On the implementation side, TCSP projects have

demonstrated practices such as traffic calming,

pedestrian link-ages, intermodal transit facilities, and

bicycle paths that are helping to increase travel options

and improve the character of local communities.

Furthermore, TCSP projects are helping communities

as well as the private sector re-examine their land

development practices, in order to reduce impacts on

the transportation system and to complement publicsector transportation investments. Overall, these TCSP

projects are helping to reduce the need for future costly

infrastructure investment, increase access to jobs and

other activities, reduce the environmental impacts of

transportation, and improve the overall efficiency of

the transportation system.

The impact of TCSP projects is not limited to the scope

of the individual projects funded. Many grantees have

noted that the findings and lessons learned from their

TCSP projects are influencing other transportation and

community planning activities in their area. Furthermore,

the TCSP program is placing a strong emphasis on

learning and knowledge transfer: by sponsoring the

development of planning tools and methods; by encouraging project evaluations; and by making results from

TCSP projects available to a national audience. These

efforts are resulting in the demonstration of effective

practices for transportation planning.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
28 TCSP Third–Year Report

EFFECTIVE TCSP PRACTICES

Lessons learned from TCSP projects throughout the country illustrate “effective practices” that can improve

transportation planning and preserve and enhance communities. Some common themes include the meaningful

involvement of key stakeholders and community participants; the use of emerging analytical and public

involvement techniques to inform decision-making; the consideration of a wide range of community, economic, and

environmental impacts throughout the transportation process; and the importance of a close relationship between

transportation and community planning.

Build Partnerships

• Good projects start—and finish—with strong leadership. Leaders are committed to the concept of the project and

follow through with persistence. Leaders network and build relationships with other potential leaders and

stakeholders in the community and in agencies with decision-making authority.

• Identify the key actors and stakeholders with an interest in the transportation/community planning project, i.e.,

the people, agencies, and groups who should be involved in the project to make it successful. These may include

(but are not limited to) the MPO or regional planning organization, the State DOT, transit agencies, city and

county transportation and planning departments, elected officials, Federal and state environmental agencies,

community groups, nonprofit and environmental organizations, developers, and the business community.

• Be open to ideas from “non-traditional” groups with an interest in transportation, such as public health organizations,

community development organizations, and schools/schoolchildren. These groups can help identify needs in

the community that are not well addressed (such as a lack of opportunities for physical activity for children).

• Build in-depth involvement of key partners and allow these partners to take ownership of a project. People will

be more committed to a project and its successful implementation if they are allowed to take responsibility of

some aspect of it. For example, community residents can be given a role in identifying and designing pedestrian

or traffic calming improvements.

Capture the Public’s Interest

• Meet with the public and interest groups at convenient times and settings, for example, after work at a location

within the community. Provide child care, refreshments, and translation if necessary.

• Provide opportunities for “hands-on” work in identifying and solving problems. Techniques such as design

charrettes or facilitated discussion groups can provide an interactive and engaging experience not provided by

the traditional “public forum.”

• Utilize visual imaging techniques to illustrate alternatives for transportation facilities or development designs. New

computer technologies are making it much easier to create visual representations of the physical environment.

People respond well to such visual information and are able to make more informed decisions regarding the

aesthetic strengths and weaknesses of alternatives.

• Provide people with sound technical information about the implications of alternatives. Information on transportation,

economic, environmental, and other impacts can help people weigh and understand tradeoffs among various

alternatives. People also can benefit from a basic understanding of what the quantitative models are (and are not)

capable of doing, which can increase their understanding of the results.

• Utilize interactive models to allow people to test different solutions themselves. Computer technology is making

it possible for citizens to sit in front of a computer and simulate the effects of different alternatives. This

technology can provide a valuable learning experience by which people come to better understand the tradeoffs

involved in making different choices.

Design Transportation Systems that Enhance the Community

• Apply context-sensitive design principles for roadways/highways. As an alternative to the practice of applying

a uniform design template everywhere, a number of State DOTs are experimenting with design approaches that

acknowledge the characteristics of the surrounding community and better integrate the roadway with the community.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
TCSP Third–Year Report 29

EFFECTIVE TCSP PRACTICES (CONTINUED)

• Use transportation facilities as a focus for inviting public spaces. Highway projects through dense urban

neighborhoods have been enhanced by decks that provide valuable public parkland. Locations with concentrations

of foot traffic—such as transit stations and sidewalks along business districts—provide a logical place for public

plazas where people can gather, interact, or enjoy the outdoors.

• Consider non-transportation benefits of transportation and related improvements. A transit station can be an

appropriate location for affordable housing, while improved truck access may facilitate redevelopment of a

declining industrial area.

• Use transportation investments to help revitalize older communities. Many once-thriving neighborhoods have

experienced no significant infrastructure improvements in many years. In certain situations, public investment

in streetscaping, pedestrian, and traffic improvements can catalyze development by making the neighborhood

more attractive, and by giving private investors confidence that their investment will retain its value.

Plan for Multiple Modes and Users

• Provide safe and appealing walk, bicycle, and transit options for the carless, elderly, children, and others who

require or prefer alternatives to automobile travel. Sidewalks, pedestrian crossings, bicycle facilities, and convenient

and attractive transit stops make these modes more viable, safe, and pleasant.

• Consider the needs of freight movement and its role in economic development. Routes from major highways to

industrial areas or intermodal terminals are often congested or substandard for trucks, especially in older urbanized

areas. Improving freight access may help stimulate redevelopment of available Brownfields and infill sites.

• Work to improve the integration between different modes of travel. The effort of using alternative travel modes

can be minimized by providing convenient park-and-ride facilities, bicycle parking at transit, and seamless

transfers between different transit routes and service providers.

Consider Community and System Preservation Issues in Transportation Planning

• Consider the impacts of transportation investments on local and regional land development patterns, and the

resulting feedback to transportation demand and performance. Apply land use models that work with transportation

models to assess these interrelationships.

• Utilize new GIS-based models that provide indicators of the community, environmental, and economic impacts

of alternative site plans, community plans, and transportation investments. Use these models to compare and

refine alternatives.

• Analyze the community, environmental, and economic impacts of future transportation and land use alternatives

within the long-range planning as well as the project development process. The general impacts of alternative regional

“systems” can be assessed prior to conducting detailed, project-specific environmental and community impact analysis.

Design Communities to Minimize Transportation Investment Needs

• Cluster housing and commercial development around transportation facilities, especially transit nodes. Clustering

development around transit places a greater number of potential users within easy reach of the transit facility or

service, increasing its likelihood of use.

• Design areas, sites, and subdivisions to make alternatives to driving feasible. Community design features ensure

that direct walking and bicycling routes are available and attractive, and that development is compact enough

to make such trips feasible.

• Work with communities to revise general plans and zoning to encourage development that minimizes

transportation needs through mixed-use, clustered, and pedestrian-friendly development.

• Work with the development community to build consensus on design principles that minimize transportation needs.

• Build partnerships to address inter-jurisdictional issues, coordinating both transportation investment and land

use policies across jurisdictional boundaries.

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
30 TCSP Third–Year Report

EFFECTIVE TCSP PRACTICES (CONTINUED)

Consider Funding, Resource, and Implementation Issues

• Look for non-transportation funding sources—such as Federal, state, or local government agencies or the private

sector—to supplement transportation-related projects that have benefits in other areas such as housing,

economic development, or environmental clean-up.

• Identify how projects may benefit local businesses, and solicit not only funding but also substantive input from

these businesses. Businesses are often willing to help sponsor a project if they have a say in the project and also

see a direct benefit.

• Consider operations and maintenance costs as well as capital costs in the evaluation of different transportation

and community development alternatives.

• For projects resulting in plans, consider implementation as well: identify the specific steps required, develop a

timeline, allocate resources, and work with stakeholders to achieve commitments to implementation.

Evaluate the Effectiveness of Planning and Implementation Activities

• Establish indicators of transportation, community, environmental, and economic performance. Working through

the community planning process, select a few critical indicators that are most meaningful to project participants,

rather than attempting to measure a “laundry list” of impacts.

• Collect baseline data on these indicators and establish data collection and monitoring systems to routinely

update the data. Use monitoring data to identify problems and inform people about continuing needs.

• Evaluate the effectiveness of the planning process through periodic assessments and de-briefings. For example, assess

whether all key stakeholders participated in the process and whether they felt their views were adequately considered.

• Measure the actual outcomes of projects, compare these outcomes with projections, and use this information to

improve modeling/forecasting systems.

Be Patient and Persistent

• Obtaining meaningful involvement from multiple partners and stakeholders, while paying dividends in the long run,

can take longer than expected. If people are at first reluctant to participate or skeptical of the process, don’t give up.

• Expect setbacks and difficulties; then work to overcome these difficulties and move forward. Good planning requires

strong and committed leadership!

Accomplishments and Lessons Learned
Administration represents the “nuts and bolts” of the

TCSP program and supports the implementation of

successful TCSP projects. This section provides a chronology of the TCSP program to date; reviews experiences

with grant selection and administration; reviews

technical support and knowledge transfer activities; and

discusses the benefits resulting from a competitive grant

application process. The findings are based on telephone

interviews with staff from Federal program partner

agencies, TCSP stakeholder groups, and grantees.

TCSP PROGRAM CHRONOLOGY

The timeline for the solicitation and selection of projects

has evolved over the first three years of the program. In

the first year of the program, the announcement of

award of the grants occurred relatively late (midway

through the fiscal year) because time was required to

establish the program and solicit and evaluate

applications following the enactment of TEA-21 in June

1998. The announcement of grant awards has since

been moved forward into the first month of the fiscal

year for which funds are being awarded.

FY 1999. A total of $20 million was authorized by TEA21 for the FY 1999 TCSP Program. FHWA received 524

letters of interest requesting $392 million in FY 1999

funds. A two-stage review process was used, in which

a pool of finalists was selected based on their letters of

interest and asked to submit full grant requests. On

March 15, 1999, the 47 selected finalists

submitted grant requests for review. On May

3, 1999, 35 TCSP grants totaling $13.1 million

were awarded to 27 States plus the District of

Columbia. An additional $534,480 was used in

FY 1999 for technical assistance, evaluation,

and research. Also in FY 1999, there was one

TCSP earmark to the National Aeronautics and

Space Administration (NASA) of $4 million for a

remote sensing project. (Actual allocations for

TCSP were less than appropriated funding

amounts in FY 1999 and other years as a result of

adjustments made by Congress to program

funding levels.)

FY 2000. A total of $35 million was made

available for the FY 2000 TCSP Program: $25

million authorized by TEA-21, and an

additional $10 million in FHWA

Administrative funds.

FHWA received 292 FY 2000 applications

totaling $151 million from 48 States and the

District of Columbia. On March 17, 2000, 84 projects

totaling $31.1 million were awarded to 50 States and

the District of Columbia. $21.7 million of the TEA-21

funds were awarded to 39 congressionally-earmarked

projects, while $9.3 million of the FHWA

Administrative funds were awarded to 45

competitively awarded TCSP grants. In contrast to the

two-stage review process used in FY 1999, a singlestage review process was used to evaluate competitive

applications. An additional $678,000 of the FHWA

Administrative funds were used for technical assistance,

evaluation, and research.

FY 2001. A total of $50 million was made available for the

FY 2001 TCSP Program: $25 million authorized by TEA-21

for the TCSP program, and $25 million of FHWA

Administrative funds. FHWA received 298 applications

totaling more than $196 million from 46 States, the District

of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. On

October 27, 2000, 80 FY 2001 TCSP grants totaling $46.9

million were awarded to 34 States. All of the FY 2001 TCSP

funds were earmarked. No FY 2001 TCSP funds were

available for technical assistance, evaluation, or research.

FY 2002. TEA-21 authorized $25 million for the FY 2002

TCSP Program. The deadline for FY 2002 applications

was January 31, 2001. FHWA received a total of 227 FY

2002 TCSP applications requesting more than $167

million. The announcement of the FY 2002 TCSP grant

awards is expected after October 2001.

TCSP Third–Year Report 31

4. TCSP PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION

Timeline for TCSP Applications and Awards
SOLICITING AND SELECTING PROJECTS

The process for making grant awards differs somewhat

for discretionary and earmark grants. In either case, the

target date for announcing awards is the beginning of

the Federal fiscal year (October). For discretionary

grants, the application and review process starts at

least six to nine months prior to this date with the

publication of a Federal Register notice announcing the

application deadline. After applications are developed

and submitted, they are reviewed by an inter-agency

team and a final selection of projects is made and

announced. FHWA then negotiates and finalizes a

grant agreement with each grantee. For earmark

awards, the announcement of the award at the

beginning of the fiscal year is the first step in the

process. Each grantee receiving earmarked funds is

requested to complete an application similar to those

submitted by discretionary applicants describing how

the project meets TCSP goals and objectives, and

providing a workplan, budget, and evaluation plan.

FHWA then negotiates and finalizes the application

with the grantee.

The large number of applications received—524 in FY

1999, nearly 300 each in FY 2000 and FY 2001, and 227

in FY 2002—indicates a broad interest in and

awareness of the TCSP program. Interviewees who

have participated in the reviews of grant applications

felt that there has been a strong diversity of applications,

covering a full range of applicant types, geographic

areas, area types, and project types. While some people

would have liked to see more applications covering

certain project types, including freight, telecommunications, public health, and global climate change,

overall they felt that the applications received were

generally what was hoped for from the TCSP program.

This was particularly true in FY 2000 and 2001, as

applicants were able to gain a greater understanding of

the program’s objectives by reviewing the first year

awards or by attending the TCSP workshop held in May

1999. Furthermore, reviewers noted that the number of

strong applications that they would have liked to fund

far outpaced the actual funding available in each year.

Reviewers also felt that the process for submitting and

reviewing discretionary applications was productive.

Input from FHWA Division offices and FTA and EPA

Regional offices provided local insights into the nature

and quality of the grant application. This input, in

conjunction with a final review by a Federal interagency

team of FHWA, FTA, OST, Volpe, and EPA staff, led to

a strong set of projects being selected. Some reviewers

noted concern over the initially cumbersome nature of

the process in FY 1999, which involved reviewing

numerous paper applications in a short time period.

This problem, however, was largely solved as the

submission and review of applications transitioned

into electronic format in FY 2000 and 2001, and the

length of the application was limited to 15 pages.

The process for awarding earmark grants is less

complex in that it does not include an inter-agency

review process. As with discretionary grants, the

ability to submit applications electronically was

viewed as helpful. FHWA staff did note, however, that

they sometimes had difficulty identifying earmark

grantees or a contact at the earmark agency, because

they received only the name of a project from an

Appropriations Act. They suggested that better

communication regarding the recipients of grants

would help expedite the negotiation of a grant

agreement and obligation of funds.

32 TCSP Third–Year Report

TCSP Program Administration

Process for Making Grant Awards
ADMINISTERING GRANTS

There are several options for the administration of

grants under TCSP. Individual TCSP projects can be

administered by either FHWA Division offices (which

are established for each State), State DOTs, or in special

cases by FTA. TCSP grantees must meet Federal-aid

requirements when implementing their grants. FHWA

has established financial management systems with

State DOTs, and many TCSP grants are channeled

through this established process. However, in some cases

grantees have worked with their FHWA Division office

to develop a different funding mechanism, such as a

cooperative agreement or grant through another eligible

agency (e.g., a public transit agency).

The direct role of FHWA Division offices in the administration of TCSP grants is one of the non-traditional

aspects of the TCSP program. This role was intended to

streamline the program and provide flexibility in terms

of funding arrangements to grantees. However, it also

has proven to be more time intensive for some Division

offices than originally anticipated. This is partly

because many of the grants are being administered to

cities, counties, and other agencies (other than State

DOTs or MPOs) that are not as familiar with Federalaid grant requirements. Some of these requirements

include the need to create a budget and time schedule

and the need to comply with Federal environmental

impact review requirements (for construction projects).

In addition, FHWA grants are provided on a costreimbursable basis, rather than as a lump sum award.

As a result, FHWA Division offices commented that

they spent a disproportionate amount of time in administering TCSP grants and also working with grantees to

help them learn the process and requirements. This was

a minor issue for those Divisions with only a couple of

grants, but a more significant issue for Divisions with

many grants. The burden is compounded by the fact

that Division offices do not routinely administer grants

directly to local agencies.

A concern also noted by many interviewees, including

a number of grant recipients, is that many TCSP projects

have taken longer than expected to get underway. In

some cases, delays have ranged up to a year from the

announcement of the grant award. No single factor can

be pinpointed. Delays sometimes have occurred at

local agencies attempting to fulfill grant requirements,

hire consultants for the project, address changes in

local leadership, or identify local funding to cover costs

in advance of reimbursement. Delays also have occurred

in State DOT contracting departments and in FHWA

Division offices due to the amount of technical assistance required for the program. Also, prior expectations

for turnaround time may sometimes be optimistic and

exceed what can realistically be achieved.

Nonetheless, once projects have been fully contracted,

grantees have proceeded with enthusiasm. In some cases,

grantees noted that they used the delay period productively, to further build relationships with project partners

or to begin work on the project with local match funding.

TECHNICAL SUPPORT AND

KNOWLEDGE TRANSFER

One of the purposes of TCSP is to share ideas about

how to undertake planning that integrates issues of

transportation, community, and system preservation.

FHWA has worked to facilitate learning and knowledge

transfer from the program by: stressing evaluation as a

component of each TCSP project; creating a web site

that has a description and contact information for each

project, as well as other resources for the program;

publishing a First Year Accomplishments Report for

the program; hosting workshops for grantees and

potential applicants to share information and ideas from

their projects; and documenting and publicizing

workshop proceedings. FHWA is undertaking additional

learning and knowledge transfer activities, including

the publication of project case studies; production of

this Third-Year Report; and creation of a searchable

project database on the web site that also includes

products from each project as they become available.

Interviewees for this report generally felt that FHWA

has done a good job of facilitating the sharing of

information. People who attended the two workshops

held to date—one in Denver in May 1999, and one in

Washington, D.C. in September 2000—commented that

they were especially valuable in helping them meet

other grantees, share ideas, and learn about other

projects. Some interviewees, especially those who had

not attended the workshops, commented that they did

not have a good idea of what projects are accomplishing,

and looked forward to further documentation of the

results of individual projects.

A number of interviewees also commented that the

TCSP Program web site was especially useful in

helping to share information about the overall

program as well as specific projects. The web site

(http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/) includes:

TCSP Third–Year Report 33

TCSP Program Administration
34 TCSP Third–Year Report

• TCSP program documents, including Federal

Register notices, the TEA-21 authorizing language,

and frequently asked questions;

• TCSP project information, including the title,

location, contact information, and funded amount

of the project, and in some cases the project abstract

and funding application;

• Evaluation resources, including the project evaluation

guidance, references, and examples;

• Other program resources, including annual reports,

workshop proceedings, and related publications; and

• Links to Federal partner agencies and other sites

related to the TCSP Program.

In addition to these features, in 2001 FHWA undertook

the development of a more comprehensive and searchable on-line database of projects. The database allows

any Internet user to search for specific projects by year,

State, project type, and other criteria. The database is

also intended to assist with the application review

process, by including fields in which grantees can enter

the text of applications and field reviewers can enter

comments on the applications. In the future, FHWA

intends to continue to make products from individual

TCSP projects available on the web site as they are

received from grantees.

An important FHWA role in addition to knowledge

transfer has been to provide technical assistance to

grantees. This assistance has included working with

grantees, once a grant has been awarded, to more fully

develop a project workplan, and to fulfill other

requirements for an FHWA grant. Grantees and

Federal program partner staff praised the FHWA staff

of the TCSP program for their willingness to assist

grantees with questions or concerns, as well as their

overall commitment to and enthusiasm for the

program. In addition, FHWA has provided guidance

for grantees on how to structure and implement an

evaluation plan. Many of the grantees commented that

this guidance was helpful.

BENEFITS OF COMPETITIVE GRANT

APPLICATIONS

Competitive grant applications have represented an

important element of the TCSP program administration

process. TCSP program partners, grantees, and stakeholder groups interviewed for this report noted that

there are benefits extending across all aspects of the

program of having competitive grant applications for

TCSP funds. Specifically, a competitive process

encourages the following:

• A thorough and comprehensive approach to

project development and implementation. The

criteria established for selecting TCSP projects and

the challenges of the competitive process, force

grantees to carefully think through their project,

including setting goals, objectives, and a timeline;

working to involve a broad range of partners; and

developing an approach to evaluating their

success. Participants in the first TCSP workshop

held in Denver in May 1999 commented that even

unsuccessful applicants benefited from the ideas

generated and partnerships formed through the

grant application process.

• Early coordination with State DOTs and MPOs.

In a competitive application process, applicants are

encouraged to coordinate with State DOTs and

MPOs as the project scope is being developed.

These agencies are an integral part of the project

planning and implementation process. Early

coordination not only allows the State DOTs and

MPOs to be aware of the project but to be active

participants in achieving the goals and objectives

of the project.

• Development of innovative projects. The competitive process benefits grantees by providing

them with a strong incentive to develop an

innovative work program and form nontraditional partnerships. The competitive process

also benefits the overall TCSP program, by

ensuring that the strongest projects are selected

and that the range of selected projects most closely

reflects the goals and objectives of the program.

TCSP Program Administration
In its first three years, the TCSP program has funded

nearly 200 projects across the country that are

integrating transportation, community, and system

preservation concerns. The benefits of the program

have gone far beyond what might be expected with the

modest amounts of funding available. Communities

throughout the country are using TCSP funds to design

transportation systems that enhance mobility, economic

opportunity, and community livability, while minimizing

environmental impacts and life-cycle costs. Individual

projects supported by TCSP are leading to broader

changes in transportation planning and design

practices, as ideas and lessons learned from TCSP

projects filter into other situations. Furthermore, TCSP

is supporting the broader “smart growth” movement,

in which communities are wrestling with the effects of

ever-increasing traffic congestion and associated community and environmental impacts.

Among the Federal program partners and stakeholder

groups interviewed for this report, there was

widespread agreement that the goals and objectives of

the TCSP program are worthwhile; that many of the

TCSP projects—especially those awarded in FY 1999

and FY 2000—are accomplishing these objectives; and

that the program should continue in the future with

these goals and objectives intact.

Looking beyond the five-year span of the pilot program

authorized by TEA-21, initial consideration is already

being given to reauthorization of the transportation

spending bill in 2003. Program partners and stakeholders

interviewed had the following additional ideas for

continuing to implement the planning innovations begun

under TCSP, whether through a distinct TCSP program or

through another mechanism:

• Move TCSP away from being a “pilot” program

and into the mainstream of transportation

planning practice;

• Maintain a focus on both planning and

implementation;

• Reconsider either the level of funding or the

funding mechanism for TCSP projects;

• Continue to work to involve both State DOTs and

MPOs in TCSP projects; and

• Continue to emphasize learning and knowledge

transfer.

Overall, this review of TCSP’s accomplishments

suggests that the innovative work undertaken in the

first three years of the program is already beginning to

leverage results. There is widespread hope that the

demonstration of transportation, community, and

system preservation practices undertaken through

TCSP not only will continue, but broaden its reach.

TCSP Third–Year Report 35

5. LOOKING TO THE FUTURE
36 TCSP Third–Year Report

Alaska Anchorage: Assess and redesign the public

outreach and participation process for metropolitan

transportation planning.

Arizona Tempe: Conduct a transportation subarea study

and create a transit overlay district model to

support sustainable development.

California San Francisco: Integrate land use and housing

alternatives to support the development of the

Mission Street transit corridor.

Escalon: Preserve and enhance a rural community

with pedestrian and bike access to school,

neighborhoods and businesses.

Mono County: Develop a rural community plan to

balance tourism and growth with community

stability, safety, and environmental protection.

Connecticut Hartford: Address regional growth issues through

outreach and transportation and development

practices in three prototype communities: urban,

suburban, and rural.

District of Washington, D.C.: Identify and implement priority

Columbia regional greenway projects and intermodal

circulation systems around activity centers.

Florida Gainesville: Develop and apply sketch planning

methods to measure the impacts of land use

patterns on transportation conditions.

Idaho Boise: Evaluate the effects of transportation and

land use decisions on rapidly growing semi-rural

counties to provide for better decision-making to

curb the effects of sprawl.

Kentucky Lexington: Develop a handbook, CD-ROM, and workshops for planners, developers, decision-makers and

citizens on land use and transportation strategies.

Louisiana New Orleans: Produce a comprehensive plan that

integrates land use, alternative growth scenarios, and

transportation to meet long-term community goals.

Maryland Statewide: Develop and apply an integrated

transportation, land use, and watershed model to

assess the land use and environmental impacts of

transportation investments.

Michigan Saginaw: Redesign a suburban shopping mall to

be more pedestrian- and transit-friendly.

Lansing: Develop a shared regional vision of future

land use and development patterns in the Lansing

area through visual preference surveys, modeling,

and public outreach.

Missouri Kansas City: Provide outreach and analytical tools

for private developers and city officials to support

sustainable choices.

Montana Laurel: Develop a plan for long-term transportation,

land use, and community preservation.

New Jersey Northern New Jersey: Integrate planning, data, and

public involvement to establish an action for a modern

intermodal freight infrastructure to support brownfield,

economic, and community redevelopment.

New Jersey Statewide: Improve access, services, and amenities

at passenger rail stations to meet broad community

goals.

New York Troy: Incorporate transportation and land use into

the city’s redevelopment plan for the waterfront.

North Carolina Raleigh: Develop policies and programs to

implement a regionwide vision for land use,

transportation, and development.

Ohio Cleveland: Develop a community-based plan to

revitalize a congested commercial boulevard in

Woodmere Village while maintaining access to the

larger community.

Dayton: Redevelop a brownfields site near

downtown as an industrial incubator, to provide

economic, environmental, and community benefits.

Oregon Portland: Conduct land use, environmental, and

transportation planning to create and protect urban

reserves.

Willamette Valley: Integrate analytical models to

evaluate the transportation impacts of possible

land use futures in this region.

Pennsylvania Centre County: Develop planning recommendations

and guidelines for communities in the Bald Eagle

River watershed to meet growth demands created

by the widening of I-99.

Philadelphia: Develop metropolitan area-wide

strategies to promote transportation efficiency

including transit-oriented development, location

efficient mortgages, and station area plans.

Rhode Island Providence: Support construction of transportation

initiatives in the Olneyville neighborhood including

a transit hub, streetscape improvements, and access

to a bicycle path and greenways. 

South Carolina Charleston: Identify the costs and impacts of

alternative development and transportation and

infrastructure scenarios.

Tennessee Johnson City: Develop specific land use alternatives

to incorporate as formal code changes into a revised

land use plan.

Texas Houston: Develop a strategically integrated transportation and land use plan for the eight-mile Main

Street corridor.

Utah Northern Utah: Evaluate alternate growth and land

use scenarios for the Wasatch Front area and adopt

land use and transportation implementation strategies for a preferred scenario.

1999 PROJECTS

State Project Description State Project Description

APPENDIX

FISCAL YEAR 1999–2001 TCSP PROJECTS
TCSP Third–Year Report 37

Virginia Charlottesville: Create a 50-year vision and

cooperative multi-jurisdictional plan for land use,

economic and community development, environmental quality, and transportation. 

Washington Seattle: Promote transportation efficiency and

transit-oriented development around existing and

proposed transit stations in the region.

West Virginia Martinsburg: Redevelop an historic rail complex as

an intermodal facility to support economic development and tourism.

Wisconsin Madison: Establish regional standards and processes

for transportation and land development projects

that can be used by local governments to achieve

community goals.

Alabama Statewide: Assess the infrastructure needs of the

Alabama State Docks system in fulfilling its role as

the linchpin of a multimodal transportation corridor

in southern Alabama.

Florence: Create landscaped pedestrian walkways

on the campus of the University of North Alabama.

Alaska Anchorage: Conduct a feasibility study of

commuter rail and ferry service between the

Borough and Municipality of Anchorage.

Fairbanks: Construct a pedestrian/bicycle

“Centennial Bridge” across the Chena River in the

Fairbanks downtown core.

Arizona Phoenix: Develop strategies to direct infrastructure

development and protect open space areas that

will contribute to sustainable communities.

Arkansas Jonesboro: Relocate rail lines and construct a

vehicle overpass to improve rail traffic operations

and road safety.

Pulaski and Saline Counties: Conducting a full

traffic shed analysis in two rural counties and test

methods for determining traffic shed capacity.

Little Rock: Develop bike trails, walkways, sidewalks,

sheltered bus stops, street furniture, and information

kiosks to improve modal and community connectivity

in the River Market and College Station areas.

California Berkeley: Create a campus of buildings for nine

disability service, policy organizations, and other

private or non-profit entities and retail establishments

over a mass transit parking lot.

San Joaquin Valley: Develop model zoning

ordinances and design standards to create efficient

land use and livable communities emphasizing

pedestrian and transit-oriented design. 

San Diego: Pilot-test PLACE3S, an urban and

regional analytical tool and planning method, and

launch the method statewide as a transportation

and land use planning program.

Riverside County: Identify and design new

transportation corridors to provide for the county’s

future transportation needs, considering land use,

biological resources, and related issues.

San Francisco: Conduct planning, design, and

evaluation for the redevelopment of the Market

Street area and Civic Center.

Colorado Larimer County: Develop a plan for a balanced,

multimodal transportation system for the safe and

efficient movement of persons and goods in the

Estes Valley.

Denver: Establish and promote cost-effective and

community-friendly alternative transportation at a

downtown intermodal transportation center.

Denver: Link the 16th Street mall corridor to

neighborhoods located northwest of downtown

with a pedestrian and bicycle bridge.

Connecticut Beacon Falls: Create transportation, land development, environmental protection, and economic

development goals and strategies to revitalize this

small town.

New Haven: Purchase eight electric trolleys to run

continuous looping route cycles between the mall,

downtown New Haven, and west New Haven.

Delaware Centreville: Develop a land use and transportation

master plan to guide future development and

transportation decisions.

District of Washington, D.C.: Redevelop residential properties

Columbia and implement streetscape and traffic calming

improvements to revitalize an historic neighborhood.

Washington, D.C.: Examine multimodal transportation, traffic mitigation, and land use approaches

to relieve traffic congestion resulting from the

closure of a portion of Pennsylvania Avenue.

Florida Tampa: Create and demonstrate strategies for

reducing environmental impacts of transportation

and utility corridors across natural areas through coordinated siting, design, permitting, and maintenance.

Port St. Lucie: Develop alternative transportation and

land use scenarios and create plans to address nonmotorized travel, traffic congestion, and land use.

St. Lucie County: Bring students and planners

together to develop a bicycle and pedestrian

transportation plan for the community.

Georgia Athens to Atlanta: Develop a model planning

process that will address sustainable development

and livability in rapidly growing communities,

resulting in a master plan for communities along

proposed commuter rail lines.

Hawaii Waikiki: Develop a community-based mobility plan,

using highly participatory, hands-on planning tools,

2000 PROJECTS

State Project Description State Project Description

Appendix
38 TCSP Third–Year Report

that will guide and leverage transportation

investments.

Idaho Kootenai County: Conduct a comprehensive study

and develop a master plan to address traffic, pedestrian, and community issues along State Highway

41, including the potential effects of land use actions.

Illinois McHenry County: Develop a long-range strategic

plan to coordinate multipurpose transportation

corridor improvements with current and future land

use, protecting the Kishwaukee River watershed.

DuPage County: Reconfigure tollway ramps and

make intersection improvements in the area of the

intersection of Naperville and Warrenville Roads.

Indiana Madison County: Develop a comprehensive and

coordinated set of policies, tools, and methods for

the orderly development of land, preservation and

retrofitting of existing transportation facilities, and

effective urban and rural design.

Muncie: Develop a plan for motorized and nonmotorized travel replacing the traditional thoroughfare plan, which merely addresses roadway

classification and proposed rights-of-way.

Iowa Sioux City: Redevelop transportation infrastructure

and create private investment opportunities within

the urban, industrial Hoeven Valley.

Kansas Marysville: Conduct a planning study that will

examine the impacts of a grade separation project

and how it will ultimately impact community economic

development, safety, land use, and quality of life.

Kentucky Woodford County: Develop local transportation

and planning strategies with specific mechanisms,

allowing for the careful management of this scenic

part of central Kentucky.

Louisiana St. Charles, St. James and St. John the Baptist

Parishes: Develop an action plan for coordinating

existing transit services, determining expansion

needs, and modifying local policies and practices

to better encourage use of public transportation.

Shreveport: Prepare a transportation, community,

and system preservation strategic plan to establish

Shreveport’s core inner-city neighborhoods as a

regional technology and residential center.

Maine Statewide: Develop coordinated investment plans

that focus on identifying, prioritizing, and programming public and private investments required for

successful service center revitalization.

Maryland Montgomery and Frederick Counties: Conduct a

study that examines development in targeted

growth areas along the I-270 corridor and integrates

Smart Growth considerations into mainstream

transportation and land use planning activities.

Massachusetts Springfield: Develop a toolbox of transportation

and land use solutions to redevelop an historic

industry-centered inner-city neighborhood.

Eastern Massachusetts: Analyze the transportation

impacts of alternative development patterns and

design in the I-495 corridor; initiate alternative

transportation demonstration programs.

Michigan Traverse City: Develop a transportation and land

use plan for the city that will increase efficiency of

the transportation system while protecting the

livability of the community.

Minnesota Minneapolis: Develop a comprehensive plan for

sustainable redevelopment of the Lowry Avenue

corridor based upon a multimodal transportation

system.

Mississippi Jackson: Construct airport connectors to improve

traffic flow and transit access and enhance

economic development.

Missouri St. Louis: Implement an innovative regional

community development process to address

transportation, land use, and socioeconomic issues.

Montana Kalispell: Construct a bus storage barn with washing

and facilities, designed for extreme winter weather

conditions, to improve local transit productivity.

Nebraska Omaha: Construct a centralized pedestrian crossing

over the Missouri River to increase community access.

Nevada Clark County: Develop and test remote sensing

technologies and a GIS-based transportation

emissions model to study particulate matter

transport in the Las Vegas area.

New Hampshire Concord: Develop a comprehensive 20-year plan

for the city of Concord integrating community and

transportation needs; develop a communitycentered planning guide.

New Jersey Monmouth County: Design and construct a

pedestrian tunnel to remove an existing mid-block

pedestrian crossing.

Montclair: Develop a detailed land use plan to

improve access to transit.

Northern New Jersey: Integrate planning, data, and

public involvement to establish an action for a modern

intermodal freight infrastructure to support brownfield,

economic, and community redevelopment.

South Amboy: Develop a plan to improve access

from nearby highways to rail, bus, and ferry

transportation facilities.

New Mexico Santa Fe: Develop a design and implementation

plan for the Solana Neighborhood Center to serve

as a model for growth without sprawl.

Albuquerque: Develop a pedestrian access plan,

comprehensive transportation management plan,

and street and pedestrian signage and amenities

program as part of a downtown revitalization program.

Raton: Assist in the acquisition and restoration of

Raton Railroad Depot to provide intermodal

connections and promote economic development.

State Project Description State Project Description

Appendix
TCSP Third–Year Report 39

Appendix

New York Hamilton: Enhance community involvement in

Smart Growth concepts including coordination of

land use and transportation decision-making,

institution of arterial access management, and

institution of a street network to guide future growth.

New Rochelle: Reconfigure and redesign a train

station and construct a parking garage to create an

intermodal transportation center.

White Plains: Construct an overhead passageway

for pedestrians that will facilitate connections

between a railroad station and bus terminal. 

North Carolina Bethania: Study current and projected traffic

through this historic village and develop a plan for

vehicular, truck, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic. 

North Dakota Fort Yates: Develop a GIS-based road and

infrastructure management system to assist the

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe with system preservation

and economic development.

Ohio Cleveland: Implement demonstration projects to

reduce the impacts of commuter traffic on innercity neighborhoods.

Oklahoma Oklahoma City: Implement a fleet of boats to link

downtown with nearby redevelopment areas along

the North Canadian River.

Oregon Klamath, Clackmas, Lake, and Grant Counties:

Produce a replicable planning model for assessing

the needs of Oregon rural communities that can be

served by technology and network services

through “telecommunity centers.”

Statewide: Fund innovative projects meeting TCSP

objectives in Oregon communities.

Pennsylvania York: Design and implement a sustainable community

plan using transportation and land use solutions.

Centre County: Develop planning recommendations

and guidelines for communities in the Bald Eagle

River watershed to meet growth demands created

by the widening of I-99.

Rhode Island Warwick: Develop recommendations for improving

transit/pedestrian access and guidelines for transitoriented development to realize the goals of an

existing redevelopment district master plan.

South Carolina Columbia: Develop and evaluate a pilot planning

model that integrates the state’s infrastructure

planning activities into one plan and process at the

regional level.

South Dakota Sioux Falls: Redevelop aging industrial properties

and implement transportation improvements to link

downtown with Falls Park.

Tennessee Knoxville: Design a traffic calming/streetscape plan

using neighborhood residents and city engineers

as the designers; study the effects on pedestrian

behavior.

Texas Houston: Conduct pre-construction engineering

work and design for pilot projects within Houston’s

Main Street Corridor that will enhance public space

and pedestrian linkages to adjacent neighborhoods.

Fort Worth: Conduct a central city commercial

corridor redevelopment study to engage public

agencies and property owners to discuss linkages

between development and transit.

Lufkin: Plan, design, and construct a multimodal

transit terminal to alleviate downtown congestion

without increasing parking.

Utah Salt Lake City: Develop a Quality Growth Strategy

and design strategies for its implementation to

address northern Utah’s future growth.

Northeastern Utah/northwestern Colorado: Study

and facilitate the development of a short-line railroad,

linking resource rich areas of northwestern Colorado

and northeastern Utah to the national rail system.

Vermont Burlington: Implement transportation and streetscape

improvements as part of the North Street urban

revitalization project.

Virginia Northern and north-central Virginia: Conduct a

study to identify land use changes that have

resulted from introduction and operation of the

Virginia Railway Express.

Arlington County: Reconstruct two intersections to

provide greater pedestrian refuge and realign

some crosswalks to reduce the crossing lengths

for pedestrians.

Richmond: Conduct engineering/design and

rehabilitation/renovation of an historic train station

into a downtown multimodal transportation center.

Washington Whatcom County: Develop a trail construction plan

consistent with the Mt. Baker Foothills community

vision, to provide recreational opportunities and

safety improvements to non-motorized travelers

and attract visitors.

Clark County: Develop information to guide

transportation and land use policy development for

the county’s comprehensive plan update, focusing

particularly on methods of meeting transportation

concurrency requirements.

West Virginia Putnam County: Develop a comprehensive transportation corridor management plan in conjunction

with the planned construction of U.S. Highway 35.

Wisconsin Green Bay: Link existing trail areas and construct

new trails to extend the regional parkway trail system.

Wyoming Teton County: Identify areas of future growth and

environmental protection; develop a transportation

demand management program and amend land

development regulations to achieve this vision.

State Project Description State Project Description
40 TCSP Third–Year Report

Alaska Delong Mountain: Undertake a study for an airport

facility to serve passenger and cargo traffic to

northwest Alaska.

Soldotna: Design and construct improvements to

Redoubt Avenue.

Fairbanks: Plan and design a unified cultural, visitor,

transportation, and public lands information center.

Talkeetna: Develop pedestrian, traffic safety, and

access improvements in an historic community that

is a gateway to Denali National Park.

Palmer: Undertake planning and engineering for

landscape, pedestrian, and traffic improvements to

transform an unmaintained railroad right-of-way

through the city.

Alabama Mobile: Establish a train station and shuttle to link

Amtrak service with an intermodal terminal serving

bus, taxi, water, and non-motorized transportation.

Arkansas Northeast Arkansas: Upgrade U.S. Highway 63 to

Interstate standards to improve safety and

accessibility between Jonesboro and Memphis.

Van Buren: Conduct design and engineering for an

intermodal freight facility; create a business plan

and strategic plan to market the facility and local

development sites.

California Coronado: Conduct a comprehensive analysis of

alternatives to relieve congestion and improve

safety in two state route corridors.

Sierra Madre: Upgrade a road to provide

dependable, all-weather access for residents and

visitors of the Chantry Flats area of Angeles

National Forest.

Riverside County: Identify and design new

transportation corridors to solve the county’s future

transportation needs, considering land use,

biological resources, and related issues.

El Segundo: Create pedestrian connections to an

intermodal transit facility in southern Los Angeles

County.

Santa Barbara County: Acquire permanent

easements to provide for the construction of a

bicycle and pedestrian highway/railroad overcrossing

to connect two segments of a moderate income,

ethnically diverse community.

Roseville: Construct a pedestrian/bicycle bridge

connection to an intermodal station providing

commuter rail service to Sacramento and the San

Francisco Bay area.

Florida Miami: Develop a master plan to address mobility

needs in an African-American, highly transitdependent community.

Illinois Quincy: Construct a bridge to improve access to an

industrial park and developing industrial, commercial and residential areas on the north side of the

community.

Chicago: Develop a community-based physical plan

for the pedestrian environment in the Edgewater

neighborhood.

Joliet to Chicago: Develop designs for improvements

to enhance service in a commuter rail corridor by

reducing conflicts with freight rail traffic and

highway crossings.

Indiana Angola and Steuben City: Construct a walking/

bicycling trail and bridge to link existing trails,

schools, parks, and other community facilities.

West Baden Springs: Restore the historic

appearance, structural integrity, and economic

viability of two structures in the State Route 56

corridor as part of a larger revitalization initiative.

Kansas Wichita: Construct two pedestrian bridges linking three

major activity centers situated around the confluence

of the Arkansas and Little Arkansas Rivers.

Kentucky Pulaski County: Convert an abandoned railbed to a

recreational trail through a national forest.

Bowling Green: Develop land along the Barren River

into a recreational green space that will also serve as

the beginning of a pedestrian and bicycle pathway.

Clay and Leslie Counties: Design and construct an

interchange to serve a regional industrial park and

promote economic development.

Owensboro: Prepare a master plan and develop

access, landscape, and economic improvements

to a two-mile segment of underutilized waterfront.

Louisiana Lincoln Parish: Develop an implementation plan for a

multi-faceted transportation corridor with emphasis

on neighborhood and community preservation.

New Orleans: Perform research and planning support

on behalf of public and private sector decision-makers

in the areas of transportation, land use planning, and

community development/ redevelopment.

Massachusetts New Bedford: Coordinate the land use and

transportation decision-making processes of five

major public infrastructure investments with

environmental permitting processes.

Maryland Rockville: Develop plans for transportation improvements, including highway grade separation and a

pedestrian plaza, to support town center redevelopment and access to an adjacent rail station.

Maine Bangor: Complete transportation improvements

including intermodal hub facility planning, railroad

crossing signalization, and bicycle/pedestrian trails

to support downtown waterfront redevelopment.

Michigan Ferndale: Install fixed traffic control signals and large

illuminated street location signs at three downtown

intersections to improve traffic and pedestrian safety.

2001 PROJECTS

State Project Description State Project Description

Appendix
TCSP Third–Year Report 41

Appendix

Flint: Conduct an origin-destination study and identify

needs and deficiencies for cross-border truck and rail

freight traffic.

Detroit: Conduct design work and environmental

assessments for the construction of a freeway

overpass park that will increase park and

recreation services for residents of a minority and

low-income neighborhood.

Minnesota Hennepin County: Implement roadway improvements to enhance safety for pedestrians, improve

access to schools and proposed retail development,

and protect water quality and wetlands as part of a

redevelopment project in North Minneapolis.

Brooklyn Park and Maple Grove: Extend Trunk

Highway 610 to relieve congestion, improve safety,

and provide economic benefits.

Missouri Kansas City: Enhance a downtown park to create

an attractive, usable space that serves as a focal

point for governmental and civic activities.

St. Louis: Create a master plan and implement

pilot projects to improve neighborhood viability,

enhance business facades, and renew a sense of

community in an inner-city business district.

Springfield: Implement a streetscape project to

improve pedestrian access, auto circulation, and

aesthetics as part of a larger effort to revitalize the

downtown.

Mississippi Claiborne County: Perform a study to evaluate

alternative routes for logging trucks to reach a port

facility on the Mississippi River without using an

historic downtown street network.

Jackson: Address congestion caused by at-grade

rail crossing traffic through the use of Intelligent

Transportation Systems (ITS); study rail relocations.

Montana Billings: Construct bicycle and pedestrian trails to

further implement a comprehensive trails plan;

create an urban civic plaza downtown.

Statewide: Place geological information along

roadways that explains the landscape through

which people are traveling.

Statewide: Develop a prioritization system for railroad

grade separation projects and identify the most costeffective projects for further environmental review.

Nebraska Omaha: Construct a centralized pedestrian

crossing over the Missouri River to increase

community access.

New Hampshire Bedford: Prepare design strategies for a road corridor

to address access management, business viability,

and commuter traffic, while creating a pride of place

through architectural and aesthetic guidelines.

Concord: Implement transportation, land use,

economic development, and conservation strategies

previously identified in a comprehensive vision plan

for the region.

New Jersey Hudson County: Assist in completing a 15-mile

continuous, uninterrupted bicycle/pedestrian path

along the Hudson River.

Borough of Flemington: Realign Park Avenue.

Town of South Brunswick: Undertake construction

on Route 522.

City of Bedminster: Construct a bicycle path.

New Mexico Clovis: Reconstruct a one-mile section of street

providing access to a community college.

Albuquerque: Prepare a feasibility study and

implementation plan for the provision of commuter

rail service.

Las Cruces: Preserve a railroad depot for use as a

railroad station and transportation hub and museum.

Raton: Assist in the restoration of a depot for

intermodal passenger and freight service and to

support downtown revitalization.

Albuquerque: Develop improved pedestrian access

and implement parking management in the Uptown

employment and retail center.

Nevada Henderson: Provide for safe pedestrian and

bicycle routes in conjunction with the opening of a

college campus downtown.

New York The Bronx: Design and build a bicycle/pedestrian

facility as part of a link in the waterfront Soundview

Greenway.

Greenport: Create pedestrian paths at a marina to

link existing and planned water, rail, and bus

transportation facilities serving the downtown.

Ohio Toledo: Beautify the newly constructed Buckeye

Basin/Greenbelt Parkway and reduce its impacts

on the environment.

Dayton: Improve pedestrian, roadway, and transit

access to link two aviation-related historic sites.

Northeastern Ohio: Develop a multi-use recreational

trail along the route of the historic Ohio & Erie Canal.

Oklahoma Tulsa: Replace a viaduct over a railroad adjacent

to an elementary school.

Oregon Portland: Renovate the lobby of an historic courthouse

that serves as a transit information and visitor center.

Pennsylvania Pittsburgh: Implement pedestrian improvements

as part of a downtown riverfront park project to

enhance access to adjacent neighborhoods and

provide recreational opportunities.

Johnstown: Implement pedestrian and streetscape

improvements as part of a redevelopment project

that includes major entertainment facilities and a

conference center.

Texas Houston: Conduct pre-construction engineering

work and design for pilot projects within Houston’s

Main Street Corridor that will enhance public space

and pedestrian linkages to adjacent neighborhoods.

Fort Worth: Conduct alternatives analysis and

State Project Description State Project Description
42 TCSP Third–Year Report

environmental assessment for a potential light rail

corridor, including consideration of land use strategies.

Utah Northeastern Utah/northwestern Colorado: Study

and facilitate the development of a short-line railroad,

linking resource rich areas of northwestern Colorado

and northeastern Utah to the national rail system.

Virginia Fairfax County: Study opportunities to expand and

connect recreational trails, and to assist with

interpretation of historic and cultural resources.

Virginia Beach: Construct a bicycle and pedestrian

trail along an abandoned rail corridor.

Northwestern Virginia: Purchase and deploy hardware

and software to improve safety and facilitate

movement of commercial motor carrier vehicles.

Vermont Burlington: Implement transportation and streetscape

improvements as part of the North Street urban

revitalization project; rehabilitate and enhance a

downtown pedestrian mall.

Manchester: Implement pedestrian improvements

and parking management downtown as part of an

overall travel demand management strategy.

Washington Grays Harbor: Develop infrastructure improvements

to support the conversion of the former Satsop

Nuclear project site into a high-tech business and

industrial park.

Shoreline: Construct improvements along a state

highway to support pedestrian and transit circulation.

Clallam County: Construct trail linkages to connect

two population centers via a non-motorized travel

route.

Puget Sound region: Create a freight users and

service providers group focused on improving ontime delivery in the Washington State supply chain. 

West Virginia Charleston: Expand a boulevard trail enhancement

project linking neighborhoods to the central

business district.

Ellenboro and Harrisville: Excavate a roadside

embankment to improve sight distance and safety

along a route heavily used by school buses.

Wheeling: Adapt historic but underutilized buildings

into commercial and residential space to promote

downtown redevelopment.

State Project Description State Project Description

Appendix
TCSP Third–Year Report 43

This report was produced by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. under contract to the Federal Highway Administration. The authors

gratefully acknowledge the contributions of the numerous people who provided input for this report. Project staff and

consultants for the following 20 TCSP projects were interviewed by telephone, contributing information on specific projects that

served as a basis for this report:

• Mono County, CA: Lee Vining Community Planning Project

• Hartford, CT: Picture it Better Together

• Washington, D.C.: Develop Circulation Systems and Green Space 

• Boise, ID: Treasure Valley Futures

• New Orleans, LA: Transportation/Community Systems Optimization 

• Saginaw, MI: Retrofitting Anytown, USA

• Kansas City, MO: Smart Choices

• Laurel, MT: Transportation and Community Sustainability Plan

• Raleigh, NC: Regional Development and Mobility Principles

• Johnson City, TN: The Land Use and Transportation Plan

• Houston, TX: Main Street Corridor Planning and Research Project

• Northern Utah: Envision Utah

• Charlottesville, VA: Jefferson Area Eastern Planning Initiative

• Seattle, WA: Transit Station Communities Project

• Martinsburg, WV: Historic Baltimore & Ohio Roundhouse Renovation Project

• Madison, WI: Design Dane

• San Diego, CA: Pilot Test of PLACE3S Method

• McHenry County, IL: Sustainable Transportation and Land Use Plan

• Raton, NM: Historic Rehabilitation Project

• Fort Yates, ND: Tribal Roads Management System

In addition, representatives of the following Federal agencies and stakeholder groups were interviewed by telephone

regarding overall TCSP program accomplishments, lessons learned, and future directions:

• Federal Highway Administration (Headquarters)

• Federal Highway Administration (9 Division offices, interviewed in two groups)

• Federal Railroad Administration

• Federal Transit Administration

• Office of the Secretary of Transportation

• Volpe National Transportation Systems Center

• Environmental Protection Agency

• Association of American Metropolitan Planning Organizations

• Great American Station Foundation

• National Council for Community and Economic Development

• National League of Cities

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
Further information on the TCSP Pilot Program can be found on the Internet at

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tcsp/, by contacting the FHWA Division office located in each

state (listed on the TCSP website), or through FHWA’s Office of Human Environment.

Federal Highway Administration

Office of Human Environment

400 Seventh Street, SW, Room 3301

Washington, DC 20590

Telephone 202-366-0106

November 2001