Lec 3. Ch.2P1 TP and Decision Making

2.1 Institutional framework for transportation DM 2.2 Evolving perspective of the planning and DM process 2.3 Conceptual models of DM 2.4 The elements of DM: Development of a transportation

planning process

Part 2 covers: 2.5 and 2.6

Part 1: Topics

2.1 Institutional framework for TP DM

Organizations created to provide and manage transportation services

Formal process of interaction among, and production from, these organizations, that is often mandated by other levels of government

Informal personal and group dynamic relationships that make the process work

Political, legal, and fiscal constraints Positive or negative roles of specific individuals

or groups

A common characteristic of all transportation decision making is that it occurs within an institutional framework that is often similar from one metropolitan area to another.

2.1 Institutional framework for TP DM (Example – Utah Commuter Link by UDOT)

SLC

SL Co

WFRC

Div. Of Public Safety

Multiple organizations

Formal process

Informal personal & group dynamic relationship

Political, legal, fiscal constraints

See Fig 2.1 Institutional barriers.

2.2 An evolving perspective on the planning and DM process

A concise history describing how the characteristics of transportation planning process evolved. Read and get a feel of how it evolved, or it was forced to evolve in the past few decades.

* TP process evolved from the rational approach to participatory approach

Public involvement

Consensusbuilding

Ameliorationproject impacts

The paradigm has changed: from simply accommodating demands for increased personal mobility to more sustainable transportation system planning.

The rational approach – typical steps

Define goals and objectives

Identify problems

Generate alternatives

Evaluate alternatives

Select optimal alternatives

Note that these steps still must exist. The differences between the rational approach as used in 60’s and the participatory approach in later years are, in the original “rational” approach:

More concern on the personal mobility or lowest travel cost, not much concern on its impacts on the society and environment

Process itself was the goal

Not much involvement by the public

“Comprehensive” “large scale”

(Often a lowest cost alternative)

2.3 Conceptual models of decision making

Trans. planningTDM-type planning

Region-wide rail networkA wide variety of decision makings takes place in

transportation planning. And the DM process is affected by many factors Make it difficult to categorize DM types.

Here the authors try to categorize DM approaches. They apply not just transportation planning but to any DM situations. Find a DM situation that involves multiple agencies and people and analyze which approach best describes its DM process.

Type, frequency, structure, complexity

of the decisions

Characteristics, capabilities, needs

of the DMs

Organizationaland political

context

5 DM approachesThe rational actor approach

Assumes a rational, completely informed set of decision makers whose criterion of decision is maximizing the attainment of an explicit set of goals and objectives. (comprehensive knowledge assumed)

The satisficing approach

Although still based on the concept of rational choice, suggests that DM choose alternatives that satisfy some minimum level of acceptability or induce the least harm or disturbance.

The Incremental approach

Decision makers focus only on those policies that differ incrementally from existing policies.

The organizational process approach

Places decision making within an organizational context and identifies the organizational characteristics that limit or constrain decision-maker choice.

The political bargaining approach

Decisions result from bargaining and the approach searches for consensus among the many participants in a decision process.

2.4 Major characteristics of the DM process

1. Pluralistic

3. Consensus-seeking

Or constituency-building

5. Uncertainty-avoiding

2. Resourceallocative

4. Problem-simplifying

Compromise,

Negotiation,

Bargaining

Special interest

groups, short-term issues

Hence, providing DMs with the knowledge necessary to make informed decisions is the duty of the planner.

Examples

Pluralistic: Referendum on transportation sales tax (like, commuter train ¼ cent/$1 tax)

Resource-allocative: Adoption of a transportation budget (lack of state budget, cancellation of a highway project connecting Alpine and Draper)

Consensus-seeking: Use of market research to gauge the attitudes and opinions of voters facing a referendum; advisory committees to develop plans

Problem-simplifying: Defining transportation problems as being too many cars

Uncertainty-avoiding: Use of scenarios in community visions; staged implementation of transportation projects to develop more certain portions first

In summary… (for ch2 part 1)

UTP process evolved from the concept of rational choice to the participatory or advocacy planning approach

The characteristics of a decision-oriented planning process depend on the type of decision-making approach assumed. 5 processes were presented: the rational actor approach, the satisficing approach, incremental approach, organizational process, and political bargaining approach.

The major characteristics of the DM process identified in this book are: pluralistic, resource-allocative, consensus-seeking, problem-simplifying, and uncertainty-avoiding.