Minnesota's district/area transportation partnership process : volume II : case studies and other perspectives
Gary DeCramer, James MacGillis, Wendy Klancher, Mara Krinke, Robert Johns
Report no. Mn/DOT 1997-03
The University of Minnesota's Center for Transportation Studies conducted a study on Minnesota's district/area transportation process (ATP). Building upon existing planning processes, the ATPs involve a broad range of transportation professionals, elected officials, special interest groups, and the public in developing the State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP).
Volume II of this study includes eight case studies that report the data heard from the members of the eight ATPs. It also contains other perspectives from the point of view of the Minnesota Department of Transportation's (Mn/DOTs) Central Office, non-ATP members and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) directors. The case study information is organized around these key features: project selection and ranking process, ATP membership make-up, boundary issues, financial data, goals, relationships with regional entities and local units of government, the role of elected officials, and the public involvement process.
Through eight case studies, one for each district/ATP, and a cross-case analysis, the study documents information gathered from ATP members and representatives from Mn/DOT on the key features of the ATP process. A summary of the perceived strengths and challenges for the three themes of partnership, prioritization, and planning shows that several of the strengths and challenges appear more than once across the three themes.
As the ATPs and Mn/DOT explore the possibility of future changes, the cross-cutting issues in the ATP process are: the composition of ATP membership; the nature of public involvement; decentralized decision making; enhancement projects; ranking regional significance; intermodalism; urban and rural tension; fiscal constraint; and the role of planning in the ATP process.
Volume I of the report includes the cross-comparison of ATP processes and practices, findings from the common characteristics of the research data, and issues and challenges identified by ATP members in the interviews.