1. Strategic Planning When Engineers and Planners Work Together
Virginia Old Dominion
SWANA ANNUAL MEETING
April 27, 2017

2. Presentation Agenda
Introduction
Overview of transportation planning and its use for the solid waste industry
Case Study
Conclusions

3. Lessons from Transportation Planning
Public involvement and open decision making processes were not always standard
Interstate Highway Act led to large scale urban highway construction, and push back led to a formal planning process

4. Public Involvement
Proposed routes through urban areas prompts federal requirement in 1962 for transportation planning in urban areas larger than 50,000 people
Requirement of an organization to conduct this process (today call MPOs) in 1965
Today all metro areas must have a long- range transportation plan and an annual work program (construction & planning)
2 of the 5 core functions of an MPO are:
Establish a setting for decision making
Involve the general public

5. Performance Management
Recently, MAP-21 (federal law adopted in 2012) marked a major change towards more performance measurement/management
“Performance management will transform the Federal-aid highway program and provide a means to the most efficient investment of Federal transportation funds by refocusing on national transportation goals, increasing the accountability and transparency of the Federal-aid highway program, and improving project decision-making.” (FHWA)

6. Lynchburg Region Example
Performance management applied in the Lynchburg region in 2014 by the Central Virginia MPO
Reasons:
Demand outweighs available funding
Need for a transparent and objective process for evaluating projects
New federal and state laws and emphases
Main Tool
Project Evaluation Model
Assigns points to projects based on how they support achievement of goals (shaped by public)

7. Transportation and Solid Waste
Transportation may have dozens of projects competing for funding in a region
Transportation has a robust federal funding source with requirements
Everyone touches the transportation system each day
Plenty of data on transportation system performance
But the need for decision-support tools & transparent decision making is an overlap between the two

8. Case Study
RUSTBURG, VIRGINIA

9. The Current System R C TS Markets Appomattox Campbell Co. Regional
Landfill
Appomattox
Markets R C
Campbell Co.
Lynchburg
Nelson Co.
Other TS

11. Strategic Planning – The Vision
BENEFITS ANALYSIS
WORKING GROUP TO DETERMINE OPTIONS FOR EVALUATION
BENEFIT TO COST RATIO COMPARISON
INFORMED DECISION MAKING
TECHNICAL COST ANALYSIS

12. The Project Team REGION 2000 LOCAL GOVERNMENT COUNCIL
REGION 2000 SERVICES AUTHORITY
WORKING GROUP – members of each jurisdiction including Region 2000 representatives
CONSULTANTS – Draper Aden Associates, Renaissance Planning, Burns and McDonnell and Coker Composting
CITIZENS – input through website, surveys and meetings

13. Guiding Principles OPEN MINDED – to options and diverse perspectives
RESPONSIBLE – to our regional community, to our environment, and to our future
TRANSPARENT – in approach and in decision- making

14. Public Outreach Activities
Website (
Informational Forum
Focus Group meeting
Surveys
Interviews

15. Public Outreach Themes
Reduce waste and promote recycling
Responsibility to the region
Minimize impacts from landfills on nearby properties
Protect public health, environment, and quality of life
Cost effective solutions
Provide education on solid waste impacts and reduction
Waste as energy resource

16. Benefits Evaluation Process
Define Project Goals
Weight Goals
Determine Evaluation Criteria for each Goal
Weight Evaluation Criteria Specific to Each Goal
Develop
Measures

17. Goals and Goal Weighting
DESCRIPTION
WEIGHT
Reduce Waste
Minimize amount of waste sent to landfills or other disposal facilities through source reduction, education, and responsible waste management by all generators (residential, businesses, institutions, and industries).
35%
Flexibility
Develop flexible waste management program that is efficient, balanced and sustainable to meet changing needs and technologies.
25%
Responsible to Region
Minimize impacts to communities including fiscal and environmental resources throughout the Region.
Minimize Local Impacts
Minimize impacts on property owners and community within the vicinity of any solid waste management facility.
15%

18. Criteria and Criteria Weighting
GOAL
CRITERIA
WEIGHT
Reduce Waste
Reduce amount of waste disposed of in landfills
40%
Increase recycling and reuse
Enhanced educational programs
20%
Total
100%
Flexibility
Ability of option to adjust to changes in the solid waste management industry
45%
Ability of option to adjust to waste types or tonnages
35%
Simplicity of option for operations and administration
30%

19. Criteria And Criteria Weighting
GOAL
CRITERIA
WEIGHT
Responsible to Region
Reduce impact of option on natural resources
45%
Reduce financial risk to Authority and communities
35%
Commitment by local governments to option
20%
Total
100%
Minimize Local Impacts
Protect community resources
40%
Minimize infrastructure impacts
Compatible with local land use policy

20. Measurement – Example of scoring
AVAILABLE POINTS
SCORE
CRITERIA FACTOR
GOAL FACTOR
TOTAL
GOAL
REDUCE WASTE
35%
CRITERIA
Reduce Amount of Waste Disposed of in landfills
No reduction in tonnage landfilled
Reduction , 10% 20
Reduction % 60
Reduction > 25%
100
Subtotal
50%
17.5
Increase Recycling and reuse
No recycling required for option
Some recycling or reuse required 25
Significant recycling or reuse required 50
Does not simplify recycling
Simplifies recycling
4.4

21. Benefit analysis - Example
GOAL AND CRITERIA
Maximum Points
Waste to Energy
Transfer Station
Landfill
REDUCE WASTE (35%)
Reduce amount of waste disposed of in landfills
17.5
0.0
Increase recycling and reuse
4.4
13.1
FLEXIBILITY (25%)
Ability of option to adjust to changes in industry
11.3
5.6
Ability of option to adjust to waste types or tonnages
8.8
Simplicity of option for operations and administration
5.0
3.0
RESPONSIBLE TO REGION (25%)
Reduce impact on natural resources
3.9
8.4
2.9
Reduce financial risk to authority and communities
6.1
Commitment by local governments to option
MINIMIZE LOCAL IMPACTS (15%)
Protect community resources
6.0
Minimize infrastructure impacts
3.3
Compatible with local land use policy
BENEFIT TOTAL
100.0
33.2
52.0
42.3

22. Cost of Service - Example
OPTION
EXAMPLE
COST PER TON
DISPOSAL
Waste to Energy
$120
Landfill
$35
Transfer station
$65

23. Benefit to Cost Ratio – Example
ITEMS
Waste to Energy
Transfer Station
Landfill
Benefit ranking total
33.2
52.0
42.3
Cost of Service ($/ton) - Example
$120
$65
$35
Benefit to Cost ratio
0.28
0.80
1.21

24. Conclusions
Public involvement is critical for defining goals and objectives for planning purposes.
Benefit scoring appears to be a useful tool when considering technical options outside of costs.

25. Conclusions
Benefit to Cost ratio comparison appears to be a promising technique to marry technical cost evaluations with benefit scoring to provide an overall ranking of options.
This work takes time and commitment!

26. DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
Contact Information
DRAPER ADEN ASSOCIATES
Lynn P. Klappich, CSI, CCCA
RENAISSANCE PLANNING GROUP
Mike Callahan
Ext 315