Lancaster County Planning’s Post

Many have already reported on the consultation on the proposed reforms to the NPPF, and I hope that many fellow professionals will respond to the 106(!) questions asked. My fellow Board members at the Transport Planning Society definitely intend to. A personal view on that all important change to paragraph 113 (was 115): “Development should only be prevented or refused on highways grounds if there would be an unacceptable impact on highway safety, or the residual cumulative impacts on the road network would be severe, in all tested scenarios”. The change will continue to lead to controversy unless we can define and quantify what ‘unacceptable’ and ‘severe’ mean. That’s probably ultimately for policymakers to decide, but we as expert transport planners should be able to help them and inspectors out. Some suggestions, and open for discussion: 1.        an increase in road-based travel times of x minutes (say, 2 minutes) for all road users on the worst affected road or junction 2.       An increase of x% (say 20%) or y (say 120 vph) on the worst affected road 3.       Different values outside schools and other places where road users outside of metal boxes are more vulnerable Modelling can provide inputs and the discussion should focus on exceptions. Can we do this? Do you have alternative suggestions? Should we do this? https://lnkd.in/eVDSDYvG

Great to see proposed changes to the NPPF which promote a vision led approach and a recommendation that development is only refused if highway impacts are severe in all scenarios. Hopefully this will result in a shift away from the default testing of the worst case scenario to drive better outcomes for communities and the environment.

Great to see proposed changes to the NPPF which promote a vision led approach and a recommendation that development is only refused if highway impacts are severe in all scenarios. Hopefully this will result in a shift away from the default testing of the worst case scenario to drive better outcomes for communities and the environment.

At the November 21 meeting of the Boston Region MPO, the board voted to release Amendment Four to the 2025–29 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and Amendment One to Destination 2050, the MPO's Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), for 21-day public comment periods concluding on December 13. Amendment Four to the TIP proposes two cost changes to the Statewide Highway Program and the programming of the Roxbury Resilient Corridors grant for the City of Boston. Amendment Four also includes a 17-project bundle for which the MBTA is pursuing a federal discretionary grant for Green Line improvements. Amendment One to the LRTP incorporates the 17-project bundle for the MBTA to pursue a federal discretionary grant for Green Line improvements. The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) requires applicants to include project bundles in the regional TIP and LRTP before applying. If awarded the grant, project outcomes could include accessibility and capacity improvements. TIP Amendment Four: bit.ly/25-29-TIP-amdt4  LRTP Amendment One: bit.ly/LRTP-Amdt-1 Submit feedback: bostonmpo.org/contact/tip and bostonmpo.org/contact/lrtp

The Rhode Island Division of Statewide Planning (RIDSP) is working on a limited update of our state’s long-range transportation plan (LRTP). An LRTP is a federally-required plan that sets the vision for a multi-modal transportation system – our roads, bridges, public transit, bike paths, sidewalks, ports, and more - over a minimum of 20 years. Your valuable feedback will help identify the state’s needs, challenges, and opportunities, informing the vision, strategies, and projects included in the final plan. https://hubs.ly/Q02KQJlL0

Feature Presentation at Infraday Midwest - September 10 - Chicago - www.infraday.com/mw - "Evaluating Statewide Road Funding and Pavement Condition" - Many state-level highway policy discussions include comparing states in terms of funding levels and system condition. The Citizens Research Council of Michigan has created a composite Pavement Condition Index combining multiple pavement condition metrics reported by the Federal Highway Administration using the latest available data. They have also created a composite Road Funding Index using highway programs funding data from 2012 to 2021. Evaluation of these Index scores suggests a wide range in the ability of states to best utilize their funding levels to obtain quality road conditions. They have concluded that factors unrelated to funding may be more controlling in achieving a good quality road network. This will be presented by Eric Paul Dennis, Research Associate of Infrastructure Policy, Citizens Research Council of Michigan.

Credit to Robert Siy in LinkedIn March 31, 2024 Is San Miguel Corporation (SMC) telling the public that PAREX has been dropped, while proceeding With an elevated expressway above the Pasig River under another project name? https://lnkd.in/gdM56spX Southeast Metro Manila Expressway (SEMME or Skyway 4) Compared With PAREX If San Miguel Corporation (SMC) and Ramon Ang are sincere in responding to public feedback, they should state categorically that they will not be building any tollways above the Pasig River. Upon close examination of other SMC tollway projects it appears that its other tollways are being redesigned to traverse the same major sections of the Pasig River that SMC claims to no longer be pursuing when it announced that it would abandon the Pasig River Expressway (PAREX) The website of the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) describes the status of the Southeast Metro Manila Expressway (SEMME, also known as Skyway 4), a tollway project of SMC approved by the Toll Regulatory Board. In the.Project Map shown below, it appears that the project has been realigned--replacing the original red section below by the purple section which traverses part of the PAREX alignment. Please note that the above encircled portion of SEMME is identical to PAREX Segment 3 (see map attached below), a 6.3 kilometer elevated expressway above the Pasig River. Is SMC telling the public that PAREX has been dropped, while proceeding with an elevated expressway above the Pasig River under another project name?

Rachel Ellison, our managing director of advisory recently represented Mott MacDonald at Transforming Infrastructure Live, hosted by the Institution of Civil Engineers (ICE). Rachel shared invaluable insights on “How can leaders cascade and drive better performance across infrastructure?” She discussed the significance of the government's proposed 10-year infrastructure plan in boosting economic growth, the necessity of public and private sector collaboration and a systems thinking approach to fully realize societal benefits, and how digital advancements and data are empowering infrastructure leaders to make optimal decisions. Additionally, she highlighted the essential skills and capabilities for the future of the infrastructure sector. Rachel remarked that the event was “ a great opportunity to come together with other industry leaders to debate and help shape the future of infrastructure delivery in the UK.”

"The underlying reason for the significant development of infrastructure across these islands in the first half of the last century was the public consensus behind it. There is no such consensus now...Neither changing the criteria for Judicial Review nor a 900 page Planning Act will 'unblock' the planning process. In fact, the latter might achieve the opposite." #Planning #Housing #Infrastructure

From the Cab, Carolinas Association for Passenger Trains May 2024 newsletter (shared with permission) Martin Wheeler, President Don Yehle, Editor What If NC Received Additional Funding for Its Corridor Studies? TRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE AND ACCELERATION ACT: S 821 Senate Bill S 821, currently in the NC Senate's Rules Committee, aims to provide additional funding on top of the $500,000 per corridor already allotted through the FRA's Corridor ID Program. No local match is required. This legislation seeks to increase funding for FRA Corridor ID projects on 7 corridors in North Carolina. If passed, each corridor, including Wilmington to Raleigh, would receive an extra one million dollars. Those interested in showing support should reach out to the Governor, State Representatives, and Senators, especially members of Transportation Committees. It would also be appropriate to seek support from City Councils, County Commissions, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Rural Planning Organizations, and Chambers of Commerce. The seven proposed rail corridors are: - Charlotte to Washington, D.C. - Charlotte to Atlanta, GA - Charlotte to Kings Mountain - Winston Salem to Raleigh - Fayetteville to Raleigh - Wilmington to Raleigh - Asheville to Salisbury https://lnkd.in/gXyk8sQG