Time for a small confession: I’m a habitual planner. I get enjoyment from laying out project schedules, I plan all my trips in detail, I relish the opportunity to map out strategic initiatives, I make a habit of thinking through meeting agendas—heck, I even plan my family activities (much to the annoyance of my free-spirited wife). I know that I get a lot of this from my father; he, too, was a habitual planner, and he ingrained in me the simple philosophy that proper planning prevents poor performance (yes, there are less tactful versions of that saying).
It will probably come as no surprise then, that when it comes to planning in transportation, I consider this a very noble profession (keep in mind, this comes from an engineer). It’s an absolutely critical need in every project, every initiative, and every staff delegation. We need plans, and we need planners to help establish them.
Benjamin Franklin coined the phrase “If you fail to plan, you are planning to fail.” What a powerful statement. I’ve encountered folks over the years that feel we over-plan transportation projects, and they point to the rather lengthy timelines associated with infrastructure projects. But let’s quickly bust that myth—most of those delays aren’t caused by planners doing their job; rather, they are caused by everyone trying to adhere to various regulations, procurement laws, fiscal constraints, and political desires.
How can planners be accused of “over-planning” when the expectations are so high? The public expects and requires a safe and efficient transportation system—but they also want it to be sustainable and equitable, while also supporting economic growth, improving quality of life, and enhancing environmental sustainability. Oh, and it must fit within a budget that someone likely outside the expertise has designated. Yowza, that’s a lot on the shoulders of our planning discipline!
And now you can add an additional dimension to the plate of our planning community—changing societal and/or federal requirements. Will there be changes in how funds are allocated (formula vs. grant vs. P3)? Will regulatory requirements change in a positive or negative direction? Will geopolitical progression impact project delivery?
My answer is that those details, while important, don’t change the core mission. Regardless of changes in society or U.S. federal policy, we still need plans. We still need safety to be at the top of the priority list. And we still need to consider the impacts that our transportation plans have on the end users—and their quality of life.
I know that seems like an oversimplification, because the devil is always in the details. But at the end of the day, we still need to incorporate a safety culture and people-first mentality into everything we do. Many of the steps we take—analyzing crash data, designing safety countermeasures, coordinating efforts with other stakeholders, considering safer facilities for pedestrians and bicycles—will not significantly change.
Those pesky details—funding, regulation, and political will—can continue to evolve in whatever direction they may decide to evolve. But if we focus on safety and people first, we’ll be able to more adequately address those changes and challenges. We’ll be able to eventually view them more as opportunities and less as barriers over time.
At the end of the day, the resilience isn’t just in the plans—it’s built into the Transportation Planners in our community of transportation professionals!