Resume

Scott E. White

EDUCATION

California State University, Chico

Graduate Program, Rural and Town Planning. 27.0 semester units. 1991-1994.

Bachelor of Science, Business Administration. May 1990.

Second Major, Economics (Honors Program).

Academic Honors and Achievements:

Graduated Magna Cum Laude.

Beta Gamma Sigma, Phi Kappa Phi, Phi Eta Sigma, Omicron Delta Epsilon.

Management Training Program, California Department of Transportation. Spring 2007.

Additional Training:

Various courses in supervision, classification and pay, budgets, negotiation, environmental justice, CEQA, travel demand forecasting, modeling, highway capacity analysis, geometric design, traffic engineering.

PLANNING EMPLOYMENT HISTORY

Senior Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation, District 2. 6/02 – 7/20.

Associate Transportation Planner, California Department of Transportation, District 2. 6/00 – 6/02.

Associate Planner II, Trinity County, Weaverville, CA. 3/98 – 6/00.

Associate Planner, Trinity County, Weaverville, CA. 3/96 – 3/98.

Assistant Planner, Trinity County, Weaverville, CA. 9/94 – 9/96.

EXPERIENCE

Twenty-six years in land use and transportation planning.

Knowledge and Experience with Caltrans Planning Functions:

Had the opportunity to work with/perform all of the functions within the Division of Planning and Local Assistance in District 2 – both at the local agency and State level.

Regional Planning/Intergovernmental Review:

During time with Trinity County, worked closely with counterpart in the District 2 Office of Regional Planning to perform all of the planning functions required of a regional agency.  At Caltrans, supervised the Office of Regional and System Planning for two years prior to the split into two separate offices.  Regional Planning efforts included transit programs and grants, Overall Work Program oversight, invoicing, regular attendance at agency meetings, and coordination of local and State plans and projects. Led the District’s review and response to traffic studies and environmental documents prepared by local agencies during this time and continued to provide technical support after the offices were separated.

Local Assistance:

During time with Trinity County, worked closely with the District 2 Office of Local Assistance to complete the allocation/authorization process for State/Federal-aid projects. While with Caltrans District 2, coordinated review of Regional Transportation Plans with the District Local Assistance Engineer and staff.

Advance Planning:

While with Trinity County, prepared the consultant RFP and then coordinated preparation of the Project Study Report for the State Route 3 Central Hayfork Improvement Project with the District 2 Office of Advance Planning. Upon employment with Caltrans District 2, assisted the Office Chief for Advance Planning with the delivery of the project (which won a statewide award for partnership and delivery). System Planning staff worked closely with Advance Planning staff to develop planning-level cost estimates, evaluate improvement alternatives, and identify concept cross sections for inclusion in Transportation Concept Reports (TCRs) and other special studies.

System Planning:

For eighteen years, led the District 2 System Planning team in preparation of TCRs, the District 2 Cycling Guide, corridor management plans and other special studies. Performed hiring, coaching, training, evaluating and other staff supervisory functions.  Served as the District lead for the California Transportation Plan/California Interregional Blueprint, locally sponsored fee studies for highway and interchange improvements, and origin/destination studies. Reviewed operational analysis and proposed projects in RTPs prepared by regional agencies.  System Planning products and efforts were recognized for quality and innovation by both the District and Headquarters.  Held meetings throughout the seven counties of District 2, in communities ranging from a few hundred residents to the largest city in District 2 – Redding.

Relationships with other District and Headquarters Functions:

Successful delivery of System Planning products required close coordination and cooperation with other functions/offices in the District and Headquarters. Particularly strong working relationships included: Traffic Management, Traffic Engineering and Operations, Traffic Investigations, Right of Way and Permits.  Represented the planning division on numerous PDT’s for development of capital projects.  Headquarters functions worked with frequently included the Office of State Planning, Office of Community Planning, Office of System and Freight Planning and the Division of Transportation System Information. Was responsible for negotiating the District Agreement with the Division of Transportation System Information and administering the District 2 allocation in the 20.40.020 Program, including preparation and monitoring of cross allocations to other functions.

District and Department Management and Policy:

Participated in a wide range of management and policy activities, including planning succession and rotation plans, response/action plans for employee surveys, expectation agreements, cross allocation agreements, activity plans, performance contracts, and deputy and district directives. Regularly served as a team facilitator and presenter for the Transportation Planning Academy.

Lead participation in the development of DD-64-R1 and the Complete Streets Implementation Action Plan, worked closely with District 2 Traffic Engineering and Operations in development of District Directive DP-09 (Freeway Ramp Meter Implementation) and the District 2 Ramp Meter Development Plan.  Participated in the Department response to the Legislative Analyst Office review of the 40 Program including establishment of workload standards, assisted the Office of Professional Development with preparation of the exam for Associate Transportation Planner, facilitated annual Division response for the Title VI Accomplishment Report, and represented  District 2 on the statewide team to update the System Planning Guidelines.

Grant Administration and Contract Management:

Wrote and administered a number of task orders and grants for projects in the District including: three Planning Public Participation Contract Task Orders (Title VI Groups/Organizations Database, TCR Brochure, District 2 Cycling Guide); two Planning Public Engagement Contract Task Orders (update and web enable the District 2 Cycling Guide, Building a Bicycle Transportation Partnership in Your Area workshops); two projects under the California Multiple Award Schedule funded by the headquarters Office of Advance System Planning (I-5 Origin and Destination Traffic Study, Almanor Regional Transportation Assessment Financial Analysis); and, in the State Planning and Research Program (Fix 5 – Interstate 5 Fee Program Study).  Actively participated in the performance of the subject projects.  Received a Gold Superior Accomplishment Award for outstanding leadership on the Fix 5 study.

Innovation:

Had the opportunity to identify and participate in a number of innovative projects while leading the Office of System Planning, including:

Transportation Concept Reports:

Initiated the concept of documenting regional agency participation in development of Transportation Concept Reports (TCRs) within the report itself, typically via a “Resolution of Concurrence” adopted by each regional agency involved as well as signature by the agency’s executive on the report signature sheet.  Also carefully documented and included all public participation activities undertaken as part of the TCR development.  Championed expanding the scope of TCRs to logical termini beyond District 2 boundaries to enhance the District’s opportunity to build partnerships and secure funding for projects.

299/44/36/395 Corridor Management Plan –

This document was prepared so that Caltrans District 2 could complete for Corridor Mobility Improvement Account (CMIA) funds. The plan looked at the entire Focus Route corridor from US 101 in Humboldt County to Reno, Nevada. This comprehensive study of the corridor required close coordination with Caltrans District 1 and the Nevada Department of Transportation. By looking at the entire corridor rather than only the portion within District 2, it allowed display of strategic past and current investments that added portions of the corridor to the Surface Transportation Assistance Act Network and identified the remaining areas that require improvement to open the entire corridor.

US 395 Transportation Concept Report –

This document determined that public and agency interest continues in completion of US 395 to a four-lane expressway standard from Susanville, CA to Reno, NV.  The report evaluated growth in and around Susanville, the smaller communities along US 395 and the suburbs north of Reno, NV as well as potential for expansion of the Sierra Army Depot.  The report proposed a novel approach for expansion to four-lanes by using a combination of SHOPP and STIP funds to build a series of new two-lane sections at expressway standard to avoid most traffic control costs, then later rehab and upgrade the original two-lane highway to expressway standard again with minimal traffic control costs.

State Route 36 Transportation Concept Report –

This document evaluated the entire route from US 101 in Humboldt County (Caltrans District 1) to its termini at US 395 in Lassen County. It is important that this report included the portion of SR 36 in District 1, as the most significant constraint west of I-5 (a six-mile section with total paved width of 20 feet and no centerline stripe) was located in Humboldt County. Worked closely with District 1 to document the priority of improvement of this section to residents in District 2 (especially Trinity County) while not adversely affecting the Humboldt County Association of Governments authority to establish priorities for highway improvements within its region. This effort helped secure funding for District 1 under the Federal Highway Administration Public Lands Highway Discretionary Program.

State Route 99 Transportation Concept Report -

California has invested billions of dollars over the past twenty years to bring the SR 99/SR 70 corridor to four-lane expressway standard from Sacramento to Chico.  Until this report, no planning had been completed to finish this concept north from Chico to I-5.  The report evaluated three options for ultimate development to four-lane expressway standard: existing alignment, South Avenue alignment, and new alignment.  A number of evaluation factors were used, with the primary two being level-of-service and travel-time under existing and year-twenty conditions.  The intent of the report was not to drive an immediate conclusion as to preferred option, rather it is intended to inform development and update of local, regional and state-level land use and transportation plans to evaluate and select a preferred option to guide future transportation decisions and land development.

Interstate 5 Transportation Concept Report –

This report included information and topics that are not usually found in concept reports. It involved Districts 2 and 3, headquarters, ODOT and the FHWA.  It included a section on Management and Corridor Funding, planning level cost estimates for expansion to six lanes between the cities of Red Bluff and Redding, freeway cross sections and prioritization for expansion based on projected Level of Service. This report highlighted the growing congestion issues on I-5 and the importance it has to the region. It also served as the framework upon which the Fix 5 – Interstate 5 Fee Program Study was built.

Fix 5 – Interstate 5 Fee Program Study:

This study developed a proposed regional cumulative traffic impact fee program for expansion of I-5 between the City of Red Bluff (Tehama County) and the City of Redding (Shasta County). Worked closely with the Directors of the Tehama County Transportation Commission and Shasta County Regional Transportation Planning Agency (SCRTPA) as well as the Deputy District Director for Planning and Local Assistance to craft an application for State Planning and Research Part 1 funding. Managed the approved grant, assisted with consultant selection and worked closely with two regional agencies, two counties and five cities during development of the study. While the fee program was not adopted, the study played a critical role in the decision by the SCRTPA to identify I-5 as the priority for Regional Improvement Program funding. The study was a key factor in securing discretionary funding from the CMIA for multiple projects on I-5 within District 2.

I-5 Origin and Destination Study:

A critical point of contention during the Fix 5 – Interstate 5 Fee Program Study was the level of interregional traffic using I-5 within the project study area. Administered a contract to prepare an origin and destination study to determine local, intraregional and interregional traffic on State facilities in Northern Tehama County and Southern Shasta County. Worked with the consultant to develop the study and data collection points in order to track traffic moving through the study area gateways and within the study area. The study utilized portable count and video equipment to record license plates and special video recognition software to compare license plates at all gateways. The study found that the majority of traffic on State facilities in the study area was local and intraregional. To report study findings, a multifold colored brochure was used to display study methodology and conclusions in a format that non-technical officials and citizens could easily understand.

South Avenue Origin Destination Study:

During development of the Project Report for the South Avenue Interchange Reconstruction Project, staff of the Tehama County Transportation Commission (TCTC) asked the District to identify the portion of interregional traffic utilizing the interchange. TCTC staff wished to use this information to negotiate for Interregional Improvement Program funding for construction. Prepared a task order for consultant services and conducted study of traffic traveling between I-5 and SR 99 via South Avenue as well as other alternative travel paths and three interchanges. The study found that 15 percent of the traffic on South Avenue near SR 99 was going to or from I-5. This was substantially lower than the TCTC estimate of 50 percent and significantly strengthened the Department’s position during subsequent negotiations that Regional Improvement Program funds should be used for construction.

Almanor Regional Transportation Assessment:

This study evaluated impacts from current and potential future development in the vicinity of Lake Almanor in Northern Plumas County and Southwestern Lassen County. In this study, planning areas from the two separate counties were combined into a single study area based on proximity to the lake and transportation facilities. Worked with the Planning Department of each county to identify the likely level of development in twenty years and also at full build-out of all lands designated for development in the study area. Worked with the respective Public Works Departments to then identify associated traffic levels, impacts and needed facilities for year twenty and build-out. By identifying the transportation system needed at full build-out, the number of “throw-away” improvements proposed for year twenty was minimized.

During this study, administered a consultant contract to prepare a financial analysis of options to fund the identified improvements. This analysis looked at both existing and potential new sources of revenue. The three new revenue sources identified as having the most potential were Transient Occupancy Tax, Traffic Impact Fee, and Development Tax. Given the cost of the improvements identified at build-out, the Executive Steering Committee asked for evaluation of scenarios that would require lower levels of investment. Determined that the best way to achieve this would be to identify the improvements needed under three different level-of-service goals. While the agencies did not elect to adopt a new revenue program upon completion of the study, they did agree that greater emphasis would need to be given to consideration of potential transportation impacts when development projects are proposed in the future. Subsequently, several developers used the study to help identify the development’s contribution to cumulative impacts and establish a mitigation fee for those impacts.