Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portals
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Applications - Stakeholder Collaboration
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
COR-6
Approve Range of Solution Sets
Description: A range of approved solution sets for the corridor results from this key decision. The range of solution sets is influenced by the preferred plan scenario in the LRTP and helps to define the full range of alternatives to be evaluated during environmental review.
There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step. In order to effectively execute this key decision there is essential information created at COR-2 related to problems and opportunities and COR-3, goals for the corridor.
Purpose
To determine a range of solutions for the identified problems and opportunities that can include transportation, community, and environment goals.
Outcome
A set of solutions for the corridor that can address the identified problems and opportunities.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Advisor |
Ensures the range of solutions considered is inclusive and consistent with accepted plans |
MPO |
Decision Maker (urban), No Role (rural) |
Approves a range of solution sets that meet the needs and opportunities within the corridor including non-transportation options |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Support the use of a combined map of conservation priorities, land uses and solutions sets, if available. Support solution sets that avoid conservation, restoration and enhancement priority areas. |
State DOT |
Advisor (urban), Decision Maker (rural) |
Ensures the process is broadly inclusive with options that may be implemented |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Data | Land use scenarios that are supported by land use stakeholders as potential solutions |
| Air Quality Conformity | Analysis | Improvements to the corridor in the adopted air quality analysis |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data From IEF Step 3 - Create Regional Ecosystem Framework | The combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities from IEF Step 3 should inform the solution sets developed in corridor planning and approved in COR-6. |
| Analysis Between IEF Step 3 - Create Regional Ecosystem Framework and COR-6 | These sub steps listed in the IEF are the integrated analysis involving this key decision: Sub-step 3a - Overlay solution sets and combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities; Sub-step 3b and c - Show and record areas and resources potentially impacted by transportation improvements and potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities; Sub-step 3d - Distribute combined conservation and transportation priorities map layer. This integration cannot occur until there are some solution sets, but it is possible that plan solution sets could be fatally flawed and eliminated through this analysis. Note that the IEF specifies the integration of long range plan scenarios at this step. This link has been revised here to demonstrate that this could be done during corridor planning. | |
| Capital Improvement | Analysis | Information related to the type, location, and prioritizations of improvements included in approved capital improvement plans. |
| Safety and Security | Data | GIS layers or field survey data as well as safety and security plans that inform potential impacts |
| Human Environment | Data | GIS layers or field survey data as well as community characteristics that inform potential human environment impacts |
| Economic Development | Data | Information on economic development implications (or constraints) of various strategies. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Information on GHG reduction strategies as potential solutions, including comparison of benefits, emissions reduction levels, cost-effectiveness, and planning-level cost for each strategy. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
From Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-7 - Approve Plan Scenarios |
Information used in long range planning to eliminate scenarios or specific project concepts within the corridor |
To support consideration of a full range of solutions while precluding those solutions that are inconsistent with region-wide multi-modal improvements |
LRP-10 - Adopt LRTP by MPO |
Information related to the corridor from the preferred plan scenario and the conformity analysis |
To influence the range of solutions that should be considered during the corridor planning process |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-6 - Approve Full Range of Alternatives |
Information on the range of solutions identified for the corridor planning process |
To help define the range of alternatives for consideration during environmental review/ permitting. |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
For P3 projects, was the private sector partner involved in the identification of solution sets? |
What partners were involved in the development of the solution sets? | |
Questions about stakeholders |
Is there support and/or a potential implementing sponsor for the individual solutions? |
What stakeholders were involved in the development of the solution sets? | |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Do the solution sets address mobility and accessibility needs beyond the identified deficiencies? |
Does the feasibility of the solution set consider the number of proposed P3 projects and their schedules for delivery? | |
How well do the solution sets address system performance and safety? | |
How well do the solution sets balance mode choices? | |
In what ways does the inclusion of P3 projects affect the consideration of solution sets? | |
Is the range of solution sets broad enough to address corridor goals? | |
Is there data on the level and timeline of private sector funding or revenues that are anticipated? | |
What is the justification for eliminating each solution set? | |
Questions about other phases |
How does this relate to LRTP adopted preferred scenario? |
What is the potential impact on the adopted LRTP including air quality conformity and fiscal constraint? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are any solution sets fatally flawed from an ecological perspective? From an economic development perspective? |
Are the solution sets supportive of land use goals? | |
Are there interactive effects that should be considered, that is, strategies that work better in combination, or alternatively, work against each other? | |
Are there potential strategies that extend beyond transportation decision making? If so, do they require more analysis or study? | |
Have smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion and conformity been considered? | |
Have we ensured that the P3 projects being considered are consistent with the community's land use and economic development vision? | |
Have we identified how each solution will impact the ability to meet our goals with regard to conservation? | |
How cost-feasible are these strategies when combined or when treated separately? | |
How should strategies that show impacts over varying time scales (in the short, medium, and long term) be combined to produce the desired impact on GHG emissions? | |
How were our land use scenarios derived? What are the underlying assumptions? | |
How will individual solutions impact the ability to meet economic development goals? | |
What corridor investment strategies or other actions that contribute to GHG emissions reduction should be included as part of the solution sets? | |
What is the authority or ability of involved agencies to implement specific GHG reduction solutions in the corridor? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are there individual solutions that would be unacceptable? |
| Do you see other combinations of solutions that should be considered? |
| What are the individual solutions that should be included to achieve the goals? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Based on preliminary land use and environmental screening, are any of the solution sets fatally flawed? |
| Did the stakeholders have strong opposition to any of our suggested solution sets? If so, what was the strong opposition? |
| Did the stakeholders identify missing solutions or solution sets? If so, how did we address that? |
| What solution sets did the stakeholders suggest? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Information used in long range planning to eliminate scenarios or specific project concepts within the corridor | Information related to the corridor from the preferred plan scenario and the conformity analysis |
Programming |
Identified cost and schedule for funded projects within the corridor |
Estimated costs of proposed P3 projects |
Corridor Planning |
COR-2: Problems and opportunities |
COR-3: Approved goals for the corridor |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Land use scenarios that are supported by land use partners as potential solutions | Smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion, and conformity (as applicable) |
Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
GIS layers or field survey data as well as safety and security plans that inform potential impacts |
Human Environment |
GIS layers or field survey data as well as community characteristics that inform potential human environment impacts |
Economic Development |
Potential types of economic development implications or constraints of various strategies |
Greenhouse Gas |
Relative importance of GHG-reduction benefits compared to benefits of other potential corridor solutions |
Level of GHG-reduction and cost-effectiveness for each strategy or combination of strategies evaluated |
Sketch-level planning cost for GHG reduction strategies potentially included in scenarios |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Data to support identification of any fatally flawed or unreasonable solutions | |
Screening of individual solutions considered to identify those that do not address the approved problems and opportunities for the corridor | ||
Documentation of all screening in order to inform the environmental review process as to eliminated solutions | ||
Unified GIS data systems (e.g. regional land information systems) | ||
Planning symposia for collecting information | ||
Impact of P3 on number of proposed projects, timing of delivery, and feasibility of solution set | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Stakeholder and public involvement data | |
From public private partnership |
No Specific Data | |
The following is a list of data needed to support the key decision. Practitioners collect this information for decision makers to consider. You may add to this list using the comment box at the bottom of the page. Supporting Tools and Technology | |
|---|---|
Category |
Detail |
Analysis |
GIS Tools: Used to project solution sets geographically, allowing stakeholders to identify and eliminate fatally-flawed alternatives. |
Technical Analysis Tools: Used to study the land use impacts of solution sets at the corridor level. Modeling software can examine the trade-offs between land use and transportation. |
|
Financial Planning Tools: Used to estimate the costs of proposed solution sets, in order to identify any sets that are unrealistic given funding options. Although this analysis is complex because solution sets are bundles of individual projects, tools allow comparison across sets. |
|
• Site-level methods for quantifying functions and ecosystem service (e.g. Ecometrix) |
|
Communication |
Visualization Tools: Used to graphically display collected information on corridor performance, including traffic flows and level of service. For example, a "bandwidth plot" is a useful tool for presenting performance data to decision-makers. |
Documentation Tools: Used to structure and document the decision-making process, for later reference either in subsequent key decisions or for outside inspection/challenge. Many decision-support packages include documentation functionality. |
|
• Web service based GIS for sharing datasets |
|
Gathering |
Database Tools: Used to search through databases for information on past plans and programs. |
Commenting Tools: To gather stakeholder information and get more information |
|
Technical Analysis Tools: Used to access and aggregate input data from a variety of sources to aid in analysis and validation |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||