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
LRP-2
Approve Vision and Goals
Description: At this key decision, the community's values, whether stated as a vision and goals or simply agreed upon by the stakeholders for the planning area, are used to guide the transportation-specific vision and goals. This decision is the first opportunity for public stakeholders to inform the process, or provide their input. Linkages are also established with the scoping and goal-setting key decisions in corridor planning and environmental review, so the vision and goals approved at this key decision point should eventually influence what transportation projects are built. In order to facilitate collaboration, partnerships with other planning processes are established at this key decision.
There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step.
Purpose
To develop a common, comprehensive set of vision and goals for the planning area that incorporate the vision and goals from previous or existing plans, if applicable.
Outcome
Where no community vision and goals exist, transportation-specific vision and goals consistent with community values. Where a regional community vision and goals exists, transportation-specific goals for the planning area consistent with the regional vision and goals.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Advisor |
Ensures the LRTP reflects the community vision and goals |
MPO |
Decision Maker |
Ensures the LRTP is consistent with the larger regional vision and goals |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Support a vision and goals that protect the natural and human environment. Advise that ecological goals are considered and provide input on the priority conservation and restoration needs in the planning area and where partners may be able to work together to make a difference across multiple resources of concern. |
State DOT |
Advisor |
Provides state goals to inform regional goal development |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Analysis | • Amount of growth and type of growth that will be allocated in the planning area. • Changes in the land use plan/priorities since the last LRTP update. • How the recommended transportation vision and goals compare to the vision and goals of underlying land use plans. If smart growth principles will be integrated, analysis demonstrating that goals: • Are consistent with community visions and plans • Will produce greater mobility without expanding the road network • Support growth management • Support economic development • Support environmental preservation, conservation, and restoration • Support the equitable distribution of impacts and benefits • Support improved quality of life | Data | • Vision and goals from individual jurisdictional partners where available • Development trends • Comprehensive plans |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Analysis Between IEF Step 1 - Build & Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Vision, IEF Step 2 - Characterize Resource Status & Integrate Natural Environment Plans and LRP-2 | Data around ecological goals and priorities was collected at LRP-1. The ecological vision and goals coming from IEF Step 1 will be broad and high-level. The result of IEF Sub-step 2h is a combined map of ecological plans with conservation and restoration priorities identified. Both the high-level vision and goals, and more specific conservation and restoration priorities coming from these two IEF steps, should be analyzed here in order to develop a shared vision of compatible, complimentary regional goals for transportation and the environment and to identify where DOT conservation or restoration investments could make the greatest difference for watershed, species or ecoregional health and sustainability. | Decision Between IEF Step 1 - Build & Strengthen Collaborative Partnerships and Vision and LRP-2 | IEF Sub-step 1d is to "Develop a shared vision of regional goals for transportation, restoration, recovery and conservation." This is a shared decision - the ecological framework takes into account transportation goals and vice versa. |
| Capital Improvement | None. | None. |
| Safety and Security | Data | • Safety - visions and plans. • Security - Data partners contribute. |
| Human Environment | Data | The goals for the human environment and of individual groups of people in the region. | Analysis | Rationalization of goals from plans/groups. |
| Economic Development | Data | Goals relevant to economic development |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Information on the extent to which GHG emissions are a concern in the region, to identify goals that are reasonable to consider and to set objectives and targets related to GHG reduction. | Analysis | Inform decision makers on the potential effectiveness of strategies, objectives and targets. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-1 - Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process |
The vision and goals of the LRTP |
To inform the scope of the corridor planning process. |
COR-3 - Approve Goals for the Corridor |
The vision and goals of the LRTP |
To identify and acknowledge both consistencies and inconsistencies between the two phases |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-1 - Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review |
To inform the scope of the environmental review process. |
The vision and goals for the environmental review should be compared to the vision and goals of the LRTP. |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Are all of the partners willing to remain engaged in the planning process? |
Questions about stakeholders |
Do stakeholders agree on the potential use of P3 if there is a need for innovative sources of financing or revenues? |
Does this reflect a common understanding of the region's vision and goals? | |
How are stakeholder goals considered? | |
How did public input influence the visions and goals? (Not how the information was gathered, but how the information included the decision of the vision and goals.) | |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
What data are available from past fiscal analyses regarding availability of funding and revenues and how have these changed since the last plan? |
Questions about other phases |
How does this reflect previously established vision and goals? |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are there priority areas for conservation/restoration/mitigation that should be considered in the vision and goals? |
Are these visions and goals broad enough to address the transportation system, community, human and natural environment, and economic development? | |
How specifically should GHG goal statements be emphasized- on their own? Should they be integrated into a broader environmental goal? | |
How will GHG considerations be reflected in the long range plan vision and goal statement? | |
To what extent are smart growth principles to be included in the long range plan? | |
What existing economic/investment goals should the LRP be consistent with? | |
What is the source for future year economic forecasts and what assumptions are they based on? | |
What type of GHG information should be available to stakeholders to inform the goals setting process? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are you willing to be an active participant in the process of developing the LRTP? |
| How are your values like/unlike other values in the community? |
| How comfortable are you with the stated vision and goals? |
| Is private participation in LRP projects considered feasible and acceptable? |
| What do you see that works and doesn't work? |
| What is it that we need to be working toward? |
| What is it that you value? |
| What is it that you want? |
| Who are you representing? |
| Who is not at the table that should be? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are there any common interests? |
| Do the vision and goals of the plan reflect the broader community-wide vision and goals? |
| Does this reflect a common understanding of the region's vision and goals? |
| How are the transportation vision and goals consistent with the community values? |
| How challenging will it be to establish an acceptable common understanding of interests? |
| How do we use the vision and goals expressed by stakeholders? |
| What are the differences or conflicts among the interests? |
| What are the gaps in interests? |
| What are the risks if we can't establish a common set of vision and goals? |
| What could be the advantages and disadvantages/risks of using P3? |
| What input is missing? What more is needed? |
| What is the justification for each decision that we've made? |
| What surprises were there in the information we received? |
| Where are there conflicts between our interests and the interests of the stakeholders? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Public involvement data from previous long range plan update | Programming |
Available funding |
Data that shows whether current sources of revenue will be able to meet future transportation needs |
Corridor Planning |
Public involvement data from corridor planning efforts since the last plan update |
Goals developed in corridor planning where available |
Environmental Review |
Public involvement data from individual project efforts since the last plan update |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Vision and goals from individual jurisdictional partners where available | Outcomes of any visioning processes that have been conducted in the region |
Development trends |
Comprehensive plans from local jurisdictions |
Smart growth principles |
Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Shared vision of regional goals for transportation, restoration, recovery and conservation (a result of analysis between transportation and ecological planning) |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
Safety -- visions and plans |
Security - data partners contribute |
Human Environment |
Goals for the human environment and of individual groups of people in the region |
Economic Development |
Economic goals, if available |
Greenhouse Gas |
Data to illustrate the extent to which GHG emissions are a significant concern to the nation, state, and/or region |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis regarding the reconciliation of various vision and goals from the region | |
Analysis to draw the transportation specific visions and goals from the broader regional vision and goals | ||
Previously conducted fiscal analyses or economic studies | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Identified stakeholder visions and goals from formal groups and general public awareness. | |
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 |
Gathering |
None |
Analysis |
GIS Tools: Used to overlay the geographic extents of past LRTP plans on one map, in order to identify common interests and conflicts among stakeholders. |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||
| Streamlining a Bottleneck Project |
|
||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||