Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships
- User Portal
- Applications
Transportation Phases
- Long Range Transportation Planning
- Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint
- Corridor Planning
- Environmental Review Merged with Permitting
Decision Guide Basics
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
LRP-3
Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures
Description: At this key decision the evaluation criteria, methods and measures are approved that will allow decision-makers to compare scenarios to the vision and goals and to one another. The evaluation criteria, methods and measures are developed with input and data from both partners of other planning processes and stakeholders. The evaluation criteria, methods and measures used in long range transportation planning inform those used in both corridor planning and environmental review in order to ensure consistency across the entire transportation decision making process.
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 LRP-1 related to land use, natural environment, and air quality partners and supporting plans.
Purpose
To provide a reasonable and measurable basis for:
• The creation of scenarios that represent the identified strategies and
• The comparison of scenarios in order to select the preferred scenario.
Evaluation criteria and measures should include consideration of the identified goals and objectives for the plan and vision for the region.
Outcome
The specific criteria, methods, and requirements that will be used to compare strategies and scenarios so that the adopted plan will meet the approved goals for the planning area.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
MPO |
Decision Maker |
Approves evaluation criteria that allows a broad comparison between scenarios and with respect to the goals and needs as well as transportation options |
FHWA |
Observer |
Observes that all pertinent criteria are included in the evaluation of scenarios |
State DOT |
Advisor |
Provides an understanding of state data to support criteria and performance measures |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Support the use of evaluation criteria, methods and measures that apply to protection of the environment and incorporate environmental planning. Support the use of an environmental crediting strategy. |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use | Decision | What: To integrate land use and transportation Purpose: To include land use criteria in the evaluation criteria and performance measures There is an essential partnership needed in order to combine land use and transportation decisions. |
| Data | • Specific evaluation criteria, measures, and analysis methods • Source, type and magnitude of current and anticipated future impact | |
| Air Quality | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment | Data Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and LRP-3 | The key point demonstrated by this link between the Decision Guide and IEF is that environmental factors are considered in the evaluation criteria, methods and measures that are part of the LRTP. At IEF Sub-step 4a the relative importance of resource types are weighed. Information should be shared between LRP-3 and Sub-step 4a to inform the evaluation criteria in transportation decision making or the weighting criteria in ecological planning. |
| Analysis Between IEF Step 6 - Develop Crediting Strategy and LRP-3 | At Step 6 in the IEF, the environmental setting is evaluated and a determination is made about the type of credit or debit tool (measurement system) to use. The primary goal for any crediting system is to capture the environmental impacts or benefits in a common unit that bridges different activities, times and geographies. The crediting strategy should inform evaluation criteria and measures in long range planning and later phases of decision making. | |
| Capital Improvement | Data | • Evaluation criteria from the infrastructure point of view. • Current economic sensitivities |
| Analysis | • Rationalization of how the evaluation criteria from capital improvement can be brought into long range transportation planning. • Prioritization of what is important to capital improvement planning. | |
| Safety and Security | Data | • Safety - Visions and plans. • Security - Data the partners bring. |
| Human Environment | Data | Evaluation criteria from the human environment perspective. For example, this might include criteria surrounding population sub-groups, community resources, or other valued aspects of the human environment. |
| Analysis | • Rationalization of how the evaluation criteria from human environment planning processes can be brought into long range transportation planning. • Prioritization of what is important from the human environment (where available). |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-5 - Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures |
Evaluation criteria, methods, and measures used in long range planning |
To inform those developed in corridor planning to ensure that decision making is consistent across phases |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-6 - Approve Full Range of Alternatives |
Evaluation criteria, methods, and measures used in long range planning |
To inform those developed in environmental review to ensure that decision making is consistent across phases |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Are the evaluation criteria and measures clearly understandable and meaningful to the full range of partners? |
Questions about stakeholders |
Are the evaluation criteria and measures clearly understandable and meaningful to the full range of stakeholders? |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are the evaluation criteria and measures broad enough to reflect the full range of goals we approved as well as allow a full range of strategies? |
Are the evaluation criteria and measures effective to differentiate between scenarios? | |
Are there appropriate tools, technology, and data to support the evaluation criteria? | |
Questions about other phases |
No specific questions. |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are the evaluation criteria, methods and measures consistent with any criteria, methods and measures identified through ecological planning and/or an agreed-upon ecological crediting strategy? |
By what year are the target emission levels to be achieved and how can this inform the design of scenarios proposed for different plan years? | |
If applicable, what is the gap between the baseline GHG emissions and the target GHG emission levels? | |
Is a target GHG emission reduction established externally under state or federal requirements? Will one be established internally? | |
Is there agreement on which plans and data will be used in the assessment? | |
To what extent does the agency have "control" over the factors that influence the measure outcome? | |
What are the key social, demographic, and technological factors influencing future GHG emission levels? | |
What GHG evaluation measures will be used to evaluate transportation investment strategies and scenarios? For example, CO2, CO2 equivalent, GHG per capita, or VMT, as a proxy? | |
What is the capacity of the agency’s analysis methods to produce this information? | |
What will be the baseline for measuring GHG emissions reduction? For example, business as usual or GHG emissions in a given year, like 2010? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| How will you be able to know we have achieved good performance on this goal? |
| What does this goal mean to you (What are your requirements)? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are the evaluation criteria or measures suggested by stakeholders actionable or implementable? |
| Are there conflicts in the stakeholder interests? |
| How do the evaluation criteria and measures reflect both stakeholder requirements and professional judgment? |
| What is the justification for each decision that we have made? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Analysis that has previously been done to support the past plan update in order to establish a baseline methodology. | LRP-1: Information related to land use, the natural environment and air quality partners and supporting plans |
Programming |
No Specific Data |
Corridor Planning |
No Specific Data |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use |
Specific evaluation criteria, measures, and analysis methods that have been identified for land use planning | Source, type and magnitude of current and anticipated future impacts affecting identified sensitivities including existing land uses, allowable or planned land use, predicted or forecast land use. |
Air Quality |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment |
Specific evaluation criteria, measures, and analysis methods that have been identified for the natural environment |
Capital Improvement |
Specific evaluation criteria, measures, and analysis methods that have been identified for capital improvement |
Current economic sensitivities |
Safety and Security |
Specific evaluation criteria, measures, and analysis methods that have been identified for safety and security |
Safety visions and plans |
Security data the partners bring |
Human Environment |
Current social sensitivities |
Specific evaluation criteria, measures and analysis methods from the human environment perspective |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Information on current methodologies and criteria used in other similar locations | |
Data that identifies the various levels of detail or scale of collected data as well as that of analysis techniques and tools for comparison and consideration | ||
Analysis comparing goals and strategies to data currently collected as identified in the scoping key decision | ||
Output of model or sketch analysis tools such as travel data only, emissions data, and other activity data | ||
Model or sketch analysis output conversion to GHG measures of interest | ||
Forecast GHG reduction from plan scenarios in future years | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
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 |
Decision Support Tools: Used to provide an objective framework for evaluating options. Tools such as the Analytical Hierarchy Process (AHP) quantify the evaluation criteria for future application. |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |
|---|---|
| None. |