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 - Visioning and Transportation
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
LRP-8
Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario
Description: At this key decision, a preferred plan scenario is adopted for inclusion in the Draft LRTP. A comparison of the plan scenarios using the evaluation criteria, methods and measures is the basis for the selection of the preferred scenario. This represents the conclusion of the iterative process to evaluate and refine scenarios.
There is information in prior key decisions that informs this step. In order to effectively coordinate this key decision with integrated plans, there is a need to validate consistency with essential partner plans.
Purpose
To evaluate proposed scenarios in order to identify the locally preferred scenario that addresses the deficiencies while supporting the vision and goals. The evaluation of the plan scenarios will include the application of the approved evaluation criteria, methods, and measures.
Outcome
The preferred scenario and documentation of the evaluation of scenarios.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Advisor |
Ensures the public review of the preferred scenario and subsequent adoption meet the governing requirements |
MPO |
Decision Maker |
Adopts a preferred scenario that meets the regional goals and addresses the transportation deficiencies |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Advise the selection of a preferred scenario that is consistent with resource agencies' goals. Advise the selection of a preferred scenario that is consistent with a joint vision for conservation/restoration action. Provide input to transportation agency partners about preferred mitigation strategies. |
State DOT |
Advisor |
Ensures the adopted preferred scenario is compatible with state needs and plans |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Decision | Informing land use of the adopted scenario in order to establish consistency between land use and transportation plans. Identifying how smart growth principles impact transportation scenarios, if applicable. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Analysis Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and LRP-8 | Analysis that takes place at IEF Sub-step 4c-4e requires the input of the plan scenarios and informs the selection of a preferred scenario. The analysis that takes place is the determination of the amount and relative degree of potential impacts of plan scenarios in relation to resource conservation priorities and the identification of plan level cumulative effects, via assessment of different packages/alternative scenarios. |
| Decision Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and LRP-8 | IEF Sub-step 4e - A decision is made about the preferred plan scenarios from an ecological perspective. IEF Sub-step 4f - Through the IEF process, preferences are identified regarding avoidance, minimization, potential conservation and restoration investments. Identification and quantification of mitigation needs. | |
| Data To IEF Step 5 - Establish & Prioritize Ecological Actions | The preferred transportation scenario is an input from long range planning to this IEF Step where analysis and recommendations will be made about mitigation options. Sets of alternative mitigation/conservation actions are compared, to identify the best investment options. | |
| Capital Improvement | Decision | Informing local jurisdictions of the adopted scenario in order to establish consistency between local jurisdictions and transportation plans |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
| Economic Development | Analysis | Analyze mitigation needs and costs for any unavoidable adverse economic impacts to vulnerable populations or businesses. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Analysis | Evaluation of scenarios with respect to GHG emissions levels to inform decision makers. Comparison to the established goals, objectives, and/or targets for both the baseline and future years. |
| Data | Results of the analysis used to select the preferred option, including: • Level of GHG reduction and the associated benefits • Comparisons of potential reduction to baseline and targets • Costs associated with scenarios • Other actions necessary to mitigate potential negative impacts. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-6 - Approve Range of Solution Sets |
Documentation of the preferred plan scenario and eliminated scenarios |
To provide information on the possible range of solutions that should be considered. |
To Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-3 - Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set |
The project list drawn from the preferred scenario |
To have consistency between the long range plan and TIP projects |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-6 - Approve Full Range of Alternatives |
Documentation of the preferred plan scenario and eliminated scenarios |
To provide information on the possible range of solutions that should be considered |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
No specific questions. |
Questions about stakeholders |
No specific questions. |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Can a hybrid scenario be designed from the individual scenarios that we want to evaluate? |
Can the recommended scenario be implemented in the time-frame of the LRTP? | |
How did the various scenarios rank across the evaluation criteria? | |
How effectively does the P3 project help meet plan goals related to financing and revenue generation? | |
If we cannot have everything we want, what evaluation criteria has highest value? | |
Is there likely to be public and political support for identified P3 projects? | |
What was the basis for eliminating other plan scenarios? | |
Why is this scenario recommended? | |
Questions about other phases |
Does this scenario meet fiscal constraint? |
Is the documentation for eliminated scenarios and strategies sufficient for corridor planning, NEPA, and New Starts? | |
What is the fiscal situation with and without the P3? How do these compare? | |
What risks might there be to the public and private sector from adopting a scenario with potential P3 projects? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are direct or cumulative impacts to identified priority areas for conservation/restoration/mitigation anticipated? |
Are there expected to be any negative impacts related to equity, environmental justice, or public acceptance for which mitigation actions must be anticipated? | |
Have potential negative impacts been considered and have mitigating actions been identified where appropriate? | |
How does the preferred scenario compare to GHG reduction targets, where applicable? | |
How important are GHG-reduction benefits compared to other transportation benefits? | |
Is this the preferred scenario from an ecological perspective? | |
What are the anticipated direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on land use? | |
What are the GHG impacts of various scenarios compared to the baseline and applicable targets? | |
What are the likely cumulative impacts? Are there impacts that cannot be mitigated? | |
What is the stakeholder response to the preferred scenario with respect to potential GHG reduction? What needs to be communicated to stakeholders? | |
Will congestion be reduced? | |
Will smart growth goals be met? | |
Will smart growth patterns be encouraged? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Do you see any fatal flaws that we need to address? |
| How do you prioritize the scenarios? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Can a hybrid scenario be designed from the individual scenarios that we want to evaluate? |
| Can the recommended scenario be implemented in the time-frame of the LRTP? |
| Does this scenario meet fiscal constraint? |
| How did the various scenarios rank across the evaluation criteria? |
| If we cannot have everything we want, what evaluation criteria has highest value? |
| Is the documentation for eliminated scenarios and strategies sufficient for corridor planning, NEPA, and New Starts? |
| What was the basis for eliminating other plan scenarios? |
| Why is this scenario recommended? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
No Specific Data | Programming |
No Specific Data |
Corridor Planning |
No Specific Data |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Data from any integrated land use and transportation modeling | Data from any sketch planning to account for smart growth |
Data capturing site specific evaluation, as applicable |
Air Quality Conformity |
Results of the analysis to select the preferred scenario |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Results of the analysis to select the preferred scenario |
Capital Improvement |
Results of the analysis to select the preferred scenario |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
Economic Development |
No Specific Data |
Greenhouse Gas |
GHG emission rates that reflect state and federal policies impacting current and future years |
GHG emissions that reflect regional adoption of vehicle/fuel technologies |
Level of GHG reduction for each scenario, compared to baseline and target |
Non-GHG related transportation benefits of each scenario |
Relative importance of GHG-reduction benefits compared to other transportation benefits |
Costs associated with individual scenarios with respect to GHG strategies |
Cost effectiveness of GHG strategies |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis associated with each scenario | |
Financing available through a P3 | ||
Revenue generation potential of P3 projects | ||
Comparison of fiscal situation with and without P3 | ||
Economic impacts and recommended mitigation, as applicable | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Stakeholder support or challenge for each scenario. | |
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 |
Technical Analysis Tools: Used to simulate the land-use impacts of the preferred scenario, informing the decision-making process by showing the cumulative long-term effects of the proposed scenario. |
• Suitability analysis based on conservation goals |
|
Communication |
Visualization Tools: Used to display the results of the scenario analysis for decision-makers and the public. A visual demonstration of each scenario allows stakeholders to better understand the differences between alternatives. |
Documentation Tools: Used to document the processes and results of this KDP decision, for future reference in the Environmental Review phase as well as in future actions or independent reviews. |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||