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 - Integrated Planning - Land Use and Smart Growth
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
COR-9
Adopt Priorities for Implementation
Description: Individual projects within the adopted preferred solution set are ranked in order to identify the appropriate sequencing for implementation. Prioritization supports both programming and environmental review by ensuring that identified projects are ready for implementation when funding is provided. This also allows other implementation actions, such as land use changes, to be made in support of the priorities.
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-7 related to the preferred solution set and COR-8 for the evaluation criteria, methods and measures for prioritization.
Purpose
To make recommendations on phasing and priorities of implementing the solutions for the corridor. As a follow-up action to this step other related plans and programs should be updated to reflect these priorities.
Outcome
Agreement on the phasing and prioritization of the corridor's solution set. This prioritized list should be considered when prioritizing projects during the Programming process.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Observer |
Observes prioritization of solutions for consideration in the TIP development process |
MPO |
Decision Maker (urban), No Role (rural) |
Adopts priorities for implementation that are fiscally sound and realistic |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Approve an MOU, agreement or programmatic permit and performance monitoring strategy for mitigation sites. Provide information about prioritized opportunities from the ecological plan and methods for prioritizing. |
State DOT |
Advisor (urban), Decision Maker (rural) |
Ensures the adopted priorities are compatible with state plans and programs |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Decision | Approve land use implementation actions consistent with corridor plan priorities. • Purpose - To confirm commitment to implement land use implementation actions needed to implement corridor plan priorities. • Outcome - Approved land use implementation actions. | Analysis | To show how the prioritization of solutions within the preferred solution set will support land use and smart growth-related goals. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data From IEF Step 5 - Establish & Prioritize Ecological Actions | Prioritized conservation/restoration/mitigation actions from the ecological plan. | Decision Between IEF Step 7 - Develop Programmatic Consultation, Biological Opinion or Permit and COR-9 | MOUs, agreements, programmatic 404 permits or ESA section 7 consultation for transportation projects. Agreed upon performance monitoring strategy for mitigation sites. If this step was done in LRP-8, this may be a check-back to concur that the agreed-upon mitigation strategy is sufficient. | Data From IEF Step 8 - Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management & Deliver Projects | Documented methods for prioritizing conservation/restoration/mitigation from the ecological plan, to inform the establishment of criteria for prioritization of transportation projects. | Data To IEF Step 9 - Update Regional Ecosystem Framework & Plan | Final decisions from corridor planning should be used to update the ecological plan. |
| Capital Improvement | Decision | Capital improvement decision-makers decide whether the adopted priorities are consistent with capital improvement plans and whether they are committed to implement aspects of the solution set related to capital improvement. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
| Economic Development | Data | Recommendations on phasing and implementation priorities to support evaluation of economic development impacts. | Decision | Local/regional decision-makers approve economic development implementation actions consistent with corridor plan priorities. Purpose: To validate adopted priorities are consistent with economic development plans Outcome: Approved implementation actions in support of the solution set |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Actions that support GHG-related objectives or meet established targets within the preferred solution set. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-10 - Adopt LRTP by MPO |
Adopted priorities for implementation in the corridor plan |
To ensure that the adopted priorities for implementation in the corridor plan are consistent with the LRTP, including air quality and fiscal constraint. |
To and From Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-3 - Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set |
The project priority list developed in the corridor plan |
To ensure the TIP reflects the desired prioritization of the corridor plan |
PRO-4 - Approve Project Prioritization |
Prioritized list of projects for implementation from programming/fiscal constraint |
To provide input into or validation of overall project prioritization. |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-8 - Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation |
Advance mitigation strategy and agreements from the Corridor Plan |
To inform conceptual mitigation incorporated in the Draft EIS |
ENV-12 - Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization for the LEDPA |
Advance mitigation strategy and agreements from the Corridor Plan |
To inform avoidance and minimization for the LEDPA |
ENV-15 - Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization |
Advance mitigation strategy and agreements from the Corridor Plan |
To inform avoidance and minimization as well as compensatory mitigation incorporated with permit conditions |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
For P3 projects, have private sector partners provided information on potential negative impacts and the costs of mitigation? |
Questions about stakeholders |
No specific questions. |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Can the private sector partner be held accountable for project schedule and performance of mitigation actions? |
For P3 projects, have all potential risks to the public and private sector been considered? Is there a plan to manage risks? | |
How does the inclusion of P3 projects impact this ranking? | |
Is this priority order feasible? | |
What benefit will result if the projects are implemented in this order? | |
What is the justification for this ranking? | |
Questions about other phases |
No specific questions. |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are the implementing agencies or sponsors willing to move forward according to the schedule indicated? |
Are there project sponsors for corridor study solutions outside of transportation? | |
Do we have agreement on implementation of the mitigation strategy? | |
Have we developed agreements for the use of markets to meet mitigation requirements? | |
Have we developed agreements with agencies/organizations in the public and private sectors to meet mitigation requirements? | |
Have we identified a mitigation strategy that is acceptable to all partners that will meet retention goals for each impacted area or resource? | |
How can conservation goals be met, if at all, through these mitigation approaches? | |
How can goals of business and population retention and attraction be met, if at all, through these mitigation approaches? | |
How can we ensure that equity and accessibility concerns do not arise, particularly in P3 projects? | |
How will the prioritization of solutions support land use and smart-growth related goals? | |
If needed, have we identified a mitigation strategy that is acceptable to all partners that will meet economic development goals for each affected community or population group? | |
What are our mitigation priorities? | |
What is the appropriate scheduling for priority projects? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Do you have information that would influence how the individual projects are prioritized? |
| What are your preferred priorities for implementation in the solution set? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Do the stakeholders agree with the priorities recommended? |
| Why were stakeholder priorities not incorporated? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Adopted priorities for implementation in the corridor plan | Programming |
Adopted TIP. |
Data on available revenue sources |
Costs of mitigation actions |
Corridor Planning |
Preferred solution set |
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures for prioritization |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Actions that impact land use planning | Air Quality Conformity |
Actions that impact air quality conformity |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Prioritized conservation/restoration/mitigation actions from the ecological plan |
Documented methods for prioritizing conservation/restoration/mitigation from the ecological plan |
Capital Improvement |
Actions that impact infrastructure decisions |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
Economic Development |
Information to make recommendations on phasing and implementation priorities |
Greenhouse Gas |
Identification of actions needed by others prior to implementation |
Identification of impacts to other plans and policies |
Agreements that support the prioritization |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis results using approved evaluation criteria and methods | |
Analysis of potential barriers to implementation for individual solutions | ||
Analysis of individual project readiness | ||
Potential risks/negative impacts of P3 projects | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Stakeholder and public information | |
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 |
Decision Support Tools: Used to compare bundles of projects to determine how each bundle best meets identified criteria and evaluation metrics. Can analyze projects individually and as a set, to determine if projects within a bundle are compatible or conflicting. |
Financial Planning Tools: Used to perform a detailed cost analysis within bundles of projects, and match project costs with available funding sources. Financial planning tools may include value engineering tools which can find ways to reduce the costs of programs. |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||