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
Decision Guide
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
ENV-6
Approve Full Range of Alternatives
Description: At this key decision, a full range of possible project alternatives to meet the purpose and need is identified. At future key decisions, this range will be narrowed and eventually a preferred alternative will be selected. Information about both selected and eliminated scenarios and solution sets from long range transportation planning and corridor planning inform the range of alternatives approved at this step. There is information developed in prior key decisions that informs this step.
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- 7 and COR-6 related to preferred or approved solutions and those that were eliminated.
Purpose
To identify a range of alternatives that meet the project purpose and need
Outcome
All alternatives that address the project's purpose and need
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Decision Maker |
Approves the full range of alternatives identified to meet the purpose and need; agrees to the elimination of specific alternatives |
MPO |
Advisor |
Provides support on consideration of full range of alternatives based on regional/corridor planning. This includes documentation of alternatives eliminated from consideration. |
Resource Agency |
Decision Maker |
The USACE is a decision-maker and approves a full range of alternatives that meets NEPA, permitting, and consultation requirements and has been informed by environmental planning. USACE approves a full range of alternatives that includes and does not eliminate a potential LEDPA. |
State DOT |
Decision Maker |
Ensures the full range of alternatives is broadly inclusive, meets federal requirements, and is well documented |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Data | Information about any land use alternatives that meet the purpose and need (all or in part) and supporting goals. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data and Analysis Between IEF Step 3- Create Regional Ecosystem Framework | The full range of alternatives from environmental review will inform the combined map of conservation priorities, other land uses and potential alternatives developed in ecological planning. The IEF is designed for this integration to take place at LRP-3. The integration is included at ENV-6 as well for users who "enter" the Decision Guide/IEF at environmental review without completing the IEF process. These sub steps listed in the IEF are the integrated analysis at this key decision: Sub-step 3a - Overlay alternatives and combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities; Sub-step 3b and c - Show and record areas and resources potentially impacted by transportation alternatives and potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities; Sub-step 3d - Distribute combined conservation/restoration and transportation priorities map layer. This integration cannot occur until there are some alternatives, but it is possible that transportation alternatives could be fatally flawed and eliminated through this analysis. Note that the IEF is designed for this integration to occur using scenarios in long range planning, and has been modified here to reflect how the same approach could be used if the process is entered during environmental review. |
| Capital Improvement | None. | None. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | None. | None. |
| Economic Development | Data | • Identification of any fatally flawed alternatives from an economic development perspective. • Information on the potential economic development impact of various strategies. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Information about the effectiveness of strategies to maximize GHG reductions or are supportive of GHG goals. |
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 on the scenarios considered in long range planning and the basis for any that were eliminated |
To help define the range of alternatives for consideration during environmental review/ permitting and to preclude those alternatives that are inconsistent with region-wide multimodal improvements |
From Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-6 - Approve Range of Solution Sets |
Information on the range of solutions evaluated in the corridor planning process |
To help define the range of alternatives for consideration. |
COR-7 - Adopt Preferred Solution Set |
Information on the preferred solution set from the corridor planning process |
To inform the development of the full range of alternatives for environmental review/permitting in order to preclude alternatives that are inconsistent with region-wide multimodal improvements |
From Integrated Programming and Fiscal Constraint |
||
PRO-9 - Approve STIP with respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint |
Information from the TIP regarding a project description, logical termini, and funding identified for the project. |
To inform, but not constrain, the development of the full range of alternatives for environmental review. |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Is there agreement by partners that this represents the full range of alternatives? |
What partners were involved in the development of the alternatives? | |
Questions about stakeholders |
Have the alternatives for P3 projects been developed with private sector input and is there consensus between the private and public sector? |
What stakeholders were involved in the development of the alternatives? | |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are there any viable alternatives that are not included? |
Do all of the alternatives meet purpose and need? | |
Do the alternatives support the use of innovative means for financing, revenue generation, and procurement consistent with the adopted purpose and need of the P3 project (if applicable)? | |
Do the P3 alternatives help achieve more efficient project implementation? | |
Questions about other phases |
Are the alternatives consistent with the financial assumptions from the LRTP? |
Do the alternatives support our vision and goals of the LRTP and/or Corridor Plan? | |
Is the alternative from the adopted LRTP or adopted preferred solution set from corridor planning included? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are the alternatives supportive of land use goals? |
Do any of the alternative offer the opportunity to reduce GHG emissions? If so, are they considered fatally flawed in other aspects? | |
Do the alternatives avoid priority areas for ecological conservation, restoration and mitigation? | |
Do the alternatives support economic development objectives? | |
Have smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion, and conformity been considered? | |
How do the alternatives compare to existing federal, state and local requirements for reducing GHG emissions? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| What are your ideas for solving the problem? |
| What do you think about the proposed alternatives? Is there anything missing from these alternatives? What would you add? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are the alternatives feasible and rational? |
| Did the stakeholders identify any missing alternatives? If so, how did we address that? |
| What alternatives did the stakeholders suggest? |
| What input have we received from stakeholders about project implementation through a P3? |
| What is the rational for how we handled information from the stakeholders? How has this been communicated to the stakeholders? |
| What suggested alternatives are not included in our final list? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Information from the preferred plan scenario in the LRTP, including any scenarios that were eliminated. | Programming |
No Specific Data |
Corridor Planning |
Information on the range of solutions evaluated in the corridor planning process, including any solutions that were eliminated. |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Information about any land use alternatives that meet the purpose and need (all or in part) and supporting goals | Smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion, and conformity (as applicable) |
Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
No Specific Data |
Economic Development |
Information on the potential economic development impact of various strategies |
Greenhouse Gas |
Federal and state requirements related to GHG reduction or any local GHG reduction targets that apply |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis comparing the alternatives to the approved purpose and need | |
Data to support the comparison of proposed alternatives to purpose and need. | ||
Any conceptual design completed. | ||
Description of each identified alternatives | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Summary of public and stakeholder comments and justification for how feedback was addressed. | |
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 analyze and process data gathered through remote sensing. |
Sketch Planning Tools: Used to quickly outline potential alternatives. |
|
Communication |
Documentation Tools: Used to thoroughly document study and decision process for selecting alternatives |
Gathering |
Commenting Tools: Used to collect and consolidate public inputs on the NEPA process, to be included for consideration when choosing alternatives. Tool can also record responses to comments. |
GIS Tools: Used to gather spatial data on sensitive habitats and other natural resources. May include remote sensing tools such as aerial imaging. |
|
Decision Support Tools: Used to track progress in the NEPA study process to aid in decision-making. |
|
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Streamlining a Bottleneck Project |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||