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 - Greenhouse Gas
Check out the Understanding the Decision Guide page
COR-5
Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures
Description: At this key decision, evaluation criteria, methods and measures are approved that will allow decision-makers to compare solutions that address the corridor's opportunities and problems and are consistent with the approved corridor goals. The evaluation criteria, methods and measures are developed in consideration of transportation, community, and environment. They are informed by the evaluation criteria, methods and measures used in long range transportation planning and are considered during environmental review 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 COR-3 related to goals for the corridor.
Purpose
To define a methodology that includes criteria to enable a comparison and selection of solutions that address the corridor's opportunities and deficiencies and that address the approved goals.
Outcome
Specific criteria, methods, and measures for selecting solutions for the corridor.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Observer |
Observes that all relevant criteria are included in the evaluation methodology |
MPO |
Decision Maker (urban), No Role (rural) |
Approves evaluation criteria to allow a performance-based comparison of solutions in order to select the preferred |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Support the identification and use of evaluation criteria, methods and measures that reflect environmental visions, goals and priorities, are informed by environmental planning and incorporate environmental metrics. |
State DOT |
Advisor (urban), Decision Maker (rural) |
Provides an understanding of state support for criteria and performance measures |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Data | If smart growth principles will be integrated, include measures/consideration of: • Induced development and/or induced travel • Modal balance, accessibility, and demand • Congestion • System performance and safety • Economic development impacts • Social equity impacts • Environmental sustainability • Federal and State funding criteria such as livability |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Data Between IEF Step 4 - Assess Effects on Conservation Objectives and COR-5 | • 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 corridor plan. At IEF Sub-step 4a the relative importance of resource types are weighed. Information should be shared between COR-5 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 COR-5 | 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 through the phases. If this was done at LRP-3, this analysis can be carried forward from long range planning, but may need to be updated. | Analysis From IEF Step 8 - Implement Agreements, Adaptive Management & Deliver Projects | Determine what evaluation criteria, methods and measures from the ecological plan are relevant in the corridor. |
| Capital Improvement | None. | None. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | Data | Data from the human environment sources, where available. |
| Economic Development | Data | • Existing metrics currently used by local government and/or economic development related private organization to track corridor’s contribution to economic competitiveness. • Analytical methods to measure and evaluate economic vitality or competitiveness at the corridor plan level |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Data outputs from previous travel and emissions analyses, as well as the ability to measure GHG reduction. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
From Long Range Transportation Planning |
||
LRP-3 - Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures |
Criteria methods and measures from the LRTP |
To help ensure decision making is consistent across phases |
LRP-5 - Approve Financial Assumptions |
Financial assumptions |
To inform the evaluation criteria, methods and measures in corridor planning |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-5 - Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures |
Information about the evaluation criteria, methods and measures used in corridor planning |
To inform the environmental review process, helping to ensure that decision making remains 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 performance measures broad enough to reflect the full range of goals we proposed? |
Are the evaluation criteria and performance measures effective to differentiate between solution sets? | |
Are the performance measures actionable/implementable? | |
Are there appropriate tools, technologies, technical capacity, and data to support these evaluation criteria? | |
Do the evaluation criteria and performance measures help evaluate P3-specific considerations, such as the potential to generate revenues, level of private sector funding, and others? | |
Do the evaluation criteria and performance measures help evaluate the advantages and risks of different P3 arrangements? | |
What is the most effective way for the private sector to be involved? | |
What type of procurement models work best (e.g., design-build or design-build-operate)? | |
Questions about other phases |
Have the evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures been validated against the evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures in the LRTP? |
Is there agreement on the level of analysis that is acceptable for selecting a preferred solution set with the potential to inform a project-level decision? | |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are evaluation criteria and measures included that will demonstrate how transportation choices impact the quality of life in the planning area? |
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? | |
Are the evaluation criteria, methods and measures consistent with those identified through existing economic development or land use plans? | |
Are the evaluation criteria, methods and measures related to the financing and revenue potential of the corridor consistent with those identified in existing economic investment or development plans in the region? | |
Are the metrics to evaluate economic impacts consistent with the long range planning phase and with NEPA? | |
Has an inventory of all relevant economic data within the planning area been completed? | |
Has the corridor's contribution to the region's and the state's competitiveness been considered? | |
Have tools and analytical methods to measure economic impacts at the corridor plan level been considered? | |
How capable are the analysis methods for producing this information? | |
How will the GHG impacts of potential corridor solutions be evaluated? | |
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 GHG criteria will be used to evaluate transportation investment strategies and scenarios? For example, CO2, CO2 equivalent, GHG per capita, or VMT, as a proxy? | |
What will be the baseline for measuring GHG emissions reduction? For example, business as usual or GHG emissions in a given year? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| For each goal ask: How do we know we have achieved this goal? |
| How does transportation impact your quality of life? How can this be improved? |
| What should be improved in this corridor? How would you be able to recognize improvement? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are the evaluation criteria and measures broad enough to incorporate all stakeholder interests? If not, what interests are not included and why? |
| How do the evaluation criteria and measures reflect both stakeholder interests 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 |
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures used in long range planning | Financial assumptions |
Programming |
Potential to generate revenues |
Level of private sector funding |
Corridor Planning |
COR-3: Approved goals for the corridor |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Quality of life or "livability" information | Data that informs evaluation of smart growth, if applicable |
Air Quality Conformity |
No Specific Data |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures from ecological planning |
Data from ecological planning that can inform the evaluation criteria in transportation decision making |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
Data from the human environment sources, where available |
Economic Development |
Metrics and analytical methods to evaluate economic competitiveness |
Greenhouse Gas |
Performance measures, metrics, and methods used in other regions where GHG analysis has been done, with information on the advantages and disadvantages of different approaches |
Baseline GHG emissions and/or method to establish baseline emissions |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis that reconciles evaluation criteria and measures with the stated vision and goals | |
An assessment of the availability of data to address the performance measures | ||
Inventory of traffic data available to support criteria and performance measures | ||
Data on tools and technology available to support the analysis methodology | ||
Forecasting methodology | ||
Various model outputs or outputs from sketch analysis tools such as travel data, emissions data, or other activity data | ||
Types of various procurement models to be considered and the pros/cons of each | ||
Technical innovation | ||
Analysis capabilities | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
No Specific Data | |
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: At this point in the Corridor phase, evaluation metrics are added to the decision support tool, supplementing decision support goals determined earlier. The resulting package will be used to quantify the evaluation of proposed alternatives. |
Financial Planning Tools: Financial projections and estimations of project costs are a starting point for considering economic criteria. Decision-makers at this point rely in financial information from prior phases. More precise corridor-level calculations are not performed until later in the corridor phase. |
|
• Landscape Analysis Tools, e.g. ReGAP |
|
Communication |
Documentation Tools: Applied in this key decision to record the decision-making process relating to the determination of evaluation criteria. This information is useful in the future to help the public or stakeholders outside the decision-making process understand how and why criteria were adopted. Documentation from this decision is added to documentation of prior decisions and carried forward to future decision-making steps. |
Gathering |
Synthesis Tools: A "suitcase" of information on past and related corridor plans is applied to provide a historical context when choosing evaluation criteria. |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Performance Measures |
|
||
| Visioning and Transportation |
|
||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||