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
LRP-7
Approve Plan Scenarios
Description: Scenarios are based on approved strategies and are compared using the evaluation criteria, method and measures. Collaboration with partners from other planning processes is important at this stage as scenarios could involve strategies that encompass land use, infrastructure or other components. This step begins the iterative process of refining scenarios in order to select the preferred scenario.
There is information in prior key decisions that informs this step. In order to effectively execute this key decision there is essential information created at LRP-6 related to the range of approved strategies.
Purpose
To identify plan scenarios for testing and comparison in order to select a preferred plan scenario for the region. The scenarios are designed to address the approved deficiencies. This begins the iterative analysis that is conducted for a full understanding of the trade-off decisions necessary to identify the preferred plan scenario. Scenarios should be identified in terms that can be easily understood by the decision makers, planning partners, and stakeholders.
Outcome
A list of feasible plan scenarios.
Partner Roles | ||
|---|---|---|
FHWA |
Observer |
Observes the process of evaluating and considering individual scenarios for consistency with the intent of federal regulations |
MPO |
Decision Maker |
Approves plan scenarios that reflect the broad interests of the region to support comparison and selection of a preferred |
Resource Agency |
Advisor |
Advise partners about potential impacts to protected resources or conservation and restoration priorities associated with transportation plan scenarios. |
State DOT |
Advisor |
Provides information on state perspective and compatible interests |
Process |
Integration Type |
Integration Description |
|---|---|---|
| Land Use and Smart Growth | Process | Approve range of land use policy changes in support of LRTP plan scenarios • Purpose - Determine willingness to change land use policy related to the LRTP scenarios • Outcome - Commitments of land use stakeholders to implement land use policy changes | Analysis | Assessment of LRTP scenarios for any implication to the land use plan. |
| Air Quality Conformity | None. | None. |
| Natural Environment and the IEF | Analysis Between IEF Step 3 - Create Regional Ecosystem Framework and LRP-7 | This is a key link between ecological and transportation planning. Here a combined map of conservation priorities, other land uses and LRTP scenarios is created. A technical process that occurs as an input to this decision is the comparison of transportation/development plan scenarios with the Regional Ecosystem Framework from ecological planning. These substeps listed in the IEF comprise the integrated analysis at this key decision: Sub-step 3a - Overlay LRTP plan scenarios and combined map of conservation, restoration and enhancement priorities; Sub-step 3b and c - Show and record areas and resources potentially impacted by transportation improvements and potential opportunities for joint action on conservation or restoration priorities; Sub-step 3d - Distribute combined conservation and transportation priorities map layer. This integration cannot occur until there are some transportation plan scenarios, but it is possible that plan scenarios could be fatally flawed and eliminated through this analysis. |
| Capital Improvement | Decision | Whether the scenarios being considered in long range transportation planning meet with capital improvement plans. |
| Safety and Security | None. | None. |
| Human Environment | Analysis | Evaluate possible scenarios as to which are prioritized from a human environment perspective. |
| Economic Development | Data | Data that supports the calculation of economic development impact to identify plan scenarios for testing and comparison. | Analysis | Comparison of potential outcomes of various scenarios on project costs and benefits, jobs and the economy. |
| Greenhouse Gas | Data | Relevant data for each scenario being considered including GHG reduction strategies, relative importance of GHG-reduction benefits compared to other planning factors, and sketch-level planning cost. | Analysis | Analysis of strategies selected in LRP-6 and others, as applicable. |
Linkages to other Phases of Transportation Decision Making | ||
|---|---|---|
Key Decision |
What is Linked? |
Purpose of Linkage |
To Corridor Planning Studies |
||
COR-1 - Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process |
All scenarios considered in the long range planning process and reasons for eliminating scenarios |
To document those scenarios included and eliminated in long range planning |
To Environmental Review |
||
ENV-4 - Reach Consensus on Study Area |
All scenarios considered in the long range planning process and reasons for eliminating scenarios |
To document scenarios included and eliminated in long range planning |
Policy Questions |
|
|---|---|
Questions about purpose and roles |
Do we have support or opposition from our planning partners for any specific scenarios? |
Questions about stakeholders |
No specific questions. |
Questions about the transportation process supporting the decision |
Are any scenarios fatally flawed based on financial assessments of costs and revenues of P3 projects included? |
Are the scenarios sufficiently different for meaningful comparison? | |
Do the scenarios address mobility and accessibility needs beyond the identified deficiencies? | |
Have we identified how each scenario will impact financing, revenues, and implementation schedule? | |
How do these scenarios address our vision and goals? Are the scenarios sufficient to address the full range of vision and goals? | |
How well do the scenarios address system performance and safety? | |
How well does each of the scenarios address the approved deficiencies? | |
Is there a need to balance mode choices? | |
Is there committed political support for P3 projects included in the scenarios? | |
Questions about other phases |
No specific questions. |
Questions about non-transportation sectors/processes |
Are approved transportation strategies consistent with the land use and economic development vision/plans? |
Are the scenarios supportive of future land use patterns and growth forecasts? | |
Are there interactive effects that should be considered such as strategies that work better in combination or, alternatively, that work against each other? | |
Based on preliminary information about land use and economic development implications, are any of these scenarios fatally flawed? | |
Based on preliminary land use and environmental screening, are any of these scenarios fatally flawed? | |
Have smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion and conformity been considered? | |
Have we ensured that P3 projects in the scenarios are consistent with existing economic investment and other relevant plans in the region? | |
Have we identified how each scenario will impact the ability to meet our goals with regard to conservation? | |
How will each scenario impact the ability to meet goals with regard to economic development? | |
To what extent are such strategies politically feasible? | |
What are the timescales over which the strategies in a scenario are expected to show impacts and how do these match with the target years for GHG reduction? | |
What GHG-reduction transportation strategies should be included as part of a scenario analysis? | |
What is the combined effect of such strategies? | |
Questions to Gather Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Are any of these scenarios fatally flawed? |
| Are the scenarios that we have presented to you sufficient? |
| Will all of the visions and goals be addressed by at least one of these scenarios? Is there a missing scenario? |
Questions to Incorporate Stakeholder Interests |
|---|
| Did the stakeholders express strong opposition in our suggested scenarios? If so, what was the opposition? |
| Did the stakeholders identify missing scenarios? If so, how did we address that? |
| What is the justification for eliminating or adding certain scenarios or making individual changes within a scenario? |
| What scenarios did the stakeholders suggest? |
Case Study Example(s): |
|---|
Supporting Data for the Key Decision |
|
|
|---|---|---|
From other phases of transportation decision making |
Long Range Planning |
Previous plan conformity analysis | LRP-6: the range of approved strategies |
Programming |
Funding resources that support or limit each scenario |
Corridor Planning |
No Specific Data |
Environmental Review |
No Specific Data |
From other sectors and processes |
Land Use and Smart Growth |
Land use implications and impacts for each scenario | Smart growth impacts on travel demand, congestion and conformity (as applicable) |
Air Quality Conformity |
Air quality emissions budget |
Natural Environment and the IEF |
Natural environment impacts for each scenario |
Capital Improvement |
No Specific Data |
Safety and Security |
No Specific Data |
Human Environment |
Human environment impacts for each scenario |
Environmental justice impacts for each scenario |
Economic Development |
Economic development impacts of plan scenarios |
Greenhouse Gas |
Estimates of travel activity and transportation network performance for baseline and planning horizon years |
Target GHG reductions |
Sketch-level planning cost for strategies included in scenarios |
From the transportation technical process supporting this key decision |
Analysis from modeling efforts for each scenario | |
Scenario combinations that can be analyzed | ||
Identification of those things that are qualitative rather than quantitative for consideration | ||
Policy implications and comparison to stated vision and goals | ||
Conformity implications for each scenario | ||
Existing + committed (E+C) project list for baseline and planning horizon years | ||
Preliminary financial assessments of P3 project costs and revenues | ||
From stakeholder collaboration |
Political interests and trade-offs in the region | |
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: Decision-Support Tools: Used to assemble scenario information for evaluation of each alternative. Tools may also include: |
Communication Tools: Used to virtually connect stakeholders with information and analyses so the group can together evaluate alternative scenarios. For example, this tool can be used as a virtual tool to apply the Delphi decision-making method. |
|
Communication |
Visualization Tools: Visualization Tools: Used to communicate plan scenarios and analysis results to stakeholders and the public. These tools may include: |
Key Decision Relationship to Other Topics | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Topic | Description | ||
| Public-Private Partnerships |
|
||