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
- A short tutorial is recommended to become acquainted with the content, context, and intent of the Decision Guide. This is available in Understanding the Decision Guide.
- Additional detailed information that helps navigate the key decision level data is provided in the User Manual.
Successful plans and projects demonstrate that if everyone is brought into the discussion of how to support transportation system needs, the best solution will be found the first time. The Decision Guide has been created to systematically build collaboration into transportation decision-making by allowing the right people to be at the table at the right time with the right information to make good choices that will stand up to scrutiny.
The 44 key decisions that constitute the Decision Guide are shown below. Key decisions are those that must have approval from a high level of authority, need consensus among decision makers, or are required by law or regulation. The "folders" in each key decision contain information on the purpose and outcome of the decision; the roles of each partner; the questions that policy makers must address in order to make the decision; and the data, tools, and technology that may be used to support the decision as well as other supporting information. This information is available by clicking on the key decision in the Decision Guide.
The philosophical basis of the Decision Guide is that collaboration at the highest level within any process requires collaboration within the steps that support the key decisions. In essence, institutionalizing collaboration at the key decisions is expected to foster collaboration in the supporting technical process; however, exactly how collaboration is implemented in the technical process will vary from state to state or region to region.
LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING
The scoping key decision involves a broad assessment of the data, decisions, and relationships to consider, acquire, or make throughout the entire long range transportation plan (LRTP) process.
At this key decision, the community's values, whether stated as a vision and goals or simply agreed upon by the stakeholders for the planning area, are used to guide the transportation-specific vision and goals.
At this key decision the evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures are approved that will allow decision-makers to compare scenarios to the vision and goals and to one another.
The approved list of specific corridors, roads and areas which are deficient identified at this key decision serves as a basis for problems and opportunities addressed in both the corridor planning and environmental review processes.
At this key decision information from the Programming / Fiscal Constraint Phase is introduced into the LRTP decision making process.
Strategies are developed to address the deficiencies identified in LRP-4. A strategy is a specific tactic or policy employed or recommended by an organization.
Scenarios are based on approved strategies and are compared using the evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures.
At this key decision, a preferred plan scenario is adopted for inclusion in the Draft LRTP.
Air Quality conformity analysis is done within the air quality process in order to validate that the preferred scenario meets current conformity requirements.
This is a legally required decision consisting of the federal approval of conformity of the LRTP.
PROGRAMMING
This key decision establishes the revenue basis for both the fiscal constraint of the long range plan as well as the funding sources for the TIP.
This key decision establishes a consistent methodology for estimating project costs for both the long range transportation plan and the TIP.
This key decision establishes the list of projects drawn from the long range plan or corridor planning process that will be considered for funding in the TIP.
At this key decision, the approved project list is prioritized using the methodology previously developed.
At this key decision project priorities are compared to available funding within program restrictions to select those projects to be included in the TIP.
At this key decision, the MPO adopts the TIP. Before the MPO can do this, comments on the draft TIP must be addressed and a final TIP must be produced.
The Governor or designee should ensure that the TIP meets other state and federal requirements so that the TIP can be incorporated into the STIP and be in agreement with the state document.
At this key decision the draft STIP is developed to release for public comment.
In order to meet federal requirements, the STIP must meet conformity and fiscal constraint, where required.
CORRIDOR PLANNING
This is a crucial first step of corridor planning.
The full range of deficiencies and opportunities within a corridor are defined at this key decision.
At this key decision a broad range of transportation, community, and environmental goals are considered which are specific to the corridor.
In order to provide a clear linkage to the environmental review process, this key decision defines the acceptable level of detail for the corridor study analysis.
At this key decision, evaluation criteria, methodology and performance 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.
A range of approved solution sets for the corridor results from this key decision.
At this key decision, a preferred solution set is adopted for inclusion in the Corridor Plan.
At this key decision priorities for implementation of the individual solutions are established.
Individual projects within the adopted preferred solution set are ranked in order to identify the appropriate sequencing for implementation.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING
Consensus is reached on the data, decisions and relationships that need to be considered, acquired or made throughout environmental review and permitting. The scope is informed by the adopted plans and current information from plans in process. Relationships with planning partners are formed.
This key decision is required to satisfy the legal requirement of publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI) to inform partners and the public of the commencement of the environmental review phase.
Document the agreed to purpose and need for both NEPA and the Section 404 permitting process. Integration with land use partners and stakeholder input are important at this step, to substantiate and refine the project purpose and need. There is a strong relationship between this key decision and the planning processes.
Consensus on an initial geographic area of study (the area within which any alternatives will fall) is reached. The study area is closely linked to the purpose and need and is informed by transportation and other planning processes.
Evaluation criteria, methods and measures are used to compare how alternatives meet the purpose and need. The criteria used in long range and corridor planning as well as land use, ecological planning and capital improvement data are considered.
A full range of possible project alternatives to meet the purpose and need is identified. 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.
This shared step between the NEPA and permitting processes involves the approval of the alternatives that are suggested to be carried forward. There is essential information created in long range planning and corridor planning that informs this decision.
This is a formal approval point at which the Draft EIS with conceptual mitigation is approved and circulated for public review. Land use partners indicate their support of any land use policy changes that would be required to implement the recommendations in the Draft EIS.
This key decision is required to satisfy the regulatory requirement for Section 404 permitting that the public receive notice of a permit application.
Decision makers approve a preferred project alternative/LEDPA using input from stakeholders, planning partners, and detailed information about potential impacts, and validate that the preferred alternative is consistent with the LRTP and TIP/STIP.
LEDPA
This decision is a required procedural step in the Section 404 permitting process. At this step, a final determination of jurisdictional waters of the United States in the project area is made.
Following selection of the preferred alternative/LEDPA, partners reach consensus on additional avoidance and minimization measures not included in the preliminary design.
A final EIS is approved that meets all legal requirements and addresses comments received on the Draft EIS.
At this step in the environmental review phase, the Record of Decision is issued.
At this final step in the environmental review phase, the final permit decision is rendered.
The TCAPP Decision Guide represents the fundamental building block for reaching collaborative decisions structured around those decisions that are common to all transportation agencies. The Decision Guide is a framework that supports everything found in TCAPP. In its most simplistic form the Decision Guide represents a database of information to support collaboration within the transportation decision making process. In this aspect the Decision Guide provides the information transportation professionals need to know in order to carry out the decision at each step in a collaborative and inclusive process.
TCAPP translates the information within the Decision Guide into many ways that may be used to enhance collaboration. The Decision Guide is supported by and was initially developed from many of the Case Studies available in the Library. Individual issues identified in Collaboration Assessment can be addressed by applying techniques found within the Decision Guide. Applications illustrate how subsets of key decisions can support a variety of topics. Each of these individual aspects of Transportation for Communities is built on the essential information contained in the Decision Guide.
How was the Decision Guide envisioned and created?
The vision for the Decision Guide was initiated under the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2). Within the SHRP 2 Capacity Program there was recognition that collaboration was an essential element of making transportation decisions with the power to stick. From this concept the C01 Project, A Collaborative Decision Making Framework for Highway Projects Adding Capacity, was developed. C01 represents the center-piece project for the Capacity Program with many of the additional research projects identified for integration into the Collaborative Decision Making Framework. Over time the Collaborative Decision Making Framework (CDMF) has become the Decision Guide.
The Decision Guide was developed from 23 in-depth, detailed case studies of innovative practices in collaborative transportation decision making; six workshops bringing together partners and stakeholders of the transportation decision making process; and an extensive process of review and refinement. The Decision Guide is meant to be a useful tool that will advance the state of the practice in transportation decision-making. One way of achieving that goal is to use actual case studies and input from practitioners to identify the barriers, success factors and structure of successful collaborative decision making in practice. By using case studies and input from practitioners to build the Decision Guide, the Decision Guide will speak to real needs and will help to implement collaborative practices on a broad scale.