US Department of Transportation

FHWA PlanWorks: Better Planning, Better Projects

US Department of Transportation

FHWA Planworks: Better Planning, Better Projects

ENV-6: Approve Full Range of Alternatives

Environmental Review/NEPA Merged with Permitting

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.

Basics:

The first table describes the purpose and anticipated outcome of a Key Decision. If the decision is federally mandated, the purpose and outcome will relate to the legal intent.

The second table describes roles for key partners with legal decision making authority in the transportation process. The roles indicate the influence a partner can have on a decision, and show each partner where their input is most needed. For a full understanding of roles see the Partner Portal.

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 Role Type Description
MPO Advisor Provides support on consideration of full range of alternatives based on regional/corridor planning. This includes documentation of alternatives eliminated from consideration.
FHWA/FTA Decision Maker Approves the full range of alternatives identified to meet the purpose and need; agrees to the elimination of specific alternatives.
State DOT Decision Maker Ensures the full range of alternatives is broadly inclusive, meets federal requirements, and is well documented.
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.
Other resource agencies are advisors, supporting a full range of alternatives that consider their agencies' relevant goals.
Public Transportation Operator(s) Advisor Provides support as needed on consideration of full range of alternatives based on regional/corridor planning. This includes documentation of alternatives eliminated from consideration.

Questions to Consider

Questions are a way to gather input from partners and stakeholders that can be used to inform the decision. Decision makers can discuss the questions provided to ensure a broad array of interests are considered to support a collaborative process. Questions also allow staff to collect stakeholder interests, ensure these are included in the decision, and provide a response based on the decision outcome. Although Public Transportation is not represented by a PlanWorks Application, the information provided may be useful in a collaborative transportation process.

Category Questions to Consider
Long Range Planning
  • Are the alternatives consistent with the financial assumptions from the LRTP?
  • Do the alternatives support our vision and goals of the LRTP?
  • Is the alternative from the adopted LRTP included?
  • Is the range of alternatives consistent with other planned improvements?
Programming
  • Has information from the TIP been used to inform development of the full range of alternatives?
Corridor Planning
  • Is the alternative from an adopted preferred solution set from corridor planning included?
  • Was the range of solutions evaluated in corridor planning?
  • Do the alternatives support our vision and goals of the corridor plan?
Environmental Review
  • Do all of the alternatives meet the purpose and need?
  • Are there any viable alternatives that are not included?
  • Are the alternatives selected feasible and rational? Are any alternatives fatally flawed?
  • What partners were involved in the development of alternatives?
  • Is there agreement by partners that this represents the full range of alternatives?
  • What suggested alternatives are not included in our final list?
Bicycles and Pedestrians
  • Do any of the proposed alternatives present or remove a barrier to bicyclists and pedestrians?
  • How well do the alternatives support bicycle and pedestrian connectivity and accessibility for all users?
    What are the positive and negative impacts?
Capital Improvement
  • Have capital improvement partners identified which alternatives are highly compatible or incompatible with existing capital improvement plans?
Economic Development
  • Do the alternatives support economic development objectives? Are there any major flaws or inconsistencies between the alternatives and these objectives?
Freight
  • Which alternatives support identified freight benefits and stakeholder preferences?
  • Are any fatally flawed alternatives preferred by freight stakeholders? If so, has the basis of this decision been communicated?
  • What are the positive and negative outcomes related to freight movement from these alternatives?
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Health in Transportation
  • What alternatives could improve health outcomes or address community health priorities?
  • What alternatives do health and community stakeholders support?
  • Did the long-range plan, TIP/STIP, or corridor plan processes discard any strategies, scenarios, projects, or solution sets due to health impacts or opposition from health or community stakeholders? Is the environmental review process consistent with that action?
Human Environment and Communities
  • Which alternatives do community stakeholders prefer?
  • Are there community objections to any alternatives? If so, how can the objection be addressed?
  • Have alternatives that will improve community quality of life, equity, and environmental justice in the area been identified?
Land Use
  • Have land use and/or smart growth effects been considered?
  • Are the alternatives supportive of area land use goals?
  • Do any alternatives negatively impact existing land use or require land use changes for the anticipated outcome?
Linking Planning and Operations
  • Are there TSMO strategies that are viable alternatives or that will support other solutions?
Natural Environment and Implementing Eco Logical
  • Do the alternatives avoid priority areas for ecological conservation, restoration and mitigation?
  • Does the full range of alternatives inform conservation priorities and potential alternatives developed in ecological planning?
Performance Measures
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Planning and Environment Linkages
  • Were any of the alternatives from a PEL study?
  • If so, were any identified as fatally flawed?
  • Is there an alternative(s) consistent with the adopted plan and/or approved solution set?
Public Private Partnerships
  • What input has been received from stakeholders about project implementation through a P3?
  • Have the alternatives for P3 projects been developed with private sector input? Is there consensus between the private and public sector?
  • Do the alternatives support the use of innovative means for financing, revenue generation, procurement, and efficient implementation?
Public Transportation
  • Do any of the alternatives present or remove barriers to public transportation usage or otherwise impact the public transportation network?
  • How well do the alternatives support public transportation connectivity and accessibility for users?
Safety
  • To what extent are safety strategies and countermeasures included in each of the alternatives?
Stakeholder Collaboration
  • Have stakeholders been asked for input on proposed alternatives and/or any missing alternatives?
  • How were stakeholders involved in identifying potential solutions?
  • What alternatives did the stakeholders suggest?
  • Did the stakeholders identify any missing alternatives?
    If so, how was that addressed?
  • What is the reasoning for how stakeholder information was handled?
    How has this been communicated to the stakeholders?
Transportation Conformity
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Visioning and Transportation
  • Are there alternatives that support or are in conflict with the adopted future?
  • Has scenario planning informed any alternatives identified? If so, how will that information be used?

Data

The following list of data may be needed to support the Key Decision. Practitioners collect this information for decision makers to consider. Although Public Transportation is not represented by a PlanWorks Application, the information provided may be useful in a collaborative transportation process.

Category Data to Consider
Long Range Planning
  • Information on the scenarios considered in long range planning and the basis for any that were eliminated
  • Preferred plan scenario
Programming
  • Project description, logical termini, and funding identified for the any projects included in the current TIP/STIP
Corridor Planning
  • Information on the range of solutions evaluated in the corridor planning process, including any solutions that were eliminated
  • Information on the preferred solution set from the corridor planning process
Environmental Review
  • Description of each alternative, any fatal flaws identified, and any relevant design concepts
  • Analysis comparing the alternatives to the approved purpose and need
  • Documentation of any fatally flawed alternatives
Bicycles and Pedestrians
  • Data on the needs and potential support of bicycle and pedestrian stakeholders
Capital Improvement
  • Fatally flawed alternatives from capital improvement perspective
Economic Development
  • Economic development impact of various strategies
  • Fatally flawed alternatives from an economic development perspective
Freight
  • Analysis of the benefits and impacts to freight interests and of freight to other interests
Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Health in Transportation
  • Alternatives suggested in prior planning efforts related to health
  • Health and community stakeholders’ suggestions for alternatives
Human Environment and Communities
  • Community preferences and objections
Land Use
  • Alternatives that meet land use partner interests and goals
  • Land use and/or smart growth impacts, as applicable
  • Assessment of alternative land use patterns to meeting the project purpose and need
Linking Planning and Operations
  • Potential TSMO strategies and treatments
Natural Environment and Implementing Eco Logical
  • Information and data regarding conservation, restoration, and enhancement priorities
  • Alternatives that meet ecological priorities
Performance Measures
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Planning and Environment Linkages
  • Potential project solutions from PEL studies, including any identified as fatally flawed or preferred
Public Private Partnerships
  • Potential impacts on project financing, revenue, and implementation for P3 alternatives
Public Transportation
  • Data on the needs of public transportation users and the public transportation network
  • Analysis of expected impacts of the alternatives on public transportation
Safety
  • Safety impacts for each alternative
Stakeholder Collaboration
  • Summary of public and stakeholder comments
  • Explanation of how feedback will be used
Transportation Conformity
  • This Key Decision is not associated with the Application.
Visioning and Transportation
  • Adopted future
  • Scenario planning information, if available

Examples

In - depth case studies of successful practices in collaborative decision making were used to develop the Decision Guide.Links in this table point to a specific paragraph or section of a case study that supports a Key Decision. It is not necessary to read through an entire case study to find the example; however, full versions are available in the Library.

PlanWorks Case Study Examples:
Regional TIP Policy Framework and Vision 2040 for Puget Sound Regional Council env-6

Other Examples:
None.