Click for next page ( 2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 1
1 Executive Summary Transparency and accountability in transportation decision making are basic to building credi- bility with stakeholders and the public. Performance measures that are relevant to system users and useful to transportation professionals can provide these conditions and for that reason, per- formance measurement is a key component of the collaborative decision-making framework (CDMF) being developed by the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Capac- ity focus area. The CDMF identifies key decision points (KDP) in four phases of transportation decision making: long-range planning, corridor planning, programming, and environmental review and permitting. Project C02, A Systems-Based Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making, supports this effort by creating a state-of-the-art performance measurement framework that individual transportation agencies and other public agencies can adapt to sup- port the needs of both agencies and stakeholders in the decision-making process for major trans- portation capacity projects. The framework focuses on providing performance-related measures that enable departments of transportation (DOTs) to address the challenges most common in the expansion of highway capacity, as identified in the CDMF's key decision points. It empha- sizes performance measurement as a tool to place individual projects within a system context. The work completed for the performance measurement framework was based on several key supporting research efforts, each of which is detailed in the final report, including: Development of the overall performance measurement framework, based on the broad application of performance management at transportation agencies in the United States; A review of the literature on performance measurement, with a focus on `nontraditional' areas such as the environment, community, and travel time reliability; Interviews with transportation agencies to determine the extent to which they are using per- formance measures in various areas identified in the literature; and Targeted case studies to identify performance measures and applications at specific trans- portation and other agencies. Collaborative Decision Making Context The CDMF defines specific key decision points in project development. Specific performance measures, data, and tools can be linked to these key decision points to help ensure that the best information is available as transportation agencies make decisions about projects. Figure ES.1 summarizes the relationship between the collaborative decision-making framework and the performance measurement framework. The CDMF helps address the process for developing transportation projects that add capacity, including questions about the roles of specific agencies in supporting the process.

OCR for page 1
2 Collaborative Performance Decision-Making Framework Measures Framework How? How are projects developed? When? What detail resolution is KDP Context Sensitive Solutions required at each stage of the planning process? KDP Who? Who is responsible? What? What types of project impacts How are tradeoffs made are important to making between agencies and actors? informed decisions? KDP Fundamental objectives for project? Why? Are you meeting the goals you identified up front? Tracking projects throughout the process Figure ES.1. Relationship between performance measurement framework and collaborative decision-making framework. The performance measurement framework helps address two related questions: What types of project impacts are important to making informed decisions? The framework organizes and defines a set of measure concepts that can be tailored to a specific transporta- tion agency context for reviewing major capacity projects, and others; and What detail resolution is required at each stage of the planning process? The framework explains how the measures can be used in long-range planning, programming, environmen- tal review, and permitting. As a project develops through these phases, the availability of data and level of detail will change. Performance Measurement Framework The performance measurement framework is organized around a set of five broad topics (transportation, environment, economics, community, and cost) and 18 performance factors within these areas. These performance factors capture the key areas that may be impacted by a potential project. Table ES.1 identifies the planning factors identified by topic. Each of these major topic areas is summarized below. Transportation Environment Economics Community Cost Mobility Ecosystems, Habitat, Economic Impact Land Use Cost and Biodiversity Reliability Economic Archeological and Cost-Effectiveness Water Quality Development Cultural Resources Accessibility Wetlands Social Safety Air Quality Environmental Justice Climate Change Environmental Health Table ES.1. SHRP 2 C02 Performance Factors

OCR for page 1
3 Transportation In evaluating major capacity expansion projects, impacts on the movement of people and goods over that system are among the most common considerations. The performance measures frame- work identifies four categories for evaluating the impact of capacity-adding projects on transporta- tion system performance: Mobility. Mobility refers to the ability of the transportation system to facilitate efficient move- ment of people and goods. Mobility typically addresses recurring congestion that results when traffic volumes approach or exceed available roadway capacity. Mobility measures do not cap- ture the implications of the location of the congestion compared to desired destinations, but instead simply highlight the extent of congestion in comparison with free-flow conditions. Reliability. Reliability refers to the ability of users of the system to predict the amount of time it takes to make trips on the system. Reliability typically addresses nonrecurring congestion that results from traffic incidents (crashes, breakdowns, special events, weather, and construction). Factors that impact reliability include things such as route redundancy, incident response, and incident rates. Accessibility. Accessibility refers to the ability of the transportation system to connect people to desired destinations through the spatial analysis of residential population, employment centers, and other service or recreation opportunities. Accessibility differs from mobility in that the measures can consider all modes, and focus specifically on the congestion on those roadways that inhibit key travel for a particular population or trip type. Safety. Safety refers to the ability for users of the system to reach their destination safely on any given trip. This is typically measured through the record of crashes or incidents along a par- ticular roadway or at a specific intersection. Although transportation projects often focus exclusively on safety, the focus in this framework is on the safety impacts of highway capacity expansion projects. Table ES.2 summarizes the measures identified in each of the transportation areas. Additional detail is available in the report. Environment Environmental impacts of highway capacity projects have traditionally been addressed through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process, parallel state processes, and related fed- eral and state regulations. These efforts focus on minimizing the impacts of new or expanded infrastructure through modifications to specific alignments and mitigation of those impacts that cannot be avoided. These efforts have typically focused narrowly on the transportation right-of- way, but recent federal and state efforts are shifting how environmental factors are addressed by: 1) considering the relationship between transportation and the natural environment more broadly, with a focus on protecting and enhancing quality environmental areas, rather than mitigating the impacts of specific projects; and 2) understanding and addressing environmental factors starting at the earliest stages of project development, especially long-range planning. Six performance factors have been identified within the environmental area of the framework, including: Ecosystems, Habitat, and Biodiversity. Highways can cause direct loss of habitat result- ing from road construction; fragmentation and isolation of existing habitats; obstacles that limit migration and dispersal and create smaller, more inbred populations; and animal/ vehicle collisions resulting in wildlife mortality and a serious safety concern for the travel- ing public. Recent work in this area focuses on the way an entire ecosystem works, rather than narrowly examining impacts on individual species.

OCR for page 1
4 Factor Measures Mobility Recurring Delay Difference between the actual time required by motorist to traverse a roadway segment and the unconstrained time. Trip Travel Time Time required for a motorist to complete a trip from its origin to its destination. Travel Time Index Ratio of the actual travel time for a trip compared to the unconstrained travel time. Volume to Capacity Ratio Actual number of vehicles using a roadway segment relative to the number of vehicles it is designed to handle over a fixed time period. Level of Service Qualitative letter grade of highway operating conditions from A (unconstrained travel) to F (severe congestion). Vehicle Miles Traveled Number of vehicles traveling a specified portion of the highway network over a set time multiplied by its length in miles. Mode Share Number of percent of transportation system users using non-SOV travel means (e.g., transit, bicycle, high- occupancy vehicle travel). Reliability Reliability Index A measure of the additional time (in minutes, percent extra time, etc.) that trips take under congestion conditions relative to uncongested or `normal' conditions. On-Time Trip Reliability Share of trips between a specific origin and destination with travel times below a designated threshold of time. Incident Duration Average time elapsed from notification of an incident to incident clearance. Crash Analysis Identification of high crash locations by roadway segment. Accessibility Job Accessibility Number of jobs within a reasonable travel time for a region's population. Destination Accessibility Average travel time to major regional destinations. Labor Force Accessibility Number of residents within reach of the region's employers. Market Accessibility Average travel time to market centers. Environmental Justice Accessibility Impact Relative jobs, destinations, labor force, and market accessibility for environmental populations versus the general population. Safety Safety Crashes per hundred million vehicle-miles traveled. Crashes Absolute number of crashes over time (e.g., per year). Table ES.2. Transportation Area Measures, by Factor Water Quality. Considering the effects of highway capacity on water resources can help pro- tect water resources and also ecosystems, biodiversity, wildlife habitat, and endangered or sen- sitive species that rely on healthy aquatic ecosystems. Water quality protection has historically been considered after project sites have been selected, but there is growing support for con- sidering water quality protection much earlier in the planning process, before environmental and permitting processes are required. Recent work in this area focuses on a watershed approach that takes into considerations the functions of individual water bodies in an overall system. Wetlands. Wetlands are complex ecosystems that, depending on their type and on circum- stances within a watershed, can improve water quality, provide natural flood control, dimin- ish droughts, recharge groundwater aquifers, and stabilize shorelines. They are vital to both water quality and ecosystem function. Regulated by the Clean Water Act, wetlands can be addressed by the watershed and ecosystem approaches identified under the water quality and ecosystems factors. There has been a recent move toward the consideration of wetlands qual- ity, and not solely quantity, in project planning and programming processes. Air Quality. Clean Air and transportation legislation has required the integration of the trans- portation and air quality planning processes since 1970. This integration is intended to ensure that transportation decisions are consistent with the air quality goals for a region. Current requirements include the transportation conformity process, which requires that projects within transportation improvement programs do not exceed air quality standards for an area.

OCR for page 1
5 Climate Change. Climate change should be addressed both in terms of transportation impacts on the climate, and the potential impacts of climate change on transportation infrastructure. Research suggests that climate change will significantly impact transportation infrastructure through rising sea levels and related changes. Environmental Health. Although the topic of environmental health is broad, this framework focuses on the issue of mobile source air toxics, a by-product of vehicle emissions and a well- documented contributor of cancer and noncancer human health problems. This is an emerg- ing area of research. Table ES.3 summarizes the measures identified in each of the environmental factors. Addi- tional detail is available in the report. Factor Measures Ecosystems, Loss of Habitats Impact of transportation construction on degradation in quality and quantity of land essential to Habitat, and the survival of target plant or animal species. Biodiversity Natural Resource Plan Consistency Consistency between natural resource plans and transportation project plans. Animal-Vehicle Collisions Impact of transportation projects on the number and characteristics of collisions between animals and vehicles. Losses of Native Plants Impact of transportation construction on the quality and quantity of native plant communities. Water quality Water Quality Protection Areas Impact of transportation construction on priority water quality protection area. Hydromodification Impact of transportation construction on water quality due to the alteration of water bodies by transportation projects. Losses of Riparian and Floodplain Areas Impact of transportation construction on the quality, quantity, location, and functioning of the areas adjacent to the affected water bodies that strongly influence water quality. Water Resource Plan Consistency Consistency between water resources and watershed management plans and transportation project plans. Construction-Related Water Quality Impacts Impacts on water quality due to highway construction. Water Quality Standards Compliance Consistency of transportation project-related water quality impacts with water quality standards. Highway Runoff Change in water quality due to added highway capacity. Impervious Surface Impact on watershed water quality due to additional buildings, roads, and other impervious surfaces built as a result of added transportation capacity. Wetlands Ratio of Wetland Acres Taken and Replaced Annual impact of transportation construction on statewide amount of wetlands lost compared to new wetlands built. Losses of High-Quality Wetlands Impact of transportation construction on high-value wetlands. Wetlands Plan Consistency Consistency between wetlands plans and transportation project plans. Air Quality Transportation Conformity Comparison of actual on-road transportation-related emissions in air quality non- attainment or maintenance region versus desired level of emissions identified in state's air quality plan to ensure national ambient air quality standards are met or exceeded. Carbon Monoxide and Particulate Matter Concentrations Contribution of projects to localized CO or PM violations in nonattainment and maintenance areas. Climate Change Greenhouse Gas Emissions Total amount of transportation-related pollutants that cause global climate change. Infrastructure Vulnerability Susceptibility of transportation infrastructure to damage caused by environmental hazards associated with global climate change. Carbon Sequestration Net change in quantity of carbon stored in biomass located along transportation corridors as a result of construction and operations-related vegetation management practices. Environmental Health Air Toxics Concentrations Impact of transportation construction on concentrations of mobile source air toxics. Air Toxics Exposure Proximity of vulnerable populations potentially affected by mobile source air toxics. Table ES.3. Environment Area Measures, by Factor

OCR for page 1
6 Economic Transportation investments have significant potential economic benefits and impacts that are often considered in analyses of potential capacity expansion projects. Transportation infrastruc- ture plays a vital role in the economy at local, regional, and national levels and investments in this infrastructure provide benefits through improved accessibility, reduced travel times, and similar changes. Infrastructure investments also can disrupt economic activities by restricting access to businesses during construction or taking local businesses as part of right-of-way acqui- sition. The framework considers two economic factors: 1. Economic Impacts These impacts include monetized user benefits such as travel-time sav- ings and fuel and nonfuel cost savings, improvements in reliability, and safety benefits. 2. Economic Development Economic development captures the broader economic benefits that can accrue as a result of transportation investment. This factor includes productivity effects driven by supply chain improvements, accessibility benefits, and more general macro- economic impacts such as regional economic output and employment. The SHRP 2 Capacity focus area is conducting research into economic factors and poten- tial performance measures as part of the C03 project, Interactions between Transportation Capacity, Economic Systems, and Land Use merged with Integrating Economic Considerations in Project Development. Measures for this section of the framework will be developed as part of the C03 effort. Community Highway capacity projects can have both positive and negative impacts on the physical and social characteristics of a local community. Because the valued characteristics of a community are often subjective, the impacts (both positive and negative) must be evaluated collaboratively, with input provided from residents, local business owners, and other interested stakeholders. The measure- ment of community impacts should be grounded in local and regional land use and transporta- tion plans that establish a clear vision for a community. Although there are several potential ways to classify community impacts, the following four categories are used to differentiate among the key concepts in this part of the framework: Land use. Land use impacts include changes in land cover and vegetation, changes in the use of land from natural to human uses, and changes in the type of use (e.g., residential, commer- cial, industrial, agricultural). The change in land use can be reflected in the environmental quality of the land, the type of human use, and the intensity of use. Highway capacity projects can impact land use through direct physical impacts on the land, or indirect impacts result- ing from new levels of mobility and accessibility. Archeological, Historical, and Cultural Resources. Communities often have an interest in preserving their past to maintain a sense of history, offer educational opportunities, and sup- port research. Highway capacity projects can threaten preservation efforts directly, by impact- ing historic, cultural, and archeological sites, or indirectly, by changing the usage around these sites to impact the access and experience of a visit to the site. Social. Impacts on the social aspect of communities range from aesthetics and noise to displacement and fragmentation. Highway capacity projects can impact these factors through the built form of the infrastructure or the effects of construction or operation of the facility. Environmental Justice. In addition to evaluating overall transportation, economic, environ- mental and community impacts, transportation agencies must consider the differential impacts of the various factors considered in this framework on traditionally disadvantaged

OCR for page 1
7 Factor Measures Land Use Transportation Land Consumption Amount of land converted to transportation uses. Induced Development Land Consumption Amount of land developed for nontransportation uses as a result of the project. Consistency of Induced Land Consumption with Land Use Plan Extent to which anticipated induced growth impacts are consistent with local and regional plans for growth. Support of Project for Growth Centers Project serves designated growth centers or growth policy areas. Local-Regional Plan Consistency Consistency of local land use policies with regional transportation-land use vision. Archeological, Historical, Site Location Net loss of sites with archeological or historical significance. and Cultural Resources Artifact Location Project impact on the location of historic artifacts providing research opportunities. Social Community Cohesion Change in physical neighborhood-level connections that unite residents and businesses. Noise Change in noise level in vicinity of project during and after construction. Visual Quality Change in visual characteristics that define community identity. Emergency Response Time Change in time required by fire, police, and medical responders to reach a community. Citizen's Concerns Transportation-related issues of greatest concerns to citizens. Environmental Justice Environmental Justice Relative distribution of project benefits and costs across affected population. Table ES.4. Community Area Measures, by Factor groups, defined by race, ethnicity, income, or mobility impairment. Therefore, these meas- ures tend to be similar to those found in other factor areas, but are analyzed specifically with respect to these disadvantaged groups to ensure they are not carrying a disproportionate load of the negative impacts of capacity projects. Table ES.4 summarizes the measures identified in each of the community factors. Additional detail is available in the report. Cost Quality cost estimates that remain stable through the planning and programming phases of proj- ect development, and that incorporate both direct and indirect costs of a project, are crucial to making informed decisions. Two broad cost factors have been identified for this effort: Cost. This factor addresses cost estimation management and practice. Issues addressed include the reliability of cost estimates, incorporating unforeseen costs (such as those that result from community concerns), and improving accountability for early cost estimates. Sound cost estimation practices and successful execution of measures in this factor will help reduce the incidence of cost variability. Cost-Effectiveness. This factor includes traditional aggregate measures of cost-effectiveness such as unit construction cost; productivity or cost indices; analyses of federal/local fund- ing matches and public-private partnerships; as well as more analytical benefit/cost analy- ses, including techniques for monetization of nontraditional measures. Table ES.5 summarizes the measures identified in each of the cost factors. Additional detail is available in the report.

OCR for page 1
8 Factor Measures Cost Cost Stability Change in cost estimates during the project development process. Construction Cost Escalation Factor Change in price index or key construction material costs. Cost Effectiveness Benefit/Cost (B/C) Analysis Monetized project benefits relative to total project costs. Project Unit Cost Total project cost per unit of project delivered. Qualitative Cost-Effectiveness Benefits achieved across measures per dollar of cost. Construction Productivity Index Percentage of total project cost for administrative and change order costs. Local/Regional Match Percent of project costs absorbed by local or regional agencies. Private Investment Private investment in complementary infrastructure. Table ES.5. Community Area Measures, by Factor High-Value Opportunities for Data Improvement In addition to identifying potential measures, the SHRP 2 C02 identified potential data gaps and data gathering opportunities within the environment and community factors. Though each factor has unique data gaps and opportunities, five common themes emerged: 1. Use of remote sensing for data capture. Remote sensing technology currently is used to pro- vide data sets that would be prohibitively expensive to collect via field survey methods. Avail- ability of remote sensing imagery provides valuable baseline information for long-range planning and screening of alternatives. Additional work is needed on specific applications of remote sensing for wetland quality, land use classification, and detailed physical features of land cover. Federal or TRB research that provides guidance on use of remote sensing may increase its use to provide data to performance measurement systems, among other applications. 2. GIS applications for program and project analysis. GIS-based tools that incorporate multi- ple data layers and facilitate specific analysis tasks provide tremendous value to planners and project engineers, eliminating the need to identify and track down data sources and develop custom queries and analysis capabilities. Specific applications include integrated screening analysis based on transportation, environmental, land use, and cultural resource data; pro- viding regional overlays of individual agency plans to support cross-agency collaboration; and analysis of transportation facility vulnerability related to climate change. 3. Modeling and simulation tools. Development of simulation or scenario analysis tools that build on the GIS capabilities described above would provide further value for early explo- ration of capacity project alternatives. Potential applications include impact assessment for proposed facilities or programs of projects on water quality, habitat, and historic and cultural resources; and analysis of the implications of various climate change scenarios on infrastruc- ture vulnerability. The Environmental Information Management System and Decision Sup- port System developed as part of NCHRP project 25-23 that presents an opportunity to build a decision support tool. 4. Interagency partnerships. Environmental and natural resource agencies at the federal, state, and regional levels offer a wealth of data that are needed to support performance assess- ments for many of the factors in the SHRP 2 CO2 framework. Transportation agencies already are tapping in to many of these data sources. Partnerships can be pursued at all lev-

OCR for page 1
9 els of government to further strengthen data sharing initiatives, leverage existing monitoring resources and jointly pursue development of new data sets and tools that meet common needs. Specific examples of successful partnerships include GIS data sharing agreements in Oregon and New York State, and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. 5. Data sharing. A prerequisite to data integration and sharing across disparate data producers and users is availability of metadata that documents dataset content, derivation, accuracy, and suitability for specific purposes. Use of the U.S. federal metadata standards1 developed by the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) has become fairly widespread for geospatial datasets. The FGDC also endorses a variety of other standards for specific data types (e.g., wet- lands, vegetation, soils.) Programmatic guidelines and tools that encourage and facilitate pro- vision of complete and consistent metadata would be of value. A thorough examination of data opportunities by factor is provided in the report. Links to Decision Making The fundamental purpose of SHRP 2 Capacity research is to improve decision making regard- ing major capacity projects. This can help improve the environmental and community outcomes of major transportation projects and also speed up the process of project development and potentially reduce costs. Performance measurement can help by providing objective informa- tion that can support decision making. The SHRP 2 C01 Collaborative Decision-Making Framework project has identified several phases of the project development process within which key decisions are made, including long- range planning, programming, corridor studies, environmental review, and permitting. For each of these, the C01 project has identified several key decision points. Table ES.6 identifies poten- tial links between the collaborative decision-making framework and the performance measure- ment framework. There are three key concepts in the table that warrant more detailed explanation: Consistency Analysis One of the key uses of performance measures for project analysis is as a tool to evaluate how proposed investments by a transportation agency conform to existing plans and studies in other areas. Land use, water, wildlife, and other similar plans help form the context within which transportation agencies make decisions. For some issues, such as air quality, a specific determination of conformity is required, through which expected contribu- tions to criteria pollutants are modeled. Consistency suggests a more qualitative assessment. Examples could include the extent to which proposed investments are in areas that have an established regional transportation-land use vision or a determination if a project is within a vital area for wildlife or water quality, as defined by a habitat or water quality plan. Screening Process At several linkages a screening process is suggested. At the long-range planning level, this process is used to qualitatively assess a plan's impact on broad planning factors (e.g., positive or negative impacts on mobility, water quality, etc.). At more detailed levels, the screening process uses measures to evaluate how individual projects or project alter- natives will actually impact these factors. Red Flag Analysis Agencies can use measures to identify segments of road with known envi- ronmental or community concerns. Some agencies maintain a `red map' of roads to which adding capacity is simply not feasible. Using measures to flag challenging projects early in the process can lead the agency to focus on projects that can be developed easier and faster or to 1 http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/geospatial-metadata-standards.

OCR for page 1
10 Key Decision Point Linkage How Measures Influence Decision Making Long-Range Planning 202 Approve Vision Select factors Vision and goals of the LRP should define the universe of performance factors and Goals considered. 203 Approve Evaluation Select measures Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 202; and Criteria and General statewide or regional targets should be set collaboratively for measures. Methodology 204 Approve Transportation Use measures Use targets set in 203 to determine deficiencies in the state or region; Deficiencies Environmental PMs used in geospatial analysis of potential `fatal flaws' for significant natural resources; and Transportation PMs define level of need (i.e., funding required to achieve targets set in 203). 207 Approve Plan Use measures PMs used in a screening process for plan scenarios. Scenarios Programming 301 Approve Evaluation Select measures Measures selected for consistency analysis (i.e., are the set of projects Criteria and programmed consistent with the vision and goals set in 202); and Methodology Measures selected for prioritization algorithm readily available data and quantifiable. 302 Approve Project Use measures Use consistency process or prioritization algorithm to prioritize and select Priority List projects. 304 Adopt Conformity Use Measures Air Quality measures support this process; and by MPO Potential future `conformity' or consistency processes for GHG emissions or other natural resources. Corridor Studies 403 Approve Goals for the Select factors Goals should be consistent with those developed in 202; and Corridor Goals for the corridor study define the universe of performance factors considered. 404 Approve Evaluation Provide measures Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 403; and Criteria and Reasonable range of expectations set for each measure (i.e., what is the best Methodology that can be done for congestion or what is the worst allowable impact). 407 Approve Range of Use measures Measures used within a high-level screening process to identify feasible alter- Alternatives natives (i.e., those without fatal flaws). 408 Adopt Preferred Use measures Measures used at a more detailed level to evaluate a narrower range of Alternative alternatives in greater depth. Environmental Review 503 Approve Purpose Use measures Minor inform the purpose and needs with performance analysis of the and Need suitability of the proposed solution. 504 Reach Consensus Select measures Identify measures that can address the appropriate scale (e.g., corridor, water- on Study Area shed, ecosystem, etc.) relevant for the review. 505 Approve Evaluation Select measures Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 403; and Criteria and Specific targets set for measures that require a minimum or maximum Methodology regulatory threshold to be met. 507 Approve Alternatives to Use measures Measures used within a high-level screening process to identify feasible be Carried Forward alternatives (i.e., those without fatal flaws). 509 Approve Preferred Use measures Measures used at a more detailed level to evaluate a narrower range of Alternative alternatives in greater depth. Note: Key Decision Points are taken from SHRP 2 Project C01. Numbers may change. Table ES.6. Linkages Between Key Decision Points and Performance Measures

OCR for page 1
11 identify when extraordinary public and stakeholder involvement may be required to advance a particularly challenging project. The collaborative decision-making framework is still in development; the links between the key decision points and performance measurement framework will need to be updated as the framework matures. These linkages provide the mechanism for performance measure- ment to support a collaborative process for selecting and developing major transportation capacity projects.