Click for next page ( 64

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 63
63 C H A P T E R 9 Conclusions Using Measures in Decision Making The previous sections of this report described the develop- concerns of the agency or agencies evaluating a new capac- ment of the performance measurement framework, related ity project. performance measures, and the key data sources currently 3. Use Measures After selection of the measures, they used and needed to support those measures. Ultimately, the should be used to evaluate specific projects. investigation of performance measures for the SHRP 2 Capac- ity program is focused on providing information to a data- Several key concepts from within the table warrant more driven, collaborative decision-making process. This concluding detailed explanation, including: section begins to address the question of how to best link performance measures to the collaborative decision-making Consistency Analysis One of the key uses of performance framework being developed in SHRP 2 C01. 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, Links to Decision Making wildlife, and other similar plans help form the context Chapter 3 provided broad outlines of how performance within which DOTs make decisions. For some issues, such measures can help inform decisions at various phases of the as air quality, a specific determination of conformity is process. This chapter attempts to make more specific links, required, through which expected contributions to criteria both to key decision points and across the key phases of the pollutants are modeled. Consistency suggests a more qual- project development process. itative assessment. Examples could include the extent to which proposed investments are in areas that have an estab- lished regional transportation-land use vision or a determi- Key Decision Points for nation if a project is within a vital area for wildlife or water Performance Measures quality, as defined by a habitat or water quality plan. The SHRP 2 C01 project has identified several phases of the Screening Process At several linkages a screening process project development process within which key decisions are is suggested. At the long-range planning level, this process made, including long-range planning, programming, corri- is used to qualitatively assess a plan's impact on broad dor studies, environmental review, and permitting. For each planning factors (e.g., positive or negative impacts on of these, the C01 project has identified several key decision mobility, water quality, etc.). At more detailed levels, the points. Table 9.1 identifies the links between the collaborative screening process uses measures to evaluate how individ- decision-making framework and the performance measure- ual projects or project alternatives will actually impact ment framework. Three types of links are described: these factors. Red Flag Analysis Agencies can use measures to identify 1. Select Factors The performance measurement frame- segments of road with known environmental or commu- work is organized around several high-level planning fac- nity concerns. Some agencies maintain a `red map' of roads tors. For each of the key phases, it is important to identify to which adding capacity is simply not feasible. Using which of these factors are under consideration. measures to flag challenging projects early in the process 2. Select Measures Within the identified factors, specific can lead the agency to focus on projects that can be devel- measures should be selected that help address the specific oped easier and faster or to identify when extraordinary

OCR for page 63
64 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 9.1. Linkages Between Key Decision Points and Performance Measures