Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

73A P P E N D I X A Case StudiesWeb Tool Case Studies The supporting case studies included in the web tool are listed in Table A.1, organized by agency. Additional descriptions and links to the agencies will be available on the web tool when it is released. Partnership for Integrated Planning The Partnership for Integrated Planning was a pilot program in California launched in 2001 through collaboration between the Merced CountyAssociationofGovernments(MCAG), USEPA, FHWA, and Caltrans. The partnership was formed to utilize an alternative process in the development of MCAG’s 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) update. The new process focused on environmental concerns and the inclusion of the public using a number of strategies, including: • Incorporating environmental concerns into the RTP update; • Conducting an Environmental Impact Report for the RTP; • Streamlining the project delivery process; and • Using GIS tools to model land use with transportation projects and environmental data layers. This focus meant that the 2004 RTP update differed from the traditional long-range planning process in a number of ways. First, using GIS and modeling tools allowed MCAG to explore the cumulative impacts analysis of land use and trans- portation decisions within the RTP’s 26-year horizon, and on a regional scale. Bringing the land use, transportation, and envi- ronmental data layers together required cooperation among agencies that had not collaborated previously. Second, the analysis tools provided a picture of how a selected group of proj- ects will collectively impact habitats, wetlands, and prime agri- cultural land. Third, the final version of the RTP allowed enough flexibility so that transportation projects could be modified in the planning stage if significant cumulative impactswere identified later. As specific projects are programmed, the regional assessment can provide the overall context and impact analysis. Finally, this RTP process was designed to increase the public participation significantly. The scenario planning and visual representation provided an engaging tool for use in gathering public comment and ideas. Using the PIP process, MCAG developed five development scenarios: Current Policy, Some Changes, More Changes, Alter- native Modes, and Alternative Modes and Roads (1). Each scenario was evaluated using the measures in Table A.2. Combined, the analysis of these measures helped MCAG select the preferred alternative for the RTP, which was unani- mously adopted by the agency’s governing board. Cumulative Impacts As part of the PIP process, a Cumulative Impacts Panel was established. The panel’s purpose was to develop guidelines and a methodology for identifying mitigation responsibility and strategies for the anticipated impacts at the scenario plan- ning stages during the RTP development process. Since these activities have typically been conducted at the project level during the environmental review process, this differed signif- icantly from the standard approach. The cumulative impacts of each scenario were compared to a no-plan alternative in five areas: agriculture (acres), wetland (acres), potential habitat (acres), cultural (acres), historic sites (number of sites). Tools MCAG utilized two tools to evaluate the effects of new facil- ities on land use, and the subsequent impact on habitats and environmentally sensitive areas: • UPlan – a scenario-based GIS modeling tool. This model can project land development patterns based on a set of (text continues on page 79)

74 X X X E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t L a n d U s e H i s t o r i c , c u l t u r a l , a r c h e o l o g i c a l S o c i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e C o s t C o s t E f f e c t i v eAgency Name Case Study Name American Lung Association Sacramento/?Interstate-5 of Sacramento-Emigrant Aerosol Transect Study Trails Health Effects Winter Months Task Force 2003-2005 X X Arizona DOT Comprehensive Approach to Wildlife Protection on State Route 260 X X Arizona DOT Arizona’s Wildlife Linkages Assessment X X Arizona DOT ADOT MoveAZ Transportation Plan X X X Atlanta Regional Commission Atlanta Regional Commission Envision6 RTP, FY 08-13 TIP X X X X X Breathe California of Vehicular Exposures and Sacramento-Emigrant Potential Mitigations Trails Downwind of Watt Avenue, Sacramento, CA X X California Department of Transportation Project- Transportation Level Carbon Monoxide Protocol (CO Protocol) X California Department of Estimating Mobile Source Transportation (Caltrans) Air Toxics Emissions: and UC Davis Institute of A Step-By-Step Transportation Studies Project Analysis Methodology X California Department of EMFAC Model for Air Toxics Transportation (Caltrans) and UC Davis Institute of Transportation Studies X M o b i l i t y R e l i a b i l i t y A c c e s s i b i l i t y S a f e t y W a t e r Q u a l i t y E c o s y s t e m , b i o d i v e r s i t y , h a b i t a t W e t l a n d s A i r Q u a l i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h C l i m a t e C h a n g e E c o n o m i c I m p a c t

75 X X X X X X X X X X (continued on next page)California Department of Proposed State Route Transportation (Caltrans) 125 South Air Emissions and UC Davis Institute of and the Sweetwater Transportation Studies Reservoir: A Review X X of Recent Reports Sponsored by the Sweetwater Authority Capital District Albany, NY – New Visions Transportation 2030 (Regional Committee Transportation Plan) Capital District Albany, NY Congestion Transportation Management Process X X X X Committee Colorado DOT Colorado I-70 Mountain Corridor Tier 1 EIS X X X X Colorado DOT, FHWA, The Linking Colorado’s Land- Nature Conservancy, scapes and the Southern Colorado State University Rockies Ecosystem X Xthrough the Southern Project Rockies Ecosystem Project Denver Regional Council of DRCOG FY 08-13 TIP X X X Governments EPA National Air Toxics Assessment (NATA) X EPA EPA Storm Water Management Model X X X (SWMM) EPA National Air Toxics Trends Stations (NATTS) X EPA EPA EnviroMapper for Water X X X EPA EPA MOBILE model and Motor Vehicle Emissions X Simulator (MOVES) EPA EPA WATERS Expert Query Tool X EPA; FHWA; Maryland State Green Highways Partnership Highway Administration X X X Table A.1. SHRP 2 C02 Performance Measures Case Studies

76 E c o n o m i c I m p a c t E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t L a n d U s e H i s t o r i c , c u l t u r a l , a r c h e o l o g i c a l S o c i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e C o s t C o s t E f f e c t i v e X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X XAgency Name Case Study Name M o b i l i t y R e l i a b i l i t y A c c e s s i b i l i t y S a f e t y W a t e r Q u a l i t y E c o s y s t e m , b i o d i v e r s i t y , h a b i t a t W e t l a n d s A i r Q u a l i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h C l i m a t e C h a n g e FHWA, Nevada DOT U.S. 95 in Nevada: Transportation-Related X Air Toxics Florida DOT Florida’s Wildlife Species Ranking Process X Florida DOT Environmental Screening Tool X X X Florida DOT Strategic Intermodal System Plan X X X X X X X Florida DOT Florida’s Sociocultural Effects Evaluation X X X Indiana DOT Indiana Planning Oversight Committee Low-Impact Development Low-Impact Development Center Urban Design Tools X Maryland State Highway Green Highway U.S. Association Route 301 X X X X X Merced County Association Partnership for Integrated of Governments Planning X X X Metropolitan Transportation San Francisco Bay Area Commission Regional Transportation X Plan – Equity Analysis Mid-Ohio Regional Planning Columbus, Ohio Regional Commission Transportation Plan – EJ X Analysis Ministry of Transport, Public Citizens Value Assessment Works, and Water Management Minnesota DOT Mn/Model

77 X X X X X X X (continued on next page)Minnesota DOT MnDOT 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan X X X X X X X Minnesota DOT MnDOT Metro Area Ramp Meter Study X X Montana Department of Wildlife Vehicle Collision and Transportation Crossing Mitigation Measures: A Toolbox for X X the Montana Department of Transportation National Oceanic and Nonpoint Source Pollution Atmospheric and Erosion Comparison X X X Administration Tool (N-SPECT) National Oceanic and Impervious Surface Analysis Atmospheric Tool Administration; University of Connecticut X X X New Hampshire Fish and New Hampshire Wildlife Game Department Action Plan X North Carolina DOT and North Carolina Ecosystem North Carolina Department Enhancement Program of Environment and X X X Natural Resources (NCDENR) North Carolina DOT Highway 311 Corridor Study X Oregon DOT Collaborative Environmental and Transportation Agreement on Streamlining (CETAS) X X X Pennsylvania DOT PennDOT Cultural Resources GIS Puget Sound Regional Seattle – Destination 2030 Council and Vision 2040 X X X X X X X South Coast Air Quality Multiple Air Toxics Exposure Management District Study (MATES-II) X Southern California SCAG Long-Range Association of Transportation Plan Governments Tahoe Regional Planning TRPA Scenic Shoreline Agency (TRPA) Assessment System (SSAS) Table A.1. (Continued).

78 USGS X Washington State DO X X X X Washington State DO X Washington State DO World Resources Inst X Table A.1. (Cont Agency Name E c o s y s t e m , b i o d i v e r s i t y , h a b i t a t W e t l a n d s A i r Q u a l i t y E n v i r o n m e n t a l H e a l t h C l i m a t e C h a n g e E c o n o m i c I m p a c t E c o n o m i c D e v e l o p m e n t L a n d U s e H i s t o r i c , c u l t u r a l , a r c h e o l o g i c a l S o c i a l E n v i r o n m e n t a l J u s t i c e C o s t C o s t E f f e c t i v eUSGS National Hydrography Dataset X X T Transportation Project Mitigation Cost X X Screening Matrix T Interstate 405 Corridor Remote Sensing Study X T WSDOT Reliability Measures X X itute Climate Analysis Indicators Tool inued). Case Study Name M o b i l i t y R e l i a b i l i t y A c c e s s i b i l i t y S a f e t y W a t e r Q u a l i t y

79Factor Area Measurement Unit High or Low? Mobility Lane-miles of congestion in 2030 Lane-miles Lower is better Accessibility Transit ridership in 2030 Millions riders/year Higher is better Funding for bike paths and sidewalks Millions of dollars Higher is better Safety Accidents reduced in the next 25 years Accidents Higher is better Air Quality Emissions (pollution) in 2030 Tons per day Lower is better Land Use Land Converted to urban uses Square miles Lower is better Acres of farmlands directly impacted Acres Lower is better Cost Environmental Mitigation Cost Millions of dollars Lower is better Total regional cost per scenario Millions of dollars Lower is better Source: http://www.mcagov.org/?PROJECTS/?TRANS/?1460.htm Table A.2. MCAG Scenario Evaluation Measuresassumptions about densities, environmental constraints, and local land use plans. The program enabled PIP partic- ipants and stakeholders to understand the implications of different plans and evaluated scenarios. This tool can be used at the city, county, or watershed scale (2). • HePlan – a habitat evaluation and planning model that pre- dicts the occurrence of habitat areas based on environmen- tal data layers. This tool allows users to scale conservation preferences or goals based on potentially affected habitats. Like UPlan, it can be used at city, county, or watershed scale. MCAG identified some significant accomplishments as a result of the PIP process. From the partnership and collabo- ration perspective, they found that this process provided a good platform for establishing a new level of mutual under- standing with the relevant resource agencies about regula- tions, policies, and cumulative impact analysis. This served to achieve a more thorough analysis of environmental impacts. The process also initiated the effort to begin compiling envi- ronmental data layers into a format usable for all partners. The process lent itself well to public participation, and MCAG noted that it resulted in a 30 percent increase in the number of county residents aware of the RTP process. Finally, the RTP was unanimously approved by the MCAG governing board on the first round. Atlanta Regional Commission Envision6/ FY 08-13 TIP Project Evaluation System Expansion Projects For the latest update to the long-range transportation plan (LRTP) and short-range transportation improvement pro- gram (TIP), referred to as Envision6, the Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) staff developed and implemented a detailed project prioritization methodology to evaluate systemexpansion projects (Transit Capital, Roadway Capacity, and HOV Lanes) that incorporated the Georgia Governor’s Con- gestion Mitigation Task Force and ARC Board recommenda- tion to increase weighting of congestion reduction in project selection to 70 percent. ARC staff prepared a technical frame- work to accommodate this recommendation, while also respecting additional Board guidance to develop a project selec- tion process that is consistent with Envision6 development and growth policies and the Regional Strategic Transportation Sys- tem (RSTS – a roadway system of predefined facilities eligible to receive federal transportation funding). All system expansion projects were first screened against the RSTS. Those capacity-adding projects that fell on the RSTS were evaluated using a technical analysis to quantify how well each project performs in relation to four evaluation criteria defined below. The technical analysis was not used to provide an assessment of the type of treatment needed for a facility. It was an evaluation used to compare existing project proposals relative to one another to aid in project selection. Projects received up to 100 points based on an assessment of: • Recurring delay, which occurs as routine traffic volume exceeds available roadway capacity; • Nonrecurring (incident) delay, which occurs as a result of traffic incidents; • Environmental impact, which measures a project’s prox- imity to six environmentally sensitive areas; and • Regional Development Plan (RDP) policy support, which measures how well a project supports ARC’s growth poli- cies based on project location and scope. A benefit/cost calculation was used to determine the project’s placement within different years of the TIP and LRTP. Project benefits reflect the dollar value of time-travel savings (delay reduction) for commercial vehicle and person time as well as

80fuel-cost savings. Project costs reflect funding allocations for preliminary engineering, R/W, and construction. Evaluation Process Recurring Congestion (50 points). Points were awarded based on the level of (recurring) delay reduction each project provides. For roadway capacity-adding projects (to include HOV lane projects), points were allocated based on how well each project scored in relation to three congestion metrics – intensity, duration, and extent. A travel demand model post- processor was used to compare network performance of the 2030 Build scenario to a 2030 No-Build scenario, in terms of each project’s impact on the intensity, duration, and extent of congestion. • Congestion Intensity – Total delay the project corridor experiences during the most congested period of the day. • Congestion Duration – Average total hours during the day that a facility exhibits congested conditions. • Congestion Extent – Total daily delay experienced by all vehicles using the project corridor. For transit capacity projects, recurring delay benefits were estimated using FTA’s SUMMIT software. The SUMMIT software produces several outputs, including but not limited to: number of person and transit trips for a no-build scenario; change in person and transit trips resulting from the Build scenario; and the transportation system User Benefit Hours that result from the Build scenario. The absolute value of each project’s User Benefit Hours total was translated to a final score ranging from 0 to 50. Nonrecurring Congestion (20 points). For roadway capac- ity projects, points were awarded based on a comparison of the project crash rate at a particular road segment (the seg- ment within a project’s limits) to a regionwide crash rate on roadways of similar functional classification. Projects that exceeded the regional crash rate average by the most were awarded the most points, up to 20 points. Crash data used in the analysis was extracted from the statewide Georgia CARE crash database. Crash rates were calculated for a five-year average, 2000-2004. To determine the impact of transit projects on incident- based roadway congestion, an original formula was devised to estimate the number of crashes prevented from occurring on the roadway system as the result of a specific transit investment. This effective reduction in crashes, which in turn leads to a commensurate reduction in incident-based congestion, was used as an indicator of how well the transit project mitigates nonrecurring roadway congestion resulting from crashes. Points were awarded by calculating the difference between the respective crash rates for private vehicle travel and the transittechnology for a particular project, and then applying this dif- ference to the passenger mileage for the project in question. Transit crash rates by transit technology (e.g., BRT, heavy-rail, light-rail) were acquired from national and local statistics. Pri- vate vehicle crash rates were acquired from the Georgia CARE crash database. Environmental Impact (15 points). For both roadway capac- ity and transit capacity projects, points were assigned based on each project’s geographic proximity to six environmentally sen- sitive areas: Historic Resources, Wetlands, Floodplains, Parks, Water Bodies, and Small Area Supply Watersheds. This was done using a raster-based (grid-based) GIS analysis that applies more points with greater cumulative environmental impact. Transportation capacity projects were mapped to the environmental areas and the cumulative environmental impact was calculated based on the number and type of sen- sitive areas that the project impacts (i.e., touches). Points were assigned based on the aggregate environmental impact and then inverted to avoid rewarding projects (i.e., higher score) with greater environmental impact. This work was done in ESRI’s ArcGIS desktop software with the Spatial Ana- lyst extension. Growth Policy Support (15 points): For both roadway and transit capacity projects, points were awarded based on each project’s ability to support “place-based” transportation objectives, as defined by the appropriate land use place type (e.g., CBD, suburban neighborhood, rural area, etc.). Place- based transportation objectives were developed through ARC staff and planning partner discussions on transportation ele- ments that should be included as part of a project’s scope to support regional development growth policies. Examples of these elements used for scoring included: transit amenities, bike/pedestrian amenities, ITS elements, demand manage- ment elements, and connectivity between centers, context- sensitive elements, and local land use commitment. Points were assigned based on the number and type of objectives that were met as part of the project proposal. A unique distribution of points was determined for each of the eight land use place types, with the various objectives weighted differently based on their relative importance in the context of the specific place type. All projects were first mapped to the ARC Unified Growth Policy Map to define the appropriate land use place type. Up to 15 points were then assigned based on the num- ber and type of transportation objectives that each project supported. Total Project Scores (100 points): Total project scores were calculated by summing points over each of the four evaluation criteria. Total scores were used to place projects into one of three tiers with Tier 1 representing the top third (best perform- ing projects), Tier 2 representing the middle third of projects (average overall score), and Tier 3 the bottom third (worst performing projects). Tier rankings were used as the primary

81criteria for determining which projects were ultimately selected for funding. California Benefit/Cost for Project Evaluation The California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) cur- rently uses economic analyses to evaluate and prioritize the state’s investments to assess which provide the most benefits. One such tool is the California Life-Cycle Benefit/Cost Analy- sis Model (Cal-B/C). Caltrans has been using Cal-B/C for more than 10 years for a variety of evaluation efforts, some ongoing, and some one-time activities. These include: • The conduct of investment analyses of improvement proj- ects (highway and transit) proposed for the interregional portion of the State Transportation Improvement Pro- gram (STIP); • Evaluation and programming for projects included in the State Highway Operation and Protection Program; and • Evaluation of projects for a $4.5 billion bond measure, the Corridor Mobility Improvement Account. Cal-B/C measures four primary categories of benefits: • Travel-time savings; • Vehicle operating costs; • Safety benefits (accident cost savings); and • Emission reductions. Evaluation Process Cal-B/C is a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet tool that provides economic benefit and cost analyses for the evaluation of a range of capacity-expansion transportation projects. It can be used to compare similar types of projects, prioritize or rank projects, allocate resources, and test project phasing. Cal-B/C is capable of analyzing: • Highway Capacity Expansion: – Lane additions, HOV lanes, passing/truck climbing lanes; and – Interchanges, bypasses. • Transit Capacity Expansion: – Passenger rail, light rail, bus projects. • Operational Improvements: – Auxiliary lanes, freeway and HOV connectors; and – Off- and on-ramp widening. • Transportation Management Systems: – Ramp metering, signal coordination, incident manage- ment; and – Traveler information, arterial signal management.The general methodology used for evaluating each of the performance measures in Cal-B/C are described below. These are obtained directly from the California Life-Cycle Benefit/ Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) – Technical Supplement to User’s Guide, September 1999. TRAVEL-TIME SAVINGS The model follows these steps to calculate estimates of annual and 20-year delay savings on highways: 1. Based on the base and future-year ADT projections, the model estimates future annual ADTs, without and with the improvement project, assuming straight-line growth; 2. Annual ADTs are multiplied by the affected length and then divided by the traffic speed to find the total travel time, without and with the improvement project; 3. Annual travel-time savings (the difference between total travel time without and with project) are multiplied by the value of time and average vehicle occupancy for each mode to convert travel-time savings into dollar values; and 4. The dollar values of travel-time savings are discounted to estimate their present value. Cal-B/C also can accept analysis results from a travel demand model or other traffic analysis models to use as inputs if available. The process for transit travel-time savings is similar except that annual person trips and total travel time are provided by the user. VEHICLE OPERATING COSTS (VOC) The change in highway vehicle operating costs (increased fuel use, vehicle wear and tear, etc. due to improved speed) is esti- mated as follows: 1. Estimated future annual ADTs are multiplied by the affected segment length to find annual VMT, with and without the project as well as the difference (VMT savings). 2. For each mode, annual VMT savings are multiplied by the fuel consumption (from look-up table based on average speed) and the unit fuel cost to find the dollar value for fuel VOC savings. Annual VMT savings are multiplied by unit nonfuel VOC to find the dollar value of nonfuel VOC savings. 3. Future annual VOC savings are summed across modes and discounted to obtain their present value. SAFETY BENEFITS (ACCIDENT-COST SAVINGS) Accident-cost savings on the highway are determined as follows: 1. The aggregated accident cost (per million miles) is calcu- lated by multiplying the accident rate by accident cost for

82each type of accident and summing the result. Transit accident-cost savings are calculated similarly, except that the aggregated accident cost is calculated by accident event (i.e., fatality, injury, property damage) rather than accident type. 2. Annual VMT (in million miles) is multiplied by aggregate accident cost (per mile). The result is the annual cost of accidents, without and with the projects. 3. The difference (change in accident cost) is discounted to find the present value of future safety benefits. EMISSION REDUCTIONS The values of highway emissions reductions are calculated as follows: 1. The aggregate emissions cost (per mile) is calculated by multiplying the emissions rate by the emissions cost for each type of criteria pollutant and summing the results. 2. Annual VMT (in miles) is multiplied by the aggregate emissions cost. The result is the annual emissions cost, with and without the project. 3. The difference (change in emissions cost) is discounted to find the present value of future emissions benefits. Value of transit emissions reductions are calculated sim- ilarly, except that vehicle-miles (train-miles in the case of passenger trains) are used in place of VMT. Note that the emission rates used in Cal-B/C are based on the California Air Resource Board’s (CARB) Emission Factors (EMFAC) model. Cal-B/C requires relatively few inputs with volume (exist- ing and future) being the main input. The model is set up such that required inputs are colored green (e.g., project type, length of construction period, number of lanes, free flow speed, length, current and forecast ADT volumes, and acci- dent data), red cells represent default values that can be mod- ified by the user (e.g., percent trucks, length of peak-period), and blue cells reflect data items calculated by the model but that can be modified by the user (e.g., with improvement free flow speed and ADT values). Separate sheets are used to enter project costs (project support, right-of-way, construction, maintenance and operations, rehab, mitigation, and agency cost savings) or mode-specific speed and volume inputs from a travel model or other analysis method. The Cal-B/C model has been made available for other agencies and staff to understand how funding decisions are made and to consider the benefits of their proposed proj- ects. Regional agencies within California have begun to assess the use of Cal-B/C or methods or parameters from Cal-B/C for their Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) project eval- uation and prioritization processes. Caltrans recognizes this and has made the Cal-B/C model available for use on their web site (3).Ontario Ministry of Transportation Life-Cycle Cost Analysis In order to support development of corridor investment plans, the Ontario Ministry of Transportation developed the Priority Economic Analysis Tool (PEAT) which is used to perform a life-cycle cost analysis of highway and bridge proj- ects. It estimates initial agency costs, future agency costs, and road user costs, including vehicle operation costs, travel-time costs, accident costs, and the cost of delay due to work zones. The tool is designed to help prioritize competing invest- ment alternatives. PEAT enables agencies to analyze preser- vation and improvement projects for highways, bridges, and intersections using an economic approach that considers both agency and road user costs. PEAT helps answer two fun- damental questions: 1. Is a project a good investment; and 2. If so, when should it be implemented? The life-cycle cost analysis has been successfully adapted by the Ministry of Transportation of Ontario. It enables the agency to make effective investment decisions based on a full life-cycle cost evaluation, helps agencies justify projects based on objective measures of economic benefit – net present value and benefit/cost ratio, enables the direct comparison of proj- ects involving different asset types (pavements, bridges, and intersections) and different work types (preservation and improvement), and promotes consistent project estimates across an agency. MTC – Change in Motion As part of its long-range transportation plan update, Trans- portation Update 2035 – Change in Motion, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) has included greenhouse gas emission reduction as one of its key performance measures for transportation scenario analysis. The MTC serves as the MPO for the Bay Area in California. This area encompasses nine counties with more than seven million people. To aid in the development the new 2035 RTP for the Bay Area, the MTC staff was authorized to proceed with a performance-based approach for assessing investment scenarios relative to specific performance targets. The performance targets are used to help inform policy and investment strategies for the transportation vision. They focus on three principles: Economy, Environ- ment, and Equity. The MTC scenario analysis was used to test how different system expansion strategies contribute to achieving perfor- mance targets. Environmental Performance Targets include the following: • Carbon dioxide (CO2): 40 percent below 1990 levels. Source: Governor’s Executive Order, S-3-05 (2005)

83• Fine particulate matter (PM2.5): 10 percent below 2006 levels. Source: State air quality standards • Coarse particulate matter (PM10): 45 percent below 2006 levels. Source: State air quality standards • VMT per capita: 10 percent below 2006 levels. Source: State legislation under consideration in 2007 (SB 375) Multiple combinations of a land use and pricing policy approach were conducted against several investment scenar- ios, including: • Land Use Sensitivity Analysis – considerable shifts in regional growth to existing employment and housing cen- ters, areas projected to have either household or employ- ment growth, and areas with existing and/or planned transit. • Pricing Sensitivity Analysis – user-based pricing strategies inducing changes in travel behavior by increasing the cost of driving through a carbon tax or tax on vehicle miles driven, congestion fee for using congested freeways during peak-periods, and increased parking charges for all trips. Performance measure results and conclusions of the sce- nario analysis are available on-line. (4) The 2035 transporta- tion plan is still under development. Individual project analysis is one of the next steps to occur. Linking Colorado’s Landscapes Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) and the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP) is responsible for the Linking Colorado’s Landscapes program. This pro- gram is designed to identify and prioritize wildlife linkages across the state of Colorado to promote safe passage for wildlife. Habitat fragmentation is one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and the decline of species. This program was initiated in 2003 out of increasing recognition of the impacts that transportation infrastructure has on wildlife movement and an interest in integrating wildlife and envi- ronmental considerations into transportation planning and development. The program is a partnership between Colorado Depart- ment of Transportation (CDOT) and the Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project (SREP), and operates in close collaboration with the Federal Highway Administration, The Nature Con- servancy, and Colorado State University. The goal of the pro- gram is to provide transportation planners, state and federal agencies, community leaders, engineers, and conservationists with a statewide vision for reconnecting habitats that are vital for maintaining healthy populations of native species. In 2006 the FHWA awarded Linking Colorado’s Landscapes with their Exemplary Ecosystem Award.To begin, SREP conducted a study to identify focal species, key habitat areas, and priority environmental connectors. The focus was on identifying large-scale landscape connections that facilitate movements to meet biological requirements for daily, seasonal, or natal dispersal movements for native wildlife across a variety of habitat types and spatial scales. To achieve the goals of the project, SREP utilized a two- track approach that involved local and regional expertise, as well as computer modeling. The first track engaged experts through a series of interagency workshops held across the state to identify both functioning and degraded wildlife link- ages vital to wildlife populations. The workshop participants then evaluated the characteristics and existing condition of each identified linkage. The second track considered the same questions within the framework of a geographic information system (GIS). This track combined layers of spatial data about landscape charac- teristics (e.g., topography, rivers, and streams) with wildlife habitat preferences and movement patterns to model areas of the landscape that are important for wildlife movement. The highest priority linkages identified by each of these tracks were then combined with CDOT animal-vehicle collision data and transportation planning data to select a subset of high-priority wildlife linkages for further assessment. Having identified important wildlife linkages, the next phase of the project was to conduct in-depth analysis for each of these linkages and develop preliminary recommendations for improving highway permeability for wildlife. SREP visited and inventoried each of these linkage areas where they are tran- sected by highways, compiling information on existing struc- tures, and determining how and where animals are traversing from one side of the roadway to the other. These inventory data were combined with other layers of information, such as land ownership and management adjacent to the highway, traffic densities, and zoning. To complete the linkage assessments, SREP partnered with transportation engineers to develop guide- lines and recommendations for improving safe passages for wildlife across these critical stretches of highway. These recom- mendations, combined with information on future highway projects, helped to discern appropriate mitigation measures and funding opportunities. Measures Habitat connectivity was the primary landscape attribute of concern, and focal species were chosen to capture the full spectrum of habitat requirements across spatial scales, taxo- nomic groups, and compositional attributes of wide-ranging species, area-sensitive species, species at-risk, and species reliant on critical resources. Barriers are perceived differently by dif- ferent species, so species with the most stringent requirements were selected as focal species so that linkage designs would

84encompass the requirements of species with less stringent requirements as well. The following criteria were considered in selecting focal species: • Is this species sensitive to habitat fragmentation (i.e., is the species known to be reluctant to traverse barriers, or is it a wide-ranging species for which there are no sufficiently large, intact core habitat patches)? • Does this species capture the connectivity requirements of other species and/or ecological systems (e.g., ecological niches, behavioral responses to possible barriers)? • Does the species currently exist in Colorado, or could pop- ulations be restored or eventually recolonize an area? • Is there sufficient knowledge about this species’ ecology to assess its connectivity requirements (e.g., home range, dispersal, tolerance to roads or human development/ activity, etc.)? • Does the suite of focal species collectively capture the range of connectivity requirements, habitat associations, and dis- persal scales in Colorado? The project then created and analyzed the overall connec- tivity of a network of functionally defined resource patches for each focal species. This involved four major steps: • Define habitat quality. A map of habitat quality was gener- ated that specified the quality of forage resources in terms of 0 (not habitat) to 100 (highest quality habitat). Habitat quality value at a location is a function of the patch vegeta- tion or type of land cover, the proximity of a location to the edge of a patch, and disturbances from nearby land uses and activities (e.g., roads, noise, etc.). Estimates of habitat quality were determined from species-vegetation affinities and based on Colorado GAP (5). • Define habitat patches by functionally integrating habitat quality with species’ ability and need to move among dif- ferent resources. Functionally defined patches that are “big enough” and “close enough” were defined for a species based on their needs and movement abilities. • Consider the arrangement or distribution of these func- tionally defined patches in a landscape to assess interpatch movement and matrix quality. When species move between functionally defined patches they encounter a variety of conditions that may facilitate or inhibit movement. The model explicitly recognizes this “matrix quality” by allow- ing the specification of permeability values based on land use and cover types. • Construct a landscape or network that uses the function- ally defined patches as graph “nodes” that are connected by graph “edges” that represent the cost-weighted distance between nodes. These networks helped identify “bottle- necks” or “choke points” – locations that are critical foroverall connectivity due to the spatial configuration of habitat. To prioritize across all linkages identified for the full suite of focal species, the study assessed the overall quality, func- tionality, threat, and conservation opportunity relative to all of the focal species that utilize the linkage. Linkages that scored high for conservation priority, ecological functional- ity, future threat, and conservation opportunity were ranked as high priority. The study also conducted roadway site assessments at each of the priority linkage locations. The purpose of these field visits was to collect on-the-ground information to refine the understanding of wildlife current movements through the linkages. These assessments examined: • Potential Wildlife Crossing Locales. Three types of unique situations that could potentially serve as a wildlife crossing locale were identified: 1) structures such as bridges or cul- verts that can provide a safe passage for wildlife species underneath the roadway; 2) fill slopes where the roadway is elevated relative to the surrounding topography, typi- cally where the roadway bisects a drainage; and 3) at-grade areas identified as potential wildlife crossing locations. • Roadway Barriers. Roadway barriers to wildlife were char- acterized according to the number of lanes and presence of shoulder barriers, median barriers, and other features. Guard rails were generally not considered as shoulder barri- ers unless they were present within potential wildlife cross- ing zones. • Focal Zones. Focal zones are stretches of roadway where wildlife movement was notably concentrated and that offered distinct opportunities for implementing effective mitigation measures to improving highway permeability for wildlife and reducing animal-vehicle collisions. • Biological and Site Design Assessments. Following the roadway inventories and initial compilation of information, CDOT, CDOW, and USFS biologists and engineers jointly visited each priority linkage site. The objectives of these interagency, multidisciplinary site visits were: 1) to bring biological and engineering expertise to locations in the field to discuss potential crossing solutions for wildlife; 2) to brainstorm the range of structural and nonstructural solu- tions, given the specific considerations at each location (i.e., wildlife needs and constraints, topographical challenges, safety concerns, etc.); and 3) to use these discussions as the basis for developing recommendations for improving high- way permeability for wildlife throughout each linkage. In addition to identifying priority linkages bisected by trans- portation systems, the study also found that many mitigation measures are not effective (Table A.3).

85Mitigation Measure Concern Traditional yellow diamond-shaped wildlife crossing signs Ineffective Other permanent static wildlife crossing signs Ineffective Wildlife reflectors and mirrors Ineffective Ultrasonic deer whistles Ineffective Culverts and tunnels without associated guide fencing Ineffective Warning systems triggered by radio-collared animals Requires extensive collaring Animal decoys in ROW Safety concern Animal carcasses left in ROW s Attract scavengers, causing additional AVC Scent repellents along ROW May attract some animals Artificial lighting of roadsides Some animals avoid lighted areas Source: Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, 2006, Linkage Assessment Methodology, Linking Colorado’s Landscapes Phase II Report, Southern Rockies Ecosystem Project, Denver, Colorado. http://www.restoretherockies.org/?pdfs/ ?methodology.pdf Table A.3. Colorado Evaluation of Mitigation MeasuresThe report also highlighted mitigation measures that could be more effective. These include: • Variable message sign; • Night time speed limit sign; • Seasonal speed limit sign; • Wildlife detection system; • Wildlife fencing; • Cattle fence setbacks; • Double cattle guard; • Escape ramp; • Ungulate crosswalk; • Cement box culvert; • Arch culvert; • Vegetated overpass; • Bridge extension; and • Retaining wall. Vehicular Exposures and Potential Mitigations Downwind of Watt Avenue, Sacramento, California Breathe California of Sacramento-Emigrant Trails; The Health Effects Task Force conducted the Watt Avenue case study. There is increasing scientific evidence suggesting that mobile source air toxics are harmful to human health. For more infor- mation on the literature addressing exposure and health effects related to mobile source air toxics, see the Health Effects Insti- tute’s November 2007 report, Mobile-Source Air Toxics: A Crit- ical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects (6). Those most at risk for exposure include people at schools, hos-pitals, nursing homes, and housing units within 300 meters of a major roadway. To assess the ambient air concentrations of vehicle emissions, the Breathe California Health Effects Task Force sponsored a three-phase study to evaluate vehicular exposures and potential mitigations for atmospheric particulate matter in Sacramento, California. The studies were led by Professor Thomas A. Cahill of the DELTA Group at University of California, Davis. This case study provides an overview of the methodology and major findings, including an assessment of potential mitigation mea- sures that may be relevant for consideration in conjunction with capacity expansion projects in other areas. A significant finding from the study suggests that very fine and ultrafine toxic particles from cars can be higher on sec- ondary streets than downwind of heavily traveled freeways like I-5 in Sacramento. Also, burning oil in car exhaust may be a more significant health threat than earlier believed. The first phase of the study measured air pollution levels every three hours at nine sites upwind and downwind of Highway I-5 and east to the foothills. Highway I-5 carries approximately 170,000 vehicles per day, including 10 per- cent trucks, and is in part a depressed freeway with sound walls and mature large trees between the roadway and down- wind receptors. The study found that the level of diesel/ smoking gasoline vehicle impacts was larger at a site located downwind of Watt Avenue at the corner of Watt Avenue and Arden way (Arden Middle School), than at a site directly downwind of Highway I-5 (Crocker Art Museum), despite lower traffic flows on Watt Avenue. Very fine particulates traveled well away from freeways and filled large areas of downtown Sacramento.

86The second phase examined the impacts from Watt Avenue, a secondary roadway carrying predominantly car traffic with an average of 66,000 vehicles per day. Diesel trucks con- tributed about one-third of all the very fine and ultrafine par- ticulates, although they represented only about 1.5 percent of the vehicles. Cars contributed two-thirds of the very fine and ultrafine particulates. Particulates from Watt Avenue sub- stantially impacted Arden Middle School. The third and final phase of the study confirmed the findings from the previous two phases and assessed mitigation options to reduce exposures. Two DELTA 8 DRUM samplers with ultrafine after filters were placed at Arden Middle School. One was placed indoors roughly 12 meters from the right-of-way fence and 15 meters from the nearest road edge; the other was placed outdoors on a roof about 15 meters from the edge of the nearest traffic lane. In addition, the study evaluated two mod- eling methods – tracer and mass balance. Both the theoretically modeled results and the actual data showed that high levels of vehicular particulate pollution in very fine and ultrafine partic- ulate modes exist directly downwind (east) of Watt Avenue. According to the California Air Resources Board Almanac (2006), these particles are responsible for (at least) 70 percent of all the impact of toxic air contaminants in California, deposit deep into the lung, and possess significant risk to human health. The data establish that vehicular particulate matter directly downwind of Watt Avenue is at unhealthy levels for subjects that have to bear long-term exposure, even though aerosol mass does not violate any state or federal particulate matter standards. The study identified several factors that exacerbated high exposure levels: • The expansion of Watt Avenue into a major north-south connector, with an average of 66,000 vehicles per day, typ- ically 1.5 percent trucks; • The relatively narrow right-of-way; • The stoplights, including that at Watt Avenue and Arden Way; • The flat at-grade roadway, without sound walls or major vegetation; • The lack of barriers between the roadway and downwind areas; and • The proximity of receptor sites (schools, houses) to the edge of the right-of-way. Phase 3 of the study also examined four categories of mit- igation alternatives which could be valuable for highway capacity planning. Some of these would be applicable only to new development and need additional regulations, while some could be applied on existing roadways: 1. Source reduction on the roadway, including: – Repair or eliminate the roughly 10 percent of oil-burning gross emitting cars through enhanced smog checks;– Adjust signal timing to reduce vehicle congestion and idling cars; – Encourage alternative transportation; – Redesign the intersection so that there are no stop lights, materially decreasing the pollution from the stopped and accelerating cars and trucks; – Close the road to heavy trucks during school hours. This would provide a modest improvement, as diesels are an established source of toxic air contaminants; and – Build a parallel road of improved design that would reduce traffic on Watt Avenue without adding pollution to another site. 2. Roadway design improvements, including: – Vehicles on a highway create a mixed zone due to the turbulence of the vehicles, which is roughly 1.5 times the height of the mean vehicle at freeway speeds, less at low speeds. This mixed zone contains emissions from the vehicles, including waste heat, which tends to make the road pollution slightly buoyant. This buoyant lift can be enhanced by placing a barrier to direct lateral motion from the roadway, slowing the lateral velocity and allow- ing the lift to raise the pollution level and entraining cleaner higher altitude air. Thus, roadways should be designed to hinder easy lateral transport of pollution and to enhance the upward motion the excess heat delivers. – Planting vegetation in the median strip will slow transport of pollution from the upwind lane into the downwind lane, further encouraging vertical motion. The additional advantage of vegetation is that it acts as a deposition sur- face for the very fine and especially ultrafine particles. – Design or redesign the roadway or intersection by plac- ing the entire roadway in a cut section as part of an elim- ination of the intersections. – Barriers between the right-of-way and the receptor can force air up and generate mixing, lowering concentrations by dilution, or removing the particles from the air by pro- viding surfaces for deposition, impaction, and settling. The literature is weak in this area, but one article (Kim et al, 2005) found that sound walls were not very effective bar- riers to pollution. Urban street canyons and the effect of tall buildings seem to encourage a mixing of the polluted ground level air with (presumably) cleaner elevated levels, reducing concentrations by dilution. With a line source like a highway, lateral diffusion is little help; therefore the mixing must be vertical. Turbulence is induced by a pierced barrier, which allows air to pass at some spots but not others, and this would favor an irregular barrier, not a smooth wall with laminar flow of air (and pollutants). 3. Increased distance from the right-of-way fence to recep- tors (homes, schools, etc.). – The most effective mitigation is distance, with many studies showing a 160 meter to 240 meter distance as

87adequate to achieving pollution concentrations only 10 percent greater than upwind values. 4. Indoor air filtering improvements. – Upgrade indoor filters for homes and schools to electro- static filters. Indoor mitigation is both the most immedi- ate and most effective mitigation available, supported by models and data, with the potential of effectively elimi- nating the impact of Watt Avenue (to a few percent) in indoor air at modest cost. The HETF – UC Davis studies of 2006 showed a 75 percent reduction on very fine/ultra- fine pollution at the Arden Middle School indoor site with a standard (non-HEPA) upgrade to an electrostatic filter. North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program Case Study The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program is a joint effort of North Carolina DOT, North Carolina Depart- ment of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR), and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. The Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) is designed to address North Carolina DOT’s compensatory mitigation needs statewide through a cooperative multiagency effort. The program is a partnership between NCDOT, NC DENR, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. It was established in 2003 and is located within the NC DENR. The EEP provides an alternative to typical environmental planning around transportation projects by integrating nat- ural resource issues into the transportation planning process. The program employs a proactive, long-range planning approach that involves identifying priority watersheds for protection and then assessing the impact of potential trans- portation projects in those watersheds. The program helps steer projects away from sensitive watersheds or parts of watersheds far in advance of project selection and design. If impacts are unavoidable, the program helps to proactively direct mitigation funds to high-value environmental projects ahead of the date when the impact will occur. The goals of the program include: • Satisfy compensatory mitigation requirements for author- ized impacts on a programmatic, watershed-level basis; • Provide in-ground, functioning compensatory mitigation for authorized impacts in advance of the actual impacts; • Satisfy the compensatory wetland, stream, and buffer mit- igation needs of the NCDOT Transportation Program; and • Provide a means for organizing, steering, funding, and implementing ecosystem enhancement efforts in North Carolina. The program was created to address a range of challenges around transportation projects and mitigation familiar tomany DOTs throughout the United States. These included a large number of transportation and development projects stemming from increased growth; permitting delays due to mitigation requirements; recognition of the high cost of mit- igation; and a large magnitude of impacts to aquatic resources from new road and development projects. Prior to the EEP program, mitigation was ad hoc and the success rate (or return on investment) was uncertain. The EEP program addressed these problems by conducting statewide watershed assessments resulting in geospatial identification of watershed conditions, locations for environmental protection or restoration, and a conceptual understanding of how each project contributes to the state’s broader environmental goals. Now, mitigation is directed to high-value areas and is imple- mented before transportation projects begin. This has removed delays due to mitigation permitting and improved the value of mitigation investments. The program also allows the state to shift mitigation from areas near the site of transportation proj- ects to protecting potentially more valuable areas in the same watershed – although nearby areas are still preferred so that local losses of ecosystem functions are minimized. Using information from statewide watershed planning efforts and GIS analysis, the program identifies high-value ecosystems and habitat areas based on quality of assets and degree of problems. EEP tends to focus restoration on water- sheds where there are both functioning assets that can be pro- tected and degraded areas that can be improved. This presents an opportunity to move moderately functioning watersheds in a positive direction. The program then overlays DOT’s seven-year let list of transportation projects. These are projects with a high prob- ability of being implemented. This list triggers EEP planning for restoration in 8-digit watershed catalogue units. The overall watershed needs assessment process includes two types of analyses at two scales. EEP staff first conduct a high-level watershed screening analysis that allows them to make informed selections of watersheds that will be the sub- ject of more detailed work. The approach is applied to 14-digit HUCs within 8-digit catalog units and relies heavily on GIS assessment. Once a short list of watersheds has been devel- oped based on the GIS analysis, EEP staff conduct a more detailed analysis of the candidates to further refine the selec- tions and focus in on key functions: water quality, habitat, and hydrology. This additional analysis includes a field review of the watershed and discussions with local governments, resource professionals, and interested parties. The future potential threats and other attributes also are investigated. The goal of this step is to gauge local interest in a watershed planning effort and to evaluate whether it appears that the watershed of interest will yield restoration opportunities. This allows for the development of comprehensive recom- mendations to address watershed needs.

88EEP staff apply five broad categories of information to evaluate each 14-digit watershed within an 8-digit catalog unit. These are: baseline watershed descriptors, watershed resources or assets, watershed problems, potential threats and stressors, and other factors of interest. The statistics associ- ated with baseline descriptors, assets, and problems are com- piled and presented in a watershed attribute matrix which provides these data for all 14-digit watersheds within the 8-digit watershed catalogue units. Table A.4 lists the specific data used to screen watersheds. One objective of the EEP is to provide a consistent and streamlined approach to address compensatory-mitigationrequirements associated with Section 401 and 404 permits and Coastal Area Management Act permits issued by the N.C. Division of Water Quality, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, and the N.C. Division of Coastal Management. By consolidat- ing the mitigation requirements of multiple small projects, EEP is able to implement large-scale watershed restoration efforts that restore or enhance water quality, habitat, and hydrology – ultimately increasing the ecological effectiveness of these projects. EEP offers four In-Lieu Fee (ILF) mitigation programs: the Stream and Wetland ILF Program; the Riparian Buffer Miti- gation ILF Program; the Nutrient Offset ILF Program; andCategory Attribute Baseline Watershed Descriptors Resource Measures/Assets Existing Problems Future potential threats/impacts Other factors Table A.4. Watershed Attributes Evaluated During Screening Analysis • Area – square miles • 14-digit HU number • River Basin • Linear feet of stream • Population density and distribution • General land cover information • Presence of Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) • Percent of streams buffered within 100’ • Percent Rare, Threatened or Endangered species (RTE) and Critical Habitat in the HU • Percent of stream miles with special designation (HQW, ORW, WS-I, WS-II, Tr, SA) • Percent of watershed (acres) in conservation management • Percent of stream miles designated WS-III, IV or V • Amount of fully functioning wetlands (will rely on product of the Wetlands Functional Assessment Team to gauge this) • Amount of fully functioning streams (will rely on product of the Streams Functional Assessment Team to gauge this) • Percent of stream miles not buffered (100’) • Percent of stream miles impaired • Percent streams 303(d) listed waters • Percent impervious surface • Amount of functional wetland loss (will rely on product of the Wetlands Functional Assessment Team to gauge this) • Amount of functional stream loss (will rely on product of the Streams Functional Assessment Team to gauge this) • Significant anticipated growth – residential, commercial, industrial • Presence of restoration projects (represents and opportunity to build on existing efforts) • Previous Local Watershed Plan (LWP) study area? (If study was recent, it may be too early to return to that specific watershed.) • Data rich area? (Areas with significant data are favorable.) • Local interest? • TMDL (total maximum daily load) study planned or under way? (Potential to partner with NC Division of Water Quality on development and implementation of a TMDL.)

89the NCDOT Stream and Wetland ILF Program. Applicants make payments to EEP in lieu of providing mitigation them- selves or by other means. Upon payment, EEP assumes the full legal responsibility for planning, developing, and imple- menting the required types and amounts of mitigation. After successful payment, applicants are no longer liable for the mitigation associated with their payment. Accomplishments As of EEP’s fourth anniversary in July 2007, the program had achieved some significant accomplishments. • EEP had collaborated with public- and private-sector part- ners to acquire nearly 40,000 acres of natural areas, with 24 tracts being managed as public recreation areas such as parks or game lands. The tracts include about 164 miles of streams and more than 7,800 acres of wetlands in high- quality riparian and wetland areas throughout the state. • EEP increased implementation of projects based on local watershed planning. Between January and September 2007, 76.5 percent of EEP-initiated design-bid-build projects were located in Targeted Local Watershed. • EEP has saved the state money and has been successful in addressing NCDOT permit delays. Not a single transporta- tion-project delay from the lack of mitigation has occurred since the initiative became operational in 2003. EEP’s mit- igation efforts have helped to move forward more than $3.7 billion in road building in North Carolina, with an investment of less than five percent of the construction cost of those projects. Florida Department of Transportation’s Environmental Transportation Decision-Making Process Florida is one of the pioneering states in the development and use of general performance-based planning. The 2025 Florida Transportation Plan sets the long-range goals and objectives that guide investment decisions. An annual Short- Range Component of the 2025 Plan specifies how the goals and objectives are being measured and provides the policy framework for the department’s budget and work program. Key performance measures are monitored monthly by the Department’s Executive Board which has established proce- dures for the review, maintenance, and enhancement of all measures used by the department. Performance measures are an integral part of Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) which was established by law in 2003. SIS “represents a fundamental shift in the way Florida views the develop- ment of – and makes investments in – transportation facilities and services.”Florida also is a leader in the use of environmental per- formance measures. The Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) process offers an excellent example of col- laborative, data-driven decision making, supported by per- formance measures that are designed to evaluate and streamline the implementation process. ETDM – Florida’s Streamlined Project Implementation Framework ETDM was established by the Florida Department of Trans- portation (FDOT) in response to Section 1309 of the Trans- portation Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21) to “improve transportation decision-making in a way that protects the human and the natural environment.” What began as a stream- lined NEPA review framework quickly grew into a comprehen- sive interagency planning and project review process. ETDM links land use, transportation, and environmental resource planning in order to identify critical issues early on in the plan- ning and programming phases, with the goal of avoiding delays and minimizing unexpected conflicts throughout the process. It is designed to expedite the process, while providing decision makers and planners with additional information at key points throughout project design and development. The ETDM pro- gram is viewed throughout the United States as one of the leading initiatives in environmental management. Key to the program’s success was FDOT establishing cooperative agree- ments with 18 different regional, state, and federal permitting and resource agencies (as of April 2007), wherein FDOT and the agencies negotiate the necessary funding for those agencies to perform ETDM-related work. These agreements are in addi- tion to FDOT’s close cooperation with the state’s MPOs, as well as two tribal governments. Under the former transportation planning process, permit- ting agencies would typically wait until a project was at 60 per- cent design before beginning the Project Development and Environment (PD&E) process. This created a number of problems, including making the process long and drawn out, limiting the ability of project designers to consider commu- nity concerns, and identifying major issues after significant resources already had been dedicated to the project. To elim- inate these problems, FDOT created two points of interven- tion where agencies are able to provide input, using a range of measures and input functions prior to significant engineering work: the Planning Screen and the Programming Screen. The Planning Screen occurs as cost-feasible plans are being devel- oped. The Programming Screen occurs before projects are identified for the FDOT work program. The screening process occurs using the Environmental Screening Tool (EST), a web- based application that offers GIS mapping of over 350 data layers and several complementary data analysis functions such as querying, buffering, clipping, and summarizing of geo-

90graphic data. During each screening stage, the various regional, state, and federal permitting and resource agencies have the opportunity to review a project using the EST. In the event that a conflict or adverse impact is identified, it can be addressed and/or corrected before a particular alternative gains signifi- cant momentum. Conversely, if a project is found to have little or no adverse impacts, subsequent reviews may be significantly scaled back, further expediting the process and often resulting in substantial cost savings. The same ETDM web site that these agencies use to inter- act with FDOT also provides project information and updates to the public (see example, Figure A.1). While interactive pub- lic participation still takes place through traditional venues (letters, telephone calls, public meetings/workshops, etc.), the ETDM public web site provides a convenient one-stop loca- tion for advocates and interested parties to collect information on the status of an FDOT project. Data Collection – The Florida Geographic Data Library The ETDM process is entirely web-based, relying on the Envi- ronmental Screening Tool, which resource agencies access on-line to view project information, perform customized GIS- based analysis, offer alternatives, and present comments. All of the GIS data that forms the backbone of the EST comes from a single clearinghouse: The Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL). Hosted by the University of Florida through extensive collaboration with FDOT, FGDL is not a primary data source, but rather a single source where data from many sources are compiled and standardized for ease of use in GIS software. According to the FGDL on-line acknowledgments page, the library currently hosts spatial data from 33 different organizations, including federal, state, and regional govern- ment agencies; nonprofit organizations; and the private sec- tor. FGDL’s over 350 data layers include such diverse topics as topography, endangered bird nesting areas, EPA toxic release sites, blood banks, prisons, transit routes, and so on (7). FDOT’s EST system links directly to the data stored in the FGDL, while the agencies that contribute to the library are individually responsible for ensuring that their contribution to the library remains up-to-date. FGDL’s development was largely the result of ambitious interagency projects like ETDM. As GIS data was compiled for several such projects, the effort was eventually combined into a single comprehen- sive source.Figure A.1. Screenshot from the ETDM public web site.

91For other users interested in gathering a wealth of GIS data for the state of Florida, FGDL also offers both a metadata nav- igator and an FTP site for directly accessing data of interest. Data layers are sorted between those that cover the entire state or coastal areas, and those that are county-specific. The ETDM Performance Management Plan In order to understand the impact of this approach, FDOT established a performance measures system, the ETDM Per- formance Management Plan, for the ETDM process. The Performance Management Plan is designed to continuously monitor program area performance, identify problems early, develop efficient and effective solutions, and recognize and promote successes. The goal of the Performance Management Plan is to create a more efficient and enhanced ETDM process. FDOT began the ETDM performance measures project by creating a baseline database of existing transportation improve- ment projects. The database includes process information (such as permit review time and schedules met), and data pertaining to environmental conditions (such as wetlands removed and/or replaced, habitats created, noise, and air quality). This baseline database is compared with projects that go through the ETDM process to determine whether it is meeting its objectives of better decision making for the human and natural environment. FDOT’s ETDM Performance Measures Task Work Group also established specific performance measures and stated that the performance measures should be continually moni- tored for effectiveness and streamlining. The Performance Management Plan has three main objectives, each supported by a set of activities, performance indicators (or measures), and targets. The three objectives are: integrate ETDM into project delivery, improve interagency coordination and dis- pute resolution, and develop environmental stewardship through protection of environmental resources. The activi- ties, indicators, and targets are listed in Table A.5. The ETDM Performance Measures System has five com- ponents to provide detailed and extensive information on the effectiveness of the process. The first component is the base- line database of historical projects that will enable analysis of the ETDM system in terms of time savings, cost savings, improved project delivery, and enhanced protection of envi- ronmental resources. The second component is the list of performance measures found in Table A.5. A summary page, or “Dashboard” screens designed to look like the indicators on a vehicle’s dashboard, provide an overview of the process status in terms of project delivery, interagency coordination, and dispute resolution, and protection of environmental resources through environmental stewardship. A color- coded system indicates how effectively the measure is work- ing (i.e., a performance measurement of the performancemeasures): green indicates it is effective, yellow indicates potential problems, and red indicates that a problem exists with a specific measure. The third component is information gathered through the EST, providing geographically based environmental data in GIS layers. The fourth component includes information gathered through Quarterly Reports, and the last component is the Annual Report. All of these sources of information and analysis are utilized to determine how effective the ETDM process is working to protect the human and natural environment. Florida Department of Transportation’s Future Corridors Program In 2006, the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) released Florida’s Future Corridors Action Plan, which laid out the state’s ambitious comprehensive and collaborative corridor planning initiative, currently under development. Future Corridors is unique because it seeks to initiate a plan- ning process that will reach as far as 2050 and beyond. The intent of the program is to identify corridors in all modes “that will be significantly improved, transformed in function or design, or newly developed over the next 50 years.” The 2006 Action Plan presents the need for such a program, lays out the goals and policy objectives for the program, and identifies the next steps required in getting the program run- ning. The overall approach to Future Corridors planning emphasizes the following five principles (from page 12 of the Action Plan): 1) Long-term planning instead of addressing short-term needs; 2) Proactive instead of reactive investments; 3) Large-scale investment instead of incremental improve- ment; 4) Better integration of the planning process; and 5) A unified, policy-oriented planning process. This final point is well illustrated by the many overlapping transportation plan- ning initiatives currently taking place in Florida. Examples of other programs that are connected to Future Corridors include the Efficient Transportation Decision Making (ETDM) pro- gram, and the Rural Areas of Critical Economic Concern desig- nation process. Like many of FDOT’s current planning programs, Future Corridors places a high level of emphasis on collaboration, as well as on informed, data-driven decision-making. To illus- trate FDOT’s commitment to an inclusive and collaborative process, the agency released Ongoing Partner and Public Involve- ment in Florida’s Future Corridors Planning Process, which describes the cooperative process that led to the Action Plan as well as the role that the public and other government agencies will play in the Future Corridor planning process. FDOT also has completed significant work in developing detailed screen- ing criteria for evaluating potential statewide corridors for inclusion in Future Corridors planning, discussed in greater detail in the following section.

92Targets (Percent, Number, Objectives Activities Performance Indicators (Measures) Score, Timeframe, etc.) Integrate ETDM into Project Delivery (1) Implement Planning Phase (projects moving into LRTP/ Florida Intrastate Highway System (FIHS) Plans) (2) Implement Programming Phase (projects moving into FDOT Five-Year Work Plan) (3) Implement Project Development Phase (4) Identify Funding Requirements and Efficiencies (5) Develop Training 1(a) Percentage of major capacity transportation improvement projects screened 1(b) Percentage of ETAT agencies participating who have signed Agency Agreements 1(c) Percentage of projects with potential dispute issue(s) 1(d) Percentage of projects concept and scope revised due to ETAT review 1(e) Percentage of Planning Summary Reports completed within 90 days 1 f ) Number of projects withdrawn due to ETAT review 2(a) Percentage of Major Capacity transportation improvement projects screened 2(b) Percentage of ETAT agencies participating who have signed Agency Agreements 2(c) Percentage of projects eligible for Work Program (i.e., No Dispute Issues) 2(d) Percentage of Final Programming Summary Reports completed within 60 days 2(e) Percentage of projects withdrawn due to ETAT review 2(f ) Percentage of projects concept and scope revised due to ETAT review 2(g) Percentage and number of projects in formal dispute 3(a) Number of screened PD&Es (Project Devel- opment and Environment report) (based on focused scope of work) completed in FY 2006 3(b) Average duration of screened Categorical Exclusions 3© Percentage of screened PD&Es that obtain permits concurrent with Location and Design Concept Acceptance (LCDA) 3(d) Percentage of screened PD&Es that meet proposed schedule 4(a) Compare traditional PD&E study 4(b) Compare traditional PD&E schedule versus screened PD&E schedule 5(a) Publication of Annual Central Environmental Management Office (CEMO) Training Plan based on Incidental Take Permits (ITP) 5(b) Number and type of statewide workshops and conferences 1(a) 90 percent 1(b) 100 percent 1(c) For reporting purposes only 1(d) For reporting purposes only 1(e) 90 percent 1(f ) For reporting purposes only 2(a) 90 percent 2(b) 100 percent 2(c) 95 percent 2(d) 90 percent 2(e) For reporting purposes only 2(f ) For reporting purposes only 2(g) Less than 1 percent 3(a) At least two per district by July 2006 3(b) 12 months or less 3(c) 50 percent or more 3(d) 90 percent 4(a) Cost savings of up to 20 percent 4(b) Cost savings of up to 25 percent 5(a) By July 1 of each year 5(b) At least one statewide workshop each year (CEMO and ETAT) Table A.5. Florida DOT ETDM Activities, Indicators, and Targets

93Targets (Percent, Number, Objectives Activities Performance Indicators (Measures) Score, Timeframe, etc.) Improve Interagency Coordination and Dispute Resolution Develop Environmental Stewardship through Protection of Environ- mental Resources (1) Implement Agency Dispute Resolution Process (DRP) (2) Support Agency GIS data- base development (3) Improve interagency communication and coordination via the Environmental Screening Tool (EST) (4) Development and signature of agency agreements and tribal agreements (5) Response/review timeframes for ETAT and FDOT (1) Environmental Compliance (2) System Level Mitigation (3) Protection of Natural Resources 1(a) Percentage of ETAT that have a dispute and participate in a DRP 1(b) Environmental issue that initiated dispute 1(c) Percentage of formal dispute resolutions completed within 120 days 2(a) Provide technical support to ETAT agencies on GIS database development 2(b) Ensure quality of the interactive ETDM database information (3) Enhanced application of EST for functionality and communication 4(a) Execution of agency agreements 4(b) Reevaluate agency resource needs 5(a) Percentage of ETAT reviews completed within 45 days 5(b) Percentage of ETAT reviews requesting time extensions 5(c) Percentage of ETAT reviews of environmen- tal documents completed within 30 days 5(d) Percentage of projects without Requests for Additional Information (RAI) 1(a) Commitment compliance 1(b) Percentage of projects in construction that had a noncompliance citation 2(a) Earlier regional mitigation planning 2(b) Earlier regional acquisition 3(a) Total number of wetlands impacted (acres) 3(b) Total number of wetlands mitigated (no net loss) 3(c) Total amount spent on mitigation 3(d) Total amount spent on Endangered Species Act (per unit) 1(a) 100 percent participation 1(b) For reporting purposes only 1(c) 70 percent or more 2(a) Satisfaction surveys from ETAT agencies in FY 2006 2(b) Annual review and acceptance of ETAT databases in FY 2006 3(a) Annual survey of users on EST its application, innovation, and need for improvement 4(a) 100 percent completion of all agency agreements by July 2005 4(b) Update agency agree- ments, as required, and support through budget request 5(a) 90 percent 5(b) 10 percent 5(c) 90 percent 5(d) 50 percent 1(a) 100 percent 1(b) 5 percent 2(a) Resource agency reports annually on regional mitigation plans identifying projects considered 2(b) Resource agency reports annually on proj- ects that have approved mitigation plans prior to project development 3(a) Establish baseline 3(b) Establish baseline 3(c) For reporting purposes only 3(d) For reporting purposes only Table A.5. (Continued). (continued on next page)

94Targets (Percent, Number, Objectives Activities Performance Indicators (Measures) Score, Timeframe, etc.) (4) Protection of Cultural Resources (5) Protection of the Physical Environment (6) Protection of the Socio- cultural Environment 4(a) Total number of other findings of “effect” on which opinions are provided need SHPO input 4(b) Total number of MOAs signed 4(c) Total amount spent on mitigation 5(a) Contamination 6(a) Enhance customer and stakeholder relationships 4(a) Establish baseline 4(b) Establish baseline 4(c) For reporting purposes only 5(a) TBD 6(a) Customer Satisfaction Survey (80 percent satisfied) Table A.5. (Continued).The Future Corridors process in Florida is not yet up and running. The Action Plan identifies 14 potential corridor “study areas”: five existing corridors that may be candidates for major transformation, and nine areas that may be candi- dates for the development of new corridors over the coming decades. The Action Plan contains a general summary of the next steps in the process, which include the creation of a statewide advisory group, initiation of prototype corridor studies, development of corridor plans, and development of financing policies. Future Corridors Screening Criteria Once implemented, the Future Corridors planning pro- gram will use extensive and diverse screening criteria in the identification of new corridors. These criteria, described in detail in a document entitled Future Corridors Action Plan Implementation Guidance: Detailed Screening Criteria, are divided into four broad goal areas: 1) Mobility and Con- nectivity; 2) Economic Competitiveness; 3) Community Livability; and 4) Environmental Stewardship. For each goal area there is a table consisting of a number of narrower policy objectives, and within each of these are one or more performance measures, ranging from very specific (i.e., total person-hours of delay) to entirely qualitative (i.e., a well defined vision in the regional comprehensive plan). The tables also identify the likely data sources to be used for each of the criteria (8). The first two goal areas might be considered more tradi- tional venues for the use of performance measures and data- driven decision making. The first, Mobility and Connectivity, consists mainly of measures that currently are in use at vari- ous levels of transportation planning, and depend on data sources that are readily available, such as traffic counts, origin-destination flows, and statewide and regional travel demand models. While the screening criteria do not yet include specific targets, they are linked to currently available data sources. Similarly, the Economic Competitiveness goal area consists primarily of criteria that are quantifiable and measurable based on available data sources. The third goal area, Community Livability, presents a far trickier challenge to planners attempting to evaluate poten- tial future corridors. Many of the objectives of Community Livability amount to avoiding physical barriers such as existing urban development, Native American reservations, or coastal areas. These “binary” criteria will be applied through the use of the Florida Geographic Data Library (FGDL), a comprehensive statewide GIS database. The remainder of the livability criteria involve qualitative eval- uations related to compatibility with local planning, the comprehensive planning process, and community support. For example, the “Comprehensive Planning” criterion is divided into two parts: Degree of Regional Visioning and Compatibility with Regional Visions/Plans. The first part, Degree of Regional Visioning, lays out six guidelines for evaluating the strength of the regional planning process and the quality of the plan itself, and is to be applied dur- ing the Future Corridors project concept phase. The second part, Compatibility with Regional Visions/Plans, calls for a review of growth strategies, policy plans, and city plans (if necessary) for potential conflicts with the proposed cor- ridor. This part is to be applied during the feasibility and environmental review phases of the Future Corridors process. The final Future Corridors goal area, Environmental Stewardship, is directly linked to another recent FDOT pro- gram: Efficient Transportation Decision Making. ETDM is FDOT’s collaborative, GIS-based environmental review

95process. It occurs through cooperative agreements with many other federal, state, and regional agencies and governments, and seeks to streamline and standardize environmental reviews of all transportation projects in Florida. Under the new ETDM program, resource agencies whose input is nec- essary for environmental review will now be involved earlier and more thoroughly. As projects progress through the plan- ning, programming, and implementation stages, each ETDM agency, through interaction with regional liaisons, uses the web-based Environmental Screening Tool to examine, ana- lyze, and comment on transportation projects. The Future Corridors goal area of Environmental Stewardship has the greatest number of individual criteria, all of which fall under the umbrella of ETDM. Thus, the two FDOT programs are inextricably linked.Appendix A References 1. Specifics about these scenarios can be found here: http://www. transportation.org/sites/environment/docs/Jay%20Norvell%20 Marjorie%20Kirn%20and%20Suzanne%20Marr.pdf 2. http://ice.ucdavis.edu/node/367 3. http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/offices/ote/benefit.html. 4. http://www.mtc.ca.gov/planning/2035_plan/tech_report.htm. 5. Schrupp, D.L., W.A. Reiners, T.G. Thompson et al. 2000. Colorado Gap Analysis Program: A Geographic Approach to Planning for Biolog- ical Diversity–Final Report, USGS Biological Resources Division, Gap Analysis Program and Colorado Division of Wildlife, Denver, CO. 6. Health Effects Institute. Mobile-Source Air Toxics: A Critical Review of the Literature on Exposure and Health Effects. Special Report 16. November 2007. http://pubs.healtheffects.org/view.php?id=282. 7. http://www.fgdl.org/metadataexplorer/explorer.jsp. 8. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/corridor/workshop113006/ screencriteria.pdf