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 12
12 A Guidebook for Corridor-Based Statewide Transportation Planning periodic assessment of the impacts of incidents and crashes on facility performance, and the identification of freeway bottleneck points. An important characteristic of this initial step in the SWCP process is that individual corridors are likely to be identified and proceed into more detailed analysis at different times (thereby creating a challenge in later steps where priorities among corridors are to be determined). It is highly unlikely that corridor studies will all begin simultaneously, and certainly they will not finish at the same time. Thus, at any given point in the planning process, one could have some corridor studies underway, others in the early stages of being identified, and still others in the final stages of completion. This emphasizes the need for periodic monitoring of the performance and condition of corridor transportation facilities. To the extent that the corridor approach is tied to other policy objectives (such as economic development), this on-going corridor identification process also needs to monitor the changing characteristics of the contextual factors within which the corridor planning process occurs. In the case of economic development, this would suggest a periodic assessment of the changing economic opportunities afforded the state and the corresponding importance of transportation infrastructure to supporting this policy goal. Conduct Corridor Studies Once potential corridors are identified, a corridor planning process will occur based on a statewide template applied to each corridor to ensure consistency in the approach and infor- mation produced. As noted earlier, this Guidebook will not provide detailed guidance on the individual steps that constitute good corridor planning. However, there are certain character- istics of the SWCP framework that are important to consider. Each of the individual steps in corridor planning shown in Figure 1--vision, goals, and performance measure identification; problem identification; alternatives identification and analysis; project and corridor evaluation; and project and corridor investment program recommendations--would likely have some common elements that would be consistent across all corridor planning efforts. These individual steps are described here. Vision, Goals, and Performance Measure Identification When the results of one corridor study must be compared with those of another, it is important that some common planning goals and a set of common performance evaluation criteria be used to ensure a consistent evaluation at the end of the process. This is not to say that each corridor study could not have individual evaluation criteria that are specific to that corridor, but some subset of these criteria should be common across all corridors. It is likely that the common vision, goals, and performance measures for a corridor study will closely relate to statewide transportation planning goals as determined through the planning process. Problem Identification The rationale for conducting individual corridor analyses in the first place is to provide specific attention to the needs and issues in a particular corridor. Thus, it might not seem apparent how statewide concerns could be incorporated into this corridor planning step. However, one could envision certain types of problems that a state DOT would want to examine in all corridor studies. It may be desirable not only to have common evaluation parameters for proposed projects and strategies at the end of the process, but also because similar types of problem identification might be necessary due to the source of funding for solving the problems. For example, a state DOT could