Practitioners Guide to Incorporating Greenhouse Gas Emissions into the Collaborative Decision-Making Process (2012)

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.

4INTRODUCTION This section outlines a framework for decision making that is used throughout this guide as a reference for how greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions analysis can support the types of decisions facing transportation offi cials. This framework, called Transporta- tion for Communities: Advancing Projects Through Partnerships (TCAPP), has been developed by SHRP 2 as a defi ning structure for linking different planning issues and capabilities to the decision-making process. TCAPP is structured around four levels of decision making: • Long-range transportation planning (LRP), including both statewide, metropolitan, and other regional planning; • Programming (PRO), including statewide and metropolitan transportation improve- ment programs; • Corridor planning (COR); and • Environmental review through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) (ENV) and project permitting (PER). These key decision points are examined to determine whether there is an oppor- tunity for including some form of GHG consideration as part of the information sup- porting a particular type of decision. Although the information provided in this guide relates to the key decision points associated with the decision levels above, many other types of decision contexts, such as operations analysis and congestion management planning, would use very similar approaches and methods to those described in this guide. 2 TRANSPORTATION FOR COMMUNITIES: ADVANCING PROJECTS THROUGH PARTNERSHIPS DECISION-MAKING FRAMEWORK

5PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Most of the steps that make up the transportation decision-making process are work activities that take place in the technical decision-making process. Key decisions are those points in the process at which the general work activities need review and ap- proval from higher levels of authority or at which consensus needs to be reached among diverse decision makers before the project can advance further. Figure 2.1 shows what is called the practitioner-level collaborative decision-making framework that serves as the organizing structure for this guide. The four major phases shown in this fi gure and the associated steps are described below. LRP-7 Approve Plan Scenarios LRP-8 Select Preferred Plan ScenarioApprove Strategies LRP-6LRP-5 Approve Financial Assumptions LRP-4 Approve Transportation Deficiencies LRP-3 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodologies, Performance Measures LRP-2 Approve Vision and Goals LRP-1 Approve Scope of LRTP Process Long Range Transportation Planning Corridor Planning Programming COR-2 Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities Collaborative Decision Making Framework LRP-9 Adopt Finding of Conformity (MPO) Environmental Review/NEPA merged with Permitting Adopt LRTP by MPO LRP-10 Adopt LRTP Adopt LRTP by MPO LRP-11 Approve Conformity Finding PRO-1 Approve Revenue Sources PRO-3 Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario PRO-2 Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue PRO-4 Approve Project Prioritization PRO-5 Reach Consensus on Draft TIP PRO-6 Adopt TIP PRO-7 Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP PRO-8 Reach Consensus on Draft STIP PRO-9 Approve STIP with respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint COR-3 Approve Goals for the Corridor COR-9 Adopt Priorities for Implementation COR-8 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods & Performance Measures for Prioritization COR-7 Adopt Preferred Solution Set COR-6 Approve Range of Solution Sets COR-1 Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process COR-4 Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental. Review & Analysis COR-5 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodologies, Performance Measures ENV-10PER-5 ENV-9ENV-8 ENV-5ENV-4ENV-2ENV-1 Approve Final NEPA Document Approve Preferred Alternative Approve Draft EIS Reach Consensus on Study Area Approve and Publish Notice of Intent Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodologies, Performance Measures PER-2 Approve Public Notice ENV-3 Approve Purpose and Need PER-1 Reach Consensus on Project Purpose ENV-6 Approve Full Range of Alternatives PER-3 Reach Consensus on Project Purpose ENV-7 Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward ENV-11 Approve the ROD PER-6 Render Permit Decision PER-4 Figure 2.1. Collaborative decision-making framework.

6PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING This phase constitutes the early steps in the decision-making framework and relates to the actions undertaken to develop long-range transportation plans (LRTPs). The long- range transportation planning process in Figure 2.1 describes primarily the process followed by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs); a similar process or frame- work applies to city and county processes. The state planning process, however, differs from the metropolitan planning process; it is carried out by different entities, with dif- ferent federal requirements. The key decision points in the long-range planning process and how GHG emissions might be considered include the processes discussed below. Approve Scoping Process This step (LRP-1) represents a consensus-building process among key stakeholders in defining what the LRTP process should include and the issues facing a study area. The identification of key stakeholders is a critical part of this early step. Approve Scoping Process (LRP-1) GHG Consideration Integration of GHG considerations into the scoping decision point involves determining to what extent GHG emis- sions will be considered as part of long-range plan development. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decisions made at LRP-1 are transferred to LRP-2 to support integration of GHG considerations into the long-range plan vision and goal statements. The vision and goal statements are critical in that they serve as the foundation for how potential transportation investment strategies will be evaluated at LRP-3 (in the context of how well they support attaining long-term goals) and how investments will be prioritized in the final approved plan scenario (LRP-8). Decisions made at LRP-1 can also be transferred to COR-1 and ENV-1 to maintain consistency between the scope of the long-range plan and the scope reflected in subsequent project development activities. Questions What is the scope of GHG emissions analysis as part of the long-range planning process (e.g., boundaries, methods, data, feasible solution strategies)? Does the consideration of GHG emissions have bearing on other objectives (e.g., energy, congestion, smart growth)? Will GHG considerations be treated in a qualitative or quantitative manner? Are there requirements that will influence how GHG emissions will be considered (e.g., a state climate action plan, federal GHG inventory, or reduction requirements)? (continued on next page)

7PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Vision and Goals Defining the vision and goals (LRP-2) is often the first public effort in a transportation planning process. This step includes the process of developing a vision for the study area and goals for the transportation planning process that follows. The vision and goals statement is approved by a state department of transportation (DOT), an MPO’s decision-making body, or a county or city council. The vision and goals often extend beyond transportation system performance and include such things as maintaining quality of life and enhancing the environment. Are existing tools and data resources sufficient to support the proposed method of GHG analysis? What additional coordination efforts (data or resources) will be needed to support the desired method of GHG analysis in long-range planning? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Technical information needed at this key decision point involves a review of existing or readily available tools and data resources to support the preferred mechanism and scope for incorporating GHG analysis into the long-range planning process. • Emissions source(s) to include in analysis. • Transportation mode(s) to include in analysis. • Analysis years. • Tools to estimate travel activity and network performance: macro (travel model), micro (simulation model), sketch analysis. • Tools to estimate emissions rates. • Data availability by emissions source, by travel mode, and by data format. Approve Scoping Process (LRP-1) (continued)

8PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Vision and Goals (LRP-2) GHG Consideration Integrating GHG considerations into the vision and goals decision point involves defining, through high-level state- ments of purpose, what the agency GHG goals are for the long-range plan. Inclusion of GHG considerations at this point signals that it is a priority planning consideration and will influence resource allocation decisions. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The goal statements are directly transferred to LRP-3 in that they provide the context for how proposed transportation investment strategies will be evaluated; in other words, goal statements define the primary planning emphasis areas to be considered as part of project evaluation and plan development. Inclusion of GHG considerations at this point also signals that GHGs will be a factor in identifying transportation deficiencies that should be addressed with the long-range plan (LRP-4); selecting types of investment strategies for the plan (LRP-6); and approving and adopting the final plan scenario (LRP-8, LRP-9). Goal statements defined at LRP-2 can also be transferred to COR-3 and ENV-3/PER-1 to maintain consistency between the goals of the long-range plan and the goals of subsequent planning and project development activities. Questions How will GHG considerations be reflected in the long-range plan vision and goal statements? What type of GHG information should be available to stakeholders and the general public to inform the visioning and goal-setting process? How specific should GHG goal statements be (e.g., integrated into a broader environmental goal or emphasized in their own GHG reduction statement)? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Data might be needed to illustrate the extent to which GHG emissions are a significant concern to the nation, state, and/or region. • Consistency with the results of LRP-1 is important in terms of the scoping of the GHG issues. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures This step (LRP-3) identifies different types of evaluation criteria, the methodology for analyzing plans and projects with these criteria, and the system measures that can be used to assess overall system performance and its impacts on the environment.

9PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (LRP-3) GHG Consideration Evaluation criteria and methods defined at this point are transferred to LRP-4, in which transportation deficiencies are defined and evaluated (e.g., congestion issues, safety needs, environmental impacts). The criteria also transfer to LRP-6, where strategies are defined to address deficiencies; LRP-7, where investment scenarios (packages of strategies) are evaluated in terms of how well they address deficiencies; and at LRP-8 and LRP-9, where preferred investment scenarios are adopted using this information. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points This stage is a critical point of departure for the analysis that follows. If evaluation criteria and performance measures have been adopted for the planning process, then it is incumbent on the analysis and evaluation efforts that follow to produce the required information. Evaluation criteria and performance measures dictate what type of data needs to be collected and the types of necessary analysis capabilities. Assuming that decision makers consider GHG-related criteria and performance measures when adopting the plan and program, identifying evaluation criteria in this early stage of the framework could ultimately result in GHG-related strategies being considered at the end of the process. Evaluation criteria and methods defined at LRP-3 can be transferred to PRO-4, COR-5, and ENV-5 if LRP-3 methods involve GHG analysis at a project or corridor level. If methods defined at LRP-3 are defined for systems-level analysis only, then they may need to be modified for project- or corridor-level analysis. Questions What GHG evaluation measures will be used to evaluate transportation investment strategies and scenarios (e.g., carbon dioxide [CO2], carbon dioxide equivalent [CO2e], or, as a proxy, vehicle miles traveled [VMT])? What is the capability of the agency’s analysis methods of producing this information? To what extent does the agency have control over the factors that influence the measure outcome? Is a target GHG emissions reduction established externally (e.g., by a state or federal requirement)? Will one be estab- lished internally? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Output of model or sketch analysis tools, such as travel data only (speeds and VMT), emissions data, other activity data. • Ability to convert model or sketch analysis output to GHG baseline measures of interest. • Ability to forecast measure for target years.

10 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Transportation Deficiencies Using the evaluation criteria and performance measures from the previous step (LRP-3), the planning process next identifies current and expected deficiencies (LRP-4) in system performance. These deficiencies become the focus of strategies and actions aimed at improving system performance. Approve Transportation Deficiencies (LRP-4) GHG Consideration Integration of GHG considerations at this point assumes that the production of GHG emissions is a deficiency (nega- tive impact) of transportation performance. Potential investments for the long-range plan can be evaluated in terms of how well they address the deficiency; that is, the extent to which they reduce GHG emissions along with other identified deficiencies (e.g., congestion and safety). Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Transportation-related GHG system concerns identified at this point link directly to LRP-6, where strategies are defined to address deficiencies; LRP-7, where investment scenarios (packages of strategies) are evaluated in terms of how well they address deficiencies; and at LRP-8 and LRP-9, where preferred investment scenarios are adopted. Deficiencies defined at LRP-4 can be transferred to PRO-3, COR-2/4, and ENV-3/PER-1 if project- or corridor-level operations contribute to the GHG emissions inventory. Questions What are the key social, demographic, and technological factors influencing future GHG emissions levels? What is the GHG emissions inventory for the base year and planning horizon year(s) corresponding to the existing plus committed (E+C) transportation network? What is the gap between the baseline GHG emissions and the target GHG emissions levels (if applicable)? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Inventory and projection method (from LRP-3). E+C project list for baseline and planning horizon year(s). Estimates of travel activity and transportation network performance for baseline and planning horizon year(s) that reflect all factors that will affect travel levels. GHG emissions rates that reflect state and federal policies (current and future) affecting GHG emissions. Target GHG reductions (if applicable).

11 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Financial Assumptions Federal law requires LRTPs and short-range transportation improvement programs (TIPs) developed by MPOs to be fiscally constrained. Identifying the likely revenue resources (LRP-5) that will be available over the life of the plan and providing for reasonable project cost estimates are essential components of demonstrating fiscal con- straint. This step produces an approved set of financial assumptions that serve as the basis for meeting the fiscal constraint requirement. Approve Strategies This step (LRP-6) identifies and selects those strategies that will be considered as part of the transportation plan, ranging from changes to the transportation system to land use and pricing strategies aimed at changing travel behavior. Approve Financial Assumptions (LRP-5) GHG Consideration Two possible financial assumptions could be affected by GHG considerations at this point in the process. If dedicated GHG reduction funding is available, then the finance strategy for the overall transportation program should include the expected level of funding and eligibility criteria. The other financial consideration relates to the impact on the financial strategy if funding will be allocated to strategies aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Information on financial capability feeds into the next step (LRP-6), where different types of strategies to be consid- ered in the long-range planning process are approved. This process ultimately leads to step LRP-10, where a fiscally constrained long-range plan is approved. Financial assumptions considered as part of the long-range planning process will feed into PRO-1, Approval of Rev- enue Sources; and PRO-4, where programming priorities are established. Questions Are there funding programs that target GHG reduction strategies? Are there other funding programs that can support GHG reduction strategies? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Listing of funding sources and eligibility criteria.

12 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Strategies (LRP-6) GHG Consideration Integration of GHG considerations at this point involves defining possible transportation solutions for GHG reduction. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Approved transportation strategies that contribute to GHG reduction identified at this decision point link directly to LRP-7, where investment scenarios (packages of strategies) are evaluated in terms of how well they address deficien- cies; and to LRP-8 and LRP-10, where preferred investment scenarios are adopted using this information. Questions What transportation-related strategies may have GHG emissions implications (increasing or decreasing) (e.g., system management and operations, demand management, construction and maintenance practices, land use integration)? What type of analysis is required to support the evaluation of particular strategies (in line with the general methods defined in LRP-3)? Which GHG reduction strategies would provide the most benefit and be most cost-effective in meeting GHG goals? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions List of potential strategies that can provide GHG reduction benefits, refined based on agency review of those poten- tially applicable in the region of interest. Analysis results to support effective review of individual and packaged transportation strategies (e.g., screening-level assessment based on research applied in other areas, sketch-level analysis, and model analysis). Approve Plan Scenarios for Analysis Transportation planning often uses different “what if?” scenarios to take into account the inherent uncertainty associated with predicting the future (LRP-7). Scenarios often test different levels of investment by mode in order to compare a range of potential futures. Such scenarios can also be proactive in that they articulate a possible desired vision (e.g., what types of investment will be necessary to produce a compact develop- ment pattern in our region?). This step results in an approved set of scenarios that will be evaluated by the planning process.

13 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Select Preferred Plan Scenario After different alternative scenarios have been evaluated, one scenario (i.e., an assumed future with associated transportation investments) is selected by the decision-making body (LRP-8). The recommended plan scenario may evolve from, or be a hybrid of, one or more of the initial scenarios evaluated. This final recommended scenario in essence becomes the long-range plan for the metropolitan area or region. Approve Plan Scenarios for Analysis (LRP-7) GHG Consideration GHG consideration at this decision point requires GHG emissions–reducing transportation strategies or packages of strategies that can be incorporated into one or more plan scenarios. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Scenarios approved at this step, inclusive of strategies that contribute to GHG reduction, directly transfer to LRP-8 and LRP-10, where preferred investment scenarios are adopted using this information. Questions What GHG-reduction transportation strategies should be included as part of scenario analysis? What is the combined effect of such strategies? Are there interactive effects that should be considered (e.g., strategies that work better in combination, or alterna- tively, that work against each other)? To what extent are such strategies politically feasible? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Level of GHG reduction and cost-effectiveness for each strategy. Relative importance (weight) of GHG reduction benefits compared with other planning factors. Sketch-level planning cost for strategies included in scenarios.

14 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Select Preferred Plan Scenario (LRP-8) GHG Consideration The consideration of GHG emissions at this decision point involves estimating the impact of various plan scenarios on GHG emissions levels and using this information as part of the selection and adoption of the preferred long- range investment scenario. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The preferred investment scenario adopted at this point is directly linked to LRP-10, in which the preferred scenario is finalized to become the adopted long-range transportation plan. Questions How important are GHG reduction benefits compared with other transportation benefits (i.e., what is the trade-off if scenarios improve some planning factors, but not others)? What are the GHG impacts of various scenarios compared with the baseline and applicable targets? What is the public and stakeholder response to the results of scenario analysis? What is the cost of implementing various scenarios? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Technical information will vary according to the level of analysis needed to support a review of the planning sce- narios, such as model analysis supplemented with off-model enhancements as needed. Most important informa- tion would include • Level of GHG reduction for each scenario compared with baseline and target (if applicable) from LRP-7. • Non-GHG-related transportation benefits of each scenario (in line with other evaluation criteria defined in LRP-3). • Relative importance (weight) of GHG reduction benefits compared with other transportation benefits. • Cost to implement scenarios. Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO For those metropolitan areas or regions not in attainment of national air quality stan- dards and/or areas that come into attainment but must maintain that status, the MPO decision-making body must find, based on analyses of proposed projects and strate- gies, that the plan will not result in increased emissions of target pollutant(s) nor pollutant precursors (LRP-9). A formal technical process has been defined by federal regulation as to the methodology that must be followed for such a determination.

15 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO (LRP-9) GHG Consideration At this time, there is no requirement for GHG emissions to be included in a conformity analysis. Adopt Long-Range Transportation Plan by MPO This step is the formal approval of the LRTP by the MPO decision-making body. A transportation plan must be updated and adopted on a periodic basis: every 4 years in air quality nonattainment areas, every 5 years otherwise (LRP-10). Adopt LRTP by MPO (LRP-10) GHG Consideration Specific GHG considerations at this stage are contingent on the extent to which plan approval hinges on a GHG inven- tory or reduction assessment. GHG integration at this point also focuses on what should be communicated to various planning partners and stakeholder groups about the GHG implications of the adopted plan. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decision to adopt a long-range plan transfers directly to PRO-1/2/3, with the adopted plan providing the frame- work for the types of projects to be programmed in the TIP, the revenue available for programming, and the general methods and criteria to be used for project evaluation. Questions To what extent are GHG emissions considerations important in the review? Who is responsible for reviewing and approving the plan? What needs to be communicated with respect to GHG reduction as part of plan adoption? Technical Information Needed to Respond to Questions Impact of long-range plan on all evaluation criteria and planning areas in line with long-term transportation goals, including GHG goals. Cost-effectiveness of GHG strategies.

16 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Obtain U.S. DOT Conformity Determination The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and the Federal Transit Administra- tion (FTA) must make a conformity determination on the LRTP (LRP-11). This is an important step because the plan is not valid until FHWA and FTA have made this determination. Approve Conformity Finding (LRP-11) GHG Consideration At this time, there is no requirement for GHG emissions to be included in a conformity analysis. PROGRAMMING This decision-making phase includes identifying the projects in the adopted plan that will be forwarded into a capital program, as well as the process of approving the state TIP (STIP). This process involves extra steps if a metropolitan area is in nonattainment of national air quality standards. Approve Revenue Sources This step identifies and approves the revenue sources that will be used in the STIP (PRO-1). In many cases, an analysis must be undertaken to estimate the level of fund- ing that will be available in future years based on a range of assumptions (e.g., rev- enues collected from a transportation-dedicated sales tax that depends on an assumed state of the economy).

17 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Methodology for Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue The most important product of the programming process is a document that indicates the timing and costs associated with the transportation projects and strategies that the metropolitan area is implementing over the following 4 to 5 years (PRO-2). Basic to this process is a set of criteria and a method for their use that allow transportation officials to establish priorities for project selection. Approve Revenue Sources (PRO-1) GHG Consideration Revenue sources are largely determined at LRP-5 as part of the development of long-range plan financial plan assump- tions, inclusive of the TIP period. Revenue sources defined at LRP-5 primarily comprise dedicated fund sources that can be reasonably projected to be available over the life of the plan. LRP-5 assumptions may be reviewed again at this step, but they should not be disconnected from the results of LRP-5 because the TIP and long-range plan financial assumptions must be consistent. Specific TIP-related GHG revenue sources identified at this step could reflect some combination of committed local, state, or federal funding specific to GHG reduction that is available for programming a project in the TIP, such as grant programs for projects aimed at reducing GHG emissions. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Revenue sources identified here should be consistent with those identified in LRP-5, unless the fund source is specific to the TIP time horizon (e.g., grant funding for project and/or program implementation). Questions Are there any additional revenue sources specific to the TIP time horizon that are available to program projects that reduce GHG emissions? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions NA.

18 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Methodology for Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue (PRO-2) GHG Consideration This key decision point involves defining methods to estimate project costs, at a minimum for the three federally funded project phases (preliminary engineering, right-of-way, and construction), and determining the evaluation criteria and process for allocating funding and revenue across potential TIP investments. Integrating GHG at this step can occur at two levels. First, GHG emissions mitigation costs may be included in project costs (e.g., via short-term construction cost or long-term operations cost). Second, the project evaluation methods defined at this step can be used to estimate the effect of potential transportation investment in relation to GHG reduc- tion goals, consistent with the LRP process. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Project evaluation methods defined at this point are transferred to PRO-4, where the approved project list defined at PRO-3 is prioritized using the methodologies defined at this step. Project costs are transferred to PRO-5, where priority projects are mapped to various funding programs, and costs are compared with available revenue for each program as part of the financial balancing element of fiscal constraint. Project costing and project evaluation methods defined at PRO-2 can be transferred to COR-5 and ENV-5 to ensure consistency between project-level assessment conducted for the TIP and subsequent corridor study and/or environ- mental review. Questions What, if any, GHG goals must the TIP or individual projects be consistent with? How will projects be evaluated and prioritized for funding in the TIP (consistent with LRP analysis)? What GHG evaluation criteria or measures will be used to evaluate projects (e.g., CO2, CO2e, VMT [as proxy])? Is a TIP-level GHG assessment required? What is the scope of GHG emissions impacts to be considered? How will GHG impacts be evaluated? Note: Preliminary scoping of evaluation methods is done in LRP-3. Specific methods are likely to depend on individual projects. What weight will be given to GHG criteria in relation to other project evaluation criteria? Will GHG emissions mitigation measures be reflected in project costs (e.g., via construction or design)? (continued on next page)

19 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario The programming process usually begins with a preliminary listing of projects ( PRO-3) that surface from the LRTP and/or newly identified projects resulting from completed corridor or subarea studies (see step below in corridor planning on adopting priori- ties). After more careful analysis, a project priority list is approved for advancement into the TIP based on a set of project prioritization criteria. Will long-term operations and maintenance of individual projects that may reduce or increase GHG emissions be fac- tored into the costing methodology? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions For costing: • Cost of various GHG emissions mitigation measures that can be applied during project construction and development. • Factors for operations and maintenance relevant to each project or program type if long-term operations and maintenance costs will be applied at the project level. Additional evaluation methods: • Output of model or sketch analysis tools, such as travel data (speeds and VMT), emissions data, other activity data. • Ability to convert model or sketch analysis output to a GHG baseline measure of interest. Approve Methodology for Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue (PRO-2) (continued)

20 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Project Prioritization This step takes the project list developed as part of the adopted plan scenario and develops an approved list of projects based on the application of prioritization criteria (PRO-4). Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario (PRO-3) GHG Consideration This key decision point establishes the pool of projects drawn from the long-range plan (or parallel corridor planning activities) that will be considered for funding in the TIP. Integration of GHG considerations at this point involves in- cluding in the list of projects a subset of projects that directly contributes to GHG reduction, consistent with the GHG reduction strategies identified as part of the long-range plan process and incorporated into the preferred long-range plan scenario. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Decisions made at this step are transferred directly to PRO-4, where the approved project list is prioritized using the methodologies defined in PRO-2. Questions What is the relative importance of GHG reduction compared with achieving other transportation goals and objectives? Are there programmed projects in the current long-range plan or in corridor studies that have GHG emissions reduc- tion benefits? Are there additional projects that reduce GHG emissions that might be considered? What projects, inconsistent with GHG reduction goals, may need to be removed? Are there GHG reduction projects that may be advanced into the TIP that also address non-GHG goals? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions There is no additional technical information needed (beyond what is defined for PRO-2) to address these questions. The decisions made at this point are largely policy related.

21 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Reach Consensus on Draft TIP A draft TIP (PRO-5), developed as part of the programming process, represents an important indication of regional transportation investment priorities. MPO staff often spend considerable time developing the draft TIP for referral to the MPO decision- making body. Approve Project Prioritization (PRO-4) GHG Consideration The list of projects to be evaluated for possible inclusion in the TIP is evaluated and prioritized using the methods defined in PRO-2. Integrating GHG at this point is not a new statement of GHG considerations, but rather a reflection of the GHG analysis defined in previous steps. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Priority projects identified at this step are directly transferred to PRO-5, where projects are mapped to available rev- enue sources and levels to support (draft) TIP programming decisions. Questions With respect to the criteria established in PRO-2, what is the direction and/or magnitude of GHG impact for each project? Do the results of the project evaluation process yield a list of priority projects that support GHG-related goals and objectives or meet established targets? If not, does the list of projects defined at PRO-3 need to be expanded? Are there key GHG-related results of the project prioritization process that need to be communicated to stakeholders and decision makers to inform decision making? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Project-level results; this could include modeled results of project performance across evaluation criteria defined in PRO-2, aggregate project scores calculated across evaluation criteria defined in PRO-2, and/or project-level benefit– cost analysis.

22 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Reach Consensus on Draft TIP (PRO-5) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, project priorities are aligned with available funding within program restrictions to select those projects to be included in the TIP. The draft TIP is then presented for public and planning-partner review and discussion to build consensus around the TIP prior to formal adoption. Integrating GHG considerations at this step involves including strategies and/or projects that reduce GHG emissions in the TIP project list; estimating the impact of TIP projects on GHG emissions levels to determine if the package of projects addresses GHG-related goals and/or objectives; and communicating the GHG implications of the proposed TIP to stakeholders and the public. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decisions made at this point link directly to PRO-6, where the draft TIP is formally adopted by the MPO. Decisions made at this step should align with the long-range planning phase (LRP-10), in that project-level programming deci- sions made as part of the TIP must be consistent with assumed funding in the long-range plan. Questions What are the combined GHG effects of the projects proposed in the TIP? Does the recommended TIP meet GHG reduction goals or provide a trajectory for meeting longer-term goals beyond the TIP time frame? How will funding and revenue projections for each funding program and for each fund source (federal, state, and lo- cal) affect the selection of priority projects and what, specifically, are the impacts to GHG-related projects? Will the results of the project prioritization process be directly reflected in the TIP (consistent with fund program requirements) or will other policy and/or qualitative factors affect final project selection (e.g., project readiness, geo- graphic equity)? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Revenue projections for project programming by fund program and source (federal, state, local). • Legal restrictions (if any) for programming funds for each fund program and source. • Total GHG emissions impact of TIP projects in relation to GHG-related goals and/or objectives. Adopt TIP by MPO This step (PRO-6) is an important decision point in the transportation planning pro- cess in that it is a legal prerequisite for federal transportation project funding.

23 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Adopt TIP by MPO (PRO-6) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, the MPO adopts the TIP. By adopting the final TIP, the MPO and the partner agencies agree that the TIP has been developed appropriately and addresses the MPO’s transportation goals and objectives. Specific GHG considerations at this stage are contingent on the extent to which TIP approval hinges on a GHG inventory or reduction assessment, if at all. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decision to formally adopt a TIP transfers directly to PRO-7, where the adopted TIP is reviewed and approved by the governor (or designee) and incorporated into the draft STIP. Questions Who is responsible for reviewing and approving the TIP? What information needs to be communicated to support TIP adoption (outside of what is presented during PRO-5)? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Impact of the TIP across all evaluation criteria and/or planning areas in line with long-term transportation goals and/or objectives, including GHG-related considerations. • Cost of the TIP. • Detail related to delivering the TIP (e.g., phasing of high-priority projects in the TIP). Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP Federal law states that the state governor or governor designee and the MPO have the final say on the adoption of the TIP (PRO-7). In addition to approving a region’s TIP, it is the state’s responsibility to adopt the TIPs of all state MPOs as part of the STIP.

24 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP (PRO-7) GHG Consideration At this point, the MPO-adopted TIP is reviewed against federal and state requirements and approved by the state gov- ernor or governor designee for incorporation into the STIP. Specific GHG considerations at this point are contingent on state-level GHG requirements, if applicable (e.g., the TIP approval may hinge on a state-required GHG inventory or reduction assessment). Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decision to incorporate the TIP into the STIP is transferred to PRO-8 and PRO-9, where the STIP is reviewed by the general public and approved by the U.S. DOT with respect to federal requirements. Questions Does the state require a GHG inventory or demonstration of GHG reduction for TIP approval and incorporation into the STIP? If so, does the TIP address GHG requirements? Are there additional, state-level GHG-related requirements affecting areas outside of MPO boundaries that need to be reflected in the STIP? If so, will these requirements affect MPO TIP incorporation into the STIP if they are not ad- dressed properly? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • GHG-related requirements of STIP, if applicable. • Impact of TIP in relation to GHG-related requirements. Reach Consensus on Draft STIP This step represents a consensus-building effort on the part of the state DOT in devel- oping a draft STIP (PRO-8) that includes the TIPs from all of the state’s MPOs, as well as other state projects. Depending on the state and the requirements and history of developing the STIP, the consensus-building process could be very straightforward and accomplished in a short time frame, or it could be subject to many meetings and public outreach efforts.

25 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Reach Consensus on Draft STIP (PRO-8) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, the draft STIP is released for public comment. GHG integration at this point focuses on what needs to be communicated to the public about the GHG implications of the proposed STIP. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Decisions made here transfer to PRO-9, where the STIP (revised as needed based on public feedback) is reviewed and formally approved by the U.S. DOT. Questions Was there any feedback from the public that requires a reconsideration of TIP and/or STIP programming decisions? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions NA. Approve STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint This final step in the programming process requires FHWA and FTA to determine that the metropolitan TIPs that constitute the STIP meet the fiscal constraint requirement (PRO-9). FHWA and FTA do not make a conformity determination on the STIP, but they do make conformity determinations on individual metropolitan TIPs. This con- formity determination on the individual TIPs is made before the incorporation of the TIP into the STIP.

26 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint (PRO-9) GHG Consideration This step relates specifically to reviewing the STIP with respect to federal transportation planning regulations to include fiscal constraint and transportation and air quality conformity requirements in air quality nonattainment and mainte- nance areas. Regulations do not currently require GHG considerations. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Once the STIP, inclusive of MPO TIPs, is formally approved, projects can proceed to project development and/or be the focus of more detailed analysis in corridor planning (COR-1 to COR-3). Questions NA. Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions NA. CORRIDOR PLANNING Many state DOTs, MPOs, and transit agencies conduct corridor or subarea studies to provide a finer level of detail on the strategies and projects that help achieve the vision and goals of the transportation plan. Although the steps that follow focus on corridor planning as it relates to highway projects, these steps are also relevant to multimodal corridor planning that includes transit strategies and land use options. Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process Corridor studies can be undertaken for variety of reasons and help focus attention on numerous challenges facing a particular corridor’s transportation system (e.g., safety, congestion, economic development) (COR-1). This initial step represents an effort to define a scope of the corridor planning study in terms of geographic extent, types of problems to be examined, time frame, and level of analysis.

27 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process (COR-1) GHG Consideration This initial key decision point involves assessing what data, decisions, and relationships need to be considered as part of the corridor study process. The corridor planning scope is often informed by long-range transportation planning in that the long-range plan identifies transportation needs and issues that warrant more detailed study and review. This step also serves to inform the scope of subsequent environmental review activities. Integration of GHG considerations into this scoping decision point involves defining to what extent GHG emissions will be considered as part of the corridor planning process, specifically how GHG emissions reduction will be included in the broader study process. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decisions made at COR-1 are transferred to COR-2, where GHG considerations are defined in more technical detail, and to COR-3, where the scope of the study is refined into more specific study goals. Decisions made at COR-1 are directly informed by LRP-1. They also serve to inform ENV-1 to maintain consistency between the scope of corridor planning activities and subsequent (more detailed) project development activities. Questions What is the scope of GHG emissions analysis as part of the long-range planning process (boundaries, methods, data, and feasible solution strategies)? Will GHG considerations be treated in a qualitative or quantitative manner? Are there requirements that will influence how GHG emissions will be considered (e.g., a state climate action plan, federal GHG inventory, or reduction requirements)? Are existing tools and data resources sufficient to support the proposed method of GHG analysis? What additional coordination efforts (data and/or resources) will be needed to support the desired method of GHG analysis in long-range planning? (continued on next page)

28 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Technical information needed at this key decision point involves a review of existing or readily available tools and data resources to support the preferred mechanism and scope for incorporating GHG analysis into the long-range planning process. • Emissions source(s) to include in analysis. • Transportation mode(s) to include in analysis. • Analysis years. • Tools to estimate travel activity and network performance: macro (travel model), micro (simulation model), sketch analysis. • Tools to estimate emissions rates. • Data availability by emissions source, by travel mode, and by data format. Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process (COR-1) (continued) Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities Once a scope has been determined for the study, the corridor management team in cooperation with corridor stakeholders defines more specific problem statements and identifies opportunities for improving corridor system performance (COR-2). These problem and opportunity statements become the basis for analysis and evaluation during the study.

29 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities (COR-2) GHG Consideration The full range of deficiencies and opportunities within a corridor are defined at this key decision. Deficiencies and opportunities can extend beyond transportation, as defined by the scope of the study in COR-1. The problem state- ments and opportunities resulting from this key decision are informed by the transportation deficiencies identified in long-range planning and inform the purpose and need during environmental review. Integrating GHG considerations at this step involves defining GHG emissions as a deficiency (investment need) to address through the study, and defining potential opportunities for addressing GHG emissions in the study process. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Decisions made at COR-2 transfer to COR-3, where the full range of corridor deficiencies and opportunities are pack- aged into more specific study goals. Decisions made at this point are informed by the transportation deficiencies identified in LRP-4. They also serve to inform the purpose and need statement developed as part of ENV-3/PER-1. Questions How is transportation performance in the corridor affecting or benefiting GHG emissions levels? How can these effects be mitigated or enhanced? Are there potential solutions beyond traditional transportation investment, such as land use or demand management? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Results from long-range plan analysis that are applicable to corridor study area; for example, corridor travel data (current and projected travel volume, speeds, congestion levels); corridor land use data (current and projected population and employment characteristics); and/or corridor-specific GHG emissions data as available. • Range of potential GHG emissions reduction solutions identified in long-range planning process, supplemented with new information as available. Approve Goals for the Corridor Similar to identifying goals for a long-range planning process, this step defines plan- ning goals that will reflect the desires and needs of the major stakeholders in the cor- ridor (COR-3). The goals also provide input into the selection of evaluation criteria and performance measures (COR-5).

30 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Goals for the Corridor (COR-3) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, a broad range of corridor-specific transportation, community, and environmental goals are considered. The study goals defined at this step should align with the scope of the study process defined in COR-1. The key decision is informed by the goals approved during long-range transportation planning, and it informs the purpose and need for projects in environmental review. Integration of GHG considerations into the COR-3 key decision point involves defining, through high-level statements of purpose, the GHG-related goals of the study. Inclusion of GHG considerations at this point signals that it is a priority study consideration and will influence study recommendations on some level. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The study goals for the corridor are directly transferred to COR-5 in that they provide the context for how potential investment options will be evaluated. Decisions made at this point can be informed by the goal statements identified in LRP-2. They also serve to inform the purpose and need statement developed as part of ENV-3/PER-1. Questions How will GHG considerations be reflected in the corridor study goal statements? How specific should GHG goal statements be; for example, should they be integrated into a broader environmental goal? Or emphasized in their own GHG reduction statement? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions No technical information is needed to respond to the policy questions identified at this point, but goal statements should not conflict with the (technical) scope of GHG consideration defined in COR-1. Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis A corridor study could be an important context for environmental analysis. Thus, for example, a corridor study could be combined with an environmental impact statement effort that results in a recommended transportation alternative. It is very important at the early stages of any corridor study, but in particular those aligned with environ- mental analysis, that the scope of the environmental effort be defined (COR-4): What impacts are expected? What data should be collected? What types of analysis tools will be used? What permitting agencies need to be involved?

31 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis (COR-4) GHG Consideration In order to provide a clear linkage to the subsequent environmental review process, this key decision point defines the acceptable level of detail for the corridor study analysis. Completion of this step establishes a common understanding among planning partners (primarily transportation and resource agencies) about what decisions and analyses will be transferable to the merged environmental review and permitting process. Integrating GHG at this step involves clarifying whether GHG emissions analysis conducted as part of the corridor study will be needed and/or required for subsequent environmental review. And, if included as part of environmental review, what acceptable level of detail will be needed to transfer GHG-related analysis? Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Decisions made at this step will translate directly to COR-5 and ENV-5, where specific GHG evaluation methods are defined to support corridor evaluation and subsequent environmental review activities. Questions What are environmental review requirements for subsequent project development activities? Will GHG emissions be included as an element of environmental review? What is the acceptable level of detail for analysis to be transferred between the corridor study and environmental review? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Analysis requirements for environmental review. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures Project evaluation is based on a set of criteria and performance measures that reflect the concerns raised in earlier steps of the corridor study (COR-5). These criteria and performance measures are likely to be at a much finer level of disaggregation than those used for the long-range planning process, primarily because of the much smaller geographic scale of analysis. Thus, a safety measure might be generally defined in a long-range plan as fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; in a corridor study, safety might be defined in more specific terms, such as truck-related, pedestrian or bike, or driveway crashes. This decision step approves the set of criteria and performance measures that will be used to assess the relative effectiveness of different strategies.

32 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (COR-5) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, evaluation criteria, evaluation methodology, and performance measures are approved to support corridor analysis. Corridor analysis is conducted for base or current conditions and on a variety of potential solutions to allow decision makers to compare solutions that best address corridor needs within the context of the study goals. The evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures are informed by the evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures used in long-range transportation planning and are considered during en- vironmental review to ensure consistency across the entire transportation decision-making process. Integration of GHG considerations at this point involves defining GHG-related evaluation criteria and methods to estimate the effect of potential investment strategies in relation to GHG-related study goals. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Evaluation criteria and methods defined at this point are transferred to COR-7, where a preferred solution set is adopted based on the results of the corridor evaluation using methods defined in this guide. Decisions are also transferred to COR-8, in that evaluation methods used to evaluate potential solution sets should be consistent with methods used to prioritize investment strategies. Questions What GHG evaluation measures will be used to evaluate transportation investment strategies and scenarios (e.g., CO2, CO2e, VMT [as proxy])? What is the capability of the agency’s analysis methods of producing this information? To what extent does the agency have control over the factors that influence the measure outcome? How will the GHG impacts of potential corridor solutions be evaluated? Note: Preliminary scoping of evaluation methods will be done in COR-1/LRP-3, but specific methods are likely to depend on strategies and solution sets identified in COR-6. Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Types of output of model or sketch analysis tools (e.g., travel data only [speeds and VMT], emissions data, other activity data). • Ability to convert model or sketch analysis output to GHG baseline measure of interest. • Ability to forecast.

33 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Range of Solution Sets (COR-6) GHG Consideration A range of approved solution sets for the corridor results from this key decision. These solution sets are influenced by the preferred plan scenario adopted as part of the long-range transportation plan, and they help to define the full range of alternatives to be evaluated during environmental review. Integrating GHG at this step involves including GHG reduction strategies in the approved solution sets for the corridor study. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The range of solution sets approved at this step is influenced by the preferred plan scenario approved in LRP-10 and helps to define the full range of alternatives to be evaluated during environmental review in ENV-6/PER-3. Decisions transfer directly to COR-7, where a preferred solution set is adopted based on the results of corridor evalu- ation using methods defined in COR-5. Questions What corridor investment strategies or other actions that contribute to GHG emissions reduction should be included as part of the solution sets? How cost-feasible are these strategies when combined or when treated separately? Are there interactive effects that should be considered? That is, do some strategies work better in combination, or alternatively, work against each other? Are there potential strategies that extend beyond the traditional transportation realm, and if so, do they require more refined analysis or study? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Relative importance (weight) of GHG reduction benefits compared with benefits of other potential corridor solutions. • Level of GHG reduction and cost-effectiveness for each strategy or combination of strategies evaluated in COR-6. • Sketch-level planning cost for strategies potentially included in scenarios. Approve Range of Solution Sets The evaluation process examines a variety of strategies and projects that can improve the performance of the corridor transportation system (COR-6). As part of this pro- cess, this step identifies a candidate set of strategies that will be part of the analysis.

34 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Adopt Preferred Solution Set (COR-7) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, a preferred solution set is adopted for the corridor study. An evaluation of the preferred solution set using the approved evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures from COR-5 are the basis for selection. Integrating GHG at this point is not a new statement of GHG considerations, but rather a reflection of the GHG inte- gration defined in previous steps. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The preferred solution set is typically influenced by the preferred plan scenario adopted in long-range planning, so potential investment strategies need to be consistent between the long-range plan and the more detailed corridor study. The preferred solution set should also feed into the range of alternatives considered in subsequent project-level environmental review. Decisions made here directly inform COR-8 because the preferred solution set will shape individual investment strate- gies that will be defined and prioritized to support final study recommendations (i.e., specific project recommenda- tions for scope and schedule). Questions What are the results of the corridor scenario and solution set analysis? How well does each solution set address study goals? What is the preferred solution based on the analysis results? What is the public feedback on the different solution sets? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Results of solution set technical analysis (strategies combined). • Aggregate cost (and/or cost-effectiveness) of solution sets. Adopt Preferred Solution Set The corridor study recommends a package of actions and projects to meet study goals (COR-7). This package can range from new capacity expansion projects to transporta- tion demand management or transportation system management, as well as land use and urban design strategies. The corridor study decision-making body adopts a pre- ferred set of strategies and projects informed by analysis undertaken during the study.

35 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures for Prioritization The number of projects that results from a corridor study usually surpasses the level of funding available for their implementation. This situation requires a set of criteria and performance measures to establish priorities among the different recommended projects (COR-8). Those projects receiving high priorities are often placed in the STIP or regional TIP. This decision step represents the approval of the criteria that will be used for assigning these priorities. In most cases, these criteria will be the same from one corridor study to another, or at least some subset will be common across all cor- ridor studies in a state. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures for Prioritization (COR-8) GHG Consideration At this key decision point, priorities for implementation of the preferred solution set are established. A second set of evaluation criteria, methodology, and performance measures can be used for prioritization purposes, if needed, but the criteria and method should not conflict with the evaluation conducted in previous steps. Integrating GHG considerations at this point includes using GHG-related criteria as one of the criteria to prioritize cor- ridor investment strategies. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Decisions made at this step directly influence the final study recommendations provided at COR-9. Questions Are more specific evaluation criteria and methods needed to define and prioritize investments strategies for the cor- ridor (i.e., beyond those established in COR-5 to support evaluation of solution sets)? How will the results of technical analysis affect the prioritization process in the context of other study considerations such as cost, public support, and project feasibility? What factors will play a role in project prioritization, and how will these factors be weighted and considered in the prioritization process? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions NA.

36 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Adopt Priorities for Implementation This decision step represents the actual selection of projects and strategies that are recommended for future funding consideration (COR-9). The recommended improve- ments for the corridor may need to be adopted into the regional long-range transpor- tation plan. Although the corridor planning process, including goals and objectives, should be consistent with the regional LRTP, some major projects that come out of corridor planning may not be explicitly included in the regional plan. In this sense, the process is iterative—the development of the regional LRTP may identify the need for more detailed planning at the corridor level, and the corridor-level planning may inform or feed back into the regional plan. Adopt Priorities for Implementation (COR-9) GHG Consideration At this step, individual projects within the adopted preferred solution set are evaluated and prioritized to identify an appropriate sequencing for implementation. The prioritized list of projects becomes the final study recommendations to address corridor deficiencies. The prioritization of projects supports both programming decisions made as part of the TIP and subsequent project-level environmental review activities. Integrating GHG at this point is not a new statement of GHG considerations, but rather a reflection of the GHG inte- gration defined in previous steps. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Priority projects and study recommendations defined at this step directly translate to programming step PRO-3 and the subsequent environmental review steps (ENV-1 through ENV-11) needed for certain types of investment recom- mendations (e.g., capacity addition). Questions How do individual strategies contained in the preferred solution set compare using evaluation methods defined in COR-8? Does the prioritization process yield a set of priority projects that align with study goals? What is the appropriate scheduling and phasing for priority projects? Is there an available project sponsor for study recommendations? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Results of COR-9 analysis.

37 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW, NEPA, AND PERMITTING MERGED WITH PLANNING This final decision-making phase focuses on the steps necessary for project environ- mental review and permitting. This series of steps, many of which are required by national or state environmental laws, represents two aspects of the environmental pro- cess: the environmental review (NEPA) process and a typical environmental permitting process. The permitting aspect is identified below in the appropriate steps. Some states require a (programmatic) environmental review of state, regional, county, and city transportation plans prior to plan adoption (e.g., SEPA in the State of Washington). This means that transportation planners need to incorporate environmental factors and considerations early into the planning process. Even without state environmental regulations and requirements, there is an increased emphasis at the federal level on introducing environmental considerations (not only GHG emissions) earlier into the planning process. The decision-making framework described here tends to focus on project environmental review and will likely have to be expanded to include environ- mental review for plans and programs. The Council on Environmental Quality has recommended some GHG analysis for certain circumstances. Users of this guide should refer to the latest environmental regulations concerning GHG analysis in environmental review before beginning an environmental analysis. Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review This step (ENV-1/PER-1) represents an important part of the environmental review process in that much of what occurs in subsequent steps is initiated by this consensus process. The purpose of this step is to have all agencies potentially concerned with an environmental analysis agree upfront with the scope of the analysis effort. The scope includes the geographic boundaries, types of impacts, needed data, required method- ologies, and types of mitigation strategies that should be considered. Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review (ENV-1/PER-1) GHG Consideration This step considers the integration of GHG considerations into project scoping, including determining the extent to which GHG emissions will be considered as part of the impact assessment. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The decisions made at ENV-1 are transferred to ENV-2 to support integration of GHG into the issues noted in the Notice of Intent. (continued on next page)

38 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS ENV-1 decisions also transfer to ENV-3 (project purpose), if desired. The purpose of reducing GHG emissions may already be a part of a larger long-range transportation plan. ENV-1 decisions could also contribute to ENV-4 to ENV-7, in that scoping comments can include areas of potential effects, suggestions on methods, and potential alternatives. Questions What are project characteristics? • Rehabilitation or restoration. • Replacement in kind. • Service improvement. • New service. What is the project area of influence? Is the project part of a larger transportation plan or improvement program for which GHG reduction is an objective? What were the GHG findings in programming and corridor planning studies? What project features lend themselves to a potential change in GHG emissions and differences between alternatives from the perspective of traffic and other sources of GHG emissions? What adopted land development objectives exist in the area of influence that support the reduction of GHGs, and how would the project support those objectives? What is the lead agency’s policy on assessing GHG emissions? What other federal, state, and local policies apply? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions The project definition and objectives as defined in: • Long-range transportation plans. • Transportation programming decisions. • Corridor planning findings. • Travel forecasts used in previous studies. • Long-range land use and economic development plans and objectives in the area of project influence. • Applicable GHG emissions assessment policies. Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review (ENV-1/PER-1) (continued)

39 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve and Publish Notice of Intent This step (ENV-2) is an official action on the part of the agency sponsoring a project environmental study. Often, this step involves a public involvement plan for the NEPA document in which the issuance of a Notice of Intent (NOI) is part of the admin- istrative step. The agencies that issue an NOI do so to inform the public about the proposed actions; announce plans to conduct public scoping meetings; invite public participation in the scoping process; and solicit public comments for consideration in establishing the scope and content of the environmental document, alternatives, and environmental issues and impacts. Approve and Publish Notice of Intent (NOI) (ENV-2) GHG Consideration No GHG consideration likely for this decision point. Approve Purpose and Need and Reach Consensus on Project Purpose This step (ENV-3/PER-2) represents the approval process of the purpose and need statement. A clear, well-justified purpose and need statement explains to the public and decision makers that the expenditure of funds is necessary and worthwhile and that the priority the project is being given relative to other needed projects is warranted. The project purpose and need also drive the process for alternatives consideration, in- depth analysis, and ultimate selection. For the environmental permitting process, this step often also satisfies a requirement to reach a consensus on project purpose. Permits are required for constructing projects that are disruptive to the environment, and the issuance of a permit must be clearly linked to the purpose of the project. This step is an official action on the part of the agency sponsoring a project envi- ronmental study. Often, this step involves a public involvement plan for the NEPA document, in which the issuance of an NOI is part of the administrative step. The agencies that issue an NOI do so to inform the public about the proposed actions; announce plans to conduct public scoping meetings; invite public participation in the scoping process; and solicit public comments for consideration in establishing the scope and content of the environmental document, alternatives, and environmental issues and impacts.

40 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Purpose and Need and Reach Consensus on Project Purpose (ENV-3/PER-2) GHG Consideration Integrating GHG considerations at this step requires first defining if GHG emissions reduction is a project purpose or is simply a factor in deciding among project alternatives. If GHG emissions reduction is a project purpose, then only alternatives that reduce GHG emissions can be assessed in the environmental assessment or environmental impact statement, regardless of their other benefits. More emphasis would be placed on this benefit over other impacts when selecting the preferred alternative. If GHG emissions reduction is simply a factor in deciding between alternatives, then it would be one of many positive and negative impact factors considered in the selection of the preferred alternative. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The scoping comments from ENV-2 will be a factor in this decision. ENV-3 decisions could contribute to or influence ENV-4 to ENV-9 from the following perspectives: • ENV-4: Area of project influence on GHG emissions. • ENV-5: Measurement of impacts. • ENV-6: Types of alternatives considered. • ENV-7: Selection of reasonable and feasible alternatives that best meet project purposes. • ENV-8: Recommended preferred alternative and mitigation strategies. • ENV-9: Selection of the preferred alternative. Questions Is a project purpose defined in long-range transportation plans, programs, and/or corridor studies? Is GHG emissions reduction a motivating factor in such a purpose? Is a project purpose defined in local land use and economic development plans? Is GHG emissions reduction a moti- vating factor? How does the project relate to regional, state, or federal policy or goals? What are the components of the no-build alternative, including other transportation projects and area plans that could influence future travel demand, movement patterns, and GHG emissions? Does the project offer the opportunity for more than a marginal reduction of the factors that contribute to transpor- tation-related emissions? (continued on next page)

41 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS What is the GHG emissions reduction need? Does it go beyond “any reduction in GHG emissions is good?” What level of GHG emissions reduction would meet the need? Is there a target, and if so, how much less in emissions reduction would still achieve the purpose? How is the need quantified, and how is success at meeting the need quantified? What tools are available? What evalu- ation measures could be used (e.g., CO2, CO2e, VMT [as proxy])? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions The project definition and objectives as defined in: • Long-range transportation plans. • Transportation programming decisions. • Corridor planning findings. • Local land use and economic development plans. • State and federal policy. Traffic forecasts (VMT) and road capacity analyses (vehicle hours traveled, congested VMT, level of service) for the no- build alternative and corridor or sketch-level analyses of potential build alternatives. Changes in development patterns that could be induced by the implementation of the project or plan should be taken into account. GHG emission factors to apply to travel data to determine no-build GHG emissions (establishes need and baseline) and to test the potential for success and how that might best be expressed for potential build alternatives. GHG emissions reductions anticipated from federal and state measures such as low-carbon fuel and inspection and maintenance requirements and more stringent certification and corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards. Approve Public Notice (PER-3) GHG Consideration No GHG consideration likely for this decision point. Approve Purpose and Need and Reach Consensus on Project Purpose (ENV-3/PER-2) (continued) Approve Public Notice A public notice (PER-3) is necessary for any action in which a permit issuance is being considered. This step approves the content and timing of the public notice.

42 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Reach Consensus on Study Area (ENV-4) GHG Consideration This key decision point involves selection of the area over which GHG reductions will be compared between the no- build and build alternatives. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points ENV-4 decisions would define the area over which GHG emissions are calculated under ENV-5. Questions What is the area over which GHG reductions will be compared considering • The area over which the project might influence travel patterns or activity? • The area, if any, in which the project might influence development patterns? Are travel data available for the defined study area? What is the long-range plan’s study area relative to the project’s area of influence? What is the availability of data that would permit the estimate of direct, indirect, and cumulative GHG emissions for associated activities such as induced travel, project construction, maintenance and operations activities, motor vehicle manufacturing, and full fuel-cycle emissions? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Traffic information developed under ENV-3. Indicators of the potential for induced change in development, including • Changes in distance and travel time between the project area and major trip attractors such as employment centers. • Suitability of the project area for development or redevelopment. Long-range transportation plans. Local long-range land use and comprehensive development plans. Reach Consensus on Study Area As with any planning study, it is important for environmental analyses that the study boundaries be clearly defined (ENV-4). This is particularly important for environ- mental impact analyses in which some impacts could occur far from the immediate areas bordering the project (e.g., air quality impacts). In some cases, such as wetland impacts, study boundaries are defined through federal regulation and guidance. This step provides the forum and structure for reaching a consensus on the boundaries of the study area.

43 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (ENV-5) GHG Consideration This step involves defining the important differentiators between the no-build alternative and the build alternatives as- sociated with GHG emissions, including the ability of alternatives to meet the project purpose and need and to reduce GHG emissions. This step also involves defining the GHG emissions sources to be evaluated; the analysis time frame, including start and ending dates; changes in benefits over time; the methodology for comparing impacts, including direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts; and finalizing performance measures. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The criteria, methods, and performance measures would be used in the comparison of alternatives under ENV-7 and the assessment of impacts under ENV-8. Questions What criteria, methods, and performance measures are appropriate for determining which projects should move forward into environmental analysis? Important information would include emissions sources, time frame, and area of impact. Criteria, methods, and performance measures used for ENV-7 would be simpler than those used for ENV-8, with fewer variables than those for assessing in detail the alternatives to be carried forward. What criteria, methods, and performance measures are appropriate to use under ENV-8 to differentiate the alterna- tives carried forward for detailed study and support a decision on a preferred alternative? Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures This step (ENV-5) is similar to those in the long-range and corridor planning phases. Environmental analysis produces information on the respective impacts to be consid- ered by decision makers in choosing a preferred alternative. The evaluation criteria used in this evaluation will depend on the types of environmental and community impacts that were identified during the scoping process. The methodologies used for analyzing these impacts and the identification of the performance measures to be used in system performance evaluation are also part of this step. The result of this step is the approval of the criteria, methodologies, and performance measures to be used in the environmental analysis process. (continued on next page)

44 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions Traffic information developed under ENV-3. Indicators of the potential for induced change in development, including: • Changes in distance and travel time between the project area and major trip attractors such as employment centers. • Suitability of the project area for development or redevelopment. Long-range transportation plans. Local long-range land use and comprehensive development plans. Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methodology, and Performance Measures (ENV-5) (continued) Approve Full Range of Alternatives Environmental laws and regulations require that all feasible alternatives be considered as part of the analysis (ENV-6/PER-4). For federal law, this includes consideration of the do-nothing alternative. For both the environmental review process and environ- mental permitting, this step identifies and approves the range of alternatives that will be considered as part of the analysis. Approve Full Range of Alternatives (ENV-6/PER-4) GHG Consideration If GHG emissions reduction was defined as part of the project purpose and need in ENV-3/PER-1, then integrating GHG at this decision step includes identifying alternatives likely to address GHG emissions reduction and, if applicable, support development trends that would aid in the reduction of GHG emissions. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The results of ENV-6 will be the starting point for the selection of alternatives to be carried forward into detailed study under ENV-7. Questions What alternatives are required by regulation, including low capital investment, travel demand management, and mode alternatives? (continued on next page)

45 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS What alternatives were considered under predecessor planning and programming studies, and what conclusions were reached at that time? What alternatives were suggested of scoping associated with the NOI (ENV-2)? What additional alternatives might be reasonable with changes in future land use plans and development trends? Which of these alternatives offer the opportunity to reduce GHG emissions, and if applicable, meet the project’s GHG- related purpose and need? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Federal and state requirements for the selection of alternatives, including those associated with federal and state goals related to GHG reduction. • Past planning and programming studies. • Scoping documentation. • Traffic studies identifying need. • Citizen and agency input. Approve Full Range of Alternatives (ENV-6/PER-4) (continued) Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward For both environmental review and permitting, this step identifies and approves which alternative or alternatives merit more serious analysis and will be part of further envi- ron mental work (ENV-7/PER-5). Regulations specify the desirable characteristics of the alternatives that will be carried forward.

46 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Draft Environmental Impact Statement The approval of a draft environmental impact statement (DEIS) (ENV-8) describes the alternatives that were analyzed, the expected impacts on the environment, and recom- mended mitigation strategies. A preferred alternative is also recommended as part of the DEIS. The DEIS must be approved by both state and federal officials, and the approval process is usually subject to its own public hearing and participation process. Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward (ENV-7/PER-5) GHG Consideration If GHG emissions reduction is part of the project purpose and need as defined in ENV-3/PER-1, then integration of GHG at this step requires that alternatives likely to reduce GHG emissions and/or support development trends that would aid in the reduction of GHG emissions be advanced for more detailed analysis. If GHG emissions are not a part of the purpose and need, then GHG emissions reduction can be one criterion in the selection of alternatives to advance. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points The alternatives approved to be carried forward for detailed study will be assessed in detail under ENV-8. Questions Which alternatives developed under ENV-6 will: • Substantially meet the project purposes and satisfy project needs? • Minimize potential GHG impacts, or maximize reduction in GHG emissions? • Support area plans, including those whose goal is to reduce GHG emissions? • Be affordable? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Alternatives descriptions and traffic findings. • Methods and associated analysis inputs identified under ENV-5 for screening potential alternatives. • Citizen and agency input.

47 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Draft EIS (ENV-8) GHG Consideration For the alternatives carried forward, this step assesses the changes in GHG emissions according to the criteria, meth- ods, and performance measures developed under ENV-5, including, as applicable, direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points Assessment findings in combination with public and agency comments on those findings made during the DEIS re- view will be used in the selection of the preferred alternative under ENV-9. Questions What are the direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts on GHG emissions of the alternatives carried forward? What opportunities exist for mitigating negative GHG emissions changes? How do the build alternatives compare with each other and with the no-build alternative? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Alternatives descriptions and traffic findings. • Methods and associated analysis inputs identified under ENV-5 for assessment of alternatives carried forward for detailed assessment. Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination (PER-5) GHG Consideration No GHG consideration likely for this decision point. Reach Consensus on Jurisdictional Determination This decision (PER-5) is a required step in the Section 404 permitting process. It is not integrated with other phases of transportation decision making or other decision- making processes.

48 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Preferred Alternative (ENV-9) GHG Consideration Integrating GHG considerations at this step involves using the GHG analysis conducted in previous steps to support selection of the preferred alternative from the perspective of GHG emissions reduction. Information Transfer Among Key Decision Points GHG-related implementation commitments need to be passed on to the design and construction team. Program of GHG integration into long-range plans needs to be developed and carried forward if applicable. Questions What are the GHG-related comments on the DEIS, particularly as it relates to impact findings? What priority is placed on GHG emissions reduction as a factor in the preferred alternative decision, both in the DEIS and in the comments received? What are the pros and cons of each alternative relating to GHG emissions and all other impacts? What implementation commitments are to be incorporated into the project relating to GHG emissions? What additional coordination efforts (data and/or resources) will be needed to support any desired method of GHG integration into long-range plans? Technical Information Needed to Answer Questions • Comments on the DEIS. • DEIS findings. • Impact trade-off priorities associated with local, state, and federal law and policy. Approve Preferred Alternative The governor or a designated representative is given the responsibility for approving a preferred alternative that comes out of the federal environmental impact analysis process (ENV-9). This preferred alternative has a level of detail sufficient to give stake- holders a good sense of what impacts are likely to occur. Approve Final NEPA Environmental Impact Statement The final NEPA document is most often an environmental assessment or an environ- mental impact statement (ENV-10). The sponsoring agency, designated authority, and related federal agencies are part of this approval process.

49 PRACTITIONERS GUIDE TO INCORPORATING GREENHOUSE GAS EMISSIONS INTO THE COLLABORATIVE DECISION-MAKING PROCESS Approve Final NEPA Environmental Impact Statement (ENV-10) GHG Consideration No explicit GHG considerations in this step. Approve the Record of Decision and Render Permit Decision (ENV-11/PER-6) GHG Consideration GHG emissions should be included in this document if considered in previous steps. Approve the Record of Decision and Render Permit Decision For the environmental review process, the Record of Decision is the final action before a project enters more detailed engineering phases (ENV-11/PER-6). For the permitting process, the final step is to actually issue the permit. As these steps of the decision-making framework show, many tasks must be under- taken to progress from a general sense of the transportation problems or opportuni- ties facing a community to the implementation of specific projects. Each step relies on information that comes from both analysis results and public input. In some cases, this information is further refined as a concept goes through the decision-making process, while in other cases information might be new to that particular step. The collabora- tive decision-making framework is designed to provide this information.