alternatives analysis overview

8/7/2019 Alternatives Analysis Overview

1/27


2/27

Provides federal funds for the financing offixed-guideway systems

Organized around common-sensequestions answered in public process What is problem(s) to be solved?

What are potential solutions?

What are their benefits? What do they cost?

Which alternative is the best solution, givenavailable resources, to address the problem?

Alternatives Analysis is first step of process


3/27

First step in multi-step New Starts process

Identification and evaluation of urban

transit options

Rigorous process tightly defined by theFederal Transit Administration (FTA)

Compliance with all steps is required tobe eligible for federal transit funds

Highly competitive process


4/27

Definition:

A corridor level analysis which

evaluates all reasonable mode andalignment alternatives for addressing atransportation problem, and results in theadoption of a locally preferred

alternative by the appropriate State andlocal agencies and official boardsthrough a public process.

49 CFR 611.5


5/27

Definition:

Acorridor level analysis which



49 CFR 611.5


6/27

Definition:




49 CFR 611.5


7/27

Definition:




49 CFR 611.5


8/27

Definition:




49 CFR 611.5


9/27

Definition:




49 CFR 611.5


10/27

Definition:

A corridor level analysis which evaluates all

reasonable mode and alignmentalternatives for addressing a

transportation problem,and results in the adoption of a locally

preferred alternative by the appropriateState and local agencies and officialboards through a public process.

49 CFR 611.5


11/27

Defined at the start of the process

Describes NEPA purpose and need

Yardstick against which alternatives will be

evaluated and advanced

Needs public buy-in (like scoping process)


12/27

Definition:A corridor level analysis which evaluates allreasonable mode and alignmentalternatives for addressing a transportationproblem, and results in the adoption of alocally preferred alternative by theappropriate State and local agencies and

official boards through a publicprocess.49 CFR 611.5


13/27

Early and frequent engagement

Comprehensive education to ensure

informed input Transparent process

Important roles: Defining transportation problem to be

solved, other goals and objectives Identifying range of strategies to consider

Input on screening criteria

Foundation for NEPA process


14/27

Definition:

Acorridor level analysiswhich evaluates all reasonable mode andalignment alternatives for addressing atransportation problem, and results in theadoption of a locally preferred alternative

by the appropriate State and localagencies and official boards through apublic process.

49 CFR 611.5


15/27


16/27


17/27

Definition:A corridor level analysis which evaluates

all reasonable mode andalignment alternatives foraddressing a transportation problem, andresults in the adoption of a locally preferred

alternative by the appropriate State andlocal agencies and official boards througha public process.

49 CFR 611.5


18/27

Must consider all options that can solvedefined transportation problem

Must be mode neutral that is, not pre-conceived bias on an outcome

Must consider a no build and an

optimized baseline alternative Alternative Analyses conducted to prove

a particular solution are rejected by FTA


19/27

Definition:A corridor level analysis which evaluates allreasonable mode and alignment

alternatives for addressing a transportationproblem, and results in the adoption of a

locally preferred

alternative by the appropriate Stateand local agencies and official boardsthrough a public process.

49 CFR 611.5


20/27

Abbreviated as LPA

Revealed through technical analysis and

screening to be best solution for problem Adopted into long-range regional

transportation plan

Submitted to FTA for review andapproval to proceed to next step

FTA evaluates based on its criteria todetermine eligibility for next step


21/27

Criteria to advance LPA to next step:

Readiness (financial and technical) to move

into Preliminary Engineering phase Ranking of medium or better on FTA

minimum criteria regarding projectjustification and local financial commitment


22/27


23/27

If problem can be solved with strategiesless than $250 million in cost, may qualify

for more streamlined evaluations: Small Starts cost less than $250 million and

require less than $75 million federal

Very Small Starts cost less than $50 million

and is not a fixed-guideway project Additional operating and maintenance cost

for either is less than 5% of current transitoperating budget


24/27

Approval of either Small Starts or VerySmall Starts granted by FTA during the

Alternatives Analysis process. Stillrequired to:

Define transportation problem to be solved

Conduct comprehensive public process

Establish local financial commitment

Evaluate cost effectiveness, land use andeconomic development impacts


25/27

Conducted study of passenger rail optionsand inbound/outbound commuter

analysis (2005 2006) Targeted federal funds to Smart Corridors

project, including transit needs (2008)

Established and on-going role incoordinated regional transportation andland use planning

On-going transit / land use evaluation via

Urban Corridors TaskForce


26/27

FTA currently reviewing regional traveldemand model to identify upgrades

necessary to conduct Alt Analysis. Land use and forecasting passed muster

Submitted grant application to conductPhase 1 of Alternatives Analysis:

Initiate Public Involvement - Stakeholderprocess & define Problem / Purpose & Need

Develop Technical Platform

Soliciting funds for updated travel data


27/27

alternatives analysis overview

Documents