m Provides federal funds for the financing of

fixed-guideway systems
m Organized around common-sense
questions answered in public process
 hat is problem(s) to be solved?
 hat are potential solutions?
 hat are their benefits?
 hat do they cost?
 hich alternative is the best solution, given
available resources, to address the problem?
m ’lternatives ’nalysis is first step of process
m `irst step in multi-step ©
 process
m îdentification and evaluation of urban
transit options
m Rigorous process tightly defined by the
`ederal Transit ’dministration (`T’)
m Compliance with all steps is required to
be eligible for federal transit funds
m Highly competitive process
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which
evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which evaluates all
reasonable mode and alignment
alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem,
and results in the adoption of a locally
preferred alternative by the appropriate
State and local agencies and official
boards through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
m ñefined at the start of the process

m ñescribes NEP’ ´purpose and needµ

m Yardstick against which alternatives will be

evaluated and advanced

m Needs public buy-in (like scoping process)

ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which evaluates all
reasonable mode and alignment
alternatives for addressing a transportation
problem, and results in the adoption of a
locally preferred alternative by the
appropriate State and local agencies and
official boards through a public
process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
m Early and frequent engagement
m Comprehensive education to ensure
informed input
m Transparent process
m împortant roles:
 ñefining transportation problem to be
solved, other goals and objectives
 îdentifying range of strategies to consider
 înput on screening criteria
m `oundation for NEP’ process
ñefinition:

’ corridor level analysis

which evaluates all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for addressing a
transportation problem, and results in the
adoption of a locally preferred alternative
by the appropriate State and local
agencies and official boards through a
public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
m `unctional corridor is more of a swath
than a single street ² has unique travel
characteristics within region
m Corridor selection results from system-
wide analysis
m ñefined in part by the transportation
problem to be solved
m Suitable scale for isolating benefits and
costs of alternative strategies
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which evaluates
all reasonable mode and
alignment alternatives for
addressing a transportation problem, and
results in the adoption of a locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State and
local agencies and official boards through
a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
m £ust consider all options that can solve
defined transportation problem
m £ust be mode neutral ² that is, not pre-
conceived bias on an outcome
m £ust consider a ¶no build· and an
optimized ¶baseline· alternative
m ’

’

 
 


 
 

  ’
ñefinition:
´’ corridor level analysis which evaluates all
reasonable mode and alignment
alternatives for addressing a transportation
problem, and results in the adoption of a
locally preferred
alternative by the appropriate State
and local agencies and official boards
through a public process.µ
49 C`R 611.5
m ’bbreviated as LP’
m Revealed through technical analysis and
screening to be best solution for problem
m ’dopted into long-range regional
transportation plan
m Submitted to `T’ for review and
approval to proceed to next step
m `T’ evaluates based on its criteria to
determine eligibility for next step
m Criteria to advance LP’ to next step:
 Readiness (financial and technical) to move
into Preliminary Engineering phase
 Ranking of ´mediumµ or better on `T’
minimum criteria regarding project
justification and local financial commitment
m îf problem can be solved with strategies
less than $250 million in cost, may qualify
for more streamlined evaluations:
   cost less than $250 million and
require less than $75 million federal
 ‰ 
  cost less than $50 million
and is not a fixed-guideway project
 ’dditional operating and maintenance cost
for either is less than 5% of current transit
operating budget
m ’pproval of either Small Starts or Very
Small Starts granted by `T’ during the
’lternatives ’nalysis process. Still
required to:
 ñefine transportation problem to be solved
 Conduct comprehensive public process
 Establish local financial commitment
 Evaluate cost effectiveness, land use and
economic development impacts
m Conducted study of passenger rail options
and inbound/outbound commuter
analysis (2005 ² 2006)
m Targeted federal funds to ¶Smart Corridors·
project, including transit needs (2008)
m Established and on-going role in
coordinated regional transportation and
land use planning
m On-going transit / land use evaluation via
Urban Corridors Task `orce
m `T’ currently reviewing regional travel
demand model to identify upgrades
necessary to conduct ’lt ’nalysis.
 Land use and forecasting passed muster
m Submitted grant application to conduct
Phase 1 of ’lternatives ’nalysis:
 înitiate Public învolvement - Stakeholder
process & define Problem / Purpose & Need
 ñevelop Technical Platform
m Soliciting funds for updated travel data
m Conducting î-5 travel analysis Oct. 26
m Evaluated comparable communities and
their experience with high capacity transit
and the alternatives analysis process
 hat have we learned from this evaluation?