# 3. framework for alternatives analysis {#framework-for-alternatives-analysis .unnumbered}

Following systems planning, which results in the identification of
transportation problems in priority corridors, the next major phase in
the major investment planning process is alternatives analysis (AA).
This chapter summarizes the scope of the alternative analysis phase and
the steps involved in performing the study. This chapter also describes
suggested documentation of the alternatives analysis effort, as well as
the roles and responsibilities of the lead local agency performing the
study and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), which provides
technical assistance to the study effort.

## Overview of Alternatives Analysis 

The AA study process is introduced in Part I Chapter I *Introduction to
Major Investment Planning*. During alternatives analysis, the priority
corridor identified in systems planning is studied in detail, focusing
on the effects of alternative solutions to the corridor's transportation
problems. Information on the costs, benefits, and impacts of each
alternative is developed to provide a sound technical basis for project
decisionmaking. The AA phase, at local discretion, may include the
preparation of a draft environmental impact statement (EIS) or (less
commonly) environmental assessment (EA) initiating the review process
required by the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA); the
NEPA decisionmaking process is described in greater detail in Part III
Chapter I *The Draft Environmental Impact Statement* (expected to be
updated by the end of 2005). At the conclusion of AA, local officials
select a preferred mode and general alignment, adopt a plan for
financing the project's capital and operating costs, and request FTA's
approval to enter preliminary engineering.

The importance of a rigorous and objective AA study process cannot be
understated. Alternatives analysis is the earliest, yet arguably most
critical, phase of project development. The alternatives analysis study
provides the information needed by local decisionmakers to consider the
costs and benefits of several proposed strategies to addressing corridor
problems, so that they may select a single alternative to advance into
implementation. Since alternatives analysis is the forum for
understanding the trade-offs inherent in making such a selection, it
must provide a sufficient level of technical analyses necessary to
support an informed decision. The locally preferred alternative -- and
all of its costs and benefits - which results from the alternatives
analysis study is THE project that local stakeholders are expecting to
implement, and implicitly becomes THE project that FTA may potentially
fund. Therefore, the alternatives studied must be objectively-defined,
and planning-level predictions of their impacts must be reasonably
accurate. The intent of this chapter is to lay the framework for these
important local studies.

### Corridor Focus

FTA's experience has been that corridor level planning is the most
suitable setting for the selection of a preferred mode (e.g., heavy
rail, light rail, bus, etc.) and alignment alternative for transit
guideways. In contrast to systems planning, corridor planning allows for
a more detailed analysis of the costs and benefits necessary to select a
mode and alignment. For the most part, each corridor of an urban region
has travel patterns that are independent of those in other corridors.
Consequently - and unlike systems planning, where highway and transit
networks change on a regional scale - corridor planning requires
transportation networks to be the same outside of a given corridor so
that the costs and benefits of alternatives can be properly identified.
By focusing project decisionmaking at the corridor level, sufficient
information on the costs and benefits of each mode and alignment
alternative can be produced to provide a sound technical basis for
selecting a preferred alternative. Accordingly, the selection of a
preferred mode and general alignment is best made on a
corridor-by-corridor basis.

### Set of Promising Alternatives 

The alternatives analysis phase examines a set of alternatives that have
been shown to be promising solutions to the corridor's transportation
problems. These alternatives are initially chosen on the basis of
systems planning analyses that provide a preliminary review of, among
other things, cost-effectiveness, financial feasibility, and potential
fatal flaws.

The development of alternatives is described in great detail in Part II
Chapter 2 *Definition of Alternatives*. The range of alternatives
includes a no-build (or no-action) alternative, one or more fixed
guideway options, such as light rail, heavy rail, or busway (which may
include provisions for use by carpools), and at least one non-guideway
transportation system management (TSM) alternative that represents the
"best you can do without a guideway investment" (or "BycDwagi", for
those who enjoy acronyms). The build and TSM alternatives should be
structured so as to address the problems in, and goals and objectives
for, the corridor and demonstrate the added benefits of higher levels of
investment. It is therefore important that the alternatives exhibit a
range of capital costs, including the least expensive and shortest
guideway capable of addressing the transportation problems in the
corridor.

The TSM alternative will normally serve as the baseline for evaluating
the added costs and added benefits of a fixed guideway (New Start)
facility. The TSM alternative includes such low cost actions as traffic
engineering, express or enhanced bus service and other transit operation
changes, and modest capital improvements such as reserved lanes,
park-and-ride lots, and transit terminals. It is designed to address
specific transportation problems in the corridor and demonstrate the
extent to which these problems can be solved without a major investment
in new guideway facilities.

While the range of alternatives should include all reasonable and
promising choices available to decisionmakers, it is normally desirable
to keep the number of alternatives considered in alternatives analysis
as small as possible. A large number of alternatives increases the
complexity of the analysis process, adding to the time and cost of the
study. A large number of alternatives also tends to create a final
report which is too large and incomprehensible for the average reader.
Where a large number of alternatives are proposed for advancement into
alternatives analysis, FTA encourages local sponsoring agencies to
perform a preliminary screening task early in the study to reduce the
number of alternatives to a manageable few.

### Major Steps in the Alternatives Analysis Process. 

The alternatives analysis process may be divided into four major steps:
Study initiation; development and refinement of alternatives and
technical methodologies; analysis and evaluation; and selection of the
locally preferred alternative. These steps necessarily follow one
another in sequence, with the results of each phase serving as necessary
inputs to the following phase.

During the AA study initiation phase, the roles and responsibilities of
participating agencies are established, issues to be addressed in the
study are defined, and the availability of data and models for
addressing these issues is determined. The public involvement process is
initiated. If the alternatives analysis study is undertaken concurrent
with NEPA, these activities are synonymous with scoping. The study
initiation phase typically results in a detailed scope of work, or work
plan, for the study; a problem statement and corresponding goals,
objectives, and preliminary evaluation measures which guide the
subsequent analysis; and a conceptual definition of alternatives to be
included in the study. The study initiation process is described in Part
II Chapter 1, *Organization and Management* of this guidance.

Once the study has been initiated (and scoping is complete), the next
step is to further refine the alternatives and the methods to be used in
the analysis. This step is designed to ensure that all participants in
the process are in general agreement with the alternatives and
analytical methodologies before the technical analysis process is
undertaken. This step often includes a preliminary analysis to screen
out those alternatives that show the least amount of promise. Further
guidance on the development of alternatives and analysis methodologies
is contained in Part II Chapters 2 through 8 of this guidance.

The third step - the analysis, evaluation, and final refinement of the
alternatives - constitutes the main technical work of the study. This
step includes applying the methodologies developed for each of the
study's technical functions to assess the transportation, environmental,
and financial impacts of each alternative. Agreement is achieved among
the study participants on the technical results of the study. Further
guidance on this step may be found throughout Part II of this guidance.

Once the technical results are agreed upon, the final step involves a)
preparation of a final alternatives analysis study report (or the draft
EIS if the study is undertaken under NEPA) summarizing and interpreting
the results of the study; and b) the selection of the locally preferred
alternative. The AA final report/draft EIS will pull together in one
place all of the technical information deemed relevant to the selection
of the preferred alternative; that is, it serves as a vehicle for
decisionmaking. This selection process typically includes circulation of
a final study report (or draft EIS), a public hearing, a local decision
on the preferred alternative, and preliminary adoption of a financing
plan for the preferred alternative's capital and operating costs. Part
III of this guidance provides additional information on the preparation
of the final AA study report/draft EIS and selection of the locally
preferred alternative.

The technical elements which support the accomplishment of these steps
includes travel demand forecasting; estimation of capital and operating
costs; analysis of social, economic, and environmental impacts; and
financial analysis. These technical elements are described in Part II of
this guidance. Work is performed on each of these elements during each
step in the alternatives analysis phase, as data is collected, methods
are developed, analyses are performed and documented, and the results
are presented for agency and public review, and taken into account in
local decisionmaking. A strong documentation effort of these activities
provides the detail necessary to manage the study, support the analysis,
and present its results.

## Documentation of the Alternatives Analysis

During the course of each alternatives analysis, the preparation of a
number of discreet documents supporting the final AA study report is
recommended. These include (but are not limited to) a report justifying
the need for an improvement, such as a problem statement (or in the case
of an alternatives analysis being performed as part of NEPA, project
purpose and need); a series of reports describing the conceptual and
refined definition of the alternatives under study; a report (or
reports) describing the technical methodologies used in the alternatives
analysis; and a report (or reports), that summarize the results of the
analysis.

These technical documents are important for both internal management of
the study and external communication of its analyses and results.
Alternatives analysis and other project planning studies often require a
large commitment of resources, both in funding and staff time. The
effort proceeds most quickly and efficiently when participating agencies
-- local, State and Federal -- reach agreement early in the study on the
problem statement, alternatives being analyzed, and the specific methods
and assumptions to be used in the study. This generally helps minimize
the chance that participating agencies will take issue with the results
of the study because of a disagreement over methods and assumptions, and
reduces the chance that part of the study will need to be redone. A
robust - and timely - technical documentation effort facilitates this
important coordination function.

Moreover, the breadth of the study's technical analyses is best managed
and presented when documented separately from the study itself. The
final product of the alternatives analysis is a final study report
which, if undertaken under NEPA, is typically the draft EIS. Whether
performed "inside" or "outside" of NEPA, FTA suggests that the
alternatives analysis document be as concise as possible, and written
for a broad audience which includes both local decisionmakers and the
general public. More detailed information and analysis can be covered in
the series of technical reports subsequently made available for review
by all interested parties.

Documentation of methodologies, assumptions, and results helps meet
other objectives as well. FTA has long believed that a comparison of
planning-level *forecasts* of project scope, cost, and performance with
the *actual* scope, cost, and performance of implemented New Starts
investments would provide the transit and transportation planning
communities with a better understanding of the impacts of major transit
capital investments and the analytical methods and procedures used to
generate the information needed to support local decisionmaking. This
enhanced understanding would, in turn, help identify needed improvements
to related tools and techniques for corridor planning. As noted in Part
I Chapter 1, *Introduction to Major Investment Planning*, the *Final
Rule on Major Capital Investment Projects* includes a provision whereby
New Starts project sponsors seeking a Full Funding Grant Agreement
(FFGA) must submit a complete plan for collection and analysis of
information to identify the impacts of their projects and the accuracy
of the forecasts that were prepared during project development. This
"Before and After Study" collects information on, and analyzes the
predicted vs. actual results of, the following five project
characteristics:

-   *Project Scope* -- the physical components of the project, including
    environmental mitigation;

-   *Service Levels* -- the operating characteristics of the guideway,
    feeder bus services, and other transit services in the corridor;

-   *Capital Costs* -- total costs of construction, vehicles,
    engineering, management, testing, and other capital expenses;

-   *Operation and Maintenance Costs* -- incremental
    operating/maintenance costs of the project and the transit system;
    and,

-   *Ridership Patterns -* origin/destination patterns of transit riders
    on the project and in the corridor, and farebox revenues for the
    transit system.

Although a formal plan for the Before and After Study is not required
until final design (and only then for projects seeking a FFGA),
candidate New Starts project sponsors must be aware that the element of
the study relating to predicted project impacts requires that
methodologies, assumptions, and resulting information for each of the
five characteristics must be fully documented at the conclusion of
alternatives analysis (and later, at the conclusion of preliminary
engineering) in order to perform an effective and meaningful study.
Consequently, a strong documentation effort of the technical work
supporting the AA effort is critical to the ultimate success of a Before
and After Study.

Figure 3-1 on the following page provides a suggested hierarchy of
technical documentation for an alternatives analysis. Following
agreement on a study scope of work, initial efforts and documentation
are focused on refining a corridor problem statement (or purpose and
need, if the study is undertaken under NEPA), goals and objectives, and
at least a preliminary set of evaluation factors and conceptual
alternatives designed to address identified corridor problems and needs.
This is followed by refining the set of alternatives to the point that
their implications for the technical work can be identified. Once
agreement on a specific definition of alternatives is reached, work can
proceed on the preparation of the methodology reports that describe the
technical procedures and methods which will support the study. Following
the finalization of the methodologies, the heart of the technical work
occurs. The results of this work are documented in one or more results
reports. Collectively, this body of documentation backs up the
alternatives analysis study.

Reports/documentation on a corridor problem statement, range of
alternatives, technical methodologies, and analytical results should be
reviewed by participating local, state, and Federal agencies, usually
through a study advisory committee. To ensure that the study is being
conducted in accordance with FTA principles for alternatives analysis,
and that the information generated from the study can support a local
request to advance a preferred alternative into preliminary engineering,
FTA requests the opportunity to review and comment on this documentation
as it is being developed. The local lead agency's study schedule should
provide sufficient time for these reviews, as well as for possible
revisions in response to comments.

### Approach to Documentation

The contents of the technical reports and other deliverables described
below are discussed in subsequent chapters of this guidance. FTA notes
that while the term "report" is applied in this chapter to each of the
documents, there is no specific format for them; they may just as easily
be titled "technical memoranda." Of the key documentation that FTA
requests the opportunity to review (see Section 3.2.1.5 of this
chapter), FTA suggests that the technical methodologies be brief, and
focus on those aspects of the methodologies that either vary from FTA
guidance and/or are necessary to understand the approach taken (such as
assumed parametric capital costs, O&M cost productivities per unit of
service, or utility coefficients used in the travel forecast model).
Ultimately, the most important point to remember is that

*Figure 3-1*

*Technical Documentation for Alternatives Analysis*

![](media/image1.wmf){width="2.7270833333333333in"
height="6.002777777777778in"}

agencies should organize and produce their technical documentation in
whichever way is most useful to serve the information needs of project
staff and decisionmakers, provided that FTA is given an opportunity to
review and comment upon information pertaining to the key study
milestones described below.

#### Initial Study Products (Problem Statement, Goals and Objectives, and Evaluation Factors) 

A clear understanding of transportation problems in a corridor plays a
critical role in the AA study. A well-specified statement of the
problem(s) for which alternative solutions are being analyzed is
therefore a key early step of the corridor planning process. When
undertaken as part of the NEPA process, a study "purpose and need"
establishes the problems which must be addressed in the analysis; serves
as the basis for the development of project goals, objectives, and
preliminary evaluation measures; and provides a framework for
determining which alternatives should be considered as reasonable
options in a given corridor. More fundamentally, the statement of
purpose and need serves to articulate why an agency is proposing to
spend potentially large amounts of taxpayer's money to study various
alternatives and ultimately implement a project which may result in
significant transportation, community, and environmental costs,
benefits, and impacts.

For studies performed outside of NEPA, the same type of information
should be generated. Like the purpose and need statement, this
information provides the context for performing the analysis and for
identifying the measures against which alternatives strategies will be
evaluated. It also serves as an introduction for decisionmakers and the
public to the study area, its transportation needs, and the alternatives
which are proposed to address those needs.

Additional information on the development of initial products of the AA
study is provided in Part I Chapter I *Organization and Management*.

#### Definition of Alternatives 

The development of the various alternatives to be considered in the
alternatives analysis process follows closely after the explanation of
the corridor problem. The definition of these alternatives is a very
important part of the study process. Without a set of alternatives that
meet the study's problem statement and goals and objectives for
improvement; which are structured to isolate the differences between
potential solutions to an identified transportation problem; and which
highlights the trade-offs inherent in the selection of a preferred
alternative, even the highest quality technical analysis cannot produce
the full set of information needed by decisionmakers.

The development and definition of alternatives is typically an iterative
process, and is documented accordingly. Part II Chapter 2 of this
guidance, *Definition of Alternatives*, outlines three suggested phases
in the development of alternatives. First, a broad *conceptual
definition of alternatives* may be developed as early as systems
planning. This definition describes the physical and operating
characteristics of a broadly identified range of alternatives in very
conceptual terms. Initial activities of the corridor analysis are
focused on narrowing this range to a more manageable number to carry
forward in the study. This "screening" and further refining of
alternatives typically results in a *Detailed* (or *Draft*) *Definition
of Alternatives Report* which summarizes the detailed parameters of the
alternatives to be carried into the heart of the analysis. Ultimately,
these surviving detailed alternatives undergo additional refinements -
which include the equilibration of bus and rail operating plans to meet
demand, agreement on other operating policies, parking capacities and
user costs, and other policy and design features (including the
development of plan and profile drawings) -- and are documented in an
update to the Definition of Alternatives Report typically titled the
*Final Definition of Alternatives Report*.

Table 3-1 below summarizes characteristics of the *Conceptual*, *Draft*
and *Final Definition of Alternatives Reports*.

*Table 3-1*

*Definition of Alternatives Reports*

+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| ***Conceptual         | ***Detailed (Draft)   | ***Final Definition   |
| Definition of         | Definition of         | of***                 |
| Alternatives***       | Alternatives          |                       |
|                       | Report***             | ***Alternatives       |
|                       |                       | Report***             |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+
| -   Definition of     | -   Location and      | -   Plan and Profile  |
|     corridor;         |     nature of         |     drawings for each |
|                       |     improvements in   |     guideway          |
| -   Identification of |     the TSM           |     alternative;      |
|     technology        |     alternative;      |                       |
|     alternatives;     |                       | -   Refined design of |
|                       | -                     |     stations and      |
| -   Preliminary       |    Section-by-section |     guideway facility |
|     identification of |     description of    |     cross-sections;   |
|     candidate         |     each guideway     |                       |
|     alignments;       |     alternative;      | -   Final operating   |
|                       |                       |     plans based on    |
| -   General operating | -   Typical           |     travel demand     |
|     strategies        |     cross-sections of |     forecasts         |
|                       |     guideway          |     including         |
|                       |     facilities;       |     estimates of      |
|                       |                       |     service           |
|                       | -   Preliminary       |     requirements      |
|                       |     drawings of       |     (transit          |
|                       |     stations types;   |     vehicles,         |
|                       |                       |     vehicle-miles,    |
|                       | -   Initial           |     vehicle hours,    |
|                       |     specification of  |     etc.) for use in  |
|                       |     design standards; |     estimating        |
|                       |                       |     capital and O/M   |
|                       | -   Design and        |     costs.            |
|                       |     opening year      |                       |
|                       |     operating plans   |                       |
|                       |     including initial |                       |
|                       |     estimates of      |                       |
|                       |     transit network   |                       |
|                       |     assumptions       |                       |
|                       |     (routes, link     |                       |
|                       |     speeds, headways, |                       |
|                       |     fares, etc.)      |                       |
+-----------------------+-----------------------+-----------------------+

Additional information on the definition and documentation of
alternatives is provided in Part II Chapter 2 of this guidance. FTA
requests the opportunity to review the alternatives at each point
(conceptual, detailed, and final definition) in their development as a
part of its ongoing review of the technical alternatives analysis
process and as a basis for its approval of a New Starts baseline
alternative.

#### Methodologies

The purpose of the methodology report(s) (or memoranda) is to 1) bring
about agreement among the participating agencies with regard to the
specific technical methods and assumptions to be used in the analysis,
and 2) document these methods and assumptions for use by others in
subsequent analysis (including conduct of the Before and After Study).
It must be emphasized that methodology reports are not to be viewed as
academic treatises on the various technical analyses. Rather, they serve
to document the initial technical work involving data collection,
evaluation, and selection of methods and input assumptions, and plans
for the application of these methods to the specific characteristics of
the corridor and the alternatives. In most cases, these reports should
emphasize this last consideration - how the analysis will be focused on
the issues that will be important to the selection of a preferred
alternative. Consequently, while work on the reports can commence early
in the analysis, they are most useful when finalized after agreement is
reached on the detailed definition of alternatives.

Thus, the methodology reports are interim documents which define the
early technical work for the remainder of the analysis, including the
refinement of alternatives. They are working documents designed to set
forth guidelines for the remaining work, rather than unfocused, general
discussions that contribute little to the conduct of the study.

Examples of specific methodology reports/memoranda include the
following:

-   Travel Demand Forecasting

-   Traffic Impact Analysis

-   Noise and Vibration

-   Air Quality

-   Social and Economic Impact Assessment

-   Environmental and Natural Resource Impact Assessment

-   Land Use

-   Capital Costing

-   Operations and Maintenance Costing

-   Financial Analysis

-   Evaluation of Alternatives

-   Public Participation

Agencies may choose to document additional methodologies where local
concerns dictate a particular emphasis.

Methodology documents may range in length from a few pages each to
several hundred if combined into a single volume. Nothing dictates the
length of any report or memoranda except the amount of information
necessary to articulate the procedures, tools, and assumptions used to
carry out the analysis. FTA notes that, at the discretion of the study
sponsor, documentation of the technical methodologies used in the AA
study which are submitted to FTA for review (see Section 3.2.1.5) can be
limited to a presentation of *how* the methodologies deviate from FTA
guidance, and *why*. Local agencies have full discretion in how they
organize the documentation of technical methodologies.

#### Results Reports

The series of results reports/memoranda provides detailed documentation
for each of the key technical areas, presenting findings and
explanations in detail sufficient to serve as back-up to the
alternatives analysis study report. Thus, the results will be more
detailed than those included in the final alternatives analysis, and
will summarize and explain the analysis results and focus on those
findings which are most significant. If necessary, they also highlight
any changes in the methods and assumptions presented in the methodology
reports.

Topics of results reports are typically aligned with the example
technical areas described previously.

#### Key Documentation for FTA Review 

While participating local and state agencies are responsible for
ensuring that the AA study is conducted in a technically sound manner,
FTA, as a key funding partner and advocate for good planning practice,
has a strong interest in ensuring the quality of the work. Moreover,
Federal law requires that FTA approve project entrance into the
preliminary engineering (PE) stage of development, signifying inclusion
of a project in the New Starts "pipeline." FTA bases its decision to
advance a project into PE in large part on the information and data
developed during alternatives analysis. To ensure that this information
satisfies its needs at the time of the PE request, FTA strongly
recommends that study sponsors extend to FTA the opportunity to
participate in the AA study. FTA believes that such early involvement
will assist local agencies in addressing technical and procedural issues
early in the study process, rather than at the end when it may be too
late to solve them efficiently. Moreover, in order to avoid duplication
of effort in subsequent project development activities, and to help
ensure that the alternatives analysis process "counts" for the purposes
of required NEPA documentation, study sponsors are advised to involve
FTA in the AA study.

To that end, FTA strongly encourages study sponsors to prepare and
transmit for review a number of key study documents developed throughout
the alternatives analysis. These specific documents, and where
additional information on their development and content can be found in
this guidance, are presented in Table 3-2 on the following page. As
previously noted, documentation of the technical methodologies used in
the AA study which are submitted to FTA for review may be limited to a
presentation of how the methodologies deviate from FTA guidance, and
why.

It is FTA's expectation that a close local-Federal partnership, through
the sharing of such study documentation, will expedite, rather than
delay, the advancement of well-justified major capital transit
investments throughout the project development process; that these
proposed projects will better respond to local transportation problems
within a fiscally constrained decisionmaking environment; and that their
justification will hold up to the scrutiny placed upon them by local and
Federal decisionmakers.

*Table 3-2*

Key Documentation for FTA Review

  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------
  ***Documentation***                                        ***Where
                                                             Found in this
                                                             Guidance***

                                                             

  Scope of Work                                              Part II.1

  AA Initiation Package (Problem Statement, Conceptual       Part II.1
  Alternatives, and Evaluation Measures)                     

  Technical Details                                          

  Detailed Definition of Alternatives                        Part II.2

  Technical Methodologies                                    

  Capital Costs                                              Part II.3

  O&M Costs                                                  Part II.4

  Travel Forecasting                                         Part II.5

  Technical Results                                          

  Final Definition of Alternatives                           Part II.2

  Capital Cost Estimates                                     Part II.3

  O&M Cost Estimates                                         Part II.4

  Travel Forecasting (Summit) Results and Interpretation     Part II.6

  Environmental Considerations                               Part II.7

  Evaluation of Alternatives                                 Part II.9

  Final Alternatives Analysis Report                         

                                                             
  ---------------------------------------------------------- -------------

##  {#section .unnumbered}

## Agency Roles and Responsibilities

The majority of the work required for the alternatives analysis study is
usually performed locally by the transit operator, metropolitan planning
organization, or other municipal agencies. The responsibility for the
conduct of the study is often shared among several local agencies with
one taking a lead role, often overseeing a large consultant staff
performing much of the technical work. The following provides guidance
on the responsibilities of the local lead agency, on the selection of an
agency to be the local lead, and on the technical and procedural support
role that FTA can play in the study.

If the AA study is initiated under NEPA, the state or local agency for
compliance with NEPA under the Council of Environmental Quality
regulations (40 CFR 1501.5 and 40 CFR 1501.6) will develop substantive
portions of the environmental document and are expected to sign the
document and share responsibility for its scope and content with FTA. At
the beginning of the environmental process, FTA will discuss the scope
and content of the appropriate environmental documentation with the
state or local agency before decisions are made on the scope and depth
of analysis. The state or local agency then carries out these decisions.
Regardless of which state or local agency leads the NEPA process, the
other agencies involved in the alternatives analysis can, and are
encouraged to be, cooperating agencies under NEPA. Additional
information on agency roles and responsibilities under NEPA is described
in greater detail in Part III Chapter I *The Draft Environmental Impact
Statement* (expected to be updated by the end of 2005).

### The Local Lead Agency 

The local lead agency has the primary responsibility for overseeing the
conduct of the alternatives analysis. It ensures that the work is
performed in a technically sound manner, and is successfully completed
in accordance with the project schedule and budget. The local lead may
also perform all of the technical work, share responsibility for the
work with other local agencies, or contract out all or part of the work
to a consultant. Some of the more important activities involved in
properly managing the study are:

-   Development of a detailed scope of work/work plan identifying the
    tasks that will be performed, the sequence in which they will be
    completed, agency responsibilities for completing the work, and the
    anticipated cost of the respective study tasks.

-   Identifying agency responsibilities for completing assigned tasks,
    and ensuring that the involved agencies are organized, staffed and
    supported so as to be able to fulfill their roles in a timely
    manner. Attention should be paid to ensuring that the staff is
    technically competent for the assigned tasks, and that
    interdisciplinary skills are brought to bear where necessary.

-   Providing professional management and direction as the work
    progresses, ensuring that work is done in an efficient manner and
    that deliverables are obtained in a timely fashion.

-   Taking necessary steps, such as establishing a technical advisory
    committee, to ensure the technical quality of the work.

-   Coordinating with local cooperating agencies and FTA by means of
    study steering committees, monthly/quarterly reports, transmission
    of key study documents for review, etc.

-   Keeping other interested agencies, private operators, and the public
    informed and seeking their input through established public
    involvement mechanisms.

-   Responding to information requests by decisionmakers during the
    course of the study.

### Choice of a Local Lead Agency 

Performing an AA requires a wide range of skills---skills which may not
all reside within one agency. In many cities, for example, the
metropolitan planning organization may provide expertise in travel
demand and land development analyses, but the transit operator will
likely have greater experience in transit operations, project design,
cost estimation, and financial analysis. Either or both may have project
management ability. The distribution of these skills will probably be
unique to each specific area contemplating and alternatives analysis
study.

Many different kinds of agencies have served as the local lead for
alternative analysis studies. These have included transit operators,
metropolitan planning organizations, agencies of city government (e.g.,
departments of public works), state highway and transportation
departments, and regional port authorities. From this experience, it is
clear that any of these may be qualified to serve as the local lead. The
choice will depend upon local conditions. Some questions that might be
asked in considering which agency is most suitable are:

-   Which agency has the greatest experience in conducting, managing,
    and administering similar types of corridor or systems level
    planning studies?

-   Which agency has the greatest breadth and depth of technical skills
    needed for the analysis?

-   Which agency tends to have greater credibility with decisionmakers
    and the public?

-   Which agency is most likely to have responsibility for implementing
    the project that is ultimately selected?

-   Do the jurisdictional boundaries of the proposed agency encompass
    the entire corridor?

Because a wide range of skills must be brought to bear to successfully
complete an AA, more than one local agency frequently will play an
active role. A memorandum of understanding may be helpful in such cases
to clearly define the responsibilities of each participating agency.
This might include responsibilities for the conduct of various study
tasks, for funding the work, and for the selection of a locally
preferred alternative.

### FTA Involvement

FTA can play an important role in the alternatives analysis study
process. When performed under NEPA, FTA plays a formal oversight role in
the draft EIS or EA. As lead (or joint lead) agency for the preparation
of the environmental document, FTA is responsible for the scope, content
and conclusions of the EIS or EA. FTA makes sure that the environmental
document fulfills Federal requirements and presents a complete and
objective basis for mode and alignment decisions.

FTA plays a less formal -- though no less important - technical
assistance role in "pre-NEPA"AA studies. This role recognizes that FTA
has participated in the development of many of the methods and
techniques used in the AA study. Over the years, FTA has helped dozens
of cities across the country to apply these techniques in previous
corridor planning studies. FTA welcomes the opportunity to share this
experience with local staff engaged in ongoing and future studies. In
addition, FTA must base its approval on project entry into preliminary
engineering in part on its finding on the acceptability of the
alternatives analysis and the reliability of the information used to
support a preferred alternative's New Starts project justification
criteria. FTA's review of the key documents described in Section 3.2.1.5
of this Chapter facilitates this finding.

AA study sponsors will generally be assigned an FTA contact from the
appropriate Regional Office, who is teamed with a counterpart in the
Office of Planning and Environment, located in FTA headquarters in
Washington DC. These contacts will in turn work with other appropriate
FTA technical staff (and, where appropriate, FTA consultants) to provide
assistance on specialized areas such as travel demand forecasting,
transit service planning, capital costing, financial planning, etc. In
general, the Regional Office contact will provide assistance on
programmatic procedures and requirements, while the headquarters contact
will provide assistance on, and reviews of, the technical activities
which make up the study. It is important to keep appropriate FTA staff
informed on the status and progress of the local studies, and to seek
their assistance in addressing difficult technical and procedural
issues. FTA, in turn, strives to provide study sponsors with assistance
in a timely manner, and to keep them abreast of emerging agency policies
regarding major investment planning and the New Starts program.

#### Role of Regional Offices (TRO)

The FTA Regional Office (TRO) will be the lead point of contact for
local agencies on FTA programmatic matters. It handles grantmaking
activities, serves as the focal point for contacts and correspondence,
represents FTA at meetings, monitors progress, processes the draft EIS,
and seeks assistance from the FTA Offices of Planning and Environment
(TPE) and Program Management on planning, technical, and programmatic
issues. TRO roles in the AA study process are summarized more
specifically below:

-   **[Grantmaking]{.underline}**. TRO staff reviews grant applications,
    approves grants, and performs typical grant administration
    functions.

-   **[Provide Program Guidance]{.underline}**. TRO staff provides study
    sponsors with basic guidance on the New Starts program, including
    project development requirements, project evaluation procedures, and
    grants requirements.

-   **[Focus of Contacts and Correspondence]{.underline}**. Incoming
    correspondence should be directed to the Regional Administrator.
    Similarly, most outgoing correspondence will be signed at the
    Regional level (with the exceptions noted in the following section).
    Regional staff will also normally handle informal requests for
    guidance and assistance, such as routine telephone calls, although a
    call within a specific technical focus should be directed to TPE
    (see Section 3.3.3.2 of this Chapter).

-   **[Representation at Meetings]{.underline}**. As necessary and to
    the extent permitted by limited resources, TRO staff will represent
    FTA staff at technical and policy level meetings that occur during
    the study. Their role will be to explain overall FTA policies and
    procedures, to explain FTA positions on specific issues related to
    the AA study and the process for advancing major transit investments
    into preliminary engineering, and to provide technical guidance (in
    conjunction w/ TPE).

-   **[Metropolitan and Systems Planning Issues]{.underline}**. TRO
    staff will provide guidance and direction on metropolitan planning
    requirements and issues which may impact the alternatives analysis
    study and subsequent project advancement, such as air quality
    conformity, fiscal constraint, and project programming.

-   **[NEPA Facilitation]{.underline}**. At the start of the scoping
    process for alternatives analysis studies performed concurrently
    with a draft EIS under NEPA, TRO prepares a Notice of Intent (NOI)
    to prepare an Environmental Impact Statement. TRO staff further
    facilitates other NEPA procedural requirements. Toward the
    conclusion of the study, it reviews and (with TPE concurrence)
    approves the draft EIS.

-   **[Processing and Approval of the PE Request]{.underline}**. Once
    the AA study has been completed, the locally preferred alternative
    has been adopted in the financially constrained regional long range
    plan, and FTA has determined that the project sponsor has the
    technical capacity to manage any subsequent project development
    activities, the lead local agency may request FTA approval to
    advance the preferred alternative into preliminary engineering. TRO
    is responsible for making the finding that a project is "ready" for
    PE (as measured by the conditions described above) and for
    processing and approving -- based on TPE's evaluation of the
    project's New Starts criteria for project justification and local
    financial commitment, as described in the following section -- the
    request to advance into preliminary engineering.

#### Role of the Office of Planning and Environment (TPE)

TPE is the lead point of contact to local agencies on technical elements
of the AA study. TPE develops guidance on the alternatives analysis
study process, monitors and reviews key products of individual studies,
offers specialized technical assistance on a project-by-project basis,
approves a New Starts baseline alternative, and evaluates the project
justification and local financial commitment criteria of projects
proposed to advance into preliminary engineering. These roles are
explained further below.

-   **[Guidance Development]{.underline}**. TPE oversees a program for
    the development of procedures and methods for carrying out an
    alternatives analysis study process. In that capacity it prepares
    guidance, manuals reports, regulations, software, and other
    materials on a number of technical and procedural topics. TPE also
    conducts training courses and workshops and shares good examples
    from past and current studies on technical analyses and
    decisionmaking.

-   **[Reviews Technical Products of the Study]{.underline}**. TPE
    performs the lead technical review of the documentation suggested in
    Section 3.2.1.5 of this Chapter.

-   **[Provide Specialized Technical Assistance]{.underline}**. TPE can
    provide project-specific technical assistance on a variety of
    planning methods and concepts, including travel demand forecasting,
    definition of alternatives, financial planning, costing,
    environmental analysis, public involvement, and procedural linkages
    between planning and NEPA. These technical assistance services are
    provided to any AA study sponsor to the extent possible, given
    available FTA resources.

-   **[Approval of a New Starts Baseline Alternative]{.underline}**. TPE
    provides assistance on the development of alternatives to be carried
    through the AA study, and will approve one alternative (typically, a
    properly defined TSM) to serve as the New Starts "baseline" for the
    purposes of calculating the project's cost effectiveness, mobility
    improvements, and environmental benefits. TPE will communicate this
    selection action to the lead local agency through the appropriate
    FTA Regional Office.

-   **[Evaluation and Rating of Candidate New Starts
    Projects]{.underline}**. TPE evaluates New Starts projects for the
    purposes of supporting FTA's decision to advance a project into
    preliminary engineering. This evaluation is based on the full range
    of New Starts project justification and local financial commitment
    criteria and measures. Information which supports each measure is
    generated as part of the alternatives analysis study. TPE's
    evaluation of this information results in criteria-specific and
    overall project ratings, which are conveyed to the appropriate FTA
    Regional Office for the formal approval/disapproval action.