Supporting PerformanceBased Planning and 

Programming through 

Scenario Planning 

J U N E 2016
Notice

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who 

are responsible for the facts and accuracy of the data presented 

herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official policy 

of the U.S. Department of Transportation.

This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or 

regulation.
Technical Documentation 

1. Report No.

FHWA-HEP-16-068

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date

April 2016

Supporting Performance-Based Planning and Programming through 

Scenario Planning 

6. Performing Organization 

Code

7. Authors

Hannah Twaddell (ICF), Alanna McKeeman (ICF), Michael Grant (ICF), 

Jessica Klion (ICF), Uri Avin, Kate Ange (Renaissance), Mike Callahan 

(Renaissance)

8. Performing Organization 

Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS)

ICF International

9300 Lee Highway

Fairfax, VA 22031

Renaissance Planning 

Group

1901 North Moore Street, 

Suite 1204

Arlington, Virginia 22209

Uri Avin

National Center for 

Smart Growth, 

University of Maryland

College Park, MD 20742

11. Contract or Grant No.

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

United States Department of Transportation

Federal Highway Administration

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

13. Type of Report and Period 

Covered

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes

Ms. Rae Keasler, Federal Highway Administration

16. Abstract 

This guidebook addresses how scenario planning can be used to support and advance the practice of performancebased planning and programming (PBPP). Scenario planning can use metrics, models, data sets, and tools to 

estimate and evaluate scenarios based on their ability to maximize system performance and support achievement of 

goals and performance targets. The guidebook presents a framework for connecting established scenario planning 

processes with the four phases of PBPP: direction, analysis, programming, and implementation. Three case studies 

provide examples of agencies of varying sizes that have used scenario planning in innovative ways to advance the 

practice of PBPP. A section and appendix of scenario planning and performance measurement tools that can be 

used in, or incorporated into, scenario planning is also provided.

17. Key Words

Scenario planning, performance-based planning, 

performance-based planning and programming, 

programming, planning, PBPP, scenarios, performance 

measures, land use, transportation, vision, goals, 

objectives, targets, case studies, system performance, 

tools, models, MPOs, State DOTs

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. 

19. Security Classif. (of this 

report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page)

Unclassified

21. No of Pages

161

22. Price

N/A

i

Contents 

Figures ..................................................................................................................... iii

Tables ........................................................................................................................ v

Acknowledgments ...................................................................................................vi

Executive Summary .............................................................................................. vii

1. Purpose and Context .......................................................................................... 1

Related Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 1

Intended Audiences ....................................................................................................................................... 3

How to Use the Guidebook ........................................................................................................................... 4

2. What are Scenario Planning and Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming (PBPP)? ............................................................................................ 6

What Is Scenario Planning? ......................................................................................................................... 6

Scenario Planning Framework ................................................................................................................... 10

What Is Performance-Based Planning and Programming? ....................................................................... 11

3. How Can Scenario Planning Inform Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming? ........................................................................................................16

Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Measures .............................................................................................. 18

Analysis: Trends, Targets, and Strategies .................................................................................................. 22

Programming: Investments, Priorities, and Resources .............................................................................. 46

Implementation: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting........................................................................... 48

Performance-Based Scenario Planning Tools ............................................................................................ 51

4. Getting Started: Designing a Scenario Planning Process to Support PBPP63

Step 1: Evaluate Community Context ......................................................................................................... 63

Step 2: Identify Desired Outcomes.............................................................................................................. 63

Step 3: Identify Scenario Planning Purpose ............................................................................................... 63

Step 4: Identify Scenario Planning/PBPP Linkages ................................................................................... 64

Step 5: Define Scenario Planning Approach .............................................................................................. 64

Step 6: Define Scenario Planning Engagement .......................................................................................... 64

Step 7: Define Resources for Scenario Planning Effort .............................................................................. 64

Step 8: Prepare Scope for Scenario Planning Effort .................................................................................. 65

5. Keys to Success ..................................................................................................66

Strengthen Connections between Scenario Planning and PBPP ................................................................ 66

Use Creativity to Push the Limits of Existing Tools ................................................................................... 67
ii

Be Strategic in Engaging Decisionmakers, Stakeholders, and the Public .................................................. 68

Respect the Local Context ........................................................................................................................... 69

6. Case Study Summaries .....................................................................................71

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study ....................................................................... 71

Fresno Council of Governments ................................................................................................................. 74

Hillsborough County MPO ......................................................................................................................... 77

7. Resources ...........................................................................................................79

Appendix A. Getting Started: A Worksheet for Designing a Scenario Planning 

Process to Support PBPP ................................................................................... A-1

Appendix B. Scenario Planning Tools ................................................................ B-1

PBPP Tools ............................................................................................................................................... B-1

Scenario Planning Tools ......................................................................................................................... B-11

Appendix C. Case Studies .................................................................................. C-1

Synthesis and Comparative Table of Case Studies ................................................................................... C-1

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study ..................................................................... C-3

Lessons Learned...................................................................................................................................... C-15

Fresno Council of Governments ............................................................................................................. C-17

Hillsborough County MPO ..................................................................................................................... C-35

Please note: Many agency names and publication titles mentioned in the document are 

hyperlinked, providing digital users the ability to click for direct access to agencies’ websites or 

other documents mentioned in the text. These links are provided in full in the Resources section. 
iii

Figures 

Figure ES-1: Applications of Scenario Planning to Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming.................................................................................................................... viii

Figure 2-1: Scenario Planning Process Framework from the 2011 Scenario Planning 

Guidebook ..........................................................................................................................10

Figure 2-2: The Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process Framework ................12

Figure 3-1: Applications of Scenario Planning to Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming......................................................................................................................17

Figure 3-2: MnSHIP Investment Approaches Developed for Scenario Planning .........................28

Figure 3-3: Index Used by DVRPC to Compare Three Alternative Land Use 

Scenarios ............................................................................................................................29

Figure 3-4: Example Comparison of Scenarios A through F in Relation to Different 

Performance Goals from DRCOG .....................................................................................31

Figure 3-5: BRTB Analysis of Three Scenarios across Different Performance 

Measures ............................................................................................................................35

Figure 3-6: SEMCOG Scenario Analysis ......................................................................................40

Figure 3-7: CDOT Analysis of Cost to Sustain Current Performance...........................................41

Figure 3-8: DVRPC Choices and Voices Interactive Tool ............................................................42

Figure 6-1: CUUATS’ Sustainable Choices 2040 Scenarios ........................................................71

Figure 6-2: CUUATS’ Modeling Suite Used to Develop the Sustainable Choices 

2040 Plan ...........................................................................................................................72

Figure 6-3: Fresno COG’s Four Scenarios Evaluated for the 2014 RTP/SCS ..............................75

Figure 6-4: Imagine 2040 Preferred Scenario ................................................................................77

Figure C-1: Sustainable Choices 2040 Planning Pillars ..............................................................C-4

Figure C-2: Graphic Artist’s Sketch of Public Input ...................................................................C-7

Figure C-3: Visual Representations for Traditional Development and Sustainable 

Choices 2040 Scenarios ...................................................................................................C-8

Figure C-4: CUUATS’ Statistical Models .................................................................................C-10

Figure C-5: Regional Population and Employment Projections under Traditional and 

Sustainable Choices Scenarios .......................................................................................C-11

Figure C-6: Fresno County, California ......................................................................................C-17

Figure C-7: Fresno COG’s GHG Reduction Targets in the 2014 RTP/SCS .............................C-19

Figure C-8: Example of Fresno’s Goal, Objectives, and Policies Organization .......................C-21

Figure C-9: Scenario B+ from the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint Process ................C-23

Figure C-10: The Four Fresno COG Scenarios .........................................................................C-28

Figure C-11: Expected Performance with Respect to Active Transportation, GHG 

Emissions Reductions, Transit-Oriented Development, and Vehicle Miles 

Traveled (respectively) under Each Scenario ................................................................C-30

Figure C-12: Hillsborough County MPO’s Imagine 2040 Planning Process ............................C-36
iv

Figure C-13: Imagine 2040 Preferred Scenario .........................................................................C-40

Figure C-14: Visualization of Expected Performance for Each Scenario .................................C-42

Figure C-15: Expected Freight Performance under Investment Levels 1, 2, and 3 ...................C-43

Figure C-16: Vulnerability Analysis Results – Expected Impacts under Three 

Investment Levels ..........................................................................................................C-45
v

Tables 

Table 3-1: Tri-County RPC Scenarios Considered in Developing the 2040 

Transportation Plan ............................................................................................................27

Table 3-2: DRCOG Scenarios Addressing Changes to Land Use and Transportation 

Investments and Policies ....................................................................................................30

Table 3-3: Outcome Measures Used by DRCOG to Evaluate Scenarios ......................................30

Table 3-4: Six Scenarios Evaluated by Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and the 

Capital Area MPO..............................................................................................................32

Table 3-5: BRTB Options Addressed in Scenarios .......................................................................34

Table C-1: Example of the Alignment of Performance Measures used to Evaluate 

Scenario and the Performance Measures in the Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan ...........C-13

Table C-2: 2013 Household Income Quartiles ..........................................................................C-18

Table C-3: Fresno COG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy Scenario Performance 

Indicator Comparisons ...................................................................................................C-29

Table C-4: Spending by Transportation Mode by Revenue Scenario .......................................C-31

Table C-5: Revenues Programmed by Transportation Mode ....................................................C-32

Table C-6: Hillsborough County MPO Population and Employment Growth ..........................C-35

Table C-7: LRTP Performance Measures ..................................................................................C-37

Table C-8: Performance Measures Used to Evaluate Scenarios ................................................C-41
vi

Acknowledgments 

This document was developed in collaboration with stakeholders across the transportation industry. 

It was guided by an Advisory Team, which spent hours reviewing draft deliverables and providing 

input on the direction of the Guidebook. Members of the Team were selected based on previous 

work in scenario planning and performance-based planning. The Advisory Team included 

Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) and State Department of Transportation (DOT) 

practitioners, national industry association representatives, and an academician. Members of the 

Advisory Team were: 

Beth Alden Hillsborough County Metropolitan Planning Organization (FL)

Chris Caplice Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Chris Evilia Waco County Metropolitan Planning Organization (TX)

Marsha Fiol Virginia Department of Transportation

Delania Hardy Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO)

Matt Hardy American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

Charlie Howard (AASHTO) Puget Sound Regional Council (WA)

Carrie Kissel National Association of Development Organizations (NADO)

G.J. LaBonty Utah Transit Authority

Subrat Mahapatra Maryland State Highway Administration 

Tyler Monson California Department of Transportation 

Rita MorocoimaBlack Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (IL)

Marlie Sanderson Gainesville Metropolitan Planning Organization (FL)

Rob Terry Fresno Council of Governments (CA)

Rich Weaver American Public Transportation Association (APTA)

Erich Zimmerman National Association of Regional Councils (NARC)

Special thanks to Beth Alden, Rita Morocoima-Black, Rob Terry, and their agency staff for 

organizing and participating in site visits to gather detailed information for the case studies.
vii

Executive Summary 

The use of performance-based methods of planning and decisionmaking continues to increase 

throughout the United States as agencies seek new and improved methods, tools, and practices to 

maximize the performance of their transportation systems. This guidebook focuses on how scenario 

planning can be used to support and advance the practice of performance-based planning and 

programming (PBPP). PBPP is the application of performance management within the planning and 

programming processes to achieve desired performance outcomes for the multimodal transportation 

system. Scenario planning has long been used by transportation agencies in the U.S. as a tool for 

visioning and identifying preferred land use and transportation scenarios for future growth. Many 

scenario planning exercises today are transitioning to a greater focus on analysis and the use of 

more sophisticated metrics, models, data sets, and tools to test and evaluate scenarios. This analysis 

is based on their ability to maximize transportation system performance and support achievement of 

performance goals and targets, as well as recognize the interaction with broader community goals 

(i.e. economic development, environment, environment, public health, housing, etc.). 

This guidebook is a companion to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 2013 

Performance-Based Planning and Programming [PBPP] Guidebook and 2014 Model Long Range 

Transportation Plans: A Guide for Incorporating Performance-Based Planning. It builds on existing 

FHWA literature on PBPP by illustrating the ways in which scenario planning can be used to 

strengthen agencies’ ability to engage in performance-based planning and decisionmaking. This 

Guidebook is organized around the four key phases in the PBPP process—Direction, Analysis, 

Programming, and Implementation—so practitioners can understand the applications of various 

scenario planning types and techniques that are most appropriate to apply at different planning 

phases or for different considerations and topics.

Intended Audiences – This Guidebook is intended for use by transportation practitioners involved 

in statewide, metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan planning and programs. Practitioners are frequently 

looking for ways to engage their communities in considering how to enhance the performance of the 

transportation system through improved decisionmaking processes, and scenario planning is 

important tool for accomplishing the task. Practitioners can use the information in this Guidebook to 

understand more fully the considerations that should be incorporated into decisions about designing 

and conducting a scenario planning process. 

Framework – This guidebook introduces a framework, shown in Figure ES-1, which identifies 

linkages between the six-step scenario planning process identified in the FHWA 2011 Scenario 

Planning Guidebook and each of the four stages of PBPP. The six-step scenario planning process 

can be repeated or performed iteratively at different points in the PBPP process and for different 

purposes. For example, an agency might use scenario planning to conduct a visioning exercise at the 

beginning of its long range plan development. The agency might employ scenario planning again 

and scenario analysis techniques to identify the performance implications of different variations of 

the preferred scenario or to explore how the preferred scenario would perform, vis-à-vis other 

potential scenarios, if significant technological, economic, climatic, or weather-related changes 

were to significantly “disrupt” the transportation system.
viii

Figure ES-1: Applications of Scenario Planning to Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming

Case Studies – This guidebook contains three in-depth case studies of MPOs that have used 

scenario planning to support PBPP in advanced and innovative ways. The Champaign-Urbana 

Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) in Illinois used scenario planning and analysis 

in the development of its most recent long range plan to identify the performance implications of a 

trend scenario and a “sustainable choices” scenario, which assumed several potential future changes 

to the region. The agency found entrepreneurial ways to integrate considerations such as public 

health into the planning process and has used scenario planning to support development of various 

corridor studies. The Fresno Council of Governments in California used scenario planning in the 

development of its regional transportation plan and Sustainable Communities Strategy to consider 

the performance implications of four scenarios, with a particular focus on reducing greenhouse gas 

emissions. The agency also conducted an analysis of four revenue/investment scenarios to identify 

which package of projects to fund, given expected revenues and ability to flex funds between 

different modes. The Hillsborough County MPO in Florida used scenario planning to develop a 

regional land use vision, consider four separate investment packages with different modal 

emphases, and consider potential impacts of future hurricane events on the transportation system. 
ix

Keys to Success – The guidebook concludes with a chapter on key recommendations for 

maximizing the value of scenario planning and its potential to inform and support PBPP. These are 

summarized according to the following four principles, each of which is discussed in detail in 

Chapter 5. 

► Create and Strengthen Connections between Scenario Planning and PBPP 

► Use Creativity to Push the Limitations of Existing Tools 

► Identify the Best Methods for Engaging Decisionmakers, Stakeholders, and the Public 

► Consider the Local Context 

PBPP and Scenario Planning Tools – Appendix B, which contains the information provided in the 

final section of Chapter 3 in greater detail, provides an overview of available PBPP and scenario 

planning tools, including capabilities, applicability to different phases of PBPP, descriptions of 

relevance and potential applications to scenario planning, and performance measures each 

considers.
1

1. Purpose and Context 

The purpose of this guidebook is to help transportation practitioners build their knowledge of 

ways in which scenario planning methods, metrics, processes, and outcomes can enhance 

transportation decisionmaking across the spectrum of the performance-based planning and 

programming (PBPP) process. 

PBPP helps transportation agencies achieve desired multimodal system performance outcomes 

by applying systematic, coordinated performance management strategies to long range planning, 

short-range programming, project development, and evaluation. This Guidebook examines ways 

in which scenario planning can add value to, and be enriched by, the analyses, methods, metrics, 

and collaboration that support the entire spectrum of PBPP. In particular, the Guidebook 

discusses topics such as: 

► The incorporation of PBPP goals and performance measures into scenario planning and 

scenario analyses processes; 

► The incorporation of scenario planning metrics and findings into the ongoing PBPP 

process; 

► Opportunities to apply scenario planning methods to PBPP decisionmaking phases 

beyond the initial visioning stage in which scenario planning has most frequently been 

applied. 

In recent years, transportation agencies have applied scenario planning methods to strategic 

planning and programming tasks, including assessments of long-term risks, financing, system 

management and operations, and corridor planning. In addition, they have used scenario 

planning techniques to consider potential impacts and implications of complex, rapidly changing 

demographic, environmental, economic, and technological forces that are not easy to assess with 

traditional models or analysis tools. Scenario planning tools have also helped planners consider 

the role of transportation in achieving comprehensive sustainability for communities, regions, 

states, and the nation as a whole. Such broader analyses help advance the principles of the 

Federal multiagency Partnership for Sustainable Communities initiative, which seeks to identify 

and implement solutions for improving sustainability by facilitating access to affordable housing, 

increasing transportation options while lowering transportation costs, ensuring equity, and 

protecting the environment (i.e., addressing the “triple bottom line” of environmental, economic, 

and social sustainability). 

Related Resources 

This Guidebook builds on a framework established in the 2011 FHWA Scenario Planning 

Guidebook, which serves as an essential resource for transportation practitioners seeking to 

understand the fundamentals of scenario planning. The 2011 Guidebook defined a 

comprehensive, six-step process for conducting scenario planning. It provided extensive 

guidance and numerous case studies on the use of scenario planning for transportation 

decisionmaking. It particularly supports visioning and long range planning processes that involve 

building consensus on a preferred future scenario in which transportation investments 
2

complement desired land use policies, community development goals, and principles for 

environmental preservation and quality of 

life. 

This Guidebook also serves as a 

companion to the 2013 FHWA 

Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming [PBPP] Guidebook and 2014 

Model Long Range Transportation Plans: 

A Guide for Incorporating PerformanceBased Planning. The 2013 PBPP 

Guidebook serves as a resource for 

practitioners from all types of 

transportation agencies on how to 

transition to more performance-based 

planning and programming processes. The 

2014 Model Plans Guidebook focused 

specifically on incorporating performancebased planning into the development of 

statewide and metropolitan long range 

transportation plans. The 2014 Guidebook 

builds on existing FHWA resources on 

PBPP by illustrating the ways in which 

scenario planning can be used to strengthen 

agencies’ implementation of performancebased planning and decisionmaking. 

FHWA also is developing related resources 

such as a “next generation” scenario 

planning guidebook with in-depth 

discussions of scenario planning 

typologies, methods, and analytics and 

recently released a primer, Advancing 

Transportation Systems Management and 

Operations through Scenario Planning, on

applying scenario planning to support 

transportation systems management and 

operations (TSMO).

Additionally, through a cooperative effort 

between the Transportation Research 

Board, the American Association of State 

Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO), and the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA) following the 

enactment of SAFETEA-LU, several products related to scenario planning and performance 

measures as part of collaborative transportation decisionmaking processes were developed as 

part of the second edition of the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2). Following 

EXISTING FHWA 

SCENARIO PLANNING AND 

PERFORMANCE-BASED 

PLANNING RESOURCES

FHWA 2011 Scenario Planning 

Guidebook

FHWA 2013 Performance-Based 

Planning and Programming 

Guidebook

FHWA 2014 Model Long Range 

Transportation Plans: A Guide for 

Incorporating Performance-Based 

Planning

FHWA 2016 Advancing 

Transportation Systems Management 

and Operations through Scenario 

Planning Primer

FHWA Scenario Planning and 

Visualization in Transportation 

website

FHWA Performance-Based Planning 

and Programming website

FHWA PlanWorks website

FEDERAL SCENARIO 

PLANNING RESOURCE 

UNDER DEVELOPMENT

“Next Generation” Scenario Planning 

Guidebook (update to the 2011 

Scenario Planning Guidebook)
3

SAFETEA-LU, the Moving Ahead for 

Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21), 

and now the Fixing America’s Surface 

Transportation Act (FAST), FHWA and 

AASHTO have continued working to 

integrate these research-based products into 

the “everyday business” of long range 

planning, programming, corridor studies, 

and environmental review undertaken by 

State Departments of Transportation (DOTs) 

and Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

(MPOs). This guidebook provides links to 

SHRP2 products (particularly PlanWorks) 

that are applicable to key phases throughout 

the PBPP process, many of which are 

featured on the FHWA PlanWorks website, 

which is profiled below on page 21. 

Intended Audiences 

This Guidebook is intended for use by 

transportation practitioners who are making 

investment recommendations or decisions 

for long or short range planning horizons; 

who are looking for ways to engage their 

communities and transportation system 

users in considering alternatives to address 

goals; and who want to examine 

implications for the performance of the 

transportation system under a variety of 

potential future conditions. Practitioners can 

use the information in this Guidebook to 

understand more fully the considerations 

that should be incorporated into decisions 

about how to design and conduct a scenario 

planning process that informs, and is 

informed by, the agency’s comprehensive 

PBPP process.

MPOs, State DOTs, and transit agencies are 

the key agency audiences for this 

Guidebook. MPOs have historically led the 

application of scenario planning for 

transportation decisionmaking in the U.S. 

State DOTs and transit agencies, however, 

are increasingly examining ways to 

incorporate scenario planning and analysis into their long range planning processes. In addition 

FEDERAL DIRECTIVES FOR 

PBPP AND SCENARIO 

PLANNING 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) 

lead the cooperative transportation planning 

process for the distribution of Federal funds in 

urban regions. To encourage a data-driven 

approach to decisionmaking, the Moving 

Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act 

(MAP-21) of July 6, 2012 first required the use 

of PBPP by transportation agencies through the 

identification of performance measures and 

setting of performance targets with respect to 

those measures. It also strengthened the 

emphasis on the importance of scenario 

planning as a tool for MPOs to address the 

needs and complexity of their communities by 

considering multiple scenarios during the 

development of the metropolitan transportation 

plan (23 USC Section 134(i)(4)). Although 

MAP-21 specifically addressed the use of 

scenario planning by MPOs, State DOTs are 

also encouraged to explore the use of scenario 

planning to inform their planning processes.

MAP-21 encourages scenario planning to 

include potential regional investment strategies 

for the planning horizon; assumed distribution 

of population and employment; a scenario that 

maintains baseline conditions for the 

performance measures; a scenario that 

improves the baseline conditions; revenue 

constrained scenarios based on the total funds

expected to be available over the forecast 

period of the plan; and the estimated costs and 

potential revenues available to support each 

scenario. 

The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation 

(FAST) Act, signed into law on December 4, 

2015, continued MAP-21’s emphasis on 

scenario planning as a key tool for supporting 

PBPP.
4

to serving as key stakeholders in regional and statewide scenario planning processes, transit 

agencies are also beginning to apply scenario planning to their own long range and operational 

plans. 

Although some agencies have been conducting scenario planning exercises for years or even 

decades, others are in the early stages of considering how scenario planning can help them 

address their unique challenges. This Guidebook serves as a resource for these agencies by 

illustrating ways in which scenario planning approaches can—and should—be customized to 

address specific topics or issues, to work within the agency’s budget, and to contribute to the 

agency’s overall performance-based planning and programming process. Small and mid-size 

MPOs that are new to scenario planning, often with limited resources, will find information in 

this guidebook about using scenario planning to support their performance-based planning and 

programming process. 

In addition, the Guidebook is intended to be useful for agencies of all sizes seeking to understand 

how they can build on experience to advance their use of scenario planning to support and 

inform PBPP. Some agencies profiled in this Guidebook are considering how scenario planning 

can be used as a tool not only to shape a vision and policy direction (through identification of 

goals, objectives, and performance measures), but also to analyze the impacts of unpredictable 

driving forces on future conditions, to support project prioritization and programming, and to 

improve the performance-based framework for ongoing evaluation, reporting, and system 

monitoring. 

How to Use the Guidebook 

The remaining chapters of this Guidebook cover the following: 

Chapter 2: What are Scenario Planning and Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming (PBPP)? provides an overview of the purpose of scenario planning and of tools 

commonly used for scenario planning. It also discusses the PBPP process, the framework for 

which FHWA developed over the past few years. This chapter lays the foundation for 

understanding the concepts in Chapter 4. 

Chapter 3: How Can Scenario Planning Inform Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming? Chapter 3 relates the practical applications of scenario planning to each of the 

four main stages of the PBPP process: Direction, Analysis, Programming, and Implementation. It 

also provides an overview of the potential synergies between PBPP and scenario planning tools. 

Chapter 4: Getting Started: Considerations for Designing Your Scenario Planning Process 

is intended for use by practitioners as a self-assessment tool or guideline with questions to 

consider in developing a scenario planning process appropriate in the context of a specific region 

or State. 

Chapter 5: Keys to Success summarizes the content of the Guidebook and provides a summary 

of the themes outlined throughout the guide that helps practitioners achieve the maximum benefit 

from a scenario planning process. 
5

Chapter 6: Case Study Summaries contains three summaries of the full case studies in 

Appendix C that identify the practices and lessons learned of three agencies in different regions 

of the U.S. that used scenario planning to address unique sets of circumstances and challenges. 

The agencies profiled are the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study 

(CUUATS), Fresno Council of Governments (COG), and Hillsborough County Metropolitan 

Planning Organization (MPO). 

The Resources section provides links to the guidance and examples referenced throughout the 

document and additional material on scenario planning and PBPP. 

Appendix A contains a worksheet version of the questions provided in Chapter 4 (Getting 

Started) that practitioners can use for self-assessments.

Appendix B provides a table of detailed information on the PBPP and scenario planning tools 

that are summarized at the end of Chapter 3. 

Appendix C contains in-depth case studies about the three agencies profiled in Chapter 6, 

including more details on practices and lessons learned. 
6

2. What are Scenario Planning and 

Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming (PBPP)? 

What Is Scenario 

Planning?

Scenarios are stories about the 

future that planners develop to

consider and prepare for possible 

challenges and opportunities. 

Scenario planning helps 

transportation agencies work with 

stakeholders and the public to 

establish a vision and implement a 

strategic plan for success in 

uncertain times. Well-crafted 

scenarios inspire critical thinking 

about issues and events that could 

significantly affect a region’s 

economy, environment, and 

quality of life. 

In addition to using modeled 

forecasts based on historical trends 

or formulas, scenarios typically 

use words, pictures, and numbers 

to describe complex data analyses 

in the form of holistic, plausible 

illustrations of future conditions.

Scenario planning typically 

includes both qualitative and 

quantitative analyses to illustrate 

the tradeoffs between different 

futures and their relative impacts 

on different community goals. 

This robust discussion of tradeoffs 

and identification of a preferred 

set of strategies based on that 

tradeoff discussion can lead to more thoughtful, effective, and resilient plans. Scenarios enable 

planners, the public, and decisionmakers to consider jointly the different variables that influence 

and are influenced by transportation to ensure careful consideration of different public policy and 

investment decisions to support a broader set of community goals. 

SCENARIO PLANNING IN FEDERAL 

LEGISLATION

23 USC 134(i)(4) outlines the use of scenario planning by 

MPOs:

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—[An MPO] may, while fitting the 

needs and complexity of its community, voluntarily elect 

to develop multiple scenarios for consideration as part of 

the development of the metropolitan transportation plan, in 

accordance with subparagraph (B). 

‘‘(B) RECOMMENDED COMPONENTS.—[An MPO] 

that chooses to develop multiple scenarios under 

subparagraph (A) shall be encouraged to consider— ‘‘(i) 

potential regional investment strategies for the planning 

horizon; ‘‘(ii) assumed distribution of population and 

employment; ‘‘(iii) a scenario that, to the maximum extent 

practicable, maintains baseline conditions for the 

performance measures identified in subsection (h)(2); 

‘‘(iv) a scenario that improves the baseline conditions for 

as many of the performance measures identified in 

subsection (h)(2) as possible; ‘‘(v) revenue constrained 

scenarios based on the total revenues expected to be 

available over the forecast period of the plan; and ‘‘(vi) 

estimated costs and potential revenues available to support 

each scenario. 

‘‘(C) METRICS.—In addition to the performance 

measures identified in section 150(c), [MPOs] may 

evaluate scenarios developed under this paragraph using 

locally-developed measures.
7

Scenario planning is a term that describes a wide range of approaches. No two scenario planning 

endeavors are exactly alike. The literature on scenario planning includes several definitions and 

variants on how to develop and use scenarios. Despite these variations, commonalities provide 

structure to scenario planning, such as the following: 

► Scenarios represent 

alternative future conditions 

that could materialize in 

response to drivers such as 

shifts in external forces (for 

example new technology, 

environmental patterns or 

global trade patterns) or the 

consequences of deliberate 

policy choices played out 

over time (such as land use 

policies or infrastructure 

investments); visioning is 

one form of scenario 

planning that emphasizes 

desired end states and 

outcomes rather than 

external forces and 

uncertainty. 

► Scenario planning enables a 

wide array of people, 

including stakeholder or the 

public, to identify a range 

of potential consequences 

(e.g. impacts on the 

environment or public 

health) associated with 

alternative decisions, and to 

consider how those 

consequences could affect 

their ability to achieve 

goals or to experience 

desired community 

outcomes.

► By examining the impacts 

of alternative decisions on 

their ability to achieve 

visions and goals, planners 

can identify robust 

CONSIDERING FREIGHT

Freight movement is an increasingly important 

and complex topic that agencies are 

incorporating into scenario planning and PBPP. 

Highlighted in the 2015 FAST Act, efficient 

freight movement is essential to achieving goals 

for economic competitiveness and community 

vitality. Freight operations also have a 

significant impact on air quality, land use, 

sustainability, and environmental conditions. 

Reflecting the needs and priorities of freight 

providers in scenario variables and evaluation 

criteria helps to ensure a more robust 

consideration of trends and issues related to 

overall travel demand and safety, environmental 

and economic concerns, and investment 

decisions. A few useful resources for 

practitioners seeking to consider freight 

movement more effectively in their scenario 

planning and PBPP analyses include the 

following: 

 Integrating Freight Considerations into 

the Highway Capacity Planning Process

PlanWorks application

 SHPR2 Railroad-DOT Mitigation 

Strategies model agreements, sample 

contracts, training materials, and best 

practices to identify and circumvent 

sources of conflict and to advance 

projects

 NCHRP Report 750: Scenario Planning 

for Freight Transportation Infrastructure 

Investment national study
8

strategies or policy options that best “hold up” across the spectrum of possible future 

conditions. 

In short, scenario planning can “formalize the consideration of uncertainty in the planning 

process.”1This dynamic method helps participants identify correlated and causal variables and to 

consider how different combinations of these variables influence outcomes. This gives people 

the freedom to imagine that 

conditions could change in the 

future if given enough time. 

In the public sector, scenario 

planning is often applied to provide 

a forum for engaging diverse 

stakeholders, illustrating 

comparisons and discussing 

tradeoffs, and encouraging systemlevel thinking that breaks down the 

silos of specialization to address 

challenging public policy issues. 

Scenario planning informs, but 

does not dictate, agencies’ 

identification of a vision or 

strategic course of action. A 

deliberative process that draws on 

empirical data and quantitative 

analysis, scenario planning helps 

people anticipate what the future 

might hold, envision the future they 

want, craft goals and strategies for 

realizing the desired future, and 

develop tactics for managing 

potential challenges and 

maximizing opportunities along the 

way. 

Scenario planning has become a 

significant component of long 

range transportation planning 

among increasing numbers of 

transportation agencies for more 

than a decade. Throughout the early 

2000s, most scenario planning initiatives were conducted by MPOs to envision strategies for 

coordinating land use and transportation plans. More recently, scenario planning in 

transportation has begun to examine a broader range of variable relationships beyond land use 

 

1

J. Zmud, Transportation Research Board Webinar, “Applying Scenario Methods to Transportation Planning and 

Policy,” Oct. 23, 2014. 

ELEMENTS COMMON TO SCENARIO 

PLANNING

“While scenario planning can be implemented 

in many ways, the key elements include:

 Use of scenarios to compare and contrast 

interactions between multiple factors, such 

as transportation, land use, and economic 

development;

 Analysis of how different land use, 

demographic, or other types of scenarios 

could impact transportation networks;

 Identification of possible strategies that 

lead a State, community, region, or study 

area toward achieving elements of the 

preferred future; and

 Public engagement throughout the process. 

Scenario planning shares common elements 

with both alternatives analysis and visioning 

exercises, but primarily differs from these 

processes in examining interactions between 

multiple factors, including both internal and 

external forces, as a way to assess possible 

future outcomes.” 

Source: 2011 FHWA Scenario Planning 

Guidebook
9

and transportation. These include scenarios that take into account goals and objectives related to 

transportation system performance, housing affordability, economic competitiveness, adapting to 

climate change, water conservation, fiscal sustainability, public health, and energy conservation. 

This broadening of factors is generating plans and policies that are more integrated, as 

communities gain a better understanding of the connections between factors such as housing 

affordability and transportation accessibility or multimodal investments and better public health 

outcomes. 

Scenario planning can be used at different stages of a planning process. The development of 

many long range transportation plans starts with a visioning process. Scenarios are often crafted 

during this stage to help identify a desirable future or preferred direction that a community wants 

to achieve over the long term. For example, an aspirational scenario commonly developed in 

regional plans over the past 20 years identified a future in which transportation investments and 

development patterns reduced single-occupant vehicle miles traveled by encouraging more 

walking, biking, transit use, and shorter car trips. These direction-setting scenario efforts often 

lead to new policy frameworks to guide goals, objectives, and programming decisions. 

Once a clear vision or direction is in place, additional forms of scenario planning can also be 

useful in supporting the development of long range, financially constrained project investment 

plans and Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) for short-range funding allocations. 

Scenario planning can support analyses of the extent to which different funding levels or 

investment packages (e.g., combinations of transit services, highway improvements, bridge 

constructions, nonmotorized facilities) could help achieve system performance goals and 

objectives. 

Another application of scenario planning is to test the performance of a given plan or a set of 

assumptions against a variety of potentially radical shifts in conditions over which local, 

regional, and State agencies have little or no control. These include, for example, economic 

conditions such as global trade patterns, 

environmental conditions such as weather 

patterns and sea levels, demographic conditions 

such as concentrations of age groups and urban 

settlement preferences, and technological 

conditions such as the use of connected 

autonomous vehicles and web-based mobile 

applications. Agencies can use scenario 

planning to consider the implications of external 

variables on system performance or the 

potential impacts of transportation infrastructure 

on external conditions. This allows for 

identification of tactics that could make the 

system resilient to a wide variety of uncertain 

but possible future conditions. For example, alternative land use and transportation scenarios 

could help to inform regional ecosystem and environmental mitigation plans developed with 

tools such as the FHWA Eco-Logical approach. 

"A great reason to do scenario 

planning is to raise the profile of key 

decisions facing your community. 

Illustrating the implications of 

different choices draws attention to 

those choices, and deepens community 

understanding and dialogue."

- Beth Alden, Hillsborough 

County MPO
10

Scenario Planning Framework 

Figure 2- illustrates the six-step framework defined in the original 2011 FHWA Scenario 

Planning Guidebook. This framework remains useful and relevant and was generated at a time 

when most transportation agency scenario planning efforts were geared toward shaping a vision 

for future land use and transportation investments. The specific inputs, outputs, and other 

descriptive elements of the framework can be modified to support other types of scenario 

analyses such as the effectiveness of financial investment packages or impacts of external 

driving forces. 

Figure 2-1: Scenario Planning Process Framework from the 2011 Scenario Planning 

Guidebook 
11

What Is Performance-Based Planning and Programming?

Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming (PBPP) is the application 

of performance management within the 

planning and programming processes of 

transportation agencies to achieve desired 

performance outcomes for the 

multimodal transportation system. It 

encompasses a range of activities 

undertaken by transportation agencies 

with other agencies, stakeholders, and the 

public as part of a 3C (cooperative, 

continuing, and comprehensive) 

transportation planning process. It 

includes development of federally 

required products such as long range 

transportation plans, strategic highway 

and transit agency safety plans, highway 

and transit agency asset management 

plans, the congestion management 

process, other plans that are not federally 

required, and programming documents 

such as State and metropolitan 

Transportation Improvement Programs 

(TIPs). 

PBPP attempts to ensure that 

transportation investment decisions are 

made—in both long-term planning and 

short-term programming of projects—

based on their ability to meet established 

goals. Fundamentally, the use of 

performance measurement to guide 

planning is intended to improve 

decisionmaking, increase transparency, 

and create consistency between 

transportation goals and objectives and 

the investments made to improve the 

performance of the transportation system. 

MAP-21 first established national 

performance goals and placed increased 

emphasis on performance management 

within the Federal-aid highway program 

and transit programs, and requires use of 

performance-based approaches in 

NATIONAL GOALS FOR THE 

FEDERAL-AID HIGHWAY 

PROGRAM 

23 USC § 150(b)

Federal regulations require the use of a 

performance-based approach to support seven 

national goals for the transportation system. These 

goals serve as an important basis for developing 

goals that are integrated into the planning of 

States, MPOs, RTPOs, transit agencies, and other 

planning partners. 

1. Safety - To achieve a significant reduction in 

traffic fatalities and serious injuries on all 

public roads. 

2. Infrastructure Condition - To maintain the 

highway infrastructure asset system in a state 

of good repair.

3. Congestion Reduction - To achieve a 

significant reduction in congestion on the 

National Highway System.

4. System Reliability - To improve the 

efficiency of the surface transportation system.

5. Freight Movement and Economic Vitality -

To improve the National Highway Freight 

Network, strengthen the ability of rural 

communities to access national and 

international trade markets, and support 

regional economic development.

6. Environmental Sustainability - To enhance 

the performance of the transportation system 

while protecting and enhancing the natural 

environment.

7. Reduced Project Delivery Delays - To reduce 

project costs, promote jobs and the economy, 

and expedite the movement of people and 

goods by accelerating project completion 

through eliminating delays in the project 

development and delivery process, including 

reducing regulatory burdens and improving 

agencies’ work practices.
12

statewide, metropolitan, and nonmetropolitan transportation planning. The FHWA 2013 

Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook created a framework, shown in 

Figure 2-2, for understanding the fundamental steps in a performance-based planning process. 

Figure 2-2: The Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process Framework 

Source: 2013 PBPP Guidebook

For the purposes of this Guidebook, PBPP is considered to have four key phases. These are 

described in more detail below. 

Strategic Direction (Where do we want to go?) – In the transportation planning process, 

strategic direction is based on a vision for the future, as articulated by the public and 

stakeholders. PBPP includes: 

► Goals and Objectives – Stemming from a State or region’s vision, goals address key 

desired outcomes, and supporting objectives (specific, measureable statements that 

support achievement of goals) play a key role in shaping planning priorities. Goals can be 

derived from a visioning or scenario building exercise at this point and one or more 

scenarios can be carried forward into the subsequent phases. 
13

► Performance Measures – Performance measures support objectives and serve as a basis 

for comparing alternative improvement strategies (investment and policy approaches) and 

for tracking results over time. 

Analysis (How are we going to get there?) – Driven by data on performance, along with public 

involvement and policy considerations, agencies conduct analysis to develop investment and 

policy priorities. 

► Identify Trends and Targets – Preferred trends (direction of results) or targets (specific 

levels of performance desired to be achieved within a certain timeframe) are established 

for each measure to provide a basis for comparing alternative packages of strategies. This 

step relies on baseline data on past trends, tools to forecast future performance, and 

information on possible strategies, available funding, and other constraints. 

► Identify Strategies and Analyze Alternatives – Performance measures are used to 

assess strategies and to prioritize options. Scenario analysis might be used to compare 

alternative packages of strategies, to consider alternative funding levels, or to explore 

what level of funding would be required to achieve a certain level of performance.2

► Develop Investment Priorities – Packages of strategies for the LRTP are selected that 

support attainment of targets, considering tradeoffs between different goal areas, as well 

as policy priorities. 

Programming (What will it take?) Programming involves selecting specific investments to 

include in an agency capital plan and/or in a Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) or State 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). In a PBPP approach, programming decisions are 

made based on their ability to support attainment of performance targets or contribute to desired 

trends, and account for a range of factors. 

► Investment Plan – To connect the Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), which has 

an outlook of at least 20 years, to selection of projects in a TIP/STIP, some areas develop 

a mid-range (e.g., 10-year) investment plan or investment program. 

► Resource Allocation / Program of Projects – Project prioritization or selection criteria 

are used to identify specific investments or strategies for a capital plan or TIP/STIP. 

Projects included in the TIP/STIP are selected based on performance and show a clear 

link to meeting performance objectives. 

 

2

 This description of scenarios is narrower than that employed in this Guidebook. In Chapter 3, this guidebook 

discusses a wide range of scenarios, including investment strategy scenarios, which can be considered in this phase 

or earlier in the PBPP process. 
14

Implementation (How did we do?) – These activities 

occur throughout implementation on an ongoing basis, 

and include: 

► Monitoring – Gathering information on actual 

conditions. 

► Evaluation – Conducting analysis to understand 

to what extent implemented strategies have been 

effective. 

► Reporting – Communicating information about 

system performance and the effectiveness of 

plans and programs to policymakers, 

stakeholders, and the public. 

Each stage of the PBPP process is marked by distinctive 

areas of focus and specific results or products (e.g., 

LRTP, TIP). 

► In the Direction phase, the focus is on broadly 

desired outcomes, and the results include goals 

and performance measures that set the context 

for all remaining stages. 

► In the Analysis phase, the focus is on 

establishing performance targets and strategies 

designed to help attain those targets, resulting in 

products such as a fiscally constrained long 

range plan. 

► In the Programming phase, the focus is on 

shorter-term actions and investments, and the 

results could include a TIP, a STIP or other 

investment program, or a local capital 

improvement program. 

► In the Implementation phase, the focus is on evaluating progress toward the goals and 

performance targets; results could include annual performance reports, “dashboards,” and 

retrospective studies. 

In a PBPP approach, each step in the process is clearly connected to the next to ensure that goals 

translate into specific measures, which then form the basis for selecting and analyzing strategies 

for the long range plan. Ultimately, project selection decisions are influenced by expected 

performance results. Qualitative public input and quantitative data analyses are critical sources of 

information throughout the PBPP process. The public’s vision for the future of the community 

plays a key role in determining goals, performance measures, and investment priorities. Analyses 

of system performance trends and the effectiveness of possible improvements helps to inform 

selection of priorities. 

SYSTEM 

PERFORMANCE 

REPORT

23 USC Section 134(i)(2)(C)

outlines the requirement that 

metropolitan transportation plans 

contain a System Performance 

Report, which will evaluate 

“performance of the transportation 

system with respect to the 

performance targets....” 

Specifically, Section 134(i)(2)(C)(ii) 

explains the requirement to include a 

discussion about the preferred 

scenario:

“For metropolitan planning 

organizations that voluntarily elect 

to develop multiple scenarios, an 

analysis of how the preferred 

scenario has improved the 

conditions and performance of the 

transportation system and how 

changes in local policies and 

investments have impacted the costs 

necessary to achieve the identified 

performance targets...”
15

Like all planning, the transportation decisionmaking process is cyclical. Over time, and as 

planning cycles advance, goals and objectives may be adjusted, and performance measures and 

targets may be refined to ensure they focus on the most important and achievable priorities.

Keeping the next step in mind is critical to a coherent, effective PBPP process. Toward this end,

scenario planning can be used to improve the PBPP process by explicitly addressing 

uncertainties and by encouraging consistency among goals, objectives, and metrics as they are 

applied throughout each phase, from visioning and plan development through project selection 

and ongoing performance evaluation. 
16

3. How Can Scenario Planning Inform 

Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming? 

Scenario planning is an important tool that supports performance-based planning and 

programming. Scenario planning helps participants visualize and articulate, in both qualitative 

and quantitative terms, how a combination of strategies will help meet community goals and 

performance targets. PBPP attempts to ensure that transportation investment decisions are made, 

in both long-term planning and short-term programming of projects, based on their ability to 

meet established goals for improving the transportation system. Furthermore, it involves 

measuring progress toward meeting goals, and using information on past and anticipated future 

performance trends to inform investment decisions. 

A scenario planning process conducted to support any element of the PBPP process can help 

agencies and stakeholders engage in strategic thinking and decisionmaking activities such as 

defining a shared vision and performance goals, analyzing trade-offs between possible strategies, 

assessing the impacts and implications of external driving forces, and identifying investment 

priorities that advance desired outcomes. The process can help participants consider how various 

factors, such as revenue constraints, demographic trends, equity issues, economic shifts, or 

technological innovation, can affect a State or region and the performance of its transportation 

system. Using performance-based scenario planning, MPOs, State DOTs, and other planning 

agencies can take a comprehensive approach to PBPP by exploring multiple scenarios for 

making a well-informed selection of a preferred alternative with the most potential for 

supporting goals, objectives, and performance targets. 

Scenario planning can be used to support multiple points within performance-based planning and 

programming. This chapter discusses the potential usefulness of scenario planning applications 

within each of the four key phases of the PBPP process: 

► Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Measures 

► Analysis: Trends, Targets, and Strategies 

► Programming: Investments, Priorities, and Resources 

► Implementation: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 

As illustrated in Figure 3-1, scenario planning can provide valuable resources to support all 

stages of the performance-based planning and programming process. The six-step scenario 

framework shown on the left side of Item 4 is process oriented and can be applied iteratively to 

various points of PBPP shown on the right-hand column, with variations to address the relevant 

considerations of each PBPP phase. The boxes in the middle column identify important 

connections and applications of scenario planning to PBPP. 
17

Figure 3-1: Applications of Scenario Planning to Performance-Based Planning and 

Programming 

For example, vision-oriented scenario planning processes can help shape goals, policies, and 

objectives in the early Strategic Direction stages of PBPP and provide a wide range of 

information and indicators for considering trends and weighing alternatives at the Analysis stage. 

During the Programming stage of PBPP, the values-based goals and objectives that flow from a 

visioning process can help guide development of resource allocation criteria, and planners can 

choose to develop a tailored scenario planning approach to weigh alternative investment 

strategies (or “packages” of strategies or projects). The Implementation and Evaluation stages of 

PBPP can draw on scenario planning indicators to measure broad outcomes and system 

performance and can benefit from the partnerships that can be fostered during the wide 

stakeholder outreach typically associated with a scenario planning process. Data from the 

Implementation and Evaluation phase that measure how actual and anticipated performance 

compare can be used to engage decisionmakers and members of the public who participated in 

scenario planning to demonstrate that performance improvements are being achieved. 
18

Direction: Goals, Objectives, and Measures 

Engaging the Public and Stakeholders 

Performance-based planning and 

programming depends on a vision and 

supporting goals and objectives. These 

elements give performance measures 

meaning. A transportation agency will 

typically develop a vision and goals during 

the early stages of developing its long range 

transportation plan. Once the agency 

establishes its vision and goals, it can move 

on to developing objectives, identifying 

transportation system performance measures,

and evaluating strategies. 

A visioning process actively involves the 

public, the business community, and elected 

officials on a broad scale, educating them 

about growth trends and trade-offs and 

current system performance. Through this 

process, agencies can collect input regarding 

values and priorities and translate the input 

into quantifiable scenario evaluation criteria 

and guiding principles to shape scenario 

themes. 

Visioning exercises help identify community 

goals using techniques such as workshops, 

focus groups, and other events. The vision 

often consists of a preferred spatial allocation 

of growth, design of future development, and 

transportation network improvements. The 

vision is directly connected to the goals and 

objectives found in the long range 

transportation plan. 

The Sacramento Blueprint adopted in 2004 is an example of a regional vision for growth and 

development. Regional leaders from various disciplines were concerned about the effect on 

quality of life of adding 1.7 million new residents to the region between 2000 and 2050. They 

came together to study how the growth could be accommodated through different land use and 

transportation patterns before arriving at a preferred scenario that the Sacramento Area Council 

of Governments (SACOG) unanimously adopted. The Sacramento Blueprint set direction for 

the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan for 2035. For more than a decade, the Blueprint 

has served as a strong, frequently referenced vision to guide transportation and land use planning 

throughout the region. 

ENVISION UTAH

Established in 1997, Envision Utah is a 

“nonprofit, nonpartisan public private 

partnership.” Envision Utah engages 

stakeholders during the direction-setting phase 

of the planning process. Its work is based on 

the premise that the public has the right to 

decide what the State’s future should look like, 

and that the entire process of scenario planning 

should be designed to allow the public to 

choose the path forward. Scenario planning 

conducted by the organization in coordination 

with partners has resulted in establishing 

consensus regarding the direction in which the 

Salt Lake City region would develop. This in 

turned informed feasibility analyses for 

projects, such as the TRAX light rail system 

and Frontrunner commuter rail system, both of 

which were ultimately completed. Envision 

Utah builds capacity among planners in the 

region for scenario planning and has played a 

major role in helping Utah establish a common 

vision for the future. Along with working on 

State visioning projects, the organization has 

worked with several local and regional 

agencies and developed scenario planning 

tools and guides. The bulk (85%) of its 

funding coming from private sources.

Source: Envision Utah
19

Maintaining a Focus on Equity in the Direction Phase 

Transportation agencies of all types and at all 

levels of government have a responsibility to 

meaningfully involve all populations in 

decisionmaking, to promote environmental 

justice, and to protect the public health, safety, 

and welfare of all communities. To accomplish 

this, agencies implement various approaches to 

meet the letter and spirit of Federal laws, 

regulations, and Executive Orders. Effective 

transportation decisionmaking depends on 

recognizing, responding to, and properly 

addressing the unique needs, cultural perspectives, 

and financial limitations of different groups, 

including those that have been traditionally 

underserved.3 Developing an understanding of the 

values and viewpoints of different groups can be 

greatly aided by implementing a more 

comprehensive and inclusive approach to 

engaging the public in transportation decisionmaking processes. NCHRP Report 710: Practical 

Approaches for Involving Traditionally Underserved Populations in Transportation 

Decisionmaking provides State DOTs, MPOs, and other transportation agencies with a rich 

source of practical and effective tools, techniques, and approaches for identifying and connecting 

with populations that have traditionally been underrepresented in transportation decisionmaking. 

Agencies can use local knowledge to develop community profiles, and national data can support 

analyses of population characteristics and locations. Outreach and coordination based on this 

information can enable agencies to determine and respond to community-specific needs. 

Developing Performance Measures 

Performance measures define how achievement of goals and objectives will be assessed. The 

process of designing and testing performance-based scenarios involves the development of 

indicators that could be shaped into performance measures. The metrics used for a scenario 

planning initiative should bear relevance to (and ideally be incorporated into) metrics used for 

the ongoing PBPP process. Applying the scenario planning tools and data to the development of 

goals and objectives in the long range transportation planning process can help shape 

performance measures that will inform decisionmaking throughout the process of selecting 

projects for plans and programs and for system performance evaluation. 

Engaging the public and stakeholders in discussions about which performance measures should 

be used—in addition to those mandated for use through Federal rulemakings—in relation to 

goals and objectives is an important component of performance-based scenario planning. A 

 

3

 Traditionally underserved groups include: low-income populations; minority populations (those identifying as 

Black, Hispanic or Latino, Asian American, American Indian and Alaskan Native, Native Hawaiian, and Other 

Pacific Islander); populations with limited English proficiency; low literacy populations; seniors; people with 

disabilities (including those with visual or hearing impairments); and transit-dependent populations. 

“The employment of scenario 

planning has coordinated the longterm visions and goals for our 

region. Its flexibility allows for each 

community to retain its own voice and 

character while discussing the 

broader issues, challenges, and 

opportunities that are likely to impact 

us both collectively and individually 

in the future.”

Rob Terry, Fresno Council of 

Governments
20

performance-based approach to scenario planning in the direction-setting phase of PBPP might 

use measures relating to infrastructure condition, safety, traffic congestion levels, walkability, 

accessibility, and greenhouse gas emissions, among others. It can also include measures related 

to community goals and values for economic prosperity, environmental sustainability, and 

quality of life. Scenario planning and PBPP tools or models used to compare alternatives might 

need to be adjusted to use quantitative, as well as qualitative, metrics. Consequently, considering 

what data and tools are available, and are expected to be available on a regular basis in the 

future, is important when selecting performance measures for scenario planning and PBPP. 

The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC), which conducts long range 

transportation planning for the San Francisco Bay Area, provides an example of how 

performance measures can be used in all phases of planning, including the direction phase, and 

how scenarios can influence the measures. MTC considered expected future trends and a variety 

of investment scenarios to identify performance objectives for its LRTP, Plan Bay Area, adopted 

in 2013. The performance measures then were used to conduct quantitative evaluations of 

projects to score projects on how well they would address and support the agency’s goals. The 

vision planning step and its supporting scenario planning process is the critical link for 

establishing goals and performance measures. 
21

PLANWORKS: BETTER PLANNING. BETTER PROJECTS. 

PlanWorks is a web resource that supports collaborative decisionmaking in transportation 

planning and project development. It has four major components: a Decision Guide, 

Assessments, Applications of special topics, and a Library of publications and case studies. 

Decision Guide: The Decision Guide describes more than 50 key decision points that present 

opportunities for cooperation in the planning, programming, and environmental review process. 

Organized into four overarching categories of Long Range Planning (LRP), Programming 

(PRO), Corridor Planning (COR) and Environmental Review/NEPA/Permitting (ENV), 

information about each decision point includes policy considerations, stakeholder concerns, data 

needs, case studies, examples, and links to supportive tools. The following decision points 

provide key opportunities for ensuring consistency and leveraging resources across scenario 

planning and PBPP processes. 

 LRP-2, LRP-3, LRP-4, LRP-5: Approving long range plan vision and goals; Developing 

evaluation criteria, methods and measures; Identifying current and future transportation 

deficiencies; Developing financial assumptions

 LRP-7, LRP-8: Developing planning scenarios; Evaluating proposed scenarios

 PRO-1, PRO-2, PRO-3, PRO-4: Identifying program revenue sources: Identifying 

project selection criteria; Programming projects from adopted plan; Prioritizing projects 

 COR-2, COR-3: Developing corridor problem statements; Developing corridor goals

 COR-5: Identifying corridor evaluation criteria, methods and measures

 COR-6, COR-7, COR-8: Approving range of solution sets; Adopting preferred solution; 

Prioritizing corridor projects 

 ENV-3: Linking planning-level vision and goals to project-level purpose and need.

 ENV-5: Approving project-level evaluation criteria, methods and measures

 ENV-6, ENV-7: Approving range of project alternatives; Selecting alternatives to carry 

forward

 ENV-10: Approving preferred alternative

 ENV-12: Reaching consensus on avoidance and minimization strategies

Assessments: All of the three self-assessments to identify collaboration strategies for agency 

teams and stakeholders can help practitioners to identify opportunities for linking scenario 

planning processes and outcomes to PBPP decision making processes. 

Applications: PlanWorks includes 16 subject-area resource pages, nearly all of which provide 

direction and ideas for linking methods, metrics, and outcomes of scenario planning and PBPP 

processes. Particularly germane topics include Economic Development (note links to the related 

SHRP2 EconWorks tool), Freight, GHG Emissions, Human Environment, Land Use, Natural 

Environment, Performance Measures, Planning and Environment, Planning and Operations, 

Safety and Security, Stakeholder Collaboration, and Visioning. 
22

Analysis: Trends, Targets, and Strategies 

The purpose of the analysis phase is to gather information on baseline and forecast conditions; 

identify problems, needs, or performance gaps; consider external factors that could impact 

transportation system performance; and identify strategies or alternatives that address those 

needs or gaps and are aligned with the goals and objectives. A transportation agency 

accomplishes the analysis stage by comparing different sets of strategies using a set of 

performance measures that can be forecasted. 

Identifying Baseline Information, Trends, and Targets 

Identifying baseline information and trends is a key early component of the performance-based 

planning scenario planning effort. This baseline information typically includes information on 

the existing multimodal transportation system, 

including its condition and performance, and

factors that are likely to affect the future of the 

planning area and the future performance of the 

transportation system, including availability of 

financial resources. It is the establishment of 

baseline conditions (safety, congestion, 

infrastructure) and expected trends (population, 

employment, land use) that drives the baseline 

scenario, which is the “likely future” or “status 

quo.” This story about the future helps identify 

the key trends from which alternative futures 

can be evaluated and compared. 

Traditional transportation planning conducted 

in the analysis phase of PBPP relies on fourstep travel demand models that predict system 

deficiencies based on locally generated 

forecasts of population, employment, and land 

use development patterns. Travel demand 

models have not traditionally been designed to 

enable consideration of broader issues and 

metrics associated with the values and 

aspirations identified in the initial directionsetting phase of PBPP. Supporting the analysis 

phase with a performance-based scenario planning process can complement the traditional 

modeling approach and enhance community engagement and perspectives on transportation 

investment needs by incorporating a broader array of issues and considering a variety of different 

future conditions beyond the trend-based forecast. For example, planners can use tools such as 

the FHWA SHRP2 Utility Bundle to help incorporate utility infrastructure data (e.g., water, 

sewer, and electricity) into scenarios of alternative transportation investment packages in order to 

identify potential location conflicts up front. This kind of planning-level feasibility assessment 

can help agencies to avoid costly delays in later stages of project development. 

SCENARIO PLANNING IN

REGIONS EXPERIENCING

MINIMAL GROWTH

Traditional approaches to scenario 

planning assumed that a region or State 

will continue to grow and focused on how 

and where that growth should occur. 

However, a number of regions in the US 

are currently experiencing low or even 

negative population growth. Scenario 

planning can be conducted in a way that 

focuses exploration on future conditions 

and strategies that make sense for this 

context as well. Scenario planning can 

focus on determining which strategies 

will use an agency’s resources most cost 

effectively to preserve or improve 

performance, and tools for scenario 

planning increaslying allow for making 

adjustments to assumptions to account for 

declining population growth.
23

The Hillsborough County MPO, which conducts transportation planning for a portion of the 

Tampa, Florida metropolitan area, provides a good example of how the identification of baseline 

conditions and trends within scenario planning during the analysis phase can inform the broader 

planning process, including development of performance measures. For its most recent long 

range plan, the MPO studied baseline conditions for a wide range of measures that reflected the 

community’s overarching 

concerns and values, such as 

energy and water use, water 

quality, commute length, access to 

transit, and air pollution. By using 

a scenario planning process to 

identify and assess metrics 

associated with community values, 

the MPO could incorporate the key 

issues that were most meaningful 

and relevant to the community into 

the analysis phase of its PBPP 

process. 

Developing and 

Analyzing Scenarios 

Scenarios describe a set of future 

conditions that enable planners, 

the public, and stakeholders to 

envision different possible futures 

for policy and investment options. 

Stakeholders assess and compare 

scenarios through qualitative and 

quantitative comparisons, 

including comparisons in relation 

to performance targets. In the 

analysis phase of PBPP, 

practitioners typically create a 

baseline scenario, which assumes 

that current plans for 

transportation investment are 

carried out and that recent 

development patterns remain the 

same, or a “no build” scenario that 

assumes no new transportation 

investments. Alternative scenarios 

are then created to examine how 

changes in trends or investments 

might affect the region or State. 

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF 

TRANSPORTATION

To develop its 2040 statewide plan, California 

DOT (Caltrans) utilized scenario analysis to 

understand better how different investment 

strategies would influence greenhouse gas 

emissions in the State. The agency evaluated the 

following scenarios:

 A baseline scenario, which accounted for 

existing Sustainable Communities 

Strategies plans

 A scenario with aggressive VMT 

reduction strategies that assumed the 

construction of passenger rail

 A scenario in which advanced vehicle and 

fuel strategies were implemented

The results of the alternatives analysis led to 

specific recommendations in the statewide 

transportation plan for 2040. Caltrans identified 

the following benefits from scenarios:

 Ability to understand the multiple strategy 

combinations to achieve GHG reduction 

targets

 Identify trends of the most promising and 

risky strategies

 Inform near-term public policy decisions

 Increase awareness of the transportation 

system

 Understand the impacts of the fuel 

network, alternative technologies, and 

behavioral changes.

Source: Caltrans
24

Some of the different types of scenarios 

that might be developed in the analysis 

phase of a PBPP process (or, at a less 

detailed level, in the direction-setting 

phase) include: 

► Transportation policies or 

investment strategies – exploring 

different scenarios for packages of 

transportation solutions, which 

could include different emphases 

for transportation investments or 

policies

► Land use patterns – exploring 

different scenarios of distributions 

of population and employment, 

often in combination with 

different transportation policies or 

investment strategies 

► External factors – exploring 

factors that are outside the control 

or influence of transportation and 

land use planning agencies (e.g. 

broad economic trends) 

► Performance levels – exploring 

different scenarios for future 

performance and what is required 

for achieving it, such as a scenario 

to maintain baseline conditions or 

to attain target levels 

► Funding levels – exploring 

different scenarios based on levels 

of funding that might be available. 

As noted above, equity is a critical 

consideration for scenario planning, 

given the importance of ensuring the 

process is inclusive. Specifically, the scenario planning processes need to be designed to 

accommodate all populations, as required in: 

● Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which prohibits exclusion from 

participation in, denial of benefits of, and discrimination under Federally-assisted 

programs on grounds of race, color, or national origin. 

● The Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990, which states that no qualified 

individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded from 

SCENARIO PLANNING FOR 

TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM 

MANAGEMENT & OPERATIONS

Although traditionally the transportation 

planning process has focused primarily on 

infrastructure investment needs, 

transportation agencies are increasingly 

putting more emphasis on transportation 

system management and operations 

strategies (TSMO) to address congestion, 

safety, and reliability. The results of a 

TSMO-informed plan can influence 

activities such as signal coordination, 

incident management, congestion pricing, 

and ridesharing programs, to name a few. 

The PlanWorks “Linking Planning and 

Operations” Application provides resources 

for integrating TSMO into the overarching 

PBPP process. 

Scenario planning can play a role in 

evaluating TSMO strategies, which typically 

are not well addressed in regional travel 

models. Some scenario planning methods 

can help agencies to explore the potential 

opportunities and impacts associated with 

new and emerging technologies before they 

are deployed. Meanwhile, other scenario 

planning processes can help an agency 

optimize its strategy for maintaining safe, 

efficient travel in an area where some 

changes are likely, but not yet fully defined. 

To support efforts such as these, the FHWA 

primer Advancing Transportation Systems 

Management and Operations through 

Scenario Planning was published in 2016. 
25

participation in or be denied the benefits of services, programs, or activities of a 

public entity, or be subjected to discrimination by any such entity. 

● Executive Order 13166, Improving Access to Services for Persons with Limited 

English Proficiency, which requires Federal agencies to identify any needs for 

services to those with limited English proficiency (LEP), and develop and 

implement a system to provide those services so LEP persons can have meaningful 

access to them. 

● Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and LowIncome Populations, which instructs Federal agencies to identify and address 

instances in which adverse human health or environmental effects of their actions 

disproportionately affect minority and low-income populations. 

● The Age Discrimination Act of 1975, which prohibits discrimination on the basis of 

age in programs or activities receiving Federal financial assistance. 

SCENARIOS OF TRANSPORTATION POLICY/INVESTMENT 

STRATEGIES 

State DOTs and MPOs can use scenario planning to support performance-based analysis by 

exploring different transportation policy and investment scenarios. This approach involves 

designing scenarios that involve different types or sets of transportation investments; these 

scenarios are then compared against a baseline and against each other, to help select a preferred 

alternative. 

An example of an agency using this approach during the analysis phase is the Southeast 

Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), in the Detroit area, which used scenario 

planning in summer 2009 to analyze the effects of different investment scenarios as part of the 

development of its 2035 Regional Transportation Plan. SEMCOG crafted five scenarios (or 

“themes”) in which funding allocations varied among the program areas of pavement 

preservation, highway capacity, bridge preservation, safety, transit, nonmotorized, and roadway 

operations. The first scenario represented the trend, extending recent allocations into the future. 

In addition to the trend scenario, the other four scenarios were: 

► Public Opinion – Allocate more funds to programs preferred by the public 

► Preservation First – Emphasize pavement and bridge performance 

► Transit First – Emphasize transit system performance 

► Maximize Performance – Balance fudning across priorities to achive relatively equal 

performace in each category 
26

SEMCOG studied the five scenarios using 

the following performance measures: 

► Percent of pavement in good or fair 

condition 

► Hours of delay per 1,000 vehicle 

miles

► Percent of bridges in good or fair 

condition 

► Fatalities per 100 million vehicle 

miles

► Extent of transit network 

► Percentage of the population within 

1/2 mile of a nonmotorized facility 

SEMCOG used several tools for its

analysis: its travel demand model; 

geographic information systems (GIS), to 

perform a buffer analysis for the nonmotorized system); the Highway 

Economic Requirements System-State 

Version (HERS-ST); the Michigan DOT 

Pavement Condition Forecasting System 

and Bridge Condition Forecasting System; 

and the National Bridge Investment 

Analysis System (NBIAS). The MPO also 

used AssetManager NT to analyze and 

visualize relationships within and across 

the program areas. 

SEMCOG used the scenarios as a public 

engagement tool to help the public better 

understand investment trade-offs under an 

economic forecast that anticipated an 

extended, deep recession. 

Through this scenario planning process, SEMCOG was equipped with better information to 

support its decisionmaking. Ultimately, the MPO selected a hybrid scenario that emphasized 

maintenance and preservation.

Another example is the Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (RPC), the MPO for the 

Lansing region in Michigan. During the analysis phase of its planning process, Tri-County RPC 

used scenario planning and technical modeling to help inform decisionmaking and project 

selection in the Regional 2040 Transportation Plan. To ensure consistency and transparency, the 

agency linked the plan’s goals and objectives to performance measures that it then used to assess

a set of alternative scenarios. Tri-County RPC developed eight alternative scenarios reflecting 

SPACE COAST TRANSPORTATION 

PLANNING ORGANIZATION 

Space Coast TPO in Florida utilized Scenario 

Planning in its analysis phase to test strategies 

for reducing projected future congestion as well 

as achieving other goals and objectives of its 

2040 LRTP. The TPO Priority Reliever, 

referred to as the preferred Vision Scenario for 

2040, included many high priority regional 

connections from the 2035 LRTP and increased 

transit service on popular routes. The scenario 

planning exercise helped identify the public’s 

preferences for future development (e.g., more 

transportation choices, balancing growth with 

conservation, maintaining existing 

transportation assets), and this input informed 

the goals and objectives of the 2040 LRTP.

Compared to the base case scenario, or (Current 

Trend), the priority reliever scenario reduced 

vehicle miles traveled, vehicle hours of travel, 

and vehicle hours of delay significantly. This 

Priority Reliever scenario became the basis for 

the 2040 needs plan. 

Because of the scenario planning, the TPO also 

developed a policy framework for local 

agencies to work towards the long-term goals, 

by identifying land use changes and new 

potential revenue sources to fund transportation 

projects that support the 2040 Vision. 

Source: Space Coast TPO
27

different levels of emphasis for investments. The agency compared the alternative scenarios to 

base year and trend scenarios to provide a clear picture of their relative impacts on the 

performance measures. 

Table 3-1: Tri-County RPC Scenarios Considered in Developing the 2040 Transportation Plan 

Alternative Descriptive Name

1 High Transit

2 Medium Transit

3 Demand Reductions/Improve Operations

4 Combinations of 2 and 3 

5 Combination of 2, 3, and 6a

6A Planned Highway Options List

6B Planned Highway Options List, 2040 Trend

7 Highways Only

Source: Tri-County Regional Planning Commission

At the State level, Minnesota DOT used a type of scenario analysis to examine necessary tradeoffs in the development of the 2013 Minnesota State Highway Improvement Plan (MnSHIP), 

which links the policies and strategies in the State’s Multimodal Transportation Plan to 

investment priorities on the State highway network. The agency developed three distinct 

investment scenarios and modeled expected 20-year outcomes for each. Scenarios A and C 

represented different allocations of funding across different investment categories, while 

Scenario B represented MnDOT’s then-current spending across categories. Each scenario was 

described in terms of anticipated system performance and risks, both addressed and remaining. 

According to the agency, “this step allow[ed] MnDOT and the public to better understand the 

tradeoffs associated with different Performance Levels.” The following illustrates the three 

different approaches. 
28

Figure 3-2: MnSHIP Investment Approaches Developed for Scenario Planning 

Source: Minnesota DOT

The public, stakeholders, and DOT staff reviewed the scenarios. The feedback received from this 

analysis process directly influenced the development of MnSHIP’s 20-year investment priorities. 

To develop the preferred investment scenario, MnDOT focused on several key factors: 

stakeholder and public input, revenue outlook, State requirements and related risks, previous 

MnSHIP priorities, current and projected performance, MnDOT policy, and Federal Law (MAP21). Using these factors and the results of the scenario analysis, MnDOT developed a 20-year 

Investment Plan that identifies how investment priorities in the first 10 years and in the second 

10 years of the plan will be distributed among and between mobility improvements (for 

automobiles, bicyclists, and pedestrians), safety improvements, local and regionally driven 

priorities, and maintenance of the existing system, to maximize performance. 

COMBINED LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION SCENARIOS 

Scenario planning often has played a key role in enhancing the planning process extending the 

traditional realm of considering different transportation investments to explore how land use 

patterns can influence transportation system performance. By developing scenarios for 

alternative land use patterns or distributions of population and employment, this information 

helps inform local governments and communities about the important role of land use decisions 

in transportation system performance (and transportation investments on land use decisions), 

equity, and quality of life, thereby bringing into the planning process a broader set of strategies 

and considerations. Such scenarios can be developed for both the direction-setting and analysis 

phases of PBPP. The direction-setting scenarios might be depicted as sketches of general 

development trends, designed to help planners identify desired overarching policies and goals. 

Analysis-level scenarios can delve more deeply into the impacts of specific investment packages 

or policy decisions on targeted subareas such as corridors or systems such as rail and bus transit 

networks. 
29

In a performance-based planning approach, considering alternative land use scenarios can be 

used to help shape a common vision for the future among multiple individual local governments 

that play a lead role in land use planning. By articulating more clearly the performance outcomes 

of these land use decisions, elected officials and decisionmakers can draw connections between 

their local policies and the transportation system performance and conditions experienced by 

their residents. 

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) developed a 2008 report, 

Making the Land Use Connection, which informed the agency’s 2035 long range plan. Figure 

3-3 shows a graphic from the 2035 plan, developed during the analysis phase, that displays the 

expected trade-offs between three land use scenarios with respect to twelve different measures, 

each of which corresponds to objectives such as improving safety. 

Figure 3-3: Index Used by DVRPC to Compare Three Alternative Land Use Scenarios

Source: DVRPC

Getting to the preferred vision can inspire development of goals that set a framework for action 

and determine specific performance measures that can bring substantial clarity to what is 

important to the public, in a way that is effective in communicating to decisionmakers. 

Nevertheless, these values should inform the performance measures and strategies that ultimately 

guide the designing of specific projects. During the analysis phase, transportation agencies can 

explore scenarios that include combinations of different land use patterns and different 

transportation investment strategies. 

One example is the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG). Scenario analyses 

in successive DRCOG regional transportation planning efforts have built off previous scenario 

planning endeavors. For its 2035 Metro Vision plan update, DRCOG developed five scenarios 

that focused on changes to the urban growth boundary, density, the fiscally constrained roadway 
30

network, the fiscally constrained transit network, and driving and transit pricing; these scenarios 

are shown in Table 3-. 

Table 3-2: DRCOG Scenarios Addressing Changes to Land Use and Transportation 

Investments and Policies 

Scenario

Expansion of 

the Urban 

Growth 

Boundary

Density 

Increase 

(2000–2035)

Change to the 

Fiscally 

Constrained 

Roadway Network

Changes to the 

Fiscally 

Constrained 

Transit Network

Pricing 

Changes

A None 23% None None None

B +70 share 

miles

12% +300 miles of minor 

arterials and 

collectors

None None

C +150 square 

miles

0% +600 miles of minor 

arterials and 

collectors

None None

D +70 square 

miles

12% +300 miles of minor 

arterials and 

collectors; +300 

miles new 

freeway/tollway 

capacity

None None

E None 23% −100 miles of 

highway capacity

Additional rail and 

bus rapid transit

None

F None 23% −100 miles of 

highway capacity

Additional rail and 

bus rapid transit

Auto operating 

costs doubled; 

transit free

Source: DRCOG

DRCOG evaluated the six scenarios on the following 12 outcome measures. 

Table 3-3: Outcome Measures Used by DRCOG to Evaluate Scenarios 

1. Increase in transit use 2. Decreased need for new water treatment facilities

3. Decrease in driving 4. Decrease in spending on infrastructure

5. Decrease in congestion 6. Decrease in land consumption

7. Improvement in air quality 8. Increase in development in urban centers

9. Increase in efficiency of water use 10. Increase in development downtown

11. Improved access to transit 12. Increase in development near transit

Source: DRCOG

The agency used visuals like the one in Figure 3-4 to show the comprehensive forecasted 

performance of each scenario with respect to the 12 performance goals. These goals align with 

the overall vision for the region, and are associated with measurable outcomes. Furthermore, the 
31

goals are interrelated, and achieving each goal will produce co-benefits that support progress 

toward the other goals. The use of scenario planning in this case was an effective way to consider 

the cumulative benefits and co-benefits of a set of strategies. 

Figure 3-4: Example Comparison of Scenarios A through F in Relation to Different 

Performance Goals from DRCOG 

Source: DRCOG

DRCOG ultimately identified Scenario F as the one that would result in the best performance 

overall for the region. The scenario planning exercise gave DRCOG an improved understanding 

of the effects of a potential change to the region’s urban growth boundary. Performance 

measures in the agency’s 2035 plan include all of the transportation-related measures used to 

evaluate the scenarios, and the agency continues to track performance in these areas to improve 

data-driven decisionmaking. 

Similarly, the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO and the Capital Area MPO in North 

Carolina worked together in developing combined transportation and land use scenarios for the 

development of their 2040 Metropolitan Transportation Plan. The agencies developed six 

alternative scenarios in the analysis phase, each comprising a transportation scenario and a land 

use scenario, as illustrated in Table 3-. 

The MPOs evaluated the alternative scenarios based on several performance measures, including 

level of roadway congestion, average travel time, mode share, and transit ridership. In addition, 

the MPOs reviewed performance measures by transit service sub-areas and specific travel 

corridors to overcome diluting effects that large, regional models can have. The results of this 

scenario analysis then were used by MPO staff to develop a preferred scenario, which included 

road, bus transit, and rail transit investments. 
32

Table 3-4: Six Scenarios Evaluated by Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO 

and the Capital Area MPO

Alternative Transportation Scenario Land Use Scenario

1 Roadway Intensive – abundant 

highway projects, no light or 

commuter rail

Community Plan – population and employment 

growth occurs based on current land use plans

2 Transit Intensive – includes large bus 

transit improvements, extensive light 

rail, and commuter rail service.

Community Plan – Population and employment 

growth occurs based on current land use plans

3 Moderate – includes most of the 

highway, bus, and rail transit projects

included in the 2040 MTP

Community Plan – Population and employment 

growth occurs based on current land use plans

4 Trend and Transit Plans – includes 

highway projects at current spending 

levels; bus and rail transit projects that 

are in the 2040 MTP

Community Plan – Population and employment 

growth occurs based on current land use plans

5 Transit Intensive – includes large bus 

transit improvements, extensive light 

rail, and commuter rail service. 

All-in-Transit – Population and employment 

growth based on current land use plan but uses 

additional and more intensive transit-oriented 

development, and land use modeling increased 

attractiveness to rail and premium transit

6 Moderate – includes most of the 

highway, bus, and rail transit projects 

included in the 2040 MTP

All-in-Transit – Population and employment 

growth based on current land use plan but uses 

additional and more intensive transit-oriented 

development, and land use modeling increased 

attractiveness to rail and premium transit

Source: Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO; Capital Area MPO

The Transportation Planning Board (TPB) of the Metropolitan Washington Council of 

Governments also conducted a CLRP Aspirations Scenario Study as part of the analysis phase 

during development of its 2040 Constrained Long Range Transportation Plan (CLRP). The 

Study was presented to the TPB in 2013. The Aspirations Scenario Study was developed to 

integrate the best components of previous TPB scenario studies4

into a comprehensive scenario 

that could offer a promising path forward for the region. Previous TPB studies had provided 

conclusions about effective regional strategies for improving travel conditions, but those studies 

focused on issues of land use or transportation, but not both. The CLRP Aspirations Scenario 

combined an alternative land use scenario with more dense, transit-oriented development; a 

regional network of variably price lanes; and high quality bus rapid transit (BRT) and circulator 

bus service focused on supporting the land use plan. 

SCENARIOS EXPLORING EXTERNAL FACTORS 

 

4

 The land use and transportation components of the study were based largely on findings from previous scenario 

analysis – the Regional Mobility and Accessibility Study (2006) and the Regional Value Pricing Study (2008). 
33

Scenarios can be used to explore how external, or 

exogenous, factors, might affect transportation system 

performance and investment needs. When looking 

toward the next 20 to 40 years, many factors beyond 

land use that are not commonly considered in 

transportation planning but could have substantial 

impacts on travel demand are highly uncertain. For 

instance, substantial changes in fuel prices, 

macroeconomic conditions, technologies, or climate 

conditions could have important implications on 

transportation system performance, investment needs, 

and the value of different types of transportation 

investments and policies. Scenario planning can be 

used to explore how well the current vision might 

respond to different uncontrollable or external forces 

and to increase clarity regarding the actions that can 

be taken in the face of various futures (i.e., serve as a 

guide to action). 

This approach is essentially a “stress test” for different transportation strategies. Rather than 

focusing on optimizing system performance within one set of assumed future conditions, 

planners can use scenarios to compare the resiliency or adaptability of given strategies to change. 

For example, the agency might assign a score (e.g., low, medium, or high) for each strategy 

based on how well it could be expected to perform in each scenario. Using this approach might 

demonstrate that some projects or strategies perform well in many different plausible future 

conditions. The outcome of the process could lead to the need for a shift in project priorities or 

strategies. It could also generate new or modified performance metrics for ongoing system 

monitoring. This approach can inform the long range plan and program and other efforts such as 

a risk-based asset management planning exercise. 

An example of using this type of approach is demonstrated by the Baltimore Regional 

Transportation Board (BRTB), which undertook, during the analysis phase, a scenario 

planning process addressing land use and transportation strategies and scenarios of divergent 

futures. In developing the Plan It 2035 transportation plan, approved in 2011, the BRTB 

undertook a visioning process (Imagine 2060). Ultimately, BRTB used scenario planning to 

develop a preferred scenario for the Imagine 2060 vision. The agency developed several land use 

scenarios with supporting transportation options, which they presented to the public for input 

(Table 3-). 

"One of the reasons we do scenario 

planning is to look at contingencies 

and, as necessary, develop 'fall-back' 

positions. For example, we need to 

prepare for the possibility that the 

transportation funding outlook never 

improves, or even worsens. In our 

next Plan update, we may look at how 

quickly automated vehicles reach a 

saturation point on our roads, and 

what implications that has for 

congestion and an aging population."

- Beth Alden, Hillsborough 

County MPO
34

Table 3-5: BRTB Options Addressed in Scenarios 

Land Use Options Transportation Options

Downtowns: new growth concentrated in 

downtown areas; mix of uses in 

downtowns; limited new suburban 

growth

Urban Multi-modal Transportation: light rail/commuter rail 

service radiating from downtown Baltimore; local bus service 

in the urban core and inner suburbs; downtown pedestrian 

and bicycle networks; increased capacity on roadways 

serving high density areas

Town and Village Centers: new growth 

concentrated in town and village centers; 

mix of uses in town and village centers; 

limited new suburban growth

Local and Regional Connections: light rail/commuter rail 

service radiating from downtown Baltimore; express bus 

service from park and ride lots to employment centers; local 

transit service downtown; pedestrian and bicycle networks in 

downtown areas; increased capacity on roads serving medium 

density areas and the City of Baltimore

Established neighborhoods: new growth 

concentrated in suburban residential 

areas; mostly residential and retail uses 

in these areas; limited new downtown 

growth

Commuter Options: maintenance of existing light 

rail/commuter rail and bus service; modest bus service from 

park and ride lots to employment centers; modest 

improvements to bicycle and pedestrian facilities; increased 

capacity on roadways serving high and medium density areas

Expanding Suburbs: new growth 

concentrated in suburban and rural areas; 

mostly residential and retail uses in these 

areas; limited new downtown growth

Expanding Roadways: maintenance of existing light 

rail/commuter rail and bus service; maintenance of existing 

pedestrian and bicycle facilities; increased capacity on all 

major roadways. 

Source: BRTB 

BRTB returned to scenario planning in the development of its next long range transportation 

plan, Maximize 2040: A Performance-Based Transportation Plan. BRTB focused significant 

effort attempting to answer the question: “How can the region make informed decisions about 

the future, especially when there are a lot of uncertainties about the future?” To begin answering 

this question, the agency surveyed the public, focusing on social, economic, technological, 

environmental, and political forces that could shape the transportation landscape in the future. 

Survey participants identified several external forces that could be highly influential in the 

future. 

BRTB then worked with focus groups to review public input and determine the most critical of 

these forces to analyze further. The focus group recommended that BRTB assume two forces 

identified by the public (the top two vote getters in the public input process) were almost certain 

to happen and should be built into any scenarios as underlying assumptions. These forces are: 

(1) an aging, more diverse population; and (2) lack of funding to meet all transportation needs 

and aspirations. The group then selected three other forces on which the scenarios should focus: 

(1) changes in preferences with respect to travel and work; (2) sea level rise and increase in 

severe weather events owing to climate change; and (3) advances in vehicle-to-network and 

vehicle-to-vehicle technologies, including autonomous vehicles. 
35

Based on these recommendations, BRTB 

developed three scenarios for possible 

changes between 2014 and 2014: 

1. “Wash Overflow” – Washington 

DC’s population and job growth 

extends to the Baltimore region 

2. “Simmered Up” – Sea level rise and 

extreme weather events due to climate 

change 

3. “Zuber Connected” – advances in 

vehicle-to-vehicle and vehicle-tonetwork communication systems and 

sensors 

BRTB invited stakeholders from several 

organizations (e.g., the Public Advisory 

Committee, local universities and colleges, 

Maryland DOT, local jurisdictions, 

businesses, advocacy groups) to analyze the 

impacts of the different scenarios, using a 

qualitative analysis approach, as shown in 

Figure 3-5. 

Figure 3-5: BRTB Analysis of Three Scenarios across Different Performance Measures 

Source: BRTB 

"Scenario planning enabled our region to 

have a reasoned conversation regarding 

contentious topics for which there is a 

significant degree of future uncertainty.

The process of evaluating possible 

outcomes of different paths gave our 

region the tools to debate which 

outcomes were unacceptable, identify the 

efforts necessary to achieve the preferred 

outcome and whether our region had the 

willingness to commit to those efforts. 

Scenario planning was most helpful in 

our region’s efforts to identify a preferred 

future vision for how Waco should 

develop and in identifying future 

resources to implement priorities within 

the Metropolitan Transportation Plan."

- Chris Evilia, Waco MPO
36

As the BRTB moves forward in the Maximize 2040, the results of the scenario planning process 

are helping inform the process of project evaluation and selection. In addition, the BRTB will 

revisit the issues raised in the scenario planning process periodically over the next several years, 

both to stay informed about new developments and potentially to refine goals and performance 

measures based on new developments. 

At the State level, Washington State DOT (WSDOT) conducted a scenario planning analysis 

exercise to develop its State Freight Mobility Plan; this exercise is described in NCHRP Report 

750. The agency recognized the challenge to predicting future demand for freight with a fixed 

growth rate, given the range of changes to economic conditions and business sourcing patterns 

that could influence the system in 2030 and beyond. WSDOT used scenario analysis to consider 

the potential effects of varying scenarios on the future of the State’s freight system. The agency’s 

goal was not to predict the future, but to better prepare itself for a variety of potential futures. 

The agency looked at four scenarios: 

► One World Order – A highly regulated, “green” world in which natural resources are 

scarce, with high energy costs and environmental sensitivity 

► Naftástique – A scenario in which U.S. trade is focused within North America rather than 

Asia 

► Technology Savior – A scenario in which advances in technology disburse goods 

production and improve material abundance 

► Global Marketplace –A scenario under which trade is relatively free and global, similar 

to conditions today. 

WSDOT, in coordination with the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s Center for 

Transportation and Logistics, convened a statewide scenario planning symposium with experts 

representing freight carriers, shippers, industry associations, universities, and Federal, State and 

local governments. Participants were divided into groups. Each group focused on one of the four 

scenarios and identified investment priorities to best address the scenario. The exercise resulted 

in the following overarching conclusions. They are accurate and applicable regardless of which 

scenario (or combination of scenarios) is realized: 

► Demand will increase on the east-west transcontinental rail system and the State Freight 

Waterway Economic Corridors.

► Demand for truck services along the I-5 corridor and in urban centers is also likely to 

grow more rapidly than indicated in a previous forecast (e.g., the FAF3 [Freight Analysis 

Framework, 3rd version]).

Scenario planning enabled WSDOT to improve its ability to make informed, data-driven 

decisions about the investments that are most likely to create the greatest future benefits in the 

face of changes that could occur with respect to freight demand.5

These findings informed the 

identification of Freight Economic Corridors, which are roadways, railways, and waterways 

critical to the movement of commerce in the State. Freight Economic Corridors are used to 

 

5

 Washington (State) DOT, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/freight/freightmobilityplan.htm; Transportation Research 

Board, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_750v1.pdf. 
37

address system condition and capacity issues and develop performance measures to improve 

freight mobility. 

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) provides another example of 

the use of scenario planning during the analysis phase to guide the development of its regional 

plan, Connections 2045. The agency assembled a group of regional stakeholder experts—a 

“Futures Group,” which included academics, economists, and major organization leaders—that 

conduct parallel work but had not previously been involved in DVRPC’s planning efforts. The 

Group went through a process to identify five “Forces of Change” that were modeled over a 30-

year horizon. These forces were enduring urbanism, the free agent economy, severe climate, 

transportation on demand, and the US energy boom. The impacts and challenges that arose under 

different scenarios led to the identification of potential action steps the agency could take to 

position itself more strategically to confront the challenges. The agency used Impacts 2050, a 

sociodemographic system dynamics model (from the NCHRP 750 report series) and Rapid 

Policy Analysis Tool (RPAT). The agency published a Future of Scenario Planning White Paper

to summarize its previous and current scenario planning work. 
38

MID-REGION COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

Through the Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario Planning Project (CCSP), Mid-Region 

Council of Governments (MRCOG), which serves the Albuquerque region, analyzed transportation 

and land use scenarios to determine how best to manage congestion, reduce emissions, and adapt to 

the potential impacts of climate change. MRCOG analyzed the performance of three scenarios—

trend, preferred, and constrained—with respect to a set of six potential future climate-related 

challenges to understand the region’s susceptibility to hazards such as droughts, wildfires, and 

flooding. Agency staff used MRCOG’s four-step travel demand model and the UrbanSim land use 

model to analyze the three scenarios. As the chart below shows, the preferred scenario outperformed 

the others on most of the climate-related measures. Although the agency ultimately adopted the Trend 

scenario, as it reflected existing local plans, the MRCOG policy board adopted the preferred scenario 

as a policy vision toward which it would continue to work. The goals in the Metropolitan 

Transportation Plan are aligned with this preferred scenario. MRCOG is currently working with local 

agencies on tasks that would support the implementation of the preferred scenario.

MRCOG modified its Project Prioritization Process to reflect the preferred scenario-based policy

vision; project selection criteria that support the preferred scenario are used as part of the TIP 

development.

*Note: The above graph shows the percent change by 2040 from 2012 for each scenario. The data 

were based on an interim dataset and slightly differ from data contained in the approved plan. 

Source: Mid-Region Council of Governments
39

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE SCENARIOS 

One of the key values of scenario planning in supporting a performance-based planning approach 

is that it allows decisionmakers to understand alternative approaches to achieving their 

performance targets and optimize the use of limited transportation funds. Consequently, 

transportation agencies analyzing system performance scenarios should consider a scenario that, 

to the maximum extent practicable, maintains baseline conditions for performance associated 

with the national performance measures, and at least one scenario that improves the baseline 

conditions for as many of the national performance measures as possible. 

GAINESVILLE METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION PLANNING 

ORGANIZATION: PEAK OIL ANALYSIS

For its 2035 long range transportation plan, the Gainesville MTPO developed and analyzed four 

mode-based scenarios: 

 BRT Emphasis

 Highway Emphasis

 Streetcar Emphasis

 Hybrid

The MPO then developed a baseline scenario and ran each modal scenario through the agency’s 

travel demand model, using a single set of land use patterns based on the adopted local 

government comprehensive plans. Gainesville MTPO evaluated each scenario based on its 

projected impact on vehicle travel, congestion, delay, growth patterns, and mode shares (transit, 

bike and pedestrian, auto)—the same performance measures tied to goals in the plan and on 

which the agency tracks performance.

The agency also considered the performance of each scenario under a potential future condition 

of “peak oil,” which would represent a future in which peak global oil production occurred in 

2010, after which point oil would become less available and more expensive. To incorporate peak 

oil into the different scenarios, the agency adjusted its travel demand model to account for how 

rising fuel prices would influence travel demand. The analysis assumed that rising fuel prices 

would lead to reduced single occupancy vehicle miles traveled. The findings from this analysis 

indicate that, under peak oil conditions, the region would need to prioritize energy-efficient travel 

modes. When applied to the different scenarios, peak oil would likely reduce vehicle miles 

traveled by 18 percent compared to the base scenario. Additionally, peak oil would likely reduce 

vehicle hours traveled by 33 to 35 percent compared to the baseline. Ultimately, the MPO used a 

hybrid scenario to develop its 2035 Needs Plan based on an improved understanding of the likely 

implications of this scenario under a peak oil future.

Source: Gainesville Metropolitan Transportation Planning Organization
40

As noted earlier, Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) used a scenario 

planning approach to analyze different investment scenarios in support of its 2035 regional 

transportation plan. Each scenario was defined based on percentages of funding being allocated 

toward different program areas (transit, pavement, bridge, expansion, safety, and nonmotorized). 

One of the four themed scenarios was focused on “Maximize Performance” and was designed to 

optimize performance across each program area. SEMCOG also developed “investment versus 

performance” graphics that illustrated how current prioritization differed from the public’s 

preference for goal prioritization, helping to facilitate discussions about future investments. The 

figure below shows baseline (2010) performance in key program areas, targets for 2030 

performance under each scenario, and the funding split associated with achieving those targets. 

A key step in SEMCOG’s approach was to examine the relationship between investment levels 

and performance. 

SEMCOG continues to monitor how funding in the region is invested across the various program 

areas, but primarily focuses on system performance as it relates to progress toward the vision for 

the region. On its website, the MPO tracks progress toward a set of comprehensive performance 

measures for the region, which include transportation indicators related to road and bridge 

conditions, fatalities and serious injuries in vehicular crashes, transit ridership, and air quality. 

Figure 3-6: SEMCOG Scenario Analysis 

Source: SEMCOG

Another example of this approach was applied by the Colorado Department of Transportation 

(CDOT) in its 2035 Statewide Transportation Plan during the analysis phase of its planning 

process. The statewide plan addresses the funding-performance link by analyzing three 

investment scenarios, each of which forecasted anticipated performance-based on investment 

levels. For example, CDOT estimates that under the forecasted revenue scenario, pavement 

condition will deteriorate significantly (25 percent of roads in good/fair condition) and that 

congestion will increase to 70 minutes of delay per traveler. CDOT developed scenarios for the 

“cost to sustain current performance” and the “cost to accomplish vision” in the plan. This 
41

information was valuable to make clear to decisionmakers how funding shortfalls would affect 

system performance. 

Figure 3-7: CDOT Analysis of Cost to Sustain Current Performance 

Source: Colorado DOT

The Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission (DVRPC) combined the information 

collected from multiple rounds of scenario planning into an online tool called Choices and 

Voices, which engaged stakeholders and the public in the analysis of fiscally-constrained system 

performance scenarios. The tool is interactive and enables users to identify their preferred 

transportation focus (e.g., emphasis on roadways or on new modal choices) and preferred 

housing/land use development types for the region. It also gives users the option to identify the 

condition of different components of the transportation system they would prefer to have the 

region maintain and then see the cost associated with different levels of investment. By adjusting 

their preferences with respect to a variety of investment types and levels, and identifying specific 

transit projects to support, users can see the anticipated impacts on budget and performance. 

Regarding performance, users can see the expected outcomes on the following measures: acres 

of land developed; VMT; biking, walking and transit trips; transportation and energy costs; hours 

of congestion, greenhouse gas emissions; and roadway fatalities. The exercise requires achieving 

a balanced budget before submitting the vision, which forces users to comprehend and make 

difficult trade-offs that resemble those that must be made by agencies like DVRPC. This allows 
42

users to see the corresponding performance results. The tool links to social media, so users can 

publicly share their visions with those in their social networks. 

Figure 3-8: DVRPC Choices and Voices Interactive Tool 

Source: DVRPC 

FUNDING SCENARIOS 

Although MPO plans must be fiscally constrained, and State long range transportation plans 

should be built with recognition of expected available funding, scenarios also can be developed 

to explore the impacts of different levels of transportation funding on system performance. In 

some cases, scenarios can be developed for issues associated with specific transportation 

parameters or goal areas. For example, an agency might decide to compare the impacts of 

different highway maintenance funding levels on pavement quality. Tools can be used to predict 

pavement condition associated with different amounts of investment, as it reflects different 

amounts of resurfacing, repair, and rehabilitation. 
43

An agency can also use different funding scenarios to assess performance across multiple 

outcomes during the analysis phase of PBPP. The Hillsborough County MPO in Florida offers 

an example of this approach. In designing its 2040 long range plan, the MPO examined how low, 

medium, and high levels of financial investment would affect system performance for several 

key measures, including: 

► Pavement preservation 

► Highway congestion 

► Transit vehicle fleet age 

► Transit level of service 

► Pedestrian and bicycle level of service 

► Vehicle, bicycle, and pedestrian crashes 

The levels of investment approach shows the low level of investment represents the recent trend 

extended into the future. The medium and high investment levels represent scenarios in which 

more funding is directed to the priority. The Hillsborough County MPO took this approach a step 

farther by quantifying what level of performance would be possible under different levels of 

overall funding. The MPO demonstrated that a new sales tax for transportation would enable it to 

invest in these categories at higher levels and could demonstrate just how much the additional 

investment would benefit the transportation system. 
44

OREGON DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION – STATEWIDE 

INTEGRATED MODEL 

To create the 2006 Oregon Transportation Plan, the Oregon Department of Transportation 

(ODOT) developed an integrated model to better understand the impact of policy changes on 

the State’s transportation system during the analysis phase of PBPP. The model was used to 

analyze seven different scenarios:

 Reference scenario (baseline) – Assumes funding levels that allow the State to maintain 

current (year 2006) purchasing power through 2030

 High fuel price scenario (sensitivity to external changes) – Assumes major increases in 

fuel prices during the plan period

 Relaxed land use scenario (sensitivity to external changes) – Assumes increased land 

availability in rural areas and the urban fringe

 Flat funding scenario (policy) – Assumes declining purchasing power due to inflation

 Maximum operations scenario (policy) – Assumes operational improvements rather 

than capacity expansion

 Major improvements scenario (policy) – Assumes additional funding to meet the needs 

for all transportation modes; evaluates the impacts of projects included in MPO plans

 Roadway pricing scenario (policy) – Evaluates the impacts of road pricing scenarios

These scenarios were evaluated according to eight broad topics that correlate with the Oregon 

Transportation Plan’s Vision statement. These topics include mobility and accessibility,

economic vitality, effectiveness and efficiency, equity, public support for the system and 

financial feasibility, reliable and responsive, safety, and sustainability. ODOT developed 

specific performance measures for each topic to conduct the scenario analysis. 

The scenario planning process allowed ODOT to better understand the implications of its 

potential changes to its policy direction, and as a result, informed the agency’s decision to 

reinforce its “Fix It First” approach as an investment strategy across all modes. 

Source: Oregon DOT
45

 

INCORPORATING EQUITY INTO SCENARIO PLANNING

Concern over equity has long been prevalent in planning, with the issue garnering increased 

attention in the past decade. Despite equity being a key concern for most planners, incorporating it

into the analysis phase of scenario planning continues to be challenging, in part due to tool and data 

limitations. Advances in GIS technologies have made analyses of equity considerably easier in 

recent years and methodologies continue to burgeon. Primary challenges to incorporating equity into 

scenario planning relate to spatial modeling limitations, knowledge limitations, conceptual 

limitations, resource limitations, and lack of political traction. 

As technology advances and the industry continues to place issues of equity at the forefront of 

planning processes, equity will more easily find its place in scenario planning. As described in 

resources such as the FHWA Environmental Justice Resource Guide, techniques such as the 

following can help incorporate equity analyses into planning processes:

 Bringing equity leaders into the conversation at the very beginning of the process; 

 Including analyses that look beyond traditional land use and transportation models within 

scenario development and evaluation;

 Creating engagement mechanisms that balance the need for storytelling, shared learning, and 

problem solving;

 Paying attention to the implied versus actual influence participants have over the decisions 

and eventual outcomes of the process; and

 Using data and analysis as the starting point, rather than as a conclusory piece, in discussions 

about equity issues.

MPOs are using these methods to improve the incorporation of equity analyses into planning. For 

example, in developing Plan Bay Area, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)

created a Regional Equity Working Group. Composed of stakeholders representing equity interests 

from the nonprofit, public, and private sectors, the working group assisted MTC in developing and 

evaluating scenarios. 

Expanded GIS technologies have also enabled analyses that look beyond land use and 

transportation. A key example is Opportunity Mapping, in which planners geographically overlay 

social factors to understand where residents lack social capital. These maps allow planners to assess 

current conditions and use the information to shape scenarios. The Baltimore Metropolitan 

Council (BMC) developed a series of Opportunity Maps and an index with six categories 

(Education, Housing and Neighborhood Quality, Social Capital, Public Health and Safety, 

Employment and Workforce, and Transportation and Mobility), each with sub-categories. Each 

category was mapped individually and as a composite to provide a picture of opportunity in the 

region. BMC’s analysis illustrated the geographical connections between a variety of social factors, 

which provides a clearer picture of advantages and disadvantages. The exercise also helped BMC 

understand the relationships between different indicators, which are key for understanding 

disadvantage. Continued effort in research and the development of comprehensive models will allow 

equity concerns to be placed at the forefront of performance-based planning and scenario planning 

processes.

Source: Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Baltimore Metropolitan Council; University of 

Maryland
46

Programming: Investments, Priorities, and Resources 

The programming phase of PBPP is where agencies, officials, and the public must consider the 

realities of funding rules, project readiness, fiscal constraints, and political considerations to

make difficult decisions about which investments are the “best bet” for achieving desired 

performance levels. Programming is essentially the process of slotting projects into certain 

funding programs and scheduling project funding. The process is often quite complicated, given 

the variety of restrictions and directives associated with the blend of Federal, State, regional, 

local, or other funding sources that support a multimodal transportation program. 

Regardless of the numbers and types of funding sources, however, the projects listed in the 

metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and the State TIP (STIP) should flow 

logically from the goals, objectives, projects, and priorities established in the transportation plan. 

Scenario planning that influences the development of a vision, goals, performance measures, or 

preferred strategies can add value to the programming process. 

Using Scenario Planning Metrics to Inform Programming Decisions 

The programming process typically has two 

components: identifying project prioritization and 

selection criteria, and evaluating proposed 

projects against the criteria to establish a priority 

list of projects for funding in the TIP/STIP. At 

this stage, reflecting the vision or preferred 

scenario developed in earlier PBPP stages is 

important to remind decisionmakers and the 

public what the region is working toward. Losing 

sight of the desired future is easy when one is 

focused on more immediate challenges. 

A scenario planning process should inform the 

development of policies and plan 

recommendations and performance target setting. 

An MPO or other regional agency could have 

designed the performance metrics and scenarios 

with substantial public input, but the trust and 

buy-in emanating from a successful scenario 

planning initiative can quickly erode if the results 

are not incorporated visibly and meaningfully 

into plans and programs. To ensure a robust and 

credible PBPP process, transportation agencies 

need to connect the vision to institutionalized 

decisionmaking elements such as the project 

selection criteria and other prioritization methods used in transportation programming. 

One of the hallmarks of a successful PBPP process is a transparent, technically sound 

relationship between the goals established in the long range plan and the funding allocated 

through the transportation improvement program. TIP project selection criteria and prioritization 

"Transportation scenario planning 

has been happening in Utah between 

UDOT, UTA and the MPOs for over a 

decade now. The results are evident in 

the development of dozens of multimodal projects, which evolved over 

the course of a decade of joint 

planning among a variety of 

stakeholders. A robust analysis of six 

scenarios led to the final decision to 

move forward with the University 

Light Rail project. Each of the 

scenarios reflected consideration of a 

series of factors, including the impact 

the Light Rail line would have as part 

of a unified transportation system 

over the next 20-30 years.”

- G.J. LaBonty, Utah Transit 

Authority
47

processes, therefore, should clearly reflect the goals, policies, performance measures, and targets 

established in the direction-setting and analysis phases of PBPP. Anticipating this need, planners 

should consider the following points when designing a scenario planning process to support the 

development of a long range plan and/or a funding program: 

► The results of a scenario planning exercise are unlikely to have a significant influence on 

funding decisions unless the process includes a focused implementation strategy for 

applying those results to the project prioritization and selection process. Planners should 

“start with the end in mind” when designing a scenario planning exercise by considering 

the ways in which the outcomes can be reflected in decisions made throughout the entire 

PBPP process. 

► The project selection process is guided by the long range plan but is also subject to 

external rules and constraints of funding programs. When conducting a scenario planning 

process, transportation planners should be upfront with stakeholders and the public about 

the types of investments that their agencies can support, and work with partner agencies 

to identify and coordinate funding for strategies that could strengthen the impact of 

infrastructure investments, such as programs to improve public health, community 

development, and quality of life. 

► Transportation agencies can use scenario planning processes as an opportunity to 

improve the ways in which they incorporate equity and environmental justice issues into 

long range plans and funding decisions. This can be done by developing performance 

metrics and conducting analyses of issues associated with topics such as neighborhood 

access to jobs and essential services, housing and transportation costs compared to 

income levels, and other indicators that can be affected by transportation investments. 

The funding streams involved in the programming process reflect a legacy of transportation 

programs that emphasize transportation system performance. Priorities emerging from scenario 

planning processes that support broader community objectives, such as livability of 

communities, integration of transportation and land use, and environmental quality might not 

align with traditional interpretations of funding eligibility and purpose. More effort could be 

required to quantify impacts in new and different ways during the project selection process to 

reflect these values. 

Although, some, including Federal, funding programs have become increasingly flexible over the 

past few years, a community could still have needs that do not align well with available funding 

restrictions. One solution might be to carve out subsets within specific funding sources (such as 

Surface Transportation Program (STP) funds) to directly support local projects that further the 

community’s vision. Atlanta Regional Commission’s Livable Centers Initiative is a good 

example. Started in 1999, the Initiative was designed to encourage planning and implementation 

of its livability principles on the ground in local communities. The initiative provides funds to 

local governments to develop plans for “livable centers”—areas in which development that 

occurs is consistent with the regional vision and policies—and then provides an incentive in the 

form of implementation dollars. 
48

Analyzing Alternative Project Investment Scenarios 

Scenario planning can be used within the programming and project selection process to explore 

how best to achieve given priorities under several different project funding scenarios, such as 

different packages of investments or schedules for project implementation. This analysis could 

reveal a gap between new high priority projects identified in the scenario process and the 

constraints of available funding sources. Due to the rules associated with various project costs or 

types, lower-priority projects might better qualify for available funds. Scenario planning could 

help planners identify additional funding criteria considerations or other changes in the 

decisionmaking framework that would ensure better continuity between the vision and the 

programming phase. 

Scenario planning can also be used to explore and test the resiliency of proposed projects to 

potential impacts of external forces. Researchers at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology 

followed a traditional scenario methodology in examining uncertain future changes for a freight 

planning scenario framework that has been used to test selected projects. Similar to approaches 

used in planning analysis, the approach suggests: 

► Creating three very different scenarios that describe what the future might look like. 

These are based on macroeconomic conditions. 

► Evaluating proposed projects under each of the scenarios. The evaluation is qualitative, 

but is used to determine whether a project makes sense in each of three or more vastly 

different futures. 

► Prioritizing the projects that make sense under many different future conditions compared 

to those that work within fewer or no scenarios. 

Given the iterative nature of scenario planning, a scenario analysis exercise in the programming 

phase of PBPP could trigger the need to reconsider decisions made during earlier phases. A

scenario planning exercise that bridges the analysis and programming phases might generate new 

information that could lead to modifications of previously identified strategies, packages of 

projects, or balances struck between the various priorities (e.g., reducing congestion vs. 

improving safety) competing for resources. Scenario planning, like other planning processes, is 

most valuable when tested or fine-tuned multiple times to account for new information or 

changes in conditions. 

Implementation: Monitoring, Evaluation, and Reporting 

The final step in PBPP is implementation, which involves monitoring system performance, 

evaluating the impacts of investments, and reporting progress toward achieving long range goals 

and performance targets.6 Scenario planning is not typically applied during this phase of PBPP, 

but the work conducted in scenario planning during previous phases should be very clearly 

reflected in the performance measures used for monitoring, evaluation, and reporting. As the 

saying goes, “If it isn’t measured, it doesn’t count.” The challenge to transportation agencies is to 

develop and track a full array of decisionmaking, evaluation, and reporting measures that 

 

6

 The FHWA PBPP Guidebook discusses each of these aspects of the implementation phase, and their distinguishing 

features, in more depth. 
49

meaningfully reflect their vision and goals. Scenario planning processes often require agencies to 

develop new metrics to address broader concerns. Incorporating those metrics into the final 

stages of PBPP—as is, or modified—ensures that the agency reaps the full value of its 

investment in a scenario planning process. Using tools like the online Chicago Metropolitan 

Agency for Planning “dashboard” profiled below can help agencies demonstrate to the public 

that their vision and concerns are reflected in the agency’s ongoing monitoring and evaluation 

process. 

The process of monitoring, evaluation, and reporting on performance provides an opportunity to 

monitor the outcomes of the plan implementation process, both in terms of system performance 

and broader goals and desired outcomes; to reflect on the usefulness of the tools and accuracy of 

the assumptions used in scenario planning over time (e.g., to inform possible model 

modifications or assumptions); and to provide information to the public, decisionmakers, and 

stakeholders regarding performance—in general and vis-à-vis trends analyzed in scenario 

planning. When designing reports and monitoring systems, agencies should consider questions 

such as the following: 

1. What performance results have been accomplished? 

2. Is the vision being implemented? 

3. Did the outcome of the implementation strategy provide the expected level of 

performance improvement (e.g., safety improvements, reduction in fatalities, and serious 

injuries)? 

4. How is progress supporting the vision? How are we balancing multiple desired 

outcomes? 

5. If performance has not improved as expected or projected, what factors might be 

influencing this outcome, and what can be done to mitigate them? 

Agencies that have conducted multiple scenario planning iterations can use the monitoring phase 

to consider lessons learned and to improve the scope of future planning exercises. For example, 

an MPO that is implementing the major projects from the long range plan can use this final 

PBPP phase to examine how the actual results of the investment compare to those that were 

envisioned or predicted. The assessment might reveal a need to adjust assumptions or add 

variables to future analyses of similar projects or strategies. Agencies can use this phase to 

consider questions such as the following: Did our models produce forecasts that were relatively 

accurate? Were our assumptions accurate? Were the methods appropriate? The implementation 

phase is critical for maximizing the value of future scenario planning exercises. 

Transportation agencies can also continue to monitor and respond to changes in the driving 

forces that were assumed in exploratory scenarios. For instance, although peak oil and high fuel 

prices were a common concern several years ago, increased domestic energy production and 

other global factors affecting oil prices have changed some of that thinking, and new or revised

scenarios for the future might be considered. Meanwhile, the introduction of autonomous 

connected vehicles into the mainstream marketplace could happen much faster than expected. As 

factors like these evolve, previously developed scenarios, plans, and priorities might need to be 

revisited. 
50

 

CHICAGO METROPOLITAN AGENCY FOR PLANNING

To develop its GO TO 2040 Plan, the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning (CMAP)

undertook an extensive scenario planning exercise, in which the agency received feedback from 

stakeholder groups and residents regarding several future scenarios. By using interactive online 

tools that used MetroQuest’s “Invent the Future” public engagement software, and through public 

meetings, the agency gathered input from 35,000 residents. The input emphasized the need for a 

scenario in which the agency focuses on maintaining the existing system and making 

improvements to improve the system’s efficiency. The agency used the public’s input to develop 

the preferred Regional Scenario, which includes a combination of actions that will best prepare 

the region to achieve its goals for 2040. The analysis, in which the agency compared the preferred 

scenario to current performance and a reference scenario based on expected trends, went beyond 

the broad goal statements of the Regional Vision to identify the best courses of action to reach the 

public’s goals.

One of the goals of the GO TO 2040 plan is to “track [the] region’s performance to assess where 

to make improvement to reach the desired future.” CMAP and the Chicago Community Trust 

(CCT) developed and now maintain the website, MetroPulse, to monitor the region’s performance 

toward implementing Go TO 2040 plan, which will support implementation-oriented analyses to 

inform subsequent scenario planning cycles. MetroPulse is an online dashboard that tracks select 

indicators—including measures related to regional mobility—to provide information to the public 

and decision makers. 

Sources: CMAP; CMAP MetroPulse
51

Performance-Based Scenario Planning Tools 

Please note: FHWA does not endorse the use of any specific private sector tools or models 

identified in this section. The purpose of this section is solely to provide information about the 

capabilities and relevant uses of available tools. 

A rich suite of tools is available to support scenario planning for PBPP. The selection of the right 

tools should take into account the different phases (direction, analysis, programming, and 

implementation) of the PBPP process; key driving issues and related performance metrics; public 

outreach and engagement goals; technical capacity; and resource needs. The case studies and 

examples described throughout this guidebook demonstrate that most transportation agencies 

engaged in scenario planning use a combination of visualization, forecasting, impact analyses, 

process-oriented, and community outreach tools to help them transition from the broad, policylevel strategic direction-setting to more detailed impact analyses in the analysis and 

programming stages. 

Given the nature of many scenario planning exercises as robust processes of stakeholder and 

community engagement, tools are available to help design effective outreach and decisionmaking 

processes. Tools also have been designed specifically that create user-friendly, web-based 

interfaces to inform and engage the public in goal identification, scenario tradeoffs 

considerations, and provide input on preferences for how different scenarios perform. Traditional 

public outreach methods and tools (e.g., surveys, public meetings and forums, stakeholder 

groups) can also be easily adapted to support performance-based scenario planning efforts. 

In addition to community engagement tools, a host of tools has been created specifically to 

support scenario planning aimed at informing policy direction and strategic planning. Common 

features of these tools include the ability to visualize and analyze scenarios geographically that 

have different development and land use policy assumptions that are influenced by or influence 

travel demand and travel behavior. These tools can be very helpful in clarifying comprehensive 

land use and transportation policy direction and incorporating cross-agency buy-in for regional 

performance metrics across different community sectors (e.g., transportation, economy, 

environment, housing, equity). The development of comprehensive scenarios that evaluate 

performance against key indicators can help build community buy-in for transportation system 

performance, land use and development goals, environmental outcomes, and cost benefit 

considerations. The analysis of scenarios against key indicators during the direction-setting phase 

can help inform the creation of specific performance measures and targets in the project 

programming and implementation phases for both transportation and non-transportation factors. 

Tools that support building consensus on policy direction are typically supplemented at later 

phases with tools that support the identification of specific programmatic or project needs and 

evaluate those specific projects against environmental, financial, or other transportation 

performance measures. Many of the more detailed project needs and impact evaluation tools are 

also designed to focus on specific modes (e.g., highways, transit, ITS) or issues (e.g., air quality, 

safety, benefit costs). The use of these project-oriented tools enables a finer level of analysis to 

evaluate specific projects against key performance metrics and can help establish project and 

program priorities, performance targets and monitoring mechanisms. 
52

While a broad suite of off-the-shelf tools is 

ready for supporting scenario planning for 

PBPP, methods and tools are continuously 

evolving. As scenario planning processes 

become more common in addressing future 

uncertainties or developing new performance 

measures, often a need develops to creatively 

adapt existing tools and methods or create new 

ones. This includes developing new 

assumptions about how different future 

conditions will influence travel demand and 

travel behavior, safety or operations. It can also 

involve creating new methods or assumptions 

within existing analytical tools to evaluate 

transportation system resiliency or 

transportation system performance in light of 

uncertain futures relative to climate change, 

global economic factors, fiscal uncertainty, or 

predominance of automated vehicles. Finally, a 

host of new tools and methods is emerging to 

better identify multimodal and active 

transportation (biking, walking, and transit) 

system needs and performance measures. 

The following tables summarize different types 

of tools that might be helpful in supporting 

scenario planning for performance-based 

planning at the policy or project and 

programming phases. This list of tools is not 

comprehensive, but rather a sampling to 

illustrate types of tools and how they can 

produce useful synergies between scenario planning and PBPP. A more detailed list of relevant 

tools is included in Appendix B. 

► Engagement and collaboration tools 

► Performance measure development tools 

► Direction-setting tools 

► Performance evaluation tools 

ENGAGEMENT AND COLLABORATION TOOLS 

The tools in this category can aid planners in helping scope their scenario planning and 

performance-based planning and programming process to engage key stakeholders, the public, 

and decisionmakers to ensure diverse participation and integration across different sectors. Some 

of the tools in this category are specifically designed to make it easy for the public to understand 

tradeoffs among alternative scenarios and to voice their preferences. 

METRO OF OREGON: 

METROSCOPE 

Some agencies have combined models that allow 

them flexibility to simulate various trends and 

policies in ways that are readily accessible to staff 

for scenario work. Metro, the MPO for the 

Portland, Oregon region, developed a set of 

decision support tools dubbed Metroscope. The 

tools include an economic model that predicts 

region-wide employment and households, a travel 

model that converts travel time by mode to 

comparable costs by mode, and two real estate 

models that predict the locations of households 

and employment respectively, plus related 

attributes like land consumed and prices. The land 

use forecasts created by Metroscope are adjusted 

to reflect local planning efforts and undergo a 

rigorous review process by local governments and 

the Metro Council. Metroscope is an integral tool 

that Metro uses to help inform regular decisions 

on whether to expand the Urban Growth 

Boundary, as well as providing land use 

assumptions that inform Regional Transportation 

Plan modeling. This multi-model approach 

represents an alternative to the use of sketch tools 

that produces robust results. 

Source: Metro
53

Tool Relevance to Scenario Planning and 

PBPP

PlanWorks: Publicly available web-based tool 

provides a plethora of resources to help transportation 

professionals to anticipate, plan, and execute 

collaborative techniques at 44 distinct decision points in 

long-range planning, programming, corridor planning, 

and environmental review. Relevant applications: 

Stakeholder Collaboration, and Visioning

Useful for designing an engagement 

plan for a scenario planning project and 

for anticipating and addressing common 

problems with engaging stakeholders at 

any stage of PBPP. 

CrowdGauge: Open-source online tool for designing 

educational/ gaming exercises that walk participants 

through a series of screens exploring their personal 

priorities for their community, the potential impacts of 

proposed plan elements on their priorities, and the 

impacts of their conceptual budget choices on their 

previously stated priorities.

Useful in assessing public preferences 

related to planning and programming 

scenarios or decisions. 

EngagingPlans: Proprietary web based, mobileenabled suite of tools designed to reach, inform, and 

involve citizens and stakeholders in public projects and 

decisionmaking. The EngageApps module enables 

participants to collaboratively map insights, visualize 

impacts, or explore and react to plan elements through 

collaborative mapping, interactive workbooks, and 

trade-off simulators.

Users can customize the modules to 

engage the public and collaborate with 

stakeholders at many stages of the 

PBPP process. EngageApps provides

some basic collaborating scenario 

building tools. 

MetroQuest: Proprietary public participation platform 

that allows input in many ways including ranking, 

mapping, budget allocation, project selection, and visual 

preference surveys.

Useful at all stages of scenario planning 

and PBPP. Can be used to understand 

preferences or to gain input on specific 

projects, which is useful in the 

programming stage. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT TOOLS 

This set of tools can help transportation agencies identify a range of performance metrics and 

targets beyond traditional transportation measures. The tools can be incorporated into the 

scenario evaluations and help transportation practitioners better align performance and 

programming decisions with community goals. Many of the performance measures identified in 

these tools are reflected in the previously noted scenario planning tools. 

Tool Relevance to Scenario Planning 

and PBPP

PlanWorks: Relevant applications: Performance 

Measurement

Useful for identifying performance 

measures for any stage of PBPP or

scenario planning
54

Tool Relevance to Scenario Planning 

and PBPP

Community Vision Metrics: Provides a list of 

performance measures that planners can use to match with 

their respective context and goals.

Useful for identifying performance 

measures for any stage of PBPP or 

scenario planning

Sustainable Communities Index: Similar to Community 

Vision Metrics, but this tool provides more robust 

information on methods for calculating the metrics and 

identifying data resources.

Useful for identifying performance 

measures for any stage of PBPP or 

scenario planning

Transportation and Health Tool: Tool for examining the 

health impacts of transportation systems; uses 14 indicators 

relating to transportation and public health, with data 

available at the State, MSA, and urbanized area-levels.

Useful for identifying health-related 

performance measures for any stage 

of PBPP or scenario planning

DIRECTION-SETTING TOOLS 

The past decade has witnessed a great proliferation of computer-based tools to aid in scenario 

development. The spectrum ranges from complex, high-computing, multivariate models to 

simplified spreadsheet or sketch-planning based tools. These tools are designed to support the 

creation of plausible future conditions and quantitatively assess those conditions against key 

indicators. Many of these tools can not only generate visualizations representative of 

geographically based future conditions, but they also include the ability to predict scenario 

performance against a wealth of key indicators beyond traditional transportation metrics. Tools 

that incorporate predictive capabilities often incorporate research on travel behavior dynamics 

that can be applied over long-range planning horizons. Predictive tools developed based on 

empirical data from national data (e.g. RPAT, EERPAT) can be run quickly, while more detailed 

models (Urbanism) will require more effort to develop and often require specialized travel 

survey data. 

The tools in this category are designed to create and analyze integrated scenarios of the future 

that reflect the interrelated nature of different transportation, development, infrastructure and 

environmental policies and conditions. When combined with the use of travel demand models or 

other enhanced transportation needs identification and assessment (performance evaluation) 

tools, these direction-setting tools can be very effective in helping set policies, identify 

performance metrics, and determine investments that could achieve desired performance 

outcomes. 

These tools are categorized as follows: 

► Visualization: The primary function of these tools is to visualize relationships among key 

variables that influence travel choices. The user will typically have the opportunity to 

make adjustments to input scenarios that can be quickly visualized in a GIS interface. 

► Predictive: These tools are capable of producing a “forecast” of travel behavior and 

choices for a future year, under a range of condition and input assumptions. These tools 

operate and function more like models by explicitly representing households or firms. 
55

► Analytical: These tools typically estimate changes in travel by applying factors generated 

from empirical research. Many analytical tools are supported by spreadsheet-based 

equations. 

Tool Sample Performance Metrics Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

PlanWorks: Relevant 

application: Visioning

[Visualization]

Stakeholder engagement

Agency collaboration

Environmental, Economic, and 

Community Considerations

Useful at the direction-setting 

and analysis phases of 

scenario planning or PBPP to 

identify opportunities for 

engagement and integration 

of goals, objectives, and 

measures across PBPP 

process. 

Envision Tomorrow: A 

web-based multifaceted 

analysis and visualization

scenario planning tool that 

can be used at the site, 

corridor, or regional scale. 

Scenario comparisons can 

help guide identification of 

specific project needs, 

produce small-area concept 

plans, and model complex 

regional issues.

[Analytical]

Land Development

Cost of Infrastructure 

Real Estate Value 

Housing (affordability, demand, mix)

Parking (demand, costs)

Jobs-to-Housing Ratio

Employment 

Connectivity 

Energy Use 

Carbon Emissions

Water Consumption

Solid Water/Waste Water

Return on Investment

Useful at the direction-setting 

and analysis phases of PBPP 

to identify community values 

and driving issues; develop 

and assess integrated land use 

and transportation policies 

and identify key performance 

metrics that can be folded 

into later phases of the PBPP 

process. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives
56

Tool Sample Performance Metrics Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

UrbanFootprint and 

RapidFire: Web-based and 

spreadsheet tools to develop 

integrated land use and 

transportation scenarios. 

Scenario comparisons can 

help guide identification of 

specific policy and project 

needs relative to achieving 

desired performance against 

a range of indicators.

[Predictive]

Greenhouse Gas Emissions

Air Pollution

Water and Energy Consumption

Vehicle Miles Traveled

Transit, Walk, Bike Mode share

Vehicle Emissions

Capital Infrastructure Costs

O&M/Public Works Costs

City Revenues

Household/Business Costs

Public Health Impacts

Housing Diversity & Affordability

Access to Jobs and Services

Useful at the direction-setting 

and analysis phases of PBPP 

to identify community values 

and driving issues; develop 

and assess integrated land use 

and transportation policies 

against key performance 

metrics that can be folded 

into later phases of the PBPP 

process. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives

UrbanSim: A modeling tool 

that predicts behavior or 

interaction within a network 

or system to help illustrate 

the cause and effect of 

different scenario variables 

relative to environmental, 

transportation, economic and 

development goals

[Visualization]

Accessibility

Mode share 

VMT

Congestion

GHG emissions

Jobs

Land Development 

Demographics

Useful in direction-setting 

phase when to better 

understand issues and 

opportunities of different land 

use, real estate, housing and 

transportation investments or 

policies. Key metrics can be 

incorporated into later phases 

of PBPP. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives
57

Tool Sample Performance Metrics Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

CommunityViz: A land use 

scenario sketch-planning 

tool, often used to develop, 

portray, and evaluate 

different scenarios at the 

small area and regional 

scales across a range of 

performance indicators

[Visualization]

Annual CO, CO2 & NOx Auto 

Emissions

Annual Hydrocarbon Auto Emissions

Commercial Energy Use

Commercial Floor Area

Commercial Jobs

Commercial Jobs to Housing Ratio

Labor Force

Population

Residential Dwelling Units

Residential Energy Use

Residential Water Use

School Children

Vehicle Trips per Day

Useful in direction-setting 

phase when to better 

understand issues and 

opportunities of different land 

use and transportation 

investments or policies. Key 

metrics can be incorporated 

into later phases of PBPP. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives

Energy and Emissions 

Reduction Policy Analysis 

Tool (EERPAT): Built on 

the GreenSTEP model 

foundation, this is a policy 

analysis tool that enables 

planners quickly to evaluate 

and compare a large number 

of scenarios based on their 

effectiveness in reducing 

greenhouse gas emissions. 

Meant to aid in evaluating 

different policies.

[Predictive]

VMT

GHG emissions and fuel use by 

vehicle

Useful at the direction-setting 

and analysis phases of PBPP 

to identify promising policies 

to support GHG emission 

reduction goals. 

Informs: Policy, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives
58

Tool Sample Performance Metrics Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

Rapid Policy Assessment 

Tool (RPAT): The Rapid 

Policy Assessment Tool 

(RPAT) evaluates policy 

scenarios to identify the 

most promising sets of 

policies for improving 

multiple policy objectives. 

Currently, RPAT can 

provide information on the 

following changes in a 

regional system regarding 

changes in urban form, 

demographics, transportation 

supply, and transportation 

policies.

[Predictive]

Daily VMT; 

Daily trips by mode; 

Average travel speeds by vehicle 

type; 

Vehicle hours of delay; 

Fuel consumption;

Regional highway and transit 

infrastructure costs; 

Regional transit operating costs; 

Annual traveler cost; 

Accident rates; 

Regional accessibility; 

Job accessibility by income group

Useful at the direction-setting 

and analysis phases of PBPP 

to identify promising regional 

transportation, land-use, and 

demand management

policies. Informs: Policy, 

Performance Metric 

Identification and Objectives

Useful for identifying 

performance measures at 

regional screening level of 

PBPP

PERFORMANCE EVALUATION TOOLS 

These tools help transportation agencies identify project needs and strategies and evaluate those 

projects against a wide range of performance measures. These tools include needs identification 

tools based on specific performance targets (e.g., safety, mobility, operations, air quality, 

pavement conditions) and project analysis tools aimed at looking for specific cost-benefit 

considerations and environmental outcomes. This suite of tools can be helpful in supplementing 

the scenario planning tools described above when transitioning to the project-programming 

phase or in response to specific driving issues. These tools are best used when the directionsetting phase is complete, and more detailed analysis is desirable to prioritize specific projects 

relative to their impacts on key performance metrics. 

Tool Sample Performance 

Metrics 

Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

Safety Analyst: Automates and 

improves many of the procedures 

that transportation agencies use to 

identify safety problems and 

prioritize improvements.

Crash reduction Useful in the analysis and 

programming phases of 

PBPP.
59

Tool Sample Performance 

Metrics 

Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

Systemic Safety Project 

Selection Tool: Helps planners 

identify types of improvements 

that, through widespread 

adoption, may have a large 

benefit. Compliments Safety 

Analyst, which is more oriented 

towards identifying hot spots and 

countermeasures. 

Crash reduction by type 

and location

Safety risk factors 

identification

Countermeasure 

identification

Useful in the analysis phase to 

determine what types of 

policies or improvements may 

have the greatest effect. 

Highway Economic Analysis 

Requirements System (HERS) 

and State Version (HERS-ST):

Uses Highway Performance 

Monitoring System Data (HPMS) 

to evaluate the current and future 

performance of the highway 

system under alternative 

investment scenarios or rules. 

Model can provide cost estimates 

for achieving economically 

optimal program structures, as 

well as predict system condition 

and user cost levels resulting 

from a given level of investment.

Cost-benefit analysis based 

on travel time and safety; 

vehicle operation, 

emissions, and highway 

agency costs. 

Useful in the analysis phase—

to identify needs - and during 

the evaluation phase to 

identify the most effective 

improvements. Brings 

investment scenarios into 

these phases. 

National Bridge Investment 

Analysis System (NBIAS):

Similar to HERS, but focused on 

bridges. This tool evaluates 

bridge investment needs and 

impacts on bridges of alternative 

investment levels.

Money spent

Work performed

Backlog of needs ($, 

bridges)

User benefits (potential, 

obtained)

Distribution of deck, 

superstructure, substructure 

ratings

Structurally deficient 

bridges

Bridge health index

Useful in the analysis phase—

to identify needs - and during 

the evaluation phase to 

identify the most effective 

improvements. Brings 

investment scenarios into 

these phases.
60

Tool Sample Performance 

Metrics 

Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

Transit Economic 

Requirements Model (TERMlite): Helps local/ regional transit 

agencies assess their state of good 

repair (SGR) backlog, level of 

investments to attain SGR, and 

the impact of variations in 

funding on future asset conditions 

and investment needs. Metrics 

provide performance implications 

of alternative project priorities 

and funding levels.

Metrics associated with 

State of Good Repair 

Useful in the analysis phase—

to identify needs - and during 

the evaluation phase to 

identify the most effective 

strategies. Brings investment 

scenarios into these phases.

TREDIS: A web-based 

economic analysis system for 

regional scenario or corridor 

planning, or project level 

prioritization. It utilizes economic 

forecast methods to enable 

comparison of long-term impact 

for alternative planning and 

policy scenarios, or alternative 

mode and corridor design 

solutions. Results are summarized 

in terms performance indicators, 

societal benefit/cost and 

economic impacts.

Cost-benefit analysis (user 

and societal benefit)

Economic impact analysis 

(productivity, jobs, income, 

GDP) 

Mobility (congestion, 

speed, reliability)

Accessibility (labor, 

delivery, intermodal) 

Safety (crash reduction and 

injury/death)

Resource use (fuel 

consumption)

Environment (emissions by 

class)

Development (housing, 

commercial sq. ft.)

Financial (revenues, tolls, 

fees, transfers)

Useful in scenario planning to 

compare the cost/benefit ratio 

and economic impact of 

different packages of 

investments and policies.

Useful in the evaluation phase 

to assess alternative planning 

scenarios, in either economic 

terms or performance metric 

terms. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives
61

Tool Sample Performance 

Metrics 

Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

REMI-TransSight: A PC-based 

software system that provides 

regional forecasts of long-term 

benefits, costs and economic 

impacts. Can be used at the 

community, corridor or regional 

scale to assess alternative 

policies, plans and projects.

Cost-benefit analysis based 

on travel time, and safety; 

vehicle operation, 

emissions, and 

transportation agency 

costs. 

Economic impact analysis 

based on cost, productivity 

and competitiveness 

changes. Results in terms 

of jobs, income, GDP, 

output.

Fiscal impact in terms of 

revenues and costs to 

government

Useful in scenario planning to 

compare the cost/benefit ratio 

and economic impact of 

different packages of 

investments and policies. 

Useful in the analysis phase to 

assess alternative planning 

scenarios.

Useful in the evaluation phase 

to identify the most effective 

improvements. 

Informs: Policy, Project 

definition, and Objectives

Travel Demand Management 

(TDM) Models: Evaluate how 

TDM strategies can support 

vehicle trip reduction goals

Changes in mode share

Vehicle-trips

VMT

Average vehicle occupancy 

and ridership 

Useful in the analysis and 

programming phases of 

PBPP.

Travel Demand Models: 

Forecasts future vehicle travel &

transit ridership on regional 

highway networks. Simulates trip 

generation, distribution, mode 

choice, and route assignment 

using aggregate socio-economic 

data by travel zone. 

Trip generation 

Trip distribution 

Mode choice 

Trip assignment 

Congestion

Freight Traffic

Useful in the analysis and 

programming phases of 

PBPP. 

Simplified Trips-on-Project 

Software (STOPS): Identifies 

and evaluates transit project 

investments based on New Starts 

and Small Starts project criteria. 

Relies on census data, regional 

travel model data, and current 

GTFS data from individual metro 

areas.

Transit ridership (trips-onproject measure) for all 

travelers and for transit 

dependent

Change in automobile 

VMT based on the change 

in overall transit ridership 

between scenarios.

Useful in the analysis and 

programming phases of 

PBPP.
62

Tool Sample Performance 

Metrics 

Relevance to Scenario 

Planning and PBPP

Infrastructure Voluntary 

Evaluation Sustainability Tool 

(INVEST): Self-evaluation tool 

transportation agencies can use to 

assess performance on various 

sustainability criteria. Includes 

modules for evaluation of 

highways at the system planning 

scale, project-based evaluations, 

and maintenance and operations.

81 criteria related to 

sustainability outcomes in 

highway system planning, 

project development, 

operations and 

maintenance

Useful for the monitoring and 

evaluation phases of PBPP; 

informs Policy, Project 

Identification, Performance 

Metric Identification and 

Objectives, and Programming 

Priorities

MOVES: A modeling platform 

supported by US EPA for 

multiple scale emissions analysis, 

from detailed “project level” 

assessments to emission 

inventories at the regional or 

national level, for greenhouse 

gases, air pollutants, and air 

toxics. Useful in conducting air 

quality analysis associated with 

different policy or project 

interventions at the State, county 

or project scales.

Inventory or emission rates 

of various GHG and air 

pollutant emissions

Energy consumption 

Outputs can be 

summarized by on roadway 

facility type, vehicle type, 

etc.

Useful in the detailed analysis 

and programming phases of 

PBPP 

Tool for Operations Benefit 

Cost Analysis (TOPS-BC):

Estimates benefit to cost ratios 

for system management and 

operations strategies.

Useful in the analysis and 

programming phases of 

PBPP.
63

4. Getting Started: Designing a Scenario 

Planning Process to Support PBPP 

This chapter identifies the factors to consider and address in designing a scenario planning 

process. As scenario planning is a process that can support decisions at each phase of PBPP, such 

planning can be done in many different ways. The intent of this chapter is not to provide explicit 

direction in scoping a scenario planning process. Rather, the purpose is to help a project manager 

or a technical committee or advisory group consider the key issues that could be addressed and 

some of the practical elements involved in using scenario planning to inform PBPP. The insights 

and notes developed by working through these questions can provide useful material and 

information for subsequent activities such as estimating potential costs and needed resources, 

developing a scope of work, describing the project in a Unified Planning Work Program, and, if 

necessary, writing a Request for Proposals to elicit consultant support. 

The questions below are organized in a series of steps, starting with the most basic contextsetting step to the advanced step of preparing a scope. The questions in this chapter, and 

recommended exercises for answering them, are provided in Appendix A as a worksheet. 

Step 1: Evaluate Community Context 

1. How is your region developing? 

2. What are the major issues or drivers influencing growth and development? 

3. What are the most promising opportunities that will shape development in years to come? 

What major issues may be affecting equity in the community; assessed with a community 

profile, including the identification of populations and their characteristics, and 

identifying data sources? 

Step 2: Identify Desired Outcomes 

1. What plans are due for an update? 

2. What new plan(s) is your organization expected to develop soon? 

3. What is your agency looking to accomplish in these updates? 

4. What major trends are of greatest concern to your agency’s board?

Step 3: Identify Scenario Planning Purpose 

1. Which element(s) of your PBPP process could benefit from scenario planning and 

analysis? 

2. What issues would you like to address from previous planning processes? 

3. How could scenarios be used to improve plans and decisions?

4. How can scenarios improve the ongoing decisionmaking process? 
64

5. Are there particular trade-offs your agency would like to better illustrate for the public 

and decisionmakers? 

6. How will scenario planning help your agency define transportation performance 

measures and set targets? 

Step 4: Identify Scenario Planning/PBPP Linkages 

1. How can you apply/ build on scenario planning tools, data, and skills to support the 

ongoing PBPP process? 

2. How could the scenario tools, models, data, or inputs inform subsequent efforts such as 

corridor studies? 

3. How could you maximize the usefulness of the scenario analysis tools or data planning to 

inform other work or improve efficiencies? 

Step 5: Define Scenario Planning Approach 

1. At what point in your agency’s PBPP process will scenario planning be deployed? 

2. Do you anticipate using scenarios to identify preferred future conditions, helping to shape 

the region’s vision, principles, or goals?

3. Do you anticipate using scenarios to test different courses of action against radically 

different future conditions, helping test the validity of underlying assumptions or the 

resiliency of planned investments? 

4. Do you anticipate using scenarios to test different courses of action against relatively 

predictable future conditions, helping to hone strategies and set priorities? 

Step 6: Define Scenario Planning Engagement 

1. What information do you need from stakeholders and the public to develop scenarios and 

plans? How will you use the information and ideas that are offered? 

2. What groups or individuals have information that is necessary for crafting and analyzing 

scenarios? 

3. How can the public benefit from your approach to scenario planning? 

4. At what point will decisionmakers be involved in scenario development or evaluation? 

5. What methods will you use to engage each stakeholder group? 

6. What resources do you have or need to conduct engagement activities? 

Step 7: Define Resources for Scenario Planning Effort 

1. How much could you achieve through scenario planning with minimal data and analysis 

tools? 

2. What data are needed to support your preferred scenario planning approach? 
65

3. What data are available? 

4. What tools are available to conduct scenario planning and analysis? 

5. What are the strengths and weaknesses of existing tools? 

6. What do you want to analyze, but cannot with existing tools? 

7. What other tools could help close the gaps between what you’d like to do and what you 

can do? 

8. What are your priorities for purchasing data (if your budget will allow this?) 

9. If you purchase data, will you have resources to purchase subsequent releases of the data? 

10. If you can obtain desired data and tools, can scenario planning still provide value? 

11. What is staff’s level of experience with scenario planning?

12. What outside resources are available (e.g., universities, Federal agencies, foundations, 

civic groups)? 

Step 8: Prepare Scope for Scenario Planning Effort 

1. Will the entire scenario planning process be conducted in-house, or will consultants be 

hired to assist? 

2. What can you budget for the scenario planning project? 

3. Who needs to be involved in the scoping process? 

4. How much do you and your board know about other existing plans affecting the growth 

and development of your region? 

5. What specific questions, processes, and outcomes will this scenario planning effort 

address? 

6. How do you plan to consult with other agencies and stakeholders in your region? 

7. How will you ensure the public understands the purpose of the processes and has 

reasonable expectations of the results? 

8. How will you communicate the scenarios and results of the analysis to stakeholders and 

the public? 

9. How will you provide access to the scenarios and data for decisionmaking? 

10. Will the scenarios continue to be used over time, creating a need for data and tool 

support? 
66

5. Keys to Success 

As the practice of scenario planning has evolved to consider and address increasingly complex 

questions, the usefulness of scenario planning as a tool to address transportation agencies’ most 

pressing issues and challenges is greater than ever. With limited resources, agencies need to 

ensure they are maximizing the value of their investment in a scenario planning exercise. As this 

guidebook discusses, a scenario planning exercise is most valuable when it is shaped to 

substantively inform and link the agency’s entire PBPP process. Specifically, this means that the 

metrics, data, and outcomes of an agency-sponsored scenario planning process are visibly 

reflected in adopted plans, performance measures and targets, programming decisions, project 

prioritization and selection criteria, and ongoing monitoring, evaluation and reporting activities. 

This guidebook identifies several illustrative examples, tips, and tools for achieving the most 

from a scenario planning process. Four key recommendations that represent the themes and 

lessons learned from the practitioners profiled throughout this guidebook are discussed below. 

Strengthen Connections between Scenario Planning and 

PBPP 

Scenario planning is most beneficial to an agency when it is conducted as a key informative 

component of a larger PBPP process. The following are a few steps that can be taken to improve 

connections between scenario planning and PBPP. 

► Carefully consider ways in which scenario planning can best inform each PBPP 

stage in your agency’s case. In some cases, scenario planning is used in the development 

of a vision, while in others it is used to forecast expected performance of different 

scenarios and either support selection of a scenario or prompt reconsideration of the 

desired future scenario. In yet other cases, scenario planning can help look at packages of 

specific projects or different levels of emphasis on specific modes, or even to test the 

potential impacts of exogenous factors such as technological changes. 

► Establish goals and identify desired outcomes for the scenario planning process itself.

Practitioners should ask themselves questions that lead to the identification of desired 

outcomes. For example, is there a specific topic on which the agency seeks to gain more 

information? Is the purpose of scenario planning to understand the performance 

implications of an already-chosen scenario? If the latter is the case, is the exercise 

intended to prompt reconsideration of the chosen scenario? The answers to these 

questions, and others, should be clearly identified by agency staff and supported by 

relevant decisionmakers. In completing this step, agencies should ensure that they can

formulate clear statements about what will be accomplished once the process is complete. 

Desired outcomes should help fill gaps or needs evident within the agency’s broader 

PBPP process. 

► Consider the performance measures that will be used to evaluate scenarios and ensure 

they are consistent with the objectives, performance measures, and targets in the long 

range plan and program, and those used to monitor, evaluate, and report system 

performance. If limitations exist with respect to the agencies’ tools or available data, the 
67

agency should consider whether opportunities exist to address this by, for example, 

considering whether proxy measures can be used to support consideration of a factor for 

which ideal data are not available. In addition, the criteria for evaluating scenarios 

should be determined and agreed upon to at the beginning of the scenario process. 

This will help ensure that the process maintains a focus on, and ultimately achieves, the 

desired outcomes. 

Use Creativity to Push the Limits of Existing Tools 

As transportation professionals and agencies are increasingly interested in understanding the 

connections between transportation and topics such as safety, public health, accessibility, 

environmental impacts, and energy and other resource usage, practitioners and academicians 

have pursued new and innovative ways to consider them by expanding on the capabilities of 

more traditional scenario planning tools. Meanwhile, agencies are transitioning to new types of 

travel demand modeling approaches, such as activity-based and multimodal models.

Entrepreneurial creativity will continue to be needed to modify and invent tools that can 

meaningfully address the array of topics and questions that arise during scenario planning and 

PBPP.

► It is important to consider the pros and cons of PBPP and scenario planning tools and 

decide which makes the most sense to use, depending on the objectives of the exercise. 

The scale of the area being studied, for example, would determine whether a regionallevel planning tool makes more sense than a tool that can be customized or adjusted at a 

more localized, or even parcel, level. 

► There are many opportunities to incorporate new and existing data sets and tools into 

scenario planning with creativity. For example, the Champaign-Urbana Urbanized 

Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) and many other MPOs have worked to refine their 

travel demand models to better account for active transportation modes and to improve 

the accuracy of model interactions between land use and transportation. In the 

development of its 2040 long range plan, despite not being able to model health impacts 

or accessibility at the county level, CUUATS developed two additional models to 

evaluate conditions at a localized scale: a Health Impact Assessment to measure the 

relationship between the built environment and obesity, and an accessibility and mobility 

analysis model. Fresno COG, for example, developed an Integrated Transportation and 

Health Model, which relates physical activity, air pollution, and travel behaviors to 

specific health outcomes based on established causal relationships reported in the 

scientific literature for heart and respiratory disease; stroke; diabetes; cancers of the 

breast, colon, and lung; dementia; and depression. FHWA and other Federal agencies are 

developing tools and guidance on this topic—such as the FHWA Health in 

Transportation Corridor Planning Framework and the Transportation and Health Tool 

developed by US DOT and the US Center for Disease Control—to enable consideration 

of public health in scenario planning. 

► Because of the rapid pace of innovation and development of new tools that can be 

incorporated into scenario planning, agencies should consider whether it will be most 

cost effective to invest in developing capacity in-house to allow for refinement of tools 
68

and analysis capabilities that can be employed at any point in time, as opposed to only 

during plan update cycles. CUUATS conducts most of its modeling and analysis inhouse, which has allowed the agency to use its scenario planning tools to inform several 

corridor studies conducted as follow-up tasks to the long range plan. 

Be Strategic in Engaging Decisionmakers, Stakeholders, and 

the Public 

Public and stakeholder involvement is a cornerstone of scenario planning and PBPP. The 

accuracy and legitimacy of a planning process depends on the quality of the engagement with 

decisionmakers, stakeholders, and the public. Having a shared regional or statewide vision is 

critical to ensuring plans will be implemented, which is what makes scenario planning 

worthwhile. Educating and involving elected officials is important to enhance the applicability 

and relevance of scenario planning. Discussions with these groups should maintain focus on 

priorities for system performance and how targets relating to these priorities can be 

accomplished. 

► Scenario planning can generate excitement and help a community or State come 

together around a common vision informed by input received from stakeholders and the 

public. Reporting on performance in the implementation phase of PBPP helps maintain 

the momentum and excitement generated by scenario planning. Keeping stakeholders and 

the public—as well as decisionmakers and policymakers—apprised of performance 

improvements annually can be an effective way to promote engagement, prevent 

discouragement regarding the relatively slow pace of change, and demonstrate that 

progress has been made. 

► When scenarios are tied to performance measures, the public has a better 

understanding of how investments, or types of investments, translate into different 

potential futures and future system performance with respect to the components they care 

about such as safety and reliability. The public and stakeholders also can see how well 

the agency is “connecting the dots” by demonstrating that the objectives and performance 

measures they helped establish are being used in the selection of projects. 

► Carefully considering the timeline for scenario planning and planning for potential 

contingencies can help the process run more smoothly. In the case of Fresno COG, the 

agency found that making schedule adjustments was necessary to accommodate 

additional requests for review and to increase buy-in. Developing a schedule that 

encourages input early and throughout the process and also allows contingency time can 

be beneficial. 

► Be thoughtful about when the public and stakeholders will be consulted in both the 

scenario planning process and the broader PBPP process it aims to inform. This decision 

should be aligned with the desired outcomes for a scenario planning process that have 

been identified. Once the outcomes and consultation periods are clear, they should be 

communicated to all interested parties. Having an understanding of the desired outcomes 

and scope of the process will make clear what considerations are on the table and which 

are considered to be outside the scope. Individuals or groups with special interests might 
69

try to steer the conversation toward a topic that is not central to the discussions, so a clear 

understanding of the desired outcomes can help keep the process on track. 

► Creativity should be employed to improve public and stakeholder involvement 

whenever possible. In addition to best practices such as providing translation and 

interpretation services when needed, agencies can do many innovative things to engage 

their constituents. DVRPC developed the “Choices and Voices” interactive online tool to 

help demonstrate the budget and performance trade-offs with which the agency was 

grappling. Universities, libraries, transit providers, telecom or tech companies, 

community service organizations, and many other partners can help increase or facilitate 

opportunities for residents to become involved. Fresno COG used a cost-effective “mini 

grant” program to recruit local partners to engage residents in its planning process using a 

variety of means including social media. For public and stakeholder involvement, 

agencies should take actions to encourage the inclusion of all people and groups, 

even those whose interests are not always aligned with the agency’s long-term vision. 

This is valuable for improving understanding, identifying opportunities to collaborate and 

reach mutually agreeable solutions, and keeping lines of communication open. 

Respect the Local Context 

Another key to an effective scenario planning exercise is ensuring that it addresses the issues that 

are important to the community, and that it takes into account important geographic, 

environmental, demographic, economic, political, social, or other features of the region. 

► Identify the issues that need to be addressed. Each region faces unique issues that might 

have impact(s) on the transportation system and other factors that affect transportation. In 

some cases, these may be exogenous factors. Examples of questions that could be asked 

include: 

● Is our region growing? If so, how rapidly? Where is growth likely to occur? 

● How are global trade patterns likely to affect our region? 

● Is the region susceptible to certain effects of climate change? If so, which ones? 

● Do energy prices have a significant impact on our transportation system? 

● Are any significant investments planned for our region, such as a new airport, a port 

expansion, or a new high-speed rail line? 

● What are the key threats to safety and security that our region faces? 

► Also important is to consider factors that are most likely to affect transportation 

system performance, particularly in light of the State’s or the region’s unique issues, 

advantages, or challenges. In some cases, the strategies that are most popular or have the 

fewest barriers to implementation might also be those with a relatively low amount of 

potential to “move the needle” when it comes to performance. Scenario planning 

provides an opportunity to demonstrate which strategies rise to the top in terms of 

potential performance impact. 
70

The self-assessment worksheet in Appendix A has been developed to help agencies identify 

opportunities to maximize the value of scenario planning. 
71

6. Case Study Summaries 

This section provides brief summaries of the full-length case studies in Appendix C. 

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study 

The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) has been using scenario 

planning and analysis for over a decade and has been recognized in previous FHWA publications 

for its use of performance-based planning to improve decisionmaking.7

For its most recent long 

range plan, Sustainable Choices 2040, CUUATS analyzed two scenarios: a traditional development 

(or trend) scenario and a sustainable choices scenario, which was created based on input CUUATS 

received from the public and regional stakeholders through a very extensive public outreach 

process. 

Figure 6-1: CUUATS’ Sustainable Choices 2040 Scenarios

Source: CUUATS

In previous scenario planning cycles (2004 and 2009) and in four corridor studies, CUUATS tested 

and refined many scenarios. By 2014, the public had reached consensus on how to grow and invest 

 

7

For more detailed information about the agency’s use of performance measures and targets in planning, see the case 

study on the agency in the FHWA Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook: 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/performance_based_planning/pbpp_guidebook/pbppguidebook.pdf. 
72

in transportation, so testing a single scenario that reflected the public’s preferences against the 

“business as usual” scenario was reasonable. Limiting the number of scenarios was also logical,

given the relatively slow growth in the region and that most of the transportation funding was 

already committed to a few major projects. As a next step, CUUATS plans to create new project 

prioritization criteria in the coming years based on the 2014 plan goals and objectives. 

CUUATS has technically savvy staff team. The agency maintains a large and skilled team by 

serving as a consulting agency for the entire region and by identifying and pursuing funding sources 

for innovative research. CUUATS has developed models for more effectively evaluating 

relationships between transportation and public health, for example. More generally, the agency is 

continually seeking ways to update and improve its modeling and analysis capabilities. 

Figure 6-2: CUUATS’ Modeling Suite Used to Develop the Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan

Source: CUUATS

Strong relationships with various local and State agencies and other organizations (including the 

University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign) have been critical to CUUATS for obtaining data, 

leveraging funds, and building political support for regional initiatives. Long range planning and 

scenario planning processes have worked smoothly in significant part because of the high degree of 

collaboration and coordination among local agencies.
73

LESSONS LEARNED 

► Strong and collaborative relationships between the MPO and the agency’s member 

jurisdictions and other partners are extremely important; they improve the MPO’s 

effectiveness and its ability to acquire funding to innovate. This, in turn, improves the 

quality of the scenario planning and scenario analyses the agency undertakes. Some 

examples of strong relationships from the Champaign-Urbana region that have improved the 

agency’s capacity and ability to obtain funding include: 

● Informal lines of communication between the CUUATS and its various partners are 

always open. Many of these relationships date back to 1998, when the Campus Area 

Transportation Study (CATS) was formed to discuss transportation issues affecting the 

university area and to update the campus master plan. 

● Illinois DOT has frequently provided CUUATS with funding for different initiatives. 

In some cases, the funding is contingent on CUUATS providing technical assistance to 

other MPOs in the State. 

● Among CUUATS’ member agencies is a strong sense of the need to do what is best for 

the region, even when it means “taking turns” with respect to which jurisdiction 

receives limited funding resources first. Strong relationships have enabled this 

approach. 

● The member agencies have service area boundary agreements in place to minimize 

interjurisdictional competition for development and jobs.

● CUUATS worked with the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District to conduct 

health surveys in coordination with the 2040 plan outreach and engagement. This has 

been beneficial for the Health District and has enabled CUUATS to consider public 

health in its modeling and planning processes more fully (e.g., using HIA tools). 

CUUATS has worked with the Health District to obtain health-related grants for 

complete streets policies for two member communities. Because of strong 

relationships and taking specific confidentiality trainings, CUUATS staff have access 

to health data that allows them to analyze health on a level that is unparalleled 

throughout the country. 

► Building in-house capacity has been critical to the agency’s continued success. In some 

cases, having in-house staff complete analyses can be more cost effective and can position 

the agency to manage future planning cycles more efficiently. Having a highly skilled team 

of staff allows CUUATS to function successfully as a consulting firm for the entire region; 

grants and individual projects (developing cities’ bicycle plans, for example) account for 

about half of the agency’s revenue.

► The presence of a university with strong planning and engineering departments can be a 

significant benefit, particularly for a smaller MPO. UIUC faculty have assisted CUUATS in 

various ways (e.g., providing expertise on high-speed rail, developing modeling tools for the 
74

agency’s use). Nearly all of CUUATS’ staff members were educated at UIUC, which 

provides the agency a steady stream of planning and engineering graduates. 

Fresno Council of Governments 

Fresno COG first used scenario planning in 2006–2007 as part of the San Joaquin Valley Blueprint 

planning process, in which the participating agencies used the UPlan scenario modeling tool to help 

establish a regional land use and transportation vision to guide growth over 50 years—a period in 

which the population is expected to more than double. The Blueprint process positioned the agency 

to better respond to the 2008 mandate in California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375) that all MPOs work 

with the California Air Resources Board (CARB) to set greenhouse gas (GHG) emission reduction 

targets. To set its initial GHG emission targets, Fresno COG used the Vision California RapidFire 

model, a spreadsheet-based tool. The agency ran various scenarios to identify the emission 

reduction targets that were realistically feasible for 2020 and 2035 (approximately 4 percent and 6 

percent, respectively). In 2014, Fresno COG completed the 2040 Regional Transportation 

Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The SCS, required by SB 375, demonstrates 

how the region will meet its GHG emission targets of 5 percent by 2020 and 10 percent by 2035 

(based on 1990 levels). The agency’s experience setting GHG emission targets helped them prepare 

for more in-depth scenario planning and analysis. 

For its 2014 plan, Fresno COG first went through a series of focus group meetings to identify an 

agreed-upon list of 10 indicators that would be used to evaluate scenarios. The indicators chosen 

reflected GHG emissions reduction, housing types, residential density, compact development, 

transit-oriented development, land consumption, important farmland protection, vehicle miles 

traveled, criteria pollutant emissions reduction, and active transportation and transit. 

Then, staff developed three scenarios (A, B, and C), two of which were carried over from the GHG 

target setting process (B and C). Scenario A reflected public input from a community workshop. 

Scenario D was introduced by a coalition of stakeholder agencies late in the planning process, based 

on their desires to see more resource growth in rural areas. The four scenarios are described in 

Figure 6-3. Fresno COG built and tested the new scenario on a very tight schedule, but was unable 

to circulate it widely for public review, given the timing of the process. For its next planning 

process, the agency does not plan to repeat this experience of introducing additional scenarios later 

in the process. The establishment of stronger “ground rules,” or a well-defined scope for the 

scenario planning exercise, could help avoid similar situations in the future. 

The MPO Board ultimately chose Scenario B, which was the most consistent with locally adopted 

plans and the most politically feasible of all the scenarios. Although it produced a bigger footprint 

than the other scenarios, Scenario B still achieved significant improvements compared to the 

historic trend line. The agency then conducted an analysis of four revenue/investment scenarios, to 

identify which package of projects to fund, given expected revenues and ability to flex funds 

between different modes. The differences between scenarios were slight, however, because many of 

the significant projects in the existing program had been approved by a local referendum.
75

Figure 6-3: Fresno COG’s Four Scenarios Evaluated for the 2014 RTP/SCS

Source: Fresno COG

Public engagement for the RTP/SCS process was extensive. The COG’s public information officer 

created a very successful mini grant program that provided local community organizations with 

outreach training and support. This greatly increased community participation among a wide array 

of demographic groups. The agency also established an “RTP Roundtable,” which was specific to 

the RTP/SCS process and included 35 representatives from member organizations, community 

groups, and other agencies (e.g., transit operators and community and special-interest groups). The 

use of a roundtable was extremely effective in persuading all the stakeholders to collaborate and 

establishing widespread buy-in to the process and its results. 

At the site visit, the team engaged in a detailed discussion about the different capabilities of the 

Envision Tomorrow scenario evaluation tool used for the 2014 plan and Urban Footprint, which the 

agency is considering for its next scenario planning initiative. In addition, the staff described its 
76

four-step travel demand model, and talked about the potential of transitioning to an activity-based 

model that would better reflect the nuances of walking, biking, and urban design on vehicle travel 

patterns. The agency is also working with the State public health department to develop an 

Integrated Transportation and Health Model (ITHIM), which will be run in-house, to model the 

benefits of active transportation. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

► Identifying the performance measures that will be used to evaluate scenarios early in the 

scenario planning process helps ensure a productive and effective process. Tying scenario 

planning to performance measures allows for more effective communication about why 

some scenarios perform better than others and the extent to which goals can be achieved 

under each scenario. 

► In hindsight, the Fresno COG’s staff found that evaluating scenarios that were not consistent 

with reality (e.g., those that did not take approved development plans into consideration) 

was not a particularly productive exercise. The lesson learned from this experience was that 

setting ground rules regarding what changes will, and will not, be formally considered in 

developing scenarios is essential. Any evaluation of expected impacts under unrealistic 

scenarios should be completed simply to understand the likely impacts of future decisions. 

► Engaging with partners early and often throughout the scenario planning process was key for 

ensuring unanimous consensus in selecting a scenario and assuaging local agencies’ 

concerns about the (perceived) need to protect their land use authority. 

► The mini-grant program for local community-based organizations to engage residents in the 

planning process was successful and cost effective. The relationships strengthened as a 

result of that program have enhanced the quality of planning in the region (e.g., through the 

engagement of non-English-speaking communities) and resulted in greater support in the 

community for the smart growth principles that date back to the Regional Blueprint process. 

► Having highly skilled technical staff who are responsive is important for enhancing the 

ability to incorporate performance measures into scenario planning and conduct analyses 

that improve stakeholders’ understanding about planning and investment options. 

► Inclusion of groups whose interests are often not aligned with the agency’s (e.g., Building 

Industry Association in this case) is valuable to improve understanding, identify 

opportunities for mutually agreeable solutions, and keep lines of communication open. 
77

Hillsborough County MPO 

The Hillsborough County MPO recognizes that uncertainty is inevitable in planning. It deals with 

this uncertainty by using scenario analysis at nearly every step of its long range transportation 

planning. The MPO’s most recent scenario planning endeavor was in 2013–2014 as it developed 

Imagine 2040, the region’s long range transportation plan and land use vision. The MPO worked 

with the county’s Planning Commission, which oversees land use planning for the county and its 

local governments, to design future land use scenarios and settle on a vision for the region’s land 

use. The MPO then developed its LTRP. The previous (2035) LRTP included a single list of 

transportation priorities. Local governments wanted more flexibility and public opinion polling, 

however, after a failed transportation referendum challenged their perceptions of public priorities. 

Therefore, the MPO created packages of projects in four categories—Preserve the System, Reduce 

Crashes and Vulnerability, Minimize Delay for Drivers and Shippers, and Real Choices When Not 

Driving—and looked at how low, medium, and high levels of investment would affect performance 

measures for each category. Some of the key outcomes to this approach were: 

► The public and decisionmakers knew what the MPO could afford with current funding. 

► The process built public support for generating additional transportation revenues. 

► The performance measures developed for the project provided a basis for project selection 

and ongoing monitoring and evaluation criteria. The MPO will continue using its 

performance measures to evaluate transportation performance through its Crash 

Management/Congestion Management Program. 

Figure 6-4: Imagine 2040 Preferred Scenario 

Source: Hillsborough County MPO
78

LESSONS LEARNED 

► Considering the extent to which a planning process can affect policies related to topics 

beyond transportation, such as land use, is important. The Hillsborough County MPO’s 

strong relationship with the Planning Commission (which was a lead agency in developing 

the plan) meant that the MPO had a reasonable chance at successfully influencing land use 

plans and policies to achieve a vision. 

► Opinion polling can be a useful tool in helping agencies understand what matters to citizens; 

in the case of Hillsborough County MPO, it informed project categories and investment 

scenarios. Conducting opinion polling and other types of outreach can provide information 

that informs how scenarios are designed and which performance measures resonate with 

decisionmakers and the public. To the extent practicable, highly resonant performance 

measures should be used to evaluate scenarios. 

► Using funding scenarios can be instrumental in educating the public about what current 

funding levels could achieve, and what would is necessary to achieve more desirable levels 

of performance. 

► High levels of coordination between local government and MPO staff can support stronger 

land use-transportation coordination. The Imagine 2040 transportation plan and local land 

use plans were prepared at the same time and developed to be mutually supportive. This can 

enhance agencies’ ability to implement the land use vision that will support the preferred 

scenario. 
79

7. Resources 

Federal Scenario Planning and PBPP Resources 

FHWA Website on Scenario Planning and Visualization in Transportation, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning/ 

FHWA Website on Performance-Based Planning and Programming, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/performance_based_planning/

PlanWorks: Better Planning. Better Projects, https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/ 

► Integrating Freight Considerations into the Highway Capacity Planning Process Application, 

https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/Application/Show/16 

► Decision Guide, https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/DecisionGuide

► Assessments, https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/Asessment

► Applications, https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/Application

● Linking Planning and Operations Application, 

https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/Application/Show/7 

FHWA 2011 Scenario Planning Guidebook, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/scenario_and_visualization/scenario_planning/scenario_plannin

g_guidebook/ 

FHWA 2013 Performance-Based Planning and Programming Guidebook, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/performance_based_planning/pbpp_guidebook/

FHWA 2014 Model Long Range Transportation Plans: A Guide for Incorporating PerformanceBased Planning, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/performance_based_planning/mlrtp_guidebook/

FHWA 2014 Performance-Based Planning for Small Metropolitan Areas, 

http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/performance_based_planning/small_mpo_report/fhwahep15015.

pdf

FHWA 2016 Advancing Transportation Systems Management and Operations through Scenario 

Planning Primer, http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/publications/fhwahop16016/index.htm

Transportation Research Board Resources 

NCHRP Report 750, Scenario Planning for Freight Transportation Infrastructure Investment, 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_750v1.pdf

NCHRP Report 710: Practical Approaches for Involving Traditionally Underserved Populations in 

Transportation Decisionmaking, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_710.pdf 
80

NCHRP Planning Snapshot 3: Scenario Planning, 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-36(120)_Snapshot2014-

003ScenarioPlanning.pdf

J. Zmud, Transportation Research Board Webinar, “Applying Scenario Methods to Transportation 

Planning and Policy,” Slides available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/webinars/141023.pdf

SHRP2 Railroad-DOT Mitigation Strategies, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/Solutions/PlanningEnvironment/R16/RailroadDOT_Mitigation_

Strategies 

SHRP2 Utility Bundle, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/Solutions/Renewal/R01A_R01B_R15B/Utility_Bundle 

Resources for Considering Equity in Scenario Planning

Equity through Transit, Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, 

http://www.mwcog.org/planning/regionforward/communities.asp

The Community Engagement Guide for Sustainable Communities, Kirwin Institute and PolicyLink, 

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/?my-product=the-community-engagement-guide-for-sustainablecommunities

The Geography of Opportunity in Austin and How it is Changing, Kirwin Institute, 

http://kirwaninstitute.osu.edu/my-product/austi/

Opportunity Mapping: A conceptual Analysis and Application to the Baltimore Area, University of 

Maryland, 

http://www.appam.org/assets/1/7/Opportunity_Mapping_A_conceptual_Analysis_and_application_

to_the_Baltimore_Metropolitan_Area.pdf

Tools to Support Scenario Planning and PBPP 

BCA.net, http://bca.transportationeconomics.org/models/bca-net 

CityEngine, http://www.esri.com/software/cityengine 

Community Vision Metrics, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/livability/tools/community_vision/

CommunityViz, http://placeways.com/communityviz/index.html. 

CrowdGauge, http://crowdgauge.org/ 

CubeLand, http://www.citilabs.com/software/cube/
81

Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infrastructure Projects, 

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/eco_index.asp

Energy and Emissions Reduction Policy Analysis Tool (EERPAT), 

https://www.planning.dot.gov/fhwa_tool/

EngagingPlans, http://urbaninteractivestudio.com/engagingplans/

Envision Tomorrow, http://www.envisiontomorrow.org/

FHWA Health and Transportation Corridor Planning Framework, 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/health_in_transportation/planning_framework/the_framework/f

hwahep16014.pdf 

Highway Safety Manual, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/hsm/

Highway Economic Analysis Requirements System (HERS), 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/hersindex.cfm

Highway Economic Analysis Requirements System – State Version (HERS-ST), 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/hersindex.cfm

INDEX, http://crit.com/

Integration of Safety in the Project Development Process and Beyond: A Context Sensitive 

Approach (ITE publication), http://library.ite.org/pub/e4edb88b-bafd-b6c9-6a19-22e98fedc8a9 

INVEST 1.0, https://www.sustainablehighways.org/ 

iPlaces3S, http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/technology/ 

MetroQuest, http://metroquest.com/

Motor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES), http://www.epa.gov/otaq/models/moves/

National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS), https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/nbi.cfm 

PlanWorks: Better Planning. Better Projects, https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/ and 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/Solutions/Capacity/C01/PlanWorks__Better_planning_Better_p

rojects 

Production Exchange and Consumption Allocation System (PECAS), 

http://www.hbaspecto.com/pecas/
82

Rapid Policy Analysis Tool (RPAT) (formerly known as SmartGAP), 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/goshrp2/Solutions/All/C10_C04_C05_C16/Advanced_Travel_Analysis_

Tools_forIntegrated_Travel_Demand_Modeling, http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168842.aspx

Regional Ecosystem Framework (Eco-logical), 

https://www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ecological/ImplementingEcoLogicalApproach/default.asp 

REMI-TransSight, http://www.remi.com/products/transight 

Safety Analyst (AASHTO-Ware), http://www.safetyanalyst.org/ 

SHRP2 – Guide to Establishing Monitoring Programs for Travel-Time Reliability (LO2), 

http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/168764.aspx

SHRP2 – Handbook for Incorporating Reliability Performance Measures into Transportation 

Planning and Programming (LO5), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L05-RR2.pdf

SHRP2 – Reliability by Design (LO7), http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L07-

RR-1.pdf

SHRP2 – Incorporating Travel-Time Reliability into the Highway Capacity manual (LO8), 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_S2-L08-RW-1.pdf 

SHRP2 – Tools for Assessing Wider Economic Benefits of Transportation (C11), 

http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/shrp2/SHRP2_PB_C11.pdf

Simplified Trips-on Project Software (STOPS), https://www.fta.dot.gov/funding/grantprograms/capital-investments/stops-%E2%80%93-fta%E2%80%99s-simplified-trips-projectsoftware 

Social Cost of Alternative Land Development Scenarios (SCALDS), 

https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/scalds/scalds.html

Sustainable Communities Index: http://www.sustainablecommunitiesindex.org/

Systemic Safety Project Selection Tool, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/systemic/fhwasa13019/ 

TERM-lite, https://www.fta.dot.gov/regulations-and-guidance/asset-management/state-goodrepair/term-lite
83

Tools for Operations Benefit Cost Analysis (TOPS-BC), 

http://www.ops.fhwa.dot.gov/plan4ops/topsbctool/index.htm 

TREDIS, http://www.tredis.com/

TSP eHandbook, http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/tsp/fhwasa15089/ 

Transportation and Health Tool, https://www.transportation.gov/transportation-health-tool

UPlan, http://ice.ucdavis.edu/doc/uplan 

UrbanCanvas, http://www.urbansim.com/urbancanvas/

UrbanSim, http://www.urbansim.com/

UrbanFootprint and RapidFire, http://calthorpeanalytics.com/index.html#software 

Sources of Information for Agency Examples Provided 

Atlanta Regional Commission, http://www.atlantaregional.com/ 

► http://www.atlantaregional.com/plan2040; http://www.atlantaregional.com/land-use/livablecenters-initiative/recipients

Baltimore Regional Transportation Board, Baltimore Metropolitan Council, 

http://www.baltometro.org/about-brtb/brtb-committees/baltimore-regional-transportation-board 

► The Opportunity Collaborative, http://www.baltometro.org/our-work/the-opportunitycollaborative

► Plan It 2035, http://www.baltometro.org/our-work/transportation-plans/long rangeplanning/final-plan-it-2035

► Maximize 2040: A Performance-Based Transportation Plan, 

http://www.baltometro.org/maximize-2040 

► Imagine 2060, http://www.baltometro.org/information-center/documents/category/90-

imagine-2060 

California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), http://www.dot.ca.gov/

► http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/tpp/californiatransportationplan2040/index.shtml

Capital Area MPO (NC), http://www.campo-nc.us/

► http://www.campo-nc.us/transportation-plan/2040-metropolitan-transportation-plan

Champaign Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (IL), http://cuuats.org/ 

► CUUATS 2025 LRTP, http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/lrtp.php
84

► CUUATS Choices 2035 Plan, http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/lrtp2/documents.html

► CUUATS Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan, http://cuuats.org/lrtp/documents/long rangetransportation-plan-sustainable-choices-2040-final/lrtp-2040-executive-summary/view

Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/ 

► CMAP’s 2040 LRTP, http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/about/2040

► Chicago Community Trust MetroPulse Website, 

http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/data/metropulse 

Colorado DOT, https://www.codot.gov/

► https://www.codot.gov/programs/statewide-planning 

Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, http://www.dvrpc.org/

► Connections 2035, http://www.dvrpc.org/connections/

► Connections 2040 Choices & Voices, http://www.dvrpc.org/Connections2040/

► Connections 2045, http://www.dvrpc.org/Connections2045/

► Making the Land Use Connection, http://www.dvrpc.org/reports/08059.pdf 

► Future of Scenario Planning White Paper, 

http://www.dvrpc.org/asp/pubs/publicationabstract.asp?pub_id=14038

Denver Regional Council of Governments, https://www.drcog.org/

► https://www.drcog.org/planning-great-region/metro-vision

Durham-Chapel Hill-Carrboro MPO, http://www.dchcmpo.org/ 

► http://www.dchcmpo.org/programs/transport/2040.asp

Envision Utah, http://www.envisionutah.org/

Fresno Council of Governments, http://www.fresnocog.org

► Fresno COG RTP/SCS website, http://www.fresnocog.org/sustainable-communitiesstrategy-development-and-outreach

► San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Planning Process website, http://www.valleyblueprint.org/

Gainesville MTPO, http://www.mpoac.org/mpos/gainesville.shtml

► http://ncfrpc.org/mtpo/publications/LRTP2035/SummReport_061711_color.pdf 

Hillsborough County MPO (FL), http://www.planhillsborough.org/metropolitan-planningorganization-mpo/ 

► Long-range Transportation Plan: http://www.planhillsborough.org/2040-lrtp/
85

► Transportation Improvement Program: http://www.planhillsborough.org/transportationimprovement-program-tip/

► Unified Planning Work Program: http://www.planhillsborough.org/unified-planning-workprogram/

Metro of Oregon, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/

► Regional Transportation Plan, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/regional-transportation-plan

► MetroScope, http://www.oregonmetro.gov/forecasting-models-and-model-documentation

Metropolitan Transportation Commission (CA), http://mtc.ca.gov/ 

► http://planbayarea.org/plan-bay-area.html

Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, http://www.mwcog.org/ and Transportation 

Planning Board, http://www.mwcog.org/transportation/tpb/ 

► CLRP Aspirations Study, http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/elements/scenarios.asp

► CLRP Constrained Plan, http://www.mwcog.org/clrp/

Mid-Region Council of Governments (NM), http://www.mrcog-nm.gov/

► Central New Mexico Climate Change Scenario Planning Project, 

https://www.volpe.dot.gov/transportation-planning/public-lands/central-new-mexicoclimate-change-scenario-planning-project

Minnesota DOT, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/

► MnSHIP, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/mnship/ 

► Multimodal Transportation Plan, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/minnesotago/SMTP.html 

Oregon DOT, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/Pages/index.aspx

► Least Cost Planning, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/lcp.aspx; 

► Oregon Transportation Plan, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/pages/otp.aspx 

Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG), http://www.sacog.org/ 

► Sacramento Blueprint, http://www.sacregionblueprint.org/ 

► 2035 Metropolitan Transportation Plan, http://sacog.org/mtp/2035/final-mtp/

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG), http://semcog.org/ 

► http://www.semcog.org/desktopmodules/SEMCOG.Publications/GetFile.ashx?filename=20

30RegionalTransportationPlanForSoutheastMichiganNovember2004.pdf – 2035 plan 

Space Coast Transportation Planning Organization (FL), http://spacecoasttpo.com/

► http://spacecoasttpo.com/plan/long range-transportation-plan/
86

Tri-County Regional Planning Commission (MI), http://www.mitcrpc.org/ 

► http://www.tri-co.org/trp.htm#

Washington State DOT, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/

► http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/Freight/freightmobilityplan
 A-1

Appendix A. Getting Started: A Worksheet for 

Designing a Scenario Planning Process to 

Support PBPP 

As this Guidebook has described, scenario planning is a tool that can support decisions at each 

phase of PBPP) There are many different ways this can be done. This self-assessment is designed to 

help you think about how to use scenario planning to support your agency’s PBPP process. The 

intent of this self-assessment is not to give you explicit direction in scoping your agency’s scenario 

planning process. Rather, the purpose is to help a project manager and, if desired, a technical 

committee or advisory group, to consider the key issues that could be addressed and some of the 

practical elements involved in using scenario planning to inform the overall PBPP. The insights and 

notes you develop by working through this self-assessment can provide useful material and insights 

for subsequent activities such as estimating potential costs and needed resources, developing a 

scope of work, describing the project in a Unified Planning Work Program, and (if needed) writing 

a Request For Proposals to elicit consultant support. 

The questions below are organized in a series of steps, starting with the most basic context-setting 

step to the advanced step of preparing a scope. The table includes three columns. The left-hand 

column poses questions to consider during the corresponding step. The middle column provides 

suggestions for gathering specific information to help answer the question; feel free to gather 

additional or different information to suit your needs. The right-hand column provides space for 

your responses. 

Question Information to 

Consider

Your Responses

Step 1: Evaluate Community Context

1. How is your region 

developing?

Summarize/ map 

regional growth trends 

and forecasts

2. What are the major issues 

or drivers influencing 

growth and development? 

List top five issues/ 

drivers
 A-2

Question Information to 

Consider

Your Responses

3. What are the most 

promising opportunities 

that will shape 

development in years to 

come? What are the most 

promising opportunities 

that will shape 

development in years to 

come? What major issues 

may be affecting equity in 

the community; assessed 

with a community profile, 

including the identification 

of populations and their 

characteristics, and 

identifying data sources?

Summarize/ map 

opportunities

Step 2: Identify Desired Outcomes

1. What plans are due for an 

update? 

List plans that will be 

updated within 3-5 years

2. What new plan(s) is your 

organization expected to 

develop soon? 

List any planning efforts 

about to start or recently 

launched

3. What is your agency 

looking to accomplish in 

these updates?

List five new policy 

emphases

4. What major trends are of 

greatest concern to your 

agency’s board?

List five concerns 

recently expressed by 

board members
 A-3

Step 3: Identify Scenario Planning Purpose

1. Which element(s) of your 

PBPP process could 

benefit from scenario 

planning and analysis?

List aspects of your 

PBPP process that are 

influenced by high 

uncertainty, contention, 

and/or new aspirations

2. What issues would you like 

to address from previous 

planning processes?

List the top 5 issues that 

have emerged from 

previous planning 

processes

3. How could scenarios be 

used to improve plans and 

decisions?

List specific decision 

points where scenario 

consideration could add 

value

4. How can scenarios 

improve the ongoing 

decisionmaking process?

Brainstorm ways 

scenario planning could 

help improve the overall 

PBPP process or 

framework 

5. Are there particular tradeoffs your agency would 

like to better illustrate for 

the public and 

decisionmakers?

List trade-offs that your 

agency grapples with

6. How will scenario planning 

help your agency define 

transportation 

performance measures and 

set targets? 

Describe the connection 

between scenarios and 

performance measures

Step 4: Identify Scenario Planning / PBPP Linkages

1. How can you apply / build 

on scenario planning tools, 

data, and skills to support 

the ongoing PBPP process?

Brainstorm ways to 

make scenarios planning 

elements part of each 

PBPP phase (vision, 

goals, plan development, 

programming, project 

development, 

monitoring, evaluation 

of results)

2. How could scenario tools, 

models, data, or inputs 

inform subsequent efforts 

such as corridor studies?

List upcoming studies 

that should be linked to 

the scenario analysis
 A-4

3. How could you maximize 

the usefulness of the 

scenario analysis tools or 

data planning to inform 

other work and/or improve 

efficiencies? 

List other work efforts 

conducted by your 

agency and/or partner 

agencies that would 

benefit from the scenario 

tools and data

Step 5: Define Scenario Planning Approach

1. At what point in your 

agency’s PBPP process will 

scenario planning be 

deployed? 

Prepare a timeline of 

planning processes; 

indicate where and how 

scenario planning can 

influence results or 

outcomes

2. Do you anticipate using 

scenarios to identify 

preferred future 

conditions, helping to 

shape the region’s vision, 

principles, or goals?

Identify community 

values and goals that 

may be important to 

flesh out when 

describing and 

evaluating different 

stories of potential 

future conditions

3. Do you anticipate using 

scenarios to test different 

courses of action against 

radically different future 

conditions, helping to test 

the validity of underlying 

assumptions or the 

resiliency of planned 

investments?

Identify game-changing 

trends and/or events that 

could significantly affect 

future conditions and 

transportation supply or 

demand

4. Do you anticipate using 

scenarios to test different 

courses of action against 

relatively predictable 

future conditions, helping 

to hone strategies and set 

priorities? 

Identify elements of the 

PBPP process that 

would benefit from more 

clearly defined priorities 

or focused tactics.
 A-5

Step 6: Define Scenario Planning Engagement

1. What information do you 

need from stakeholders 

and the public to develop 

scenarios and plans? How 

will you use the 

information and ideas that 

are offered? 

List inputs and insights 

you hope to gain through 

engagement; identify 

ways in which the input 

can influence PBPP 

decisions, documents, 

and outcomes

2. What groups or 

individuals have 

information that is 

necessary for crafting and 

analyzing scenarios?

Create a list and crossreference with the input 

you hope to gain

3. How can the public benefit 

from your approach to 

scenario planning?

List benefits such as (for 

example) helping people 

communicate with your 

agency more effectively; 

engage in meaningful 

dialogue about key 

issues; address 

contentions or thorny 

subjects; etc. 

4. At what point will 

decision-makers be 

involved in scenario 

development and/or 

evaluation?

Brainstorm how and 

why to engage 

decisionmakers

5. What methods will you use 

to engage each stakeholder 

group?

Brainstorm methods for 

engaging stakeholders

6. What resources do you 

have or need to conduct 

engagement activities?

Estimate budget for 

existing/ acquired 

materials and staff time 

for public and 

stakeholder engagement

Step 7: Define Resources for Scenario Planning Effort

1. How much could you 

achieve through scenario 

planning with minimal

data and analysis tools?

Outline an approach to 

scenario planning that 

relies on qualitative 

analysis

2. What data is needed to 

support your preferred 

scenario planning 

approach?

List data needs and 

potential sources

3. What data are available? Match data needs with 

available data and 

highlight the gaps
 A-6

4. What tools are available to 

conduct scenario planning 

and analysis?

List tools that may help 

with your scenario 

planning

5. What are the strengths 

and weaknesses of existing 

tools?

List pros and cons for 

each existing tool

6. What do you want to 

analyze, but cannot with 

existing tools?

List gaps in existing 

tools 

7. What other tools could 

help close the gaps 

between what you’d like to 

do and what you can do?

List tools you would like 

to explore for your 

scenario planning 

process

8. What are your priorities 

for purchasing data (if 

your budget will allow 

this)?

List data you would like 

to purchase

9. If you purchase data, will 

you have resources to 

purchase subsequent 

releases of the data?

Consider how important 

the data are to have and 

to keep updated

10. If you are unable to obtain 

desired data and tools, can 

scenario planning still 

provide value? 

List potential benefits of 

a more qualitative 

approach 

11. What is staff’s level of 

experience with scenario 

planning?

Evaluate staff’s ability 

to conduct scenario 

planning in-house

12. What outside resources are 

available (e.g., universities, 

Federal agencies, 

foundations, civic groups)

List, contact potential 

partners in the region to 

gauge their interest and 

potential to contribute 

resources

Step 8: Prepare Scope for Scenario Planning Effort

1. Will the entire scenario 

planning process be 

conducted in-house, or will 

consultants be hired to 

assist?

Decide what can be done 

in-house and what to 

include in a RFP for 

consultants

2. What can you budget for 

the scenario planning 

project?

Estimate budget based 

on available funding and 

desired outcomes/level 

of effort

3. Who needs to be involved 

in the scoping process?

Pull together a Steering 

Committee to oversee 

the development of the 

scope
 A-7

4. How much do you and 

your board know about 

other existing plans 

affecting the growth and 

development of your 

region?

Develop a task in the 

scope to review and 

summarize existing 

plans and create a 

repository for them

5. What specific questions, 

processes, and outcomes 

will this scenario planning 

effort address?

Develop a task for the 

scenario development 

and evaluation process 

based upon how the 

results will be used. 

6. How do you plan to consult 

with other agencies and 

stakeholders in your 

region?

Develop a task for 

engaging these key 

stakeholders

7. How will you ensure the 

public understands the 

purpose of the process and 

has reasonable 

expectations of the results?

Develop a task for 

engaging the public that 

counters potential 

misperceptions or 

confusion 

8. How will you communicate 

the scenarios and results of 

the analysis to 

stakeholders and the 

public?

Develop a task for 

communication that calls 

for clear and accessible 

presentation of the 

results

9. How will you provide 

access to the scenarios and 

data for decisionmakers?

Develop a task to give 

access to 

decisionmakers, which 

supports integrating 

scenarios into on-going 

decisionmaking

10. Will the scenarios continue 

to be used over time, 

creating a need for data 

and tool support?

Develop a task that 

describes ongoing 

support activities to keep 

the scenarios up-to-date
Appendix B. Scenario Planning Tools 

PBPP Tools 

Please note: FHWA does not endorse the use of any specific private sector tools or models. The purpose of this appen

information about the capabilities and relevant uses of available tools. 

PBPP Tool (and 

Applicable PBPP 

Phase)

8

General Description/ 

Purpose

Inputs, Outputs, and Scale

9

How does or could the tool 

inform scenario planning and 

vice versa?

P

In

TIP prioritization 

calculator/ scoring 

sheet

(P)

Enables decisionmakers to 

determine funding priorities 

and select projects, using 

evaluation criteria weighted 

according to local policy 

priorities.

Inputs: Long range plan, asset 

management plan, financial 

forecasts, project studies

Outputs: Prioritized list of projects 

for short-term funding program.

Scale: Project

The tool could provide locally 

important performance metrics to 

consider in evaluating scenarios. 

Scenario planning could provide 

a basis for adding new 

performance metrics to inform 

scoring of projects, particularly 

outcome-oriented measures (e.g. 

health, economic dev.)

Some 

be eas

safety

metric

difficu

(comm

equity

provid

safety 

Economic 

Simulation Models: 

TREDIS and REMITranSight

(A, P, I)

Compare costs, benefits, and 

economic impacts at 

community, regional, or 

corridor level. Useful in 

roadway, transit, or rail 

scenario planning in the 

programming and analysis 

phases to compare the C/B

ratio, economic impact or 

financial consequences of 

different investments. Come

pre-loaded with local 

economic data. Use inputs 

from a travel demand model; 

Inputs: Travel model trip tables, 

including trips,

travel times and costs

Outputs: Benefit/

Cost ratio; Economic impact (Jobs, 

income); Financial impact 

(revenues, expenditures) and 

Development impact (housing, 

commercial and industrial 

development)

Scale: All

The tool could be used to 

compare cost/benefit ratios and 

economic impacts between 

different transportation 

investment scenarios. The tool 

can also be used for analysis of 

wide range of impacts, which is 

compatible with scenario 

planning.

Scenario planning could provide 

the alternative transportation 

investments to run through the 

model for comparison.

These 

quanti

and th

either 

the ec

They 

model

neede

 

8

 The applicable PBPP phases are: direction (D), analysis (A), programming (P), implementation (I), or all. 

9

 Scale could be project, corridor, study area, region, or State. 

10

 Challenges include: data/scale compatibility, ability to forecast, quantitative/qualitative, etc. 
TREDIS allows engineering 

estimates for project-level 

analysis.

TDM Evaluation 

Model

(A, P, I)

The TDM Evaluation Model 

is an FHWA tool for 

evaluating relative benefits of 

different investments. It deals 

with TDM strategies and how 

they support vehicle trip 

reduction. Using this model 

in scenario planning may 

require the dedication of 

substantial time towards 

model development and 

deployment. Useful in the 

analysis and programming 

phases.

Inputs: Come from 4-step travel 

models, plus impact on cost or 

travel time by mode.

Outputs: Changes in modal share, 

vehicle-trips, VMT, average 

vehicle occupancy and ridership 

expressed at a market level defined 

by the user

Scale: All

The tool can provide basic 

information needed to evaluate a 

TDM heavy scenario.

Scenario planning may call for a 

focus on TDM. 

The to

land u

differe

use of 

may n

scenar

PlanWorks

(All)

PlanWorks is a web-based 

resource that supports 

decisionmaking in 

transportation planning, 

programming, and 

environmental review. The 

tool helps practitioners

identify whom to engage and 

how. It can also be used to set 

up an engagement plan for a 

scenario planning project.

Inputs: No technical inputs

Outputs: For each key decision 

point, Plan-Works provides policy 

and stakeholder questions, data 

needs, case studies and examples, 

and links to tools that can help 

support the decision.

Scale: All

The tool provides techniques for 

overcoming common problems 

with engaging stakeholders – an 

issue at each stage of PBPP and 

in scenario planning.

Tool for Operations 

Benefit Cost Analysis 

(TOPS-BC)

(D, A)

TOPS-BC is a tool managed 

by FHWA that transportation 

planners can use to estimate 

benefit to cost ratios for 

different system management 

and operations strategies.

Inputs: Geographic scope of 

analysis; strategy types; size,

scope, and implementation of 

deployment; time horizon; 

operating parameters of TSM&O 

strategy; average c/v ratio for 

entire facility (all lanes); arterial 

link length; free-flow speed

Outputs: Impacts of operating 

strategies; B/C tools most relevant 

to the needs of specified analysis; 

The tool could provide locally 

important benefit, cost and other 

metrics to consider in evaluating 

scenarios.
life-cycle cost of TSM&O 

strategies; congested speed; VMT; 

VHT; # of crashes; fuel

consumption; congested speed; 

annual benefit; B/C ratio.

Scale: Project, corridor. Allows for 

combinations of strategies.

Safety Analyst

(A, P, I)

This tool automates and 

improves many procedures 

transportation agencies use to 

identify safety problems and 

prioritize improvements. It 

can also be used to compare 

costs and benefits of 

alternative safety 

improvements at specific 

locations or across locations. 

It is especially useful in the 

analysis and programming 

phases of PBPP.

Inputs: Database of roadway 

characteristics, traffic volume, and 

crash data.

Outputs: Identification of sites for 

improvements, counter-measure 

selection, economic appraisal of 

counter-measures, C-B ratio of 

counter-measures and ranked list 

of sites and improvements, before/ 

after evaluations.

Scale: All

The tool supports identification of 

goals. May also be used in 

evaluating scenarios, and the 

network screening tool can 

identify hot spots for safety 

improvements.

Scenario planning supports the 

tool by setting priorities, one of 

which may involve reducing 

crashes. 

The sc

measu

to eva

impro

Infrastructure 

Voluntary 

Evaluation Sustainability Tool 

(INVEST)

(All)

INVEST is an FHWAdeveloped self-evaluation tool

that agencies can use to 

assess performance on 

various sustainability criteria. 

It includes modules for 

evaluation at the system 

planning scale, project-based 

evaluations, and maintenance 

and operations. The tool 

requires little technical 

expertise.

Inputs: Answers to self-evaluation

questions

Outputs: Score of gold, silver, or 

bronze (which are connected to a 

numeric value).

Scale: All

The tool evaluates the sustainability of different scenarios. 

Scenario planning establishes a 

vision and preferences. 
Highway Economic 

Analysis 

Requirements 

System (HERS)

and

Highway Economic 

Analysis 

Requirements 

System-State 

Version (HERS-ST)

(A, P, I)

HERS-ST uses Highway 

Performance Monitoring 

System Data (HPMS) to 

evaluate current and future 

performance of the highway 

system under alternative 

investment scenarios or rules. 

It can be set to select roadway 

improvements over funding 

period based on investment 

rules and budget. It calculates

B-C ratios, and examines

options such as pavement 

preservation; reconstruction 

of existing pavement (w/ and 

w/o new lanes); new lanes; 

and widening of roadway or 

shoulder. Scenario are 

compared to each other and to 

regular highway maintenance. 

HERS-ST then recommends 

improvement types or no 

improvement for the funding 

period. It uses pavement 

measures such as IRI, present 

serviceability rating (PSR), 

and cracking for roadways.

Inputs: As input, HERS-ST 

accepts highway-section records in 

the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System format.

Outputs: For each highway 

section, model predicts future 

condition and capacity deficiencies 

based on section-specific 

information. Model identifies 

improvements to correct each 

deficiency and determines a B-C

ratio for each potential 

improvement. The most economically attractive improvement for 

each facility is identified. Projects 

to be implement-ted are 

determined by comparing the 

relative merit (e.g., B/C ratios) of 

each candidate improvement.

Scale: All, however the network 

will be limited by data availability.

The HERS-ST software simulates 

the selection and implementation 

of highway capital improvements 

consistent with the principles of 

incremental benefit-cost analysis. 

The analysis considers travel 

time, safety, vehicle operating, 

emissions, and highway agency 

costs. The model optimizes 

highway investment given 

funding constraints or 

performance objectives specified 

by the analyst.

Scenario planning could be used 

to set investment parameters 

(such as high, medium, low), set 

goals for highway performance, 

and select the critical indicators 

that the tool would help to 

measure.

Possib

given 

Much 

unava
Systemic Safety 

Project Selection 

Tool

(All)

Guides user through a riskbased approach (rather than 

locating hot spots with high 

crash rates) to safety mgmt.

that complements traditional 

site analyses and 

countermeasure selection. It 

can help planners identify 

improvement types that, 

through widespread adoption, 

have large benefits. As such, 

it nicely compliments the 

Safety Analyst approach. It is 

especially useful in rural 

areas and on local streets 

where crash rates are low, but 

risk factors may be high.

Inputs: Crash data, roadway 

characteristic data, traffic volume 

data

Outputs: Safety risk factors 

identification, countermeasure 

identification

Scale: Region

The tool could help set 

performance targets, goals, and/or 

vision for a region. Can help 

elevate discussions on safety and 

point to high-risk areas and 

trends.

Scenario planning could call for 

an emphasis on safety, in which 

case this tool could be used to go 

beyond traditional site analyses 

and countermeasure selections 

and instead focus on areas of high 

risk and system wide 

countermeasures that might 

produce the most bang for the 

buck.

Challe

especi

areas 

techni

Traini

help s

Highway Safety 

Manual Parts B and 

C

(All)

The HSM, like several other 

tools in this table, represents 

advancements in predicting 

crashes and estimating 

reductions from countermeasures. Its primary focus

is introduction and 

development of analysis tools 

for predicting impacts of 

transportation projects and 

decisions on road safety.

Inputs: Crash data, roadway 

characteristic data, traffic volume 

data

Outputs: Statewide network 

screening, diagnosis, countermeasure identification, economic

appraisal, project prioritization 

and evaluation

Scale: Network, corridor, study 

area, region

The tool identifies alternatives 

that are preferred safety solution. 

Scenario planning identifies 

safety patterns in the region and 

establishes priorities for safety 

expenditures. 

Challe

data, a

Resou

public 

analys

challe

Integration of Safety 

in the Project 

Development Process 

and Beyond: A 

Context Sensitive 

Approach - Chapter 

4

(P, I)

This report conveys a 

common understanding of 

and approach to how 

substantive safety, or 

performance-based safety, 

should be integrated into 

project development and 

throughout the project life 

cycle.

Inputs: Crash data, roadway 

characteristic data, traffic volume 

data, SHSPs, HSP, and TMPs

Outputs: Project evaluation, 

alternative analysis

Scale: Project, network, corridor, 

study area, region

Provides information that helps 

planners and other stakeholders 

incorporate safety quantitatively 

with flexibility in design when 

considering the community

context. Scenario planning 

identifies safety as a pressing 

concern to which the agency 

should dedicate more funding, 

while also providing information 

about the context in which the 

Challe

analys

roadw

Traini

help c
improvements would be made.

TSP eHandbook

(All)

Provides State DOT and 

MPOs with a framework for 

navigating the fundamentals 

and advanced methods of 

safety data collection and 

analysis; demonstrates how 

the results of that analysis can 

be applied to PBPP to 

develop safety goals, 

objectives, performance 

measures and targets; identify 

and prioritize projects; and 

evaluate progress towards 

safety priorities.

Inputs: Safety data: crash data, 

roadway characteristic data, traffic 

volume data, and safety 

information from 

public/stakeholder input

Outputs: Identification of safety 

projects eligible for HSIP funds; 

set of safety evaluation criteria for 

transportation projects

Scale: All

The tool provides performance 

metrics to evaluate scenarios; 

could be used to compare safetyrelated outcomes among 

scenarios. 

Scenario planning provides 

additional metrics related to 

safety, to inform project 

evaluation. 

The to

safety

more 

add an 

projec

National Bridge 

Investment Analysis 

System (NBIAS)

(P)

NBIAS, like HERS, is used to 

determine relationships 

between investment levels 

and performance measures. It 

produces the results, useful 

for target setting, by relating 

investments for bridges to

outcomes. It evaluates bridge 

investment needs and the 

impacts on bridges of 

alternative investment levels

using data from the NBI. 

NBIAS calculates user cost 

impacts of all potential 

improvements and provides 

programs of investments 

based on budget levels and on 

the B/C analysis of potential 

improvements. NBIAS 

provides future forecasts of 

the same bridge condition 

data items as in the current 

year NBI data. NBIAS can be 

Inputs: Bridge inventory (from 

NBI); deck, super-structure, and 

substructure condition; element 

level data can be imported or 

predicted from a set of synthesis, 

quantity, and conditions (SQC) 

models; other data: cost data 

reported to FHWA, element 

models derived from state data, 

user cost parameters from HERS

Outputs: Determines 20 year cost 

scenarios for highways bridges for 

two scenarios: maintain conditions 

and performance and improve 

conditions and performance

Scale: All

The tool can be used to prioritize 

funding for necessary bridge 

infrastructure improvement. 

Scenario planning allows for 

varying funding scenarios to be 

considered to determine optimal 

investment levels. 

The to
used to evaluate investment 

needs and the impacts on 

bridges of alternative levels 

of investment, using the data 

from NBI.

Transportation and 

Health Tool

(A)

Provides access to data that 

practitioners can use to 

examine health impacts of 

transportation systems; uses 

14 indicators relating to 

transportation and public 

health.

Inputs: Geographic area of interest

Outputs: Data reported for 14 

health/transportation indicators 

reported at the state, MSA, or 

UZA-level

Scale: State, MSA, UZA

The tool could provide additional 

performance metrics for longterm program/project evaluation. 

Scenario planning could provide 

a basis for consideration of 

transportation-related health goals 

or objectives. 

This t

consid

it only 

BCA.Net

(A, P, I)

Web-based decision support 

tool that assists Federal, State, 

and local authority 

decisionmakers in evaluating 

the benefits and costs of 

highway projects; forecasts 

transportation and nontransportation effects of 

highway investments and 

maintenance strategies, and 

estimates the economic value 

of these effects over the 

useful life of projects in 

dollar terms

Inputs: Benefits including: travel 

time; vehicle costs; safety;

emissions; induced travel;

reliability, noise, construction 

impacts, habitat and water quality, 

economic effects, community 

impacts, parking costs, equity and 

option value benefits. Costs 

include: initial costs, continuing 

costs, rehab costs, end of project

costs

Outputs: B-C ratio; net present 

value; cost effectiveness; internal 

rate of return; payback period; 

graphical representations

Scale: All

The tool can help determine if a 

project should be undertaken; can 

compare various transportation 

improvement options/scenarios;

and can help establish project 

priorities. 

Scenario planning can provide 

alternatives for BCA analysis. 

The to

benefi

monet

TERM-lite

(A, P, I)

TERM-lite is an analysis tool 

that helps transit agencies 

assess their SGR backlog, 

level of investments to attain 

SGR, and the impact of 

funding changes on asset 

conditions and investment 

needs. It simulates long term 

impacts of constrained 

funding on the priorities of 

asset condition, safety, 

Inputs: Inventory of capital assets

Outputs: Current SGR backlog; 

assets conditions; multi-criteria 

prioritization rankings (based on 

agency goals); long-term SGR 

plan

Scale: Regional, local

The tool can be used to prioritize 

limited investment funds and 

assess the impact of investment 

on future conditions. 

Scenario planning can provide 

alternatives and help prioritize 

projects/investment packages. 

The to

assets 

or reg
security, reliability, and 

O&M cost impact.

SHRP2 - Guide to 

Establishing 

Monitoring Programs 

for Travel-Time 

Reliability (LO2)

(D, A)

This guide helps users design 

systems and methods for 

gathering data related to 

travel time reliability. This 

data can then be used to 

establish a baseline condition 

and identify areas in need of 

improvements.

Inputs: Nonrecurring factors of 

congest-ion incl.: incidents, 

weather, work zones, fluctuations 

in demand, special events, traffic 

control devices, and inadequate 

base capacity

Outputs: Estimated travel time 

reliability

Scale: Freeways, toll roads, urban 

arterials

The tool can be used to establish 

a baseline travel time reliability 

condition and identify area where 

improvements can be made. 

Through scenario planning, a 

varied combinations of 

improvements can be tested to 

understand where investments 

will have the greatest impact on 

travel time reliability.

The to

data th

SHRP2 - Handbook 

for Incorporating 

Reliability 

Performance 

Measures into 

Transportation 

Planning and 

Programming (LO5)

(A, P)

The handbook helps DOTs 

and MPOs better-integrate 

reliability data into their 

planning and programming in 

order to improve 

transportation-related 

decisionmaking

Inputs: Travel time reliability data

Outputs: Programming decisions 

that consider travel time reliability

Scale: Freeways, toll roads, urban 

arterials

The tool helps ensure that a 

robust set of factors are included 

when making decisions. 

Differing travel time reliability 

scenarios can be used to evaluate 

decisions. 

Specia

beyon

planni

incorp

planni

SHRP2 – Reliability 

by Design (LO7)

(P, I)

This guidebook is designed to 

assist users with choosing and 

implementing highway design 

interventions to mitigate 

travel-time reliability problem 

areas

Inputs: Non-recurring congest-ion 

and travel time reliability data

Outputs: Highway design 

treatments that may reduce 

congestion and improve travel 

time reliability

Scale: Urban and rural freeways

New highway design treatments 

could inform the development of 

different scenarios to be assessed. 

The potential impacts of highway 

design interventions can be 

assessed to help inform 

investment in infrastructure.

The to

nonre

time r

proble

SHRP2 -

Incorporating 

Travel-Time 

Reliability into the 

Highway Capacity 

Manual (LO8)

(A)

This publication presents "a 

new analytical procedure 

which enables planners and 

engineers to estimate traveltime reliability performance 

measures."

Inputs: Travel times, ideally over a 

one-year period

Outputs: Travel-time reliability 

statistics

Scale: Corridor (major freeways 

and urban arterials)

Incorporating travel time 

reliability will help assure robust 

scenarios for consideration. 

Proposed changes/ investments 

can be incorporated to model 

impacts on travel time reliability. 

The to

and re
SHRP2 - Tools for 

Assessing Wider 

Economic Benefits of 

Transportation 

(C11)

(A, P)

A suite of analysis tools used 

to assess a highway project's 

potential economic impact.

Inputs: Proposed highway project

Outputs: Regional economic 

impact

Scale: Unknown

The tool can provide economic 

impact data to help inform 

scenarios. 

Differing scenarios can be 

compared to determine which 

scenario results in the greatest 

economic impact. 

Eco-Logical

(P, I)

9-step process that: organizes 

current methods for natural 

resource identification, 

avoidance, minimization and 

mitigation related to 

infrastructure impacts through 

integrated planning; builds 

relationships; and uses 

performance metrics.

Inputs: Vary

Outputs: Vary

Scale: All

The tool could provide an 

identification of an agreed upon 

priority of conservation areas, 

potential mitigation measure, and 

performance metrics.

Scenario planning allows for 

expedited alternative analysis. 

Challe

collab

manag

to be r

storag

comba

Travel Demand 

Models

(All)

A common tool used to 

estimate existing and future 

origin-destination (OD) 

demands at the 

county/regional scale. 

Oriented towards auto trips 

and roadways, provides 

detailed information to help 

identify needs and 

performance against common 

mobility factors. Relies on 

experienced travel demand 

forecasting professionals and 

generates transportation needs 

based on socioeconomic data.

Inputs: Highway and transit 

network; zone-to-zone travel 

times, costs, etc.; land use data.

Outputs: Trip generation 

Trip distribution 

Mode choice 

Trip assignment 

Congestion

Freight Traffic

Scale: County/region

When combined with use of land 

use and sketch scenario planning 

models, it helps identify different 

travel demand/ transportation 

needs for different scenarios to 

identify roadway capacity needs. 

It can demonstrate how different 

scenarios perform against 

indicators such as congestion. In 

a PBPP approach, an agency uses 

the model to identify projects that 

will perform best regardless of 

future changes. Using scenarios 

can tie into risk-based asset 

management planning as well.

Analy

a trave

compl

level o

condu

Simplified Trips-onProject Software 

(STOPS)

(A, P)

Intensive transit travel 

demand model, STOPS helps 

transportation practitioners 

identify and evaluate transit 

project investments based on 

New Starts and Small Starts 

project criteria.

Inputs: Census data, regional 

travel model data and current 

GTFS data from individual metro 

areas.

Outputs: Transit ridership (tripson-project measure) for all 

travelers and for transit dependent. 

Change in auto-mobile VMT 

When combined with other land 

use or sketch scenario planning 

tools, it can help identify specific 

transit needs associated with 

different scenarios. It can also test

out transit ridership associated 

with different land use and 

investment decisions. If agency is 

Simila

the to

econo

invest
based on the change in overall 

transit ridership between 

scenarios.

Scale: Region

targeting a mode split or level of 

ridership at the corridor or system

level, it can evaluate different 

transit investment to achieve 

goals.

MOtor Vehicle 

Emission Simulator 

(MOVES)

(A, P, I)

Motor Vehicle Emission 

Simulator - emission 

modeling system that 

estimates total emissions & 

energy use from all on-road 

sources (cars, trucks, buses,

motorcycles) at the national, 

county, and project level for 

criteria air pollutants, 

greenhouse gases, and air 

toxics.

Inputs: Meteorology, fuel, I/M 

program, age distribution, speed 

distribution, VMT by vehicle type, 

road type distribution, ramp 

fraction, VMT by hour, day, and 

month, vehicle (source type) 

population

Outputs: Total emission inventory 

in units of mass (g, kg, lbs., tons) 

and emission rates per mile or 

vehicle of criteria pollutants, 

green-house gases, and air toxics 

including NOx, VOC, and PM for 

time and place specified

Scale: National, county, and 

project by hour, day (weekday or 

weekend), month, or year

The tool is useful in testing how 

different transportation 

investment strategies impact 

existing levels of emissions and 

air pollutants. 

If scenario planning exercises are 

driven by goals for emission or 

air pollutant reduction, MOVES 

model can help evaluate most 

effective set of strategies.

The to

other 

marin
Scenario Planning Tools 

Please note: FHWA does not endorse the use of any specific private sector tools or models. The purpose of this table 

information about the capabilities and relevant uses of available tools. 

Scenario Planning 

Tool (and 

Applicable PBPP 

Phase)

11

General

Description/ Purpose

Inputs, Outputs, and Scale

12 How does or could the tool 

inform PBPP and vice versa?

CommunityViz

(D)

A land use scenario sketchplanning tool, usually used to 

develop regional long range 

visions. 

Inputs: Existing development, local land 

use plans, environmental features, etc. 

Criteria selected from pre-established 

set contained within tool. 

Outputs: Alternative land development 

patterns, associated impacts on selected 

criteria

Scale: Region

Provides a basis for a long 

range vision & policies. It 

provides new evaluation criteria 

to be applied to the analysis, 

programming, and/or 

implementation phases. Travel 

demand model data can build a 

baseline and initial forecasts. 

Existing policy priorities can 

help to identify appropriate 

evaluation criteria and weights. 

INDEX

(D, A)

A tool that simulates impacts 

associated with land-use and 

transportation scenarios.

Inputs: ESRI ArcView shapefiles with 

transportation system attributes, 

socioeconomic and land-use data.

Outputs: 56 indicators: land 

consumption; housing and employment 

density; proximity to transit; emissions. 

Outputs expressed as tables and maps 

showing performance of each sketch; 

indicators expressed per unit (e.g. 

persons/sq. mile, vehicle trips/capita, 

auto cost in $/ capita). Indicators can be 

displayed according to the zone (input) 

geography defined by the user and 

compared across alternatives.

Scale: All

The tool helps establish 

direction (vision) by clearly 

illustrating impacts for 

difference scenarios. It could 

also help identify new measures 

to carry through to 

programming and evaluation 

phases.

PBPP could help the user cull 

the 56 indicators and select 

those most important. 

 

11

 The applicable PBPP phases are: direction (D), analysis (A), programming (P), implementation (I), or all. 

12

 Scale could be project, corridor, study area, region, etc. 

13

 Challenges include: data/scale compatibility, ability to forecast, quantitative/qualitative, etc. 
Rapid Policy 

Analysis Tool 

(RPAT)

(D)

This tool, formerly known as 

SmartGAP, can be used by 

planners to evaluate smart growth 

policies on travel demand. It is a 

fairly simply model that is not 

intended to evaluate the cost and 

benefits of specific projects. 

However, it can be useful at the 

visioning and direction-setting 

phase to identify promising smart 

growth policies and investments.

Inputs: Pop. And employment by place 

type; daily auto and transit trips per 

capita; VMT by functional class; 

employment and number of firms; 

expected future employment growth; 

base and future population by age; base 

and future avg. per capita income; truck 

and bus VMT by functional class; lane 

miles and transit revenue miles; %

growth by place type; % increase in auto 

operating cost; % increase in lane miles 

and transit revenue miles per capita; % 

of employees offered commute options; 

% road miles with ITS treatment; auto 

operating surcharge per VMT; bicycle 

ownership and usage; increase in 

parking cost and supply.

Outputs: VMT; vehicle and transit trips; 

avg. travel speeds by vehicle type; 

delay; fuel use; emissions; infrastructure 

costs; transit operating costs; annual 

traveler cost; regional accessibility; 

accident rates; walking increase; job 

accessibility by income group.

Scale: All

The tool can help with scoping 

and bounding. 

A scenario writing exercise is 

needed to scope the analysis. 

Regional Ecosystem Framework

(Eco-Logical)

(D, A, P)

A process for overlaying 

transportation infrastructure on 

regional natural and cultural 

resources to identify priority 

areas for conservation, avoidance, 

and mitigation. This is a useful 

process for evaluating different 

plans and scenarios and 

understanding how they may 

affect natural resources.

Inputs: Natural resource data, cultural 

resource data, transportation 

infrastructure, land cover. 

Outputs: Map of ecological priorities 

(and intersections with transportation 

infrastructure). 

Scale: Region

The tool could provide different 

versions of the map, showing 

how ecological priorities would 

change based on different 

ecological inputs or 

transportation build-out 

scenarios. PBPP could provide 

a basis for new types of data to 

be included in REF (sea-level 

rise, high-development with 

more land developed). 
Energy and 

Emissions 

Reduction Policy 

Analysis Tool 

(EERPAT)

(D, A)

Planners can use this high-level 

scenario analysis tool to evaluate 

effects of various GHG emissions

reduction strategies at the 

statewide level. It includes submodels addressing household 

characteristics, travel demand, 

fuel economy, electric vehicles, 

energy consumption, and tailpipe 

/ electricity CO2 emissions. It can 

evaluate GHG reduction 

strategies and strategy 

interactions not directly 

addressed by conventional travel 

demand and emissions models. It 

may not be not suitable for 

evaluating effects of projects. 

Inputs: Transportation system 

characteristics, population, VMT, etc. 

Outputs: GHG emissions, vehicle miles 

traveled, travel delay, and other 

measures. 

Scale: State

The tool is helpful in the 

direction-setting phase for 

states looking to reduce GHG. 

Community Vision 

Metrics

(All)

This FHWA-developed tool helps 

planners identify performance 

measures relevant to their context 

and goals. It provides a 

customized list of metrics but 

does not provide information 

about how to calculate the 

measures or identify data sources. 

Inputs: Check boxes for livability area 

of interest, geographic scale, 

setting/density, and transportation mode. 

Outputs: List of applicable performance 

measures.

Scale: All

The tool can help in the 

identification of performance 

measures.

PBPP influences the tool by 

setting parameters for areas of 

interest, geographic scale, 

setting/density, and 

transportation mode. 

Sustainable 

Communities Index

(All)

Similar to Community Vision 

Metrics, however, this tool 

provides more robust information 

on methods for calculating the 

metrics and identifying data 

resources. 

Inputs: Lists topics and the user can drill 

down in various topics to find measures 

and information on how to calculate the 

measures and data resources.

Outputs: List of applicable performance 

measures. 

Scale: All

The tool can help in the 

identification of performance 

measures.
UrbanSim

(D, A, I)

This program is a complex and 

powerful modeling platform 

available to simulate metro real 

estate markets and impacts of 

land use and transportation plans. 

Used to predict behaviors or 

interaction within a network or 

system to illustrate the cause and 

effect of different scenario 

variables relatives to 

environmental, transportation, 

economic, and development 

goals. Can be used in conjunction 

with activity-based travel models 

to analyze alternatives and 

explore strategies to achieve 

target outcomes. It’s a free, open 

source program but may require

technical assistance to use.

Inputs: Transit investments, roadway 

improvements by type, pricing 

strategies, TDM/ bike-sharing; comp. 

plans, zoning codes, parking availability 

and pricing, TOD, urban villages and 

centers, subsidies, impact fees, 

Financing, UGBs, protection of 

environmentally sensitive areas

Outputs: Housing Units by type, 

density, price (affordability), Nonresidential buildings by type, density, 

price, Acreage in agricultural land, 

forest, open space, households by 

income, size, life cycle, employment by 

sector and building type; transportation 

accessibility, mode shares, VMT, delay, 

emissions

Scale: All

The tool has a wide array of 

outputs, many of which are 

consistent with common PMs, 

making it relatively easy to 

address common PMs and new 

PMs simultaneously. The tool 

is useful in the direction-setting 

phase to help illustrate issues 

and opportunities of different 

land use, real estate, housing,

and transportation investments 

or policies. Key metrics can be 

incorporated into later phases of 

PBPP. Travel demand model 

data could help to build 

baseline and initial forecasts. 

Existing policy priorities can 

help to identify appropriate 

evaluation criteria and weights.

Envision Tomorrow

(D, A)

A set of urban and regional 

planning tools that can be used to 

model development feasibility on 

a site-by-site basis as well as 

create and evaluate multiple land 

use scenarios, test and refine 

transportation plans, produce 

small-area concept plans, and 

model complex regional issues

Inputs: Unknown

Outputs: Infill development or redev., 

cost of infrastructure, building value and 

revenue, housing mix, affordability, 

parking costs, jobs-to-housing ratio, 

distribution and employment space, 

connectivity, land cover and availability, 

impervious cover in special areas (e.g. 

aquifers), water, wastewater, energy 

consumption, enhanced ROI, building 

energy consumption

Scale: All

The tool is built to produce a 

set of indicators that the 

creators recommend be 

monitored for performance over 

time. 

Existing performance measures 

could inform the set of 

indicators that are evaluated by 

the tool. 
UrbanFootprint

(D, A)

UrbanFootprint gives users 

access to land use, policy, and 

resource planning tools across a 

range of sectors. Its detailed data 

‘canvas’ of existing buildings, 

land uses, and other details of the 

built environment, combined with 

functionality for testing the 

application of land use or policy 

changes, serves to inform policy, 

planning, and funding decisions 

and aid in implementation and 

monitoring.

Inputs: Data from ArcGIS-based 

systems.

Outputs: Carbon emissions, travel 

behavior, pollution, energy and water 

use, fiscal and cost consequences, public 

health impacts, land consumption and 

conservation impacts, housing mix and 

affordability

Scale: Local to Regional - but seems 

best suited for regional work

Useful in the direction and 

analysis phases of PBPP to 

identify values and driving 

issues. Useful for developing 

and accessing integrated land 

use and transportation policies 

against performance metrics 

that can be folded into later 

phases of PBPP. Travel demand 

model data can help build 

baseline and initial forecasts. 

Existing policy priorities can 

help to identify appropriate 

evaluation criteria and weights.

iPlaces

3

S

(D, A, I)

Web-based modeling platform for 

scenario planning currently 

managed by SACOG. Evaluates

how alternative development 

approaches or transportation 

investments may impact 

indicators. Developed by the CA 

Energy Commission (CEC), the 

CA Dept. of Transportation and 

the U.S. Dept. of Energy. Private 

company provides programming, 

maintenance and web hosting. 

Internet-based, so no specialized 

hardware or software is required.

Inputs: Interactive menus prompt input 

on some key regional variables (like 

VMT, for example), and other data is 

uploaded in shapefile form. Common 

shapefiles include parcel-level land use, 

transportation and energy use data.

Outputs: Employees, dwelling units, 

population, water consumption, jobs by 

sector, vehicle trips per household, 

vehicle miles traveled per household, 

transit ridership, pedestrian friendliness, 

pedestrian and bike trips, electricity /

natural gas / gasoline demand, ROI

Scale: All

UPlan

(P)

Companion to iPLACES3S; can 

be used to determine what policy 

types are needed to implement 

the vision from that program. 

Software runs in ArcGIS and is 

available at no cost online. It is 

available through UC-Davis.

PECAS

(A)

PECAS is a spatial economic 

input-output model supporting 

the MEPLAN and TRANUS 

systems. PECAS assesses two 

Inputs: Industry, government, household 

data. 

Outputs: Activity allocations by activity 

category by zone, commodity flow 
components of planning to model 

economic flows-"space" 

(including both land and floor 

space), and "activity allocation."

quantities from production zone to 

consumption zone via exchange zone, 

imports and exports by exchange zone 

and exchange prices by commodity by

exchange zone.

Scale: State, Region 

PlanWorks 

Visioning and 

Transportation 

Application

(D)

This Application includes a 

model approach, a step-by-step 

process, case studies, and a guide 

for generating consensus and 

shared outcomes for 

transportation projects. Intended 

to help practitioners assess the 

possibilities of visioning, in 

identifying steps when engaging 

in visioning, and in establishing 

links between outcomes and 

transportation planning and 

project development processes.

Inputs: Not applicable. This is a guide 

that details the steps in a visioning 

process, organizing the timeline and 

providing answers to frequently asked 

questions.

Outputs: Not applicable. This is a guide 

that details the steps in a visioning 

process, organizing the timeline and 

providing answers to frequently asked 

questions.

Scale: All

The tool is a viable template for 

the visioning stage, so it can be 

incorporated into the direction 

component.

RapidFire

(All)

RapidFire is a spreadsheet-based 

tool that is a companion to Urban 

Footprint. It is used to evaluate 

scenarios at the national, state, 

regional, and local scales. It 

constitutes a single framework 

into which data and researchbased assumptions about the 

future are loaded to test the 

impacts of varying land use 

patterns and policies across a 

range of critical metrics.

Inputs: Demographic projections, travel 

behavior projections, technical factors 

for fuel and energy emissions, 

residential/commercial development 

allocation assumptions. 

Outputs: Land consumption

Transportation costs/emissions/VMT

Public health costs

Water, energy use

Fiscal impacts. 

Scale: City, county, region, state. 

Useful in the direction and 

analysis phases of PBPP to 

identify community values and 

driving issues; develop and 

assess integrated land use and 

transportation policies against 

key performance metrics that 

can be folded into later phases 

of the PBPP process. PBPP 

should form the basis for all 

data inputs, projects, and 

performance measures. 

CrowdGauge

(D)

Scenario visioning tool available 

as open source software. 

Participants walk through series 

of screens exploring their 

personal priorities for their 

community, the potential impacts 

of proposed plan elements on 

Inputs: Citizen voting on predetermined 

categories. 

Outputs: Unknown

Scale: All

The tool is used visioning or as 

a means of gaining public 

support for priorities after the 

analysis phase. The tool helps 

visualize the tradeoffs in costs 

and benefits of proposed 

projects and policies, so the tool 
their priorities, and the impacts of 

their budget choices on their 

previously-stated priorities. 

can have potential project costs 

and benefits stemming from the 

analysis phase added as inputs. 

MetroQuest

(D, P)

Public participation platform that 

works on kiosks, tablets, and 

smartphones. Versatile interfaces 

that allow voting, ranking, 

mapping, and other types of 

inputs. It has a tool to detect and 

negate ballot-stuffing. Offers 

cloud-based data storage.

Inputs: Citizens can add comments to 

maps, rank priorities, answer survey 

questions, allocate money. 

Outputs: Unknown

Scale: All, but best suited for corridor or 

study area.

The tool is useful at all stages 

of scenario planning and PBPP. 

Can be used to understand 

preferences or to gain input on 

specific projects, which is 

useful in the programming 

stage. 

CityEngine

(D, A, P)

An ESRI visualization tool that 

creates a 3D model of the city. 

This tool can be integrated with 

ArcGIS and used to compare land 

use planning scenarios, or to 

perform simple network analysis.

Inputs: GIS files, python scripts, 

drawing, Open Street Map, zoning rules. 

Outputs: 3D models, maps, reports 

based on scenario comparison, network 

and shadow analysis, viewsheds, traffic 

impact analysis. 

Scale: All

Useful for evaluating design 

aspects of projects, stakeholder 

engagement, and scenario 

planning for programming 

phase. PBPP should form basis 

for all data inputs, projects, and 

performance measures. 

UrbanCanvas

(D, A, P)

Similar to CityEngine, but 

integrated with UrbanSim.

Provides 3D visualization and 

scenario comparisons but with 

lower analytical capability than 

CityEngine. Some components it 

lacks may be available through 

UrbanSim.

Inputs: Parcels, buildings, zoning, 

projects. Uses .shp format.

Outputs: 3D models, simulations, maps, 

graphs. 

Scale: All

The tool is useful for evaluating 

design aspects of projects, 

stakeholder engagement, and 

scenario planning for 

programming phase. PBPP 

should form the basis for all 

data inputs, projects, and 

performance measures. 

CubeLand

(A, P)

Part of Cube modeling software, 

Cube Land forecasts land use and 

land price by simulating the real 

estate market under different 

economic conditions. For a userdefined scenario, Cube Land 

forecasts the supply and the 

demand for different types of 

properties, and estimates the 

location of households and nonresidential activities.

Inputs: Regulation specifics. Jobs and 

households. Land supply. 

Outputs: Uses bid rent functions to test 

economic growth scenarios. 

Scale: Region

The tool could help determine 

the economic ramifications of 

land use policies. 

PBPP could influence the 

projects selected for use in the 

tool. 
EngagingPlans

(D)

An online portal to share progress 

and gather public input online for 

a successful engagement strategy 

with community members.

Inputs: Idea wall; discussion & 

comments; surveys, polls, instant 

results. 

Outputs: Updates, event timeline, 

document library, FAQs, email 

subscription, social media links, image 

gallery. 

Scale: All

The tool helps stakeholders 

engage in strategic thinking and 

decisionmaking activities. 

PBPP can be used to collect 

data form users and inform 

goals, objectives, and priorities. 
C-1 

Appendix C. Case Studies 

Synthesis and Comparative Table of Case Studies 

Champaign-Urbana 

Urbanized Area 

Transportation Study

Fresno Council of 

Governments Hillsborough County MPO

Context

Population 145,400

(2010 Census)

965,974 

(2014 estimate)

1,291,600 

(2013 estimate)

Character of study 

area

Smaller metropolitan area, 

university town with welleducated workforce

Lower income, high 

unemployment; high 

Hispanic population, 

agricultural 

Large metropolitan area 

Power distribution Dominant core area Dominant major city Multiple cities and MPOs

Number of 

jurisdictions

5 16 4

Motivation for 

Scenario Planning

Help the public understand 

the benefits that can be 

achieved by pursuing a more 

sustainable scenario

Compliance with Senate 

Bill 375 and Sustainable 

Communities Strategy 

requirement

Considering how the county should 

grow (rapid growth already 

occurring)

Scenarios

Number 2 4 3 for each approach used in the 

Imagine 2040 LRTP

Nature of 

scenarios

Status quo/business as usual 

vs. sustainable choices (high 

level of investment in transit 

and bike/pedestrian

infrastructure)

Status quo; metro less 

dominant; local plans; more 

growth, Corridors and 

centers; redevelopment and 

higher densities

Status quo (Suburban Dream), 

increased density and mix of uses 

(Bustling Metro), and focus on job 

centers (New Corporate Centers). 

For the investment scenarios: High, 

Medium, and Low levels of 

investment. 

Models used Travel demand model, land 

use model

4-step travel demand model Regional 4-step travel demand 

model and REMI econometric 

modeling tool (storm surge 

vulnerability analysis)

Tools used SCALDS, MOVES, LAMA, 

HIA

RapidFire, Envision 

Tomorrow

MetroQuest and social media (public 

outreach), GIS (for level of service),

Number 

indicators

74 in 2040 long range plan; 

22 in latest annual report 

card

40 reduced to 10 31 (analysis), 13 (visioning 

approach), 3 (investment approach)

Nature of 

indicators 

Multi-disciplinary Transportation and land use 

including prime farmland; 

smart growth oriented 

(TOD, Density, multiMulti-disciplinary and 

transportation-oriented 
C-2 

modal)

Range of variance 

among scenarios

Selection of two highly 

differentiated scenarios led to 

relatively significant 

variation (in relation to the 

region’s relatively small size)

Relatively minor Significant difference between 

arrangement of land uses and 

transportation networks and 

significant differences in funding 

levels

Implementation The region continues to 

focus its investments on key 

projects identified in the 

current and previous LRTP, 

as well as heavy investment 

in the regional bicycle and 

pedestrian network.

Selected scenario reflects 

all existing land use and 

transportation plans; region 

is investing in significant 

transit improvements in the 

core area.

To be determined. The biggest 

challenge according to the MPO is 

implementing through the TIP.

Special features Consideration of a hypothetical 

hurricane that follows the path and is 

the same strength as a hurricane that 

struck in 1921

Relation to PBPP

Nature of PBPP 

work

Extensive use of 

performance measures 

throughout plans and 

processes; annual report card 

published.

Target setting on GHG 

emissions

Extensive use of performance 

measures to evaluate land use and 

transportation scenarios. Use of 

scenarios during analysis phase to 

compare performance under 

different funding levels and 

priorities.

Impact of scenario 

work on PBPP

Helped agency understand 

performance implications of 

scenarios

Helped agency understand 

performance implications of 

scenarios

The land use/transportation 

scenarios supported the development 

of goals and objectives. The 

approach to investment scenarios 

supported the selection of priorities 

by the MPO.
C-3 

Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study 

The Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study (CUUATS) is the transportation 

division of the Champaign County Regional Planning Commission (CCRPC)—the region’s MPO. 

The Champaign-Urbana (C-U) area is located in Central Illinois, 2-3 hours’ drive south of Chicago 

and about two hours’ drive west of Indianapolis. The CUUATS Policy Committee has 

representatives from Champaign County, the Cities of Champaign and Urbana, the Village of 

Savoy, the University of Illinois-Urbana Champaign (UIUC), the Champaign-Urbana Mass Transit 

District (C-U MTD) and the State of Illinois. 

The Champaign-Urbana area had 145,361 residents at the time of the 2010 Census, while the 

region’s MSA was home to 231,891 residents. Between 2000 and 2010, the urbanized area saw a 

17.3 percent increase in population, and the population is projected to increase by approximately 30 

percent between 2010 and 2040. The Champaign-Urbana area is a regional employment center 

because of the presence of educational, health care, and manufacturing employers in the area, 

particularly UIUC. With a student body of nearly 45,000, the University serves as the region’s 

economic and cultural center. 

Public policies and investments to promote more efficient land use and development patterns seem 

to be taking hold in the urban area. While the population and employment opportunities have 

continued to grow since 1990, population and residential density have leveled off and increased, 

respectively, in the last five years. The proportion of commuters who bike, walk, or take transit to 

get to work is 22 percent, which is higher than the rate in many peer regions. Between 2009 and 

2014, the region increased its mileage of bicycle facilities by over 60 percent. Over the same period, 

carsharing use and Amtrak ridership increased, while vehicle ownership decreased. 

PBPP EXPERIENCE 

CUUATS’ use of performance measures and targets, performance monitoring, and data-driven 

decisionmaking has been profiled in various FHWA publications, including the PBPP Guidebook 

and Model Long Range Transportation Plans Guidebook. Since 2004, CUUATS has used Measures 

of Effectiveness (MOEs) to monitor progress toward specific goals and objectives. Since 2011, the 

agency has published an annual Report Card to demonstrate how the region is doing on the 

objectives and measures identified in the long range plan. This requires the agency regularly to take 

stock of how well the region is doing, as well as identify areas in which performance has not been 

as strong. The most recent annual report provided performance results for 22 MOEs. The annual 

report is an effective tool for informing member agencies and elected officials about progress that 

has been made and the direction in which the region is moving. In turn, many elected officials 

reference the report in their discussions with community members, and a few local governments in 

the C-U region, such as the City of Champaign, have begun to use report cards to track their 

performance as well. 

In December 2014, CCRPC approved the long range transportation plan for the Champaign-Urbana 

Urbanized Area, Sustainable Choices 2040. The agency’s previous plan, from 2009, was LRTP 

2035: Choices. The agency first set performance targets in its 2035 Plan; these targets varied 
C-4 

between realistic and aspirational targets, depending in part on the availability of data. The goals 

and objectives in the 2040 plan were formulated based on a public input along with MAP-21 

priorities, State transportation policy factors, local knowledge, and current local planning efforts. 

The Sustainable Choices 2040 plan groups performance goals according to the following six 

“planning pillars,” each of which is clearly aligned in the plan with Federal, State and regional goals 

(shown in Figure C-1): 

Figure C-1: Sustainable Choices 2040 Planning Pillars 

Each planning pillar is divided into a number of Specific, Measurable, Agreed upon, Realistic, and 

Time-bound (SMART) objectives (between 5 and 15), and each objective is tied to a performance 

measure and data source. Multiple strategies are identified in the plan for accomplishing each 

objective, as well as the party responsible for leading implementation of each strategy. 

The Sustainable Choices 2040 plan contains 59 objectives and 74 performance measures. They 

include a mixture of both outcome and output measures, and are discussed in more depth below in 
C-5 

the context of their alignment with the performance measures CUUATS used to evaluate its 

scenarios. 

As described below in the Scenario Analysis Tools section, CUUATS uses a variety of tools and 

data sources for measuring performance on each LRTP objective. Most of the modeling data is 

generated by CUUATS or by local and regional agencies (e.g., transit service providers, local 

governments, school districts). 

SCENARIO PLANNING EXPERIENCE 

CUUATS used scenario analysis processes in developing two previous long range plans, which 

were finalized in in 2004 (LRTP 2025) and 2009 (Choices 2035). For LRTP 2025, CUUATS 

considered 15 scenarios in all. First, CUUATS developed three scenarios that varied in terms of the 

projects and land use developments expected. Scenario 1 reflected transportation projects and land 

use developments already in the pipeline for implementation during the 20-year plan horizon; 

Scenario 2 was similar to Scenario 1 but also included additional developments and introduced an 

“enhanced arterial fringe road concept,” which would create a higher-speed, limited access corridor 

around the urbanized area; and Scenario 3 was similar to Scenario 2 but included the enhanced 

arterial fringe roadway system with specific study areas (i.e., corridor studies to determine the exact 

route of the system, whereas the route was assumed in Scenario 2). In addition, CUUATS initially 

considered three land use and transit service “alternatives” (i.e., scenarios—Alternatives A, B, and 

C), which ranged from dispersed development patterns (the status quo) to compact, activity centerfocused development.14 CUUATS used indicators such as total vehicle miles traveled (VMT), 

roadway congestion, transit usage and ridership, housing near transit, population density, and 

infrastructure costs to evaluate combinations of the investment scenarios and land use alternatives. 

The scenarios were largely roadway-based (i.e., did not consider land use variations), which was 

due primarily to the limitations of the tools the agency used. CUUATS began developing its first 

travel demand model in 2000, which was used for the 2025 plan. The model used TranPlan and 

developing it required the agency to build its TAZs; staff did everything in-house. Because this 

process was the first in which the agency had a model to use, the member agencies wanted to test a 

variety of scenarios, which were generally developed based on questions raised by members, such 

as, “What if we expand [example] roadway?” Ultimately, the agency ended up evaluating five 

alternatives (rather than the initially planned three), which resulted in consideration of 15 scenarios. 

Another outcome of the 2025 Plan process was the identification of specific corridors needed to be 

studied in more depth to identify the most appropriate recommendations. 

In the Choices 2035 plan process, CUUATS considered three different scenarios: a 2005 Base Year 

Scenario, a 2035 No Improvements Scenario, which assumed no changes to the network, and a 

2035 Full Improvement Scenario, which reflected future conditions if all proposed improvements 

were made to the existing network. In essence, the scenario analysis process involved identifying 

how much proposed changes would improve future performance and conditions. A limitation to this 

analysis was the travel demand model’s lack of accuracy as a mode choice model; mode choice 

 

14 Champaign-Urbana Urbanized Area Transportation Study, LRTP 2025, Appendix 6: Scenarios and Alternatives 

Information: http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/pdf/LRTP/Appendix-6_Scenarios.pdf. 
C-6 

improvements to the model were not completed in time for this plan update, so the model that was 

used simply assigned 6-7 percent of all trips to transit (and none to biking or walking). For the first 

time, however, the agency’s model did consider land use; the agency divided its set of Traffic 

Analysis Zones (TAZs) into smaller TAZs to achieve a higher level of accuracy. Scenario planning 

for the 2035 plan also took into consideration the local jurisdictions’ comprehensive plan and other 

plan updates. The Choices 2035 plan compared scenarios based on population projections, VMT 

(total, per household, and per capita), vehicle hours traveled (VHT) (total, per household, and per 

capita), and total trips by both transit and auto.15

Following the 2035 plan development experience, CUUATS updated the agency’s travel demand 

model (TDM) to incorporate active modes of transportation. The agency also developed additional 

models to complement the TDM outputs. Since 2004, CUUATS has completed five corridor 

studies, four of which used specific scenario techniques to develop scenarios to present to the 

public. The corridor studies ultimately informed recommendations about design to accommodate 

freight needs and alleviate the use of the interstate system for local trips. The corridor studies helped 

the agency reach an approach of “mobility around the city, and multimodalism in the community.” 

The preferred scenarios that were identified in these corridor studies, as well as comments received 

through the corridor study processes, informed both the 2035 and 2040 plans. 

To develop the Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan, CUUATS first conducted public outreach and initial 

modeling to develop goals and objectives. The agency’s goal was to confirm that the agency had an 

accurate understanding of the changes most residents wanted to see in the community. CUUATS 

Sustainable Choices 2040 public outreach was extensive. The agency used social media, a website, 

videos (to explain what an MPO and a long range transportation are), newspaper ads, youth 

outreach events, surveys, four public visioning sessions, and a community conversations bus, which 

traveled to 29 different areas throughout the region, to engage the public to provide input for the 

plan.16 A professor from UIUC served as a facilitator for the public visioning meetings, which 

helped to ensure a neutral presentation of information. A graphic artist created sketches throughout 

meetings to reflect the comments made by members of the public. CUUATS’ heavy investment in 

thorough public engagement was made possible through additional funding provided by Illinois 

DOT and the donation of the community conversations bus by CU-MTD. In total, CUUATS 

received 1500 public comments from 35 public events and 23 agency presentations; the comments 

confirmed that the agency was moving in the right direction by continuing to follow the principles 

in the 2025 and 2035 plans. 

 

15 Choices 2035 Plan: http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/lrtp2/Documents/Final%20Plan/Complete%20Plan.pdf (for 

the full list of indicators, see page 131 of the plan). 

16 Details available in Appendix A of the plan. 
C-7 

Figure C-2: Graphic Artist’s Sketch of Public Input

The insights generated from this outreach and during the process of developing the Sustainable 

Choices 2040 scenario also led the agency to conclude that it was critical to define more broadly the 

role of transportation in achieving larger community goals and outcomes. According to the plan, 

“the transportation network is intricately tied to many other conditions in the community such as 

land-use, public health, the environment, and the economy. The overall built environment operates 

most effectively when all these different processes can work together to facilitate safe and efficient 

access and mobility from different points in the community to serve each of our daily needs.”

Based on public input, agency input, local plans, and existing data, CUUATS staff then developed 

and analyzed the scenarios. The scenario analysis was conducted after the majority of public input 

had been collected, to illustrate strategies and to explore potential impacts of future trends and 

events, rather than as an up-front visioning or goal-setting tool. To develop the scenarios, CUUATS 

identified performance in the year 2010 as the baseline scenario, against which the other two 

scenarios would be compared. The agency then developed two scenarios, Traditional Development 

and Sustainable Choices, each described and depicted (in Figure C-3) briefly below. 

The Traditional Development scenario represented expected conditions based on historic system 

growth trends and patterns. It included development projects that are relatively certain to move 

forward based on plans and projects already approved from MPO member agencies. 

The Sustainable Choices scenario was built to reflect ideas and input that CUUATS received from 

the public. It included several significantly different assumptions about transportation and land use 

compared to the traditional scenario: 1) a high speed rail corridor between Chicago and downtown 

Champaign would serve as a significant catalyst for growth in downtown Champaign, downtown 
C-8 

Urbana, the University Avenue corridor, the University Research Park, and industrial area around 

Olympian Drive; 2) an intensive transit corridor system linking downtown Urbana and Champaign; 

3) increased density on and around University Avenue and Campustown, and 4) more frequent 

transit service on additional and existing routes. 

Figure C-3: Visual Representations for Traditional Development and Sustainable Choices 2040 

Scenarios 

The comparison of the traditional development scenario to the sustainable choices scenario 

identifies the scenario that best represents the public’s vision for the future while also identifying 

the forecasted outcomes under each scenario. The inclusion of the high-speed rail corridor project 

between Chicago and downtown Champaign adds an externally influenced component to the 

Sustainable Choices scenario. 

The use of only two scenarios is not typical of MPO scenario planning processes, most of which 

involve three or more scenarios. CUUATS’ approach was built upon lessons learned from previous 

scenario planning efforts of LRTP 2025 and Choices 2035, as well as scenario planning exercises 

conducted for four of the corridor studies completed between the LRTP 2025 and LRTP 2035. Also 

in a departure from typical practice, the scenarios were not labeled in a value-neutral manner. 

Rather than using objective titles like “A” and “B” or numbers, to avoid implying that one scenario 

is better than another, the Sustainable Choices 2040 scenario is an illustration of an ideal future 

envisioned by the public, which explains the use of an idealistic title for the multi-faceted scenario. 

The purpose of CUUATS’ approach was to evaluate the feasibility and benefits of the public’s 

preferred scenario, rather than to decide which of the two scenarios better represents the public’s 

vision. CUUATS’ decision to use only two scenarios was influenced by the fact that the public 

reached a remarkable consensus about the overall vision for the future, as well as by the agency’s 

previous experience, which indicated that differences in performance are hard to measure in a small 
C-9 

region (fewer permutations of projects and plans also results in fewer scenarios). In addition to the 

public engagement activities discussed above, CUUATS consulted with other key agencies 

including the region’s transit agency and Illinois DOT. 

A notable component of the 2040 Sustainable Choices scenario was the incorporation of a highspeed (220 miles per hour) rail corridor running through Champaign-Urbana from Chicago to St. 

Louis. The high-speed rail corridor would have huge impacts on the region—reducing travel time to 

Chicago from 2.5-3 hours to 45 minutes, making C-U a possible bedroom community of Chicago 

and opening up Chicago-based job opportunities to C-U residents. Significantly, the rail line would 

enable frequent commutes between two major University of Illinois campuses. Through the 2040 

plan public engagement, CUUATS found that the overwhelming majority of area residents want the 

high-speed rail line, and are actively campaigning for a route that would serve the area. To 

understand the implications of the high-speed rail line for the area, CUUATS worked with a UIUC 

professor with expertise in high-speed rail in Taiwan, who conducted a feasibility study for the 

high-speed rail corridor. 

SCENARIO ANALYSIS TOOLS 

CUUATS uses travel demand modeling for long range plan development as well as corridor and 

other studies. Since the development of the 2035 Plan, CUUATS has worked to refine its travel 

demand model to better account for active modes of transportation and better model interactions 

between land use and transportation, as well as the impacts of transportation on livability, social 

costs, greenhouse gas emissions, and public health. In developing Sustainable Choices 2040, 

CUUATS used four county-level models as well as two additional models to evaluate conditions at 

a localized (neighborhood) scale: The Health Impact Assessment (HIA) and Local Accessibility and 

Mobility Analysis (LAMA). 

Figure C-4 below provides an overview of how these various models work together to identify 

projected impacts. The plan emphasizes the strong connections between the transportation system 

and other factors that affect quality of life, which explains why the agency chose to evaluate its 

scenarios based on a variety of performance measure types and topic areas. The plan states: “The 

CUUATS modeling suite is designed to provide a holistic approach to planning analysis through the 

integration of localized transportation, land use, emission, social costs, accessibility, mobility, and 

population health at the County level and at the local level in the Champaign-Urbana area.”
C-10

Figure C-4: CUUATS’ Statistical Models 

Population and employment projections are key inputs to the CUUATS modeling and analysis 

process. To project county-level population changes shown in Figure C-5, CUUATS used 

HandyAndy, an interregional cohort-component model created by Dr. Andy Isserman of UIUC. Dr. 

Isserman also developed TrenDandy, an Excel workbook tool that uses Regional Economic 

Information System (REIS) data to perform employment projections (using geo-coded Business 

Analyst industry employment data, cross-referenced with local data). Current land use data is 

identified using GIS software and local knowledge of the area. 
C-11

Figure C-5: Regional Population and Employment Projections under Traditional 

and Sustainable Choices Scenarios 

Two important modeling tools used by CUUATS are a Travel Demand Model (TDM) and a LandUse Evaluation and Impact Assessment Model (LEAM). The TDM is a person-trip model built 

using the Cube Voyager software platform. It employs a traditional four-step travel forecasting 

process to evaluate auto and transit trips for daily and peak hour scenarios. First developed at the 

University of Illinois, LEAM is a suite of interconnected models that predict changes in land-use 

over the planning horizon. The model is used primarily to identify spatial distribution of population 

and employment growth in the region. 

The TDM was integrated with the LEAM to account for the interrelationship between land-use and 

transportation. The integrated TDM/LEAM identified expected mode share, VMT, and congestion 

under each scenario. CUUATS runs both models every five years, so that the outcomes become 

inputs for the next planning cycle. Staff have made significant modifications to the TDM and 

LEAM to indicate which land is most desirable for development and where growth is most likely to 

take place.17 The next section will explain in further detail the tools and corresponding measures 

used to identify expected impacts under each scenario. 

 

17 CUUATS staff indicated that LEAM is a tool better suited to larger metropolitan areas to use in simulating growth 

patterns without requiring a high degree of accuracy (e.g. at the parcel level). 
C-12

SCENARIO ANALYSIS PERFORMANCE MEASURES 

Using the findings under different scenarios from the integrated travel demand and land use model, 

CUUATS calculated the expected impacts under each scenario for other aspects of quality of life. 

The specific tools used, and the measures used by each, were: 

The Social Cost of Alternative Land Development Scenarios (SCALDS) – CUUATS used this 

FHWA-developed model to test the impacts of the two different land use scenarios. CUUATS 

localized some of the model’s inputs to estimate social costs and development impacts more 

accurately. The model identified the scenarios’ impacts on:

► Housing (LEAM output, SCALDS input) 

► Local new infrastructure costs 

► Annual operating cost of all services (per resident and per employment) 

► Daily water use (per resident and per employment) 

► Annual energy use per resident (in MMBtu) 

► Transportation Personal Miles Traveled for driving, transit, biking, and walking 

The MOtor Vehicle Emission Simulator (MOVES) – CUUATS used this EPA-developed model 

to identify expected emission/air quality impacts of transportation-related activities under each 

scenario. The agency used its TDM and other local datasets to develop detailed inputs for the 

model. The measures generated from this model were: 

► GHG emissions 

► PM2.5 and other pollutant emissions 

Local Accessibility and Mobility Analysis (LAMA) – LAMA is a qualitative and quantitative 

analysis of accessibility and mobility in different neighborhoods or planning areas in the region. 

Quantitative measurements of built-environment variables are combined with public input to 

present a more comprehensive assessment of the existing conditions at the local level. 

► Mobility Index (e.g., availability of bus routes, bike lanes, sidewalks) 

► Accessibility Index (availability of jobs, grocery stores, and other services) 

These indices provide an understanding of the impact of accessibility and mobility on travel 

behavior and transportation costs. 

Health Impact Assessment (HIA) – CUUATS completed an HIA to establish a relationship 

between the built environment and the local obesity rate. The HIA rates factors based on their 

strength in the model. CUUATS found that obesity rates were generally lower in neighborhoods 

with higher population density, better land use mix, higher accessibility to jobs and services, and 

better transit connectivity. 
C-13

► Relationship between built environment and obesity rate 

► Health Index (Uses built environment variables to identify physical activity implications) 

The narrative of the project identification section of the plan reiterates the key aspects of the 

Sustainable Choices 2040 scenario—in particular, its emphasis on increasing non-automobile mode 

share. Generally, projects identified in the plan appear to be consistent with the Sustainable Choices 

2040 scenario and vision. While the majority of the projects listed in the plan are roadway projects, 

most of them include bicycle and pedestrian facilities. There are also seven non-roadway 

improvements, including the proposed high-speed rail line, and over 700 bicycle and pedestrian 

projects that have been compiled from other area plans. 

The performance measures used to evaluate the two development scenarios are closely linked to 

objectives and performance measures in the 2040 plan. The plan includes many more measures than 

those used to evaluate the scenarios because the scenario evaluation process was focused on longterm outcomes and with the scenarios serving as broad approximations, whereas the plan 

development models incorporated more system performance output measures. As shown in Error! 

eference source not found. below, although the performance measures used to evaluate scenarios 

differ from those in the 2040 plan, the connections between the two are very clear. 

Table C-1: Example of the Alignment of Performance Measures used to Evaluate Scenario and 

the Performance Measures in the Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan 

Scenario 

Analysis 

Performance 

Measures

Relevant Performance Measures in Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan 

(selection)

Mobility Index

(e.g., 

availability of 

bus routes, 

bike lanes, 

sidewalks)

► Miles of existing non-ADA compliant sidewalks upgraded along paved 

roads in the urbanized area

► Number of miles of different types of trails and bicycle infrastructure 

(two measures)

► Percentage of the C-U MTD [transit agency] service area contained 

inside the urbanized area

► Number of new rural transit trips connecting to the urbanized area

► Percentage of transportation projects fully adhering to the CUUATS 

Complete Streets Policy

► Number of transit, bicycle, and/or shared use connections leading to a 

downtown area
C-14

Accessibility 

Index

(Availability of 

jobs, grocery 

stores, and 

other services)

► Miles of existing non-ADA compliant sidewalks upgraded along paved 

roads in the urbanized area

► Number of short term projects completed according to various C-U 

SRTS Project plans

► Number of new pedestrian and coordinated bicycle plans (two 

measures)

► Number of ordinances [to provide year-round access to sidewalks, bike 

paths, and transit stops] implemented by municipalities within the 

urbanized area

► Number of direct transit routes and links between neighborhoods and 

community interest points and major employers

► Number of Zipcar locations and new car share programs in the area 

(two measures)

► Percentage of transportation projects fully adhering to the CUUATS 

Access Management Guidelines

► Number of areas with improved scores according to LAMA

► Miles of new sidewalks connecting to bus stops

► Number of new bicycle facilities located within a 1/4 mile of affordable 

housing

► Number of mixed use developments with bicycle, pedestrian, and 

transit access

► Combined transportation and housing costs as a percentage of median 

income

CUUATS used scenario analysis to validate priorities and identify projects and strategies in the 

Sustainable Choices 2040 plan. In the coming years, CUUATS plans to: 

► Incorporate the LAMA and HIA tools and methods into future scenario planning exercises. 

► Update its project prioritization guidelines to reflect the six planning pillars in the 2040 plan 

better.

► Update its TDM to make it a mode-choice model with five travel choices (drive alone, 

carpool, take transit, bike, or walk) and improve land use analysis capabilities.

► Identify improved methods for creating population and employment projections. 

► Continue to partner with the Champaign-Urbana Public Health District and other health 

agencies to collect health data, map changes over time, and incorporate health impacts into 

scenario planning using health-related performance measures. 
C-15

► Develop an interactive website that will be used to educate members of the public and 

engage them in an ongoing conversation about local transportation priorities and their 

impact on neighborhoods. 

► Continue discussions with policy and technical committees surrounding the appropriate 

number of performance measures to track to ensure that key priorities are still clear. 

► Complete sidewalk and ramp inventory to identify coverage gaps and provide data to the 

cities.

Lessons Learned 

► Strong and collaborative relationships between the MPO and the agency’s member 

jurisdictions and other partners are extremely important; they improve the MPO’s 

effectiveness and its ability to acquire funding to innovate. This, in turn, improves the 

quality of the scenario planning and scenario analyses the agency undertakes. Some 

examples of strong relationships from the C-U region that have improved the agency’s 

capacity and ability to obtain funding include: 

● Informal lines of communication between the CUUATS and its various partners are 

always open. Many of these relationships date back to 1998, when the Campus Area 

Transportation Study (CATS) was formed to discuss transportation issues affecting the 

university area and to update the campus master plan. 

● CUUATS, CU-MTD, and other partners successfully worked together to obtain the 

only Federal Transportation Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 

grant in the State of Illinois. The TIGER-funded Multimodal Corridor Enhancement 

Project will create a network of complete and transit-friendly streets throughout the 

downtown and core areas. 

● Illinois DOT has frequently provided CUUATS with funding for different initiatives. 

In some cases, the funding is contingent on CUUATS providing technical assistance to 

other MPOs in the State. 

● Among CUUATS’ member agencies, there is a strong sense of the need to do what is 

best for the region, even when it means “taking turns” with respect to which 

jurisdiction receives limited funding resources first. Strong relationships have enabled 

this approach. 

● The member agencies have service area boundary agreements in place to minimize 

interjurisdictional competition for development and jobs. 

● CUUATS worked with the Champaign Urbana Public Health District to conduct health 

surveys in coordination with the 2040 plan outreach and engagement. This has been

beneficial for the Health District, and has enabled CUUATS to consider public health 

more fully in its modeling and planning processes (e.g., by using HIA tools). 

CUUATS has worked with the Health District to obtain health-related grants for 

complete streets policies for two member communities. Because of strong 
C-16

relationships and taking specific confidentiality trainings, CUUATS staff have access 

to health data that allows them to do health analyses on a level that is unparalleled 

throughout the country. 

► Building in-house capacity has been critical to the agency’s continued success. In some 

cases, it can be more cost-effective to have in-house staff complete analyses, and can also 

position the agency to manage future planning cycles more efficiently. Having a highly 

skilled team of staff allows CUUATS to function successfully as a consulting firm for the 

entire region; grants and individual projects (developing cities’ bicycle plans, for example) 

account for about half of the agency’s revenue.

► The presence of a university with strong planning and engineering departments can be a 

significant benefit, particularly for a smaller MPO. UIUC faculty have assisted CUUATS in 

various ways (e.g., providing expertise on high speed rail, developing modeling tools for the 

agency’s use). Nearly all of CUUATS’ staff members were educated at UIUC, which 

provides the agency a steady stream of planning and engineering graduates. 

RESOURCES 

► CUUATS 2025 LRTP: http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/lrtp.php

► CUUATS Choices 2035 Plan: http://www.ccrpc.org/transportation/lrtp2/documents.html

► CUUATS Sustainable Choices 2040 Plan: http://cuuats.org/lrtp/documents/long rangetransportation-plan-sustainable-choices-2040-final/lrtp-2040-executive-summary/view
C-17

Fresno Council of Governments 

The Fresno Council of Governments (Fresno COG) is the MPO for the Fresno-Clovis, California 

area in the State’s Central Valley (see Figure C-6). Fresno COG’s territory covers Fresno County 

and its member agencies include the County of Fresno and the Cities of Clovis, Coalinga, 

Firebaugh, Fowler, Fresno, Huron, Kerman, Kingsburg, Mendota, Orange Cove, Parlier, Reedley, 

San Joaquin, Sanger, and Selma. Mayors for each city (or the elected officials they appoint) and the 

Chairman of the County Board of Supervisors are the members of the agency’s Policy Board. The 

Board is assisted in its decisionmaking process by a Policy Advisory Committee (PAC), which 

includes all city managers and the county administrator, and the Transportation Technical 

Committee (TTC), which includes senior staff from each member agencies and technically inclined 

members of other location organizations (e.g., the bike coalition). Fresno COG has a “doubleweighted” voting system, which provides for an urban/rural balance of all interests.18

Figure C-6: Fresno County, California 

Fresno COG is part of the San Joaquin Valley Air Pollution Control District (SJVAPCD) and the 

San Joaquin Valley Regional Policy Council (SJVRPC). Both the District and Council cover the 

same eight-county San Joaquin Valley region of San Joaquin, Stanislaus, Merced, Madera, Fresno, 

 

18 To approve any action, a vote must pass two tests: Agencies representing over 40% of the population must be in favor 

of an action, and a majority (i.e. at least nine) of all the members must support the action. 

http://www.fresnocog.org/about-cog. 
C-18

Kings, Tulare, and Kern counties. The San Joaquin Valley is home to over 4 million people, and the 

population is expected to grow to more than 7.5 million residents by 2050.The San Joaquin Valley, 

often referred to as California’s heartland, is also the fastest-growing region in the State and the 

hardest hit by the economic downturn. Communities in the Valley struggle with poor air quality and 

rising levels of childhood asthma, obesity, and diabetes. 

Fresno County has been growing steadily for decades. As of 2013, the estimated population of 

Fresno County was 955,272, an increase of 25,000 residents in just the three years since 2010. A 

little more than half of the County’s residents live in the City of Fresno (2013 population 509,924), 

which is California’s fifth largest city. More than 65 percent of the County’s inhabitants are 

minorities, primarily Mexican Hispanics (over 50 percent of all residents) and Asians (over 10 

percent of all residents); the Asian community includes a sizeable Hmong population.

Table C-2: 2013 Household Income Quartiles 

Fresno County is the top agricultural-producing county in the US, yet the area suffers from 

relatively high unemployment (around 11percent in 2014) and low incomes (see Table C-2). County 

residents also have significantly lower levels of educational attainment than those in the rest of the 

State. Fresno Area Express (FAX), whose service area covers the City of Fresno and other urban 

areas in the county, is in the process of constructing high capacity bus corridors, which were 

considered in the agency’s most recent scenario planning process.

PBPP EXPERIENCE 

In 2014, Fresno COG’s Board approved the agency’s 2014 Regional Transportation Plan and 

Sustainable Communities Strategy (RTP/SCS). The 2014 Regional Transportation Plan, with a 

horizon year of 2040, was the eighteenth in a series of quadrennially updated plans that date back to 

1975. It was the first RTP to incorporate a Sustainable Communities Strategy, in accordance with 

California Senate Bill 375 (SB 375). Enacted in 2008, SB 375 requires all California MPOs to 

develop an SCS that provides an integrated transportation and land use plan for meeting GHG 

emission reduction targets established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). 

As shown in Figure C-7, California law requires the Fresno COG region to achieve a five percent 

drop in per capita GHG emissions (compared to 2005 levels) by the year 2020, and to cut another 

five percent by 2035. Air quality analyses conducted for the 2014 plan development process predict 

Fresno 

County

California

Under $25,000 28% 20%

$25,000 – $49,999 25% 21%

$50,000 – $74,999 17% 17%

Over $75,000 29% 41%

Source: US Census American Community 

Survey
C-19

that implementation of the 22 goals laid out in the adopted RTP/SCS, shown below, will meet and 

even exceed the CARB targets. 

Figure C-7: Fresno COG’s GHG Reduction Targets in the 2014 RTP/SCS

The adopted RTP/SCS includes six goals, each of which is supported by objectives as shown in the 

list below. Each objective is further supported by several policies, as illustrated in Figure C-8. 

► General Transportation 

● An efficient, safe, integrated, multimodal transportation system 

● Improved mobility and accessibility for all regardless of race, income, national origin, 

age, or disability 

● Planning outcomes that are consistent with various planning efforts 

● A regional transportation network consistent with the intent of SB 375 

● Support cooperative efforts between Federal, State, and local agencies and the public to 

plan, develop and manage our transportation system 

● Attainment and maintenance of Federal and State ambient air quality standards (criteria 

pollutants) as set by US EPA and CARB. 

► Highways, Streets, and Roads 

● An integrated and efficient highways, streets and roads network 

● Efficient use of available transportation funding 

● Acceptable level-of-service for the highways, streets and roads network 

► Mass Transportation 

● An efficient and fiscally responsible public transportation mobility system 

● A safe and reliable public transportation service 

● An effective public transportation system 

● Public transit services with a positive public image in communities served 

● An integrated multimodal transportation system which facilitates the movement of 

people 
C-20

● A coordinated policy for public transportation that complements land use and air 

quality policies 

► Aviation 

● A fully functional and integrated air service and airport system that is complementary 

to the regional transportation system 

► Non-Motorized 

● Maximize bicycling and walking through their recognition and integration as valid and 

healthy transportation modes in transportation planning activities 

● Safe, convenient, and continuous routes for bicyclists and pedestrians of all types 

which interface with and complement a multimodal transportation system 

● Improved bicycle and pedestrian safety through education and enforcement 

● Increased development of the regional bikeways system, related facilities, and 

pedestrian facilities by maximizing funding opportunities 

► Rail 

● A safe, efficient and convenient rail system which serves the passenger and freight 

needs of the region and which is integrated with and complementary to the total 

transportation system 

● A transportation system that efficiently and effectively transports goods throughout 

Fresno County 
C-21

Figure C-8: Example of Fresno’s Goal, Objectives, and Policies Organization

The plan’s objectives or policies do not correlate directly to specific performance measures or 

targets, except for those related to GHG emissions, although the agency did consider broadly the 

relationships between goals, objectives, and performance measures. The agency developed an array 

of performance measures for its scenario analysis process, and for an environmental justice analysis. 

SCENARIO PLANNING EXPERIENCE 

The 2014 RTP/SCS was built in part upon policies adopted through a broader regional scenario 

planning process. In 2006, the eight regions that comprise the San Joaquin Valley Councils of 

Governments/ Regional Policy Council (SJVRPC) came together to establish the San Joaquin 

Valley Regional Blueprint, a regional vision for land use and transportation intended to guide local 

and regional plans for Valley area growth over the next 50 years (a period in which the population 

is expected to more than double). Fresno COG’s participation in this larger planning process 

influenced its approach to scenario planning and its development of the 2014 RTP/SCS land use and 

transportation policies. 

The Regional Blueprint process involved three major phases: Values and Vision; Goals, Objectives, 

and Performance Measures; and Evaluation of Alternative Growth Scenarios. With funding from 

the State’s Regional Blueprint Planning Program, each of the eight agencies developed its own 

countywide Blueprint, which was then woven into the single Valleywide Blueprint. UC-Davis 
C-22

faculty and students and local planners worked together to develop alternative growth scenarios for 

each county using the UPlan analysis tool. 

SJVRPC used the Vision California Rapid Fire model, a comprehensive modeling tool, to evaluate 

the impacts of varying land use scenarios on environmental performance. The model used a hybrid 

scenario developed by aggregating the compact development options from the Blueprint Plans 

developed by Fresno COG and the other MPOs in the San Joaquin Valley. The scenarios were 

evaluated based on VMT projections and the amount of farmland expected to be developed under 

each scenario. The results of the scenario analysis provided a regional context and useful data to 

inform the subsequent development of the Fresno COG 2014 SCS. 

In 2009, the Policy Council endorsed Scenario B+ (illustrated in Figure C-9), along with 12 

supporting smart growth principles. Under the preferred scenario, compared to historic patterns, less 

land is consumed for development, more resources are preserved for future generations, distinctive 

communities are enhanced, and more travel choices are available. Additional information about the 

performance measures used to evaluate the four Blueprint scenarios, and how scenarios were 

selected, is available from the Valley Blueprint website links listed in the footnotes. Following the 

Regional Blueprint process, Fresno COG’s large cities, Clovis and Fresno, both updated their 

General (comprehensive) Plans to increase their focus on inward growth and development. 
C-23

Figure C-9: Scenario B+ from the San Joaquin Valley Regional Blueprint Process 

Following the planning process, SJVRPC developed a two-pronged approach for implementing the 

Blueprint strategy. The Blueprint Integration Project (BIP) was established to work with rural and 

agricultural communities to implement the Blueprint’s goals and objectives. The Smart Valley 

Places (SVP) program was developed to support implementation in urbanized metropolitan areas. 

Though the grants that funded the BIP and SVP ended in 2014, the impact of these programs 

continues through the ongoing collaboration among local agencies, elected officials, the public and 

non-governmental organizations to address the region’s problems.

Due to timing, the Blueprint process fed right into the SB 375-required GHG reduction target 

setting. Because the Blueprint process had occurred, the ideas and lessons from scenario planning in 

that process were relatively fresh, and because of the discussions that had taken place in the 

Blueprint process, the cities were more comfortable with the smart growth principles and had a 

better understanding of the value, for example, of active transportation. To set GHG targets, Fresno 

COG developed three scenarios and came up with draft GHG reduction targets. Although CARB 
C-24

ultimately did not adopt the agency’s recommendations, the exercise led to numerous data and tool 

improvements that Fresno COG employed in developing scenarios for its 2014 process. It also led 

to strengthened relationships between the COG and its member agencies, as they increasingly 

understood the purpose and vision of regional planning. During the target-setting process, three 

Fresno COG staff members went to Sacramento to meet with CARB and help them understand that 

both agencies share the same goals; this was ultimately a very valuable use of time and resources. 

CARB assisted Fresno COG with developing and refining its models. 

To develop the 2014 RTP/SCS, Fresno COG established a 35-member RTP Roundtable that 

included 16 staff from member agencies, 16 representatives of stakeholder groups, and 3 “at large” 

representatives. The Roundtable, which advised the Fresno COG Board, participated in 12 meetings 

between August 2012 and November 2013. Inspired by a similar Roundtable established for the 

SJVRPC Blueprint process, the Fresno group was, according to MPO staff and agency 

representatives, an invaluable resource for fostering the level of regional collaboration upon which 

the plan’s success depends. 

The planning process was supported by a robust, intensive public engagement effort, featuring 

dozens of workshops, focus groups, community meetings, briefings, surveys, and small group 

discussions. The COG supplemented its small staff by establishing an innovative mini-grant 

program to recruit, train, and support a variety of community organizations to facilitate outreach 

with their constituents. Many of the grant recipient organizations went door-to-door to solicit input.

Each mini-grant was worth about $3,000. The entire program cost approximately $25,000 and 

resulted in high turnout at workshops. The grant recipients had to attend training sessions, which 

helped ensure their staff understood what MPOs, RTPs, and SCS’s are, so they would be adequately 

prepared to explain the process and answer residents’ questions. One challenge with the mini-grant 

program was ensuring that grantees were not biased in their presentation of the issues to 

constituents—in the future, impartiality will be emphasized in trainings. The mini-grant program 

resulted in strong relationships between Fresno COG and the recipients, and has set a high bar with 

respect to engagement—community groups in the region are now asking other COGs to implement 

similar programs. 

Fresno COG brought in translators to help facilitate community meetings and to convert published 

documents into as many as five different languages (in many cases with help from the mini-grant 

recipient organizations). COG staff also sought coverage by local news media, conducted a 

“transportation needs and values survey,” worked with the library (a mini-grant recipients) to make 

sure computer users would see information about the plan, and used online social media tool to 

share information. To reduce the barriers to attending meetings, Fresno COG provided food and 

daycare and offered free transit service to meetings. In addition, the agency used web conferencing 

to enable remote participation in meetings. To ensure that all interested parties were able to have 

their voices heard, the agency extended the engagement period multiple times to allow for more 

inputs and comments and heighten satisfaction with the process. To reduce potential points of 

contention, the agency responded to all comments individually. In the future, the agency plans to 

develop a social media policy to guide interactions on Facebook and other sites. 
C-25

Relationship-building and education was critical; the agency’s significant investments of time, 

money, and in-kind resources for public engagement (including 19 meetings and a 150-attendee 

public meeting) yielded a high level or return—both in terms of improving the quality of the 

process and in achieving buy-in and support, among the community and decisionmakers, for the 

final plan. This was especially important given that the agency’s member cities initially feared that 

Fresno COG’s planning would infringe in some way upon their land use authority. Over time, 

through tireless engagement, they came to understand that the COG was trying to help them 

understand the implications of their land use decisions, and that they could take advantage of Fresno 

COG’s technical skills to improve the quality of their own planning.

The COG, recognizing the need for agreed-upon indicators to evaluate scenarios, developed a list of 

38 potential indicators that could be used.19 The agency only considered indicators for which staff 

knew data were available and that had already been used in the past. To select the top ten indicators 

for developing and evaluating the RTP/SCS scenarios, Fresno COG solicited input from the 

Roundtable and from participants in six focus group meetings, each with a specific topic focus, 

conducted in September 2012. Based on the input received, the agency decided to evaluate each 

scenario based on the following ten criteria and associated performance measures: 

► Greenhouse gas emissions reduction: Percentage of per person GHG reduction against 

2005

► Housing by types: Percent of housing by types 

► Residential density: Average housing units per acre of new growth 

► Compact development: Average number of people per acre 

► Transit oriented development: Share of the region’s growth in households and 

employment within half-mile of Bus Rapid Transit (BRT)/high capacity bus service 

► Land consumption: Acres of land consumed due to new development 

► Important farmland: Total acres of important farmland (prime, unique and statewide 

importance) consumed due to new growth 

► Vehicle miles traveled: Total Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) on a typical day in 2035 

► Criteria pollutant emissions: Tons of pollutants released per a typical day in 2035 (CO, 

Reactive organic gases, NOx, PM10, PM2.5) 

► Active transportation and public transit: Weekday person trips by transit, walk and bike 

modes 

Some participants of the focus groups, and RTP Roundtable and TTC members proposed other 

indicators that the agency should consider using in the future, as data and tools become available. 

The agency found that establishing the indicators for scenario evaluation up-front allowed the 

 

19 This list is available in Appendix J, Item 8: 

http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/Fresno_COG_2014_RTPSCS_Appendix_Final.pdf. 
C-26

agency to keep the discussion steered toward the indicators, and gave the agency the ability to deny 

mid-process requests to consider other factors. 

After identifying the performance measures to be used in evaluating scenarios, Fresno COG 

developed and analyzed four scenarios, each of which featured alternative patterns of land 

development, density, and design. Implications of each scenario, in terms of the ten indicators listed 

above, were compared to each other and to a status quo scenario. Three of the scenarios (A, B, and 

C) were circulated broadly for public discussion in the late summer of 2013. Shortly after this 

public engagement period, a local coalition of community-based organizations proposed a fourth 

scenario (D), which COG staff analyzed (under significant time pressure) at the direction of the 

agency’s TTC and PAC. The fourth scenario was included in the planning process and documents, 

but was not circulated for public review along with the other three, due to the timing of its 

introduction. 

Key elements of the four Draft SCS Scenarios are listed below and summarized in Figure C-10. 

Expected performance outcomes under each scenario are summarized in Table C-3.

20

Figure C-11, selected from a presentation given by Fresno COG to the TTC and PAC, provides 

graphic depictions of the scenario evaluation results. 

► Scenario A – This scenario is based upon public input collected at a community workshop 

in November 2012. The ratio of metro vs. non-metro growth is controlled, with more growth 

allocated to some rural communities than has occurred historically. 

► Scenario B: “Current Planning Assumptions” – This scenario was developed in 

consultation with planners and representatives of COG member governments and agencies. 

Growth occurs according to historical patterns in each city and community, with some 

modifications based on current general plans, proposed land uses, and the latest planning 

assumptions. Unique among the four scenarios, this scenario includes actively proposed 

development projects in Millerton New Town, Friant Ranch, and the proposed pharmacy 

school. 

► Scenario C: “Foothill Growth to City of Fresno” – This scenario was developed by the 

RTP Roundtable, principally to test concepts that would require more aggressive urban 

development than assumed in current plans. It assumes four percent of additional growth 

(beyond what City of Fresno was projected to receive) being reallocated away from the 

foothills and into corridors and activity centers in the City of Fresno. Under this scenario, 

growth in unincorporated areas would be constrained to ten existing communities. It does 

not include Scenario B’s developments in Millerton New Town, Friant Ranch, and the 

proposed pharmacy school. 

► Scenario D: “Foothill Growth to Existing Communities” – This scenario was developed 

by a Coalition of Community Based Organizations. Using the same population and 

 

20 For a more legible version of this table, see: 

http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/SCS/Performance_Measures_Matrix.pdf 
C-27

employment forecasts as Scenarios A, B, and C, this scenario accommodates growth through 

redevelopment and higher densities within existing cities and communities, and allocates 

further growth to the unincorporated rural communities in the County areas. Like Scenarios 

A and C, this scenario does not include proposed developments in Millerton New Town, 

Friant Ranch, and the proposed pharmacy school.

Although none of the measures used to evaluate scenarios directly addressed social equity, the topic 

was part of discussions throughout the scenario planning process. Questions regarding where 

development would occur, who would benefit, etc. were regularly raised, which was unsurprising 

given the economic hardship faced by many of the County’s residents. In November 2013, the 

Fresno COG Policy Board unanimously selected Scenario B as the Preferred Scenario to guide the 

RTP/SCS. Scenario B did not perform as strongly as the other three scenarios in terms of the ten 

priority indicators, but it was still a significant improvement over the trend line projection (status 

quo scenario). As with the other three scenarios, the preferred Scenario B exceeded the GHG 

reduction targets established by CARB. Perhaps the most compelling element of Scenario B is that 

it was the most politically feasible: it reflected adopted local land use plans and current 

development projects, which in turn reflect, to varying extents, the smart growth principles 

developed through the SJVRPC Blueprint process. Implementing Scenario B required only modest 

modifications, if any, to local land use policies and plans. Key “next steps” needed to implement the 

preferred scenario will focus upon supporting implementation of local general plans, especially the 

City of Fresno’s, which calls for aggressive land use changes, as well as pursuing funding to 

implement the RTP/SCS transportation strategies. 
C-28

Figure C-10: The Four Fresno COG Scenarios 
C-29

Table C-3: Fresno COG’s Sustainable Communities Strategy Scenario Performance Indicator 

Comparisons 
C-30

Figure C-11: Expected Performance with Respect to Active Transportation, GHG Emissions 

Reductions, 

Transit-Oriented Development, and Vehicle Miles Traveled (respectively) under Each Scenario 

In addition to evaluating land use and transportation scenarios for the 2014 RTP/SCS, Fresno COG 

also analyzed four alternative combinations of revenue projections and priority projects. Each 

scenario assumed the same total future funding levels, but varied the types of allocations within 

three main “flexible” funding sources: RSTP, CMAQ, and TAP. The four revenue projection 

scenarios are described below and are shown in Table C-4.

21

► Traditional – Continuation of modal allocations in the current Transportation Improvement 

Program (TIP). 

► Increased Active Transportation – This analysis adjusted the percentages per mode within 

each of the three main funding sources to support moderate increases in bicycle, pedestrian, 

transit, and street capacity projects. 

 

21 Details on each are available in Appendix C of the RTP/SCS. 
C-31

► Emphasis on Active Transportation – Under this projection, a significant commitment 

was made to increase the direct funds toward projects that would deliver complete streets, 

bike lanes, new sidewalks, etc. 

► Emphasis on Maintenance – Developed at the request of the PAC, the fourth scenario 

redirects all flexible funds to support the “fix it first” emphasis on preserving the existing 

local street and road network, with correspondingly fewer funds allocated to bicycle, 

pedestrian, transit, and capacity expansion projects. 

Table C-4: Spending by Transportation Mode by Revenue Scenario 

To score projects submitted, Fresno COG uses Project Evaluation Criteria, which were developed 

by the Financial Element Technical Working Group and approved by the Board. The Criteria vary 

by mode and project type (bike and pedestrian, capacity increasing road projects, operations and 

maintenance road projects, and transit), so that only similar projects are evaluated against each 

other. 

When the projects (by mode) were compared against the revenue projection scenarios (again, by 

mode), Projections 1 and 2 (Traditional and Increased Active Transportation) resulted in the same 

project list (“A”), due to the relatively low amount of eligible flexible funds. Revenue Projections 3 

and 4 also produced the same project list (“List B”). The difference between Lists A and B was the 

inclusion in List B of five fiscally unconstrained, capacity-increasing projects (most of which 

bicycle and pedestrian components). 

Based on this analysis, the Policy Board chose List A as the most inclusive, cost-effective and 

financially constrained. Taking into account the bicycle and pedestrian components of capacityincreasing projects in List A, Fresno COG developed an estimate of modal allocations for the 

preferred scenario, as shown in Table C-5. 
C-32

Table C-5: Revenues Programmed by Transportation Mode 22

It is important to note that a limitation to the effectiveness of project prioritization in California is 

the limited amount of flexibility allowed in spending projects funded by sales tax measures. All 

sales tax funding measures voted upon must identify which in advance which projects will be 

funded with the money generated from the tax. 

DATA AND TOOLS 

In 2012, the eight-MPO consortium that conducted the Blueprint process hired a consultant team, 

which used forecasting models to develop county-level Year 2050 population and employment 

projections for use in the scenario planning process. The projections determined total household 

population and employment numbers Countywide, and allowed for assessment of other metrics such 

as household sizes and vacancy rates. 

In the 2006-07 Regional Blueprint scenario planning process, the tools used did not allow Fresno 

COG to do parcel-level modeling. Fresno COG used Envision Tomorrow to develop land use 

scenarios for its 2014 plan.23 Throughout the 2014 process, the tools and capabilities were evolving; 

as needs for more analysis were identified, the agency’s staff tried to see which could be met by 

increasing their analysis capabilities, given the tools and data available. COG staff are now (after 

completion of the 2014 process) considering various modifications and additions to the agency’s

suite of scenario modeling tools. One tool of particular interest is Urban Footprint, an open-source, 

online scenario modeling tool that bears similarity to Envision Tomorrow, but provides more 

flexibility and customization by the user. Perhaps most notably to Fresno COG, Urban Footprint 

users can allocate two or more different land use types within parcels, as opposed to allocating only 

one type to the entire parcel, which allows for a more accurate analysis of the impact of mixed use 

development. Since Urban Footprint is run from the cloud, users can access it with a basic internet 

browser and a high-speed data connection, which reduces the need to invest in a powerful desktop 

computer and staff training to support GIS modeling. The online feature makes Urban Footprint a 

 

22 As explained above, these figures represent estimates made after consideration of the spending on bicycle- and 

pedestrian-specific components of road projects. 

23 Appendix J Items 5 and 7 discuss the land use modeling conducted and the development of each scenario. 

http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/Fresno_COG_2014_RTPSCS_Appendix_Final.pdf. 
C-33

bit more time-consuming to use because of the need to upload and download data and/or to wait for 

runs to be completed. However, it could reduce the amount they agency needs to spend on software, 

training, and technical support fees, which may be particularly appealing to smaller MPOs with 

fewer staff and computing resources. 

Fresno COG’s Travel Demand Model (TDM) uses Cube software and is based on a traditional fourstep process, with modifications to reflect mode splits and the multimodal implications of different 

assumptions about land use density, diversity, design, and location (destination). Fresno COG made 

a number of updates to its TDM to improve its ability to estimate GHG reductions under each 

scenario in the GHG target-setting process, including splitting TAZs into smaller zones in highdensity areas to reflect smart growth policies.24 The TDM does include transit. Staff hope to 

upgrade in the future to an activity-based model. COG also used the CARB’s EMissions FACtors 

(EMFAC) model. Together, CARB and Fresno COG designed and ran five sensitivity tests to the 

model to estimate GHG reductions and verify that the region’s reduction targets could be met. 

Fresno COG also used a number of off-model tools to address issues not covered by the TDM such 

as ride-sharing, employer-based commute strategies, bicycle and walk facility enhancements, and 

ITS deployments.25 Fresno COG is working with the State’s public health department to develop an 

Integrated Transportation and Health Model (ITHIM) in-house. The ITHIM is from England and 

was adapted by the health department; the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) in the 

San Francisco Bay Area and the San Diego Association of Governments (SANDAG) have also 

developed ITHIMs for their own regions. The ITHIM estimates the health co-benefits and potential 

harms from active transport and low carbon driving in urban populations. It relates physical activity, 

air pollution, and travel behaviors to specific health outcomes based on established causal 

relationships reported in the scientific literature for: heart and respiratory disease; stroke; diabetes; 

cancers of the breast, colon and lung; dementia; and depression. This is particularly significant 

given the high incidence with which the County’s population faces many of these health problems. 

In addition to more effectively considering public health in its future scenario planning activities, 

Fresno COG also continues to seek ways to more meaningfully consider (and, ultimately, address) 

social equity. In addition, staff are currently working on the agency’s Congestion Management 

Process and are using the Process as an opportunity to explore improved performance monitoring 

systems that could be implemented. 

LESSONS LEARNED 

► Identifying the performance measures that will be used to evaluation scenarios up early in 

the scenario planning process helps ensure a productive and effective process. Tying 

scenario planning to performance meaures allow for more effective communication about 

 

24 Appendix J of the plan describes these in more detail. 

http://www.fresnocog.org/sites/default/files/publications/RTP/Final_RTP/Fresno_COG_2014_RTPSCS_Appendix_Final.pdf. 

25 Id. 
C-34

why some scenarios are better performing than others and the extent to which goals can be 

achieved under each scenario. 

► In hindsight, the Fresno COG’s staff found that evaluating scenarios that were not consistent 

with reality (e.g., those that did not take preapproved development plans into consideration) 

was not a particularly productive exercise. The lesson learned from this experience was that 

it is important to set ground rules regarding what changes will, and will not, be formally 

considered in developing scenarios. Any evaluating of expected impacts under unrealistic 

scenarios should be done simply to understand the likely impacts of future decisions. 

► Engaging with partners early and often throughout the scenario planning process was key for 

ensuring unanimous consensus in selecting a scenario and assuaging local agencies’ 

concerns about the (perceived) need to protect their land use authority. 

► The mini-grant program for local community-based organizations to engage residents in the 

planning process was very successful and cost-effective. The relationships that were 

strengthened due to that program have enhanced the quality of planning in the region (e.g., 

through the engagement of non-English-speaking communities) and resulted in greater 

support in the community for the smart growth principles that date back to the Regional 

Blueprint process. 

► Having highly skilled technical staff who are responsive is important for enhancing the 

ability to incorporate performance measures into scenario planning and conduct analyses 

that improve stakeholders’ understanding about planning and investment options. 

► Inclusion of groups whose interests are often not aligned with the agency’s (e.g., Building 

Industry Association in this case) is valuable to improve understanding, identify 

opportunities for mutually agreeable solutions, and keep lines of communication open. 

RESOURCES 

► Fresno COG RTP/SCS website, http://www.fresnocog.org/sustainable-communitiesstrategy-development-and-outreach. 

► San Joaquin Valley Blueprint Planning Process website, http://www.valleyblueprint.org/. 
C-35

Hillsborough County MPO 

The Hillsborough County MPO is responsible for transportation planning in Hillsborough County, 

Florida, which is located in the west-central portion of the State. Hillsborough County MPO’s 

jurisdiction includes the cities of Tampa, Temple Terrace, and Plant City, and unincorporated 

Hillsborough County. The MPO Board is composed of elected officials from Hillsborough County, 

City of Tampa, City of Plant City, and City of Temple Terrace, as well as officials from the 

Hillsborough Area Regional Transit Authority (HART), Hillsborough County Aviation Authority, 

Tampa-Hillsborough Expressway Authority, Tampa Port Authority, and the Hillsborough County 

City-County Planning Commission. 

Hillsborough County is home to about 1.2 million people and is the largest population and 

employment center within the Tampa Bay region, which is home to 2.8 million residents. The 

county is growing rapidly and is expected to add 600,000 people by 2040. The MPO boundary, as is 

typical in Florida, is concurrent with the county boundary, which means that the Hillsborough 

County MPO represents less than half of the metropolitan area’s population of 2.8 million. Like 

Hillsborough County, the Tampa Bay region as a whole has been growing rapidly, which has led to 

severe traffic congestion. The region is the 12th most congested metropolitan area in the country,

according to a report prepared jointly by the region’s seven MPOs. 

The region’s land use and development pattern is an important aspect of the context for 

Hillsborough’s transportation plans. Unlike Pinellas County, its neighbor to the west, Hillsborough 

County has an abundance of developable land. Therefore, it is likely to absorb much of the region’s 

growth through 2040. A key question continuously facing the county and its transportation planners 

is where and how that growth will occur. The MPO’s most recent scenario planning effort explored 

this question. 

Table C-6: Hillsborough County MPO Population and Employment Growth 

2010 2040 Projection Growth

Total Population 1,229,226 1,815,964 586,738

Total Employment 711,400 1,112,059 400,659

The MPO and the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission collaborated in 2013 

and 2014 to update the MPO’s long range transportation plan and the local governments’ 

comprehensive plans concurrently. This effort was named Imagine 2040. The Hillsborough County 

City-County Planning Commission serves as the planning agency for all local governments in 

Hillsborough County. According to the Commission’s website, “It performs consolidated planning 

services and makes independent recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners, Plant 

City Commission, Tampa City Council, Temple Terrace City Council and other appropriate public 

bodies concerning the orderly growth and development of Hillsborough County.”26 The MPO and 

 

26 The Planning Commission. Meeting the Planning Commissioners. Accessed February 19, 2015. 

http://www.planhillsborough.org/meet-your-planning-commissioners/. 
C-36

the Planning Commission convened a working group of residents, students, business and civic 

leaders, retirees, and various professionals to guide development of the Plan. 

The Imagine 2040 planning process is notable for its use of scenario planning at multiple points for 

different purposes. Hillsborough County MPO’s process used scenario planning in the Direction, 

Analysis, and Programming phases of the process. The MPO used scenario planning to define a 

preferred future land use and transportation vision for the county. Later in the process to the agency 

used scenario planning to compare the performance of the transportation system under a trend 

investment scenario (in which funding followed recent trends) and in two investment scenarios with 

increased funding. 

Figure C-12: Hillsborough County MPO’s Imagine 2040 Planning Process 

PBPP EXPERIENCE 

The Imagine 2040 Plan includes six goals, each of which is divided into multiple objectives; each 

objective is then supported by a number of policies listed in the plan. 

1. Enhance the safety and security of the transportation system for both motorized and nonmotorized users.

2. Support economic vitality to foster the global competitiveness, productivity, and efficiency 

of local and regional businesses. 
C-37

3. Improve the quality of life, promote energy conservation, and enhance the environment, 

while minimizing transportation-related fuel consumption, air pollution, and greenhouse gas 

emissions. 

4. Promote accessibility and mobility by increasing and improving multi-modal transportation 

choices, and the connectivity across and between modes, for people and freight. 

5. Assure that transportation improvements coordinate closely with comprehensive land use 

plans and support anticipated growth and development patterns. 

6. Consider cost-effective solutions that preserve existing facilities and optimize the efficiency 

of Transportation System Management and operations. 

The goals and objectives were informed by the first scenario planning exercise that the agency 

undertook to determine the preferred growth scenario that policy decisions should support. 

Although the goals consider the role of transportation in achieving societal benefits (e.g., improving 

economic vitality and global competitiveness, and reducing air pollution), the agency’s specific 

performance areas and measures are more narrow in scope, including only measures that can be 

affected by the agency’s policies and investments. The performance areas are: 

► Preserve the System 

► Reduce Crashes & Vulnerability 

► Minimize Traffic for Drivers & Shippers 

► Real Choices When Not Driving 

► Major Investments for Economic Growth 

Within each performance area, Hillsborough MPO identified relevant performance measures that it 

would use to evaluate performance. These are listed in Table C-7 below. 

Table C-7: LRTP Performance Measures 

Category Measure

Preserve the System Percentage of roads resurfaced annually 

(i.e., duration of resurfacing cycle in years)

Preserve the System Number of transit road-calls (vehicle breakdowns) per day

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Fatality rate per 100,000 residents

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Pedestrian fatality rate per 100,000 residents 

(and/or Pedestrian Death Index)

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Bicycle and pedestrian crashes per 100,000 residents

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Injury crashes per 100 million Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Fatality crashes per 100 million VMT

Reduce Crashes and Total crashes per 100,000 residents
C-38

Category Measure

Vulnerability

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Total crashes per 100 million VMT

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Travel time delay due to transportation network disruption (hurricane)

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Lost trips due to transportation network disruption (hurricane)

Reduce Crashes and 

Vulnerability

Economic losses due to storm in 2014 dollars

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Reliability: Travel Time Index Planning Time Index 

(mean travel time/free flow travel time)

Segments with a ratio of over 0.8 identified as “needing improvement”

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Arterial capacity (percentage increase)

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Incident frequency 

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Incident duration

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Percent miles of congested freight routes

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Percent of freight hotspots mitigated

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Planning Time Index 

(freight travel time reliability measure)

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Buffer Index 

(amount of time that must be added for freight to travel through a corridor)

Minimize Traffic for 

Drivers and Shippers

Cost of freight delay

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Transit Level of Service

(Using Florida DOT’s ARTPLAN methodology)

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Percentage of 2040 population and jobs served by bus system

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Percentage of the population served by fixed route transit

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Pedestrian Level of Service (PLOS)

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Bicycle Level of Service (BLOS)

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Percentage of the population living near a “good” or “excellent” walk/bike 

facility

Real Choices When 

Not Driving

Percentage of jobs located near a “good” or “excellent” walk/bike facility

Major Investments Portion of roadway facilities at least 30 percent over capacity in 2040 
C-39

Category Measure

for Economic Growth (according to forecast) 

Major Investments 

for Economic Growth

Delay reduction-to-Centerline Miles (constructed) Ratio

Major Investments 

for Economic Growth

2040 Jobs-to-Centerline Miles (constructed) Ratio

SCENARIO PLANNING EXPERIENCE 

The Imagine2040 plan and process are particularly notable because Hillsborough County MPO used 

scenario planning for multiple purposes to support decisionmaking in all four key phases of the 

PBPP process, as detailed below. 

Scenario Planning to Support Direction Phase 

The MPO and the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission convened the working 

group to develop the following three growth scenarios: 

► Suburban Dream: This scenario “is primarily low‐density residential growth with 

employment spread across the county. This vision, because it tends towards low‐density 

residential development, will consume the most agricultural and rural land of the three.” 

► Bustling Metro: This scenario “is a much higher density approach to residential 

development, occurring closer to the urban centers. Employment occurs primarily in the 

existing economic centers. These factors result in little demand to expand the Urban Service 

Area boundary, and agricultural and rural lands are protected.” 

► New Corporate Centers: This scenario “envisions somewhat denser residential 

development, with most new jobs created in identified job centers. There may be a moderate 

need to expand the Urban Service Area boundary around the interstate highway and 

interchanges to accommodate these centers. Because much of the residential growth will 

continue in a suburban pattern, some agricultural and rural lands will consumed by 

development.”

The Planning Commission and MPO took the scenarios to the public and solicited feedback through 

an online survey (3,500 responses), nearly 100 meetings, and interactive kiosks at 49 locations 

throughout the County. Based on the feedback received, the working group and MPO developed a 

fourth scenario called the Hybrid Scenario. This scenario is a combination of the Bustling Metro 

and New Corporate Centers scenarios. The Hybrid Scenario is depicted in Figure C-13, as it appears 

in the long range transportation plan. 
C-40

Figure C-13: Imagine 2040 Preferred Scenario 

The MPO used MetroQuest to obtain public input on the scenarios. The MPO states in the plan that 

“this online community engagement platform allowed the public to select future growth strategies 

as well as choose their preferred future transportation infrastructure program investment levels and 

major projects they want for Hillsborough County.”27 The MPO also used Facebook and Twitter to 

communicate with the public. 

Using the regional travel demand model, the MPO evaluated the scenarios according to the 

performance measures listed in Table 8. These measures are broader than the measures listed in 

Table C-, which the MPO used to assess transportation needs and evaluate investment scenarios. 

The MPO intentionally selected measures that it thought would resonate with the public. 

 

27 Hillsborough MPO. Imagine 2040: Part 2 Public Engagement Summary. September 23, 2014. 

http://www.planhillsborough.org/imagine2040/. 
C-41

Table C-8: Performance Measures Used to Evaluate Scenarios 

Category Measure

Impact on Agriculture Potential impact on agricultural lands by increased residential 

development

Impact on Natural 

Resources

Potential for large wetlands (greater than 40 acres) and designated 

Significant Wildlife Habitats to be impacted by the increase in 

residential development

Efficient Energy Use Energy consumption by vehicles (cars, trucks, buses, passenger 

rail), and by typical households living in single-family homes or 

apartments

Efficient Water Use Water consumption by typical households living in single-family 

homes or apartments 

Impact on Water 

Quality

Relative increase in impervious surfaces 

Job Creation Population to job ratio 

Traffic Delay/Traffic 

Congestion

Vehicle hours of delay per person on a typical weekday

Shorter Commutes Length of the average home-to-work trip 

Air Pollution Rate Total tons of emissions from vehicles, standardized per person

Cost to Expand 

Infrastructure

Relative cost of providing infrastructure to each new home or 

apartment 

Potential for 

Redevelopment

Potential for previously developed office, retail or industrial land to 

attract a new use

Available Bus or Rail 

Service

Percentage of all people and jobs that are within walking distance 

to bus service

Access to Jobs from 

Underemployed 

Communities

A forecast of the length of the average home-to-work trip for 

communities protected under the Executive Order on 

Environmental Justice, and the percent of those communities with 

access to transit service running at least once every 30 minutes

The Imagine2040 Plan includes visualizations to help stakeholders and the public understand each 

scenario’s expected impact on performance for each of the measures listed above. The MPO 

presented the results graphically rather than quantitatively. Figure C-14 shows an example of these 

visualizations. 
C-42

Figure C-14: Visualization of Expected Performance for Each Scenario 

Based on the community’s input, the MPO ultimately settled on a new alternative scenario that 

combined aspects of the Bustling Metro and New Corporate Centers scenarios. This preferred 

scenario, also called the Hybrid Scenario, became the basis for the Imagine 2040 Long range 

Transportation Plan. It allocates growth primarily to infill development, along with selected 

locations for future intense development around fixed guideway transit. It also calls for a modest 

expansion of the urban service boundary. 
C-43

The MPO and the Hillsborough County City-County Planning Commission jointly prepared the 

scenarios. The MPO makes the following statements in the long range transportation plan about the 

Imagine 2040 Scenario Planning project: 

► The Long Range Transportation Plan’s goals, objectives, and policies take into consideration 

input from the preferred growth scenario 

► The MPO used the Hybrid Growth Scenario to identify the needed transportation projects. 

Scenario Planning to Support Analysis and Programming 

In addition to developing and evaluating growth scenarios, the MPO also followed a scenario 

planning approach to examine how low, medium, and high levels of financial investment would 

affect system performance (Investment Levels 1, 2, and 3 in the plan). Under Investment Level 1, 

the MPO would continue recent spending levels. Investment Levels 2 and 3 represent higher levels 

of funding allocated to the needs identified in the long range plan. The MPO found that this 

scenario planning process raised public awareness about what was possible under the trend level of 

funding and how the additional funding could improve system performance. 

The agency evaluated expected performance with respect to each of the plan’s performance 

measures for each Investment Level. In the example in Figure C-15, the plan identifies the expected 

benefits for each level of investment. In this example, the benefits are cumulative, with Investment 

Level 3 resulting in 117,000 daily truck trips flowing more smoothly through intersections, as well 

as a reduction of 10 hours per day of traffic stoppage. 

Figure C-15: Expected Freight Performance under Investment Levels 1, 2, and 3 

In addition to examining investment levels, the agency looked at eight different funding scenarios 

that could be employed to enable higher investment levels that were analyzed. The MPO took this 
C-44

step in response to a failed referendum in 2010 that would have raised additional local funding for 

transportation. The MPO conducted surveys following the failed referendum that found people in 

the county wanted to know where their additional tax dollars would go and what the benefits would 

be. The funding scenarios listed below represent a different combination of potential changes to 

existing revenues and/or reallocation of revenues. The MPO adopted Scenario 8, which depends on 

a one-cent sales tax dedicated to transportation. This level of funding would allow all categories 

(Preserve the System, Reduce Crashes & Vulnerability, Minimize Traffic for Drivers & Shippers, 

Real Choices When Not Driving, and Major Investments for Economic Growth) to be funded at 

Investment Level 2 and most would be funded at Investment Level 3. They are: 

► Scenario 1 (Baseline) - Existing revenues, existing spending 

► Scenario 2 - Existing revenues, refocused on programs rather than road widening 

► Scenario 3 - Enhanced revenues but no new tax referendum 

► Scenario 4 - 1⁄2 Cent Sales Tax with Focus on Roads (local & State priority projects) 

► Scenario 5 - 1⁄2 Cent Sales Tax with Focus on Alternatives & Preservation 

► Scenario 6 - 1⁄2 Cent Sales Tax with Focus on Roads (high traffic-delay roads) 

► Scenario 7 – 1 Cent Sales Tax and Roll Back HART Ad Val Tax S 

► Scenario 8 – 1 Cent Sales Tax and Fully Fund most Programs 

Scenario Planning Exercise to Support Analysis and Decisionmaking 

During the Investment Level analysis, Hillsborough County MPO also conducted a Vulnerability 

Analysis, which was intended to explore the estimated impact of a Category 3 hurricane on the 

transportation system. . The region has three major bridges that are vulnerable to the storm surge 

from such as hurricane. The port is another key asset that is vulnerable. The purpose of this scenario 

planning exercise was to quantify the economic damage from flooding and then to study how 

different types and levels of investment could reduce the economic damage. 

The agency evaluated each of the three investment level scenarios according to three performance 

measures: 

► Travel Time Delay due to transportation network disruption; 

► Lost Trips due to transportation network disruption; and

► Economic Losses due to storm in 2014 dollars. 

The findings from this analysis are in Figure C-16 below. 
C-45

Figure C-16: Vulnerability Analysis Results – Expected Impacts under Three Investment Levels 

 

 

The MPO assumed a sea level rise of 14 inches for this analysis. The MPO examined how long 

infrastructure would be disrupted by this hurricane under a “no build” (also called no adaptation) 

scenario. It also considered the economic impact of taking infrastructure off line. This scenario 

assumes no new risk management investments are built or implemented. The MPO compared this 

“no build” scenario with a medium- and high- risk management investment scenarios. The medium 

investment scenario assumed shoreline armoring, elevated coastal roadway profiles, and improved 

drainage on interstate highways. The high investment scenario assumed those improvements would 

be extended to arterials roadways. The hurricane would cause about $266 million in economic loss 

under the no build scenario, $153 million in the medium investment scenario, and $119 million in 

the high investment scenario. 

The outcomes of this scenario planning have been useful in the MPOs coordination with the Florida 

Department of Transportation (FDOT). FDOT has been working to reduce vulnerability through 

design each time it rebuilds a highway or bridge that could be effected by rising sea levels and 

storm surges. 

Scenario Planning Analysis Tools to Support Implementation 

When the final plan was approved and Investment Levels (1, 2, or 3) for each of the expenditure 

programs was confirmed, Hillsborough County MPO conducted an analysis of the expected 

performance of the adopted plan with respect to vehicle hours of delay and transit ridership. The 

development of projected performance for the adopted plan and scenario will allow the agency to 

periodically track performance and identify whether outcomes are trending in the desired direction 

and whether improvements in performance are commensurate with the investments and policy 

changes that have been made. 
C-46

DATA AND TOOLS 

The Tampa Bay Regional Planning Model (the agency’s TDM) is the primary tool used by the 

MPO to develop the long-term transportation needs assessment and to evaluate the effectiveness of 

specific project investments against a traditional set of transportation system performance goals. For 

some measures, such as reliability and crash reduction, the MPO took the travel demand model 

outputs and does post-processing using separate statistical analysis software. 

The MPO also uses the REMI econometric modeling tool to estimate the economic impacts of 

storm surge related disruption (from a Category 3 hurricane in 2040). In addition, the MPO used 

basic GIS software for some measures, such as Transit Level of Service (TLOS). 

CONNECTIONS BETWEEN SCENARIO PLANNING AND PBPP 

The Hillsborough MPO incorporates scenario planning throughout its long range transportation 

planning and programming process. The MPO first used a normative approach to scenario planning 

to evaluate three alternative future growth patterns. The MPO developed a set of performance 

measures to evaluate the scenarios and ultimately settled on a hybrid scenario that is characterized 

by more compact development than recent trends. The preferred scenario influenced the MPO’s 

goals and objectives. 

The MPO used the preferred scenario to develop goals and objectives. Then, Hillsborough County 

MPO used scenario planning to evaluate the extent to which outcomes could be improved under 

three different investment scenarios for performance measures in five areas: preserving the 

transportation system, reducing crashes and vulnerability, minimizing traffic for drivers and 

shippers, enhancing non-driving travel choices, and making investments to support economic 

growth. These performance areas are closely aligned with the MPO’s goals, expressed in the long 

range transportation plan, though they were narrower in scope to reflect the key areas in which the 

agency has the ability to improve performance directly. 

The Planning Commission is currently (early 2015) updating the local governments’ comprehensive 

plans to reflect the Imagine 2040 preferred scenario. 

RESOURCES 

► Long range Transportation Plan: http://www.planhillsborough.org/2040-lrtp/

► Transportation Improvement Program: http://www.planhillsborough.org/transportationimprovement-program-tip/

► Unified Planning Work Program: http://www.planhillsborough.org/unified-planning-workprogram/

Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (HEP)

1200 New Jersey Avenue SE

Washington, DC 20590

www.fhwa.dot.gov/planning/

June 2016

Publication No.: FHWA-HEP-16-068