 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Home > Planning
Support Tool > Planning and Development Process
for (Federally Funded) BRT Projects Planning and Development Process |
 |
||||||||||||||||||||
In most corridor applications, all things being equal (e.g., extent, quality of components, amenities), a BRT line will cost less than an LRT line. That having been said, BRT can represent a substantial investment in both capital and operating and maintenance costs. Accordingly, one should take the decision to invest in BRT seriously, and follow the same basic planning and project planning process as one might use for any rapid transit investment, irrespective of whether requesting Federal funding assistance is being contemplated. The description below is a broad outline. It does not go into detail on planning and analysis legislation, regulations, methodologies, organizations, public involvement, the environmental review process under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The best place to obtain detailed information and guidance on the Federal New Starts planning and project development process is from the Federal Transit Administration. Having enunciated and gotten policy official endorsement of goals, objectives and criteria, transportation planners will begin the rapid transit planning and project development process (i.e., “New Start planning and project development process) with an in-depth analysis of the characteristics and causes of current and potential future transportation and transportation related problems in a given corridor. This corridor (or corridors) will have been identified by the ongoing systems planning process as needing a rapid transit investment of some kind. This analysis, know as an “alternatives analysis” will focus on multi-modal (transit and highway) demand, supply condition and performance in the corridor or corridors in question. It will also cover transportation-related environmental, social, economic development and land use related challenges and issues. After a complete analysis of the current and projected future (i.e. analysis of a no project or “do-nothing” alternative) situation, alternative rapid transit and/or multi-modal solutions can be identified. The first alternatives(s) to be identified will be one or more modest investment alternatives also referred to as “TSM” or base-case alternatives. These will include both additions of new capacity and services as well as operational improvements. Based on the results of analysis of the “TSM” alternatives, one or more rapid transit alternatives are identified and analyzed. Where a modest BRT investment is being contemplated, there may be only one rapid transit “build” alternative, while where a more expensive (e.g., in excess of $75m) BRT and other rail-based alternatives are being examined, less expensive rapid transit alternatives will be examined as well. Following the open, objective analysis of the full range of alternatives in terms of the goals, objectives and criteria enunciated at the beginning of the planning process, policy officials will select the single rapid transit alternative to take into more detailed planning, engineering and design. This alternative will be defined in terms of basic mode, and general alignment. The next step in the process, preliminary engineering, further defines the alternative selected at the conclusion of alternatives analysis to a level of detail normally requiring completion of 30% of all engineering and design activities. At the conclusion of preliminary engineering, the environmental review process under NEPA will have been completed and the scope and cost of the project will be known with a level of confidence that will permit commitment to construction of the project by the various funding partners, including the Federal Transit Administration. The Federal commitment will reflect a rigorous cost-effectiveness analysis utilizing the results of both the alternatives analysis and preliminary engineering processes. The recently enacted Federal Surface Transportation legislation: “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users” (SAFETEA-LU) requires a less-rigorous alternatives analysis and FTA evaluation process for project where less than $75m of Federal funds are being requested, under a new “Small Start” transit capital assistance program; however, the basic process described above and illustrated below will be the same as for major “New Start” projects. Figure I: Alternatives Analysis Process
Figure II: Alternatives Analysis (AA) In The Over-All Planning And Project Development Continuum
Author: Sam Zimmerman
|
|||||||||||||||||||||
