STRUCTURE OF A TRANSPORTATION PLANNING STUDY
This document describes a general structure for transportation planning study design and report organization.
Modified or additional approaches may be necessary to accomplish the objectives of a particular study, but
normally the framework as described below would be followed:
1. Goals and Objectives, Evaluation Criteria, and Public Participation
This task develops the framework necessary to conduct the study through definition of specific goals and
objectives. The final study area will be also be defined in this task. Evaluation criteria will result from the defined
goals and objectives. These criteria are specific considerations to assess benefits and impacts of alternatives
developed during the study. Such criteria commonly include: mobility, safety, environmental impacts,
economic/business considerations, neighborhood impacts, land use, and cost.
Evaluation criteria should be logically related to their associated objectives, and wherever possible, be
quantitatively measured and directly derived from either previously developed information or analysis techniques
used in the study. All evaluation criteria – containing both quantifiable or more subjective, qualitative measures of
effectiveness – should be used to determine the best solutions for the defined goals and objectives.
A public participation plan should, at a minimum, contain two public informational meetings. The first meeting
would generally cover any background, the proposed goals and objectives, study methods and timeline. It also
provides an opportunity for citizens to identify specific transportation problems within the study area. The final
meeting would cover a review of existing and horizon year conditions, results of the alternative analyses, and
proposed recommendations. Material presented at public informational meetings should include a comment period
for citizen review.
Additionally, it is common for studies of this type to convene a Working Group or Advisory Committee that is
generally technical in nature and includes local, state, regional, federal and citizen advocacy representation.
2. Existing Conditions and Issues Evaluation
This task examines both existing and future transportation infrastructure and conditions. Existing and future land
use and environmental constraints should be evaluated and documented. Other issues raised by communities would
be evaluated if feasible.
Base year transportation conditions should be analyzed for the defined study area facilities. These conditions
include: traffic volumes, levels of service, safety, parking, transit services, bicycle and pedestrian, and others as
necessary. Other transportation issues as suggested in the public involvement process should be evaluated as
appropriate. Existing data – from a variety of municipal, regional, and state sources – should be used to the greatest
degree feasible. Future year transportation conditions in order to forecast a future year ‘no-build’ conditions in the
study area should be based on a combination of demographic projections (population, employment, and
households), various traffic modeling methods, and examination of economic development scenarios as
appropriate.
Existing land use, environmental factors, and proposed development should be reviewed in the defined study area.
Any environmental constraints that could affect the feasibility of certain alternatives should be identified. These
land use and environmental data should be assembled from existing sources to the degree feasible. These sources
may include, but are not limited to: regional and local comprehensive planning documents; previous studies; zoning
regulations; and GIS data layers available through municipalities, regional agencies, and MassGIS sources. The
general accuracy of these data should be confirmed through site visits. Recent and proposed commercial/industrial
developments, residential subdivisions, and other proposed projects with significant traffic generation in the study
area should be identified.
Existing deficiencies and constraints in the study area should be identified and quantified. Wherever suitable, these
Page 1 of 2
September 2012
Structure of a Transportation Planning Study - Continued
results could be presented in graphical or map form when similar information is not already available from a state,
regional, or local source.
3. Alternatives Development
Alternatives should be developed based on the problems evaluated in the task above. These alternatives should
include a baseline case (No-build), TSM/TDM alternative(s), alternatives developed by the consultant or
contracting agency (including any build cases), alternatives previously studied by others, and alternatives advanced
through the public involvement process. These alternatives can be further categorized as “short range” and “long
range.” For the purposes of these studies, “short range” alternatives are assumed capable of being implemented
within a five-year period from present.
4. Alternatives Analysis
The alternatives should be analyzed based on the appropriate evaluation criteria from the initial goals and
objectives task. Other issues raised by advisory committees, working groups, or through the public participation
process should also be analyzed as appropriate.
The contractor or agency should conduct a screening of alternatives, considering specific analysis elements such as
transportation, land use, environmental considerations, etc. An approximate, subjective ranking of preferred
alternatives should be produced from the screening process.
For detailed transportation analyses of each alternative, a comparison should be made between the existing no-build
and build alternatives to determine the anticipated traffic operations both with and without the alternative. If
appropriate, baseline or projected volumes from a traffic model can be used as input to a more detailed set of
analyses methods (producing LOS, V/C ratios, intersection operation, etc.) for each alternative. All of these results
would be incorporated into the screening process for ranking preferred alternatives.
An analysis of each alternative in terms of land use and economic development impacts should be conducted.
Based on data from the Existing Conditions and Issues Evaluation task, properties directly affected by alternatives
should be identified, along with any associated residential, commercial, or other land use and/or economic
development impacts. These results should be used as part of the screening process for ranking preferred
alternatives.
Environmental constraints and impacts for each alternative should be analyzed to the degree feasible, including
examining as applicable: wetlands, floodplains, aquifers, public water supplies, surface geology, protected and
recreational open space, ACECs, wildlife habitats, noise levels, air quality, and historical and archaeological
resources.
Approximate construction costs, if applicable, should be estimated for each alternative. Other information such as
project implementation scenarios and construction schedules should be estimated to the extent possible.
5. Recommendations
Recommendations may include both short range (within five years) and long range recommendations as a result of
the analysis completed in the previous tasks. A draft report should include summary tables of short and long-range
recommendations, a recommendations narrative, and recommendation maps and/or graphics.
6. Final Report
A Final Report should consist of updated and revised versions of the report sections developed under all the
previous tasks, with each major task above being covered by a separate chapter. The report should also include an
executive summary.
Page 2 of 2
September 2012