MEMORANDUM

March 19, 2004

To: Citizens Advisory Task Force Members

Technical Review Committee Members

Subject: Bow – Concord I-93 Project Number 13742

Proposed Approach for Planning Phase

From: Don Lyford

Project Manager

We have reviewed our approach to the planning phase of the I-93 Bow-Concord project and would like to offer some clarification which we think will provide insight into the community-driven process we are following.

In order to develop a formal Purpose and Need Statement, we must reach a clear consensus on the problems or issues that should be addressed. We recommend starting with a general discussion of the perceived problems, concerns, and opportunities associated with the I-93 corridor. Next, we will identify criteria to help us screen the alternatives we develop. The criteria essentially define what the project must accomplish to be successful. Together with the problems/concerns/opportunities, the screening criteria form the basis for the draft Purpose and Need Statement. At that point, alternatives that address the problems/concerns/opportunities (as stated in the Purpose and Need) can be developed and screened.

The culmination of the process is broad agreement by stakeholders on a Purpose and Need Statement and a reasonable range of alternatives that can be advanced for further study (as well as problems, opportunities, and alternatives that are not appropriate or reasonable and do not bear further study).

This process is described in more detail below. Please let us know if you have any comments or questions about the proposed approach.

I. Develop “Problem Statement”: Define Problems and Opportunities

The first step in transportation project planning is identification of the problems, concerns, or opportunities to be addressed. The resulting “problem statement” forms the basis for the following steps, so the problems or issues must be clearly articulated and agreed to by key stakeholders. The problem statement is not limited to transportation “problems” in the traditional sense of safety, capacity, etc. Local mobility, access to public parks or facilities, aesthetic effects, community development, effects on other modes of transportation, or other interests, concerns, and opportunities may be considered, as long as they relate directly to transportation. Of course, not all concerns and interests can be accommodated, and the Department’s focus must be on transportation issues, but consideration is given to related concerns, and the problems or issues to address must be widely agreed upon. The final problem statement will include a list of the transportation problems to be addressed along with the community issues, interests, values, and constraints associated with it. Problem statements generally address the current conditions as well as conditions at the end of the forecast year.

In order to define problems and opportunities, we must first define the limits of the study area. The I-93 Bow-Concord project was initiated to address concerns over the I-93 corridor from I-89 to I-393. Thus the focus will be on the immediate highway corridor and interchanges, with consideration of other transportation facilities or community resources that directly affect (or are affected by) the I-93 corridor – adjacent land uses, connecting roads, and possible improvements to I-393 (Exit 2 ½), I-93 (Exit 16 ½), and I-89/106 (106 Connector).

I. Develop Screening Criteria

This step establishes criteria for evaluating the effectiveness of alternatives in addressing the problems or opportunities, defines data needs, and focuses the study effort. Criteria are established to screen the identified alternatives and to ensure that they are feasible – i.e., that they meet minimum performance levels, are constructible, and are reasonable. The evaluation criteria help formulate the draft Purpose and Need Statement.

II. Develop Draft Purpose and Need Statement

The Purpose and Need Statement (P&N) formally defines the problems or issues that need to be resolved. It is the initial step in the NEPA* process and forms the basis for the development and evaluation of alternatives as the environmental analysis and project design unfold. The focus of the P&N is on transportation, although it may address other concerns and interests that are directly tied to the transportation system, as described above.

Information included in the Purpose and Need typically includes:

- Brief project history
- Transportation system linkage
- Capacity issues
- Legislative mandate
- Safety issues
- Deficiencies

- Modal Interrelationships

Like the Problem Statement, the P&N must not imply a specific solution but must be stated in terms of underlying causes. It also cannot be so broad as to invite investigation of alternatives outside a reasonable spectrum of alternatives. The Purpose and Need Statement will be refined as the project evolves and there is a better understanding of transportation and community problems, interests, and opportunities.

III. Develop Alternatives

This is the most creative part of the project development process. Start with a blank sheet of paper. Every alternative considered should somehow address the problems or issues identified in the Problem Statement. Each proposed solution should be formulated to its best advantage, to be as robust an alternative as possible. Ideas from stakeholders that are not initially feasible as presented can be modified in a collaborative process to make them more viable rather than rejected out of hand. Collaboration between stakeholders and agency staff often results in better solutions than individuals or groups conceive on their own. The alternatives should be portrayed in an understandable format. An underlying goal is to leave environmental conditions better than they were before the project.

IV. Screen Alternatives

The screening process applies the evaluation criteria to determine which alternatives satisfy the problems and issues and to highlight the tradeoffs among the alternatives. The screening process is intended to eliminate alternatives with fatal flaws: concepts that do not address the identified problems, cannot be reasonably engineered, rely on untested technologies, are inconsistent with agency plans or policies or the community’s vision, or that are otherwise not feasible. Cost alone cannot be used as the criterion for eliminating alternatives. Environmental impacts are less of a determinant in this early phase, because there is no absolute standard for unacceptable levels of impact and there may be ways to mitigate adverse effects. The end product of screening is a reasonable range of alternatives that stakeholders agree are appropriate for further study, as well as alternatives which stakeholders agree do not warrant further consideration.

* NEPA refers to the National Environmental Policy Act, which requires consideration of a project’s impact to a broad range of resources.