Norwalktmpchapter 21 Projectdevelopmentpdf

SECTION 2 - CHAPTER 1
Project Development
This section of the Transportation Management Plan (TMP) provides the basis for how
transportation funding is spent, and provides guidance on what projects or programs
the City should be focusing on to provide transportation services for the businesses and
residents of Norwalk.
While the third section of this section of the TMP makes several specific
recommendations about certain intersections and roadways, it is also intended to be a
document that is reviewed and updated regularly as projects are completed; new
projects are brought before the City; and as new opportunities or dynamics create the
need to change how projects are completed.
This chapter provides an overview of how projects should be developed and advanced
to the City for evaluation and consideration. Later, processes for evaluating the need for
a project as well as its effectiveness are presented.
1.1 Project Development

Project Development is the process that takes a transportation improvement from initial
concept through final construction. There are several goals for this process:
 To ensure context sensitivity though an open, consensus‐building dialog among

project proponents, reviewers, the public, and other parties.
 To foster thinking beyond the roadway pavement to achieve the optimum

accommodation for all modes.
 To encourage early planning, public outreach, and evaluation so that project needs,
goals and objectives, issues, and impacts can be identified before significant
resources are expended.
 To achieve consistent expectations and understanding between project proponents

and those entities who evaluate, prioritize, and fund projects.
 To ensure allocation of resources to projects that address local, regional, and

statewide priorities and needs.
Project Development 2.1‐1

A clear and open process can flush out issues early so that opportunities for project
delays and escalating costs are identified and dealt with early in the process and so that
those parties involved are not discouraged. Additionally, it can prevent frustration by
avoiding building projects in a way that does not meet expectations in addressing the
perceived needs. This project development framework, and the principles that it
embraces, will:
 Help carry out projects effectively;
 Ensure good project planning, design, and implementation; and,
 Set the stage for long‐term success.
Effective partnerships on projects are important throughout project development and

require strong commitment and action from all involved, whether they be elected
officials, local planning and public works professionals, citizens, or consultants. Real
partnerships require ongoing relationships of trust and collaboration.
The project development process is one of a set of tools needed to achieve context‐
sensitive design. The process is structured to encourage public outreach throughout
planning, design, environmental review, and construction so that those affected by
transportation projects are in general agreement regarding the project’s need, the
selected approach to meet this need, and the refinements to the project that result as the
process evolves.
This project development process is complemented by the inclusion of the project’s

context as a basic design control. Flexibility for determining specific design elements
that satisfy the project need, and are responsive to the context of the project, is essential
and methods to accomplish these goals have been presented throughout this report.
1.1.1 Project Development Process Overview

The project development process is initiated in response to an identified need in the
transportation system, and it covers a range of activities starting with this identification
to a finished set of contract plans, and finally to construction.
The identified transportation need might include one or more of the following: a
congestion problem, a safety concern, facility condition deterioration, a need for better
multi‐modal accommodation, an environmental enhancement, or an economic
improvement opportunity.
The development of solutions to address these needs often involves input from
transportation planners, community leaders, citizens, environmental specialists,
landscape architects, natural resource agencies, local public works officials, permitting
agencies, design engineers, financial managers, and agency executives. Solutions might
2.1‐2 Project Development

Section 2 - Chapter 1
target a single mode of transportation, or address the range of road users including
pedestrians, bicyclists, transit operators, automobile drivers, and truckers moving
freight and goods. It is critical to the success of a project to engage the right team of
people on the project from the beginning.
The sequence of decisions made through the project development process progressively
narrows the project focus and, ultimately, leads to a project that addresses the identified
needs. There should be ample opportunities for public participation throughout the
process.
Transportation decision‐making is complex and can be influenced by legislative

mandates, environmental regulations, financial limitations, agency programmatic
commitments, and partnering opportunities. Decision‐makers and reviewing agencies,
when consulted early and often throughout the project development process, can ensure
that all participants understand the potential impact these factors can have on project
implementation. A seven‐step project development process is defined to move a project
from problem identification to completion, as illustrated in Exhibit 2‐1‐1. It should be
noted that this process is geared towards capital improvement projects, and therefore
maintenance projects as well as traffic calming projects may follow different processes.
Within Section 2 of the TMP, Chapter 2 discusses Policies and Strategies that the city
should undertake; Chapter 3 discusses how the City should approach Travel Demand
Management;, Chapter 4 discusses the City’s approach to Traffic Calming, and Chapter 5
presents how Traffic Impact Studies should be conducted.

Exhibit 1‐1 Overview of Project Development
STEP I Project/Need/Opportunity Identification
STEP II Planning/Preliminary Design
STEP III Program Initiation, Prioritization, and Programming
STEP IV Environmental, Design, and ROW Process
STEP V Procurement
STEP VI Construction
STEP VII Project Assessment
These seven steps are described in detail in the subsequent sections of this chapter.
1.2 Step I: Problem/Need/Opportunity Identification

Projects begin with the identification of a problem, need, or opportunity. These projects
reach across all modes of transportation (bus, rail, bike, pedestrian, auto, etc.) to make
modal connections and improvements consistent with sound land use planning. A new
project proposal can result through planning initiatives from the City of Norwalk or the
State, as well as arise from community, legislative, or citizen input.

As problems, needs, or opportunities for improvements arise they can be simple and
straightforward, or complex in nature without an obvious solution at the start.
As a first step in the project development process, the proponent would lead an effort to:
 Define the problem, need, or opportunity based on objective criteria;
 Establish preliminary project goals and objectives; and,
 Define the scope of planning and public outreach needed.
1.2.1 Goals
Through public outreach, discussions with City staff, and stakeholder interviews, a set of
goals will be established. The goals reflect the City of Norwalk’s priorities for the multi‐
modal transportation network and will enable the City to prioritize transportation
improvements based on a data‐driven needs assessment for each potential project. The
goals for the City should be as follows:
1.2.1.1 Goal 1: Safety

Goal 1 aims to quantify existing safety deficiencies with the objective of improving the
City of Norwalk’s transportation system in a way to minimize crashes and other safety
related incidents.
1.2.1.2 Goal 2: Vehicular Access and Mobility

Goal 3 aims to improve the City of Norwalk’s roadway system thereby reducing
congestion within the City with the objectives of facilitating commercial movement and
access to activity centers and redevelopment areas, minimizing use of residential streets
as cut‐through and truck routes, and improving overall mobility for drivers.
1.2.1.3 Goal 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Mobility

Goal 3 aims to enhance the pedestrian and bicycle experience in the City of Norwalk
with the objectives of providing a friendly, safe and convenient environment to better
accommodate existing pedestrian and bicyclists as well as to encourage more people
within the City to utilize these alternate modes.
1.2.1.4 Goal 4: Degree of Support

Goal 4 aims to allow for public input in decisions concerning the City of Norwalk’s
transportation system with the objective of providing a transparent forum that
considers a wide variety of suggestions and concerns.

1.2.2 Transportation Evaluation Criteria
Transportation evaluation criteria (TEC) are typically used to assess whether proposed
transportation projects should be supported with funding. Criteria for the City of
Norwalk were developed after the overall goals described above were established. As
part of the development of the TMP, unified weights were assigned to each goal and a
point system (or level of effectiveness/importance) was developed for each criterion to
reflect the City’s priorities.
1.2.2.1 Goal 1: Safety

 Crash Ratio (RA/RC)‐ Safety is often evaluated by looking at the history of crashes to
indicate where safety issues may exist. Intersections or roadways that have the
greatest number of crashes per vehicular traffic volume may indicate that a pre‐
existing condition exists that is affecting the safety of the roadway. Locations with
the highest crash rates should be prioritized for improvements.
 Number of Fatal Crashes – Although number of crashes is important to assess a

location’s safety level, the severity of the crash can also inform officials of an unsafe
location. If a fatality occurred at a particular location, it warrants the need of a
thorough evaluation and prioritization for improvements.
 SLOSSS List Inclusion – A location included in the SLOSSS list indicates it presents
safety deficiencies. The SLOSSS list is maintained by ConnDOT for locations under
State jurisdiction. Locations under the City of Norwalk jurisdiction may also be
evaluated, however, by using the same methodology. If a location has a Crash Ratio
greater than 1 and a number of crashes greater than 15, then this location should be
treated as if it was included in the SLOSSS list.
 Pedestrian/Bicycle Crashes – Pedestrians and bicyclists are more vulnerable than

people protected by vehicles. Thus, locations with these type of crashes will be
prioritized for improvements.
 Vehicular Speeds – One of factors that contribute towards unsafe conditions is

speeding. Locations where speeds are consistently above the speed limit create a
potentially unsafe environment for drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists.
1.2.2.2 Goal 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Mobility

 Condition of Pedestrian Facilities – Adequate, convenient and well‐maintained
facilities are essential to provide a safe and comfortable pedestrian environment.
Locations with inadequate or lacking pedestrian facilities will be prioritized for
improvements.
 Existing Pedestrian Volumes – Pedestrian volumes is a good indication of the need

for pedestrian facilities at a particular location. Locations with high pedestrian
volumes will be prioritized for improvements. If appropriate, locations that

currently have low pedestrian volumes, but would likely see an increase if facilities
were provided, may consider using projected future volumes.
 Condition of Bicycle Facilities – Adequate, convenient and well‐maintained facilities

are essential to provide a safe and comfortable bicycling environment. Locations
with inadequate or lacking bicycle facilities will be prioritized for improvements.
 Existing Bicycle Volumes – Bicycle volumes is a good indication of the need for
bicycle facilities at a particular location. Locations with high cyclist volumes will be
prioritized for improvements. If appropriate, projected future volumes may be used
as in some situations low bicycle volumes are the result of the lacking in bicycle
facilities.
 Designated Pedestrian/Bicycle Corridor – The City of Norwalk has recently

completed the Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan1 which presents a detailed
plan for current conditions of bike/pedestrian facilities, priority corridors,
schematic designs, and a recommended improvement Plan for the City. These
priority corridors were identified as locations deemed most appropriate for use by
pedestrians and/or cyclists by the City and should be considered when developing
Project Need statements. These facilities will be prioritized for improvements.
Additionally, there are a number of other studies and projects that are on‐going in
and around the City that should also be considered. A complete and updated listing
of these projects and plans can be found on the City of Norwalk’s website, and
include:
o Norwalk’s Connectivity Plan
o Central Norwalk Transportation & Pedestrian Master Plan
o Circulator Study
o Oyster Shell Park Plan
o The Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan
o SWRPA Bicycle & Pedestrian Studies (including the Merritt Parkway

Trail Study, the Norwalk River Valley Trail, and the Connecticut Coastal
Access Guide).
 Primary Access to Transit Service – Efficient use of transit services require that
adequate, convenient and safe access to stations and stops be provided. Thus,
pedestrian facilities in particular, but also bicycle facilities, that connect people to
transit will be prioritized for improvements.
 Primary Access to Activity Center – Facilities that provide access to an activity

center such as schools, libraries, churches, parks or recreation areas, neighborhood
centers and hospitals, among others, will be prioritized for improvements.
1
Norwalk Pedestrian & Bikeway Transportation Plan, Fitzgerald & Halliday, Inc. (FHI), 2011

1.2.2.3 Goal 3: Vehicular Access and Mobility
 Existing Traffic Volume – One component of improving access and mobility is to
target projects that improve travel for the greatest number of people. Traffic
volumes provide an indication of which facilities receive the greatest use based on
existing travel patterns. Therefore, road links with higher traffic volumes indicate a
greater existing travel demand and should receive priority over links with lower
traffic volumes.
 Heavy Truck Traffic – Economic development is a key component of access and

mobility. Those roadways or intersections that carry heavy truck traffic are
assumed to be critical to economic development and will be prioritized over
facilities that do not carry heavy truck traffic. Conversely, when truck traffic travels
along residential streets, it creates an undesirable environment. In this case,
residential roadways or intersection that carry heavy truck traffic are assumed to
present a neighborhood issue and should receive priority over other residential
facilities that do not suffer from heavy truck traffic.
 Operations – Congestion is one of the main deterrents in allowing for good vehicular
access and mobility. Unaccountable hours of productivity are lost to congestion
every day. As such, heavily congested locations will be prioritized for
improvements. If appropriate, these improvements may occur at a nearby facility
(such as a parallel route) in case of cut‐through situations or inadequate use of a
facility based on its functional classification.
 Pavement Condition – The quality of the pavement condition is a major factor in

providing high‐quality access and mobility. Therefore, roadways with lower
pavement condition ratings will receive higher priority than links with higher
ratings.
 Primary Access to Commercial Areas – The City of Norwalk’s transportation

network not only provides access for residents, it also plays a critical role in
economic development within the City. Therefore, facilities that are proximate to
Priority Development zones and/or targeted commercial areas may serve as
important access routes for economic development activities and should receive
priority over roadway links that are further from these areas. Consultation with the
City’s Redevelopment and/or Planning and Zoning Staff should be made to
determine if the area falls within or near one of the Cities economic development
areas.
 Transit Corridor – Transit has the ability of transporting a much larger number of
users than any other mode of transportation. As such, emphasis on facilities that
serve public transportation can potentially benefit mobility to the greatest extent.
Transit corridors, consequently, will be prioritized for improvements.

1.2.2.4 Goal 4: Degree of Support

 Degree of Public Support – As emphasized throughout this Chapter, public
involvement during all steps of this process is crucial. A project that is well received
by most interested parties has a higher chance of success and is likely to be more
beneficial to the City. Thus, projects with a higher level of support will be
prioritized for improvements.
 Potential Funding Sources‐ A variety of funding alternatives exists for

transportation improvements aside from City moneys. Projects with alternate
funding sources, either partial or full, have some advantage over those that would
require full City funding.
1.2.3 Project Need Form

This step in the project development process leads to completion of a Project Need Form
(PNF). The PNF provides sufficient material to allow City staff to understand the
transportation need(s), and results in one of the following three outcomes:
 Verification of the problem, need, or opportunity to enable it to move forward for

consideration of design efforts;
 Determination of the level of further project planning warranted; or,
 Dismissal of a project from further consideration.
A copy of the Project Need Form is provided in Appendix of this report. Electronic
versions of this form and instructions for completion can be found on the City of
Norwalk’s website (www.norwalkct.org).
At the beginning of this process, the proponent should meet with appropriate City staff.
This proactive, informal review and consultation can help ensure the project will
develop with fewer problems in future phases.
The Project Need Form is important to define the condition, deficiency, or situation that
indicates the need for action — the project need. The statement should be supported by
facts, statistics, or even by plans or photographs to the extent that information is
available.
It is critical that the proponent understand that project “need” is not a project
“description” (such as “replace a bridge” or “reconstruct a road”). That approach
“decides” the project outcome too early in the process. A goal of the PNF is to state, in
general terms, the deficiencies or needs related to the transportation facility (such as
“the bridge is structurally deficient” or “the pavement is in poor condition”). The Project
Need Form should document the problems and explain why corrective action is needed.
Example of a need could be:

 The intersection is hazardous. The high‐crash rate at the intersection illustrates this
problem.
 There is significant congestion at the intersection. During peak periods, traffic from
the side street has difficulty exiting onto the main street and long queues develop.
 There is no formal accommodation for bicycles or pedestrians between the

elementary school and the large residential neighborhood to the north where a
significant portion of the student body live.
The purpose of a project is driven by these needs. As examples, the purpose might be to
improve safety, to enhance mobility, to enhance commercial development, to improve
structural capacity, to enhance pedestrian and bicycle movement, etc., or some
combination of these. The Transportation Evaluation Criteria discussed above are part
of the Project Need Form, and will allow the City to objectively develop a preliminary
project priority list.
1.2.3.1 Identify Project Constituents and Public Outreach Plan

When defining the project need, the proponent should also think about public support of
the project. To achieve this, the Project Need Form includes a degree public support
section. To demonstrate the degree of support, the Proponent should include with the
Project Need Form:
 Identification likely interested parties and stakeholders;
 Documentation of public outreach and feedback to date (if any); and
 Outline of a public participation process for moving forward.
It is important that the proponent be fair and objective in selecting who might be
interested in a particular project. Simply identifying “supporters” and “like minded”
individuals, while excluding potential “detractors” and “alternative minded” individuals,
does not serve to advance the project cooperatively. If unsure, the proponent should
work with the City staff to identify and seek assistance in reaching out to all possibly
affected parties.
1.2.3.2 Project Need Form Review

Once the Project Need Form is prepared, it is submitted to the City staff for initial
review.
The intent of the Project Need Form review process is to allow the proponent to propose
a project at its most basic level to the City. Through this process, City staff can provide
guidance for project scoping and planning considerations, in addition to suggestions for
likely steps needed for project approvals. This guidance can be very valuable, especially
if given before the proponent invests significant time and resources in the project
design.

Through this review, the proponent may be asked to answer questions that arise from
the PNF review, to provide further documentation on the alternatives considered,
and/or to complete (additional) public outreach.
After the Project Need Form has been reviewed and evaluated by the City, the project
would be inserted on the preliminary priority list based on the points scored on the PNF
per the Transportation Evaluation Criteria discussed previously. If the project places
high enough on the list, it would then become eligible to move into
Planning/Preliminary Design (Step II). Some projects that are straightforward, or are
supported by prior planning studies, are expected to move directly to Project Initiation
(Step III).
Step I Outcomes
The following are potential outcomes from Step I of the development process:
 Agreement by the project proponent and the City on the problem and project
definition (extent and magnitude) to enable it to move forward into
planning/design (no further documentation required);
 Determination that there is a problem, need, or opportunity to address but further

project planning is warranted to better define the project need (resubmission of
PNF);
 Advice on alternatives to consider in the planning/preliminary design process;
 Placement of the project in the preliminary priority list; or
 A recommendation that the project need is not great enough to advance to

implementation/design efforts and (in its current form) should be dismissed from
further consideration.
1.3 Step II: Planning/Preliminary Design

In this phase, the proponent advances the project design at a minimum to the extent that
issues, impacts, and potential approvals required can be identified.
The Project Need Form and its review will help to outline the scope of issues to be
considered in this phase. The level of planning and design need will vary widely based
on the complexity of the project (from streamlined to more involved and complex). A
more involved alternatives analysis is integrated as part of this process for all new
facilities. It is also required for improvement or expansion projects where the feasibility
of achieving the desired enhancements with acceptable impacts and reasonable
investment is unclear at the outset. During the review of the Project Need Form, the
necessary level of effort and responsibilities for planning will be determined. Typical
planning requirements for different project types are illustrated in Exhibit 1‐2.

For a straightforward project (examples might include a sidewalk project, roadway
resurfacing, or a traffic signal equipment upgrade), the proponent can seek approval to
proceed directly to Project Initiation from the Project Need Form. In this case, the
proponent defines the actions proposed to address the project need(s), describes the
alternatives considered (if necessary), and documents any anticipated impacts as part of
the Project Need Form. (This may also be the best approach where detailed planning for
the project has already occurred and is documented).
For more complex projects (as examples, if there are several alternatives to consider, if
there are contextual constraints which add complexity to the solution, or if there is keen
public interest), the proponent should advance the proposed project further to provide
the City with sufficient information for the next step in the process, Project Initiation.

Exhibit 1‐2 Likely Planning Approaches for Different Types of Projects

Likely Planning Approach
Project Planning
Focused on a Clear and Full
Project Need Feasible Solution and Alternatives
Form Minor Variants Analysis
System Preservation
Roadways, Sidewalks, and Multiuse Paths
Resurfacing 
Reconstruction/Reconfiguration within Existing  
Pavement
Bridges
Rehabilitation 
Replacement  
System Improvement or Expansion

New Roadway or Multiuse Path   
Widened Roadway, Sidewalk or Addition or Multiuse   
Path Widening
Intersection, Roundabout, or Traffic Signal  
Modification
New Interchange or Interchange Reconfiguration  
Median, Roadside Safety, or Signage Improvements  
Traffic Calming, Streetscape, Lighting, or Transit   
Enhancements
New or Widened Bridge   
New or Expanded TDM/Park-and-Ride Lot  
New or Expanded Traffic Management System  
 Required
 Suggested for projects categories indicated and required for more complex projects with each category
1.3.1 Project Planning Report/Preliminary Design

Projects that require further planning will result in the preparation of a Project Planning
Report. Many traditional planning studies such as corridor studies, functional design
reports, and location studies can serve as a project planning report if done in a fashion
that is consistent with the principles of this Transportation Design Guide and completed
with public participation.
A generalized outline for the basic project planning process is provided in Exhibit 1‐3. It
is expected that this outline will be tailored for each project. The process described is
not intended to be overly prescriptive or burdensome. Rather, the project proponent is
encouraged to tailor activities appropriate to the extent, complexity, and type of project
to ensure that all project benefits, impacts, and costs are objectively estimated. As part
of this process, the proponent should also conduct a public participation program,
provide information regarding the project’s consistency with state and regional policies,

and decide, based on all the information gathered in the planning process as well as
public input, whether to continue the project development process and submit a Project
Initiation Form (PIF) under Step III. Regular check‐in meetings with the City are helpful
though this process.
The detailed steps in the planning process, as outlined in Exhibit 1‐3, are further
described in the following pages.
Exhibit 1‐3 Overview of Project Planning Tasks
Part A: Define Existing Context, Confirm Project Need(s)

Establish Goals and Objectives
 Inventory and Data Collection/Site Walk
 Definition of the Community Context
 Definition of Transportation and Land Use Functions
 Project Goals and Objectives
Part B: Initial Public Outreach

 Early Local Issues Meeting
 Environmental Agencies Coordination
 Individual Outreach Meetings
Part C: Project Definition

 Development of Alternatives (if necessary)
 Establishment of Basic Design Controls
 Define Future Conditions (if necessary)
 Screening of Alternatives
 Project benefits
 Project Impacts
 Consistency with appropriate policies and plans
 Cost
Part D: Project Review and Refinement

 Project Presentation Meeting
 Resource Agencies Coordination
 Alternative Refinement
 Concept Engineering Plans
 Evaluation Matrices
Part E: Final Recommendations

 Project Definition
 Description of the proposed project and project alternatives considered
 Project Benefits and Impacts
 Project Consistency with City Policies and Plans
 Public Participation Process
 Documentation of planning public participation process
 Final Recommendations

1.3.1.1 Part A: Define Existing Context, Confirm Project Need(s), Establish Goals
and Objectives
The first step is to confirm project need through an inventory of existing conditions.
Once the project need is confirmed, the proponent should clearly articulate the goals and
objectives for the project. The level of alternatives analysis and detail necessary is
directly related to the complex or straight forward nature of the project.
Inventory and Data Collection/Site Walk

A site visit should be the first step in project planning/preliminary design as it provides
an opportunity to view the project area in more detail. If appropriate, local project
constituents and technical specialists familiar with the features or concerns related to
the project should be invited to provide additional perspectives. Information should be
compiled or collected to provide the range of data appropriate for the project.
Key items to investigate during a site visit are described below:
 Context resources (environmental, cultural, historic, and man‐made constraints) are

mapped for the project area.
 Travel demands (for all modes) and crash data are necessary to identify any
capacity and/or safety problems, or potential safety problems. Some or all of these
data may already have been collected to complete the Project Needs Form.
 Pavement and structure sufficiency and inventory information is helpful in

determining the extent of treatment necessary for these features. A pavement
management system evaluation and rating is recommended, along with photo
documentation of the site. Once again, some or all of these data may already have
been collected to complete the Project Needs Form.
 An access audit to survey accessibility elements such as: curb ramp locations, slopes,
and obstacles; location of crosswalks; audible signals; transportation signage;
sidewalk width, slope, and obstacles; connectivity; and driveway/sidewalk
intersections.
 Hydraulic analysis to help to determine hydraulic adequacy of the structure or the

effect on the floodplain where bridges or structures are involved.
 Right‐of‐way information helps to identify property owners and property lines.
 Utility information is useful in determining any special needs required for utility
relocation(s).
A detailed survey of the project area helps to identify the location of various features
and resources potentially affected by the proposed improvement (although it is not
necessary at this point in the project development process).

Definition of Community Context
It is important for the project proponent to understand the planning context, land uses,
and character of the project location and surrounding community. Local knowledge or a
site visit is important in understanding surrounding land uses and community character.
A USGS topographic base map, GIS mapping information, and orthographic photos can
be used to identify and document various aspects of the area. These guides can show
surrounding land uses and land cover (open fields, forest and forest type if known,
agricultural land, town, village, city, or commercial corridors); visually distinct areas
such as buildings, land forms, valleys, hilltops, notches, water bodies, rivers, streams,
and watercourses; prominent views and vistas along the road; public facilities or places;
recreational facilities; trees; and the relationship to intersecting roads and activity
centers. Some of this information may also be available from the previously completed
PNF.
Definition of Transportation and Land Use Functions

It is important for the project proponent to understand the multi‐modal aspects of the
project location. During the site visit, the project proponent must be cognizant of bicycle
and pedestrian movements, or the potential for these movements, and public
transportation availability. The proponent should also be aware of the proximity of
connection points for other modes of freight and passenger transportation.
Any transportation solution must conform with local and regional plans. Pertinent
sections of the local and regional land use and transportation plans should be reviewed
as part of this process. This includes transportation and land use, local and regional
policies as they relate to the project location, the roadway involved, and the
neighborhood. Designated growth areas, historic districts, designated scenic roads and
areas, unique natural areas, and areas designated for future access management by
official city maps should be acknowledged in the vicinity of the project location. It is
important that future planned land uses be understood and the city’s goals for growth,
protection of natural and historic resources, and future transportation facilities be
acknowledged.
Project Goals and Objectives

From information obtained during data collection and the input received from
interested parties, the project proponent will define goals and objectives for the project
consistent with the plans and policies of the City. The needs for the project must
conclusively show that the project is justified. The language should be clear and
understandable to the layperson.
1.3.1.2 Part B: Initial Public Outreach

Public outreach and input in a project should begin early in project planning and before
there is a recommended course of action. This process starts with an early informational
meeting and continues at strategic milestones during the planning process. Effort should
be made to reach a broad spectrum of interested parties at this early project stage.

Helpful information Planning for larger or more complex projects might also be well served by the
on public outreach establishment of an advisory Task Force or Steering Committee at the outset. The level
is provided in of public outreach at this stage should be commensurable to the complexity of the
Section 1.9 of this project.
chapter.
General public outreach guidelines and tools are described in Section 2‐1.9 of this
chapter.
Local Issues Meeting

A “Local Issues Meeting” should be held early in the planning process, aimed primarily at
gathering local comments. This meeting is not a forum to present proposals or develop
solutions. (For larger projects, more than one Local Issues Meeting may be required.)
This meeting should also serve to foster a working relationship with local community
members. This is accomplished by listening to issues and ideas and making every
attempt to incorporate sound and cost effective suggestions into the analysis of
alternatives.
Comments from the Local Issues Meeting need to be documented and made available to
all who were present, or to those who request them. The minutes of the Local Issues
Meeting should be included in the project report and kept at an accessible central
location at the City offices. Following the Local Issues Meeting, the project proponent
must evaluate the comments received and ensure that appropriate details are integrated
into the project. Once the issues have been identified, one of the project proponent’s
biggest challenges is to balance these issues with all of the other project issues and work
to incorporate community concerns in project decision‐making and design, as
appropriate. It is important to give due consideration to all comments expressed
through the public process.
Environmental Agencies Coordination

Regulatory agencies that have a role in protecting the City’s resources and a
responsibility to issue permits for transportation projects that affect these resources, in
coordination with regional, and/or state resource staff (if applicable), may provide
available research information for the Local Issues Meeting. Depending on the
complexity of the project and resources present in the project area, these agencies
should be invited to the meeting and given an opportunity to present issues or concerns,
either in writing before the meeting or in person at the meeting. The agency’s
preliminary comments regarding whether resources are present in the problem area
and their extent and potential significance is valuable insight at this stage of project
development. The resource agencies should be given as much advance notice of the
meeting as possible.
Ideally, environmental issues are identified through this process and public response to
the issues is sought, as appropriate, at the meeting. However, the formal inter‐agency
discussion and resolution of regulatory issues occurs during later steps in the Project
Development Process.

Individual Outreach Meetings
There may be key individuals, local officials, agencies, or advocacy groups that may not
be at the Local Issues Meeting but who may be worth seeking out for valuable input.
These individuals or groups are often identified at the local meeting by a local official or
resident saying “you should really speak to so and so…” The project team should allow
time to conduct informal outreach meetings to round out its understanding of project
issues, opportunities, and constraints. Any significant issues that develop out of the
individual meetings should be recounted to the community as the process evolves.
1.3.1.3 Part C: Project Definition

After initial public outreach, the next steps are to refine project goals and objectives,
review alternatives, and define the project. These steps should reflect comments
received during the public and agency outreach described above.
Development of Alternatives
Several reasonable build alternatives might need to be investigated and considered.
Alternatives should be developed using the design guidance provided in this
Transportation Management Guide. In some cases, only cursory review of alternatives
may be required.
If one or more build scenarios are developed, they should include the following
information:
 Alternative typical roadway sections addressing the needs of all users.
 Multi‐modal accommodation and operational assumptions regarding allocation of

right‐of‐way, traffic controls, and enhancements.
 Accessibility issues, especially slope or cross‐slope concerns that may be difficult to

resolve.
 Compatibility with adjacent land uses and its associated activity.
 Conceptual roadway or project alignment (existing and proposed), approximate

limits of impact, and approximate boundaries of resources. A scale of 100 feet per
inch is useful for these concepts. For smaller problem areas such as urban locations,
intersections, and bridges, a smaller scale (40 or 50 feet to the inch) should be used.
(Profile sheets would only be developed for the areas with proposed grade
changes.)
 Critical cross‐sections, defined as points where structures and resources are

avoided or impacted by the typical section. Structures are defined as buildings,
bridges, walls, and culverts (48 inches or larger).
 Cost estimates

The project proponent must take care to examine multi‐modal needs and possibilities
for improvements during the alternative development process. These possibilities are to
be addressed and the feasibility and potential of each option discussed. Transportation
Systems Management, Travel Demand Management, Traffic Calming, and Intelligent
Transportation Systems may also be reasonable alternatives to evaluate.
Establishment of Basic Design Controls

Basic design controls serve as the foundation for establishing the physical form, safety
and functionality of the facility. Some design controls are inherent characteristics of the
facility (for example, its context and the existing transportation demands placed upon
it). Other basic design controls are selected or determined by the designer, working with
the proponent, to address a project’s purpose and need (for example, the level of service
provided to pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers). Selecting appropriate values or
characteristics for these basic design controls is essential to achieve a safe, effective,
context sensitive design. Section 1, Chapter 2 of the TMP illustrates the basic design
controls and their influence on the physical characteristics of a roadway:
 Roadway Context, including Area Type, Roadway Type, and Access Control (Section
1, Chapter 2.2)
 Roadway Users (Section 1, Chapter 2.3)
 Transportation Demand (Section 1, Chapter 2.4)
 Measures of Effectiveness (Section 1, Chapter 2.5)
 Speed (Section 1, Chapter 2.6)
 Sight Distance (Section 1, Chapter 2.7)
These basic design controls, once established, are carried forward through project
design.
Define Future Conditions

Projects that are developed should serve a useful function for some time into the future.
Visual depictions of Projects that involve significant capital investment are generally assumed to have a 20‐
project alternatives year life while projects of lesser investment are generally assumed to have a five‐year or
are useful to convey
the full extent of the ten‐year life. This assumption requires the planner to anticipate what is going to happen
project. to transportation demands in the future with and without the project to assess the
project’s effectiveness at meeting needs. Section 1, Chapter 3 (Subsection 3.4), presents
important considerations in forecasting transportation demand for projects.
Screening of Alternatives
If several alternatives are being considered, they should be fully described with concise
and illustrative graphics or plans. To the extent that project design elements (i.e.,
sidewalks, bike lanes, travel lanes, bridge types, etc.) are known, they should be
described.

Alternatives should be developed to comparable levels and the project’s effects should
be described to the maximum extent known at this point in the process. The analysis
that is compiled and summarized should characterize:
 Benefits
 Impacts
 Consistency with city plans and policies
 Costs
The cost of a project is a significant portion of the transportation‐related decision

making process and should be justified by improvements in safety, public need and/or
asset management, balanced with environmental and other contextual constraints.
Therefore, the cost estimate procedure must be unbiased and comprehensive (to include
all engineering and permitting, right‐of‐way, utility relocation costs, mitigation costs,
and construction costs). It must place all reasonable alternatives on the same level for
fairness in the selection process. An alternative with too high of an estimate might be
eliminated, while an alternative with a low estimate could be selected due to
misrepresentation.
At this stage, it is also appropriate to start thinking about project funding. This includes
an exploration of funding sources, their requirements and restrictions, obligations for
local share of project costs, other partnering opportunities, etc.
1.3.1.4 Part D: Project Review and Refinement

Once alternatives have been considered and the project better defined, the proponent
needs to ensure continued public and agency involvement in the project review and
refinement process, as outlined below.
Project Presentation Meeting

The project proponent should hold a public meeting and invite the constituents as
previously defined to overview the alternatives considered, the proposed project, and to
solicit input.
If the project as defined is unacceptable, the project proponent should attempt to

resolve any conflicts. Failing this, the project proponent should develop new
alternatives, and schedule a new Project Presentation Meeting. This process should
continue until a preferred alternative is determined.
During these meetings, it is helpful to provide handout materials that present the project
and its alternatives so that the participants have a reference to review. A visual
depiction of each build alternative is beneficial. The visual representation should be
prepared so that a layperson can understand the alternative being presented. An

example of how a project might be presented is provided in Exhibit 1‐5. The project
proponent should facilitate a discussion of how each alternative addresses the needs of
the project as well as its drawbacks.
Exhibit 1‐5 Example of Visual Representation of a Project Alternative
Plan View
Cross-sectional View
Source: King Street Corridor Study, Northampton, MA 2003
Minutes of the Project Presentation Meeting need to be documented and made available.
These minutes are important to document public comments that may be valuable input

to the design process and to ensure that there are no misunderstandings concerning
overall public consensus on the project as defined. The minutes should be sent to all
attendees, city officials, and other agencies that have project jurisdiction or special
expertise, and made available to the public at an accessible municipal location. The
recipients of the minutes should have a set time period from the postmarked date to
contest them and add clarifications.
Resource Agencies Coordination

For projects with anticipated impacts to sensitive natural and manmade resources, this
is an appropriate time in the process to assess future requirements for project
development with affected regulatory agencies.
The proponent should solicit comments from resource agencies regarding their views
on the various alternatives under consideration, the required environmental permits,
and the process moving forward.
Alternative Refinement
Input received from the public or the affected environmental resource agencies may
require refinement to the preferred alternative(s). These refinements may involve
minor changes to previously developed concepts or the development of a conceptual
engineering plan for the preferred action in greater detail. (It is imperative that the
agencies be informed of any project changes that take place during the “Project
Planning” and “Project Design” phases of the development process.)
The information developed during this task should be as accurate as possible at this
stage of project development as it may be the basis for early environmental
documentation or as part of an application for project funding.
1.3.1.5 Part E: Final Recommendations

In this last component, the proponent documents the process, public outreach, and
decisions made, as described below.
Draft Report
Following public, local, and environmental agency review of the alternatives and
proposed project, the planning report can be completed and made ready for review. The
planning report documents the need for the project, existing and future conditions,
alternatives considered, public outreach outcome, and the solution recommended. It is
important that, at a minimum, the report summarize the:
 Project Definition:
 Description of the proposed project and project alternatives considered
 Project Benefits and Impacts
 Project Consistency with City Policies and Plans

 Public Outreach Process:
 Documentation of public outreach during planning process
 Final Recommendations
The project proponent may, at their own discretion, distribute the draft report to the
appropriate local officials, staff, or key project constituents for review.
The project proponent may also elect to have final public review of the planning
recommendations by holding an additional public meeting or by notifying past project
participants of the availability of the draft planning report at an accessible municipal
location for review.
Final Planning Report

Upon receipt of comments and public input (if sought on the draft report), the project
proponent will finalize the report.
1.3.2 Detailed Alternatives Analysis

A more complex set of needs may warrant a more detailed planning and conceptual
engineering review of alternatives, their impacts and benefits, and implementation
issues. This is particularly true when it is unclear what actions are “feasible” to address
the identified needs. In this case, the proponent should develop base information,
document resources, and complete transportation planning analysis and conceptual
engineering of the alternatives in more depth to verify “project feasibility” and the
preferred action.
This level of alternatives analysis is appropriate for all new facilities and for
improvement or expansion projects where the feasibility of achieving the desired
enhancements with acceptable impacts and reasonable investment is unclear at the
outset. The key objectives of this effort are to assess alternatives to determine their
engineering feasibility, environmental impacts and permitability, economic viability, and
public acceptance.
1.3.3 Review of Planning Efforts

Upon completion of the project planning/preliminary design effort, the project
proponent has essentially two options based on its outcome: delay or drop the project
from consideration, or submit it with a Project Initiation Form and Priority Worksheet
to a designated DPW Staff Plan Review Team (or similar body developed for this
process) for review, as discussed in the next section. The intent of this process is to
allow the proponent to present a project for review and preliminary funding
consideration.

Through this review, the DPW Staff Plan Review Team can provide insight on project
design considerations in addition to likely steps needed for project approvals. With this
approach, valuable guidance can be provided prior to the proponent investing
significant time and resources in project design.
Ideally, at this stage, the project will be well documented, locally reviewed and
endorsed, and proceed to Step III: Project Initiation, as outlined in the following section.
Step II Outcomes
The decisions that are expected at this point in the project development process are:
 Consensus on project definition (or projects, where multiple projects result from the
planning process) and decision to submit a Project Initiation Form to enable it to
move forward into environmental documentation and/or design; or
 A recommendation that the project be dismissed from further consideration or

delayed. (This would reflect a case where the interest in the project may have
waned through the Project Planning Report review if, in the sponsor’s analysis, the
issues identified counterbalance the expected benefits, thus reducing the project’s
likelihood for a favorable outcome in the subsequent review and programming
phase.)
1.4 Step III: Project Initiation, Prioritization, and

Programming
If a project is to be constructed with City funds, the project needs to be approved,
prioritized, and programmed by City Staff and the DPW Staff Plan Review Team. The
third step in the process formally begins the review, evaluation, prioritization, and
programming of the project. This step is illustrated in Exhibit 1‐6.
The programming of transportation improvements can be a complex and sometimes

lengthy process involving local, state, and federal agency approvals, depending on the
scope of the project. Public support for the project is critical and can significantly alter
the implementation process and schedule.
1.4.1 Project Initiation Form

The Project Need Form or Project Planning Report detail the final recommendations for
the project resulting from early project planning. The next step in the project
development process involves summarizing the findings and direction defined in a
Project Initiation Form (PIF) used by City Staff and the DPW Staff Plan Review Team for
project review, evaluation, and potentially prioritization and programming. The PIF will

be completed by the Proponent and reviewed by City Staff and includes the following
information:
 Project Type and Description, including locus map
 Evaluation of the effectiveness of the Project at addressing identified needs/issues

from the Project Need Form
 Assessment of the readiness level of the Project, relating to project plan

development and outreach
 Evaluation of project details, including conceptual cost estimate, air quality benefits
and impacts to right‐of‐way, environmental resources, cultural/historical resources,
and environmental justice
 Project Need Form or Project Planning Report as an attachment
The Project Initiation Form for use in this process is provided in the Appendix to this
chapter.

Exhibit 1‐6 Step III: Project Initiation, Prioritization, and Programming
Project Initiation Form
City Staff Preliminary Review of

Project Initiation Form
Comments to DPW Staff Plan Review Team Project Does

Proponent review of Project Initiation Form Not Proceed
City Staff Compiles Preliminary

Transportation Improvement
Program
DPW Staff Plan Review Team

Approves and adds to a Draft of
the City-wide Transportation
Improvement Program
Public Comments on Draft

Transportation Improvement
Program
DPW Staff Plan Review Team  Development of Project

Approves Final Transportation Management Plan
Improvement Program  Programming in City Budget
Environmental, Design
and ROW Process

1.4.2 Project Review and Evaluation

At this stage, the proposed project is well enough defined to be subjected to a formal
review. This review facilitates comparison of the project’s viability to other projects
competing for limited funds. The PIF and project planning documents are reviewed by
City Staff for completeness and to identify issues for consideration by the DPW Staff
Review Team during their formal consideration of the project.
The DPW Staff Review Team, is comprised of staff DPW, Planning, City counselors, and
Engineering and is chaired by the DPW Commissioner. The DPW Staff Review Team
must approve all transportation projects to be implemented using City funding. The
DPW Staff Review Team meets monthly, but only every three months or so would be
asked to review Project Initiation Forms and recommendations prepared by City Staff to
verify needs, the effectiveness of the proposed project approach, and to provide
direction on next steps. A preliminary evaluation of the project for funding and
programming within the priorities of the City is made during this step (the programming
process is discussed in subsequent sections of this Step). It is anticipated that advice and
guidance for the next steps in the project development process will also be offered at
this stage.
At this point, the DPW Staff Review Team could reach one of three conclusions:
 Determine that additional planning is necessary before a decision can be reached

regarding the future of the project;
 Determine that a project should move forward into prioritization and potential
design and programming;
 Recommend that the project be dismissed from further consideration due to lack of
current available funds or the project’s lack of effectiveness in addressing identified
needs.
A DPW Staff Review Team positive recommendation denotes that a project should be
considered eligible for funding. However, it does not guarantee that the project actually
has dedicated funding.
1.4.3 Project Prioritization

After approval by the DPW Staff Review Team, projects are forwarded to City Staff for
review and assessment for future transportation resource allocations. City Staff also
review projects that are not approved by the DPW Staff Review Team and provide
additional comments to the Proponent so that future submissions can be streamlined.
City Staff maintain a list of projects that received approval by the DPW Staff Review
Team during a fiscal year. Prior to the City’s annual budget development process,
projects are prioritized based on the total scores from the Project Initiation Form to

develop a Preliminary Transportation Improvement Program. Any projects that were on
the previous fiscal year’s Transportation Improvement Program that were not
completed are re‐prioritized on the current Draft of Transportation Improvement
Program.
1.4.4 Project Programming

The Preliminary Transportation Improvement Program developed by City Staff is
reviewed by the DPW Staff Review Team for project programming during its annual
approval process. The DPW Staff Review Team will have reviewed the projects
previously and is therefore familiar with the merits and issues associated with each. The
DPW Staff Review Team votes on approving each project for inclusion in the Draft
Transportation Improvement Program, which is presented to the public for review.
After public review, the DPW Staff Review Team votes on approving each project for
inclusion in the Final Transportation Improvement Program which will have been
amended based on public input. At this time the DPW Staff Review Team establishes a
Project Management Plan to define roles and responsibilities for the subsequent final
design, environmental, right‐of‐way and construction steps in the process. This may
include the City staff advancing the design through the next steps, hiring of outside
consultants to advance design efforts, and/or perhaps asking proponents to fund
advancement of design elements.
Funding for a project can only be allocated once the Final Transportation Improvement
Program is approved and the project is ready to move forward.
1.5 Step IV: Environmental, Design and ROW Process

Step IV begins the process of environmental review, project design, and right‐of‐way
(ROW) acquisition (if necessary) so that the project can be constructed. This process
involves four distinct, but tightly integrated, elements:
 Public Outreach
 Environmental Documentation and Permitting
 Project Design
 Right‐of‐way confirmation/acquisition
Public outreach activities and requirements are integrated within each of the technical
tasks. This continual involvement will help to ensure the project’s ultimate success.
Although the technical requirements for environmental, design, and ROW efforts are
presented sequentially in this Plan, these activities are conducted concurrently and in a

coordinated process to ensure that the ultimate project is acceptable, constructible,

permittable, and addresses the customer’s needs. All these activities are keyed to the
design process schedule.
1.5.1 Public Outreach Plan and Requirements for the Environmental,

Design, and Right‐of‐Way Process
Continued public outreach in the design and environmental process is essential to
maintain public support for the project and to seek meaningful input on the design
elements. This public outreach is often in the form of required public hearings, but can
also include less formal dialogues with those interested in and affected by a proposed
project.
At this point in time, a public hearing, or opportunity for a public hearing, is required for
all highway projects as part of a process that also encourages a variety of citizen
involvement techniques such as informal public meetings, briefings, workshops, or
charrettes. Public hearings are recognized formal meetings held at particular times
during the project development and design phases. A Public Hearing is required for any
project that:
 Requires additional right‐of‐way;
 Substantially changes the layout or functions of connecting roadways or of the

facility being improved;
 Has a substantial adverse impact on abutting property; or
 Has a significant environmental, social or economic, or other effect.
An additional public hearing will be provided when there has been:
 A significant change in the proposed project (or design details);
 Identification of significant environmental, social, or economic effects not

considered at earlier Public Hearings;
 Substantial unanticipated development in the project area; and,
 An unusually long time lapse (for example, more than two years) since the last
public hearing.
There are many opportunities for public meetings or hearings on the project throughout
the project development process as described in Section 2‐1.9 of this chapter. All
meetings should be held in accessible locations with materials relevant to the meeting
made available in alternative formats upon request.

1.5.2 Environmental Documentation and Permitting
Early involvement by the project proponent to understand and develop a plan of action
to address the anticipated environmental consequences of the project is essential. This
effort can also shape a more environmentally responsive and sustainable design. This
section describes some standard procedures which help to identify initial project design
parameters, initiate early coordination with the community to identify issues specific to
the project, and define essential information to incorporate into the Preliminary Design
to initiate early environmental reviews.
Before initiating
design, the designer
1.5.2.1 Early Coordination should take time to
Early coordination with appropriate agencies by the project proponent should be review all prior
planning documents
conducted. Some examples include:
and public input
received on the
 Local environmental boards and commissions to review the project area and project.
identify any specific issues or concerns.
 Local historical commission(s) by requesting their review and comment on the

proposed scope of work and/or a locus plan showing project limits
 CT DOT
All correspondence from the early coordination tasks should be documented, copied to
key project participants, and made part of the project’s permanent record.
1.5.2.2 Determine Other Applicable Federal, State and Local Environmental Laws
and Requirements
The proponent, or their designated designer, will be responsible for identifying and
complying with all other applicable federal, state and local environmental laws and
requirements. Preparing and processing this environmental documentation should
occur concurrent with the development of the Preliminary Design plans.
The project proponent should develop a checklist of the anticipated environmental

documentation and permits and schedule a coordination meeting with the appropriate
parties to review these assumptions and their requirements if necessary. Project delays
can be minimized by early and on‐going coordination with Federal, state, and local
agencies with jurisdiction by law or special expertise.
1.5.2.3 Preliminary Submission Environmental Review

The City will evaluate the data collected during the Preliminary Design process and the
plans submitted. They will determine whether the project can be designed to desired
design criteria, or if design changes or mitigation plans will be required to resolve
environmental issues and community concerns. If the proposed project is under State
jurisdiction, then the proponent will follow the OSTA guidelines and process. Similarly,

if the proposed project is under FHWA jurisdiction, then the proponent will follow their
process.
1.5.2.4 Define and Initiate Permit Process

Environmental clearances and permits should be secured as early on in the design
process as is practicable. When used in this Plan, the term "Permit Process" refers to any
process or regulatory program that involves obtaining a permit or some other type of
sign‐off from a federal, state, or local agency.
Identification of applicable permits is completed prior to the Preliminary Design

Submission. Initial coordination, data gathering continues throughout the design
process. Formal submission of applications to regulatory agencies should be done as
soon as the required information is available, but no later than the Final Design
Submission. The project proponent is responsible for obtaining all required permits, but
may receive support from other parties.
1.5.2.5 Complete Permit Processes

During the period from Preliminary but no later than Final Design, the designer should
complete and submit all necessary forms or applications to the appropriate agencies for
the required permits.
1.5.3 Project Design

There are generally three major phases of design, including:
 Preliminary Design
 Final Design
 Plans, Specifications, and Estimate (PS&E)
As the project moves into design, the project defined in the Project Planning phase is
developed in more detail and design documents for the project are produced. It is
imperative that the designer is knowledgeable about the context of the project, about
the issues raised during planning, and about the desires of the community, the City, and
the regulatory agencies concerning project implementation prior to initiating the design.
The design process should comply with City requirements and/or State and Federal
requirements if applicable.
1.5.4 Right‐of‐Way
Layout plans, descriptions, and orders of taking are required to establish highway right
of way for all projects which involve land acquisitions. All proposed layouts must be
accurately computed.

The process for acquiring right of way or easements needs to be progressed as the
design progresses.
1.5.4.1 Preliminary Right‐of‐Way Plans (Preliminary Design)

When land acquisition or easements are involved, the designer should identify existing
and proposed layout (locations) lines, easements, property lines, corner markings,
names of property owners, access points, and the dimensions and areas of estimated
takings and easements as part of the Preliminary Design.
1.5.4.2 Preliminary Right‐of‐Way Plans (Final Design)

The designer will confirm the acquisitions in the Preliminary ROW submittal are
adequate for the Final Design, or provide revised ROW Plans. ROW acquisition
information should be posted on the preliminary ROW plan by the designer when the
designer obtains the information.
1.5.4.3 Final Right‐of‐Way Plans (PS&E Design)

After the Layout or Taking documents are recorded, the preliminary ROW plan will
become the final ROW plan.
Finalize Layout Plans and Order of Taking

As soon as feasible after the Final Design project approval, Layout Plans and the Order of
Taking are finalized by the designer.
1.5.5 Completion of Environmental Permitting/Design/Right‐of‐Way

Process
The conditions under which the project design and environmental permitting are
complete and approved is when all documents necessary to publish the bid documents
are complete. In addition to ensuring completeness of the design and right‐of‐way
process, the proponent needs to ensure that all necessary environmental permits and
clearances are complete.
Step IV Outcomes
A designed and permitted project ready for construction.
1.6 Step V: Procurement

Once a design is complete, the project is organized within a construction contract, and
an open invitation to bidders is published following applicable City, State, and Federal
procurement procedures.

1.7 Step VI: Construction

After a construction contract is awarded, the proponent and the contractor will need to
develop a construction management plan. The permitting agencies, local authorities, and
affected members of the general public need to be informed of the plan. These entities
should also be notified as changes in construction areas and activities occur throughout
the project.
1.7.1 Public Participation During Construction

Before construction activities begin, the proponent and construction manager must
determine the appropriate type of public notification and participation needed. Different
projects result in different types of disruption to transportation and other nearby
activities. For simple projects, including resurfacing, a minimal degree of public
participation may be needed. For these types of projects, the proponent should, at a
minimum, notify abutters of the impending construction activity.
For complex projects, the proponent may need to schedule a construction management
plan meeting with abutters and other project participants (local boards, interest groups,
business associations, etc.). At this meeting, the proponent can describe the types of
construction activity needed, construction phasing, and durations. Issues and concerns
associated with the construction period can be identified and adjustments made to the
construction management program to minimize community impacts as a result.
1.7.2 Construction Management and Monitoring

Careful management and monitoring of construction activities is necessary for most
projects to ensure that quality standards are maintained, environmental commitments
honored, and community expectations are met.
1.8 Step VII: Project Assessment

Project Assessment can be used as a tool to further improve the project development
and delivery processes. Although completion of this process will depend upon the
proponent, three important pieces of information can be gathered through this brief,
informal process. These include:
 Constituent input into project development process:
 Were the proponent’s expectations for guidance, review, and feedback met?
 Was the project timeline reasonable?
 Was the public outreach program for the project appropriate and effective?

 Were community concerns about the project addressed and community
comments incorporated into the planning and design processes?
 Were appropriate design controls selected for determining the design outcome?
 Was the project construction effectively managed so that community impacts

were minimized?
 Constituent review of the project design elements
 Was the project need addressed?
 Is the resulting project consistent with its context?
 What specific design elements are judged to be successful and recommended

for future projects?
 What specific design elements are judged to be unsuccessful and should be

reconsidered, and why?
 Follow‐up of Punch List items
 Are there project elements that still need to be completed?
 Has the project resulted in any situations requiring follow‐up or adjustment to meet
the original or newly‐created project needs?
1.8.1 Public Outreach

Public outreach is anticipated throughout the project development process to ensure
that the project continues to meet its intended purpose, benefits from input and
feedback from interested citizens, local and regional groups, and elected officials, and
maintains strong support. Public outreach is integrated into every step of the project
development process defined in this chapter. This active participation will ensure a role
for the public to help shape the project that emerges from the process. It is particularly
important to provide opportunities for public outreach early in project planning.
1.8.1.1 Identify Project Constituents

Early in the project development process, the proponent should consider the public
support for the project and the constituency that it serves. Project constituents are
groups and individuals that are involved in, have an interest in, or are affected by a
proposed project. They can either be formal participants in the process, or can be
represented by other participants in the process. Different types of projects involve
different constituents, and different levels of planning and review. Project constituents
include some or all of the following entities:
 Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
 Connecticut Department of Transportation (CT DOT)

 Metropolitan Planning Organizations
 Regional Planning Agencies (e.g. Southwestern Regional Planning Agency – SWRPA)
 Regional Transit Authorities (e.g. Norwalk Transit District, Metro North Rail)
 Transportation Providers (e.g Merritt 7 Shuttle)
 State and Federal Regulatory Agencies
 National Park Service
 U.S. Coast Guard
 Other State Authorities
 Elected Officials, Public Works Departments, Local Boards, and Commissions,

including Conservation Commission
 Facility users (commuters, residents, visitors by all modes)
 Neighbors and citizen groups
 Regional Independent Living Center(s)
 Advocacy and interest groups (such as local pedestrian or bicycling committees,

trucking associations, preservation groups, etc.)
 Private area businesses
 Local emergency responders
 Utilities (including railroads)
 Regional watershed or river management councils
At a minimum, the proponent should contact the appropriate local planning and public
works staff, planning commission chair, conservation commission chair, select board
chair, and major local property owners in the vicinity of the project area to help
determine initial concerns and issues. The proponent should confer with City officials to
determine which property owners may have legitimate issues that should be addressed
by the project. This effort will help identify important local groups such as neighborhood
associations, business associations, historical societies, recreation and open space
committees, transportation providers, and others who should be informed of the project.
It is better to be as inclusive as possible early in the Project Development Process to
allow the public to participate and be afforded an opportunity to contribute to the
decision‐making process for the project. (It should also be made clear to all those
attending how comments will be treated and how any expected follow‐up will be
handled).
Identifying the likely parties that may have interest in the project at the beginning of the
project development process helps the project proponent tailor the public outreach
program appropriately. The project proponent should define a public participation plan

at the outset of each step of the project development process. Tools available for this
outreach are described in Section 1.9.3.
1.8.1.2 Public Outreach Approach

The level of interest and role of the public varies widely by project type and complexity.
Different types of projects are likely to elicit different levels of community, resource
agency, and local board interest. These project types are grouped into system
preservation projects, and system improvement or expansion projects with guidance
provided on the appropriate level of public outreach, as explained further in the
following paragraphs.
The project proponent should carefully consider the best‐suited approach to public
outreach, depending upon the complexity of the project. Some general approaches to
increase awareness of a project and solicit input are described below:
 Notification of Abutters — Project proponents for all projects, other than routine
maintenance, should, at a minimum, notify abutters of the construction program
anticipated and its potential impacts to property and/or operations. This can be
informally done through neighborhood flyers or posters, through newspaper
notices, or more formally done by certified mail.
 Notification of Utilities — Project proponents should notify utilities of the

construction program anticipated and its potential impacts to their services or
operations. It is important to notify utilities even for routine resurfacing and
rehabilitation projects to coordinate any planned utility work. This is especially true
for an overlay, since pavement life is shortened considerably following a utility cut.
 Community Notification — As projects become more complex, disruptive, and of

longer duration, notification should be made to the community as a whole using the
public outreach tools discussed in the next section. This community notification
helps to increase knowledge of the project and its potential construction‐related
impacts. Beyond simple notification, the proponent should actively involve abutters,
specific local interest groups, and utilities to get a good cross‐section of people to
participate.
 Early Involvement of Local Boards and Commissions — The proponent should

consider involving local boards and commissions at the outset of the project. This
involvement can help the proponent identify issues the project is likely to face and
can help the proponent gauge the type of additional outreach activities that may be
most appropriate if the project proceeds. Outreach to local boards and commissions
can also be helpful for complex maintenance and resurfacing projects. It is safer to
notify all City departments/ boards of a project’s scope before much design work is
started to minimize later concerns or needs for project changes.
 Early Local Issues Meeting — An early local issues meeting is important for
projects where transportation facilities are being substantially modified, expanded,

or replaced. It is recommended that this meeting be widely advertised, as discussed

below. This meeting provides a forum for project constituents to make their
concerns known before a course of action is determined. For straightforward
projects, this early local meeting, coupled with later opportunities for public
hearings during design and permitting, may be sufficient. For more complex
projects, several early local issues meetings may be necessary.
 Public Forums or Hearings at Several Stages of Planning and Design — As

project complexity continues to increase, the public participation should include
several opportunities for public involvement during the planning and design phases
in addition to the early local issues meeting described above. Targeted mailings can
be used to generate interest and ensure that concerned parties are contacted. Key
milestones where public involvement is especially important include alternatives
analysis during the planning process, at key design milestones, or if the project
elements change substantially due to increasing refinement of the design. Detailed
meeting minutes are recommended for each session.
 Active Communication about Project Progress — In addition to interactive public

forums, active communication about project progress is helpful for maintaining
consensus and keeping project constituents informed about the project status.
Several additional tools for communicating project progress are highlighted in the
following section.
 Formation of an Advisory Task Force — An advisory task force of project

constituents can be particularly helpful for maintaining involvement from a
consistent group of individuals, representing a cross‐section of interests in the
project. This formalized type of public outreach is generally reserved for more
complex projects with a wide range of alternatives, benefits and potential impacts.
In almost all cases, formation of an advisory task force does not replace the need for
the other public outreach approaches described above. Typically, task forces are
advisory bodies that offer input to the process and suggest recommendations.
1.8.1.3 Public Outreach Tools

There are many aspects of public outreach associated with transportation projects
including:
 Informing constituents of a potential project;
 Active participation of project constituents in planning and design;
 Formalized public meetings and hearings; and
 Communication about the progress of a project
Within each of these aspects, there are various outreach tools available which serve
different purposes and target different audiences. These tools are applicable throughout
the project development process.

The first stage in public outreach is to make people aware of a potential project. Legal
notices alone are ineffective at informing the community about upcoming project
meetings. The project proponent should consider additional ways to communicate the
opportunity to participate in the transportation project development process, such as:
 Local newspaper articles or editorial letters
 Notices to local boards , committees, and local advocacy groups
 Posters at civic buildings or churches, or in neighborhoods
 Local cable television community event calendars
 A community website posting or community‐wide mailing
 Press releases to media outlets
 A community‐wide meeting notice or newsletter mailing (or email)
 Flyers to project abutters
Note that there are some public hearings, or opportunities for public hearings, that are
required to be held for legal reasons. For example, the FHWA requires Public Hearings
for Federal‐Aid highway projects as part of a process that also encourages a variety of
citizen involvement techniques such as informal public meetings, briefings, and
workshops. Public hearings are legally recognized formal meetings held at particular
stages of the project development process. Some environmental or resource agency
permits or clearance processes also require public hearings.
All public meetings and hearings should be held in facilities that are fully accessible for
people with disabilities, and notices about these meetings should use the International
Symbol of Accessibility to indicate that the location is accessible. Handout materials
available in alternative formats—Braille, large print, and/or audio cassette—as well as
other accommodations (sign language interpreters, CART reporters, etc.) should be
indicated in the meeting notices along with specifically how to request these
accommodations.
Formal environmental and design hearings are sometimes ineffective in eliciting

community concerns and addressing individual issues. Other ways to communicate with
those interested in or affected by projects include:
 Public Meetings — informal gatherings of designers, officials, and local citizens to

share and discuss proposed actions. These meetings provide an opportunity for
informal, less structured conversations about a project, the design elements, and its
potential benefits and impacts.
 Open Houses —mechanisms for interested parties to gather more detailed

information on a project. Open houses facilitate the discussion of particular details

of interest to individuals more effectively than traditional hearings or public

meetings.
 Workshops or Charrettes —smaller groups that facilitate problem solving around

design issues for which several options are available and the best solution is
unclear.
 Other Communication Tools that are effective in providing information to the public
and soliciting their input include:
 Newsletters — provide a forum for meeting notification and periodic updates

on project status and decisions. Newsletters can either be traditionally mailed
or electronically transmitted.
 Websites — allow frequent updates of project status, enabling interested

parties to review materials on their own schedule, and facilitate
correspondence of questions and responses.
 Project Information Boards —illustrate project details and provide contact

information at the project site facilitating involvement in other forms of
outreach.
Successful public meetings require good advance communications and coordination

with community leaders, elected officials, the Regional Planning Agencies, and CT DOT
beforehand in order to set the agenda and establish the framework for appropriate
follow‐up and continued communication. The proponent should work closely with local
and regional officials on meeting logistics, including location, time, and format.

Norwalktmpchapter 21 Projectdevelopmentpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norwalktmpchapter 21 Projectdevelopmentpdf

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Norwalktmpchapter 21 Projectdevelopmentpdf

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SECTION 2 - CHAPTER 1

1.1 Project Development

 To ensure context sensitivity though an open, consensus‐building dialog among

 To foster thinking beyond the roadway pavement to achieve the optimum

 To achieve consistent expectations and understanding between project proponents

 To ensure allocation of resources to projects that address local, regional, and

Project Development 2.1‐1

 Help carry out projects effectively;

 Ensure good project planning, design, and implementation; and,

 Set the stage for long‐term success.

Effective partnerships on projects are important throughout project development and

This project development process is complemented by the inclusion of the project’s

1.1.1 Project Development Process Overview

2.1‐2 Project Development

Transportation decision‐making is complex and can be influenced by legislative

Project Development 2.1‐3

STEP I Project/Need/Opportunity Identification

STEP II Planning/Preliminary Design

STEP III Program Initiation, Prioritization, and Programming

STEP IV Environmental, Design, and ROW Process

STEP VII Project Assessment

1.2 Step I: Problem/Need/Opportunity Identification

2.1‐4 Project Development

 Define the problem, need, or opportunity based on objective criteria;

 Establish preliminary project goals and objectives; and,

 Define the scope of planning and public outreach needed.

1.2.1.1 Goal 1: Safety

1.2.1.2 Goal 2: Vehicular Access and Mobility

1.2.1.3 Goal 3: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Mobility

1.2.1.4 Goal 4: Degree of Support

Project Development 2.1‐5

1.2.2.1 Goal 1: Safety

 Number of Fatal Crashes – Although number of crashes is important to assess a

 Pedestrian/Bicycle Crashes – Pedestrians and bicyclists are more vulnerable than

 Vehicular Speeds – One of factors that contribute towards unsafe conditions is

1.2.2.2 Goal 2: Pedestrian and Bicycle Access and Mobility

 Existing Pedestrian Volumes – Pedestrian volumes is a good indication of the need

2.1‐6 Project Development

 Condition of Bicycle Facilities – Adequate, convenient and well‐maintained facilities

 Designated Pedestrian/Bicycle Corridor – The City of Norwalk has recently

o Norwalk’s Connectivity Plan

o Central Norwalk Transportation & Pedestrian Master Plan

o Oyster Shell Park Plan

o The Connecticut Statewide Bicycle and Pedestrian Plan

o SWRPA Bicycle & Pedestrian Studies (including the Merritt Parkway

 Primary Access to Activity Center – Facilities that provide access to an activity

Project Development 2.1‐7

 Heavy Truck Traffic – Economic development is a key component of access and

 Pavement Condition – The quality of the pavement condition is a major factor in

 Primary Access to Commercial Areas – The City of Norwalk’s transportation

2.1‐8 Project Development

1.2.2.4 Goal 4: Degree of Support

 Potential Funding Sources‐ A variety of funding alternatives exists for

1.2.3 Project Need Form

 Verification of the problem, need, or opportunity to enable it to move forward for

 Determination of the level of further project planning warranted; or,

 Dismissal of a project from further consideration.

Project Development 2.1‐9

 There is no formal accommodation for bicycles or pedestrians between the