For a geometric design, several route concepts may be prepared for evaluation and public input. Routes should be defined enough to determine basic requirements such as initial locations of bridge structures, ROW, business or home relocations, major utility conflicts, and connection to existing cross streets. Routes should be designed to fit constraints that were identified in previous sections.

Horizontal alignments may or may not be developed for ramps, crossroads and interchanges at this stage, however, if they are, ensure that design controls are satisfied. Vertical alignments may be designed at this time as well, especially for the mainlanes, to evaluate project impacts, but are typically not required at this high-level evaluation stage.

illustrates an example of multiple route alignments to be considered.

Typical sections are developed to determine the cross sectional elements of the existing and proposed roadways. Multiple typical sections may be developed as part of selecting route alternatives. Design criteria for features shown on typical sections can be found in the RDM.

Conceptual typical sections typically include:

Details such as cross slopes, pavement structure and station limits are typically not needed to define a particular route during the conceptual stage.

A high-level environmental constraints map is developed to guide the design of conceptual routes. Environmental technical studies will not begin until a recommended alternative is selected, however, high level environmental constraints can be identified using public databases. Some of these constraints include:

Determine the location of as many of these types of constraints as possible to help design and evaluate the route concepts.

Conceptual route layouts are prepared to clearly indicate the alternatives to be considered by the pubic and should be easily understood by stakeholders outside of TxDOT (i.e., layouts do not contain detailed engineering information). Alignment alternatives can be narrowed down at this point to present the most reasonable choices to the public for feedback – presenting too many options can cause confusion and make the selection process unmanageable.

Screening criteria for this evaluation may include but are not limited to:

Some best practices for preparing

“public friendly”

conceptual route layouts include:

Consult with TPP - Public Involvement Section for additional ideas and/or feedback.

Construction and ROW cost estimates are developed to assist in the evaluation of alternatives. The planning level estimate should be updated for each alternative. Use TxDOT’s Construction Cost Estimating Guidance (CCEG) and CCEG spreadsheet tool to develop the conceptual construction cost estimate for each alternative (see ). Include costs for risk contingencies such as potential environmental mitigation, contamination, unknown geotechnical issues or other project unknowns.

Preliminary ROW costs should be calculated according to guidance in

TxDOT’s ROW Appraisal and Review Manual

and the

ROW Acquisition Manual

. For additional discussion on developing ROW costs see .

Public meetings provide an opportunity for the public to engage in a free exchange of views and ideas and to share individual concerns. They are an effective method of obtaining public support for a project and may help avoid controversial public hearings (see ) later in project development. A public meeting is held to exchange ideas and collect input on the need for possible changes to design features, alternatives to, and potential impacts of, in addition to mitigation for, a proposed project.

Public meetings are intended to gather input from the public and to keep the public informed during any phase of a project. Public meetings encourage public involvement in the decision-making process, assisting the project team to have a better understanding of needs and concerns within the project area.

A public meeting can be held at any stage of project planning and development.

Public meetings occur as early as TxDOT determines it is feasible to provide an opportunity for public input in project planning, location, design alternatives, and potential mitigation. Public meetings are recommended for projects that require large amounts of ROW, projects that propose access changes, or projects where displacements, impacts to historic properties, substantial public interest, or substantial public controversy are anticipated.

There are many options for effectively engaging the public in addition to the traditional public meeting, and many strategic approaches for promoting a required public meeting. Consult with TPP – Public Involvement Section and TxDOT’s statewide Strategic Public Engagement Guidance to develop.

The geometric schematic used for public viewing should be easily understood by the public. See the Schematic QC Checklist for items to include on the public meeting geometric schematic.

See for more information on conducting public meetings.

An alternatives analysis is a decision-making process where multiple route alternatives are evaluated and a recommended route or alignment is selected. The evaluation process developed for selecting recommended routes and alignments is typically based on criteria addressing the project’s purpose and need, project goals and objectives (such as safety and operational improvements), environmental impacts, affected property owners, project cost and stakeholder input.

The level of alternatives analysis is dependent on the rigor of the project including the level and types of environmental impacts. If NEPA is involved or is intended to be involved in the future such as in the creation of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) or an Environmental Assessment (EA) then the NEPA guidance for alternative analysis must be followed. See for detailed information on types of NEPA documents and required alternative analysis procedures.

Alternatives analysis must

clearly demonstrate minimization and avoidance of impacts

to indicate the selected alternative is the least environmentally damaging alternative.

An objective alternative analysis process is necessary to compare the project alternatives so the options can be reduced to a final set or to a single preferred alternative. illustrates the overall evaluation process.

Some evaluation criteria may be less relevant than others in the decision-making process. Therefore, it is important that each element is weighted if a matrix/numerical analysis is performed (i.e., some categories might be weighted differently if they are important to the adjacent community/project area).

Quality, organization, documentation and presentation of data are critical to the success and credibility of the evaluation and selection process. Thorough analysis of alternatives supports a well-defined scope and minimizes scope creep and incremental cost effects later.

An alternatives matrix and associated narrative is developed to document and present the results of the alternatives analysis (refer to TxDOT’s TSAP).

depicts a Quantitative Evaluation Matrix example and depicts a Qualitative Evaluation Matrix example that can be used to document the results.

Each project will have different criterion of evaluation based on its unique objectives and needs

. The project team collaborates to determine what criterion is chosen to evaluate.

*Impacted is defined as parcels with ROW is impacted by the alternative design

*Rating scale is from 1-5. 1 signifies the best rating and 5 signifies the worst rating

The project team selects a preferred route using input from stakeholders, planning partners and detailed information about potential impacts as evaluated using the process described in . The preferred route provides a solution consistent with the purpose and need for the project. Selection of the preferred route considers and implements previously provided stakeholder input.

The selection of the preferred route is documented based on the requirements of District policy and in coordination with the ENV and the District Environmental Coordinator.