As in the developing problem definition, it is critical to ensure that the full range of stakeholder values is reflected in the universe of alternative solutions considered at the outset. This avoids the all too common problem of suggestions for viable alternatives being raised near the end of the process, resulting in a “back to square one” loop of activities.
Each proposed solution should be formulated to its best advantage, to be as robust an alternative as possible. “Strawmen” are not conducive to building credibility or trust with stakeholders. Ideas from stakeholders that are not initially feasible as presented can be modified in a collaborative process to make them more viable rather than rejected out of hand. The aim is to emerge from this step with a group of alternatives, any one of which could be approved for implementation. Stakeholders should be provided a complete explanation of why unfeasible alternatives are eliminated, to maintain their trust and minimize the chances of such alternatives resurfacing.
In the case of the Newberg Dundee Management Information System (MIS) in Oregon, alternatives were developed as multi-modal packages, each including highway, bicycle, pedestrian, public transit, and land use elements. Some alternatives were focused on major highway improvements with support from the other modal elements; some featured light rail and interurban rail as the featured components. This set of alternatives reflected public concerns and Oregon DOT’s commitment to thorough consideration of non-auto transportation elements as part of the total solution set.
Source: NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions p.17
Published: 2002
