Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects (2012)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

T R A N S P O R T A T I O N R E S E A R C H B O A R D WASHINGTON, D.C. 2012 www.TRB.org The Second S T R A T E G I C H I G H W A Y R E S E A R C H P R O G R A M REPORT S2-c19-RR-1 Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects Parametrix, inc. with Venner consulting institute for natural resources, oregon state uniVersity

Subscriber Categories Environment Highways Planning and Forecasting

The Second Strategic Highway Research Program America’s highway system is critical to meeting the mobility and economic needs of local communities, regions, and the nation. Developments in research and technology—such as advanced materials, communications technology, new data collection technologies, and human factors science—offer a new opportunity to improve the safety and reliability of this important national resource. Breakthrough resolution of sig­ nificant transportation problems, however, requires concen­ trated resources over a short time frame. Reflecting this need, the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) has an intense, large­scale focus, integrates multiple fields of research and technology, and is fundamentally different from the broad, mission­oriented, discipline­based research pro­ grams that have been the mainstay of the highway research industry for half a century. The need for SHRP 2 was identified in TRB Special Report 260: Strategic Highway Research: Saving Lives, Reducing Congestion, Improving Quality of Life, published in 2001 and based on a study sponsored by Congress through the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA­21). SHRP 2, modeled after the first Strategic Highway Research Program, is a focused, time­ constrained, management­driven program designed to comple­ ment existing highway research programs. SHRP 2 focuses on applied research in four areas: Safety, to prevent or reduce the severity of highway crashes by understanding driver behav ­ ior; Renewal, to address the aging infrastructure through rapid design and construction methods that cause minimal disrup ­ tions and produce lasting facilities; Reliability, to reduce con­ gestion through incident reduction, management, response, and mitigation; and Capacity, to integrate mobility, economic, environmental, and community needs in the planning and designing of new transportation capacity. SHRP 2 was authorized in August 2005 as part of the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA­LU). The program is managed by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) on behalf of the National Research Council (NRC). SHRP 2 is conducted under a memorandum of understanding among the American Associa­ tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the National Academy of Sciences, parent organization of TRB and NRC. The program provides for competitive, merit­based selection of research contractors; independent research project oversight; and dissemination of research results. SHRP 2 Report S2-C19-RR-1 ISBN: 978-0-309-12902-2 Library of Congress Control Number: 2012940347 © 2012 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. Copyright Information Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. The second Strategic Highway Research Program grants permission to repro- duce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, or FHWA endorsement of a particular prod- uct, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing material in this document for educational and not-for-profit purposes will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from SHRP 2. Note: SHRP 2 report numbers convey the program, focus area, project number, and publication format. Report numbers ending in “w” are published as web documents only. Notice The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the second Strategic Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review this report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. The report was reviewed by the technical committee and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research Council, and the sponsors of the second Strategic Highway Research Program do not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers’ names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. SHRP 2 Reports Available by subscription and through the TRB online bookstore: www.TRB.org/bookstore Contact the TRB Business Office: 202-334-3213 More information about SHRP 2: www.TRB.org/SHRP2

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is one of six major divisions of the National Research Council. The mission of the Transportation Research Board is to provide leadership in transportation innovation and progress through research and information exchange, conducted within a setting that is objective, interdisci- plinary, and multimodal. The Board’s varied activities annually engage about 7,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

SHRP 2 STAFF Ann M. Brach, Director Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director Neil J. Pedersen, Deputy Director, Implementation and Communications Kizzy Anderson, Senior Program Assistant, Implementation James Bryant, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Kenneth Campbell, Chief Program Officer, Safety JoAnn Coleman, Senior Program Assistant, Capacity Eduardo Cusicanqui, Finance Officer Walter Diewald, Senior Program Officer, Safety Jerry DiMaggio, Implementation Coordinator Charles Fay, Senior Program Officer, Safety Carol Ford, Senior Program Assistant, Safety Elizabeth Forney, Assistant Editor Jo Allen Gause, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Abdelmename Hedhli, Visiting Professional James Hedlund, Special Consultant, Safety Coordination Ralph Hessian, Visiting Professional Andy Horosko, Special Consultant, Safety Field Data Collection William Hyman, Senior Program Officer, Reliability Michael Marazzi, Senior Editorial Assistant Linda Mason, Communications Officer Michael Miller, Senior Program Assistant, Reliability David Plazak, Senior Program Officer, Capacity Monica Starnes, Senior Program Officer, Renewal Noreen Stevenson-Fenwick, Senior Program Assistant, Renewal Charles Taylor, Special Consultant, Renewal Onno Tool, Visiting Professional Dean Trackman, Managing Editor Pat Williams, Administrative Assistant Connie Woldu, Administrative Coordinator Patrick Zelinski, Communications Specialist ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This work was sponsored by the Federal Highway Administration in cooperation with the American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials. It was conducted in the second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which is administered by the Transportation Research Board of the National Academies. This project was managed by Stephen J. Andrle, Deputy Director. The research reported on herein was performed by Parametrix, with support from Venner Consulting, and the Institute for Natural Resources (INR) at Oregon State University. Jeff Heilman of Parametrix was the principal investigator. The other authors of this report are Marie Venner (co-principal investigator) of Venner Consulting, and Colin McConnaha, Paul Manson, and Kevin Halsey of Parametrix. The authors acknowledge the contributions to this research from Lisa Gaines and Sue Lurie of INR, as well as the multiple transportation professionals who provided their insights and information through the interviews that informed the research findings.

F O R E W O R D Stephen J. Andrle, SHRP 2 Deputy Director This report will be of interest to practitioners who are expediting the delivery of transportation projects in the areas of long-range planning, corridor planning, programming, and environ- mental review. It describes constraints on expediting project delivery and useful strategies for achieving expedited delivery. While the strategies and constraints are associated with planning and environmental review, many of the strategies are applicable to design and construction. The results of this project are also available on the SHRP 2 website Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP). TCAPP provides a series of self-evaluation questions organized around the constraints to help determine whether an agency is structured to regularly deliver projects in an expedited manner. Delay in delivering new transportation projects is a national concern because it increases costs, prolongs congestion, and denies the nation the economic and mobility benefits of added transportation capacity. Congress charged the SHRP 2 Capacity focus area with producing “approaches and tools for systematically integrating environmental, economic, and community requirements into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity” (emphasis added). Strategies to expedite project delivery, therefore, must reflect this broad mandate. Further, to have an impact on the nation, they must become standard practice. This report identifies strategies that have been successfully used to expedite planning and environmental review of transportation and some nontransportation projects within the context of existing laws and regulations. In this report, 16 common constraints on project delivery are identified from the litera- ture and case studies. Twenty-four strategies are discussed for addressing or avoiding the constraints. These strategies are grouped into six expediting themes: • Improve public involvement and support; • Improve resource agency involvement and collaboration; • Demonstrate real commitment to the project; • Improve internal communication and coordination; • Streamline decision making; and • Integrate across all phases of project delivery. The report catalogs the constraints, their potential severity, and the effect they can have on project delivery. Since it is not always clear to practitioners that they are facing a constraint, leading and lagging indicators are provided. The likely effects of not addressing a constraint are categorized as low, medium, and high; multiple strategies are suggested for each severity category. The report describes each mitigation strategy, links it to the constraints, and references cases where the strategy was used and to what effect. A significant but perhaps obvious finding is that benefits do not always accrue in the stage of a project to which a strategy is applied. For instance, making up-front commitments to environmental enhancements does not necessarily expedite planning but will likely expedite later phases, such as NEPA compliance, permitting, design, and possibly construction.

Strategies such as programmatic permits or regional analysis frameworks can expedite proj- ect delivery but must be established before the project begins. All these strategies are associated with cases in which projects were advanced through the planning and environmental review process faster than usual. Cases for analysis were found through a review of transportation and nontransportation literature, award programs, proj- ects funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and a review provided by the Federal Highway Administration of its internal Environmental Document Tracking System. The cases were searched using terms associated with expediting delivery. Analysis of the cases focused on application of a specific expediting strategy, including proj- ect attributes that influenced success; constrains that were addressed or proactively avoided; and lessons learned by the project team through follow-up interviews. The information in this report and its companion website will be useful to planners and engineers in state departments of transportation, metropolitan planning organizations, special transportation authorities, environmental resource agencies, and local governments. The strat- egies have broad applicability and, although applied to expansion of highway capacity, are relevant to adding capacity to any transportation mode or major infrastructure development.

C O N T E N T S 1 Executive Summary 2 Improve Public Involvement and Support 2 Improve Resource Agency Involvement and Collaboration 3 Demonstrate Real Commitment to the Project 3 Improve Internal Communication and Coordination 3 Streamline Decision Making 3 Integrate Across All Phases of Project Delivery 6 Expediting Strategies by Project Phases 6 References 7 CHAPTER 1 Research Approach 7 Review of Existing Information and Early Identification of Potential Expediting Strategies 15 Building from Existing Research 16 Selection of Strategies and Case Studies 17 Interviews 18 Evaluation of Streamlining Strategies 19 References 21 CHAPTER 2 Common Constraints to Transportation Project Delivery 21 Constraint 1: Avoiding Policy Decisions Through Continual Analysis 22 Constraint 2: Conflicting Resource Values 24 Constraint 3: Difficulty Agreeing on Impacts and Mitigation 25 Constraint 4: Inability to Maintain Agreement 27 Constraint 5: Ineffective Internal Communication 28 Constraint 6: Inefficient Section 106 Consultation With State Historic Preservation Officer 30 Constraint 7: Inordinate Focus on Single Issue 31 Constraint 8: Insufficient Public Engagement or Support 32 Constraint 9: Issues Arising Late Cause Project Change 33 Constraint 10: Lack of Dedicated Staff 34 Constraint 11: Lengthy Review and Revision Cycles 35 Constraint 12: Negative or Critical Coverage from the Media 36 Constraint 13: Relocation Process Delays Construction 37 Constraint 14: Slow Decision Making 38 Constraint 15: Stakeholder Controversy and Opposition 40 Constraint 16: Unusually Large Scale of and/or Complex Project or Program

42 CHAPTER 3 Strategies for Addressing or Avoiding Constraints 42 Strategy 1: Change-Control Practices 44 Strategy 2: Consolidated Decision Council 45 Strategy 3: Context-Sensitive Design and Solutions 47 Strategy 4: Coordinated and Responsive Agency Involvement 48 Strategy 5: Dispute-Resolution Process 50 Strategy 6: DOT-Funded Resource Agency Liaisons 52 Strategy 7: Early Commitment of Construction Funding 53 Strategy 8: Expedited Internal Review and Decision Making 54 Strategy 9: Facilitation to Align Expectations Up Front 56 Strategy 10: Highly Responsive Public Engagement 58 Strategy 11: Incentive Payments to Expedite Relocations 59 Strategy 12: Media Relations Manager 60 Strategy 13: Performance Standards 62 Strategy 14: Planning and Environmental Linkages 63 Strategy 15: Planning-Level Environmental Screening Criteria 65 Strategy 16: Programmatic Agreement for Section 106 66 Strategy 17: Programmatic or Batched Permitting 68 Strategy 18: Real-Time Collaborative Interagency Reviews 70 Strategy 19: Regional Environmental Analysis Framework 71 Strategy 20: Risk Management 73 Strategy 21: Strategic Oversight and Readiness Assessment 74 Strategy 22: Team Co-location 76 Strategy 23: Tiered NEPA Process 77 Strategy 24: Up-Front Environmental Commitments 79 References 82 CHAPTER 4 Case Studies 82 District of Columbia 11th Street Bridges Project 88 Flagler Memorial Bridge Project 90 Gateway Boulevard Corridor Project 92 I-94 North-South Project 95 Kangley-Echo Lake Transmission Line Project 97 Lower Manhattan Transportation Improvements Project 100 Maryland Intercounty Connector Project 103 Milton–Madison Bridge Project 105 Missouri I-70 Tiered NEPA Evaluation Project 108 Recovery Act Broadband Access Program of Actions 110 Texas Section 106 Programmatic Agreement Program of Actions 112 Oregon Statewide Bridges Program of Actions 115 Virginia DOT Early-Move Incentive Program 118 References 119 CHAPTER 5 Conclusions 120 Recommendations for Further Research 120 References Online version of this report: www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/165282.aspx.