National Academies Press: OpenBook

Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects (2012)

Chapter: Chapter 1 - Research Approach

« Previous: Executive Summary
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 1 - Research Approach." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2012. Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22888.
×
Page 19

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.

7C h a p t e r 1 The main objectives of this study were to identify, describe, and evaluate effective tools and techniques for expediting delivery of transportation projects and to present that information so that it would be accessible and useful to practitioners and decision makers. This study is intended to add to the growing body of research and understanding about expediting transportation project delivery, focusing in particular on the early planning and National Environ- mental Policy Act (NEPA) phases of delivery, including corridor planning. The study also includes strategies that cross over into the design, permitting, and right-of-way phase. It is worth noting that strategies implemented in the early phases typically provide expediting benefits in subse- quent phases of project delivery. While the focus of this research was on specific expediting strategies, this report also addresses barriers (constraints) and includes focused case study write-ups to the extent they are needed to under- stand or evaluate the strategies. The terms expedited delivery, accelerated delivery, and streamlining are used in various regulations, executive orders, and other directives aimed at reducing delay and speeding project delivery. In reviewing the existing literature, these terms are generally used interchangeably. For this report, expediting is used unless quoting or referring to other docu- ments or programs that have used a different term. This report does not attempt to build a case for expediting, but rather to describe the constraints to expediting and to pro- vide useful strategies for achieving expedited delivery. This research began with a review of existing studies and information to help refine the research work plan and a pre- liminary identification of potential projects that could pro- vide examples of expediting strategies. Once a starting list of strategies and projects was developed, research progressed by interviewing members of the project teams, staff from resource agencies involved with the projects, and other stake- holders who could provide insight into the techniques used to expedite these projects. These techniques, or strategies, were then evaluated, and a comprehensive account of each strategy was developed that included • A description of the strategy; • The project development phase(s) in which the strategy is applied; • The decision points that the strategy can help to inform or expedite (many strategies address multiple decisions); • The particular constraint(s) or causes of delay the strategy addresses; • Examples of specific successful applications of the strategy (including references and links to more information when available); • An evaluation of the strategy’s implications for schedule, cost, risks, benefits, and transferability; • Notes about applying the strategy; and • Lessons learned from previous applications. review of existing Information and early Identification of potential expediting Strategies At the outset of this research, the research team used a litera- ture review and web-based search to better define what is known and unknown about expediting project delivery. This process helped to refine the work plan for the research and to begin identifying potential expediting strategies for further study. The review included a broad literature review, a web- based search, a review of projects funded through the Ameri- can Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA), and an updated review of FHWA’s internal environmental document tracking system. Literature Review Approach The literature review included a search for both transpor- tation and nontransportation studies related to expediting Research Approach

8project delivery. This review, including a web-based search, confirmed that the transportation sector appears to be much more interested than any other sector in studying this topic. The small number of streamlining studies that did not come from the transportation sector came primarily from the energy sector and from local jurisdiction building permitting (this report includes two case studies of expediting from the energy sector that provide strategies applicable to transportation). The emphasis on expediting within the transportation sec- tor appears to have begun in earnest in the late 1990s, probably in response to a series of federal directives, starting with the 1998 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21). TEA-21 suggested that environmental streamlining processes could provide potential solutions to interagency dispute reso- lution. The FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation, in collabora- tion with the U.S. Institute for Environmental Conflict Resolution, subsequently developed interagency and inter- governmental conflict-management and dispute-resolution guidelines (1, 2). Section 1309 of TEA-21 provided congres- sional direction for environmental streamlining, including expedited delivery and cost savings on federalized transporta- tion projects combined with environmental, cultural, and historic resource protection. Executive Order 13274, signed in 2002, provided further direction for interagency coordina- tion among federal, state, and local governments and tribes. In 2005, the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) further refined the environmental streamlining framework. Web-Based Search The internet search for potential streamlining strategies and related information was guided by the use of a protocol that detailed how the search would be conducted and docu- mented. The objective of the web-based search was to review and screen the relevant literature, awards, or recognition for rapid delivery of highway projects and other published case studies. Using these criteria, strategies and case studies were selected for more in-depth investigation. Separate searches were conducted for transportation projects and nontrans- portation projects. The search protocol had an initial list of the electronic databases, metasearch engines, and library collections to be searched (see Table 1.1). Databases, search engines, and col- lections were added or dropped as the search progressed. In addition, known case studies were reviewed and specific websites and web pages were targeted, including those of FHWA, the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Ameri- can Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), the U.S. Department of Energy’s NEPA Lessons Learned Program, and others. The protocol also specified an initial list of key search terms and Boolean operators for use in searches. Search terms were added or dropped as the search progressed, and a list of the search terms was maintained. The list of streamlining- related search terms is as diverse as the practice itself. The list of terms was expanded based on key words used within web- sites and documents describing streamlining. While the research team originally assumed that the selected studies might be evenly balanced between trans- portation and nontransportation projects, transportation- related streamlining activities dominated the search results. As the team has found in the past, few other sectors have had such a large web presence documenting streamlining activities. Two notable exceptions include the U.S. Depart- ment of Energy’s NEPA Lessons Learned Program and the Table 1.1. Initial List of Databases, Search Engines, and Collections Databases AGRICOLA: USDA/NAL AGRICOLA: EBSCOhost Dissertation Abstracts: FirstSearch LexisNexis Academic: LexisNexis PapersFirst: FirstSearch ProceedingsFirst: FirstSearch Search Engines Google Scholar Google Bing Collections Oregon State Library Oregon State University Library Portland State University Library University of Oregon Library Note: All university library collections were accessed through the Online Computer Library Center.

9Streamlining the Nation’s Building Regulatory Process project (3). In addition to these, the team reviewed discussions and concerns reflected in the Re: NEPA discussion forum hosted by FHWA (4). The forum captures questions, issues, and solu- tions from practitioners who participate in the forum. Review of Executive Order 13274 Efforts Executive Order 13274 calls on executive departments and agencies to “take appropriate actions, to the extent consistent with applicable law and available resources, to promote envi- ronmental stewardship in the Nation’s transportation system and expedite environmental reviews of high-priority transpor- tation infrastructure projects.” Three key actions were identi- fied for realizing the objectives of Executive Order 13274: 1. Develop and implement administrative, policy, and pro- cedural mechanisms to conduct environmental reviews in a timely and responsible manner; 2. Advance environmental stewardship in planning, devel- opment, and operations and maintenance; and 3. Develop a priority list of transportation projects to receive expedited agency reviews. Implementation of Executive Order 13274 is the respon- sibility of the interagency Transportation Infrastructure Streamlining Task Force. This task force is responsible for both selecting the priority transportation projects and pro- moting the mechanisms and policies to “conduct reviews in a timely and responsible manner.” To achieve these objec- tives, three work groups were formed by the task force to analyze the challenges associated with, and to develop rec- ommendations for improving, aspects of project delivery associated with environmental analysis and documentation in the following areas: • Project purpose and need; • Indirect and cumulative impacts; and • Integrated planning. The work groups’ findings were made in three baseline reports (5–7) that reflect the key issues listed in the bullet points above; these reports are briefly discussed in the next three sections. Project PurPose and need The project purpose and need work group focused its analysis on determining whether the definition of project purpose and need contributes to delays in project delivery. The work group concluded that “there have been sufficient instances of prob- lems and project delays attributed to purpose and need to frustrate applicants and agencies” (5). Challenges leading to delay include managing the expectations and conflicting goals of multiple participating or reviewing agencies. Agencies some- times have different ideas about how a purpose and need state- ment must be developed. In practice, individual agencies may view purpose and need statements only from the perspective of their individual agency, thus creating disagreements between agencies regarding the appropriateness of the statement. Environmental review agencies may attempt to assign a broad role for resource protection in a DOT project. Informa- tion that should be presented elsewhere, such as an individual agency’s environmental protection goal, is sometimes included in the purpose and need statement. Such an inclusion, par- ticularly when it is not the primary purpose of the project, unnecessarily complicates the statement and distracts readers from the project’s true purpose. Disagreement on how narrow or broad the statement must be causes disagreement and delay. Resource agencies sometimes perceive transportation agencies as crafting their purpose and need statement around a presumed solution to the project, rather than incorporating a broader statement that stimulates more consideration of potentially viable alternatives. Purpose and need statements are sometimes too broadly crafted and include alternatives that are unreasonable or infeasible. While merging NEPA and Section 404 processes can be beneficial, challenges can result from the fact that NEPA pur- pose and need statements are usually developed before the Section 404 permitting process is initiated, thus creating the potential for the alternatives considered during Section 404 review to differ from those developed under NEPA. The dif- ferent perspectives various federal agencies may bring to the development of purpose and need statements can “actually drive differences in approaches to purpose and need.” Confu- sion and frustration can result, for example, “if a Section 404 project purpose is different from the transportation purpose of the lead agency and leads to different alternatives that may not address the key transportation needs” (5). Despite the fact that a variety of agency training tools exist, the issue of how to effectively deal with “cross-agency purpose and need concerns identified by agencies and applicants” is poorly defined. Recommendations for improving project delivery identi- fied in the purpose and need baseline report include the need to assess how the fact that different agencies approach, scope, and interpret purpose and need differently creates conflict and affects project delivery timelines. Role clarification between transportation agencies and other engaged agencies is needed to improve the purpose and need statement devel- opment process and, when necessary, to reinforce the expec- tation that the transportation agency’s perspective will be given deference in the event that a disagreement capable of causing long delays occurs. Interagency guidance should be

10 developed to address “the need for responsibly scoped, con- cise, and clearly written purpose and need statements” (5). The guidance should provide examples of acceptable purpose and need statements, and it should clarify any special consid- erations that may apply (e.g., the issue of the appropriateness of including economic development in the purpose and need statement depending on project specifics). IndIrect and cumulatIve ImPacts The NEPA permitting process requires the evaluation of a proposed project’s direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts. Indirect impacts are defined as those “which are caused by the action and are later in time or farther removed in distance, but are still reasonably foreseeable.” Cumulative impacts, as defined in 40 CFR, Parts 1508.7 and 1508.8, are “the impacts on the environment [that] result from the incremental impact of the action when added to other past, present and reason- ably foreseeable future actions regardless of what agency (fed- eral or non-federal) or person undertakes such other actions.” Recognizing the common challenges of evaluating indirect and cumulative impacts that impede the environmental review of transportation projects, the indirect and cumulative impacts work group developed a baseline report that sum- marizes laws pertaining to indirect and cumulative impacts, identifies training programs available to help practitioners to better evaluate these impacts, and describes case studies with noteworthy practices regarding indirect and cumulative impacts (6). This 2005 report also presents the challenges of accounting for indirect and cumulative impacts that reduce the expediency of environmental review of transportation projects, as well as solutions for overcoming these challenges. The challenges and recommendations identified by the work group are summarized below. Practitioners increasingly recognize the importance of iden- tifying and accounting for indirect and cumulative impacts in preparing and reviewing environmental permitting documents. While there is a trend toward greater accounting and scrutiny in the review of transportation infrastructure projects, this increased awareness has not translated to a consistent analysis of indirect and cumulative impact assessment in environmental impact statements (EISs). Further, the work group’s review of existing EISs found significant differences in the degree to which these impacts were addressed, if they were addressed at all. The work group’s findings were that these areas tended to be misunderstood and/or neglected. Based on this analysis, the work group identified several pervasive issues related to the evaluation of indirect and cumulative impacts. The analysis noted a lack of recognition of the difference between indirect impacts and cumulative impacts. In addition, there was confusion over what impacts must be analyzed and how to capture causality, especially in regard to the determination of significant impacts. A lack of rigorous analysis and confusion over analytical issues such as proper boundaries for analysis, approaches, and documenta- tion requirements were also identified as key problems. In addition to commenting on these challenges, practitioners at state DOTs, FHWA division offices, and research agencies provided feedback on the training and guidance currently available to address indirect and cumulative impacts. Their concerns (which are presented here as challenges) over exist- ing guidance and training programs included the following: • More specific guidance is needed for transportation agen- cies, including case studies that demonstrate examples of how indirect and cumulative impacts have been evaluated in the past. • Federal training programs typically evaluate indirect and cumulative impacts separately, while state DOTs and FHWA tend to categorize the evaluation of these impacts together. This lack of consistency creates interagency con- fusion over terms and fragments existing training efforts. • Training opportunities are not consistently available to the practitioners with the greatest needs. • Cumulative impact assessment is the subject of several courses. However, there is a lack of information and dis- agreement between transportation and resource agencies in regard to the evaluation of indirect impacts. The work group developed several recommendations for increasing agreement and coordination between transporta- tion and resource agencies when evaluating indirect and cumulative effects. Early coordination between transportation and research agencies is critical to identifying the resources most likely to be affected by indirect and cumulative impacts and to reaching agreement on the most appropriate method- ology and analysis to investigate impacts, including the estab- lishment of a shared vision of the appropriate boundaries for analysis. The work group recommended that practitioners use geographic information systems (GISs) and transportation– land use models to better characterize the regional indirect and cumulative impacts of proposed projects. While the use of GIS and models provides information, there is considerable uncertainty in using models; as a result, review may be expe- dited by assembling a panel of experts who can agree on what, if any, are reasonable project impacts. While indirect and cumulative impacts are typically reviewed at the project devel- opment stage, there is a significant opportunity to improve the process by shifting the discussion of indirect and cumulative impacts to the planning stage, when it may be easier to inte- grate land use, transportation, and environmental planning. Another opportunity identified was local governments, which have authority over land use decisions and are in a position to help avoid or mitigate potential adverse indirect and cumula- tive impacts.

11 Applying a watershed or ecosystem-level approach to trans- portation planning enables practitioners to identify a water- shed’s most critical or high-quality resources, as opposed to focusing mitigation narrowly on the direct location of impact. In this way, applying a watershed approach allows practitioners to avoid or minimize potential adverse impacts. Senior officials in transportation and resource agencies have the opportunity to significantly improve indirect and cumula- tive impact analysis by providing strategic leadership and ensuring thorough, consistent communication and training opportunities are made available to practitioners. Integrated PlannIng Transportation agencies have identified economic develop- ment, sustainability, and stewardship as objectives of the transportation system planning process. However, there is an increasing awareness that these goals are not realized without an integrated analysis and decision-making framework. To better understand the barriers to and opportunities for enhanc- ing coordination between transportation planners and stake- holders, the integrated planning work group evaluated when and how integrated planning efforts could effectively coordi- nate local and state transportation system planning with efforts to conserve and protect environmental and cultural resources. The integrated planning group’s baseline report defines inte- grated transportation planning as “a collaborative, well- coordinated decision-making process that solves the mobility and accessibility needs of communities in a manner that opti- mizes across multiple community goals—from economic development and community livability to environmental pro- tection and equity” (7). To develop a baseline understanding of current surface transportation planning practices, the work group surveyed practitioners to identify symptomatic obstacles to adopting an integrated planning approach. Often by the time resource agencies review transportation project plans, advance planning has already occurred. Thus, conflict between agencies over transportation plans typically occurs after significant progress toward a development plan has been made, and consequently dispute is more expensive and opportunities to mitigate envi- ronmental impacts are less efficient. Further, there is a lack of comprehensive, landscape-scale data on natural and cultural resources, and staffing and financial constraints prevent trans- portation planners from collaborating with the resource agency staff that will ultimately become responsible for review- ing the transportation plans. While a few states have developed their own processes for incorporating resource agency feedback earlier in the trans- portation planning process, the majority of resource agencies are not involved until they are asked to review the NEPA per- mitting process. Resource agencies have limited staffs that are forced to balance planning activities that foster conservation and procedural responsibilities associated with planning and environmental review. The political pressure commonly associated with high-profile transportation projects places significant demands on resource staff to thoroughly review planning documents, making it less likely that they are avail- able to participate in early planning efforts. Each agency is driven by a different mission and operates according to unique administrative rules and regulations. The work group found that “sustained participation in inte- grated planning and project development processes may necessitate consolidation of expertise and re-arrangements of staff resources” (7). Further, there can be a lack of trust between agencies primarily responsible for safeguarding resources versus agencies fostering development. Land use planning is often driven by local processes and concerns, yet there are several financial mechanisms (including tax struc- tures) that prevent local processes from being incorporated into landscape-scale planning processes. There is a lack of information and shared understanding between agencies of the physical characteristics and biological relationships nec- essary to adequately identify and mitigate impacts from transportation projects. The work group summarized general strategies that would overcome these obstacles and result in a more integrated plan- ning process. To foster an integrated planning approach and allow for earlier evaluation of the effects of alternative trans- portation solutions on environmental and cultural resources, transportation agencies must have a deeper understanding of the planning processes at resource agencies. In cases in which numerous agencies and stakeholders are involved in the trans- portation planning process, agency leaders must agree to a shared vision of project success. A transparent decision- making process is needed to develop solutions that reflect the diverse and sometimes contradictory goals (efficient trans- portation networks and preservation of environmental and cultural resources) expressed by communities. Land use plan- ning is a critical component of human and ecological func- tions; therefore, local land use planning efforts must be pursued in tandem with transportation decision making. GIS and remote sensing technologies are being used in some states to compile diverse resource information, from cultural resources to endangered species habitat displays, enabling a more integrated approach to transportation planning. Council on Environmental Quality Efforts to Expedite The Council on Environmental Quality established a NEPA task force in 2002 to review current NEPA practices, provide recommendations to better integrate NEPA into federal agency decision making, and make the NEPA process more effective, efficient, and timely. The result of these efforts was the 2003 report Modernizing NEPA Implementation, which

12 identified actions to implement the recommendations of the task force, including guidance and several handbooks (8). The report provided a comprehensive review of issues fac- ing projects. The NEPA task force noted the importance of collaboration among federal agencies and stakeholders for efficient and effective decision making. Using suggestions from training, detailed guidance documents, and A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA (9) were noted as ways to further collabo- ration. The task force also identified programmatic analyses and tiering as opportunities to improve the study of cumu- lative effects. The report stopped short of direct guidance as this tool is very specific to implementation scenarios. The task force did call for a committee to evaluate and improve the use of these methods. The report also reviewed further areas for improvement, including managing public opinion, agency trust and credibility, and resource allocation. AASHTO’s Center for Environmental Excellence AASHTO’s Center for Environmental Excellence maintains a database that provides information on transportation project delivery and environmental streamlining mandates under fed- eral surface transportation law (10). Topics in the database are designed to address the many factors that impede project deliv- ery, both factors that are internal to transportation agencies (e.g., project priorities, staffing, funding, and communication), as well as external factors (e.g., public opposition, interagency communication, and conflicting review procedures). The data- base provides links to a variety of relevant research, documents, case studies, and reports completed by federal and state agen- cies, nongovernmental organizations, and TRB. The AASHTO database does not provide independent key findings or study results, but rather cites the key findings of federal initiatives and task forces to identify opportunities to improve the coordination and efficiency of the environmen- tal review process. These include • SAFETEA-LU environmental provisions; • FHWA and Federal Transit Administration (FTA) initia- tives, including a July 1999 national environmental stream- lining memorandum of understanding among the various federal agencies involved in environmental reviews for transportation projects; and • Executive Order 13274 (Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Reviews), which established an interagency task force, chaired by the U.S. DOT and including seven other federal departments and agencies, to ensure that transportation projects are not held up unnecessarily by environmental reviews. The database also describes the various agency programs and strategies that have been developed to address emerging issues in transportation project delivery, such as congestion relief, public–private partnerships, innovative financing, and tolling pricing programs, acknowledging that address- ing these concerns will require a nontraditional approach to satisfying environmental requirements. The actions and programs described by various agencies, including pro- grams created under SAFETEA-LU, the U.S. DOT, and FHWA, all acknowledge the trend away from local, state, and federal agencies exclusively managing the design, con- struction, maintenance, and operation of transportation projects toward a project approach in which the private sector is intimately involved throughout all stages of design and implementation. In 2005 and 2006, AASHTO hosted a series of workshops on managing the NEPA process for complex projects (11). These workshops provided tools and methods to deliver com- plete NEPA documents on an acceptable schedule, with a focus on how to manage the teams involved in the review pro- cess, ways to anticipate sources of delay, and building on other planning efforts. Review of American Recovery and Reinvestment Act Recipient Projects Transportation projects that received funding through ARRA provided another source of potential expediting strategies and case studies. In order to receive funds through ARRA, projects had to meet aggressive schedules so that they could be ready for construction within required time frames. There was some indication that agencies applying for this funding might have employed innovative methods for expediting their projects’ schedules in order to meet the time frames required by ARRA, which would provide recent case study examples. TRB committees ADC10 (Environmental Analysis in Trans- portation) and ADC50 (Historic and Archaeological Preser- vation in Transportation) held a joint conference session devoted to the topic of “Learning from ARRA Successes in the Environmental Review Process.” This session included pre- sentations and discussions on lessons learned from meeting aggressive ARRA schedules and creative approaches to envi- ronmental review to meet the ARRA objectives. The projects discussed during this session added to the list of potential case studies for further review. Review of FHWA Environment Document Tracking System FHWA maintains an internal database that tracks the time- line of each EIS that the agency has published. Along with the project title and state where the project was located, this data- base includes dates for the publication of the notice of intent (NOI), draft EIS, final EIS, and record of decision (ROD).

13 The database also provides the number of months between the NOI and ROD, which is assumed to be the best available measure of the duration of the NEPA process when an EIS is prepared. Working with FHWA, the research team used this database to identify recent projects (NOI published after January 2004) that completed an EIS process (publication of the NOI to issu- ance of the ROD) in less than 3 years. Project titles were also considered for indicators of projects constituting major capacity-expanding endeavors or other major actions. Nearly a dozen projects met these criteria and were selected for fur- ther research to determine whether they provided examples of successful implementation of streamlining strategies. The team contacted the identified project sponsor agencies (mostly state DOTs) or others who would know more about these projects. Based on the additional information learned, most of these projects were dropped from the list of potential expedit- ing examples for a variety of reasons: • Project staff indicated that the project had started as an envi- ronmental assessment (EA), but after the EA was prepared, the agency decided to prepare an EIS. The time spent ini- tially preparing the EA (including data collection, impact analysis, and documentation) was not included in the EIS duration time but was integral to reducing the EIS duration. This was not considered an actual expediting measure, since it would increase the overall duration of project delivery. • Project staff indicated that the EIS duration shown in the database was for a limited-scope supplemental EIS and that the total NEPA duration was considerably longer than shown. Again, this was not considered to be a strategy to achieve overall expedited delivery. • Project staff indicated that the EIS was completed quickly because the project was very small and/or simple and probably could have been done without an EIS. Key Findings from the Literature Review Several of the studies and reports prepared between 1998 and 2010, together, cover a range of study methodologies and top- ics, including identifying the causes of delay, identifying streamlining approaches and strategies, providing case stud- ies of expedited projects, and developing a baseline against which to measure the success of future streamlining efforts. A 2001 streamlining study evaluated eight case studies that highlighted successful measures used to advance highway projects through the NEPA process (12). The eight cases were selected from FHWA’s EIS timeline database, which tracks the NEPA milestones (NOI, draft EIS, final EIS, and ROD) for all FHWA EISs. The eight projects selected had completed the NEPA process (from publication of the NOI to the signing of the ROD) in 33 months or less. In all these cases, the ROD was issued between the years 1998 and 2000. The 33-month EIS process threshold was shorter than the national EIS mean duration of 3.6 years for all FHWA projects completed between 1970 and 2000. The study identified the following recurring lessons learned for successful NEPA streamlining: • Capitalize on extensive project development and analysis performed in studies prepared prior to initiating the NEPA process; • Initiate NEPA-type studies in advance of the formal NEPA process; • Promote interagency coordination and cooperation via formal or informal memoranda of understanding; • Implement early and continuous public involvement pro- grams in an aggressive fashion; • Pursue high-level political support for the project; • Develop and use state-initiated streamlining programs; and • Develop any of a variety of procedures for facilitating doc- ument preparation and review. The streamlining study did not identify or evaluate stream- lining measures or approaches. Rather, it sought to “provide a more comprehensive, less subjective, and statistically-based approach to identifying NEPA process delays and evaluating their impact on time and cost of the overall project delivery process” (12). This research was directly related to Section 1309 of TEA-21. The study reviewed several data sets, including the FHWA database, and randomly selected 100 FHWA EISs con- ducted for projects that had completed not just the NEPA pro- cess but also design and construction, and that were now operating. Statistical analysis was used to identify a set of NEPA process baselines (representing various conditions) against which to evaluate future efforts to streamline the implementa- tion of the NEPA process. Some of the key findings and conclu- sions of the study regarding projects that required the preparation of an EIS under NEPA included the following: • The typical length of time for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA was 3.0 years (median) or 3.6 years (mean); • The mean time required for the entire project develop- ment process was 13.1 years; • The NEPA process accounted for approximately 27% to 28% of the total time required for the entire project devel- opment process; • The mean duration for preparing an EIS pursuant to NEPA increased from 2.2 years in the 1970s to 5.0 years in the 1990s; and • Variables associated with increased duration to complete the EIS process included a required Section 404 permit, a required Section 4(f) evaluation, the number of agency meetings held, the number of public meetings held, and the presence of highway noise issues.

14 The statistical analysis also found that EIS completion times varied by the former FHWA region in which the project was located. Several studies have focused on identifying the causes of project delay, or at least variables associated with project delay. In a study of 12 Oregon DOT highway projects, envi- ronmental issues such as endangered species listings, wet- lands mitigation, and other factors were implicated in delays in one-third or fewer of the projects (13). Statistical analysis indicated that project size, scope, and complexity were associ- ated with delays more often than were the regulatory require- ments of the environmental review process. For instance, the two variables most associated with delays were design changes and concerns raised by citizens and property owners. The next three factors associated with extended project timelines were found to be communication, staffing (including turn- over), and funding problems. Moreover, analysis of the actual project timelines did not show that any of the environmental process variables were related to longer overall review periods (1, 13). The researchers acknowledged that the available data set used in the statistical analysis was limited. Further exami- nation of the methodology and report also indicated that there were overlapping variables, and that measuring delay was problematic. It is worth noting that the factors most asso- ciated with delay indicate that those projects were character- ized by substantial controversy, had difficulty maintaining decisions, and had funding problems. These problems tend to be indicators that decisions are being made without adequate information or buy-in, that internal and possibly external communications are inadequate, and that the agency may not have made the commitments to the project that were neces- sary to advance the project in a timely way. A study conducted for the Texas DOT (TxDOT) sought to develop a guidebook for streamlining the project development process at the agency (14). The research included question- naires, interviews, and workshops to identify roadblocks to streamlining and to solicit successful streamlining practices. A practitioners’ workshop identified the following main road- blocks: • Lack of trust between agencies; • Resource agencies not having vested interest in project; • Lack of flexibility and rigid interpretation of laws; • Too much comfort in the old ways; • Different agency agendas and goals; • An us versus them mentality; • Misunderstanding of agency roles and process; • Turnover and new staff in all agencies, and staff that lacks experience and knowledge; • Inconsistency caused by agency staff in different districts interpreting rules differently and having different expecta- tions (also affected by turnover) and changing priorities; • Lack of communication: 44 Internally, on status of projects and on potential impacts, and 44 Externally, with other agencies; • Lack of conflict-resolution procedures; • Lack of clearly defined environmental requirements; • Lack of empowerment of staff ready and willing to participate; • Desire by resource agencies to know more detail before that information is available; • Too many projects and too few full-time employees on all agencies’ parts; and • Revisiting work and decisions that have been made. The study also identified the top eight streamlining strate- gies, as ranked by practitioners: • Greater (or less restricted) access to the internet for coor- dinators and practitioners; • Joint environmental education and training with partici- pation from design staff, construction inspectors, and environmental coordinators; • Early (and continuous) involvement of environmental coordinators on projects; • Attendance by environmental coordinators at preliminary design and project coordination meetings; • Environmental education for design and construction staff; • More interaction and cooperation between TxDOT and resource agency senior management; • More on-the-ground environmental monitoring and inspection at construction projects; and • More programmatic agreements and programmatic permits (14). Strategies and Approaches for Effectively Moving Complex Environmental Documents Through the EIS Process: A Peer Exchange Report (15) included selected streamlined projects from five states: Maryland’s Intercounty Connector, Mis- souri’s Paseo Bridge, Montana’s I-15 Corridor and US-2, Utah’s Mountain View Corridor, and several projects in Florida. The participants noted that a few streamlining tools and techniques were common to several of the projects; these identified strategies were categorized as communication, col- laboration, and commitment. This peer exchange report listed 25 streamlining tools and techniques and identified the strategies used on each of the featured projects, but it pro- vided very little detail on the strategies. A number of studies have found that despite the norma- tive, instrumental, and substantive arguments supporting environmental streamlining, agencies often encounter sig- nificant organizational and institutional barriers when try- ing to develop the collaborative relationships needed for

15 environmental streamlining. Constraints to collaboration and change include perceived (and in some cases real) con- flicts in missions, difficulty in changing or reinterpreting pol- icy and procedures, inadequate resources—especially budget shortfalls—and lack of appropriate interorganizational struc- tures. Fragmentation of authority and information also has a negative influence on joint problem solving (1, 16, 17). Furthermore, many well-documented strategies for envi- ronmental streamlining can incur costs without necessarily producing immediate benefits. These strategies include (a) early consultation among federal, state, and local govern- ment entities; (b) concurrent rather than sequential review of plans and projects; (c) stakeholder participation; and (d) adequate levels of information, funding, and staff for environmental review (1, 13, 18–20). The benefits of imple- menting expediting strategies are often realized in a later phase or phases of project development. For example, increased agency coordination and collaboration during early planning is likely to actually increase the labor cost and time required to complete the early planning phase. However, as the project then enters the NEPA phase and continues on to permitting, it starts those phases with better and more information, designs with lower impacts, and better relationships. The added investment in the early planning phase is likely to accrue cost and schedule benefits in the subsequent NEPA, design, and permitting phases. In 2010, the National Cooperative Highway Research Pro- gram (NCHRP) completed a study that looked at the full proj- ect delivery process from initial conception to completion of construction (21). Part of the impetus for this life cycle approach was that most agencies are organized such that different divi- sions and staff manage different phases of project develop- ment, but there are factors affecting project delay that cross multiple phases of project delivery. The handoff from one group to another creates risk for project delay, especially when the handoff is associated with those factors that cross multiple project phases. The study was also based on the assertions that (a) delays arise from the way programs are structured and administered and (b) there are opportunities to accelerate project delivery through better organization and management of the overall delivery process. The study identified eight state DOTs that had successfully accelerated project delivery. These cases revealed trends and organizational and process issues affecting delivery and provided summary descriptions of the different accelerating strategies, techniques, and practices. Accelerating trends identified in this study include • Performance measures; • Front-end approach; • Project management; • Communication, collaboration, and cooperation; • A team approach; • Creative destruction and realignment; • Organizational profile and structure; • Regionalization; and • Transparency. Several of these trends are expressed in the specific expedit- ing strategies that are described in more detail in this report. Building from existing research The literature review, web-based search, and review of other sources revealed that specific aspects of project expediting have been well documented, while others have only limited coverage in the existing pool of studies. The following topics have been addressed in multiple studies, and these findings are relatively well documented: • The causes of project delay; • General principles and approaches to expediting delivery of transportation projects (e.g., collaboration has been widely identified as an expediting principle and general approach); • Detailed case studies (most existing reports include detailed descriptions of the projects that have been suc- cessfully expedited); and • Identification of specific strategies for expediting (a rea- sonably large number of strategies have been identified, but much less has been done to describe or evaluate the strategies). Information that is relatively limited in the existing litera- ture includes • Descriptions of specific expediting strategies and tools. While the general approach of collaboration has been widely identified as helpful to expediting, there is limited information on specific strategies for implementing col- laborative techniques aimed at expediting specific tasks. • Evaluations of specific expediting strategies. Little infor- mation is available on the risks, costs, benefits, applicabil- ity, and other factors associated with specific strategies. • Transferability of strategies. Information is lacking on how the strategies may or may not apply to various types of projects, programs, or agencies, and on what should be considered when trying to transfer the strategy to another location or situation. • Accessibility of useful information. Much of the informa- tion is contained in lengthy reports that may not be readily accessible. These findings led the project team to make slight revisions to the research work plan in order to avoid duplicating existing

16 studies and to build on, and fill gaps in, the existing body of knowledge about project expediting. The revised work plan was similar to the original but placed more emphasis on evaluating, rather than merely identifying, streamlining strategies and con- straints. The final work plan was intended to accomplish the following: • Confirm (or identify) and evaluate constraints to project expediting as they relate to the specific streamlining strategies; • Keep case studies succinct and focused (i.e., minimize repeating lengthy, existing case study descriptions); • Focus on the expediting strategies; • Provide descriptions of specific strategies; • Evaluate each strategy; • Include nontransportation examples when appropriate; and • Present information on strategies and constraints so that it will be accessible and useful to practitioners. Constraints to Expediting Studies vary in how they identify, describe, and label the causes of project delay. There is also some debate about what actually causes delay versus what is a symptom or indicator of project delay. This study does not attempt to differentiate causes from symptoms, choosing instead to identify con- straints to expediting. It further describes indicators (both leading and lagging) that can allow practitioners to identify when a project is likely to experience, or is already experienc- ing, a given constraint to expedited delivery. The primary intent of identifying constraints in this study is to allow practitioners to link the constraints to the specific expediting strategies and tools. From the practitioner’s point of view, whether the constraints are labeled as causes or symp- toms is less important than being able to identify the specific strategies and tools that can be used to overcome or reduce a given constraint. Case Studies The review of past expediting research indicated that little information has been provided on the specific strategies used to expedite projects. In addition, members of the SHRP 2 Capacity Technical Coordinating Committee and the expert review group for this project suggested that this study should put greater focus on the expediting strategies and less focus on detailed case studies. As a result, this report includes fewer and shorter descriptions of case studies and focuses more on the expediting strategies. Sources that provide detailed descriptions of projects (cases) are cited but not discussed in detail; however, when existing case study write-ups do not capture the particular streamlining strategies studied in this report, related case study informa- tion is included. Expediting Strategies As noted above, this study focuses on describing and evaluat- ing specific expediting strategies. Most previous studies on expediting have focused on projects or programs that were comprehensively expedited. Project C19 includes those types of projects, as well as projects that may have expedited just one phase or one aspect of project delivery. This allowed the scope of the study to include a wider range of expediting strategies. For example, a given project may have developed a strategy for expediting internal decision making but did little to expedite permitting, and therefore the overall project expe- rienced delays. Regardless of how the project performed in other areas, if it employed a strategy that effectively expedited a particular phase or constraint, that strategy was included in this report. This report describes 24 strategies for expediting project delivery and evaluates those strategies for schedule implica- tions, costs, risks, other benefits, applicability, and transfer- ability. Each strategy is linked to the specific constraint(s) that it addresses, to the project phase and decision points when it can be used, and to one or more specific project examples for which it has been successfully implemented. Making the Information Useful to Practitioners Accessibility in the present report is partially achieved by pre- senting the information about each of the constraints and mitigation strategies in standardized formats (see Chapter 2). These formats describe the key information relevant to a practitioner. They also include hyperlinks to more informa- tion about the strategies, related case studies, and other infor- mation that may be useful for implementing the strategy but is not necessary for understanding and selecting an appropri- ate strategy. The greatest accessibility will be realized as the information and findings are incorporated into SHRP 2’s capacity-focused website (22). At the time this report was written, this integration was set to occur in late 2010. Selection of Strategies and Case Studies From the research described above, the research team identi- fied a long list of potential case studies for further evaluation to determine which projects would provide the most useful cross-section of strategies. Individuals were contacted who worked in key functions (such as project manager or environ- mental manager) on these projects to determine if they felt there were specific tools or approaches that helped to

17 expedite the project. These initial phone conversations were informal and focused on determining key factors that helped the project succeed or assisted in expediting a particular phase or element of project delivery. Using the information gleaned from the research and from these initial conversations with project staff, the team selected projects for case studies to illustrate the use of specific strate- gies. The most important factor in selecting the projects was the initial determination, based on the research and initial phone conversations, of whether a project appeared to have successfully employed a specific technique or approach (strat- egy) to either proactively avoid or minimize potential delay or to address a source of delay. Of course, determination could not be fully informed until the research team had committed to and conducted the full interviews described below. Consequently, the selection of case studies included consideration of other criteria gathered dur- ing the research; these other criteria are also described below. No formal ranking or rating was used to select these projects. Geographic Breadth Ideally, projects would not be clustered in a certain region, but spread throughout the country. The web search and lit- erature review included a variety of international sources, but the recognition and study of methods explicitly designed to streamline project delivery are domestic. At least one was modeled after a strategy first used in Europe. Contemporaneity Regulations, and in particular, agencies’ policies for compli- ance techniques, change rapidly. Coupled with an ever- growing understanding of how human actions affect the environment, the research team wanted to pick projects that occurred relatively recently and to include a few projects that were very recent—within the last year. Breadth of Function The following broad functions helped the team to categorize the likely strategies that could be illustrated from the poten- tial case studies: • Internal communication and organization; • External coordination and communication; • Commitments; • Analysis; and • Decision making. By selecting case studies and strategies in each of these functional categories, rather than focusing on a small set of elements of project development, the results of this study should be more broadly useful to a wider range of practitioners. Effectiveness To help gauge the merit of case studies and the strategies they were likely to yield, the team considered several types of effects, both beneficial and detrimental, that could be expected from the strategies. These include • Schedule implications. How a strategy affects project schedules is of course the most important consideration for this study. Many best practices can be culled from proj- ects that are not directly relevant to expediting, and at this preliminary phase it helped to double check that the case study and strategy would provide a practice that directly addressed the ability to maintain or accelerate at least one element of project delivery and contribute to the overall expediting of a project’s schedule. • Cost. The monetary cost to implement a strategy, as well as the potential cost savings, was also something the research team wanted to be able to address, albeit qualitatively. • Risks. Many times, innovative approaches to expediting carry risks, either that the intended benefit will not be real- ized or (and often equally important) that ancillary effects will occur that may not be immediately linked to imple- menting the strategy. During selection, the team wanted to be sure that potential risks that were considered and/or experienced by the project could be discussed for each case study. • Applicability. An important consideration in selecting the case studies was how broadly applicable they would be for practitioners’ projects. Solutions to unique or very rare problems were generally avoided. As noted above, the research team did not discriminate between whether the overall project was expedited or whether only some aspects of the project were expedited. The most important factor was evidence that an expediting strategy helped the project to progress faster or to avoid or minimize delay. This analysis approach also favored cases that required an EIS and not some other class of action. With a focus on projects that add capacity to the highway network, the assumption was made that cases with NEPA expediting strat- egies would primarily be ones requiring an EIS due to the nature of the projects. Interviews Data for each case study were collected through a review of secondary documentation and through purposive, semi- structured interviews. Before conducting the interviews, the

18 research team thoroughly examined information available on websites associated with the selected cases. Using public records and personal knowledge of the cases, the team devel- oped an initial interview contact list. Initial interviewees were known to be transportation practitioners, state and federal natural resource agency employees, contractors, consultants, and/or other stakeholders from the selected case study proj- ects. This population was targeted because of their unique ability to identify and discuss the streamlining activities in the context of the selected case study projects. Interviewees were offered an opportunity to identify alternative or addi- tional potential interviewees knowledgeable about the case in question, and they were asked to provide any applicable reports and related information that the team had not been able to obtain during its preliminary research. An inductive approach was taken by conducting semis- tructured interviews using open-ended questions. The devel- opment of the interview guide was an iterative process as the research team attempted to focus on the most essential ques- tions while creating the least inconvenience for DOT inter- viewees. The intent of the guide was to solicit specific information about streamlining activities by describing their uses, advantages, disadvantages, applicability, and implemen- tation in the context of planning through final design. Inter- view questions were roughly grouped into three categories: (a) questions related to challenges in project delivery, (b) questions about how these project delivery challenges and project-specific challenges were addressed with specific streamlining activities, and (c) questions about the transfer- ability and applicability of the streamlining activities to future projects and operational procedures within the inter- viewee’s agency. Since the selected cases and their stream- lining activities covered a broad range of scenarios, from single-project expediting initiatives to nationally based ones, not all questions were appropriate for all cases. Extensive information about projects for which the streamlining activ- ities were implemented was not elicited in the interview; rather, the researchers relied on web-based information as a means of initially choosing projects as case studies, and asked the interviewees to point the team to any additional sources of information about the project as a whole. Most interviews were conducted between March and July 2010. They were conducted by phone and lasted approxi- mately 1 to 1.5 hours, although in some cases interviews went longer. Written notes were taken and were reviewed both for technical information and for patterns in responses that indi- cated critical factors influencing expedited project delivery. Confidentiality is essential to this type of research to ensure that interviewees freely express opinions and observations. When direct quotations are used, any language that might identify the individual making the statement has been removed. Two limitations must be noted with regard to the research design and methodology. First, it was important that the interviewees had both broad and deep knowledge of the spe- cific case and the expediting tools used. The sample was therefore purposive rather than random. As a result, inter- viewees were not neutral observers regarding the case itself. Bias beyond responses to questions about technical proce- dures likely exists. Second, the results are not generalizable; however, generalizability is not the objective of qualitative research. Rather, such research provides the potential to extrapolate results, in whole or in part, to similar contexts. These are precisely the objectives of this project and report: first, to add to the understanding of streamlining (expedited delivery) by describing the uses, advantages, disadvantages, applicability, and implementation requirements of expedit- ing strategies in the context of planning through design; and second, to describe the application and utility of these expe- diting strategies so that DOTs can use them. evaluation of Streamlining Strategies Projects included in this study are ones that were identified as successes in expedited delivery, at least during the phases that were evaluated. Initial review of the case studies identified the challenge of developing a common unit of analysis across the cases. The varying regulatory settings, project histories, and agency practices made finding a common denominator dif- ficult. The project team chose a constraint-based model as the best method of analysis across all of the case studies. This model relies on distilling a common set of constraints and using these to identify indicators and organize the expediting strategies. This model also provides better opportunities to make the information gathered here transferable to future projects, as a constraint model captures common issues faced by transportation projects. The first step in the review was the identification of expe- diting strategies from the case studies. The raw case study information was developed into specific expediting strate- gies. Chapter 3 provides the individual strategy profiles and details the implementation of the strategy, the constraints it addresses, and specific references to projects that have suc- cessfully employed the strategy. The entries in Chapter 3 were designed as stand-alone guides for practitioners to use as ref- erences as future projects are planned or managed. For each expediting strategy, a list of constraint factors was developed. Many of the constraints were initially project spe- cific, based on the local set of issues or on the actors involved. To develop a more comprehensive view, these constraints were grouped into common sources of delay. The constraints related to common sources of delay were identified from the case studies examined and are discussed in Chapter 2. Each

19 constraint was investigated to identify the leading and lagging indicators of its presence and measures of severity. Indicators are the project characteristics, events, stakeholder comments, or problems encountered that indicate the constraint may be present. To assist practitioners in assessing their own projects’ potential constraints, the indicators were developed to form a questionnaire for self-diagnosis. Next, each constraint was refined with specific measures of severity from low to high. Severity was based on an examination of the case studies, literature, and the experience of the research team. In many cases, severity was captured in qualitative mea- sures; however, when possible, quantitative measures were also included. For example, severity is captured in measures of stake- holder opposition, numbers of issues raised in opposition, length of delays, and other similar measures. This analysis allows for the constraints to be understood across the diverse set of projects examined in this study and to be more broadly useful for practitioners. Like the indicators, the measures of severity are designed to be readily incorporated into a questionnaire for- mat for studying future transportation projects. Finally, expediting strategies were identified that can help to address each constraint at the differing levels of severity. Some strategies apply only to certain levels of severity or must be implemented before a project starts in order to be effective. For example, programmatic agreements may expedite deliv- ery, but they require preproject development and implemen- tation and are recommended only for larger projects or programs that can expect to encounter constraints with more severe implications. These considerations are captured in each of the constraint analyses presented in Chapter 3. Throughout the development of this methodology, the goal has been to provide information on expediting strategies that can be included in a user-based product such as the Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) website (22). The project team coordinated with the Capacity Project C01 team to identify opportunities for this product to be integrated in a way similar to the collaborative assessment tool on the TCAPP website. A web-based questionnaire can be adapted based on the constraint-based model employed in this study. The constraint indicators and severity measures provide the basis for a guided survey for users to diagnose potential and existing constraints and to identify appropriate expediting measures. After this self-diagnosis, users can follow up by reviewing the detailed strategy profiles and case studies that document implementation. This evaluation structure is followed in the form of this report. Chapter 2 provides the diagnostic tools for identifying and assessing constraints and their severity. Chapter 3 follows by providing detailed strategies to respond to constraints, and Chapter 4 provides concise case studies showing imple- mentation of these strategies. references 1. Gaines, L., and S. Lurie. Innovation in Environmental Streamlining and Project Delivery: The Oregon State Bridge Delivery Program. Final report SR 500-151. Oregon Department of Transportation, Salem, 2007. http://library.state.or.us/repository/2007/200701311031553/ index.pdf. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 2. Office of NEPA Facilitation, FHWA, and U.S. Institute for Environ- mental Conflict Resolution. Collaborative Problem Solving: Better and Streamlined Outcomes for All. U.S. Department of Transporta- tion, 2006. www.environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/adrguide/ index.asp. 3. Office of NEPA Policy and Compliance, U.S. Department of Energy. Lessons Learned Quarterly Report. http://energy.gov/nepa/ guidance-requirements/lessons-learned-quarterly-report. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 4. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation. Re: NEPA. http://knowl edge.fhwa.dot.gov/renepa/renepa.nsf/home. Accessed Oct. 31, 2011. 5. Summerville, A., M. Grant, B. Fry, T. Stribley, and N. Sullivan. Execu- tive Order 13274 Purpose and Need Work Group: Baseline Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005. www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/ workgroups/purposeneed.htm. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 6. Summerville, A., M. Grant, B. Fry, T. Stribley, and N. Sullivan. Exec- utive Order 13274 Indirect and Cumulative Impacts Work Group: Draft Baseline Report. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005. www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/workgroups/icireporticf031405.pdf. Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 7. Summerville, A., M. Grant, B. Fry, T. Stribley, and N. Sullivan. Exec- utive Order 13274 Integrated Planning Work Group: Baseline Report and Preliminary Gap Analysis. U.S. Department of Transportation, 2005. www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/workgroups/ipreporticf 031405.pdf. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 8. NEPA Task Force. Modernizing NEPA Implementation. Council on Environmental Quality, 2003. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/ntf/report/ totaldoc.html. Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 9. Council on Environmental Quality. A Citizen’s Guide to the NEPA: Having Your Voice Heard. Executive Office of the President, Wash- ington, D.C., 2007. http://ceq.hss.doe.gov/nepa/Citizens_Guide_ Dec07.pdf. Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 10. Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. Project Delivery/ Streamlining. 2011. http://environment.transportation.org/ environmental_issues/proj_delivery_stream/recent_dev_archive .aspx. Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 11. Center for Environmental Excellence by AASHTO. Managing the NEPA Process for Complex Projects Workshop. http://environment .transportation.org/center/products_programs/conference/ managing_nepa.aspx. Accessed Nov. 3, 2011. 12. Louis Berger Group. Evaluating the Performance of Environmental Streamlining: Development of a NEPA Baseline for Measuring Con- tinuous Performance. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2000. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/baseline/index.asp. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 13. Ozawa, C., and J. Dill. An Evaluation of the Oregon Department of Transportation’s (ODOT) Environmental Streamlining Efforts: A Focus on CETAS. Final report. Oregon Department of Transporta- tion, Salem, 2005. http://web.pdx.edu/~jdill/CETAS%20final%20 report%2011-14-05.pdf. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 14. Overman, J. H., and K. L. Phillips. Environmental Streamlining Pro- cesses. Report FHWA/TX-02/4015-1. Texas Transportation Institute, College Station, 2001. www.txdot.gov/env/pdf/ENVstreamliine ProcessesTTInov01.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011.

20 15. John A. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center. Strategies and Approaches for Effectively Moving Complex Environmental Documents Through the EIS Process: A Peer Exchange Report. FHWA, U.S. Depart- ment of Transportation, 2009. http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/ strmlng/eisdocs.asp. Accessed Nov. 4, 2011. 16. Yaffee, S. L. Why Environmental Policy Nightmares Recur. Conserva- tion Biology, Vol. 11, No. 2, 1997, pp. 328–337. www.rw.ttu.edu/4320/ readings/Environmental_policy_nightmares.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011. 17. Yaffee, S. L. Regional Cooperation: A Strategy for Achieving Eco- logical Stewardship. In Ecological Stewardship: A Common Reference for Ecosystem Management (W. T. Sexton, A. J. Malk, R. C. Szaro, and N. C. Johnson, eds.), Elsevier Science, Ltd., Oxford, United King- dom, 1999, pp. 131–153. 18. Amekudzi, A., and M. Meyer. Considering the Environment in Trans- portation Planning: Review of Emerging Paradigms and Practices in the United States. Journal of Urban Planning and Development, Vol. 132, No. 1, 2006, pp. 42–52. 19. Bracaglia, F. Monitoring, Analyzing, and Reporting on the Environ- mental Streamlining Pilot Projects. NCHRP Web-Only Document No. 79. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2005. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ nchrp/nchrp_w79.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011. 20. Bracaglia, F. Outcomes of the Environmental Streamlining Pilot Projects. NCHRP Research Results Digest, No. 300, 2005, pp. 1–11. http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_300.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011. 21. Keck, D., H. Patel, A. J. Scolaro, A. Bloch, and C. Ryan. NCHRP Report 662: Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Deliv- ery: Conception to Completion. Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, Washington, D.C., 2010. http://onlinepubs. trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rpt_662.pdf. Accessed Nov. 7, 2011. 22. Transportation for Communities: Advancing Projects Through Partner- ships. Strategic Highway Research Program 2, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. www.transportationforcommunities.com. Accessed Feb. 27, 2012.

Next: Chapter 2 - Common Constraints to Transportation Project Delivery »
Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects Get This Book
×
 Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects
Buy Paperback | $60.00
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C19-RR-1: Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects identifies strategies that have been successfully used to expedite the planning and environmental review of transportation and some nontransportation projects within the context of existing laws and regulations.

The report also identifies 16 common constraints on project delivery and 24 strategies for addressing or avoiding the constraints.

While the strategies and constraints are associated with planning and environmental review, many of the strategies are also applicable to design and construction.

Results of SHRP 2 Report S2-C19-RR-1 have been incorporated into the Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships (TCAPP) website. TCAPP is now known as PlanWorks.

An e-book version of this report is available for purchase at Google, iTunes, and Amazon.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!