National Academies Press: OpenBook

Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects (2016)

Chapter: Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado

« Previous: Appendix E - Case Study Chicago Region Environmental and Transportation Efficiency Program (CREATE), Chicago, Illinois
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Appendix F - Case Study TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2016. Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/23581.
×
Page 74

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.

F-1 A P P E N D I X F Summary Project Description The T-REX Project is a program of multimodal transporta- tion improvements to Denver’s I-25/I-225 Southeast Corridor, including widening and rehabilitating 17 miles of Interstate highway and constructing 19 miles of double-tracked light rail transit. Key U.S. DOT Agencies • Federal Transit Administration (FTA)—Co-Lead • Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)—Co-Lead Key State and Local Agencies • Colorado Department of Transportation (CDOT) • Regional Transportation District (RTD) Challenges Faced The T-REX Project team faced three of the five common challenges related to multi-agency National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) activities (see Table F-1). Strategies, Tactics, and Lessons Learned • Identify key federal agencies and initiate coordination efforts early. • Implement the “One DOT” approach to promote direct collaboration between federal agencies. • Capitalize on coordination of agencies pre-NEPA. • Convene task forces with representation from federal, state, and local agencies for technical focus areas including air quality, noise, historic resources, and wetlands. • Use technical memoranda as resource papers for the fed- eral and resource agencies and project team. • Co-locate sponsoring agencies and the consultant team; foster a strong sense of teamwork and collaboration. • Develop a detailed critical path schedule updated weekly to schedule, facilitate, and secure critical regulatory agency sign-offs. Case Study Detail Introduction The Transportation Expansion (T-REX) Project, originally known as the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Transportation Project, was a $1.67 billion multimodal initiative to improve travel time and enhance safety along one of Denver’s most con- gested highway corridors. As shown in Figure F-1, major high- way elements included widening I-25 from six lanes to eight or 10 lanes and widening I-225 from four lanes to six lanes, along with reconstruction of seven interchanges and numer- ous bridges. The transit elements added 19 miles of double- tracked light rail, connecting to the existing light rail system in Denver and extending along the west side of I-25 and the median of I-225 to Denver’s southeastern suburbs. The light rail project included 13 stations, a new light rail maintenance facility, and an additional 34 light rail vehicles for the Regional Transportation District’s fleet. The project also replaced the highway’s existing stormwater drainage system and improved pedestrian and bicycle access. T-REX was jointly commissioned by CDOT and RTD and was conceived and advanced through a major investment study, NEPA, design, and construction as a single integrated multimodal project. Construction of the highway elements was completed in September 2006 and the Southeast Cor- ridor Light Rail line opened on November 17, 2006. Lead, Cooperating, and Participating Agencies FHWA and FTA served as joint lead agencies. FHWA for- mula funds and CDOT funds helped fund the NEPA process. Coordination between FHWA and FTA embodied the One DOT approach, a U.S. DOT initiative to foster collaboration Case Study—TRansportation EXpansion (T-REX) Project, Denver, Colorado

F-2 across modal administrations. The roles and responsibilities of each agency during NEPA as well as subsequent phases of project development through construction were outlined in an Interagency Agreement between the FHWA Colorado Division and FTA Region VIII. CDOT and RTD were joint sponsors of the project, with CDOT taking a stronger lead early in the process due to limited support, at the time, from the RTD Board of Directors for the transit element. CDOT funded the local share of NEPA activi- ties as well as the federal share before the federal funds were obligated. CDOT and RTD entered into an Intergovernmental Agreement that outlined each agency’s roles and responsibilities from NEPA through construction. The primary means of coordination among the key agen- cies was the project’s Executive Oversight Committee, which included the CDOT executive director, the RTD general man- ager, the FHWA division administrator, and the FTA regional administrator. The committee established the project goals and met regularly over the course of NEPA activities and dur- ing the design-build procurement process, as well as during the implementation of the multimodal project. In addition, the project staff took advantage of CDOT, RTD, FTA, and the project’s consultant team being located in the same building (with FHWA located in a nearby facility and having assigned one FHWA employee to work in the building full time), con- ducting regular working sessions and holding weekly project management meetings. NEPA Process/Approach The history of the T-REX Project dates back to 1992 when the Denver Regional Council of Governments (DRCOG) com- missioned a congestion study for the region. The study con- cluded that the Southeast Corridor was one of the most congested corridors in the region, and expected traffic growth along I-25/I-225 would exceed capacity by 15 percent by 2015. The study recommended that a package of capital improve- ments be considered for the corridor, including I-25/I-225 widening, high-occupancy vehicle lanes, and rapid transit. In 1995, CDOT, RTD, and DRCOG commissioned the Southeast Corridor Major Investment Study (MIS) to exam- ine the entire length of the corridor, including I-25 from Broadway in the north to Lincoln Avenue in the south, and the spur of I-225, from the I-25 interchange to Parker Road in Aurora. The study, led by CDOT and completed in 1997, evaluated and narrowed the range of alternatives for the cor- ridor. The MIS recommended: • Adding highway lanes to I-25 and I-225, reconfiguring sev- eral interchanges, replacing 13 bridges and repairing nine others, replacing drainage systems, and widening shoulder space along the highway; • Constructing 19.7 miles of new double-track light rail, including 15.2 miles from the Broadway station on the exist- ing RTD light rail line to a new station at Lincoln Avenue in Douglas County, and 4.5 miles along I-225 from Parker Road to a new I-25/I-225 interchange; • Developing 13 new light rail stations; • Improving pedestrian and bicycle facilities; and • Implementing transportation system management elements. In 1997, DRCOG adopted these recommendations. FHWA, FTA, CDOT, and RTD had collaborated to com- plete the MIS prior to initiating NEPA activities. A major chal- lenge was negotiating the location of the light rail alignment. The rail line was proposed to operate along the western edge of I-25. FHWA desired to shift the light rail transit alignment from the outer edge of the shoulder to the western edge of the right-of-way to preserve as much right-of-way as possible for highway uses. Following discussions among FHWA, FTA, CDOT, and RTD, the recommendation from the MIS was refined to reflect the alignment shift before the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was initiated. The Notice of Intent was issued in February 1998. All of the alternatives analyzed had been identified in the MIS; the team reviewed them to determine whether there were any changed conditions that might alter findings. CDOT, RTD, FTA, and FHWA continued to work in a highly cooperative and collab- orative manner. Weekly coordination meetings were held with managers and staff from FHWA’s division office and FTA’s regional office, as well as from CDOT, RTD, and the consultant team. FHWA and FTA partnered to help advance the South- east Corridor project in a timely manner. Although both agen- cies had already been working cooperatively from the project outset, they formalized their partnership with a project-specific Interagency Agreement signed October 7, 1999. Table F-1. Challenges summary. Unique agency- specific program requirements under the NEPA umbrella Differing agency interpretations of NEPA requirements Anticipating which agencies will have a major federal action Efficient coordination among agencies Securing funding for multimodal NEPA studies

F-3 Figure F-1. T-REX Project map. Source: CDOT and RTD

F-4 This collaborative spirit extended to the physical location of the project team, as team members from CDOT, RTD, FTA, the NEPA consultant, and its subconsultants were co-located in the same office building. FHWA offices were located in a nearby building. The team capitalized on the co-location, which allowed for spontaneous working sessions and imme- diate internal reviews of EIS sections. The Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) for the project was approved in August 1999. The Preferred Alternative presented several environmental issues, including residential and business displacements, adverse impacts to historic sites, an increase in noise levels, and loss of wetlands. CDOT organized task force groups for the various issue areas to give relevant agencies the opportunity to directly address project issues and review analyses and sections of the EIS as they were prepared. In addition to CDOT, RTD, FHWA, and FTA, DRCOG, the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (Air Pollution Control Division and Water Quality Control Division), the Colorado State Historic Preservation Office, the Colorado Division of Wildlife, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and the U.S. Envi- ronmental Protection Agency were also involved in the task force groups. With the initiation of the EIS process, the question of how to pay for the T-REX Project became an issue for public con- sideration and debate. On November 2, 1999, voters approved two separate bond initiatives that allowed funding for the proj- ect and endorsed the concept of light rail along the corridor. Approval of the bond initiative meant that CDOT and RTD could proceed with the project without having to divert funds earmarked for other projects. It also meant that the project could move forward as a whole, realizing the benefits of the full project sooner, instead of being designed and built in segments. The Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) was approved in December 1999, with a joint FHWA and FTA Record of Decision signed in March 2000, just 25 months after the Notice of Intent. In addition to the light rail improve- ments, significant highway expansion elements were added to the original MIS recommendations. In November 2000, RTD also received a Full Funding Grant Agreement (FFGA) for $525 million from the FTA. Local municipalities contrib- uted more than $350 million to help ensure federal financial support for the light rail construction. In anticipation of the selection of the design-build contractor—and to signify the beginning of construction and facilitate clear public communications during construction— the Southeast Corridor Multi-Modal Transportation Project underwent a re-branding, changing its name to the Transpor- tation Expansion Project, or T-REX Project. In May 2001, a team was selected to design and build the $1.67 billion multi- modal project. Due to the innovative funding and design- build approach, the schedule and cost savings were significant, and the project was completed in the fall of 2006, almost two years ahead of the schedule established by CDOT and RTD. Agency Requirements Applied to NEPA The NEPA process for the joint highway and transit project was conducted in accordance with the FHWA/FTA joint NEPA regulations in 23 CFR Part 771, “Environmental Impacts and Related Procedures.” FTA overlaid New Starts program requirements on the NEPA process, but this did not impede the NEPA schedule. The joint FTA and FHWA NEPA regulations did not signifi- cantly conflict. The two agencies used their Interagency Agree- ment to detail how each agency’s specific regulations would be addressed. FTA’s specific requirements were as follows: • Analysis of vibration from transit vehicles. • Use of FTA noise abatement threshold criteria for the analysis of noise impacts around stations and other locations where the highway and light rail alignments are not adjacent to one another. • Inclusion of a separate Transportation Impact chapter, separate Financial Analysis chapter, and section in the Impacts chapter on Public Safety and Security. • Analysis of ridership on opening day and for a horizon year (2020) for some project elements. Many of the above provisions allowed for the evaluation of New Starts criteria during selection and refinement of alternatives. FHWA’s specific requirements were: • Use of FHWA noise abatement threshold criteria for the analysis of noise impacts where the highway and light rail alignments are adjacent to one another. • Inclusion of a rigorous discussion of alternatives and com- mitment to mitigation in the Wetlands section. In the appen- dix, there will be a separate “Wetland Finding.” • Coordination with the Colorado Division of Wildlife in compliance with Colorado Senate Bill 40, which protects stream corridors and riparian vegetation. • Drafting and review of a separate Air Quality Technical Report, with a sign-off letter from the Colorado Air Quality Control Commission, Air Pollution Control Division. The agreement also outlined the process of legal suffi- ciency review—FTA would determine legal sufficiency after consultation with FHWA’s legal counsel. It also noted that FHWA letterhead would be used to transmit environmental documents to all applicable federal agencies, with signatures of both FHWA and FTA representatives.

F-5 Impact of These Requirements The T-REX environmental process was completed in only two years. A number of factors contributed to this expe- dited timeline, including strong political and public sup- port for the high-profile project, ability to capitalize on the work completed for the MIS, and the collaborative approach undertaken by the key agencies. Significantly, while FTA and FHWA had agency-specific requirements, the Interagency Agreement reconciled the differing approaches and united all parties with respect to approach and methodologies. An example is in the evaluation of noise impacts. Not only was noise a major issue of concern for residential communities adjacent to the project, it also is one of the technical areas under which FHWA and FTA prescribe different methodolo- gies for assessing impacts. As discussed previously, the FTA approach was used when rail and highway were not adjacent to each other, and the FHWA approach was used when they were adjacent. Challenges to Multimodal NEPA Studies Relevant to the Project Unique Agency-Specific Program Requirements Under the NEPA Umbrella: FTA’s program requirements were folded into the NEPA process, including unique New Starts analy sis requirements and procedures. FTA’s requirements were outlined in the Interagency Agreement (along with FHWA’s requirements). Differing Agency Interpretations of NEPA Requirements: FHWA and FTA have different methodologies for measuring impacts under specific categories such as noise and vibration. FHWA and FTA reconciled differences in the Interagency Agreement. In cases where more focused input was required, CDOT convened task forces—including for air quality, noise, historic resources, and wetlands—and the consultant pre- pared a series of technical memoranda as a resource for all agencies involved. Anticipating Which Agencies Will Have a Major Federal Action: From the start of the NEPA process, it was clear that the planned highway and transit elements of the proj- ect would require the involvement of both FHWA and FTA. FHWA and FTA had been engaged during the MIS, so they were able to anticipate where their input would be especially critical. Efficient Coordination among Agencies: Formal coor- dination among the agencies was accomplished through the project’s Executive Oversight Committee. In addition, the project staff took advantage of the co-location of CDOT, RTD, FTA, and the project’s consultant team, with FHWA located nearby. Team members conducted regular working sessions and held weekly project management meetings. Securing Funding for Multimodal NEPA Studies: The roughly $18 million NEPA effort was funded through a com- bination of federal and state funds. Interviewees did not iden- tify particular challenges related to securing the funds. Strategies/Tactics Used to Overcome Challenges The FTA and FHWA Interagency Agreement and the CDOT and RTD Intergovernmental Agreement were the primary tools used to anticipate and address challenges that could have arisen during NEPA due to having multiple U.S. DOT agencies involved in the project. In addition, the project built upon early involvement of the federal agencies during the MIS phase. Further, between completion of the MIS in July 1997 and initiation of the NEPA process in Feb- ruary 1998, team members addressed issues that could have led to a major delay during NEPA activities. Chief among these was modifying the location of the proposed light rail alignment. CDOT organized task force groups for the various issue areas, including air quality, noise, historic resources, and wetlands. The purpose of the task force groups was to give relevant agencies the opportunity to directly address proj- ect issues and review analyses and sections of the EIS as they were prepared. The task forces’ work on reviewing their EIS sections and analyses resulted in substantial time savings to the project. One specific and important achievement of this effort was the air quality task force’s completion of the proj- ect’s air quality conformity analysis in one month. The consultant team also prepared a series of technical memoranda on each of the project issues to be covered in the EIS, which served as resource papers for the federal and resource agencies and project team. Having CDOT, RTD, FTA, and the consultant team under one roof, with FHWA nearby, allowed for a level of inter- action not often achieved during typical NEPA processes. FHWA assigned one person to work in the building full time. Project team meetings did not require lengthy advance notice for scheduling, and spontaneous working sessions became the norm. This eliminated delivery times for docu- ments and materials, resulting in critical time savings for preparing analyses and completing reviews. The project team also developed a detailed critical path schedule that was updated weekly. This was used to schedule, facilitate, and secure critical regulatory agency sign-offs such as air quality conformity, Section 106 MOA sign-offs, and

F-6 Section 404 permitting. The team made weekly adjustments to critical tasks to make sure the project stayed on schedule. Lessons Learned Identify key federal agencies and initiate coordination effort early. CDOT and RTD used the MIS process as an opportunity to build momentum among the key agencies (CDOT, RTD, FTA, and FHWA) for the NEPA process. Prior to entering NEPA, all of the agencies were familiar with the remain- ing alternatives and had anticipated and begun to address many of the issues that could have been a major source of delay. This also contributed to streamlining the NEPA process. Implement the “One DOT” approach to promote direct collaboration between federal agencies. Having FTA and FHWA operate as “One DOT” and establish an Interagency Agreement early in the NEPA phase streamlined the overall NEPA process. The two agencies identified areas where their NEPA requirements differed and documented a recommended approach to reconciling them in the Interagency Agreement. Staff from both agencies were clear on their roles and respon- sibilities throughout NEPA, saving time and resources. The One DOT approach was applied through construction and garnered the FHWA Colorado Division and FTA Region VIII a special award in recognition of their efforts. Foster a strong sense of teamwork and collaboration across all agencies at all levels. The core team for T-REX operated in a highly collaborative environment that was the result of early coordination beginning with the MIS, the agreements signed between CDOT and RTD and between FTA and FHWA, and physically locating the personnel in geographic proxim- ity. The staff exchanged critical information on a daily basis, in between formal executive leadership and project manage- ment meetings, and enforced consistent procedures within and between these agencies. Staff across agencies worked together closely, and informal reviews and discussions eliminated com- mon sources of delay for NEPA projects. Bibliography Colorado Department of Transportation. July 1997. Southeast Corridor Major Investment Study Final Report. Colorado Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation District. 2006. T-REX Project Fact Book, 1999–2006. Colorado Department of Transportation and Regional Transportation District. September 1999. “Intergovernmental Agreement, South- east Corridor Intermodal Transportation Project.” Federal Transit Administration and Federal Highway Administration. October 1999. “Interagency Agreement for the Southeast Corridor Project.” http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/casestudies/co.asp. (As of June 20, 2014).

Next: Appendix G - Case Study I-70 East Corridor Project, Denver and Aurora Counties, Colorado »
Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 827: Navigating Multi-Agency NEPA Processes to Advance Multimodal Transportation Projects analyzes approaches taken by state departments of transportation (DOTs), their local partners, and other project sponsors to satisfy National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements for transportation projects involving more than one mode. Case studies illustrate successful practices and provide examples of institutional arrangements used to comply with NEPA requirements for two or more U.S. DOT agencies.

  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!