BETA

This draft website and its contents were developed by ICF International; TRB makes no representation or warranty of any kind (see disclaimer).

Transportation for Communities - Advancing Projects Through Partnerships


Applications - Streamlining a Bottleneck Project

The ultimate goal of transportation decision making is to deliver transportation improvements to the public. The goal of collaboration is to achieve better project outcomes as efficiently as possible - effectively streamlining project delivery. Collaboration strategies such as early engagement of outside partners, advance mitigation, and linking MPO planning with NEPA decision making all support streamlining transportation decision making. When the full decision making partnership supports the need for an improvement project and has the right data and analysis to advance this need, project streamlining can occur.

Additional SHRP 2 research is underway to integrate successful collaborative streamlining strategies into the Decision Guide. However, one opportunity for project streamlining has already been identified and detailed: Streamlining a Bottleneck Project application (More about Streamlining a Bottleneck Project is available after the Read More). Bottleneck improvements address a confined problem area where the existing design or operation of a road or bridge limits traffic flow which results in congestion. One characteristic of "bottleneck" problems is that overall congestion in the corridor may be significantly reduced if improvements were made to this limited segment or bridge.

Streamlining projects to address bottlenecks is relatively easy because generally: (1) improvement options are limited, (2) the scope is evident, (3) logical termini are easily defined. Where the formal partners (MPO, state DOT, FHWA and relevant resource agencies) agree on these three issues early in the long range planning process, the potential exists to streamline a bottleneck improvement by initiating the NEPA/permitting process and coordinating the environmental review process with the completion of long range planning.

Environmental review studies and long range planning are always parallel processes---projects "in the pipeline" are easily accounted for during long range planning. However, more often than not these processes are not coordinated; putting the long range plan at risk for a rework when a NEPA recommended alternative is not consistent with the project concept in the long range plan. NEPA alternatives, long range plans, and TIPs that are not consistent can result in:

  • No funding available to complete design and construction of a project that has received FHWA Record of Decision approval
  • Cost and time associated with an off-cycle update of the LRP to incorporate a NEPA recommended alternative
  • Risk of a major delay if the NEPA recommended alternative is not sufficiently supported by the MPO to be incorporated into the long range plan
  • Risk that the NEPA recommended alternative cannot be accommodated within the fiscal constraint and/or air quality conformity requirements of the LRP and/or TIP

The Streamlining a Bottleneck Project application avoids these problems by identifying the threshold criteria that should be in place before streamlining a bottleneck improvement is initiated (More about the threshold criteria is available after the Read More). This provides the opportunity to highlight those key decisions in long range planning environmental review and programming where communication between plan and project teams should be initiated and consistency checks should be made. These "check-in" points broaden the perspective and knowledge of both technical staff and the policy decision makers. This action will also incorporate consideration of the potential benefits and risks to both the LRP and the environment review/permitting process as key decisions are executed (More information about both potential benefits and risks is available after the Read More).

The decision to streamline a bottleneck project requires careful evaluation of the information available to support this action. Because the Decision Guide represents the federally mandated transportation decision making process as it exists today, specific key decisions can support a more coordinated and concurrent process in which the various partners address decisions simultaneously instead of consecutively across phases. With this application the identified and agreed to project concept can move directly into environmental review from the very early steps of long range planning.

To get a snapshot of each Key Decision, roll over the Decision Guide graphic below. Click on any individual Key Decision to access detailed information including: purpose and anticipated outcomes; partner roles; integration with external planning processes; linkages across phases; questions to assist decision makers; and data, tools, technologies that support the decision.

Key Decisions that are grayed-out have no specific relevance to the individual application or topic area but are still accessible from this graphic.

Dg-darkgrey-titlebar-corner-left LONG RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING

LRP-1

Scoping involves a broad assessment of the data, decisions, and relationships to consider throughout the development of the LRTP.

LRP-1 Approve Scope of LRTP Process
LRP-2

The community's values are used to guide the transportation-specific vision and goals.

LRP-2 Approve Vision and Goals
LRP-3

The evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures are approved to allow comparisons of scenarios to the vision and goals and to one another.

LRP-3 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures
LRP-4

The approved list of specific corridors, roads and areas which are deficient.

LRP-4 Approve Transportation Deficiencies
LRP-5

At this key decision information from the Programming / Fiscal Constraint Phase is introduced into the LRTP decision making process.

LRP-5 Approve Financial Assumptions
LRP-6

Strategies are developed to address the deficiencies identified in LRP-4. A strategy is a specific tactic or policy employed or recommended by an organization.

LRP-6 Approve Strategies
LRP-7

Scenarios are based on approved strategies and are compared using the evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures.

LRP-7 Approve Plan Scenarios
LRP-8

At this key decision, a preferred plan scenario is adopted for inclusion in the Draft LRTP.

LRP-8 Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario
LRP-9

Air Quality conformity analysis is done within the air quality process in order to validate that the preferred scenario meets current conformity requirements.

LRP-9 Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO
LRP-10

At this key decision a final plan is adopted by the MPO board.

LRP-10 Adopt LRTP by MPO
LRP-11

This is a legally required decision consisting of the federal approval of conformity of the LRTP.

LRP-11 Approve Conformity Analysis

Dg-darkgrey-titlebar-corner-left

JMP-1

Agreement to move a specific transportation need to environmental review prior to adoption of the LRTP.

JMP-1 Approve Decision to Advance a Specific Project to the Environmental Review Phase

Dg-darkgrey-titlebar-corner-left PROGRAMMING

PRO-1

This key decision establishes the revenue basis for both the fiscal constraint of the long range plan as well as the funding sources for the TIP.

PRO-1 Approve Revenue Sources
PRO-2

This key decision establishes a consistent methodology for estimating project costs for both the long range transportation plan and the TIP.

PRO-2 Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue
PRO-3

This key decision establishes the list of projects drawn from the long range plan or corridor planning process that will be considered for funding in the TIP.

PRO-3 Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set
PRO-4

The implications of advancing this project to the existing prioritization are identified and reconciled.

PRO-4 Approve Project Prioritization
PRO-5

At this key decision project priorities are compared to available funding within program restrictions to select those projects to be included in the TIP.

PRO-5 Reach Consensus on Draft TIP
PRO-6

Partner agencies agree to the necessary changes to the TIP to advance the project.

PRO-6 Adopt TIP by MPO
PRO-7

The Governor or designee should ensure that the TIP meets other state and federal requirements so that the TIP can be incorporated into the STIP and be in agreement with the state document.

PRO-7 Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP
PRO-8

At this key decision the draft STIP is developed to release for public comment.

PRO-8 Reach Consensus on Draft STIP
PRO-9

In order to meet federal requirements, the STIP must meet conformity and fiscal constraint, where required.

PRO-9 Approve STIP with respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint

Dg-darkgrey-titlebar-corner-left CORRIDOR PLANNING

COR-1

This is a crucial first step of corridor planning.

COR-1 Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process
COR-2

The full range of deficiencies and opportunities within a corridor are defined at this key decision.

COR-2 Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities
COR-3

At this key decision a broad range of transportation, community, and environmental goals are considered which are specific to the corridor.

COR-3 Approve Goals for the Corridor
COR-4

In order to provide a clear linkage to the environmental review process, this key decision defines the acceptable level of detail for the corridor study analysis.

COR-4 Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis
COR-5

At this key decision, evaluation criteria, methodology and performance measures are approved that will allow decision-makers to compare solutions that address the corridor's opportunities and problems and are consistent with the approved corridor goals.

COR-5 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures
COR-6

A range of approved solution sets for the corridor results from this key decision.

COR-6 Approve Range of Solution Sets
COR-7

At this key decision, a preferred solution set is adopted for inclusion in the Corridor Plan.

COR-7 Adopt Preferred Solution Set
COR-8

At this key decision priorities for implementation of the individual solutions are established.

COR-8 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures for Prioritization of Projects
COR-9

Individual projects within the adopted preferred solution set are ranked in order to identify the appropriate sequencing for implementation.

COR-9 Adopt Priorities for Implementation

Dg-darkgrey-titlebar-corner-left ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW/NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING

ENV-1

Documented agreement and supporting information is provided from Long Range Planning to the scoping of the identified project.

ENV-1 Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review
ENV-2

Required to satisfy the NEPA legal requirement of publishing a Notice of Intent (NOI).

ENV-2 Approve Notice of Intent
ENV-3

Information related to the regional context and the specific deficiencies developed during LRP is used to inform the development of purpose and need.

ENV-3 Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose
ENV-4

Agreement is reached on an initial geographic area of study which will encompass all alternatives considered.

ENV-4 Reach Consensus on Study Area
ENV-5

Approved methodology and criteria for evaluation of project alternatives.

ENV-5 Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures
ENV-6

Initial selection of all alternatives that meet the project purpose and need.

ENV-6 Approve Full Range of Alternatives
ENV-7

Final selection of alternatives for consideration

ENV-7 Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward
ENV-8

Approved Draft EIS is released for public comment

ENV-8 Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation
ENV-9

Satisfies the regulatory requirement for Section 404 permitting that the public receive notice of a permit application.

ENV-9 Approve Resource Agency Public Notice
ENV-10

The preferred alternative must remain consistent with the project concept in the adopted preferred plan scenario.

ENV-10 Approve Preferred Alternative/
LEDPA
ENV-11

Agreement required to satisfy Section 404 permitting requirements

ENV-11 Approve Final Jurisdictional Determination
ENV-12

Agreed to avoidance and minimization on the LEDPA must remain consistent with the adopted long range plan.

ENV-12 Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization for the LEDPA
ENV-13

Alternative selected for implementation is reconciled with available funding and project prioritization

ENV-13 Approve Final EIS
ENV-14

At this step in the environmental review phase, the Record of Decision is issued.

ENV-14 Approve the Record of Decision
ENV-15

At this final step in the environmental review phase, the final permit decision is rendered.

ENV-15 Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization
 
WHAT IS BOTTLENECK PROJECT STREAMLINING?
Bottleneck project streamlining involves collaborative decision making to advance a critically needed transportation improvement as quickly as possible. Streamlining decision making identifies the decisions required to move a bottleneck project concept from the planning phase step "Approve Transportation Deficiencies", prior to completion of the long range plan, directly into the environmental review process. This approach combines the required elements of long range planning and environmental review while engaging the necessary decision makers to ensure that the final solution is supported and eligible to move forward to construction. Understanding how to expedite bottleneck projects effectively and efficiently, by minimizing risks, maintaining partner collaboration and robust stakeholder involvement, is critical to addressing urgently needed transportation improvements.

BENEFITS AND ENABLERS
The primary benefit to be achieved through the streamlining process is the ability to provide needed transportation improvements in the shortest time possible; resulting in an overall cost savings, more efficient use of personnel, and project specific benefits such as improved safety or decreased congestion. In addition, the long term relationships among the decision makers are improved through a successful project outcome based on increased collaboration. A sense of trust can be established between the lead agency, the community, and both formal and informal partners. While engaged in the streamlining process, the other phases of transportation decision making can continue uninterrupted to meet goals and deadlines. For example, the Long Range Transportation Plan staff will continue to focus on the update of the plan by the required deadline while maintaining sufficient interface with the expedited project to ensure that the recommended alternative from the environmental review supports the regional system.

The potential to realize these benefits is enhanced when decision makers incorporate process and relationship supports (or enablers) .One of the essential enablers is the development of a common understanding of the overall need and the urgency for completing planning for the bottleneck improvement. This shared goal enables the entire team, representing the full partnership, to maintain focus as the environmental review process is conducted. Ensuring that all of the partnership project team members have the responsibility and the authority to participate in timely decision making is another important enabler for a streamlined bottleneck project. Finally, an up-front discussion of the potential availability and timing of funding to implement the project when environmental review is completed will help establish expectations among partners and stakeholders.

THRESHOLD CRITERIA
Successfully implementing streamlining requires that the agency first meet certain underlying criteria to ensure that it is a good candidate for the approach. Explicit discussion of these threshold criteria with the full partnership will help identify potential risks associated with the decision to streamline a bottleneck project. Consider the following questions:
  • When identifying transportation deficiencies in the planning process, is there sufficient information to justify that the potential project is a critical, urgent transportation need?
  • Is there agreement among all the formal decision makers - FHWA, the MPO, the State DOT, and relevant Resource Agencies - that this critical transportation need should be expedited?
  • Do the formal decision makers have a strong working relationship that will ensure collaboration and commitment to a coordinated long range planning with environmental review/permitting?
  • Does the affected local community support expediting this project?
  • Can support from important stakeholders be reasonably assured?
  • Is there full funding available to conduct the environmental review/permitting phase of the project?
  • Is there a reasonable expectation that funds to construct the project will be available when environmental review/permitting is completed?

Responses to the threshold criteria questions will help determine the degree to which the agency is currently prepared to enter a streamlined process. However, if the threshold criteria cannot be achieved in the current situation, consideration of the benefits and enablers as well as risks and risk management may provide a means to meet the threshold criteria. Careful consideration of risks is essential before time and resources are committed to the actions required.

RISKS AND RISK MANAGEMENT
The greatest risk for the streamlining process is that important reviews or inputs, including coordination between on-going long range planning and environmental review, will be overlooked or short changed in the desire to quickly complete the project. For example, if long range planning and environmental review are not coordinated after the decision is made to streamline a bottleneck project, there is a risk that the streamlined solution from NEPA will not be included in the adopted LRP and eligible to be funded in the TIP. This could result in substantial rework in LRP and potential risk to other priorities as adjustments are made to incorporate the project while still maintaining requirements for air quality conformity and fiscal constraint. Other risks are related to the roles of the individual agencies. If agency representatives do not have sufficient decision making authority, full buy-in of decision making partners is compromised. This situation may result in the need to reconsider decisions or make changes; resulting in project delay. In addition, the partnership's commitment to shared goals is essential to project streamlining. Once the decision is made to advance a bottleneck the speed and efficiency of streamlining is dependent on the on-going commitment of the partners to both the urgent need and the general project concept that should be considered.

Some risk management techniques to safeguard the streamlining process are:
  • Development of reasonable schedules at the beginning of the process which are continually updated
  • Development of Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between partners to establish the expectations for collaboration and to ensure all interests are met
  • Robust public participation throughout the process to ensure the public has input into and is informed about decisions that are made
  • On-going involvement of important stakeholders, especially those considered potentially adversarial to the project or recommended solution.
  • Identification of funding resources that will support the solution and/or identification of funding shortfalls early in the process.

We invite your comments/concerns about this website and its contents. Please send us an email at transportationforcommunities@gmail.com.