LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments and NEPA Approval

LRTP Consistency Review LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments for STIP Amendments

and NEPA Approvaland NEPA Approval

Office of Policy Planning, FDOTOffice of Project Development, FHWA

September 10, 2013

GuidanceGuidance Purpose:

• Sets thresholds for project changes that trigger LRTP amendments at: STIP approval STIP amendment NEPA approval Addition or change to plan

Provide• Analytical framework for consistency review

2

Coordination/CommunicationCoordination/Communication

District Coordination/Communication

REQUIRED

3

ConsistencyConsistency Project must be consistent with Adopted LRTP

Cost Feasible Plan.

Variables for Review:• Cost

• Timing

• Project Scope

4

First STEPFirst STEP Clearly identify project within LRTP:

• Whole

• Segment (corridor)

• New

Identification facilitates communication

LRTP

Project

5

AnalyzeAnalyze

*LRTP Project Δ (Delta)

Identification Cost Timing

Project Scope

* Base document6

AnalyzeAnalyze

*LRTP Project Δ (Delta)

Identification

Cost

Timing

Project Scope

7* Base document

AnalyzeAnalyze

*LRTP Project Δ (Delta)

Identification Cost Timing

Project Scope

* Base document8

Project cost includes:• Phases after PD&E

Design/PE

ROW

Construction

9

Cost

Cost for Determining LRTP AmendmentCost for Determining LRTP Amendment

Principle: CostPrinciple: Cost Amendment Needed

• Project cost

> 50% AND > $50 million

Ramifications• Change of scope

• Project

justification

10

Cost: Percent increase over original

Cost Increase(millions)

$100

$90

$80

$70

$60

$40

$30

$20

$10

100%90%80%70%60%40%30%20%10%

Amendment Needed

AnalyzeAnalyze

*LRTP Project Δ (Delta)

Identification Cost Timing Project Scope

* Base document11

Principle: TimingPrinciple: Timing Automatic LRTP amendment:

• Project added to LRTP 1st 5 years (TIP/STIP years) causes imbalance resulting in project moved out

Automatic modification:• Project/phases: = or < $5 million

LRTP TIP/STIP

Years

Available Funding

Project Costs

12

Automatic amendment:• Full project deleted from

LRTP CFP

TimingTiming Projects within LRTP displayed in bands of years

• 5 year increments

LRTP

CFP Needs

1st 5-yr band TIP/STIP years

2nd 5-yr band 3rd 5-yr band Last (10-yr) band Needs/ Illustrative List

13

Timing (Amendment)Timing (Amendment) Required Amendment when:

• Advancing project > 2 bands (10 years)

• Adding phase from CFP to LRTP 1st 5-year band (TIP/STIP years) causing imbalance

• Adding new project to Cost Feasible Plan

• Adding new phase to LRTP 1st 5-year band (TIP/STIP years) from Needs Plan causing imbalance

14

LRTP Amendment ExamplesCFP Needs

1st 5-yr band TIP/STIP years

2nd 5-yr band 3rd 5-yr band Last (10-yr) band Needs/ Illustrative List

TO FROM TO FROM

TO FROMTO ANY BAND FROM

AnalyzeAnalyze

*LRTP Project Δ (Delta)

Identification Cost Timing Project Scope

* Base document15

Principle: ScopePrinciple: Scope Major change in scope: automatic amendment

• Change in project termini (expansion)

• Addition (add bridge, lanes, interchange)

Minor change:• Project termini may have minor variations

= or < 5% of total project length

• Cost analyses may indicate scope change

16

ReviewReview

Coordination/communication essential & continual

Project description – consistent with LRTP• Establish cost, timing, scope for project (phase) analysis

17

Project Principles

Change in scope

Increase in cost of over 50% AND $50 million

Advancing project > 10 years or (2) five-year bands

Adding new project to CFP

Moving project to first LRTP 1st 5-years (TIP/STIP years), causing imbalance

Automatic Amendments

When assessing for LRTP Consistency, look at:• Project costs

• Initiation phase

• Project scope

Look to Florida LRTP Amendment Thresholds document for further guidance.

18

TIP/STIP Consistency with LRTPTIP/STIP Consistency with LRTP

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?

19

NEPA CONSISTENCYNEPA CONSISTENCY

NEPA Approval Granted If:

• Environmental Requirements Satisfied; and

• Amendment to LRTP, STIP or TIP is NOT Needed; and

• Funding Scenarios Are Met20

Planning Consistency

NEPA DOCUMENT CONSISTENCYNEPA DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY

Final NEPA Document ApprovalFinal NEPA Document Approval

“Open ended project”• Allocation of funds (PDE/Design) for a project with no clear time frame

or commitment for construction.

• Ramifications: Inefficient use of limited transportation funds Potential projects based on outdated planning assumptions and design

Demonstrate progress and commitment towards construction of project

Progress/Commitment Variable

Variable:

21

Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA ApprovalFHWA NEPA Approval

Project

PE

ROW

CONSTRUCTION

Project

PE

ROW

CONSTRUCTION

In LRTP CFP Not in LRTP CFP

Note: PE means Design

22

Project

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3

PE PE PE

ROW ROW ROW

Construction Construction Construction

Project

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3

PE PE PE

ROW ROW ROW

Construction Construction Construction

In LRTP CFP Not in LRTP CFP Note: PE means Design

Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA ApprovalFHWA NEPA Approval

23

Project

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3

PE PE PE

ROW ROW ROW

Construction Construction Construction

In LRTP CFP Not in LRTP CFP

Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA ApprovalFHWA NEPA Approval

Note: PE means Design

24

Unacceptable Project Funding Scenario for Unacceptable Project Funding Scenario for NEPA ApprovalNEPA Approval

Project

Segment 1 Segment 2 Segment 3

PE PE PE

ROW ROW ROW

Construction Construction Construction

In LRTP CFP Not in LRTP CFP

20 Years

Note: PE means Design

25

QUESTIONS?QUESTIONS?

26