lrtp consistency review for stip amendments and nepa approval
Post on 05-Feb-2016
32 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
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
top related