1 / 26

LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments and NEPA Approval

LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments and NEPA Approval. Office of Policy Planning, FDOT Office of Project Development, FHWA September 10, 2013. Guidance. Purpose: Sets thresholds for project changes that trigger LRTP amendments at: STIP approval STIP amendment NEPA approval

tomas
Download Presentation

LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments and NEPA Approval

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. LRTP Consistency Review for STIP Amendments and NEPA Approval Office of Policy Planning, FDOT Office of Project Development, FHWA September 10, 2013

  2. Guidance • 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

  3. Coordination/Communication District Coordination/Communication REQUIRED FHWA 3

  4. Consistency • Project must be consistent with Adopted LRTP Cost Feasible Plan. • Variables for Review: • Cost • Timing • Project Scope 4

  5. First STEP • Clearly identify project within LRTP: • Whole • Segment (corridor) • New • Identification facilitates communication LRTP Project 5

  6. Analyze * Base document 6

  7. Analyze TILT INVALID START OVER * Base document 7

  8. Analyze * Base document 8

  9. Cost for Determining LRTP Amendment • Project cost includes: • Phases after PD&E • Design/PE • ROW • Construction Cost 9

  10. Principle: Cost • Amendment Needed • Project cost > 50% AND > $50 million • Ramifications • Change of scope • Project justification $100 $90 Amendment Needed $80 $70 $60 Cost: Percent increase over original 60% 80% 100% 40% 70% 20% 30% 90% 10% $40 $30 $20 $10 Cost Increase (millions) 10

  11. Analyze * Base document 11

  12. Principle: 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 Project Costs Available Funding LRTP TIP/STIP Years • Automatic amendment: • Full project deleted from LRTP CFP 12

  13. Timing • Projects within LRTP displayed in bands of years • 5 year increments 13

  14. 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

  15. Analyze * Base document 15

  16. Principle: 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

  17. Review Project Principles • Coordination/communication essential & continual • Project description – consistent with LRTP • Establish cost, timing, scope for project (phase) analysis Automatic Amendments • 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 17

  18. TIP/STIP Consistency with LRTP • When assessing for LRTP Consistency, look at: • Project costs • Initiation phase • Project scope • Look to Florida LRTP Amendment Thresholds document for further guidance. 18

  19. Questions? 19

  20. NEPA CONSISTENCY NEPA Document Consistency • NEPA Approval Granted If: • Environmental Requirements Satisfied; and • Amendment to LRTP, STIP or TIP is NOT Needed; and • Funding Scenarios Are Met Planning Consistency 20

  21. Final NEPA Document Approval Progress/Commitment Variable • “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 Variable: 21

  22. Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA Approval Note: PE means Design 22

  23. Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA Approval Note: PE means Design 23

  24. Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for FHWA NEPA Approval Note: PE means Design 24

  25. Unacceptable Project Funding Scenario for NEPA Approval 20 Years Note: PE means Design 25

  26. Questions? 26

More Related