Printer-friendly PDF (1.2 MB)
PowerPoint (1.8 MB)
Expediting Project Delivery Webinar
Streamlining Decision Making in Project Delivery
March 23, 2016
• SHRP2 and Expediting Project Delivery
• Streamlining With
NEPA
Assignment at
ODOT
• Conclusion
SHRP2 and Expediting Project Delivery
Slide 1: Expediting Project Delivery Webinar - Streamlining Decision Making in Project Delivery
March 23, 2016
- Kate Kurgan,
AASHTO
- David Williams,
FHWA
- Jacque Annarino & Tim Hill, Ohio DOT
- Denise McClafferty & Jami Dennis, Maricopa Association of Governments
Image: A strip of photos: a concrete bridge over a river, a highway with numerous traffic devices on trusses above traffic, a bridge over a calm river at night, a train under a bridge, and a worker repairing the underside of a bridge
Slide 2: SHRP2 & Its Focus Areas
- Safety: Fostering safer driving through analysis of driver, roadway and vehicle factors in crashes, near crashes, and ordinary driving.
- Renewal: Rapid maintenance and repair of the deteriorating infrastructure using already-available resources, innovations, and technologies.
- Capacity: Planning and designing a highway system that offers minimum disruption and meets the environmental, and economic needs of the community.
- Reliability: Reducing congestion and creating more predictable travel times through better operations.
Images: Icons that correlate to the items listed above: a vehicle occupant wearing a seat belt and shoulder harness (Safety), a circular arrow that reconnects with itself (Renewal), a six-lane roadway (Capacity), and a clock (Reliability)
Slide 3: SHRP2 Implementation: Innovate. Implement. Improve.
- $130 million Funding Assistance (Images: six dollar sign icons)
- DOT: 52 Recipients
-
MPO/Local: 30 Recipients
- University: 10 Recipients
- Federal/Tribe: 7 Recipients
↓
- 63 SHRP2 Solutions (Images: 4 roadway vehicles icons)
↓
- 430+ Projects Implemented (Images: six orange-striped safety cone icons)
- Renewal: 230+
- Capacity: 100+
- Reliability: 90+
- Safety: 11
Slide 4: SHRP2 Implementation: Innovate. Implement. Improve.
- 224,761 Participants Engaged (Images: 15 human icons)
↓
- 8,939 Outreach Activities (Images: three icons of three people sitting at a table)
- Training: 8,286
- Workshops: 463
- Peer Exchanges: 81
- Demos: 62
- Showcases: 47
↓
- 14,961 Hours Technical Assistance (Images: an open laptop)
Slide 5: SHRP2 at a Glance
- SHRP2 Solutions - 63 products
- Solution Development - processes, software, testing procedures, and specifications
- Field Testing - refined in the field
- Implementation - 430+ transportation projects; adopt as standard practice
- SHRP2 Education Connection - connecting next-generation professionals with next-generation innovations
13 agencies were selected to implement C19 strategies
Image: a map of the continental U.S. overlaid with the words “430+ SHRP2 projects nationwide”
Slide 6: Expediting Project Delivery
- Expediting Project Delivery identifies 24 strategies for addressing or avoiding 16 common constraints in order to speed delivery of transportation projects.
- Strategies Grouped Under Six Objectives:
- Improve internal communication and coordination;
- Streamline decision-making;
- Improve resource agency involvement and collaboration;
- Improve public involvement and support;
- Demonstrate real commitment to the project; and
- Coordinate work across phases of project delivery.
Slide 7: Expediting Project Delivery
| Strategy |
Stage of Project Planning or Delivery |
| Early Planning |
Corridor Planning |
NEPA |
Design/ROW/Permitting |
Construction |
| 1. Change-control practices |
|
|
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
| 2. Consolidated decision council |
|
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 3. Context-sensitive design and solutions |
☐ |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
☐ |
| 4. Coordinated and responsive agency involvement |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
| 5. Dispute-resolution process |
|
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
☐ |
| 6. DOT-funded resource agency liaisons |
|
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 7. Early commitment of construction funding |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
| 8. Expedited internal review and decision-making |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 9. Facilitation to align expectations up front |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
| 10. Highly responsive public engagement |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☐ |
| 11. Incentive payments to expedite relocations |
|
|
|
☑ |
|
| 12. Media relations manager |
|
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☐ |
| 13. Performance standards |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 14. Planning and environmental linkages |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
| 15. Planning-level environmental screening criteria |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
|
| 16. Programmatic agreement for Section 106 |
|
|
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 17. Programmatic or batched permitting |
|
|
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 18. Real-time collaborative interagency reviews |
☐ |
☐ |
☑ |
☐ |
|
| 19. Regional environmental analysis framework |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 20. Risk management |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
| 21. Strategic oversight and readiness assessment |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
| 22. Team co-location |
|
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
| 23. Tiered NEPA process |
☐ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
|
| 24. Up-front environmental commitments |
|
☑ |
☑ |
☑ |
|
Boxes with a checkmark show direct applicability. Empty boxes show conditional applicability.
Slide 8: Implementation Award Recipients
- Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT)
- Arkansas State Highway and Transportation Department (AHTD)
- Association of Monterey Bay Area Governments (AMBAG)
- California Department of Transportation (Caltrans)
- Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)
- Idaho Transportation Department (ITD)
- Maricopa Association of Governments (MAG)
- Massachusetts Department of Transportation (MassDOT)
- Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR)
- South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT)
- South Dakota Department of Transportation (SDDOT)
- Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans)
Slide 9: AASHTO & FHWA Contacts
Images: the AASHTO logo and the U.S. Department of Transportation logo
Slide 10: SHRP2 on the Web
Image: Screenshot of the SHRP2 website homepage
↑ Return to top
Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT
Slide 11: Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT
March 2017
Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services
Tim Hill, Administrator
Jacque Annarino, NEPA Assignment Coordinator
Image: the Ohio Department of Transportation logo
Slide 12: Streamlining at ODOT
- ODOT’s need to integrate and streamline
- How ODOT changed approach to project development
- Accomplishments and Benefits of new approach
Slide 13: Why the need to Integrate and Streamline?
Image: a drawing of a 15-minute section of a clock face that is marked with the words “Time is Money”
Slide 14: ODOT’s Approach to Project Development
- Project Development Process
- Consultant Scoping Fees Guidance
- Online Environmental Documentation System (EnviroNet)
Slide 15: ODOT’s Approach to Project Development
- Programmatic Agreements
- Farmlands
- Coastal
- Ecological
- Indiana & Northern Long-eared Bat
- Cultural Resources
- Categorical Exclusion (CE)
- Scenic River
- Section 6(f)
- Section 4(f)
- Environmental Justice (guidance approved by FHWA - similar to an
MOA)
- Future Programmatic Agreements
- Emergency Projects
- Endangered Species
Slide 16: NEPA Assignment Potential Benefits for Ohio
- Estimated 20-25% time savings to program
- Estimated savings of up to $23 million annually
- Reduced project inflation
- Project user delay costs
- Low risk - maybe 1 lawsuit every 8-10 years
Slide 17: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment
For projects under $20 million
- FHWA reviews 4(f) and other support documents = 15-30 days
- 40 per year = 1,000 review days per year
- 35% performed concurrently = 650 project review days
- Out of the 650, only 15% result in critical path reviews = 98 days
- 3.9% inflation and delay cost = $500,000 per year
Slide 18: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment
For projects $20 million to $149 million
- FHWA performs reviews on:
- Purpose and Need = 30 days
- Feasibility Study = 30 days
- Alternative Evaluation Report = 30 days
- Section 4(f) actions = 45 days
- Review and approval of the CE = 60 days
- …plus multiple reviews (drafts, etc.)
Slide 19: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment
For projects $20 million to $149 million
- FHWA review for a medium sized project - 390 days
- 30% performed concurrently = 273 project review days
- ODOT averages 12 projects per year = 3,276 review days
- Out of this, 25% results in critical path reviews
- = 819 days of delay
- 3.9% inflation and delay cost = $5.7 million per year
- User costs/crash reduction benefits = $13.2 million per year
Slide 20: Potential Streamlining Opportunities with NEPA Assignment
For biggest projects…
Image: a large cartoon of the word “cha-ching!”
Slide 21: ODOT’s New Approach to Project Development
- NEPA Assignment
- For environmental actions on transportation projects
- Does not include
FTA
or
FRA
Image: a photo of a goldfish jumping from a small fishbowl to a much larger fishbowl
Slide 22: Implementation of NEPA Assignment
- 10/21/14 - Letter of Interest submitted
- 12/01/14 - Brief ODOT Executive Leadership & Agencies
- 12/15/14 - Draft Application submitted
- 12/15/14 - Begin district visits and meetings with Associations
- 12/24/14 - Letters to Tribes sent
- 04/12/15 - Draft Application Public Notice
- 04/22/15 - Draft
MOU
submitted
- 05/28/15 - Final Application submitted
- 10/15/15 - MOU Public Notice
- 12/28/15 - MOU Effective Date
Slide 23: Updated Agreements
- Section 106 Programmatic Agreement
- Ecological Memorandum of Agreement
- Categorical Exclusion Programmatic Agreement
- Indiana Bat Programmatic Agreement
- Tribal Letter Agreement
- Sole Source Aquifer Agreement
- Section 106 Consulting Party Guidance
- Section 4(f) Manual
- Section 6(f) Manual
- Farmlands Letter Agreement
- Federal National Scenic River Agreement
- Cover Letter for Other Agreements
Slide 24: New Guidance Documents
- Escalation Procedures
- 4(f) Guidance
- CE Guidance
- Emergency Projects Guidance
- File Management & Documentation Guidance
- Internal Communication Guidance
- Legal Sufficiency Review Guidance
-
QC/QA
Guidance
- Records Retention Guidance
- Self-Assessment Guidance
- Self-Assessment Checklists
- Signature Authority Guidance
- Statute of Limitations Guidance
Image: a drawing of a pencil that has marked a check in three checkboxes
Slide 25: Other New Items
- Performance Measures
- Training Plan
Image: a group of different-colored 3D arrows, each marked with a word: “Trends,” “Results,” “Goals,” “Objectives,” “Targets,” “Satisfaction,” and “Value”
Slide 26: NEPA Assignment Benefits for Ohio
- Opportunity to “refresh” environmental staff
- Updated manuals and guidance
- Updated process improvements Department wide
- Updated training
- 1st Quarter Actual Savings was $4.6 million
NEPA Assignment removes “personal preferences”
Slide 27: NEPA Assignment Audit Results
Audit Report
- Eleven Observations (mostly positive)
- Three successful practices
- Dedicated legal counsel as part of environmental team
- Pre-qualified consultants for environmental work
- Required to take same training as ODOT environmental staff to be prequalified
- Required, on-going training of all environmental staff and consultants
Image: a graphic of a magnifying glass and the words “Don’t Fear the Audit”
Slide 28: Lessons Learned
- Good team is important
- Dedicate time
- Push FHWA
- Bi-Weekly Conference Calls with detailed agenda to keep everyone on task
- Elevate issues quickly and push for resolution
- Proactive outreach
- Executive Management
- Districts
- Partner Agencies
- Environmental Groups
- Contractors
- Locals
-
ACEC
- Etc.
Images: Two drawings: a figure pushing a large rock up an incline and a city skyline with the words “Taking it to the Streets”
Slide 29: Streamlining With NEPA Assignment at ODOT
March 2017
Ohio Department of Transportation
Office of Environmental Services
Tim Hill, Administrator
Tim.Hill@dot.ohio.gov
(614) 644-0377
Jacque Annarino, NEPA Assignment Coordinator
Jacque.Annarino@dot.ohio.gov
(614) 466-1484
Image: the Ohio Department of Transportation logo
↑ Return to top
Conclusion
Slide 30: Questions?
Please remember to type in your questions to the question prompt.
Thank you for participating!
Image: a photo of a curved country road in autumn
Slide 31: Presenter Contacts
Kate Kurgan, AASHTO
kkurgan@aashto.org
202-624-3635
David Williams, FHWA
david.Williams@dot.gov
202-366-4074
Denise McClafferty, Maricopa Association of Governments
DMcClafferty@azmag.gov
602-452-5033
Jacque Annarino, Ohio DOT
Jacque.Annarino@dot.ohio.gov
614-466-1484
↑ Return to top
