National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 6 - Encouraging and Facilitating Early Consideration of P3s
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 7 - Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2013. Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/22643.
×
Page 71

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

62 This final chapter discusses how the findings and implica- tions of the research can be incorporated into the Decision Guide. Together, the four phases in the Decision Guide com- prise the state and metropolitan planning and environmental approval processes as mandated by current federal and state law. Broadly speaking, the long-range transportation plan- ning and programming phases of the Decision Guide align with those of the state and metropolitan planning organi- zation process; the corridor planning phase involves early, project-specific planning and early project study activities; and the environmental review/NEPA merged with permit- ting phase involves the NEPA and other environmental law processes that are typically addressed concurrently, at least to some extent, with the NEPA process. The Decision Guide breaks these four phases into a series of 44 steps involving discrete decision points. An illustration of the Decision Guide’s four phases and 44 decision points is shown in Figure 7.1, which is also provided on the TCAPP, now known as PlanWorks, website. It should be noted that although the Decision Guide establishes this structure, not all the steps in the process are followed or are applicable for every project. In addition, sometimes the steps that are followed do not necessarily occur sequentially but may occur concurrently, iteratively or in some cases, in a different order. Although the decisions that must be made to implement transportation improvements are predictable, there is a great deal of flexibility involved, because the timing and interaction between these steps are influenced by local conditions, institutional relation- ships, and happenstance. This is true with the planning and environmental processes, particularly with the consideration or implementation of P3 procurements. In discussing the Decision Guide, it should be recognized that many states—if they consider the use of P3s at all—first seek to procure P3 projects only after the completion of the NEPA process (see Chapter 5). The risk of administrative and litigation delays and changes to the project that can occur before completion of NEPA discourage private investors and make it difficult to obtain the financing that is always a part of transportation P3s. Nevertheless, the possibility of a P3 is often under consideration by the state or local transportation agency long before the P3 is actually formed (see Chapter 5). This possibility can have a significant impact on how the proj- ect is developed. In addition, involving the appropriate experts and the potential private partner can result in a project that is more easily and more profitably developed as a P3, resulting in greater benefits to the procuring agency and to users of the new project. The rest of this chapter reviews each of the 44 decision points within the Decision Guide and their relationship to P3 consideration, drawing from the detailed research findings as presented in earlier chapters. P3s and Long-Range Transportation Planning The Decision Guide’s first phase focuses on the long-range transportation process and the development of a long-range transportation plan (LRTP), equivalent to the MTP referred to throughout the report, under current federal guidance. As the TCAPP website states: “Long-range planning provides the foundation for all other aspects of transportation deci- sion making by establishing the vision and goals for transpor- tation within a region and identifying strategies and project concepts for implementation” (ICF International 2012a). As highlighted throughout the following 11 steps, this phase in the Decision Guide offers the opportunity to begin consideration of alternative revenue sources for transporta- tion improvements and those associated with P3 procure- ments (especially tolling) as part of a region’s transportation vision and goals, fiscal constraint process, and preferred sce- nario of development. These outcomes can then be carried forward into later phases of the Decision Guide, especially into the NEPA process where specific projects are evaluated for implementation. Examining and setting goals, policies, C h a P T e R 7 Integrating P3s into the Decision Guide

63 Source: ICF International and URS Corporation 2014. LRP-4LRP-3LRP-2LRP-1 LRP-11LRP-10 LRP-8 LRP-9LRP-7LRP-6 Approve Transportation Deficiencies Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Vision and Goals Approve Scope of LRTP Process Approve Conformity Analysis Adopt LRTP by MPO Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO Approve Plan Scenarios Approve Strategies Approve Financial Assumptions LRP-5 PRO-1 PRO-2 PRO-3 PRO-4 PRO-5 PRO-6 PRO-7 PRO-8 Approve Revenue Sources Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set Approve Project Prioritization Reach Consensus on Draft TIP Adopt TIP by MPO Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP Reach Consensus on Draft STIP Approve STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint PRO-9 COR-1 COR-2 COR-3 COR-4 COR-5 COR-6 COR-7 COR-8 Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities Approve Goals for the Corridor Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Range of Solution Sets Adopt Preferred Solution Set Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures for Prioritization of Projects Adopt Priorities for Implementation COR-9 ENV-1 ENV-2 ENV-3 ENV-4 ENV-5 ENV-6 ENV-10 ENV-11 ENV-12 ENV-13 ENV-14 ENV-15 ENV-7 ENV-8 Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review Approve Notice of Intent Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose Reach Consensus on Study Area Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Measures Approve Full Range of Alternatives Approve Preferred Alternative/LEDPA Approve Final Jurisdictional Determination Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimization for the LEDPA Approve Final EIS Approve the Record of Decision Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation Approve Resource Agency Public Notice ENV-9 DECISION GUIDE LONG-RANGE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING PROGRAMMING ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW / NEPA MERGED WITH PERMITTING CORRIDOR PLANNING Figure 7.1. The PlanWorks, formerly known as TCAPP, Decision Guide.

64 projects and scenarios and their ability to meet the goals and visions established for the long-range plan. If those goals include generating new revenue sources or gaining access to previously unavailable sources of equity and finance, then toll projects and P3 procurement strategies would score highly in this area and might therefore be more likely to be advanced. LRP-4—Approve Transportation Deficiencies Because this decision point is limited to identifying facilities and locations where deficiencies exist, this is not the appro- priate juncture to consider opportunities for improvement- specific revenue or delivery strategies (e.g., tolling or P3s). LRP-5—Approve Financial Assumptions This step of the long-range planning process involves two important aspects. The first is to identify the revenue sources available to the region specifically to address transportation needs. The second is to establish a methodology to estimate the costs of individual projects and then to align the cost of the overall investment program with the resources available during the long-range planning period. If the use of tolls and P3 procurements is on the table, then this step could involve an assessment of each project for the use of tolls or private financing. If tolling were found to be appropriate for given projects, the revenue sources could be expanded to account for this finding and the revenues gener- ated through tolling could be introduced to the fiscal con- straint analysis. LRP-6—Approve Strategies This decision point of the long-range planning process involves developing strategies to address the deficiencies identified in LRP-4. TCAPP defines strategies as specific tactics or policies employed or recommended by an organization and specifically points to land use as an example. Policies related to tolling, the use of other alternative revenue sources, and P3 consideration, in general, could also be considered at this decision point, as discussed in Chapter 6. Implementation of such policies, how- ever, may be beyond the scope of the partners who typically participate in this decision point and may require the involve- ment of a higher-level decision-making body such as a state legislature. LRP-7—Approve Plan Scenarios This step involves developing scenarios—groups of projects and strategies—using the strategies emerging from LRP-6 and then testing and refining those strategies for their perfor- mance using the criteria established in LRP-3. Depending on and identifying alternative funding sources during this phase will have a significant impact on the ability to consider and to ultimately decide on P3 procurements later in the Decision Guide process. LRP-1—Approve Scope of Long-Range Transportation Plan Process This first step in the long-range planning process is a scoping exercise, whereby local agencies and stakeholders involved in the development of the plan agree on the issues the plan will address and the information to be gathered and reviewed during the process. This is a strategic point in the long-range planning process to identify new processes and issues that should be considered in the process, such as the use of inno- vative revenue sources and procurement models. LRP-2—Approve Vision and Goals In this step of the long-range planning process, the local region establishes the vision and goals for the transportation plan. This process involves input from multiple stakeholders and should reflect larger regional goals and values. Although many stakeholders would not necessarily associate transpor- tation goals with revenue generation, there are strong con- nections between the two, and if a region is facing funding shortages, the goals of generating new sources of revenue or being able to tap into new sources of equity and financing should be considered and included. An important source of revenue is the use of tolling, and its regional feasibility and public acceptability must also be considered. A goal of devel- oping a regional network of tolled or priced managed lanes could be a major focus of a long-range plan that may form the basis for specific project identification and later evalua- tion. Or, if the goal is developed as a separate plan or study, it could be incorporated directly or be a reference. This decision point is arguably the most important point in the long-range planning process in which to consider the use of P3 procurements and innovative revenue sources. If these are recognized goals, then through subsequent planning steps, an agency can develop appropriate criteria to assess the extent to which different projects and alternative plans achieve these important goals. If revenue generation and innovative pro- curement strategies are not included in the goals formulation stage, they are not likely to factor into the next steps in the long-range planning process. LRP-3—Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods, and Performance Measures In this step, evaluation criteria and performance measures are identified to enable decision makers to compare different

65 P3s and Programming The programming phase of the Decision Guide is the process through which the TIP is developed and adopted. TIPs are developed by MPOs for urban areas and by state DOTs for rural areas. The STIP combines all TIPs into one document for each state. Both the TIP and the STIP must be financially constrained. This means that both must include a financial plan for implementing the projects on the TIP or STIP, iden- tifying the public and private funding sources that can rea- sonably be available for the project and the strategies that will be used to obtain any additional funding that may be required. This does not, however, include projects listed only for infor- mational purposes. Only the projects for which full funding can reasonably be anticipated during the time contemplated for completion may be included in a TIP or STIP. In non- attainment and maintenance areas, funding for projects on the first 2 years of the TIP (and as it is incorporated into the STIP) must be “available or committed.” See the section on understanding funding availability and fiscal constraint with P3s in Chapter 3 for more discussion about this area, which is of particular concern for P3 projects because P3 funding is often not yet committed until project financial close. Both TIPs and STIPs must also demonstrate transporta- tion conformity. The bulk of this work is done by MPOs, because the nonattainment and maintenance areas are typi- cally within MPO boundaries. PRO-1—Approve Revenue Sources Using the same revenue projections as the long-range plan, this initial step in programming confirms the funding sources avail- able for the TIP and STIP, thereby achieving a relative level of consistency between the long-range plan and these short-range planning documents. This decision point also identifies where any funding restrictions or requirements may exist, such as the need for authorizing or enabling legislation, and establishes agreements between funding partners, as needed. Because the TIP and STIP processes must be renewed at least every 4 years and can also be revised as often as neces- sary, new financial developments and funding sources should be captured at this stage of the programming process, includ- ing the use of tolling or P3 procurements, which may require legislative approvals. PRO-2—Approve Methodology for Identifying Project Costs and Criteria for Allocating Revenue This step encompasses multiple aspects. The first aspect is to establish an approach for estimating the project costs to be included in the TIP and STIP. This aspect is not directly the goals and strategies adopted in earlier phases of the long- range planning process, the scenarios could involve the use of tolling and P3 procurements. LRP-8—Adopt Preferred Plan Scenario This step involves comparing the performance of the scenar- ios identified in LRP-7 for their ability to meet the vision and goals underpinning the long-range plan. This decision point culminates with the selection of a preferred plan scenario. Depending on the goals and strategies adopted in earlier phases of the long-range planning process, the compared scenarios and the preferred scenario could involve the use of tolling and P3 procurements. The preferred scenario could form the basis for a regional plan with a network of tolled or priced road- ways, which could be carried forward into purpose and need statements and alternatives analysis for specific projects dur- ing the NEPA phase of the Decision Guide. LRP-9—Adopt Finding of Conformity by MPO In this step of the long-range planning process, the MPO con- ducts a regional air quality analysis to determine whether the adopted preferred plan scenario identified in LRP-8 meets cur- rent conformity requirements (see Chapter 3). The MPO Board must adopt a finding of conformity to meet federal require- ments. If any components of the preferred plan scenario involve tolling, the models used in the conformity analysis should assess the effects of road pricing on travel behavior in the region. It is likely that the use of tolls would have the potential to result in air quality benefits. LRP-10—Adopt LRTP by MPO This penultimate step of the long-range planning process combines the preferred plan scenario, fiscal constraint, and air quality conformity processes emerging from earlier steps in the planning process and modifies them to reflect comments received on the draft LRTP. Once this is confirmed, the LRTP is adopted. This phase would not involve new consideration of toll- ing or P3 procurements. However, it is possible that it could involve minor adjustments to the use of tolls or P3 procure- ments based on comments that may have been received. LRP-11—Approve Conformity Analysis This decision point in the long-range planning process involves the legal requirement to obtain federal approval of the confor- mity of the LRTP. This may involve approval of the assump- tions and modeling techniques used to assess the effects of tolling on travel behavior.

66 consideration at this step beyond those P3 considerations that are already designated within the long-range planning and corridor planning processes back to which this step refers. PRO-4—Approve Project Prioritization This decision point assesses candidate projects and then pri- oritizes them based on an assessment of their ability to meet the criteria as established in PRO-2. The prioritized list also includes information on project costs, implementation sched- ules, and any applicable revenue considerations. It is assumed that the review of applicable revenue considerations may result in potential tolling projects being advanced before other non- toll projects because they provide their own revenue sources. To the extent tolling and P3s have been considered in previous steps, the prioritization of projects using these tools would be considered in this step. PRO-5—Reach Consensus on Draft TIP In this step of the programming process, the projects to be included in the draft TIP are selected by using information from LRP-5 regarding funding restrictions and/or agreements. Depending on the groundwork laid through previous steps, consensus among decision makers at this point may favor prioritized projects with support from tolls or other alter- nate revenue sources, which may be most attractive to P3 implementation. PRO-6—Adopt TIP by MPO In this step, the draft TIP is reviewed by partner agencies and the public, with MPO determination if any comments require actions or modifications to the TIP. The different agencies involved also confirm that the conformity and fiscal constraint processes have been correctly conducted. Unless an issue is raised that may impact the inclusion of tolled or alternatively funded projects, no additional P3 consideration occurs at this step. Once this process has been completed, the TIP is approved by the MPO. On occasion, the use of P3s can affect the conformity analy- sis, especially if tolls are involved and the traffic model shows a significant change in motorist behavior over a free facility. It is also possible that a project once prioritized in the TIP or STIP as a nontolled project could later be implemented as a toll project requiring an amendment to the TIP or STIP. PRO-7—Approve TIP by Governor and Incorporate into Draft STIP In this step, the governor or designee reviews and approves the TIP. The TIP must be updated at least every 4 years, but also relevant to the consideration of P3 procurement, although it should be noted that under the right circumstances, the use of P3s can reduce project development costs. The second aspect involves establishing criteria for allocat- ing regional revenue among projects in the TIP or STIP. This aspect involves allocating funding based on project type, loca- tion, status of planning, engineering and environmental stud- ies, and indication of the severity of project need. If expanding state and local revenues and engaging the private sector in the development of transportation infrastructure are goals estab- lished during long-range planning, then it could be expected that specific selection criteria could be developed to compare the feasibility of introducing tolling or P3 procurements for projects to be considered for TIP or STIP advancement. This activity also includes identifying any restrictions or require- ments that may apply to specific funding sources occurring before the identification of transportation needs and solu- tions so that the criteria will not be targeted to support par- ticular projects. If toll revenue is already a source of regional revenue, criteria for its distribution on a corridor-specific or regionwide basis is an important consideration to be formal- ized through policy. One unique and powerful aspect of P3 procurement is leveraging effect. This is especially true with P3 projects that involve multiple sources of revenue and financing. This situ- ation often occurs with projects that are not otherwise able to generate adequate revenue streams to pay for their entire implementation costs on a standalone basis with a limited- recourse financing. In such cases, projects may only be bank- able and attractive to private-sector investors if they receive a subsidy in one form or another from the public sector. This situation is advantageous to public-sector sponsors because they are able to implement the project without having to pay the entire capital cost from public coffers, thereby freeing the money they would have spent for other uses. In such cases, it may actually be advantageous for local decision makers to prioritize the allocation of money to P3 projects, as described, before allocating money to those projects being funded by traditional means, because by doing so they increase revenues available to support the TIP or STIP. PRO-3—Approve Project List Drawn from Adopted Plan Scenario or Solution Set This step of the programming process involves identifying projects from the long-range plan or corridor planning pro- cesses that will be considered for funding in the TIP or STIP by using the methodology developed in PRO-2. To the extent that the methodology includes metrics to evaluate and/or consider the use of tolling or P3s for projects under review, projects that lend themselves to these options would have more likelihood of being advanced. If not, there is no P3

67 general locations and project concepts that make the project a more attractive candidate for private investors. Although these factors should not be the sole determinants in the process, they should not be ignored, especially if project implementation is projected to require private equity investments. Unfortunately, from the private investor’s perspective, this is still a high-risk phase of the process. General locations, project scope, and a range of design concepts are still under active con- sideration. There is no guarantee that an investor-friendly proj- ect will come out of this process. Indeed, some projects never progress beyond this stage to final implementation. Thus, it is typically too early in the project development process to include private investors. Furthermore, a transportation agency may be concerned about involving a private investor with a strong stake in a particular outcome. The public could well raise objec- tions about the possibility that a private investor might seek to skew the decision-making process in favor of its preferred alternative—although it should be noted that such concerns should be ameliorated by safeguards built into the process ensuring that the private investor merely provides input to the public agency decision makers. (See Chapter 5 for a com- plete discussion about these disadvantages.) Several options are available to transportation agencies that would like to gain insight into issues relevant to a P3 develop- ment model. First, the agency can retain financial advisors, project development specialists, and other experts during the planning phase to advise the agency on the revenue and invest- ment implications of various project alternatives. This process could include outreach efforts to potential P3 developers for their input regarding environmental risks and other factors that may impact project implementation. Second, another option (which is not really an alternative, but possibly an additional option) is for the agency to solicit proposals from potential developers and enter into a predevel- opment agreement with the selected entity. As was discussed in Chapter 5 under a PDA the transportation agency would typically pay a fee to the potential developer in return for pro- vision of services, such as performing studies, providing infor- mation related to the project, and other similar commitments. For most projects, the fee covers only a portion of the cost borne by the developer. In these cases, the developer is willing to enter into this type of arrangement in exchange for the right of first negotiation if the project proceeds as a P3. PDA pro- curements are primarily qualifications-based, although the price for the initial services may also carry some weight during the selection process. COR-1—Approve Scope of Corridor Planning Process This step envisions the formation of the relationships in the corridor planning process. These relationships may well may be, and commonly is, updated more frequently. If the TIP includes projects scheduled for implementation beyond the 4-year horizon of the TIP, FHWA regards these elements as informational. In addition, in air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas, a conformity determination of the TIP and any update of the TIP must be made by the MPO, FHWA, and by the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). Once the conformity determination is made and the TIP is approved by the governor or designee, the approved TIP (or updated TIP) is then incorporated into the STIP without change. No new consideration of P3s takes place at this step. PRO-8—Reach Consensus on Draft STIP The STIP and TIP processes, although arising from separate legal requirements, are implemented in a coordinated and interactive way. The timing of the two processes must be com- patible. The MPO must consider the STIP in developing the TIP, and the state DOT must develop portions of the STIP in urban population areas over 50,000 and in cooperation with MPOs. Thus, the process is interactive and concurrent. That is one reason why state DOTs sit on all MPO boards ex officio. The federal regulations applicable to STIPs and TIPs set forth this cooperative process in considerable detail. No new con- sideration of P3s takes place at this step. PRO-9—Approve TIP and STIP with Respect to Conformity and Fiscal Constraint Unlike TIPs, which are only subject to approval of the MPO and the governor or designee, STIPs are subject to approval by FHWA and FTA. No new consideration of P3s takes place at this step. P3s and Corridor Planning Corridor planning is not a step that is undertaken for all proj- ects and is not technically a formal part of the project devel- opment process. Rather, it is the transition from long-range transportation planning to the formal beginning of the NEPA process. The TCAPP website indicates that corridor planning is presumed to precede the programming phase. Thus, envi- ronmental studies, preliminary engineering, initial right-of- way assessments, and other initiatives to better define the general location and scope of the proposed project are con- ducted in this phase of the process. The utility of addressing the potential for P3s in the long- range plan and transportation improvement program was pre- viously discussed. As the planning process hones in on specific aspects of individual projects, the benefits of involving potential P3 developers become more apparent. Private-sector develop- ers can aid government transportation agencies in identifying

68 independent sets of events. The scope of the environmental review and analysis are necessarily driven by the proposed scope of the activities under consideration. The same can be said for evaluation criteria and performance measures. Thus, it is assumed that these steps are separately expressed because they are critical parts of project development, and not because they clearly arise at this point in the process. Both FHWA and the Council on Environmental Quality regulations require the early consideration of environmental impacts, and envi- ronmental studies are an important element of deciding what the scope of that impacts analysis should be. Those studies should first occur during the corridor planning phase. Sub- stantial benefits to the development of a P3 project can be gained in COR-4, especially because this key decision is so closely connected to ENV-1 (see on page 69, ENV-1—Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review). For example, the results of environmental review and analysis at this point can provide a P3 with risk analysis information (see Chapter 4, page 30, P3s Require Technical Analyses Independent of NEPA and the Planning Process). In addition, environmental studies undertaken as part of transportation planning may also be used to further this work during a NEPA evaluation. More- over, the development of evaluation criteria and performance measures will link general concepts to specific proposed solutions. P3s may play only a tangential role in these steps, except where an examination of the corridor characteristics discloses benefits from use of a P3 approach. Probably the most signifi- cant benefit is associated with financial feasibility of the proj- ects under consideration by the agency. In this regard, P3s are not simply a source for funding particular projects, but are planning mechanisms that free up resources that agencies can then allocate to other projects (perhaps in other corridors), making those other projects possible. Consequently, whenever a corridor includes a project that has the potential to pay for itself, in whole or in part, through revenue generated by the project, such as tolls, it is appropriate for the agency to con- sider whether a P3 approach is in the public interest. Thus, for example, a sound corridor planning process should include consideration of P3s early on to ascertain whether any proj- ects within the corridor might have potential to generate revenues. COR-6—Approve Range of Solution Sets and COR-7—Adopt Preferred Solution Set These steps in the corridor planning phase analyze a range of approved solution sets and prepare selection of a preferred set. The set is influenced by the preferred scenario in the LRTP and can inform the environmental review process. Cost esti- mates of proposed solution sets are prepared to eliminate those that are unrealistic given funding options. P3 options to endure through the end of the environmental process and may even extend to monitoring construction. Thus, it would be appropriate to indicate, even at this stage, that a potential project may be a candidate for development through a P3, if the transportation agency itself is considering using a P3 approach. Not only will this enhance public trust when the P3 is pursued at later stages but this could also provide early notice of potential issues that the agency may face while in pursuit of a P3. The transportation agency should ensure that it can adequately address any questions that arise at this stage through its own staff or through outside consultants. COR-2—Approve Problem Statements and Opportunities and COR-3—Approve Goals for the Corridor After having defined a process for corridor planning, the trans- portation agency begins to focus on the specific transporta- tion, location, community, and environmental issues that must be addressed. COR-2 identifies the range of deficiencies and opportunities within the corridor, including those that extend beyond transportation. The problem statements and opportu- nities resulting from this step are informed by the transporta- tion deficiencies as identified within long-range planning and, in turn, inform the purpose and need during NEPA. (See Appendix A for TCAPP definitions of problem statement and objective opportunity.) In COR-3, the agency and other participants focus on the goals to be achieved during the implementation of the trans- portation project and on the factors that drive the decision- making process. As with COR-2, goals from long-range planning inform this process, which in turn informs pur- pose and need statements. As was discussed in Chapter 6, purpose and need statements allow for the incorporation of tolling and other alternative forms of funding, if identified in the financial plan of an LRTP, and opportunities that capi- talize on these tools should be considered in this step. If the transportation agency is not already contemplating the use of a P3, it is beneficial to include the possibility as it approves goals for the project, because P3 procurement could affect the scope and location of the project. Available funding sources for the project, if they include possible private invest- ment, tolls, and leveraged financing, could also be a signifi- cant factor in how the project is located and designed. COR-4—Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review and Analysis and COR-5—Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures Although the Decision Guide lists COR-4 and COR-5 as dis- tinct steps of the corridor planning process, they are not truly

69 federal regulations. Environmental review is generally the last step in the planning process for a transportation improvement, and is followed by final design and construction. When pre- liminary design is included in the environmental review pro- cess, it is often referred to as project development. A primary finding of this research is that there are clear advantages in the consideration of and commitment to P3 procurement to deliver a transportation project. Consider- ation during the NEPA process can play an important role in helping to advance a successful P3 because this phase of the Decision Guide defines a preferred alternative and assesses and addresses a project’s environmental and social impacts. The process identifies opportunities for serious public review, input, and buy-in, not only to the project but also potentially to its preliminary plan of finance and delivery. These consider- ations are discussed extensively throughout the report, notably in Chapter 6 in the section on incorporating tolling and other alternative funding in NEPA, which discusses incorporating tolling and P3 financing into purpose and need statements and NEPA alternatives analysis. In addition, Chapter 6 outlined several means of managing the NEPA process to facilitate the flexibility for P3 implementation after an environmental deci- sion has been reached. ENV-1—Reach Consensus on Scope of Environmental Review Scoping and early coordination is the normal start of the NEPA process. Consensus is reached on the data, decisions, and relationships that evolved throughout the environmental review. If the transportation agency has determined that a P3 is a viable option for proceeding with the project, it may wish to disclose this to the participants, although many of the issues raised at this step are probably unrelated to the decision regard- ing whether to implement the project as a P3. How ever, in some circumstances, a project would only be able to proceed as a P3 because of funding constraints, and therefore might be relevant to feasibility and alternatives evaluation. If a PDA already exists, the potential P3 developer will be in a position to provide information and analysis in support of the scop- ing process. ENV-2—Approve Notice of Intent The notice of intent is a relatively formal step in the process when an EIS is required to inform partners and the public of the commencement of the environmental review phase. Although potential private partners do not have an active role in this process, the transportation agency and FHWA must take care that the notice of intent is broad enough to accom- modate use of a P3 later in the process. deliver one or more facilities within the corridor should be considered at this point to accurately estimate the solution sets’ costs. In addition, the use of P3s can potentially influence both the number of facilities that can be built in a corridor and the timing of the delivery of those facilities. P3 involvement can play an indirect role in shaping potential solution sets. A preferred solution set is adopted for inclusion in the cor- ridor plan based on an evaluation using the approved criteria, methods, and measures. This evaluation process may indicate that a solution set involving a P3 is preferred. At some point in the corridor planning phase beginning with COR-6, a transportation agency contemplating the use of P3s may wish to involve its experts or consultants (and/or potential P3 developers) to identify specific solutions that best suit P3 development and to determine the priorities for imple- mentation. An agency may even wish to consider the possibil- ity of a PDA as part of the process to identify the preferred solution set or the priorities for implementation, particularly where the transportation agency contemplates developing portions of a corridor with P3s. COR-8—Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures for Prioritization of Projects and COR-9—Adopt Priorities for Implementation These decision points involve the prioritization of individual solution sets using approved evaluation criteria, methods, and measures that result in ranked individual projects, sequenced for implementation. Prioritization aligns projects with avail- able funding and allows other actions to take place that sup- port implementation, such as P3 or tolling approvals. Further financial analysis can reveal a P3 project or one with alterna- tive funding support to rank highly. In fact, available funding should consider a potential contribution of private equity or P3 financing. The Decision Guide suggests financial plan- ning tools employed during COR-8 and COR-9 may include value engineering, an exercise a P3 partner or consultant may perform. P3s and environmental Review/NePa Merged with Permitting The last phase of the Decision Guide is environmental review/ NEPA combined with permitting activities. The TCAPP web- site states (ICF International 2012b), Environmental review merged with Permitting represents the regulatory process that encompasses the actions required under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and various other state

70 implicated. For example, the use of toll roads may have opera- tional implications and could change certain environmental impacts. Issues relating to accessibility of the facility could also arise. Environmental justice concerns are sometimes raised in connection with toll roads and may have to be assessed as both a potential impact and a benefit. In Chapter 6, the sections on identifying data needs up front and study areas in environ- mental documents discussed the importance of identifying and managing data needs as well as defining an appropriate study area for P3 consideration. ENV-6—Approve Full Range of Alternatives and ENV-7—Approve Alternatives to Be Carried Forward Steps ENV-6 and ENV-7 result in the development of the full range of alternatives that meet the project’s purpose and that will be analyzed further to ultimately select a preferred alter- native. The range of alternatives for a project should address the possible impacts and operational characteristics of the proposed project. Constructing a project as a P3 or toll facil- ity may or may not have distinct environmental and social impacts. If the effects of a P3 are environmentally neutral, in theory they do not need to be separately addressed. Neverthe- less, failure to discuss the possibility of project implemen- tation through a P3 can lead to later public concern. Public perception may also play a role if P3 implementation is not openly discussed. As noted in ENV-3, in some cases it may be appropriate to consider only toll or P3 alternatives. FHWA’s Office of the Chief Counsel issued guidance on the appropri- ate scope of an alternatives analysis and specifically indicated that tolling should be analyzed. Chapter 6 discussed further NEPA alternatives analysis and P3s and tolling. The level of analysis, as required when a P3 or toll road option is introduced after issuance of a ROD or FONSI, is affected by the level and nature of the analysis originally undertaken. The question at that time is whether P3 imple- mentation can result in significant differences in the project or in its impacts from those addressed in the original EIS. When, as is often the case, there are no significant differences, a supplemental EIS may not be required. ENV-8 to ENV-14—Approval Processes These steps in the environmental review phase include the following: • ENV-8—Approve Draft EIS with Conceptual Mitigation: The DEIS is approved and circulated for public review. • ENV-9—Approve Resource Agency Public Notice: This step satisfies the Section 404 permitting regulatory require- ment that the public receive notice of application. ENV-3—Approve Purpose and Need/Reach Consensus on Project Purpose The project purpose and need is a critical part of the NEPA process. Although in most cases the purpose and need pro- cess is independent of the decision to build the project using P3s, this is not true in every case. Some projects are designed to work as a P3 from the outset and would not otherwise be implemented. If the use of a P3 is not under consideration or only represents one of many potential models for delivery, then the discussion of a P3 may be less critical or premature. Financial feasibility is a legitimate consideration in develop- ment of the project purpose and need, which may also relate to the project being developed through a P3. The reasons for this result should be part of the discussion of purpose and need, as well as the range of alternatives under consideration. FHWA recognizes that tolls or other “nontraditional” funding sources may have already been addressed in the transportation plan- ning process and be carried forward to the purpose and need of the project, as well as to the analysis of alternatives. A com- plete discussion of purpose and need, as it relates to tolling and to P3s, can be found in Chapter 6. ENV-4—Reach Consensus on Study Area and ENV-5—Approve Evaluation Criteria, Methods and Measures Steps ENV-4 and ENV-5 define the scope of analysis for both alternatives and potential environmental and social impacts. Although these steps may not directly relate to the decision to use P3s or other alternative delivery strategies, they are of criti- cal importance to a private developer involved in the project at this point. Even if there is no private partner involvement yet or the decision to implement the project as a P3 has not been made, consideration should be given to private partner involve- ment when defining the study area to facilitate flexibility in the subsequent design of the project, especially by a private partner post-NEPA, who would be engaged at that time. If the study area is too broadly defined, or the evaluation criteria are too imprecise, environmental compliance becomes more difficult. In that event, a tiered or phased process may be further required to provide project-specific analysis. This can have real cost implications for the environmental review undertaken in subsequent steps of the NEPA process. Con- versely, a broader study area may help to capture an area of potential impact if the design of the project changes based on a private partner’s later input. This approach can help avoid the need for an environmental reevaluation or at least make a reevaluation process more predictable by capturing existing condition data up front. In considering the evaluation criteria and measures, many factors that relate to possible P3 development may be

71 • ENV-10—Approve Preferred Alternative/Least Environ- mentally Damaging Practicable Alternative: The preferred alternative is approved with stakeholder input; a consis- tency check is made with the LRTP and TIP/STIP. • ENV-11—Approve Final Jurisdictional Determination: A final determination is made under the Section 404 program. • ENV-12—Reach Consensus on Avoidance and Minimiza- tion for the LEDPA: Consensus is reached on additional avoidance and minimization measures not included in the preliminary design. • ENV-13—Approve Final EIS: The FEIS is approved that meets all legal requirements and addresses comments received on the draft EIS. • ENV-14—Approve Record of Decision: The ROD is issued. These steps in the Decision Guide represent the formal stages of the NEPA process involving approval of the DEIS, selection of the preferred alternative, approval of the final NEPA docu- ment, and approval of the FONSI or ROD. Although a FONSI is typically not an extended statement, a ROD for a complex project can be quite lengthy, setting forth the basis of the project decision. In the case of a toll or P3 project, the ROD provides the project sponsor the opportunity to make its case for proceeding with the project using a partnership approach. A particular focus for a potential P3 project is to ensure that the documentation either directly addresses the impacts asso- ciated with implementation through a P3 or contains enough information to be able to anticipate what those impacts might be. Chapter 4 in the section on awarding early construction contracts in strategic instances, discusses how to determine the appropriate level of design during NEPA and its effect on P3 consideration. As discussed in the final report, private investors may be unwilling to participate in the NEPA process itself because of cost and risk issues. Regardless of whether a P3 developer participates in the process, it is recommended that any possible impacts of P3 implementation be addressed to avoid the potential of a supplemental EIS, which can be disruptive, cause unanticipated delays, and result in addi- tional costs. Steps can be taken to anticipate the design flex- ibility private partners desire when participating in project implementation post-NEPA, as referenced earlier for ENV-4 and ENV-5. ENV-15—Render Permit Decision and Approve Avoidance and Minimization At this final step in the environmental review process, permits for the project are approved, approved with conditions, or denied. In the case of a P3, the responsibility for obtaining permits after the ROD may fall to the public sponsor or the private partner and could impact the cost of the project if delay is incurred in obtaining them. Chapter 5 discussed the disadvantages that a private partner might face with obtain- ing permits from resource agencies accustomed to interacting with public-sector agencies.

Next: References »
Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2) Report S2-C12-RR-1: Effect of Public-Private Partnerships and Nontraditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making explores the different points in the overall project development process when public-private partnership involvement can be introduced. The report also explores other types of nontraditional contracting arrangements and their impact on the project development process as set forth in the PlanWorks (formerly Transportation for Communities—Advancing Projects through Partnerships) (TCAPP) Decision Guide.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!