Expedited Planning and Environmental Review of Highway Projects (2012) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-5
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
1The main objectives of this study were to identify, describe, and evaluate effective tools and techniques for expediting the delivery of transportation projects and to present that information so that it is accessible and useful to practitioners and decision makers. In addition to this report, key findings will also be available on the Transportation for Communities website (1)
|
From page 2... ...
2projects. This report includes case study descriptions for many of the projects from which the strategies have been drawn.
|
From page 3... ...
3• Developing programmatic permits and approvals to streamline permitting for individual projects; • Developing and using an interagency dispute-resolution process; • Funding dedicated transportation liaison positions to ensure resource agencies can dedicate staff to collaborate during project development; • Using a facilitator to more clearly align expectations up front; • Being particularly engaged with and responsive to resource agency issues; and • Providing up-front environmental commitments to proactively address resource concerns. Demonstrate Real Commitment to the Project Financial, political, staffing, and other commitments are needed for a project to succeed.
|
From page 4... ...
4 5 Table ES.1. Expediting Strategies by Phase of Project Delivery Issues Arising Late Cause Project Change Stakeholder Controversy and Opposition Unusually Large Scale of and/or Complex Project or Program Relocation Process Delays Construction Ineffective Internal Communication Insufficient Public Engagement or Support Negative or Critical Coverage from the Media Inefficient Section 106 Consultation with SHPO Conflicting Resource Values Lengthy Review/ Revision Cycles Slow Decision Making Inability to Maintain Agreement Difficulty Agreeing on Impacts and Mitigation Inordinate Focus on Single Issue Avoiding Policy Decisions through Analysis Lack of Dedicated Staff Change-control practices c Consolidated decision council c c c c c Context-sensitive design c c c Coordinated and responsive agency involvement c c Dispute-resolution process c c c c c c DOT-funded resource agency liaisons c c c Early commitment of construction funding c c c c Expedited internal review and decision making c c c c Facilitation to align expectations up front c c c c c c Highly responsive public outreach c c c c c c Incentive payments to expedite relocations c Media relations manager c c c c c Performance standards c c Planning and environmental linkages c c c c c c c Planning-level environmental screening criteria c c c c c c c Programmatic agreement for Section 106 c Programmatic permits c c c c c c Real-time collaborative interagency reviews c c c c c Regional environmental analysis framework c c c c c c Risk management c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c Strategic oversight and readiness assessment c c c c c Team co-location c c c c Tiered NEPA process c c Up-front environmental commitments c c c c Note: SHPO = state historic preservation office; DOT = department of transportation.
|
From page 5... ...
6the previous work may not adequately support or reflect the needs of the subsequent phase, or because the previous work may not be understood by those implementing the subsequent phase. It is important to integrate the considerations, findings, decisions, and documentation across phases (in both directions)
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.