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

Addition or change to plan
Provide
• Analytical framework for consistency review
2
Coordination/Communication
District
Coordination/Communication
REQUIRED
3
Consistency

Project must be consistent with Adopted LRTP
Cost Feasible Plan.

Variables for Review:
• Cost
• Timing
• Project Scope
4
First STEP

Clearly identify project within LRTP:
• Whole
• Segment (corridor)
• New
LRTP
Project

5
Identification facilitates communication
Analyze
*LRTP
Identification
Cost
Project
Δ (Delta)


Timing

Project Scope

* Base document
6
Analyze
*LRTP
Project
Δ (Delta)
Identification
Cost
Timing
Project Scope
* Base document
7
Analyze
Identification
Cost
*LRTP
Project



Timing

Project Scope

Δ (Delta)
* Base document
8
Cost for Determining LRTP Amendment

Project cost includes:
• Phases after PD&E
9

Design/PE

ROW

Construction
Cost
Principle: Cost

$100
Amendment Needed
• Project cost
$90
> 50% AND > $50 million
Amendment
Needed
$80
$70
$60

Ramifications
• Change of scope
• Project
justification
Cost:
Percent
increase
over
original
10%
20%
30%
60%
40%
$40
$30
$20
$10
10
Cost
Increase
(millions)
70%
80%
90%
100%
Analyze
*LRTP
Project
Identification


Cost


Timing

Project Scope

Δ (Delta)
* Base document
11
Principle: Timing

Automatic LRTP amendment:
• Project added to LRTP 1st 5 years (TIP/STIP years) causes
imbalance resulting in project moved out
Project
Costs
Available
Funding
LRTP
TIP/STIP
Years

Automatic modification:
• Project/phases: = or < $5 million
12

Automatic amendment:
• Full project deleted from
LRTP CFP
Timing

Projects within LRTP displayed in bands of years
• 5 year increments
LRTP
CFP
1st 5-yr band
TIP/STIP years
13
2nd 5-yr band
3rd 5-yr band
Needs
Last (10-yr) band
Needs/
Illustrative List
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
LRTP Amendment Examples
1st 5-yr band 2nd 5-yr band
TIP/STIP years
TO
TO
CFP
3rd 5-yr band
FROM
FROM
FROM
TO
TO ANY BAND
14
Last (10-yr) band
Needs
Needs/
Illustrative List
FROM
Analyze
*LRTP
Project
Identification


Cost


Timing


Project Scope

Δ (Delta)
* Base document
15
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
Review
Project Principles

Coordination/communication essential & continual

Project description – consistent with LRTP
•
Establish cost, timing, scope for project (phase) analysis
Automatic Amendments
17

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
TIP/STIP Consistency with LRTP

When assessing for LRTP Consistency, look at:
• Project costs
• Initiation phase
• Project scope

18
Look to Florida LRTP Amendment Thresholds document for
further guidance.
QUESTIONS?
19
NEPA CONSISTENCY
NEPA DOCUMENT CONSISTENCY
Planning
Consistency

NEPA Approval Granted If:
• Environmental Requirements Satisfied; and
• Amendment to LRTP, STIP or TIP is NOT Needed; and
20
• Funding Scenarios Are Met
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
Variable:

21
Demonstrate progress and commitment towards
construction of project
Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for
FHWA NEPA Approval
Project
PE
ROW
CONSTRUCTION
Project
PE
ROW
CONSTRUCTION
In LRTP CFP
22
Not in LRTP
CFP
Note: PE means Design
Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for
FHWA NEPA Approval
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
23
Not in LRTP
CFP
Note: PE means Design
Acceptable Project Funding Scenarios for
FHWA NEPA Approval
Project
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
PE
PE
PE
ROW
ROW
ROW
Construction
Construction
Construction
In LRTP CFP
24
Not in LRTP
CFP
Note: PE means Design
Unacceptable Project Funding Scenario for
NEPA Approval
Project
Segment 1
Segment 2
Segment 3
PE
PE
PE
ROW
ROW
ROW
Construction
Construction
Construction
In LRTP CFP
25
Not in LRTP
CFP
Note: PE means Design
QUESTIONS?
26