TRB/AASHTO Environment & Energy Conference June 6-9, 2010 Raleigh, NC Session 10: Public-Private Partnerships, Tolling, and the NEPA Process Jill Gurak, PE, AICP Project Director – PBS&J Raleigh, NC
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
TRB/AASHTO Environment & Energy ConferenceJune 6-9, 2010 Raleigh, NC
Session 10: Public-Private Partnerships, Tolling, and the NEPA Process
Jill Gurak, PE, AICPProject Director – PBS&J
Raleigh, NC
Presentation focuses on issues in NEPA that differ for:
Toll Projects vs Traditional ProjectsPPPs and Design-Build Teams
Using toll project examples from North Carolina
Gaston East-West Connector (Garden Parkway)Monroe Connector/BypassMid-Currituck Bridge
NCTA Projects
Monroe Connector/Bypass – Design-Build
Gaston East-West Connector – Design-Build
Mid-Currituck Bridge –PPP with Pre-Development Agreement
What’s always common in the NEPA process for Toll and PPP Projects?
NEPA applies through FHWA involvement, regardless of financing/procurement methodsProcess must be transparentMust provide full disclosure of issues and decisions
Where do differences occur?
Purpose and NeedAlternatives DevelopmentDesign ElementsImpact EvaluationPublic/Stakeholder Involvement
Purpose and Need
FHWA / FTA Guidance
www.fhwa.dot.gov/hep/section6002/1.htmThe Environmental Review Process – Question 33
“If the financial plan for an MPO’s LRTP indicates funding for a specific project will require special funding sources (tolls, private financing, etc.), such information may be included in the purpose and need statement.”
Purpose and Need
An MPO uses tolls as a specific goal or objective in an LRTPAn agency proposes to complete a network of tolled facilities (e.g. HOT Lanes)An agency/MPO can prove a project has insufficient funding
When could this guidance apply?
Purpose and Need
None include tolling or private financing as an element of purpose and needAll 3 had insufficient programmed funding without tolls
How does this apply to the 3 examples?
Alternatives Development
FHWA GuidanceThree situations where a NEPA study can narrow alternatives to just tolled alternatives:
1. When tolling is assumed as part of the financial forecasts in the planning process as the basis for meeting fiscal constraints
2. When tolling is part of the purpose and need statement
3. When non-tolled alternatives are eliminated from consideration during the screening process
AASHTO Practitioner’s Handbook 03Managing the NEPA Process for Toll Lanes and Toll Roads
Alternatives Development
Gaston Connector and Monroe ConnectorAll Detailed Study Alternatives tolled
Mid-Currituck BridgeA non-toll improve existing
roadways alternatives retained at request of resource agencies
How does this apply to the three examples?
Alternatives Development
Narrowing range of alternatives reduces study time, accelerates project delivery
Risk to PPP partner reduced if less chance a non-toll alternative will be selected
What benefits could be realized?
Design Elements
InterchangesRoadwayBridgesToll-related facilitiesConstruction methods
How does this apply to the three examples?
What design elements could be different between a toll project and a non-toll project?
Design Elements
Gaston Connector and Monroe ConnectorAll electronic tolling – only slight design differences
from traditional design
Design ElementsMid-Currituck Bridge
PPP partner suggested cost / time saving features
Allow dredging in Currituck SoundFill Maple Swamp, add wildlife passages
Interchange location inlandToll plaza location
Design Elements
Accounted for PPP suggestions in NEPA process, with full-disclosure of trade-offs
Encouraged innovation
Will reduce “re-do” loops of reevaluation/supplemental documents
Benefits of early PPP involvement in Mid-Currituck Bridge
Impact Evaluation
Traffic Forecasts
Air Quality Conformity
Environmental Justice (previous presenter)
Impact EvaluationTraffic Forecasts
NEPA forecasts and investment grade forecasts or pre-investment feasibility studies likely will use different methods and have different results
MonroeConnector Segment
2030 NEPA
Forecast
2030 Prelim T&R
Forecast
Difference
US 601 to NC 200
35,200 31,800 10%
NC 200 to Austin Chaney Rd
24,800 22,000 11%
Austin Chaney to Forest Hills School Rd
19,600 17,000 13%
Impact Evaluation
Timely input on financial feasibility and toll rates
More opportunity for public education through NEPA process
Traffic Forecasts – early PPP involvement
Draft EIS Citizens Summary
Impact EvaluationAir Quality Conformity
Major projects must be in LRTP, consistent in design concept and scope with the selected alternative, including toll designation
Conclusions
The NEPA process must be followed if federal involvement in a toll/PPP project, and the process must be transparent.
Toll projects can differ from traditional projects in purpose and need, alternatives, design, impacts, and public involvement.
Early PPP involvement can have some benefits in innovation and cost and time savings.
Helpful References
FHWA Innovative Program Delivery Websitewww.fhwa.dot.gov/ipd/index.htm
AASHTO Practitioners Guide 03 – Managing the NEPA Process for Toll Lanes and Toll Roads
FHWA Memorandum – NEPA Analysis of Toll Roads, October 15, 2004
TRB Strategic Highway Research Program Project C12 – Status Pending
The Effect of PPP and Non-Traditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making
Related Documents
