US Department of Transportation
Stewardship and Project Streamlining Workshop
November 1, 2002
Department of Transportation HQ, The Nassif Building

Stakeholders' Input on the Priority Project List Selection Criteria

On November 1, 2002, the Department of Transportation held a workshop for transportation stakeholders on Executive Order 13274. The workshop was attended by representatives of various state DOTs, environmental organizations, national transportation and planning organizations, as well as other Federal agencies. The group gave their input on two key items; environmental stewardship and priority project selection criteria.

The Department of Transportation extends their thanks and appreciation to all of those who participated.

Input on Existing Default Criteria

Existing Criteria Sufficient

1. Three criteria are fine by themselves.
2. The three criteria are fine. Could be problems associated with fine-tuning the criteria; flexibility could be a good thing in this case.

National/Regional Significance (Related to Question 10 on Nomination Form)

1. Keep projects "exceptional"; don't let this process become the norm or the way of doing business in the future.
2. Project is of interest to Federal government for reasons of mobility, freight movement, security and evacuation.
3. Ask the funding agency the question of regional/national significance, because every sponsor believes its project is significant. Look at regional and national impacts like the New Starts criteria.
4. FAA needs to work with the aviation industry and the Selection Committee to identify the airport projects that are of critical national importance; similar need for coordination with rail and port industries.
5. Oppose the idea of regional area lists; needs to be done at the national level.
6. Tie national significance to the economy (i.e., port linking to highway); every mode has a way to identify this.
7. Consider Administration's objectives in the selection of projects (i.e., job programs, New Freedom initiative).
8. Project must improve safety and decrease congestion.
9. Project is likely to save potentially a large number of lives.
10. Project is designed to unclog a major bottleneck in area.
11. Security may be another factor to consider in significance.
12. Project has potential to save taxpayers money.

Local Support (Related to Question 9)

1. The project needs to be included in the state or regional long range plan or TIP.
2. Ensure that projects are included in a state or metropolitan transportation plan, as well as TIP/STIP. Problem with this criterion is that it may not apply to all modes (e.g., airports, ports, rail, etc.).
3. Regional entities need to be involved even if the list stays at national level.
4. If a Governor submits a project, then it is indicative that there is local support; local consensus should not be a criterion. Projects submitted without support of Governor should not be selected.
5. For everyone to be satisfied with project shouldn't be a factor. The real measure of success is to move projects faster. Look at procedural issues.
6. In consideration of local and state support, consider the extent of the support (it might not be unanimous in areas with multiple municipalities/jurisdictions).
7. What designates local official approval; who at the state and local level needs to "sign-off" their support? Clarify what constitutes support from elected officials (e.g., Governor, governing body of an MPO, etc.).Want some allowance for schedules of MPOs.
8. Perhaps expand Purpose and Need information to show how it fits into planning process of community and that process was adequate. Projects that don't have community support should be excluded from list.

Ability to Address Problems (Related to Question 8)

1. Problem Solving

   1. Scale criteria to reflect the project's ability to resolve an existing problem or improve existing practice.
   2. Those projects that are currently stuck should get higher priority than anticipated delays; hemorrhaging cost is a factor. Exception may be very complex projects that present new or innovative ideas.

2. Problem Prevention

   1. Project has potential for delay, yet the Task Force could prevent this (proactive). Project shouldn't be made to "wait" if there is potential for delay, and it is a project of critical importance.
   2. Is there a potential for delay (specifically for new projects)?

3. Transferability

   1. Projects selected should be potential models for other stuck projects (i.e., have transferability.)
   2. Ability to use project to establish precedent for streamlining decision making with other similar projects.
   3. Result of listing national and regional projects should be that they favorably address/impact/implement local projects.
   4. Congress is expecting this process to be a model for the whole country and that other projects will learn from the priority projects selected.
   5. Projects selected should show benefit for other projects, not be so specific. Lessons learned important and should be a consideration in the selection where appropriate. Promote best practices by disseminating the information.

Input on Refinements to and/or Expansion of Existing Information Requested on Nomination Form

Distribution (Related to Questions 2, 3, 5, 5a)

1. Need modal balance on projects on list.
2. Should have representatives of different project modes.
3. Some sort of cross-modal cost effectiveness criteria
4. Ensure that the criteria are mode neutral and the project promotes interconnectivity of the operational transportation system (where applicable).
5. Do not add new projects that are similar in type to projects already or previously on list; these projects should be should be using the 'best practices' learned from previous projects.
6. Need balance of size (dollar-wise, population affected, land-water shed, air quality) of projects on list.
7. Add cost of project (to get sense of size).
8. Consider dollar-threshold for projects. Opposing views on whether or not to consider dollar-thresholds. Reasons for imposing dollar-thresholds need to be identified. What do dollar-thresholds have to do with delays in projects?
9. Equally consider smaller projects; smaller and mega projects have similar/equal potential for problems.
10. Complexity of a project should have a bearing on its selection; complexity can lead to delay in process.
11. Geographic equity should be addressed in some manner.
12. Geographical mix important; this needs to be evaluated as it goes along to ensure a balance.

Place in Process (Related to Question 5c)

1. Consider projects at any level of implementation.
2. Should be a demonstrated and pressing need for the project to move forward.
3. Consider the condition of the facility; would further delay of the project lead to safety concerns (e.g., bridge collapsing/falling down)?

Ability to move to next phase (Related to Questions 7 and 9)

1. If resolution is achieved, can project proceed to the next phase of the process without any other delays (i.e., is the environmental review process the only cause of delay)?
2. Is mitigation funding in place?
3. Projects should drop out if there is no local consensus or funding.

Reason for Delay (Related to Questions 5b, 7 and 8)

1. Why is it delayed? Identify the cause for delay (i.e., is it environmental).
2. Federal agencies may see their customers differently, so need to understand the position underlying the delay or lack of coordination. Get this clarification before projects are selected.
3. Hard questions should be asked of federal agencies involved in project as to what efforts have already been made to resolve delays.
4. Project delay should be directly related to the environmental review process.
5. Select projects that have substantive issues where appropriate, when that is the underlying issue causing the delay.
6. Purpose and need alone does not get to the root of why there may be a delay or concern from environmental perspective.
7. Consider dollar-thresholds as they relate to costs of delay; delays have economic/financial impacts on projects.
8. How long has the project been stuck (reactive)?
9. How to measure success? Take the toughest, most horrible projects. If mainly stick to federal agency review delays, then those should be best chance of success; can fix these issues.

Extent of Prior Efforts Made (Related to Question 8)

1. At least one or more best practices have already been used to try to solve the delays before the project makes the list.
2. Project sponsor must have already reached out to the stakeholders (beyond agencies). Have they identified all the stakeholders involved in the project? Should demonstrate that they have done more than what is simply required by law.
3. Project submitter needs to demonstrate what planning process occurred prior to project development (this shows what the project sponsor did to get to this point).
4. Determine if the CE, EA or EIS was appropriately submitted for the scope of the project.

Consistency with Environmental Stewardship Principles (Not represented in questions)

1. Has the NEPA process been followed properly to date?
2. How does the project embody the Enlibra and/or LUTRAQ principles?
3. In return for helping the project move faster, the project sponsor should make a commitment to include stewardship components.
4. Project should not involve potential adverse impacts to unique or nationally significant natural and cultural resources.
5. Project should include an environmental maintenance monitoring program (project shows promise). Environmental stewardship should be a core component of the project.
6. Include a NEPA tracking component to ensure accountability.

Ideas Related to the Nomination, Selection and Monitoring Process

Nomination

1. Open up the nomination process to others beyond just MPOs and Governors; put it in the Federal Register to notify any interested party.
2. Clarify the objectives of the priority list.
3. Comments on the Project Nomination Form
   1. What is the difference between 5 and 5a? 5a-c are subsets of question number 5.
   2. Where does the form go?
   3. Is there an office that has been established called "Project Streamlining?"
   4. Include USDOT contact information on the form.
   5. Are transit authorities eligible to submit the form directly to USDOT?
   6. Are cities allowed to submit the form directly to USDOT?
   7. How do you show/prove support of state and local agencies (letters, etc.)? What specifically is USDOT looking for?
   8. Should the form include the other review issues (regarding question 8 on the form)?
   9. Does question 7 include other Federal review actions that are outside of NEPA? Should be all Federal actions, need not be just the Federal review actions involved in NEPA.
   10. Is there a limit on the length of a project nomination?

Selection

1. Explain rational of selection process.
2. Examine if different criteria are needed for different modes. The existing three criteria are mode-neutral; however, if other criteria are added, they should be mode-neutral.
3. Address timelines for selecting future projects from the Registry (list). Is there an annual call for projects?
4. Continually elevate projects to the high-priority level. How long does a project stay on the list?
5. Not many slots available, can't be too complicated
6. Put in all nominations on the web and let there be feedback by any interested party before it goes to the Secretary for selection recommendation. Make it inter-active.
7. Need to have high level staff and expertise in the Project Review team. Staff position should be identified so it is transparent. This is for those who staff the Task Force.

Monitoring

1. Task Force needs to be willing to recommend substantive changes to the project. Need to get all agencies to agree it's a success, not just one. Will need to have room to compromise or "win-win" solution. Everyone should get something out of the problem solution.
2. Measure the success of the Task Force so that it does not become a long-term effort.
3. What is the role of the transportation stakeholder group? Will they be involved in this effort throughout the process?