This study has been conducted as part of the Capacity Focus Area of the Second Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP 2), which involves 22 different research efforts exploring how environmental, economic, and community issues can be integrated into the analysis, planning, and design of new highway capacity. The centerpiece is the Decision Guide, a four-phased structure of key decisions common to the development of all transportation projects through the completion of planning and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) processes. The guide focuses on the principal areas of development: long-range planning, programming, corridor planning, and environmental review/permitting. The specific purpose of the SHRP 2 C12 project, Effect of Public—Private Partnerships and Non-traditional Procurement Processes on Highway Planning, Environmental Review, and Collaborative Decision Making, is to assess the interplay between the use of public—private partnerships (defied as P3s in this report) and transportation and environmental planning processes to identify whether P3s should be considered as a means to procure transportation improvements–and how and when they should be considered. The framework of the established Decision Guide is considered throughout this process, with special attention given to how P3 procurements interface and influence the process. (For a glossary of relevant terms, see Appendix A.) The SHRP 2 Project C12 research is based on extensive interviews conducted with state transportation department and metropolitan planning organization (MPO) officials and private investors with hands-on experience of P3 project implementation. Study research is also based on review of relevant government laws and regulations and pertinent secondary source materials. (For a literature review and additional P3 resources, please see Appendix B.) Key Findings The research has revealed the following key findings: • The nature of highway P3 projects in the United States has evolved from smaller projects initiated at the local level into much larger, higher-priority, and highly visible projects. • The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process is linear and involves a series of onetime decisions. This differs from the cyclical nature of the planning process. • The dichotomy between the NEPA and the planning processes can cause delay in finalizing NEPA actions, because final designs emerging from NEPA analyses must be incorporated within MPO documents before projects may gain environmental clearance. • Private development partners prefer to avoid the uncertainties of gaining NEPA approvals, and therefore they increasingly pursue P3 procurements for projects that have already attained environmental clearance. • Private-sector innovation can be inhibited for projects that have gained environmental clearance resulting from risks and delays associated with reopening the NEPA process when approved designs are revisited. • The decision to procure projects on a P3 basis may be made at any point during the planning and NEPA processes, which can, in many cases, lead to the decision being made only after completion of NEPA. • There is an important distinction between a definitive decision to procure a project on a P3 basis and whether to advance the project as a P3. • Possible use of P3 procurement should be considered as early as possible in the planning and NEPA processes, and then the Decision Guide process should be used to vet that possibility. • There are steps that may be taken to facilitate the consideration of P3 procurements within the existing planning and environmental review processes, which are largely filed and codified, including 4 Introduction of tolling and alternative funding, together with the possibility of P3 procurements, during NEPA and the state and regional planning processes; 4 Alignment of project definition with revenue potential and available funding; and 4 Management of NEPA and other strategies to afford greater flexibility and speed. (Author/publisher)
Samenvatting