Home | Why Do Transportation Projects Take So Long?

Why Do Transportation Projects Take So Long?

When faced with emergency reconstruction, state departments of transportation can deliver projects with amazing speed. But far more often, moving transportation projects from concept to construction takes much longer than it should, and the effects can be profound—on the costs of the projects, on the economic health and quality of life of the places they are intended to serve, and on the benefits that are lost in terms of saving lives, reducing travel time, increasing transportation performance and reliability, and preserving the transportation system.

Why do these critical transportation improvements take so long, and what can be done to speed up the process, while delivering safe, efficient, and environmentally sound projects?

State officials have been pressing for solutions for many years. SAFETEA-LU included key provisions for streamlining the project delivery process and state DOTs are employing an impressive array of practices to advance projects more quickly, but there is still much more to do. The purpose of this report is to take a fresh look at why projects take so long to develop and implement, and what can be done to shorten the process.

A major transportation project can easily take 10 to 15 years from start to finish, even in the absence of controversial issues that can slow it down still further. A typical timeline for a major project might be:

  • 2 to 3 years in planning, either as part of a long-range transportation planning effort or a corridor feasibility study,

  • 4 to 6 years to address the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements and produce a record of decision,

  • 2 to 3 years for detailed design,

  • 1 to 2 years for right-of-way acquisition and utility relocation, and

  • 2 to 3 years for construction.

It adds up to more than a decade.

Using the traditional, sequential project planning and delivery approaches, it is rare for a major project to evolve from initial planning to ribbon-cutting in less than 10 years. And if there are controversial issues, the process can take even longer—if it ever reaches closure. One example is the Inter-County Connector in Maryland, where construction is just getting under way over 30 years after the planning and environmental stage was begun.

There are often several interrelated factors that delay a project, and sometimes the actual cause may be hidden. For example, funding a project may not be considered seriously until environmental issues are resolved, and without a final alternative identified the project might not be added to the capital program. Thus, without construction funding shown in the capital program, it may appear that a lack of funding is delaying the project when, in fact, there are other factors involved.

The bottom line is that there are many reasons why projects do not proceed as fast as it seems they should. This report outlines the more significant causes of delay and proposes ways not yet in common practice that could substantially reduce the amount of time required to develop and deliver a major transportation project.

While small projects are not immune to delay, and collectively they represent a majority of transportation projects, the focus of this report is on those that are beyond the scope of minor projects such as pavement resurfacing, intersection improvements, and safety upgrades, which typically take two to three years from start to finish. Nevertheless, many of the strategies illustrated in this report are as applicable to small projects as they are to the larger ones.

Two overarching challenges affect the efficient delivery of transportation projects:

(1) coordination of Federal requirements; and

(2) the processes used to deliver projects.

These two factors affect project delivery from beginning to end and have been the most intractable in terms of addressing and improving project delivery.

Piecemeal Federal Requirements Add Delay

No responsible parties advocate sweeping aside the environmental requirements that protect important resources. But the accumulation over time of piecemeal Federal requirements has resulted in overly-complicated processes to achieve compliance, particularly when attempting to meet targeted schedules and budgets.

Environmental requirements begin with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and extend to numerous individual statutes and regulations that address the natural, social, and built environments, most of which require some form of Federal sign-off in the form of a permit or an agreement. NEPA is broad, cross-cutting, and predicated on the idea of evaluating alternatives and making tradeoffs. However, the individual statutes that govern air, water, parkland, historic properties, rare and endangered species, and other resources are much more narrowly focused and do not contemplate nor do they readily facilitate the comparative assessments and tradeoffs among factors that characterize NEPA and the “real world” process of project development. The complex maze of statutes, regulations, and multiple agencies with inconsistent mandates and variations in interpretation of policies and regulations is a dominant factor in explaining why projects take so long to deliver. Inconsistencies and variations within agencies, between headquarters and field offices, and particularly among field offices, are both common and vexing.


Photo courtesy of the California Department of Transportation.  Accelerated project delivery strategies can benefit projects large and small.

At the heart of the problem are the differences among Federal transportation and environmental resource agencies in terms of their fundamental purposes and missions and, too frequently, an inability to reconcile those differences. This effort to bridge the gap between transportation and resource agencies has been the subject of voluntary efforts, executive orders, and Federal legislation, most recently SAFETEA-LU. Vital to this effort is FHWA’s need to prioritize its mission of highway development while negotiating with environmental resource agencies.

 


Photo courtesy of the Oklahoma Department of Transportation. Night-time construction is one of the techniques used by states to accelerate project delivery and minimize traffic disruption.

 

Fragmented Processes Add to Complexity

The second issue affecting the time required to deliver projects has to do with the fragmented way in which the multitude of stages, phases, and activities are carried out. Attempts have been made to depict the project delivery process from beginning to end using a flow chart showing all activities and how they relate. These charts depict hundreds of steps, and require displays measured in feet rather than inches. They are virtually impossible to comprehend because the process is so complex, in large part due to the myriad of uncoordinated Federal requirements that currently exist.

To advance a project in the most efficient and effective way, consideration of issues surrounding a project’s design and construction should begin during the early stages of planning and environmental analysis. Factors involved in the design and construction of a project can have a profound effect on issues being addressed during planning and environmental work, and these factors should be considered in those early phases, even in the absence of much detail. Allowing concurrent, rather than sequential, processes can speed project delivery as well as foster collaboration between stages. Failure to achieve such collaboration often results in delays.

Accelerating Project Delivery Demands Change

Opportunities for significantly accelerating transportation project delivery are evident. Projects such as I-15 in Salt Lake City, which was completed four years ahead of what would have been expected through a traditional contract, and I-25 (T-Rex) in Denver, which was completed more than a year ahead of schedule, illustrate the benefits of design-build project delivery. Fort Washington Way in Cincinnati achieved comparable results with traditional contracting using early and continuous constructability and concurrent phasing. These projects clearly demonstrate what is possible when the political and managerial will exists to make it happen.

But making the “exception” the “rule” requires systemic changes in the way Federal requirements are developed and applied, as well as in their implementation.

Recommendations for Accelerating Project Delivery

Reform Federal Laws and Regulations

  • Allow states to assume SAFETEA-LU delegations of authority without losing their ability to conduct advance right-of-way acquisition and final design with non-Federal funds

  • Fine-tune SAFETEA-LU environmental process provisions (e.g., extend time period for the five-state pilot environmental delegation program in section 6005; add language strengthening state ability to use planning products in NEPA process)

  • Revisit Clean Air Act conformity regulations and statutory provisions based on current and future clean fuels and clean vehicles

  • Reconcile 4(f) with NEPA, the National Historic Preservation Act, and other environmental laws

  • Overhaul Clean Water Act’s Section 404 wetlands permitting requirements to deal with confusing court interpretations and establish a simpler, more pragmatic, timely permitting process

  • Over the next 10 years, comprehensively reform Federal environmental laws to (a) integrate them and eliminate conflicts; (b) entrust more authority to states; (c) introduce flexibility; (d) focus more on meaningful outcomes instead of rigid processes; and (e) replace penalties with incentives

  • Eliminate Congressional earmarking which forces states to expend time and resources initiating environmental reviews of projects that are unlikely to move to construction.

Spur Resource Agencies and FHWA to Increase Streamlining Efforts

  • Obtain FHWA and resource agency commitment to use planning products in NEPA

  • Increase Congressional oversight of resource agency streamlining progress (e.g., hold hearings, convene meetings with resource agency staff, request information from resource agencies on timeliness, etc.)

  • Request resource agencies to commit increased staff to streamlining efforts

  • Request resource agencies to commit staff to engage actively in planning partnerships with states

  • Request resource agencies to fully support Programmatic Agreements

  • Ensure that FHWA field staff take a stronger role in managing environmental processes

  • Ensure that all Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) have schedules and that schedules are met, as required by SAFETEA-LU Section 6002

  • Ensure that FHWA elevates disputes promptly, for higher-level resolution

  • Endorse the use of the “Eco-Logical” handbook, as a source of flexible, effective alternatives

Develop Better Guidance on Indirect and Cumulative Impacts (ICI)

  • Request FHWA, CEQ, and other Federal agencies to adopt clear, reasonable parameters for ICI analysis, consistent across different agencies and different laws

  • Request FHWA, CEQ, and other Federal agencies to establish reasonable, clear parameters for ICI mitigation responsibility, consistent across different agencies and different laws

Adopt Reasonable, Effective Federal Policies on Global Climate Change (GCC)

  • Focus Federal statutory and policy changes on high payoff GCC strategies for transportation, especially vehicle and fuel improvements

  • Support funding for increased research on effective GCC strategies for transportation agencies and funding for the adaptation of transportation infrastructure to respond to changes in climate, sea level, etc.

  • Refrain from piling on unproductive GCC requirements that increase workload with little payoff

Enable Earlier Right-of-Way Acquisition/Corridor Preservation

  • Enable the use of Federal funds for preservation of transportation corridors

  • Ensure that Federal requirements (e.g., NEPA) are not interpreted in ways that discourage corridor preservation

  • Ensure that the legal authority exists to acquire rights-of-way that will accommodate not just the immediate needs addressed by NEPA, but also the expansion that may be needed over the life of the facility

  • Allow concurrent construction and right-of-way acquisition

  • Make federal funds eligible for a revolving fund “bank” that all states could draw upon to invest in transportation corridor protection

  • Remove barriers and restrictions in the legal, legislative, and regulatory arenas that hinder the expedient acquisition of right-of-way

Reduce Utility Delays

  • Support research under the Strategic Highway Research Program (SHRP2) and other programs to reduce delays due to the need for utility relocation

  • Encourage innovation in dealing with utility companies

Reduce Fragmentation of Rules and Regulations

  • Reduce fragmentation within legislative and regulatory language to help encourage the efficient delivery of transportation projects

  • Encourage collaboration and concurrent processing of the traditional stages of project delivery to achieve acceleration

Encourage Innovative Construction and Contracting Techniques

  • Support funding to promote “out of the box” thinking when it comes to new and innovative construction strategies fostered by SHRP2 and other research programs

  • Continue to encourage the use of innovative contracting techniques to assist in the timely procurement and management of transportation projects, “mainstreaming” and lifting restrictions on their use

  • Correct regulatory changes regarding the concept of “preliminary design” in the design-build process

  • Expand opportunities for private-sector participation in project development through programs such as SEP-15

 


Significant efforts have been made at the state and federal level to achieve both environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship.

 

Next Page >>