Transcript Slide 1
Session #50 INDOT’s New Long Range Plan/Capital Program Management Roadmap Roy Nunnally, Brad Steckler and Gary Mroczka INDOT March 9, 2011 Outline Purpose of the Long-Range Plan New Plan Format Approach Capital Program Management Structure & Process System Performance & Metrics Data Project Scoring Annual Call for Projects Long-Range Plan Purpose Statewide Mobility Corridor Hierarchy Establishes a long-range vision for future transportation investments Supports the State’s economy (movement freight, people, & industry support) Strategic focus on systems level mobility & transportation connectivity (statewide & regional mobility corridors) 2 94 20 20 6 30 33 421 469 14 41 114 15 31 24 24 69 29 25 35 26 28 18 9 27 67 37 32 231 36 63 40 70 52 3 44 37 1 74 46 Safe & high speed connections for longer distance trips between states, cities, and towns Serves as freight arteries throughout the state 69 50 60 145 231 64 69 164 62 66 135 7 Planning Classifications 65 3 Census Place (2000) SubRegional Corridor Regional Corridors Statewide Corridors 0 Proposed Alignments 20 40 Miles 60 Long-Range Plan Purpose Cont’d Examines critical trends, issues, and needs. Meets federal requirements: “Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) as signed into law on August 10, 2005. [23 USC 135(c)]) Requires states to develop and periodically update statewide transportation plans with a minimum of a 20-year planning horizon.” New 2035 (draft) Long-Range Plan Format New Format Facts Will be a “Needs-Based” Plan with links to other “Mode-Specific” Plans Identifies major capacity needs & deficiencies by corridor Refers to a 5-10 year construction program Includes a section on “High Priority Corridors” Provides for more flexibility in project selection and allows the most context appropriate improvements to be selected Supports INDOT’s Capital Asset Management Program Other states have or are going to this format: AZ, LA, MI, MN, OH, WY TN, and growing Avoids having a 25-year list of improvements with many unknowns: funding, land-use development, demand growth, economy, inflation, & transportation alternatives Reduces local anticipation and long-term land impacts to property owners New Long-Range Plan Format: 10-Year Construction Program Why a 10-Year Construction Program? 10-years is the maximum timeframe for developing large expansion type projects. Easier to manage costs, schedules, resources, & implement funding targets Reduces public expectations Allows for more flexible cross-asset analysis and prioritization. Rolling 10-year program is much easier to amend and prioritize projects. New Long-Range Plan Format: Needs Unacceptable Level of Service Rural = D & Urban = E 2020 & 2035 Deficiencies 94 90 49 130 53 212 12 8 30 55 231 65 143 80 933 80 2 4 120 69 20 327 119 15 19 331 17 13 10 117 23 35 33 930 101 469 205 14 114 16 224 24 5 105 301 69 524 71 124 218 116 25 352 26 427 6 106 18 31 22 52 29 167 421 28 27 38 65 232 74 32 69 36 227 103 234 238 431 334 136 47 70 465 236 26774 65 40 63 134 1 75 70 39 9 3 163 59 240 67 44 74 121 70 142 340 144 244 42 252 229 317 159 246 45 37 46 350 48 41 157 275 7 154 11 43 58 56 446 54 258 262 50 158 250 645 358 156 129 450 65 256 135 203 650 441 60 57 550 362 160 Map Layers 61 241 MPO Districts 62 356 Census Place (2000) 335 150 65 403 Counties 164 257 265 State Highways 357 64 US Highways 64 165 168 264 111 Interstate Highway 462 68 64 INDOT Districts 337 211 162 MM_2035Amed 145 269 545 MM_2020Amed_Adj 261 164 69 Deficient by 2035 70 161 66 Deficient by 2020 0 10 20 30 40 166 263 213 128 332 341 Miles INDOT, Created 8/4/10 New Long-Range Plan Format: Plan Concept Needs & Projects Identified Prioritized/Fiscally Constrained 11-25 Year Period (Long-Range Transportation Needs) Lots of needs and proposed projects identified based on assumptions, trends, goals, & input. Minimal information available. Additional planning & environmental study and local coordination required. 5-10 Year Period (10-Year Construction Program) Needs are prioritized and fiscally constrained. More information becomes available, project development process is beginning. Additional coordination and public and stakeholder outreach ongoing. Call for Projects Continuous Project Screening/Scoping 1-4 Year Period (State Transportation Improvement Program) Committed and further constrained project listing. Right of Way, utilities, and construction activities are ongoing. Major Capacity & Maintenance Projects Construction/Program Ongoing Limited Project Delivered Based on Fiscal Constraints & Priority Projects Delivered 10-Year Construction Program Major Moves was the first fullyfunded 10-Year Construction Plan Based on funding targets by asset type (pavement, bridge, congestion/mobility, & others) Projects are prioritized statewide & re-evaluated annually Program is fed by: annual call for projects, district, MPO, & RPO input, LRP needs, and technical analysis. Requires heavy coordination with planning partners to ensure the most context-appropriate improvements are incorporated Topics Today Fundamentals and Practice Dimensions and Components FHWA-Guided Self-Assessment Data Defining Investment Programs Assessing Project Merits Challenges Essential Principles Systematic, rational, and collaborative Integrates business/economic and engineering practices to direct resources Awareness of consequences to effect informed decision-making Information/data- and performance-based Analytical practices Explicit assessment of trade-offs Long-run objectives Multiple Aspects Policy, administrative, technical Phase Spatial dimensions Systemwide, regional Site-specific, localized Project-level Component Systems Finance, budget constraints Performance measures/standards Management systems Identification of investment needs Planning and programming Project execution and operations & maintenance Why Operate This Way The solution or right choice is not so apparent Financial limitations; best use of funds Understanding conditions, consequences Clear relationships, transparency, accountability Integration of components; consistency in approaches Platform for reconciling needs, revenue, transportation performance, and changing system demand Predictability Self-Assessment 2009 Areas of review: Policy, planning & programming, program delivery, information & analysis Principal criticisms Data/Information Extent & quality Frequency Availability Application Reduction & Representation of Data Reduction & Representation of Data Number of Bridges Decks < 6 Projected Outcomes to Bridge System Deck Condition Under Various Investment Cases 1200 1000 800 600 400 Lower $ 200 Higher $ 0 Start 2011 End 2013 Year For illustration only. End 2016 Reduction & Representation of Data Measure 1 District Excellent Good Fair Marginal Poor 1 46.7% 27.7% 13.3% 4.2% 8.2% 2 54.9% 23.0% 10.1% 3.4% 8.6% 3 61.2% 22.6% 8.3% 2.6% 5.4% 4 36.5% 23.9% 15.3% 6.1% 18.2% 5 56.5% 26.3% 9.6% 2.5% 5.0% 6 52.3% 29.2% 10.4% 2.8% 5.3% All Districts 51.2% 25.6% 11.2% 3.6% 8.4% For illustration only. Rut Depth Ratings For 2010 By Percentages: Reduction & Representation of Data Measure 2 District Low Medium High Total 1 86.8% 12.6% 0.6% 100.0% 2 90.5% 8.5% 0.9% 100.0% 3 95.1% 4.2% 0.7% 100.0% 4 85.7% 12.2% 2.1% 100.0% 5 86.6% 11.0% 2.4% 100.0% 6 88.8% 10.1% 1.1% 100.0% All Districts 88.7% 9.9% 1.3% 100.0% For illustration only. Reduction & Representation of Data For illustration only. Core Functional Areas Bridges (and small structures) Pavement/road Traffic mobility Traffic safety Other/specialty Judging Project Merit Factors (4-8) Scoring measure(s) within each factor Method of analysis within each scoring measure Define schedule/points For Example, Traffic Mobility Crash history Current congestion Cost-effectiveness Road class Route continuity, corridor completion Others $ per centerline miles) Cost / LengthCost(million / Length (million $ per centerline mile) Cost-Effectiveness Cost-Effectiveness Score 50 45 Score = 0 Score = 1 40 Score = 2 35 Score = 3 30 25 Score = 4 20 Score = 5 15 10 5 0 0 50 100 150 Effectiveness Index, MEI Mobility Mobility Effectiveness Index 200 250 For Example, Traffic Safety Crash history Compliance with current standards Operational status Cost-effectiveness Others Index of Crash Cost (Icc) Icc Icc Icc Icc Icc Icc < > > > > > 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 and and and and < < < < 1.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 0 1 2 3 4 5 Points Point Points Points Points Points Challenges Role of systems applications Cross-asset allocation (trade-offs across core functional areas) Relationship of operations & maintenance to capital projects Fiscal constraints & uncertainties Flexibility to accommodate changes; risk and uncertainty Identifying and addressing any backlog Practical challenges of worst-first and preservation focus Site level vs. systems level view Key Themes: Comprehensive, systematic, collaborative, data-driven Sustainability Multiple levels/views Structuring an approach and implementation Challenges Topics: Who is Capital Program Management? Annual New Call for Projects Change Management Capital Program Management (CPM) Finance Business Unit Team of 3 Program Management & Oversight Process Management Annual New Call For Projects Change Management Mission: Accountability & Executive Reporting, Asset Management Team Support, Communication Uncertain Times Adaptable and Flexible Revenue (Federal and State) Public-Private Partnerships (P3) Bid Favorability Construction Spending Construction Spending Forecast FY 2011 - 2015 $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 $1,000 $800 $600 $400 $200 $0 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011* 2012* 2013* 2014* 2015* Major New $293 $361 $244 $297 $411 $383 $766 $643 $1,109 $746 $535 $86 $174 Preservation $461 $361 $441 $491 $534 $451 $613 $442 $410 $399 $381 $402 $467 Total $754 $722 $685 $788 $945 $834 $1,379 $1,085 $1,519 $1,145 $916 $488 $641 Construction spending plan. Construction Costs only. Actual amts including 2010. As of Feb 24,2011. All numbers in millions. Indiana DOT *Amounts are based upon design estimates which,YTD, have been trending higher that low bid awards by 12% Construction Spending By Asset: $1,600 $1,400 $1,200 Statewide / Cost Overruns $1,000 Safety $800 Bridge Roadway $600 Mobility $400 $200 $0 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Relationships Long Range Plan (Vision) Asset Mgmt (System) CPM (Asset/Region) Approved Program (Projects) Annual New Call For Projects Annual Cycle QC/QA Project Apps. 9/1 -9/15 New FY Setup Call for New Projects 8/1-9/1 Annual Performance Report 10/1-12/1 Project Candidates Build Business Cases Scoping, Documentation & Scoring 9/1-12/31 Develop Draft STIP Project List 9/1-12/15 CPM Portfolio Development & Executive Approval New Budget Forecast & Program Allocation 12/1-1/1 HQ Planning System Analysis 6/1-7/1 2/1-4/1 Asset Team Deliberations 1/1-2/1 Reset Performance Standards & Measures STIP Amendment 4/1-6/1 Coordinate Draft STIP w/MPO’s 1/1-3/1 STIP Public Meetings 3/1-5/1 Finalize STIP 5/1-6/1 FHWA STIP Review/ Approval 6/1-7/1 5 Year Program Fiscally Constrained 120% 100% 80% Unallocated 60% Stand By Placeholders 40% Allocated 20% 0% 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 Annual New Call For Projects Capital Program Development Process; Need Assessment Executive Approval Project Scoring Program Review Asset Allocations Project Prioritization Annual New Call for Projects Owners Need Identification Projects Scored Filtered Project 2 Project 1 Project 3 Needs Scored By Owners Annual New Call for Projects CPM / Asset Mgmt Finance: Forecast Revenue CPM/Asset Mgmt: Asset Program Allocations Bridge Investment Roadway Investment Traffic Safety Investment Mobility Investment Annual New Call for Projects Asset Teams Fiscally constrained Prioritizing needs to deliver best return on investment Project 1 Project 1 Annual New Call For Projects Capital Program; Bridge Roadway Traffic Safety Mobility Statewide Capital Program Change Management Process Owner CPM Asset Team Executive Applies Reviews Recommends Approval Change Management Purpose: Discipline / Accountability Capital Program Financials Project Scope Project Delivery Executive Oversight Benefits of CPM/Asset Mgmt Asset Performance is Driving Future Investment. Data Driven Decision-making Collaboration and Communication Across Business Units; Regional & HQ More Adaptable Business Model Sustainable Thank You