Measures- set by US DOT Targets- set by States, MPOs; US DOT oversight Investment Plans- US DOT certifies/sets process Performance Reporting- by States, Federal summary
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Goals: Senate- 5 goals: Safety, Infrastructure Condition, System Reliability, Freight Movement/Economic Vitality, Environmental Sustainability House- 1 goal for nation’s highway and public transportation systems Ensure economic growth, safety improvement, increased mobility Measures5 areas vs 11 categories (22 max) US DOT sets or States recommend TargetsStates and MPOs set targets, US DOT certifies or sets process. Accountability to meet targets PlansInvestment plans US DOT certifies or set process ReportingState performance reporting US DOT national performance report
Performance Management
Cycle
Plan
Do
Check
Act
Performance BasedInvestment Program
Project Selection & Implementation
Track PerformanceMeasures
Adjust Strategies& Priorities
Minnesota DOT as a case study
Performance Management approach evolving since 1990’s
Planning Investment Program Performance Monitoring Planning & Programming Adjustments
Presenter
Presentation Notes
MnDOT has a entire family of plans that guide our investment program, project selection, and project design. Some plans serve as background studies and provide strategies incoroporated into the major investment plans (.e.g, Strategic Highway Safety Plan)
Goals, policies, and performance measures, targets
Fiscally constrained 20 year investment plan with projected performance results
Highway Investment Plan Performance MonitoringPolicy Plan
Ten Goals – Each with Measures to Guide Decisions and Track Progress
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The 20-year Highway Investment Plan links the policies, strategies and performance targets laid out in the Statewide Transportation Policy Plan to the capital improvements made on the state highway system using a five-step process. This process identifies highway system needs required to achieve and maintain performance targets, establishes investment priorities for available funding, and then develops an investment plan designed to achieve maximum performance impact.
Investment Category
Performance Measure
Performance Target
Method to Assess Needs
Pavement Ride Quality Index >70% Good< 2% Poor
Pavement Mgt Model
Bridge Structural Condition Rating
84% Good/Fair< 2% Poor
Bridge Management System
Other Infrastructure Condition orLife Cycle
Varies Condition inventories and replacement cost estimates
Safety Fatalities TZD; short term targets2010 < 400 fatals
Cost estimates of system wide enhancementstrategies
IRC speed prediction model and improvement cost estimates
Twin Cities Mobility Duration and Extent of Congestion
% system miles> 45 mph
No target;Tracked as indicator
Traffic forecast model with capacity improvement cost estimates
Presenter
Presentation Notes
These are considered the “essential” statewide system performance targets. These targets reflect keeping the system in a state of good repair, making it safe to travel, connecting all major trade centers and regions and providing essential statewide mobility, managing congestion in the Twin Cities. Note, we have not included all the possible “measures” that are often used to evaluate performance, for example, LOS at every intersection.
Infrastructure Preservation
$16.326%
Mobility$42.669%
Traveler Safety$3.15%
Regional & Community Improvement Priorities
= $3 to $5 B+
Investments to Meet Performance Targets = $62 B
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Rolling up our bridge, pavement and other infrastructure preservation needs, we estimated that $16.3 billion would be needed over the next 20 years to meet infrastructure preservation performance targets. An additional $45.7 billion in investments needs were identified using performance targets, data systems and predictive models relating to traveler safety and mobility. The pink box on this slide represents an estimate of the investment needed to support locally identified priorities related to regional and communinity development goals. The $3-5 billion figure was generated by MnDOT’s districts working in consultation with local stakeholders.
Step 2: Project Revenue $15 B (2009-2028)
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The second step in the Highway Investment Plan process is a projection of revenue available for infrastructure investment over the planning period. Future revenue is projected based on trends in state and federal revenue sources for state highway construction. No new sources of revenue are assumed. The $15 billion that was projected in 2009 left us with a $50 billion 20 year gap between needs and available revenue.
Goal: Address 4 strategic priorities• Safety• Mobility• System Preservation• Regional/ Community Priorities
Considerations• Legislative Direction: Ch 152 bridge program• System Performance trends• Public and Stakeholder Input
Step 3: Set Priorities for Available Funding
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The pivotal step of the Highway Investment Plan process is the establishment of investment priorities. In this step, performance information is used to guide the trade offs between competing policy objectives. Using predictive performance models, MnDOT staff runs alternative investment scenarios that anticipate the impact of different blends of fiscally constrained investments on system performance. Knowing the performance impact of various investment levels helps stakeholders to reach consensus on where to target limited dollars. It is important to note that system performance is one consideration that informs investment decisions. Other considerations include legislative directives, federal spending requirements, public expectations and input, and MnDOT’s stewardship responsibility for asset management. Over the past two years MnDOT has began taking an enterprise risk management approach to evaluating all of these factors. Such techniques have enabled MnDOT and its partners to assess the risks associated with alternative investment scenarios. These assessments led to the approval of a balanced program concept that guides investment across all four investment categories. The balanced program concept was defined through the creation of investment guidelines.
1. Bridges: Ch. 152 and 85% of other needs 2. Low cost, system wide safety (3 x HSIP
goal)3. Pavement Preservation (70% of remaining) 4. Other Infrastructure: some level5. Allocate remaining at District discretion
• Traveler Safety (Capacity Improvements)• Mobility• Regional & Community Improvement
Priorities
Presenter
Presentation Notes
The investment guidelines approved as part of the highway investment plan promote consistency of approach across MnDOT’s eight districts while maintaining district flexibility. These guidelines instruct districts to first comply with legislative mandates, then address their bridge and safety needs. Acknowledging that some district’s pavement and other infrastructure needs will greatly exceed available funding, the guidelines direct a level of funding rather a percentage of need. Guidelines based on a consistency of approach concept is one way FHWA could tie federal dollars to performance without having to punish or reward states based on their performance.
($ in Billions, Year of Construction)
Infrastructure Preservation
$11.677%
Mobility$1.07%
Traveler Safety$1.49%
RCIPs$0.64%
Other$0.43%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
In Step 4 of our Highway Investment Plan process, MnDOT districts use the investment guidance to allocate their portion of anticipated revenue. The result is a list of projects that is then rolled up into MnDOT’s statewide highway investment plan.
Once the investment plan has been developed, MnDOT plugs the districts’ list of projects into its performance models to project the plan’s impact over the first 10 years of the planning period. As you can see, the highway investment plan anticipates meeting performance targets for bridge condition, traveler safety and GM Minnesota mobility, being moderately below target for TC congestion and other infrastructure, and seriously below target for pavement condition.
Step 5: Identify High Priority Investments Options for Potential Additional Funding
Identify 5% of the unmet needs as high priority investment options distributed across all four investment categories
Infrastructure Preservation
$97039%
Mobility$1,000
40%
Traveler Safety$38516%
RCIPs$1155%
Presenter
Presentation Notes
To help set priorities in the event additional revenue becomes available, the final step of the highway investment plan process identifies MnDOT’s highest priorities among its unmet needs. To maintain maximum flexibility (because additional revenue was likely to come with eligibility criteria), the highway investment plan distributed these investments across all four investment categories. 5% = $2.5 billion, which is what a 12.5 cent gas tax increase would generate over 10 years.
Annual Performance Report
10 Year Program: Annual Check In Meeting
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Every year we update our 4 year STIP and the following 6 years, for a 10 year program update. This provides an opportunity to track performance and consider the impact of changes in revenues, costs, or performance.
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%
100%
PA Good PA Poor NPA Good NPA Poor
Perc
ent o
f Sys
tem
Mile
s
2009 2014 2020
46754373miles
4819miles
598miles
915miles
416miles
3281miles 2930
miles
3733miles
1688miles
1060miles574
miles
Pavement Conditions
PA Good PA Poor Other Good Other Poor
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Often we find it helpful to communicate performance in different terms. Here, for the Legislature, we provided a forecast in terms of miles of pavement in good and poor condition on the principal arterials and non-principal system
ARRA- focus on pavements
Better Roads Program- focus on pavementsBond savings from good Bridge bidsFund Balance
Strategic Highway Safety Plan• Data driven, evidence based• Focus on lane departures, intersections• System wide, low cost safety enhancements
Twin Cities Mobility•Old Approach: add SOV capacity ($38 B funding gap)•New Approach ($6 -8 B funding gap)
Low Cost/High Benefit CMSP projectsMnPass- HOT lanes providing advantages for transitPerformance Based Design- 80/20 rule
Adjust the Strategies: increase available funding impact
Current Measure: congestion (% system miles <45 mph)
New Measures:System reliability relative to other Metro Areas% MnPass system developedPerson through putTransit access
Adjust the Measures: reflect new goals, strategies
597 576
600
650
626
625
568
657655
567 559
494510
455
421
Base Year594
2008 Target500
2010 Target400
200
300
400
500
600
700
80019
95
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
Roadway Fatalities All State & Local Roads
Reduce Fatalitites less than 10 per year*Reduce Fatalities by 10 to 30 per yearSHSP Target 20083-Year AverageAnnual Fatalities1995 - 2003 Trendline
* Reduction in fatalities less than 10 per year, or if fatalities exceed target after 3 years.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Goal is zero deaths. We set short term targets for reduction in fatalities. As we continue to drive down total fatalities, we adjust the target.
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Aging system, uncertain federal and state financial outlook, stakeholder expectations, construction costs growing faster than revenue. Current targets were set at a time when we had sufficient funding to maintain the system in a state of good repair and make improvements to improve mobility, reduce congestion. We had a 50 B funding gap. Governor asking how much money do you really need? And how would you spend it if you did have additional funding. Examine alternative investment scenarios and associated outcomes Involve stakeholders in evaluating and setting priorities Need to evaluate tradeoffs - investment needs are greater than projected available revenue Preliminary estimate: needs to meet pavement and bridge targets alone >125% of projected revenue
Presenter
Presentation Notes
Step 1: Determine needs and strategies to address risks in each asset category. It may be there is some level of risk we are unwilling to accept. That becomes the “base level funding scenario”. Each performance area might have a base level investment.
Step 5 Identify risk-based priorities if additional funding is allocated
Benefits Increase accountability and transparency Links planning to programming Financial constraint forces critical trade-off analysis Helps communicate case for increased fundingChallenges Goals must drive measures; targets must be attainable Requires better understanding of cause and effect Resource Intensive (data, technical staff, mgt time) Requires inter-agency cooperation (get on same page)
Peggy Reichert
Office of Capital Programs & Performance MeasuresMinnesota Department of Transportation
