Post on 04-Apr-2018
transcript
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
1/20
Benchmarking connecticuts
transportation infrastructure
capital programwith
other states
septemBer 2012
a report By
the connecticut
academyof science
and engineering
for
the
connecticut departmentoftransportation
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
2/20
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
3/20
Benchmarking connecticuts
transportation infrastructure
capital programwith
other states
a report By
the connecticut academy
of scienceand engineering
OriginOf inquiry: The COnneCTiCuT DeparTmenTOf TranspOrTaTiOn
DaTe inquiryesTablisheD: July 1, 2011
DaTe respOnsereleaseD: sepTember 5, 2012
Copyright, 2012. ConneCtiCut ACAdemy of SCienCe And engineering, inC. All rightS reServed
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
4/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
ts s was a a qs Ccc da tasa J1, 2011. t jc was cc b a Aca S C w s Smaa ncas lws, pd, pe a S As, ec Jacks, pd. t c s s w c Acas tasa Sss tcca Ba. t as b w b Aca mb p g. Cab, pd. maa Sa, Acas maa e, . t s b as w aa Aca Cc.
rca h. Sassexc dc
dsca
The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts andaccuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the ofcial views cs Ccc da tasa. t s cs a
standard, specication, or regulation.
t u.S. g a Ccc da tasa scs aacs.
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
5/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
iiiconnecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
Technical Report Documentation Page
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
1. Report No.
CT-2276-F-12-6
2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.
5. Report Date
September 2012
4. Title and Subtitle
Benchmarking Connecticuts Transportation
Infrastructure Capital Program with Other
States6. Performing Organization Code
SPR-22727. Author(s)
Nicholas Lownes, Study Manager
Eric Jackson, Study Advisor
KellyBertolaccini, Research Assistant
8. Performing Organization Report No.
CT-2276-F-12-6
10. Work Unit No. (TRIS)
11. Contract or Grant No.
CT Study No. SPR-2276
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Connecticut Academy of Science & Engineering
805 Brook Street, Building 4-CERC
Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3405
13. Type of Report and Period Covered
Final Report
July 2011 September 201212. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address
Connecticut Department of Transportation
2800 Berlin Turnpike
Newington, CT 06131-7546
14. Sponsoring Agency Code
SPR-2276
15. Supplementary Notes
Partners: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Engineering and
Construction, Division of Design Services, AEC Applications and Research Section;
Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering; and the Connecticut Transportation
Institute, University of Connecticut. Prepared in cooperation with USDOT, Federal
Highway Administration.16. Abstract
This study was conducted to benchmark Connecticuts performance in capital
programming against other state DOTs, identify ways to improve the performance and
efficiency of the capital programming process and create a tool, a Transportation
Investment Dashboard, to communicate the performance of Connecticuts capital
program to the states transportation leadership.
Current data suggest that Connecticuts capital program may be more reliant onfederal sources than the selected benchmark and best practice states reviewed in
this study. This finding may indicate that expanded state investment and/or
alternative sources of revenue will be needed to keep pace with the states capital
investment needs. ConnDOT is currently involved in many initiatives that are
intended to improve the efficiency of the states capital programming process and
linkage to long-term transportation goals. These initiatives should be continued
and progress should be tracked in a transportation investment dashboard using
relevant financial data and performance measures. These performance measures
should also be used in formalizing the linkage between long-term planning and
capital programming, and to ensure that resources are adequate to meet future
travel demand.
17. Key Words
Capital program benchmarking,
planning and performance;
transportation infrastructurefunding/investment.
18. Distribution Statement
No restrictions. This document is available
to the public through the National Technical
Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161
19. Security Classif.
(Of this report)
Unclassified
20. Security Classif.(Of
this page)
Unclassified
21. No. of
Pages
78
20. Price
N/A
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
6/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
7/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
MEMBERS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE On
BEnCHMARKInG COnnECTICUT S TRAnSPORTATIOnInFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM
WITH OTHER STATES
research team
STUDY MAnAGERnicholas E. Lowes, PhD, PE, Asssa pss
da C a ea e & dc,C tasa a lab Sss, us Ccc
STUDY ADVISOR
Eric Jackso, PhD, Asssa rsac pssCcc tasa is, us Ccc
RESEARCH ASSISTAnTKelly Bertolaccii, gaa rsac Asssa
us Ccc
ACADEMY PROJECT STAFFRichard H. Strauss, exc dc
Terri Clark, Assca dcA G. Bertii, Asssa dc pas
Daiela Bremmerdc, Sac AssssWas Sa da tasa
Jerry Caseydc rss a iama da tasa
Michael Hederso
tasa pa Scasmss da tasa
Joh n. Iva, PhD(Academy Member)pss & Assca da haC & ea eus Ccc
Jack Lettieref Cssnw Js da tasa
Herbert Leviso (Academy Member)pss C e (.)us Ccc;tasa Csa
Sue Mcneilpss C & eaeus dawa
Michael Saudersfa hwa Asa (.)f d Css, Cdot
Richard Tetreaultdc pa dv da tasa
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
8/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
9/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
TABLE OF COnTEnTS
tABle of ContentS .........................................................................................
gloSSAry of termS ...........................................................................................x
eXeCutive SummAry .........................................................................................x
1 introduCtion ................................................................................................1
2 BACKground ...................................................................................................3
3 literAture revieW .......................................................................................5
4 foCuS groupS ................................................................................................17
5 StAte Survey ................................................................................................. 19
6 findingS .................................................................................................357 reCommendAtionS .............................................................................................37
referenCeS ....................................................................................................................43
AppendiCeS ...................................................................................................................45Ax A: Sa S (pas i) w Sa rsss ...............................45Ax B: ia Scs tasa is
dasba ms.......................................................................... 56Ax C: Ackws ........................................................................58
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
10/20
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
11/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x
gloSSAry of termS
AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials
ARRA Aca rc a rs Ac
CASE Ccc Aca Scc a e
CoDOT Ccc da tasa
FHWA fa hwa Asa
FFY fa fsca ya
FY fsca ya (Sa)
GRTA ga ra tasa A
LRTP l ra tasa paMassDOT massacss da tasa
MDOT maa da tasa
MoDOT mss da tasa
MPO ma pa oaza
nCHRP naa Ca hwa rsac pa
nEPA naa ea pc Ac
nJDOT nw Js da tasa
nYSDOT nw yk Sa da tasa
ROW rs Wa
RPA ra pa Ac
STIP Sa tasa i pa
TICP tasa iasc Caa pa
VTras v tasa Ac
WSDOT Was Sa da tasa
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
12/20
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
13/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
t Ccc da tasa (Cdot), k s sa asaacs, s a w a cas csa b. dcas sa s aa scs (sc as as ax), ca a sas,a cas s a asc, as Cdot a saasa acs aa ajs a a a csss.As ConnDOT aims to meet the states long-term transportation goals in this constrained scalenvironment, they need to ensure that available funds are invested as effectively and efcientlyas ssb.
STUDY PURPOSE
ts s was cc bcak Cccs ac caa aagainst other state DOTs, identify ways to improve the performance and efciency of thecaa a css a ca a a tasa is dasbacca ac Cccs caa a sas asa
as.
BRIEF STATEMEnT OF PRIMARY COnCLUSIOn
C aa sss a Cccs caa a a b a ascs a sc bcak a bs acc sas w s s. tsnding may indicate that expanded state investment and/or alternative sources of revenue
w b k ac w sas caa s s. Cdot s cinvolved in many initiatives that are intended to improve the efciency of the states capitala css a ka - asa as. ts as sb c a ss s b ack a asa s asba srelevant nancial data and performance measures. These performance measures should alsob s az ka bw - a a caa a, a s a scs a aqa a a.
SUMMARY OF BACKGROUnD
t ss a sca a a sa sas aa a caa a, a k
a aa cs, sc as Sa tasa i pa (Stip), a s caa as a csab. i aca, scs sa a b ab a s scs. t, a caa xs sa scs s b cs aaxa. is, Ccc as a ca s a scs(f 3(a)) css a s c bcak sas 1992-2009.
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
14/20
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
executivesummary
STUDY DESCRIPTIOn
A -as aac was ak s, css a a sca; a ss cs ssss w Cdot s; a a a s, ws a aa cca aass sc bcak a bs acc sas.
SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUPS
fcs s ssss w sa c Cdot caa apractices. These sessions identied several common issues in the capital program design andplanning process that either can be, or are being changed, to improve efciency. Changesc b cca css, a jcab a css, a s a b c jcs as a aa ca a a sa css. n a ka bw l ra tasa pa (lrtp) a caa a xss, acc,the ve-year capital plan, along with the performance measures currently reported quarterly by
Cdot, a b s s ka.
SUMMARY OF STATE SURVEY RESULTS
Sx sas bcak a bs acc sasw sc s aaass.
Best practice states (Missouri, Vermont, and Washington) were identied through anexamination of the literature on strengthening the planning/programming linkage,ass aa, a ac as; a
Benchmark states (Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) were identied througha sa-sca qaa cas sas bw Ccc a sc sas w a scs, asa asc,acs a ca.
The survey ndings revealed no evidence that a dependency on federal funds over state funds,with the associated lack of flexibility, limited a state transportation agencys ability to link css s - asa as. hw, s a aa a sc sas s cas ac a s a ca.
Another common concern identied in the survey process was the importance of betterca cs a css b as cssasac a a a w ac ass.
A sas s a c k was z resources more efciently. Most states are approaching this challenge by looking for new scs, as w as a cac cqs efcient use of existing funds. Some of the proposed revenue sources include raising the gas tax,
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
15/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x
a a ax, a a as. Aa, s sas c b jcs c a cac cqs accs.
RECOMMEnDATIOnSBased on the study ndings, the CASE study committee offers the following recommendations.
Establish performace measures to track project deliverability ad iovativecotractig methods. pjc ab ac s b as b ca caa jcs a a c a b. Ccc c ass ca csc cacsc w b a ca csc cacs c time. While these are useful measures, they do not necessarily reflect the experience asa ss. t, a aa ac as s b
used that identies whether a project is fully functional and open for public use on. eac ack caabs a ka ac cs a qaa a c (it) scs, as was cas s cas ssas. Cdot s cs cac w a a a caajcs aa ss, csz as s a azaasc. Aa ac ass cs as jcab c:
v Cas(s) a jc
v vaac bw jc b a aca cs
v mass jcs ak s aa a cac
s, sc as s-b, s c: b jcs,sa a cs sas, b ca s, a b contractor claims led. Data measured for alternative contracting methodologiess b aaz a ca w aa s-b-b assss a ac, a.
Uder-program (uder-commit) the capital project pla while maitaiig a biof fully-desiged, o-programmed projects. f s sas s, cs a jc sas caa a s a aa a w b. A sc bcak a bs acc sas w ss s cs -a caa bs, s s -a a sa sa. S sas, sc as Was,
ak csa jc cs sas. o sas, sc as maa, s a a xc . hw, s csaa s a s bc aaab a a scal year. Therefore, to fully utilize available funding it is crucial to have a bin ofjcs a a b s a a c css a a c caa a. i s b a bcas Cdot as jc b s Aca rc a rs Ac Ac (ArrA), s a b cssa -a s b ac baac -a .
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
16/20
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
executivesummary
Develop ad maitai a Trasportatio Ivestmet Dashboard to moitorCoecticuts trasportatio ivestmet performace as compared to that of selectedstates. t asba s cca aa a a ca asa Cdot a sas as s s assss Cccscapital planning/programming and project deliverability performance. Preferably
asba w b ss aa. Aa ssac w aa aa a a qc w s aass ac a a w.t asba s b wb-bas as accss b cs-aks, caksa a bc. t ac cs cs cs s bcss w lrtp a tiCp s.
i s ss a Cdot cs s asba ca Cccw sc sas w sc sa ss a caa jcs. ts w b a s sa aa s Cccs lrtp a s sasasa asc.
hw, s w q Cdot sa scs a aa asba ss a aass, as w as cabaa cca w sas caa aass. t, a a qc ssac asba ss s bcs cx c scs a w a a aass Cdot.
Selection of Comparative States
os sc sas c:
t bcak sas (maa, massacss, nw Js) a bs acc sas
(mss, v, a Was) sc a s s s.
nw ea tasa Cs sas (Ccc, ma, massacss,nw has, r isa, a v)
Northeast Association of State Transportation Ofcials states (includes the Newea sas, as w as dawa, maa, nw Js, nw yk, apsaa) as w as dsc Cba, a pc oa, Caaa, a sbs s sas.
Dashboard Data Considerations
Most of the statistical and nancial data used for the sample and proposed dashboards aresb b ac sa aa fa hwa Asa (fhWA). SAx B aa sc a sa asbas.
hw, s a w-a a sba aa b sas bc as aa b fhWA s wbs. ts a a aks ssdashboard data outdated and less useful for analysis to assess capital planning/programminga jc ab ac. ts a c b c b aCdot ak a sabs a caba wk sc sas w
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
17/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x
mutual benet to make state-level data available in a timelier manner. The dashboard conceptc as b x a cas ascs sa wa, bcasa, a s asa ac.
t s -sa caba w b :
d aa a a c a sa a saasbas
Report the commonly dened data
Meet periodically to review the ndings from the dashboard update, identify bestpractices to address capital planning/programming and project deliverabilitycas.
Sample Dashboards
tw s asbas a ccaz: a a sa asba a a saasba a s a w caa sas.
ia sa asbas c c k sascs acs, asc, anance in conjunction with a select group of performance measures that provide a linkagebw lrtps a tiCps.
A xa a sa asba Ccc s sw f eS-1. t s saasba as w c a ab sa tab 3 s (s a 20) a saa k ac a asc acs ac sa.
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
18/20
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
executivesummary
figure es-1: CapiTal prOgram invesTmenT DashbOarD (sTaTe example: COnneCTiCuT)
t sa asba cas ac sas asa s, sbss, aas a s caa xs . A sa sa asba s bcak a bs acc sas c s s s sw f eS-2. tSa tasa rs Scs a Sa dot dsbs abs a asba a sa as fs 2(a) a 2(b) sa s sc s .As, ra fa f Caa exs a sw a b asba s a cs fs 4(a) a 4(b) sa s sc s .
Aass a sa asba c a w-aass a a a sa cas cs bw sas.
Capital Program Investment Dashboard: Connecticut
Performance Measure Latest Reporting Period Performance
Fatalities per 100 M VMT 0.71 (CY 2009) Improving
Fatalities per 100,000 population 6.34 (CY 2009) Improving
Pavements with Good Ride Quality (% with IRI < 95) 20 (CY 2010) No Change
State Roadway Bridges in Good Condition (%) 32 (CY 2010) Improving
Road Network with Traffic Volumes > Capacity (%) 8.67 (CY 2010) Improving
Rail Passenger Trips 9,847,219 (CY 2011-Q3) Declining
Bus Passenger Trips 6,856,175 (CY 2011-Q3) Improving
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Ratioo
fFederalFunding
toC
apital
Expenditure
Federal Fiscal Year
Ratio of Federal Funding to Capital
Expenditures - Highways (1992-2009)
Population (2010) 3,405,565
Rural to Urban Ratio (2010) 0.14
Miles of State Owned Roads (2010) 3,717
Number of State Owned Bridges (2010) 2,800
Total Expenditures ($M) (2009) 1,370
Capital Expenditures ($M) (2009) 554
Approx. Capital Exp. from State (%) (2012) 40.7
Approx. Capital Exp. on Transit (%) (2012) 45.8
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
19/20
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary
connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x
Summary Dashboard (Highways and Bridges)Benchmark and Best Practice States
figure es-2: summary DashbOarD (highwaysanD briDges) benChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes
Admiister periodically a customer survey to provide isight ito user preferecesad to gauge customer satisfactio. Cdot s cs cc a aacs s bs assss s cs sasac. S ssw b s cs sasac w Cdots ac a s as a s s. t s s b s b Cdot cjc w ac ass acs wk sss, jc ab a a bc sasac w sasasa ss .
As noted in the study ndings, most of the benchmark and best practice states includedin this study have signicant experience in using customer surveys to provide an assss cs sasac a ca s as s Cdot.Consideration should be given to contracting with a company/organization experienced , cc, aaz, a s ss. As,Cdot s a a bc awass ak aaab a public of its LRTP goals and its capital planning/programming process using its websc a s aaab bc jc s a s.
7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking ConnecticutsTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States: Exec Sum
20/20
connecticut academy of science and engineeringx
benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates
executivesummary
COnCLUDInG REMARKS
t s cas a awk ca w a assssConnDOTs capital planning/programming process and project deliverability performance, asw as ka w as sas lrtp.
p asa aa a a sas as a a bc s sb asbas c cas accab a s as a bass sabs a b sa Cdots caa a, c sas asa asc, a scs s as lrtp. i bc s css qs cas bc awass a ascs sasac.
t a -sa caba bcak a bs acc sas s bcs b Cdot a w s sa s xcwith other states and to learn about innovative solutions to improve the efciency andcss s caa a ss.