CASE: Benchmarking Connecticut’sTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States:...

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


2/20


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


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.


5/20


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


6/20




7/20



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


8/20




9/20



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


10/20




11/20


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


12/20

connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx



13/20

benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary


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.


14/20



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,


15/20



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 .


16/20



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


17/20



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.


18/20



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


19/20



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.


20/20

connecticut academy of science and engineeringx


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.

Date post:	04-Apr-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	patricia-dillon
View:	213 times
Download:	0 times

CASE: Benchmarking Connecticut’sTransportation InfrastructureCapital Program withOther States:...

Documents