Date post: | 12-Jan-2016 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | camron-ferguson |
View: | 215 times |
Download: | 0 times |
A Way Forward:Optimizing available resources through
transparent and collaborative approaches to capital investment
MnDOT-ACEC Annual ConferenceMarch 5, 2012
Capital planning and programming at MnDOT
Major considerations
A more transparent and collaborative approach
• 20-year State Highway Investment Plan ‘13-’32
• Corridor Investment Management Strategy (CIMS)
Presentation Overview
Capital Planning & Programming
20-year State Highway Investment Plan
• Establishes investment needs on the trunk highway system
• Sets statewide investment direction allocating resources across competing priorities
State Highway Investment Plan Annual Update
• Tracks plan implementation
• Is MnDOT spending its resources in ways that are consistent with the investment direction?
Major Consideration:System Condition
10-year Statewide Total ($ Millions)Preservation $5,291 (75%)Safety 297 (4%)Mobility 761 (11%)C/ED 370 (5%)Prog. Del. 378 (5%) $7,100 (100%)
**Investment totals and performance projections
based on the current STIP and MnDOT’s programmed
investments in ’16-’21**
Major Consideration:Financial Outlook – HUDF Revenue
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 $-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$608 $642 $648 $651 $656 $644 $648$743 $823 $849 $869 $886 $888 $887
$479 $487 $496 $492 $488 $481 $477
$501$532 $545 $567 $587 $602 $615$193
$195 $176 $165 $163 $159 $196
$196
$217
$272$321
$339 $348 $366
$1,280$1,324 $1,319 $1,308 $1,307 $1,284 $1,322
$1,440
$1,572$1,666
$1,757$1,812$1,838
$1,868
$s in Millions, Actual Revenue 2002-2010; Budgetary Basis
Motor Fuel Tax
Tab Fees
Motor Vehicle Sales Tax
End of Session 2011 Forecast
Total HUTD Rev-enue
Motor Fuel Tax
Tab Fees
Major Consideration:Financial Outlook – Federal Funding
$39.4
$35.0
33
38
43
48
53
2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
($ b
illi
on
s)
Total Outlays Total Receipts
Note: Excludes $8.017 billion transfer from General Fund to Highway Account of HTF in September 2008; $7 billion transfer fro m General Fund to Highway Account of HTF in August 2009; $19.5 billion transfer from General Fund to Highway and Mass Transit Accounts of HTF in March 2010.
Highway Trust Fund: Receipts and Outlays Discrepancy
Major Consideration:Financial Outlook – Federal Funding
“SAFETEA-LU” expired in September 2009• Temporarily extended eight times through continuing
resolutions• Current extension expires March 31, 2012
Current appropriation extension was recently signed by the president; though Sept 30, 2012
Future Congressional action UNCERTAIN• House & Senate – Roughly match current annual spending
levels• Reauthorization vs extension
Major Consideration:Stakeholder Expectations
A balanced investment program that is responsive to local and regional concerns relating to the economy and quality of life
A more transparent and collaborative decision-making process
Major Consideration:Minnesota Go
Minnesota’s multimodal transportation system maximizes the health of people, the environment and our economy. The system:
• Connects Minnesota’s primary assets – the people, natural resources and businesses within the state – to each other and to markets and resources outside the state and country
• Provides safe, convenient, efficient and effective movement of people and goods
• Is flexible and nimble enough to adapt to changes in society, technology, the environment and the economy
Minnesota GoGuiding Principles
Leverage public investments
Ensure accessibility Build to a maintainable
scale Ensure regional
connections
Integrate safety Emphasize reliable and
predictable options Strategically fix the
system Use partnerships
Given these considerations, how do we move forward?
20-year State Highway Investment Plan ‘13-’32
Corridor Investment Management Strategy (CIMS)
Overview
• 2010 Legislature: update required every 4 years• Draft to legislature due January 2013• 3 Time Periods
– 2013-2016 STIP (programmed projects)– 2017-2022 MRP (potential improvements)– 2023-2032 LRP (investments by major category)
• Consultant contract in place
Key Objectives
• Identify costs to meet performance-driven investment needs in the areas of infrastructure preservation, traveler safety, and mobility
• Address developing needs (e.g., regional/local priorities & pedestrian/bicycle)
• Set investment direction for projected revenue• Identify investments and resulting performance• Identify capital, maintenance, and operations strategies
that guide highway investments
Plan Development: 5-Step Process
Objective: Improve collaboration & transparency in all steps…
Step 1: Identify Investment Needs
Objective: Define costs to meet performance-driven needs• Preservation
– Pavement & bridge: update cost models– Other infrastructure: determine scope & approach
(e.g., hydraulics, ITS, Complete Streets, signs, ADA)• Safety: risk-based safety plans, low cost/high benefit • Mobility:
– Interregional Corridors: meet corridor speed targets– Twin Cities: low cost/high benefit, managed lanes, active traffic
management, strategic capacity
Step 1: Identify Investment Needs
Objective: Address developing needs• Estimate costs and/or strategies related to
(for e.g.) ADA, pedestrians and bicycles• Refine local and regional priorities. The 2009
Plan did not systematically identify local priorities and public involvement was limited.
Step 2: Project Future Revenues• Preliminary estimate = ~$16 - $16.5 B over 20 years• Assumes Federal funding maintained at current level• How has revenue changed since 2009? (~$15 B over 20 years)
– Some revenue increase due to phased fuel tax increase and MVEST share change
– Some revenue decrease due to sustained flattening in gas consumption and improved vehicle efficiency
• However, inflation forecast is higher over 20 years. Projects will cost more to construct.
Step 3: Evaluate Investment Options
2009 Plan: Mainly internal evaluation that considered:• Legislative direction (e.g., Chapter 152 Bridge Program)• Performance trends• Stakeholder input
2013 Plan: New approach to involve stakeholders in evaluating alternative scenarios• Alternative funding prioritization across & within categories of
preservation, traveler safety, mobility, and regional/local priorities• Evaluate risks of each alternative by examining impact on system
performance
Need
$?? M
Example Investment ScenariosCurrent Investment
DirectionAlternative 1:
Preservation FocusAlternative 2:
Safety/Mobility Focus Alternative 3:
Regional/Local Focus
Infrastruc-ture
Preserva-tion79%
Traveler Safety
9%
Mobility7%
Reg./Local Priorities4%
Performance Area
Expected Outcome / Risk (2022) (examples)
Safety Expanding countermeasures further reduce fatal & A-type crashes
Bridge Preservation Conditions maintained due to targeted investments and preventative maintenance
Pavement Preservation
X% of roads in good condition. Y% of roads in poor condition
Other Infrastructure Address high risk culverts. Replace infrastructure as it fails.
GM Mobility IRC performance continues at similar levels through 2022
TC Mobility System congestion miles increase as the economy stabilizes
Regional/Local Priorities
Many local priorities are not addressed
Example Investment ScenariosAlternative 1:
Preservation FocusAlternative 2:
Safety/Mobility Focus Alternative 3:
Regional/Local Focus
Infrastructure Preservation90%
Traveler Safety
5%
Mobility1% Regional/Local
1%
Infrastructure Preservation
50%
Traveler Safety12%
Mobility30%
Regional/Local5%
Infrastructure Preservation
50%
Traveler Safety10%
Mobility22%
E/C Dev.15%
Step 4: Develop Investment Plan
• Integrate public/stakeholder evaluation of investment scenarios and risks
• Finalize investment direction
• Districts define projects in STIP, potential improvements in MRP, and establish funding in major categories in LRP
• Evaluate impact of final investment plan on system performance
Step 5: Identify Options for Additional Funding
2009 Plan
• Low key consideration considered internally.
• Based on an assumed increase addressing 5% of unmet needs over 10 years = $2.5B (12.5 cent gas tax increase)
2013 Plan• Incorporate public feedback on draft investment plan as well as
input from Step 3 evaluation of alternative scenarios• Evaluate risk associated with final investment direction and plan
Corridor Investment Management Strategy (CIMS)
**Under development**
• What is CIMS? • CIMS is a planning and programming process designed to
promote sustainable solutions on Minnesota’s transportation corridors
• Key Outcomes:• More leveraging of public investment to achieve multiple
purposes
• More collaboration between MnDOT, its local partners, and the business community
• Greater flexibility in MnDOT’s approach to corridor investment
• Greater transparency and accountability in MnDOT decision-making
CIMS Outreach – Interim ApproachMay 2012 Meetings
1 Share statewide and district-level outlook
2Display planned projects & anticipated investment needs on corridors
3 Set regional context
Ask stakeholders about plans, priorities, and project design. Use input to identify collaboration opportunities
4
Fall 2012
10-Year Corridor “work-plan”
CIMS Timeline
Comments/Questions
For further information contact:
Brian McLaffertyMnDOT – Office of Capital Programs and Performance [email protected]
Ryan WilsonMnDOT – Office of Capital Programs and Performance [email protected]