Patrick WeidemannRyan Wilson, P.E., AICP

Minnesota Department of Transportation

MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference

March 5, 2013

Minnesota GO 50-year Vision8 Guiding Principles

Statewide Multimodal Transportation PlanObjectives & Strategies in 6 Policy Areas

MnSHIPCapital Investment Priorities

Supporting Plans

20-year State Highway Investment Plan Establishes priorities for capital

expenditures on 12,000 state highway system

Part of MnDOT’s Family of Plans Required by state law every four years

Consistent?

Consistent?

Aging + diverse population More Minnesotans in urban settings Energy shifts Transportation technology Persistent budget challenges Health impacts Increased global competition Changing work environments Floods and water quality

26 month bill (federal fiscal years 2013-15)

Policy provisions took effect Oct 1, 2012 Consolidates many funding programs into

six larger programs Establishes goals for and priorities

National Highway System

National Highway System in Minnesota◦ 45% of state

highways◦ MnDOT owns

99%+ of NHS

Capital revenue 2013 – 2032 = $18 billion

2012 dollars (in millions) under 5% inflation assumption

Two risk assessment activities informed the development of key capital investment risks◦ District and investment category risk profiles

(completed in 2010)◦ Enterprise Risk Management (2008-present)

For each (of ten) investment categories:◦ Identified a minimum “performance level” ◦ Identified risks associated with minimum level◦ Established successive levels that manage risks

Performance Level 0

MR RR

Performance Level 1

Performance Level 2

MR RR MR RR

Greater CostGreater Risk

- - -

- =

=+

Investment Level

Investment Description

Outcomes

Risks

Current investment Level

$30 billion in investment needs to meet performance targets and key objectives◦ Asset Management: $17.6 billion◦ Traveler Safety: $1.3 billion◦ Critical Connections: $5.7 billion◦ Regional + Community Improvement Priorities:

$1.7 billion◦ Project Support: $2.9 billion

Likely many additional local and regional concerns and opportunities beyond $30 billion

Public input (phase 1): September-November

MnDOT input: December 5th and 6th

• To educate stakeholders on key challenges and opportunities

• To understand stakeholders’ priorities

• To inform the establishment of statewide investment goals

• Asset Management

• Traveler Safety

• Critical Connections

• Regional + Community Improvement Priorities

• Project Support

33%

45% 22

%

??

?

September-November 2012

All meetings statewide(217 participants)• Statewide, a slight plurality

(36%) of meeting attendees selected Approach C

• Support for Approach C much stronger in the Twin Cities Metro than in Greater Minnesota

Greater Minnesota meetings

(182 participants)

Metro-area meetings(35 participants)

Approach preference:Online Interactive Scenario Tool

Statewide results

Greater Minnesota(136 respondents)

Metro-area (238 respondents)

• A slight majority (53%) of online respondents selected Approach C

• Strong divide between Greater Minnesota and Metro-area respondents

• Pursue a balanced program • Address pavement needs strategically • A statewide network of well-maintained

roads is critically important to freight movement and regional access

• Promote economic competitiveness and quality of life through greater mobility investment

• Remain responsive to evolving needs

• Leverage state highway investment to achieve multiple purposes

• Limitations to the safety benefits from engineering-based solutions

• Trunk Highway dollars should not be used to support recreational bicycle trips

• Preserve local control • More revenue is needed

Focused on December 5th and 6th

Day 1: Highly similar outreach exercise1.Grouped attendees into functional areas for small group discussion

◦ Same process as stakeholder meetings◦ Discussed approach preference◦ Discussed how to modify the current approach

2.Reviewed public outreach results

Day 1 ResultsApproach preference

◦ Plurality of meeting attendees chose Approach B

◦ For the rest, slightly more chose A than COther themes

◦ Stewardship of the state’s assets is important◦ Prioritize to achieve some balance◦ Need to be responsive as possible

33%

45% 22

%

Day 2: Presentation of draft investment goalsDay 1 discussion resultsEvaluation of key capital investment risksCategory adjustments and associated 10-year outcomesSmall group exercise – suggested modifications

General comparison to public outreach results:◦ Agency leaned more towards A; public leaned more

towards C◦ Greater agency emphasis on asset condition

(Pavement, Roadside Infrastructure Condition)◦ Less emphasis on RCIPs

33 %45 %

22 %

Public vs. MnDOT inputStakeholder Outreach Agency Feedback

A B C

Present work: build upon cross cutting risks from previous work◦ Years 1-10: balance management of key risks◦ Years 11-20: focus on financial and asset risks

Management of key capital investment risks

Managed risk by 2023

(of 3 )

Rationale

GASB-34: poor pavement & bridge condition jeopardizes state bond rating

Meet thru 2023

Federal policy: failure to achieve MAP-21 targets on NHS results in lose of funding flexibility

Prioritize NHS

MnDOT policy: misalignment with 50-year Vision & Multimodal Policy Plan results in loss of public trust

Strategic fixes; multimodal

Bridges: deferring bridge investments viewed as an unwise/unsafe strategy

NHS fully funded; non-NHS reduced

Responsiveness: less flexible investment limits responsiveness to local econ. dvpt./quality of life opportunities

Solicitations; lmtd. other

imprvts.

Impact on maintenance: untimely or reduced capital investment leads to unsustainable maintenance costs

Rising reactionary

costs non-NHS

Public outreach: investment inconsistent with MnSHIP public outreach results in loss of public trust

Responded to some

concerns

Present work◦ Years 1-4◦ Years 5-10◦ Years 11-20

Statewide performance program: achieves performance that manages risk associated with statewide travel

District risk management program: manages risk associated most closely with regional travel

Project support: expenditures to deliver; varies depending on the project mix

≈45% of revenue focused on NHS system Performance driven, planned/programmed

collaboratively Outcomes

◦ Less 10% of NHS bridges structurally deficient ◦ Less 2% of interstate pavements in poor condition◦ ≈ 4% of non-interstate NHS pavement in poor condition◦ Implement HSIP funds strategically◦ Investments in the Twin Cities that improve

performance Notable risks managed

◦ GASB-34 on the NHS system◦ Federal and MnDOT policy◦ Responsiveness and public outreach

≈44% of revenue focused on non-NHS system

Performance based; some corporate minimums based on risk assessment

Flexibility across districts to meet minimums

Investments span existing assets, mobility, safety and RCIPs on non-NHS system

Expenditures(DRAFT)◦ Asset management: 66%

≈ 13% of non-NHS pavement in poor condition Gradual decline in non-NHS bridge condition

◦ Traveler Safety: 8%◦ Mobility: 13%◦ RCIPs: 13%

Notable risks managed◦ GASB-34 on the non-NHS system◦ Federal and MnDOT policy◦ Impact on maintenance operations budget

Spring 2013:◦ Draft MnSHIP plan and implementation strategies◦ Draft 10-year Work Plan◦ Public involvement on draft plan in May/June◦ Adopt in August

Beyond spring 2013◦ Manage key capital investment risks through

annual 10-year Work Plan update◦ Annual performance management cycle

ensures consistency with MnSHIP investment priorities

MnSHIP website – follow & participateGoogle: MnDOT MnSHIPhttp://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/statehighwayinvestmentplan/index.html