Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
City of Minneapolis Transportation Infrastructure Study
Heidi Hamilton, City of Minneapolis
Dave Hutton, SRF Consulting Group
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
City of Minneapolis Statistics
• 58.4 square miles
• Population – 382,600
• Twin cities metro population – 3.5 M
• Age of infrastructure – 50+ years
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Objective:
Provide the Mayor, City Council, and Public Works Leadership with policy choices and the background information necessary to support informed policy decisions related to the existing transportation infrastructure:
Prioritize how funding should be allocated Determine whether to pursue new funding
sources
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Infrastructure Elements Included in the Analysis:
• 1,338 miles of pavements
• 89 Bridges
• 16,118 Street Lights
• 793 Traffic Signals
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Other items/needs not included in study: Traffic Signs Green spaces Bicycle trails Pavement markings New/expanded infrastructure
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Background:
• Currently, funding availability drives infrastructure investment decisions
• Existing funding is inadequate
• City needs to plan its future
• Information will assist with tough decisions
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Four questions needed to be answered:
1.What condition is the infrastructure in? 2.What is its future condition based on current
funding levels? ……based on more funding? 3.How does our funding and infrastructure
condition compare to other comparable cities? 4.How can the city get more funding?
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Study Process
Establish PW Steering Committee Analyze Existing conditions
- interviews with key department staff- Review existing maintenance records- Review past funding/expenses levels
Determine levels of Investments to analyze Determine impacts of the alternatives
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Steering Committee
Steve Kotke, Director of Public Works Heidi Hamilton, Deputy DPW Don Elwood, Dir – Transp Planning & Engr Jon Wertjes, Dir – Traffic and Parking Mike Kennedy, Dir – Transp Maint/Repair Susan Hartman, Dir – Mgt Services/Budget
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Pavements
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Existing Inventory & Current Conditions
Street Pavement
Before After
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Pavement Condition Index (PCI)•The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a numerical index between 0 and 100 that is used to indicate the condition of a roadway. It is a statistical measure and is based on a visual survey of the pavement. A numerical value between 0 and 100 defines the condition with 100 representing an excellent pavement.
Before After
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
PCI Categories
• Very Good 100-88
• Good 87-75
• Fair 74-60
• Poor 59-35
• Very Poor 34-1
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Pavement life cycle
Source: America Public Works Association, The Hole Story
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Pavement Inventory– Municipal State Aid - 206 miles– Residential – 632 miles– Local – 70 miles– Alleys – 378 miles
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Existing Pavement Condition Index (all roadways)
1996PCI = 80
2010PCI = 65
The concern is that the City is not keeping up with the degradation of pavements as evidenced by the drop in PCI.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
PCI by Roadway type – MSA streets
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
PCI by Roadway type – Residential
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
PCI BY ROADWAY TYPE - LOCAL
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
PCI by Roadway type - Alley
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Investment Scenarios - Pavements
Baseline scenario reflected past 10 years of spending.
Analyzed 6 different funding scenarios several of which had sub- variations.
Used 5 year CIP to establish needs for the first 5 years.
Then projected out over a 20 year horizon for needs
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Investment Scenarios - Pavements
1. Maintain current spending levels2. Allocate all funding only to MSA streets3. Achieve and maintain target level average
PCI and minimum PCI in 10 years (preferred)4. Achieve and maintain target level average
PCI with NO minimum PCI in 10 years5. Achieve and maintain target level average
PCI and minimum PCI in 20 years6. Achieve and maintain target level average
PCI and NO minimum PCI in 20 years
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Target PCI’s
Target PCI Minimum PCI
MSA 75 35
Residential 70 35
Local 65 35
Alleys 65 n/a
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Bridges
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Bridges
Camden Bridge, left; Plymouth Avenue Bridge, above
Source: KSTP
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Minneapolis Bridges by TypeTotal of 89
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Bridge Sufficiency Rating•A national standard defined by the Federal Highway Administration.•A measure of the bridges sufficiency to remain in service.•Overall Sufficiency Rating Score (0-100 scale)
– Adequate Condition– Structurally Deficient– Functionally Obsolete
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Bridge Age
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Bridge Service Life Standards:– 75 year service life – Preventive maintenance following
recommended industry standards for each structure.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Financial assumptions – 3 scenarios evaluated
1. Current: Limited preventive maintenance occurs, otherwise all maintenance is reactive. Bridges are replaced or rehabilitated only when state or federal funding is secured.
2. Ideal: Service life and maintenance standards are met for all bridges.
3. Constrained: Bridges are rehabilitated or replaced at service life standard interval but maintenance funding is not increased from current levels.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Ideal Bridge Funding (89 city vehicular bridges)
Replacement and Rehabilitation (capital program)•$3.1M/yr average needed•Averaged $2.9M/yr in 2000-2011
Maintenance funding:•Additional $450k/yr for bridge maintenance needed
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Other Bridge Needs Not in study:•Midtown Greenway Bridges – 36 total•Railroad bridges•“Betterments” for State and County bridges – i.e. bike lanes, wider sidewalks, upgraded railings or lighting•Pedestrian bridges
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Traffic – Signals
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Existing Inventory & Current Conditions
Traffic Signals
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• 793 signalized intersections.• Costs generally shared based on intersection legs.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Condition of signals•Signal poles and underground wiring:
– Most exceed the 30 year service life.
•Signal controllers/cabinets:– 340 of the 793 intersection exceed15 year service life,
but will be replaced with federal funding. – 433 don’t exceed the 15 year service life now but are
aging.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Traffic Signal Service Life Standards:
•Complete System Rebuild/Replacement: 30 years ($150k-$200k each)
•Cabinet/Controller Replacement: 15 years ($36k each)
•Signal Timing Updates: 5 years($3k each)
•Annual preventive maintenance to prolong life ($3.5k per year per intersection)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Financial assumptions – 3 scenarios1. Current: Reactive maintenance with minimal
system replacement, primarily in conjunction with street reconstruction projects.
2. Ideal: Service life standards are met for all signals.
3. Constrained: Service life standards are met for ~500 intersections that are most critical for traffic flow. Remaining intersections continue to receive only reactive maintenance and replacement with major capital projects.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Traffic Signal Funding Levels
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Impact of underfunding:– Inefficiency of traffic flow
• Traffic diversion to side streets and neighborhoods• Negative economic impact• Increased fuel usage
– Aesthetic concerns (rusty poles).
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Traffic – Street lights
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Existing Inventory & Current Conditions
Streetlights
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• 41,000 streetlights in City –25,000 Xcel wood pole lights (cost
excluded from analysis)
–14,200 city owned streetlights
–1,900 parkway streetlights
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Streetlight Service Life Standards:•Replacement Cycle: 30 years ($5,500 – $8,400/pole)•Annual preventive maintenance to prolong life: 10% of system per year ($450/pole)•Minor Repairs: 8% of system per year ($800/pole)•Pole Damage Repair: 0.5% of system per year ($2,750/pole)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Scenario Descriptions1. Current: Reactive maintenance with minimal
system replacement. Major system replacement only if cost is 100% assessed to property owners.
2. Ideal: Service life standards are met for all streetlights.
3. Constrained: Service life standards are met for the Central Business District and pedestrian corridors. Remaining areas continue to be served at current service level.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
• Impact of underfunding– Reduced pedestrian and bicycle safety– Livability (perceived safety, comfort level while
walking biking)– Aesthetic concerns (rusty poles, caution tape,
broken light bases, etc.)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Peer Cities Review Summary Seattle Denver St. Paul Milwaukee (did not respond)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Pavement FindingsAll cities utilize some type of Pavement Management System or asset management system.A PCI goal of 70 is used in 2 of the 3 cities for arterials.Mpls does far less reconstructions annually than the other three cities but does more in seal coats.The range of total annual budget for pavements is $22M-$36M. Mpls lags and only spends about $15M.Each Peer City has some kind of unique funding mechanism to supplement general levies.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Bridge FindingsMpls is in line with the other cities for total annual expenditure (capital and maintenance).The bridge sufficiency rating is generally used by all cities to evaluate bridge needs.Seattle has discontinued the use of deck flushing due to environmental concerns.Only 1 of the 4 cities (including Mpls) have a formal policy on bridge maintenance activities.Seattle has a policy for the removal of obsolete or unsafe bridges no longer deemed essential.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Traffic FindingsThere are no universal performance standards for signals or street lights.Reactionary maintenance is the norm, depending on funding, equipment and complaints.Two of the three cities, street lights are handled entirely by an outsourced agency.Mpls annual spending for signals is comparable.Mpls annual spending for street lights is low.All cities perform routine inspections and evaluations of systems on a regular basis.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Funding alternatives already being utilized by Minneapolis
State and Federal programs (STP, SAM/TED, HSIP, etc) State and Federal programs (STP, SAM/TED, HSIP, etc) Special Congressional stimulus funding (ARRA, TIGER, Special Congressional stimulus funding (ARRA, TIGER,
etc)etc) State or local BondingState or local Bonding Cooperative Agreements – State or CountyCooperative Agreements – State or County Municipal State Aid fundsMunicipal State Aid funds Special AssessmentsSpecial Assessments Special Service DistrictsSpecial Service Districts Franchise FeesFranchise Fees Property Tax LevyProperty Tax Levy
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Funding Alternatives from other cities
Currently authorized in Minnesota
• The use of a special property tax levy called Bridge the Gap (BTG) to help finance infrastructure improvements. (Seattle). This may actually require legislative approval due to levy limits
• Street light utility (was considered and rejected by the City)
May require additional legislation• The use of a special property tax
levy called Bridge the Gap (BTG) to help finance infrastructure improvements. (Seattle)
• Commercial parking tax (Seattle)• Occupational Privilege Tax
(Denver)• Wheelage tax (only authorized
by Counties in Minnesota)• Local sales tax (Denver)• City TAB fees (Seattle)• Street utility/user fees (Oregon,
Colorado)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Big Picture Conclusions:• Inadequate investment in infrastructure.
• No easy paths to increased investment, but there are options.
• Thoughtful prioritization is critically important.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
The Good NewsPaving Investment
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Anticipated $9,518 $6,125 $ 8,289 $7,125 $8,000Approved $16,013 $22,471 $ 15,170 $12,770 $7,965Increase $6,495 $16,346 $6,881 $5,645 $(35)% Increase 68% 267% 83% 79% 0%
Planned Capital Investment of City Funds ($000’s)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
The Good NewsTraffic Investment
2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
Anticipated $1,095 $200 $410 $650 $600 Approved $2,285 $3,140 $2,750 $2,115 $2,270 Increase $1,190 $ 2,940 $2,340 $1,465 $1,670 % Increase 109% 1470% 571% 225% 278%
Planned Capital Investment of City Funds ($000’s)
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Next Steps:• Public Works will continue to refine analysis
and understanding.• Report will be used for ongoing policy
discussion about pursuing new funding sources for infrastructure.
• Ongoing policy discussion about relative priority of different infrastructure.
• Ongoing policy discussion about different infrastructure management strategies.
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Types of policy questions that need to be considered:
• Is the city willing to invest more to improve the condition of the infrastructure? If so, what funding mechanisms are supported?
• Should arterial streets be kept in better condition than residential streets?
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Types of policy questions that need to be considered:
• Which elements of the infrastructure is it most important to maintain?
• How do we balance different priorities in different neighborhoods?
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
Types of policy questions that need to be considered:
• Is it more important to do preventive maintenance to preserve what we have in the most cost-effective manner over the life of the asset, or to repair the infrastructure in the worst condition first?
• Are we willing to consider closure and removal of bridges?
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
What future will we choose to have?
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
Transportation Infrastructure Study
SRF Consulting Group, Inc.
QUESTIONS ?????