patrick weidemann ryan wilson, p.e., aicp minnesota department of transportation mndot – acec/mn...
Post on 27-Dec-2015
218 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
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
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
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
• 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
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
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
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
top related