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 Measuresbrian.mclafferty@state.mn.us651-366-3747

Ryan WilsonMnDOT – Office of Capital Programs and Performance Measuresryan.wilson@state.mn.us651-366-3537