Rightsizing Workshop

1
Right-sizing Workshop
2
Session Agenda

• Purpose of the Workshop
• Overarching Concepts Video
• Federal Perspective
• Right-sizing in Planning Linking Planning and
  NEPA
• Understanding/Implementing Right-sizing for
  Ongoing Projects
• General Discussion

3
FHWA Perspective on Right-sizing
4
Considerations

• Design Policy
• Measures of Effectiveness
• Planning Process
• FHWA Oversight Responsibility

5
Design Policy23 CFR 625

• Proposed National Highway System (NHS) projects
  shall provide for a facility that will
• (1) Adequately serve the existing and planned
  future traffic of the highway in a manner that is
  conducive to safety, durability, and economy of
  maintenance and
• (2) Be designed and constructed in accordance
  with criteria best suited to accomplish the
  objectives described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
  section and to conform to the particular needs of
  each locality.

6
Design Policy Cont..

• An important goal of the FHWA is to provide the
  highest practical and feasible level of safety
• Standards may take into account, in addition to
  the criteria described
• in 625.2(a), the following
• (i) The constructed and natural environment
  of the area
• (ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic,
  historic, community, and preservation impacts of
  the activity and
• (iii) Access for other modes of transportation.

7
Measures of Effectiveness

• Define purpose and need
• Establish MOEs for evaluating alternatives
• Mobility
• Safety
• - cost/benefits
• Community

8
MOEs for Mon Fayette

• Delay
• Lane miles of service
• Transit usage
• Accessibility of employment sites
• Number of congested Intersections
• VMT levels of Service

9
Design Flexibility References

• Performance measures of operational effectiveness
  for Highway Segments and Systems -
  NCHRPhttp//trisonline.bts.gov/search.cfm
• Flexibility in Highway Design FHWA guidance
• A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway
  Design-AASHTO
• Traffic Analysis Toolbox -FHWA
• A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving CSS
  -NCHRP

10
Planning Process23 CFR 450

• Ideally, projects would be sized correctly
  through the a comprehensive planning process
• 20 year LRTP/TIP/STIP/UPWP
• Air Quality
• Fiscal Constraint
• Project selection criteria

11
Harrisburg MPO Project Ranking Criteria

• Potential transportation projects evaluated
  against 17 regional criteria.
• Extra point given for
• Consistency with the Countys Comprehensive Plan
• Consistency with Regional Growth Management Plan

12
FHWA Oversight Responsibility and Right Sizing

• Compliance with laws and regulations -CEQ, NEPA,
  executive orders etc...
• Prevention of waste fraud and abuse
• Improve safety, mobility and environmental
  Stewardship.
• Responsive to Congressional and public scrutiny..
• Maintain public trust and confidence.

13
Recommendations

• Align MPO/RPO LRTP goals and PennDOT Business
  Plan goals in project selection.
• Select projects that maximize results.
• Develop cost effective project solutions that
  satisfy needs early in the process..
• Enhance management systems and use outputs to
  prioritize project selection
• Safety, congestion, pavement, bridge..
• Improve scoping process and manage scope creep,
  cost and schedules
• Engage public early and often

14
Right-sizing

• Perspective from Planning

15
Right-sizing in Planning

• Focus is meeting the Commonwealths
  Transportation Needs
• Consideration for
• Community and Regional Goals
• Quality of Life
• Economic Development Initiatives
• Fiscal Constraint
• Social and Environmental Issues

16
Program Right-sizing

• Re-focus on Statewide and Regional Transportation
  Priorities
• Focus on System Preservation
• Fiscal Responsibility

17
Expectations for the 2007 Program Update

• Statewide Transportation Priorities
• System Preservation
• Structurally Deficient Bridges
• Project Selection and Scope Management
• Fiscal Constraint
• Fiscal Restraint L K Beyond 2010

18
Best

• Scope
• Cost
• Schedule
• Early as Possible
• Often as Reasonable

19
Cursory Right-sizing Review

• Right Scope
• Right Cost
• Right Schedule
• May require field view or special meeting
• Use the most up to date information available

20
Timing

• Before draft TIPS are developed with Planning
  Partners (11/15/05) and submitted to Central
  Office (2/3/06)
• No mandated approach
• Each District/Local Sponsor may develop its
  unique approach to conduct this review

21
Linking Planning and NEPA

• March 31st Executive Session
• April 27th-29th Work Group
• Action Plan for PA
• Statewide Planning
• MPO/RPO Planning
• Planning Studies
• Agency Coordination Meetings
• Information Gathering and Sharing
• Outreach

22
Improve Effectiveness

• During Project Inception/Conception
• Early information
• Cultural Resources
• Environmental Resources
• Utility Involvement
• Location of Threatened and Endangered Species
• Influence Decision Making Regarding Project
  Scopes and Alternatives
• Avoidance

23
(No Transcript)
24
Early Information

• Better Understanding of Issues
• Less Surprises
• Better setting of Expectations regarding
• Schedules
• Cost
• Engaging Agencies early in the process is key to
  identifying potential points of controversy and
  developing early, cost effective solutions.

25
Stewardship of Resources

• Drives How Decisions are Made
• Best Value for our Entire Infrastructure

26
Understanding and Implementing Right-sizingfor
Ongoing Projects
27
Outline

• What does it mean?
• Why?/Purpose True Engineering
• Relationships with standards and criteria
• Relationship with VE/ACTT
• Timing for Right-sizing
• Implementation

28
What does it mean?

• Technical Terms
• 23 CFR 625.2
• Laymans Terms
• Size the project to address well-defined
  problems within programmed fiscal constraints

29
Why?

• Highway and Bridge Needs
• Highway Pavement
• 6 Year Needs 18.0 Billion
• 6 Year Available Funds 13.2 Billion
• Gap 4.8 Billion
• Bridges
• 6 Year Needs 3.3 Billion
• 6 Year Available Funds 1.8 Billion
• Gap 1.5 Billion
• 6 Year Funding Gap 6.3 Billion

30
Highway Bridge Conditions
31
Definition of Engineering

• The application of science and mathematics by
  which the properties of matter and sources of
  energy in nature are made useful (cost
  effectively) to man in structures, machines,
  products, systems and processes.

32
Relationship with Standards and Criteria

• Why standards and criteria
• Flexibility

Center Street Bridge, Cumberland County
33
Relationships

• Right-sizing
• VE
• VE/ACTT

Borough of Foxburg, Clarion County
34
Timing for Right-sizing

• Rightsizing can be addressed during
• Planning
• Programming
• Project Scoping
• Design Field View
• (Re-affirmed during) Final Design

35
Applicability

• Capacity Adding projects
• Bridge Replacement
• Major Reconstruction projects (costing over 10
  Million)
• Other Federal Oversight Projects

36
Suggested Prioritization

• Projects to be let within a year
• High Cost Projects (25 Million or more)
• Other projects in Final Design
• Projects in Preliminary Engineering

37
Approach

• One half day workshop for districts and
  consultants
• Pro-teams for High Cost or Complex Projects
• Working level teams (DO/CO/FHWA) for other
  projects
• VE/ACTT for high cost and complex projects

38
Process

• Define Problems (purpose) and Needs
• Define Measures of Success and measurements for
  each measure
• Define Givens
• Public Participation
• Resource Agency Involvement
• CO/FHWA participation and approvals
• Define Constraints
• Physical
• Socio-economical
• Fiscal
• Environmental
• Others

39
Process (cont.)

• Define validation group (D-PMC, Ad Hoc groups,
  PMC, etc)
• Define/Understand driving forces
• Legal Controls
• Safety Controls
• Public Officials expectations
• Polarized Groups
• Public Sentiments
• Designer/reviewer protecting turfs

40
Process (cont.)

• Evaluate Preliminary Options and Solutions
• Engineering solutions
• Must look at constructabilitity up front
• Transportation Operation Solutions
• Incident Management
• ITS tools
• Other Solutions
• Alternate modes of transportation
• Alternate routes
• Manage expectations (communicate with
  stakeholders and the public)
• Land Use planning, partnering with locals

41
Process (cont.)

• Narrow down solution(s) using logics and/or very
  preliminary analysis based upon
• Constraints
• Meeting the measures of success
• Cost effectiveness including maintenance and
  operations costs
• Evaluate impacts of selected solutions on
• Safety
• Social/Public
• Economy
• Environmental
• Fiscal
• Other challenges

42
Process (cont)

• Validation by
• District PMC
• Ad Hoc Groups (CO/FHWA/others)
• PMC
• Once decisions are reached, move fast towards
  construction

43
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
44
No Build Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
45
NBCP Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
111M
Project Cost
46
Parkway Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
206M
Total Project Cost
161M
Cost toComplete
Project Cost
47
Expressway Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
465M
Total Project Cost
383M
Cost toComplete
Project Cost
48
I-79 Kirwan Heights to Parkway
49
I-79 Neville Island to I-279
50
SR 0078 Section 12M
51

SR 0078 Section 12M
Existing
Total Max Width 76
Before VE/ACTT
Total Width 104
52
5 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 611
Proposed Rte 940
Existing Rte 940
Proposed Connector
Rte 196
Existing
Proposed Rte 940
Rte 940
Borough of Mount Pocono, Monroe County
53
5 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 940
Rte 940
Rte 196
Borough of Mount Pocono, Monroe County
54
5 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 611
Proposed Connector
Rte 196
55
Foxburg Bridge
56
FOXBURG VEACTT SESSION
57
FOXBURG VEACTT SESSION
58
SR 412 Section 001
Lehigh County, Northampton County
59
SR 412 Section 001
60
Gravel Run Road Bridge (District 1-0)
61
Historic/Section 4(f) Resources
62

• ?