Vision to Projects: Evolution of Planning & Programming at MnDOT

1. Vision to Projects:Evolution of Planning & Programming at MnDOT Patrick Weidemann Ryan Wilson, P.E., AICP Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013

2. Why are we here?

3. MnDOT policy directionFamily of Plans Minnesota GO 50-year Vision 8 Guiding Principles Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan Objectives & Strategies in 6 Policy Areas MnSHIP Capital Investment Priorities Supporting Plans

4. Minnesota GO 50-year Vision 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 Provides safe, convenient, efficient and effective movement of people and goods Is flexible and nimble enough to adapt to changes insociety, technology, the environment and the economy

5. Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan

6. MnSHIP background • 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

7. How does MnSHIP affect planning & programming? Annual performance management cycle ensures consistency with MnSHIP investment priorities Consistent? Consistent?

8. MnSHIP development process

10. Future demographics/economics • 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

11. Changes in federal legislationMoving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) • 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

12. National Highway System in Minnesota • 45% of state highways • MnDOT owns 99%+ of NHS

13. State highway revenue sources Capital revenue 2013 – 2032 = $18 billion

14. Long-term trends for state highway revenue sources

15. Changes in inflation impacts buying power 2012 dollars (in millions) under 5% inflation assumption

16. Risk identification • 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)

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

18. 10 investment categories Asset Management • Pavement Condition • Bridge Condition • Roadside Infrastructure Condition Traveler Safety • Traveler Safety Critical Connections • Interregional Corridor Mobility • Twin Cities Mobility • Bicycle Infrastructure • Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities Project Support • Project Support

19. Performance level concept Performance Level 0 Performance Level 1 Performance Level 2 Investment Category Investment Level Investment Description Outcomes = + - - - - = Risks MR MR RR RR MR RR Current investment Level Greater Risk Greater Cost

20. MnDOT’s capital investment needs? • $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

21. Public input (phase 1): September-November • MnDOT input: December 5th and 6th

22. Purpose of public outreach • To educate stakeholders on key challenges and opportunities • To understand stakeholders’ priorities • To inform the establishment of statewide investment goals

23. Evaluating investment approaches • Asset Management • Traveler Safety • CriticalConnections • Regional + Community Improvement Priorities • Project Support

24. District outreach meetings 45% 33% 22% ? ? ?

25. Online interactive scenario tool

26. Public Outreach Results September-November 2012

27. Approach preference:Stakeholder Engagement Meetings 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)

28. Approach preference:Online Interactive Scenario Tool Statewide results • A slight majority (53%) of online respondents selected Approach C • Strong divide between Greater Minnesota and Metro-area respondents Greater Minnesota (136 respondents) Metro-area (238 respondents)

29. Key themes from stakeholders • 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

30. Other prominent themes • 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

31. MnDOT Input Focused on December 5th and 6th

32. MnDOT input Day 1: Highly similar outreach exercise • Grouped attendees into functional areas for small group discussion • Same process as stakeholder meetings • Discussed approach preference • Discussed how to modify the current approach • Reviewed public outreach results

33. 45% MnDOT input 33% 22% Day 1 Results • Approach preference • Plurality of meeting attendees chose Approach B • For the rest, slightly more chose A than C • Other themes • Stewardship of the state’s assets is important • Prioritize to achieve some balance • Need to be responsive as possible

34. MnDOTinput Day 2: Presentation of draft investment goals • Day 1 discussion results • Evaluation of key capital investment risks • Category adjustments and associated 10-year outcomes • Small group exercise – suggested modifications

35. Public vs. MnDOT input Stakeholder Outreach Agency Feedback • 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 45 % 33 % 22 % A B C

36. 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

38. Present work • Years 1-4 • Years 5-10 • Years 11-20

39. Investment Programs: Years 4 & 5-10 Project support: expenditures to deliver; varies depending on the project mix Statewide performance program: achieves performance that manages risk associated with statewide travel District risk management program: manages risk associated most closely with regional travel

40. Statewide performance program • ≈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

41. District Risk Management Program • ≈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

42. District Risk Management Program • 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

43. Timeline • 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

44. Thank you! Patrick Weidemann 651.366.4835 pat.weidemann@state.mn.us Ryan Wilson, P.E., AICP 651.366.3537 ryan.wilson@state.mn.us MnSHIP website – follow & participate Google: MnDOT MnSHIP http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/statehighwayinvestmentplan/index.html