• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Vision for UDOT's Future
 

Vision for UDOT's Future

on

  • 296 views

The presentation was used by UDOT Executive Director Carlos Braceras during the Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommitte meeting on September 12, 2013.

The presentation was used by UDOT Executive Director Carlos Braceras during the Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommitte meeting on September 12, 2013.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
296
Views on SlideShare
271
Embed Views
25

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0

1 Embed 25

http://www.udot.utah.gov 25

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Preserve Infrastructure: UDOT is preserving Utah ’ s existing transportation infrastructure. The state ’ s multi-billion dollar investment in roads, bridges and other assets must be maintained for future generations. Optimize Mobility: UDOT works to optimize traffic mobility through a number of measures, including adding capacity, innovative design, managed lanes, signal coordination and theTravelWise program. Zero Fatalities: UDOT remains committed to safety, and the goal to consistently improve safety on Utah ’ s roads can be summed up in two words: Zero Fatalities. Strengthen the Economy: This goal recognizes UDOT ’ s role in creating and managing a transportation system that enables economic growth and empowers prosperity.
  • UDOT will support STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) courses in Utah colleges and high schools. We will promote the safety of Utah students through the Zero Fatalities and the Student Neighborhood Access Plan (SNAP) programs.
  • UDOT will support STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) courses in Utah colleges and high schools. We will promote the safety of Utah students through the Zero Fatalities and the Student Neighborhood Access Plan (SNAP) programs.
  • UDOT will support STEM (science, technology, engineering, math) courses in Utah colleges and high schools. We will promote the safety of Utah students through the Zero Fatalities and the Student Neighborhood Access Plan (SNAP) programs.
  • UDOT will strive to be the most transparent DOT in the country. Utahns will be able to track where their tax dollars go, understand how they are used and see the outcomes. We will be proactive in communicating how and why decisions are made.
  • UDOT will work to become a national leader in quality. We will prioritize quality processes through the coordination of our new quality management division and work to ensure that consistent and best practices are employed throughout the Department.
  • As part of the best-managed state in the country, UDOT will strive to set the gold standard of government best practices. We will optimize resources while increasing throughput and improving quality.
  • A few week ago, the Reason Foundation, an organization that produces public policy research on a variety of issues, published its annual report. The report indicated that Utah ’ s per-mile administrative spending was 3.7 times the national per-mile average, ranking Utah 45 th in the country. However, Reason Foundations report is misleading and I will explain where they got their information and also present the correct information.
  • But first, I think it is important to know that some media outlets ran stories based on the Reason Foundation ’ s study and they too published the inaccuracy. Stating, “ Utah ’ s administrative costs per mile of highway went from $12,938 in 2007 to $42,390 in 2009, a 228 percent increase. These comments were from the Salt Lake City Tribune.
  • Here is a copy of the Reason Foundation ’ s report and link to their website http://reason.org/files/20thannualhighways-ut.pdf
  • Reason Foundation obtained their information from the Federal Highway Administration. Each year, FHWA publishes a report titled, “ Highway Statistics. ” FHWA received their information from us (UDOT). Due to a federal mandate, UDOT is required to report on a variety of topics. Including: Highway infrastructure, Bridges, Highway travel, Revenue, Apportionments, Obligations, Expenditures, etc. Each report is very complicated and can take anywhere from 12 to 40 hours to complete. http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics/2009/pdf/sf4.pdf
  • FHWA takes the information we submit and generates over 100 different reports. This is an example of one of the reports and this is also the same report that Reason Foundation used. This report is titled, “ Disbursements for state-administered Highway. ” As you can see, It shows that in 2009, Utah spent $247,548,000 for Administration, research and planning.
  • So Reason Foundation took that number for 2009 ($247,548,000) and divided it by 5,840, which is what they are saying is the number of miles under UDOT ’ s control. They did the same calculation for 2007 and 2008. So if you look at the percentage of change from 2007 to 2009, based on their calculation, there was a large increase.
  • However, if you go back to the Federal Highway ’ s report on Administration expenditures and read the fine print. The $247,548,000 also includes miscellaneous expenditures.
  • I know that it ’ s hard to read so here it is……..It reads…… ” The classification of administration and miscellaneous expenditures is not uniform for all states because of indeterminate amounts charged to construction and maintenance projects. ” In fact, Clarissa Smith with the FHWA send me an email stating, “ that users need to recognize that highway statistical information is not comparable across all states. When making State level comparisons, it is inappropriate to use these statistics without recognizing those differences that impact comparability. ” You can also find this same disclaimer at www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/ohim/hs05/misuse.htm
  • Here are some examples of what we, UDOT, included as miscellaneous expenditures. Unfortunately, due to the complexity of the forms and room for interpretation of how to complete the forms, the information reported by our department was not consistent from one year to the next. For example, we did not include maintenance or County of the 1 st Class expenditures in 2007 or 2008 but we did include it in 2009. Which, explains why Admin. and other miscellaneous cost increased by from 2007 – 2009.
  • Here are the actual Administrative Expenditures for 2007, 2008, and 2009. Administrative costs should only include Support Services, Engineering Services, and Region Mgt. We can only spend what the Legislature appropriates. And you can see, each year we spent less state dollars than what was appropriated. Our Appropriations increased in FY2008 due to a 5% Cola and Internal Service Fund adjustments. It also increased in FY2009 due to a 3% Cola and Internal Service Funds adjustments.
  • So Reason Foundation took that number for 2009 ($247,548,000) and divided it by 5,840, which is what they are saying is the number of miles under UDOT ’ s control. They did the same calculation for 2007 and 2008. So if you look at the percentage of change from 2007 to 2009, based on their calculation, there was a large increase.
  • Here is Reason Foundation ’ s same calculation but with the correct dollar amount for Administrative Costs. As you can see, in 2009, our cost per mile of highway dropped from $42,388 to $11,277. However, that ’ s not true either. Because the 5,840 for Miles of state highway, which is what the Reason Foundation used in their calculation is only “ Center lane miles. ”
  • We have thousands of assets outside of bridges and roads that we maintain.
  • I just wanted to spend a few minutes discussing an important concept, that is “good roads cost less”. What you see here is a classic pavement deterioration curve. We measure all of our assets and develop unique curves for our pavements and bridges. We do this so that we can apply the right treatment at the right time, if we do this we can save the tax payers money. Reference to “pavement tube” For every $1 spent on Preservation it saves the agency $4 in rehabilitation and $25 in reconstruction.
  • Utah ’ s 6000 mile highway system consists of 246 different roads. The roads are divided into 1,443 sections. These highway sections or segments represent how the individual roads were originally built and are now maintained as discrete units. The strategic management of the entire system is known within the Department as a “ Plan for Every Section of Every Road. ” For everyone of these 1,443 sections, UDOT has a predicted forecast of needs and recommended specific maintenance treatments, preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction.
  • Recognizing that the department does not have enough funding to maintain all the above mentioned sections, UDOT made a strategic decision to establish different maintenance and funding levels for different sections of roads. Funding is sufficient to maintain Level 1 roads but not Level 2 roads. Interstates are maintained at the highest level.
  • But, as you can see our bridge conditions are the envy of the country. A lot of our large capacity projects have addressed some of our biggest problems.
  • However, on bridges, this slide highlights future issue. Our bridges are currently being designed for a 75 year life expectancy, but the ones build before 2000 were designed for 50 years. That assumes that we have an active preservation and maintenance program. You can see that we have a lot of bridges built in the 60 ’ s and 70 ’ s that need continual maintenance and preservation, plus we will need to rehabilitate or replace bridges in the near future, too.
  • 2020 Needs
  • Before discussing our prioritization process, it ’ s important to review the role of the Transportation Commission. There are 7 members of the commission, appointed by the Governor and confirmed by the Senate . They are non-partisan positions. Commissioners are leaders in their community and local business leaders. Historically, many commissioners have previously served in elected positions in local government. As defined in Code, the role of the Transportation Commission is relatively narrow. Their primary role is to: Prioritize projects and determine levels of funding Hold public hearings and provide opportunities for public input They also provide other narrow functions, such as approving additions and deletions to the state highway system prior to legislative approval.
  • You can see on this map areas represented by the commissioners with 4 serving specific geographic areas that correspond with the UDOT Region boundaries, and 3 commissioners servings at large. Serving on the commission is a part-time voluntary role, but the commissioners spend a great deal of time these issues. The Commission holds monthly public meetings. They regularly hold their meetings at locations throughout the state to: Provide opportunities for local elected leaders to meet with the commission in person. Often state legislators that represent those areas will also attend the commission meetings. Prior to those monthly meetings, the commission will tour the local area to personally see the transportation issues facing those communities. The commission serves a valuable role. They provide the human review of UDOT ’ s technical analysis of transportation priorities. They represent the needs of their local areas, but they also do a great job balancing needs statewide to ensure that highest priorities are met. You may recognize some of the members of the commission ( personalize the commissioners a little, perhaps point out Dannie McConkie, former Davis County Commissioner; Meg Holbrook is probably well known to many members of the legislature; Representative Cox is probably familiar with Commissioner Eddie Cox). If any of the commissioners are in the audience, perhaps have them stand up and introduce themselves.)
  • We just reviewed the development of the long range plan and long range needs. Drawing from needs and data identified in the Long Range Plan and using our strategic goals, we prioritize projects to ensure we ’ re achieving the most cost effective investment of limited dollars. I ’ ll review the prioritization process under each of our strategic goals.
  • The types of projects we ’ re funding under Preserve Infrastructure are: Bridge Preservation, Pavement Preservation, (explain difference between preserve and rehab) Pavement Rehabilitation, Minor & Major Rehabilitations, as well as Operation and Maintenance
  • The commission determines the overall amount of funding that will be invested in pavement and bridge preservation, based on department recommendations. The commission doesn ’ t select the specific projects for these types of projects but they program the overall amount of funding that will be invested. When we prioritize we pull in data. We discussed pavement and bridge condition and deterioration curves at the last meeting. We use that data to help prioritize funding, based on the commission recommendation. The data feeds into a computer model that analyzes the most cost effective investment of available dollars and makes project recommendations. Human Review - computers are smart but real people need to validate and ground truth the recommendations that have come out of the computer model. The results are reviewed within UDOT. I want to point out: The Ranking Process is designed to support the decision-making process, rather than render a decision. The process is a means to help the Utah Transportation Commission generally prioritize and rank projects in order of their importance. Back pocket notes : Rehabilitation: $103 Million Preservation: $34 Million 2014/2015: Region 1: $32 Million 23% Region 2: $43 Million 33% Region 3: $25 Million 19% Region 4: $35 Million 25%
  • Types of projects to Improve Safety include projects such as: Passing Lanes,Traffic Signals, Intersection Improvement, Sidewalks, Guardrail.
  • All UDOT projects incorporate safety elements. This process is used to prioritize stand-alone safety projects. the safety program is funded primarily with federal safety funds and state funds programmed by the commission.
  • Note: Shannon Halverson will probably outline in her presentation the statutory language about prioritization so you can just remind them. If Shannon doesn ’ t mention it, you will need to advise them that the previous task force recommended and the legislature adopted language in 2005 that directs the commission and UDOT to develop a weighted, data driven process for prioritizing major capacity projects. UDOT and the commission developed that prioritization process through rulemaking and in consultation with the MPOs. The draft process was brought to the Legislative Management Committee for review prior to finalizing the Rule. That ’ s the prioritization process we still use today. Optimize Mobility Project Types: Road Widening New Road New Interchange Choke Points (explain Choke Point project) Passing Lanes Back Pocket Information: Prioritization requirement in Utah Code Section 72-1-304 to 305 (Enacted by Senate Bill 25, 2005 General Session) Directs the Commission, in consultation with the Department and the Metropolitan Planning Organizations in the State, to issue rules that establish a prioritization process based on weighted criteria for new transportation projects that meet the Department's strategic goals . Rule R940-6. Prioritization of New Transportation Capacity Projects
  • We have a weighted data driven prioritization process for each of the 5 categories: Road Widening New Road New Interchange Choke Points (explain Choke Point project) Passing Lanes UDOT validates a recommended list of projects which is taken to the commission for review and public input. Then the commission finalizes a list of projects to be funded.
  • Success in the first three goals creates a solid foundation for economic growth. UDOT has always recognized the importance of the economy by working to provide efficient freight routes and safe routes to jobs. Preserve Infrastructure : Roads cost less, more efficient, less delay Optimize Mobility : Mobility is good for business. Manufacturers and distribution businesses need to be close to main thoroughfares to easily transport their products. Zero Fatalities : When a road is known to be safe, residents and visitors will be more likely to use it. Safe roads can promote the growth of the business along the roadway and the local economy. MAG is exploring some ways to quantify project improvements that will benefit the economy.

Vision for UDOT's Future Vision for UDOT's Future Presentation Transcript

  • Vision for UDOTVision for UDOT’’s Futures Future Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee | September 12, 2013Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee | September 12, 2013
  • Final Four Strategic Goals Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Zero Fatalities Strengthen the economy
  • Integrated Transportation Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • Collaboration Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • Education Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • Transparency Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • Quality Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • Operational Excellence Emphasis AreaEmphasis Area
  • UDOT’s Core Values • Innovation • Dedication • Integrity • Public Responsiveness • Passion • Fiscal Responsibility
  • Administrative Efficiency ReportingAdministrative Efficiency Reporting
  • Media Stories “A new national study says Utah’s urban highway conditions are among the nation’s best, but the state is among the worst for cost-effective road spending — including paying nearly four times the national per-mile average for administration.” “Utah ranks 26th nationally for overall highway performance and efficiency — falling from 22nd and 16th best in the two previous annual reports by the Reason Foundation. “The study says the Utah’s administrative costs per mile of highway went from $12,938 in 2007 to $42,390 in 2009, a 228 percent increase. It said that 2009 number was four times higher than the national average, and ranked Utah 45th among the states.”
  • Reason Foundation
  • Federal Highway Administration Highway Statistics
  • Federal Highway Administration
  • Reason Foundation’s Calculation
  • Federal Highway Administration
  • Federal Highway Administration “The Classification of administration and miscellaneous expenditures is not uniform for all states because of indeterminate amounts charged to construction and maintenance projects.”
  • Miscellaneous Expenditures Corridor Preservation Funds $200,000 Express Lanes $337,000 County of the 1st Class $27,000,000 Equipment $35,000,000 Maintenance $136,000,000
  • Administrative Expenditures Appropriated vs. Actual Expenditures *State dollars
  • Reason Foundation’s Calculation
  • Calculation with the Correct Dollar Amount for Administrative Costs
  • Preserving InfrastructurePreserving Infrastructure Highway Maintenance OutlookHighway Maintenance Outlook
  • State Highway Assets  95,000 roadside signs  2,700 large overhead signs  375,000 delineators  67,500 culverts  2,500 miles of fence  39 rest areas  100,000 acres of roadside vegetation  600 miles of guardrail  2,000 miles of ditches
  • Good Roads Cost Less Preservation Rehabilitation Reconstruction $1 $4 $25
  • Utah RoadUtah Road ConditionsConditions
  • Pavement Conditions
  • Bridge Conditions
  • Age Distribution of UDOT Bridges 2 Bridges 1910s 400 350 300 250 200 150 100 50 0 NumberofBridges Proposed ReplacementNumber of Existing 1920s 1930s 1940s 1950s 1960s 1970s 1980s 1990s 2000s 2010s 2020s 6 45 25 157 349 355 314 183 278 162 296 151
  • Annual Pavement and Bridge Needs BridgesLevel 2 $50 $38 $25 $13 $0 MillionsofDollars Unfunded NeedsAvailable $40 Million $27 Million $10 Million $21 Million
  • Prioritization ProcessPrioritization Process
  • Model Recommendations Asset Management System Prioritization Process Utah Transportation Commission Projects Long Range Plans Unified Transportation Plan Public Input
  • Utah Transportation Commission - Role • Prioritize Projects and Funding Levels • Hold Public Hearings • Provide for Public Input
  • CommissionersCommissioners Wayne K. Barlow Region 1 Meghan Z. Holbrook Region 2 J. Kent Millington Co-Chair, Region 3 Naghi Zeenati Region 4 Jeffrey D. Holt Chairman, At-Large Dannie R. McConkie At-Large Eddie L. Cox At-Large
  • Project Selection Process State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Strengthen Economy Long Range Plan and Data Zero Fatalities Projects
  • Project Selection Process State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Strengthen Economy Long Range Plan and Data Zero Fatalities Rehabilitation and Preservation Projects
  • Model Recommendations Asset Management System Preserve Infrastructure Commission Projects Pvmt. & Bridge Condition Pvmt. Deterioration Curves Available Funding Ranking Factors: Overall Road Condition Bridge Condition Vehicle and Truck Traffic Safety
  • Project Selection Process State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Strengthen Economy Long Range Plan and Data Zero Fatalities Passing Lanes, Guard Rail, etc.
  • Model Recommendations Safety Management System Zero Fatalities Commission Projects Number of Crashes Severity of Crash Fatalities Ranking Factors: Greatest ability to reduce crashes Benefit-to-cost ratio Project Complexity Coordination with other projects
  • Project Selection Process State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Strengthen Economy Long Range Plan and Data Zero Fatalities ITS, Capacity, Access, etc.
  • Model Recommendations Prioritization Process Optimize Mobility Commission Projects Vehicle and Truck Traffic Congestion Crash Rates Ranking Factors: Average Daily Traffic: Vehicles & Trucks Level of Congestion Benefit/Cost Ratio Safety
  • Project Selection Process State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Strengthen Economy Long Range Plan and Data Zero Fatalities Projects
  • BridgesLevel 2 $50 $38 $25 $13 $0 MillionsofDollars Unfunded NeedsAvailable $40 Million $27 Million $10 Million $21 Million
  • Vision for UDOTVision for UDOT’’s Futures Future Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee | September 12, 2013Infrastructure and General Government Appropriations Subcommittee | September 12, 2013