Black presentation

327
-1

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
327
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Black presentation

  1. 1. From Cradle to Construction:Planning for TransportationInfrastructureNADO Rural Transportation Conf 2013French Broad River MPO/Land of Sky Regional Council
  2. 2. 2040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility OpenedThe Life of a Transportation Project2
  3. 3. We Started SmallWe began with smallest, most up-to-date data set:State TransportationImprovement Program– Budgeted Construction Plan– Has counterpart MTIP at MPO– Initial GIS files from NCDOTSTIP/Programming– PROJECT BREAKS32040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility Opened
  4. 4. STIP Data (Note Segment Breaks)4
  5. 5. • Segmentedproperly• Not muchattribute data5
  6. 6. Too Much of a Good Thing• STIP also includes major resurfacing projects– Not included in MPO capital planning process– Part of the maintenance responsibility of theNCDOT local highway division– Included in STIP to meet federal requirements• We had to cull them out; we did so in theattributes rather than delete them6
  7. 7. Give Me a Break• By starting with the STIP, we also got smallestincrements of a project• NCDOT breaks projects up by constructabilityand fundability• Sometimes the most needed part gets builtwhile the other part(s) languish7
  8. 8. Example of Breaks8
  9. 9. Next: SPOT• The Strategic Planning Office(for) Transportation– A data-driven process to choosewhich projects move forward intothe construction schedule– Originated in Gov. Perdue’sExecutive Order #2– Codified by Session Law 2012-8492040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility Opened
  10. 10. SPOT Data Segmented Properly• These ended up being the model datafor the architecture we ended up with10
  11. 11. Termini as Attribute Became Key11
  12. 12. Data about roads…12
  13. 13. …becomes base score13
  14. 14. Next Layer: LRTP• Long Range Transportation Plan– Federal Requirement for MPOs– Tied to Air Quality Determination– Fiscally Constrained– 25 Year Time Horizon142040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility Opened
  15. 15. LRTP Data Were Over-Segmented15We made sure each segmenthad label attribute, thendissolved.When done, we just needed thelabel (project id), and correcttermini (project extent)
  16. 16. The LRTP16
  17. 17. Last, we added the CTP• Comprehensive Transportation Plan– Adopted by all local governments, MPO/RPO, andNC Board of Transportation– Includes initial Problem Statements/Purpose andNeed for NEPA– 30+ year time horizon– No Fiscal Constraint– Unique to NC– all modes172040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility Opened
  18. 18. Data Created by NCDOT-TPB18
  19. 19. Data Issue• CTP data set was very early prototype withlimited attribution• Segment identifiers only placed on segmentwhere label on map was to appear; madefinding termini problematic on some projects19
  20. 20. 20Other segmentshave no MAP_ID!MAP_ID only hereWhere does A25end and A24 start?
  21. 21. The Road to Reconciliation21At first, the 4 data sets didn’t want to play nice
  22. 22. End Result: A full inventory222040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding Sources Identified• Project alternatives are assessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility Opened
  23. 23. End Result: Identify InconsistentTerminii, Progression232040CTPLRTPSPOTSTIP/TIPNEPAConstruction• Statewide Systems Plan• No $ Constraint• 30+ Years• No $ Constraint• 25 Years• Based on Revenue Forecast• Scores Projects for Effectiveness• Results go into STIP• 0-5 and 6-10 Years• Specific Funding SourcesIdentified• Project alternatives areassessed• Final project design and cost• Project Let• Facility OpenedTaking portion of projectGoing beyond original projectInconsistent TerminiNot following progression
  24. 24. Multiple Termini as Attribute• We wanted to be able to see the lineage ofany project segment. We solved it by cross-referencing the projects, and maintaining theoriginal project termini in the attribute data24
  25. 25. End Result: Reconcile Plans• Moving ahead with CTP amendments• Drafting fiscal constraint to allow LRTPamendments• Reassessment of select STIP projects25I approve ofcleandatabases!
  26. 26. 2.0• Improve attribute table for “ideal” future crosssection and cost estimation• Tie to 2009 NCDOT “Complete Streets” policy• Add a freight/delivery component26
  27. 27. Most of all• Use the reconciled data to drive the jointCTP/LRTP update beginning in 2014• Use the reconciled data to improve theprojects submitted for SPOT in 2014• Apply Complete Streets principles to all levelsof analysis to bolster construction of facilitiesas Complete Streets.27
  28. 28. So that someday we build less of this:28
  29. 29. And more of this.29
  1. A particular slide catching your eye?

    Clipping is a handy way to collect important slides you want to go back to later.

×