Performance Programming Process

P3

Montana’s Approach to Asset Management

Sandra Straehl, Chief Program & Policy Analysis Bureau

Montana Department of TransportationSeptember 24, 2001

2

P3:

A method to develop an optimal funding allocation and investment plan based on

strategic highway system performance goals, and the continual measurement of progress

towards these goals.

3

Montana’s Transportation Context

• Highway Oriented

• Efficiencies of Scale mean some centralizations

• -Districts Nominate Projects-Hqtr. Finalizes Program/Develops Projects

• No TMAs

• About 70% of overall program can be allocated and prioritized through P3 -

-30% distributed by formula

• Many tools in place before P3 analysis:-relational data sets (oracle environment)-management systems in place-linear referencing and GIS in place

4

156910141516222632343840414949515959647575767985869699100

127132132132

155164171173186

209217

268274276

381385

525676

784945

1094

AlaskaWyomingMontana

North DakotaSouth Dakota

New MexicoIdaho

Nevada Nebraska

UtahKansasOregon

ColoradoMaine

ArizonaOklahomaArkansas

IowaMississippiMinnesota

VermontWest Virginia

TexasUnited States

MissouriWashington

AlabamaWisconsinKentuckyLouisiana

South CarolinaTennessee

GeorgiaNew Hampshire

North CarolinaIndianaVirginia

MichiganHawaii

CaliforniaIllinois

PennsylvaniaOhio

FloridaDelawareNew YorkMaryland

ConnecticutMassachusetts

Rhode IslandNew Jersey

Population Density Per Square MilePopulation Density Per Square Mile19981998

Source: U.S. Bureau of Census Miles From Nowhere - April, 1999

5

77.7%77.4%

75.1%74.0%

73.2%72.9%

71.2%67.8%

65.9%65.3%

63.9%62.4%62.3%62.1%

58.6%56.2%

55.1%54.5%

52.6%52.6%

51.4%50.7%50.6%50.3%

49.6%49.2%

44.9%44.7%44.3%44.3%

42.0%40.4%

39.1%39.1%38.7%38.3%

37.4%35.4%

34.5%32.7%32.3%

30.0%29.8%

26.8%26.6%

25.8%24.7%

19.6%19.3%

16.5%14.5%

0.0%

MontanaSouth DakotaNorth Dakota

MaineWyoming

West VirginiaVermont

MississippiArkansas

IdahoIowa

South CarolinaNebraska

New MexicoNew Hampshire

KentuckyLouisianaWisconsin

KansasAlaska

OregonOklahoma

AlabamaIndiana

North CarolinaMinnesota

MissouriTennessee

VirginiaPennsylvania

GeorgiaColorado

United StatesDelaware

OhioMichigan

UtahArizonaNevada

TexasWashington

MarylandIllinoisHawaii

New YorkFlorida

ConnecticutNew Jersey

CaliforniaMassachusetts

Rhode IslandDistrict of Columbia

Percent of Rural Annual Vehicle Percent of Rural Annual Vehicle Miles of Travel (VMT)Miles of Travel (VMT)

Source: FHWA Highway Statistics 1997 Miles From Nowhere - April, 1999

6

Population Per Mile of Public RoadPopulation Per Mile of Public Road79131418202025272930363839394244474747484951545559636367686971727778828487

9898101

130130

158162164

172176

191226

286367

North DakotaSouth Dakota

MontanaWyomingNebraska

IdahoKansas

IowaArkansas

New MexicoOklahomaMinnesotaMississippi

OregonNevada

VermontMissouriAlabama

WisconsinColorado

AlaskaUtah

West VirginiaKentucky

MaineSouth Carolina

TennesseeIndiana

TexasGeorgia

United StatesWashington

LouisianaNorth Carolina

New HampshireMichigan

ArizonaIllinois

VirginiaOhio

PennsylvaniaDelaware

FloridaConnecticut

New YorkRhode Island

MarylandMassachusetts

CaliforniaNew Jersey

HawaiiDistrict of Columbia

Source: FHWA Highway Statistics 1997 and U.S. Census Bureau Miles From Nowhere - April, 1999

7

P3 Premised On:• Performance goals linked to Statewide

Transportation Policy Plan • Investment Analysis uses analytical capability of

management systems• Annual incremental change to long range

construction program to avoid disruption – “thou shalt not disrupt the construction program!”

• Respect for PROJECT-LEVEL engineering judgment of field offices – but, overall program mix supports performance goals

• Program delivery tracked and tied to overall asset management goals and business plan.

8

The Plan Establishes aFuture Vision and

Policy Direction for the Program

9

TranPlan 21 Linkage to P3

“In the beginning there was a plan”

TranPlan 21 Policy Goals

III. A.1. “Establish a process which ensures project selection reflects policy and planning goals.”

III. E. “ Preserve highway pavement conditions at existing or higher levels on the Interstate, Non-I NHS, and Primary Systems.”

Performance Programming Process

Basis for undertaking development of Performance Programming Process

Interstate Performance target:

“average pavement ride for system desirable or superior, with less than ten percent of miles below desirable.”

23 USC 135 (f)(2)(c): “Each project in the (highway) construction program shall be consistent with the long-range transportation plan developed under this section for the state.”

INVESTMENT GOALS TIED TO POLICY PLAN •ENCOURAGES PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND •BUILDS SUPPORT FOR INVESTMENTS

10

Linkage to Longrange Plan (continued)

• Process Survivability Provides an opportunity for a new

administration to effect the program Supports political policy shifts while preserving

the analytical basis of allocation and project decisions.

• Strategic Shifts Update cycle can respond to change but the

program will not be disrupted.

11

Funding Plan Module

Investment Analysis

Performance Objectives

Resource Constraints

Funding Plan

GOAL: A matrix with sufficient detail to allow various roll-ups with funding either Directly or Proportionately based on Performance by System/District/Strategy

NHS STRATEGY

Financial District

2345

Rehab Pav Pres.Recon to Geom Design stand.

Recon to address Capacity

Rehab /Recon Bridge Safety

$

$$

$

$$$

$$

$

$

$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$$

$$

$$$

$

$$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$

$$$

$$

Misc.

$$$

$

$

$

$

$1

Example:

Management System Data

–Funding Availability–Staffing

12

Management Systems

Montana - The Treasure State

A Land of Many Riches Including its Transportation Management Systems.

• Performance Programming uses Pavement, Congestion, Bridge, and Safety Management systems to:

- Develop Funding Plan

- Support Capital Program Development

- What is the best mix of funds to achieve strategic objectives?

• The Management Systems Analyzed the following:

- What overall system performance can be achieved based on various funding levels?

13

PvMS/CMS & PPavement Performance Goal: Ride IndexMobility Performance Goal: LOS

*Interstate• Average Ride Index of Superior or Desirable• < 10% of miles with a Ride Index of Undesirable and/or Unsatisfactory• LOS >B

*Non-Interstate• Average Ride Index of Superior or Desirable• < 20% of miles with a Ride Index of Undesirable and/or Unsatisfactory• LOS >C

*Primary• Average Ride Index of Superior or Desirable• < 20% of miles with a Ride Index of Undesirable and/or Unsatisfactory• LOS >C

3

Goals were established in conjunction with investment analysis!

14

Perform the “Right Treatment at the Right Time”Pavement Life Cycles

15

Investment Analysis

Pavement Management System

All capacity enhancing projects loaded from future 5 year

program

Needs identified based on:• performance goals• non-amber routes*• >1 mile• build-out to geometric design standards*

All reconstructs loadedfrom future 5 year program

All rehabilitation and resurfacing loaded years 1-3 from future 5 year program

Analysis done for District/system/treatmentRun by:• performance targets for pavement• programming strategies• fiscal constraints • CMS reconstructs competed against other reconstructs

Tentative 5 Year Construction Program

Congestion Management System

• Proportional Funding Distribution by: District/System/Treatment

• Strategy assigned to each analysis section

Performance confirmed for mobility goals within analysis period

Funding Plan & Query Tool

CMS Re

constructs

All SelectedReconstruction Projects

Mobility Measure

16

Investment Analysis Concepts

• Amber Routes - those routes needing capacity enhancement where issues (environmental/jurisdictional/etc.) preclude it.

• Geometric Design Standards - System wide guide for maximum build-out based on functional class and volume (range: full AASHTO to 28 foot top)

• Programming Strategies:• achieve performance goals

• maintain a “steady state” program

• perform the “right treatment at the right time”

• fiscal constraints: early rehab/repave on low volume roads provided resources needed to address reconstruction on high volume roads.

17

0102030405060708090

100

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Year End Condition

Avera

ge Rid

e Ind

ex

Undesirable

Desirable

Superior

Tentative Construction Program

Unsatisfactory

Desirable

Undesirable/ Unsatisfactory

Superior

$’s are Lost

$82 Million

More $’s become available

Investment Level

Performance Programming PvMS Analysis NHS - Non Interstate Average Ride Index

% Miles With Undesirable and/or Unsatisfactory Ride

*NHS (Non-Interstate) System has 2683.35 center line miles

18

RURAL NI-NHS SYSTEM

Performance Goal Congestion Index >55 (>LOS C)

(includes recommended capacity improvements)

Unsatisfactory

Undesirable

Desirable

Superior

0102030405060708090

100

1998 2003 2008 2010

Years

Con

gest

ion

In

dex

District 1 District 2 District 3

District 4 District 5 Statewide

19

$196 Million Total Annual Budget $196,000,000

Year: 2005 % BY

DISTR % BY SYSTEM

NHS Interstate 18.0%

Fin Dist RECON REHAB RESURF Total $35,280,000 RECON REHAB RESURF

1 0% 21% 79% 100% 21% $7,408,800 $0 $1,555,848 $5,852,952

2 0% 23% 77% 100% 19% $6,703,200 $0 $1,541,736 $5,161,464

3 0% 16% 84% 100% 22% $7,761,600 $0 $1,275,113 $6,486,487

4 0% 19% 81% 100% 20% $7,056,000 $0 $1,340,640 $5,715,360

5 0% 20% 80% 100% 17% $5,997,600 $0 $1,187,990 $4,809,610

$34,927,200 $0 $6,901,327 $28,025,873 $34,927,200

NHS Non-I 45.0%

Fin Dist RECON REHAB RESURF Total $88,200,000 RECON REHAB RESURF

1 84% 7% 6% 97% 21% $18,522,000 $15,558,480 $1,296,540 $1,111,320

2 68% 21% 11% 100% 19% $16,758,000 $11,395,440 $3,519,180 $1,843,380

3 64% 20% 16% 100% 22% $19,404,000 $12,418,560 $3,880,800 $3,121,110

4 56% 19% 25% 100% 20% $17,640,000 $9,878,400 $3,351,600 $4,410,000

5 57% 21% 22% 100% 17% $14,994,000 $8,546,580 $3,148,740 $3,334,110

$87,318,000 $57,797,460 $15,196,860 $13,819,920 $86,814,240

STP-P 36.0%

Fin Dist RECON REHAB RESURF Total $70,560,000 RECON REHAB RESURF

1 65% 23% 12% 100% 21% $14,817,600 $9,631,440 $3,408,048 $1,733,819

2 61% 16% 23% 100% 19% $13,406,400 $8,177,904 $2,145,024 $3,083,472

3 67% 21% 12% 100% 22% $15,523,200 $10,400,544 $3,259,872 $1,862,784

4 59% 20% 21% 100% 20% $14,112,000 $8,326,080 $2,822,400 $2,963,520

5 58% 20% 22% 100% 17% $11,995,200 $6,957,216 $2,399,040 $2,638,944

$69,854,400

99.0% $43,493,184 $14,034,384 $12,282,539 $69,810,107

$194,040,000 $191,551,547

TARGETS

Comprehensive Analysis(Preliminary and Subject to Change)

FY 2005

20

Performance is TiedTo Program Development

Through Linkage to Fund Plan andPerformance Query Tool

21

SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE

QUERY TOOL

PUBLIC COMMENT

FUNDING PLAN

Program Development Module

PROJECT NOMINATION

TECHNICAL REVIEW

STIP APPROVALS

APRIL

AUG

ArcView/GIS based system to provide the Districts with the same Management System Information used to develop the Funding Plan.

A comparison of nominations to “Funding Plan” with HQ/District negotiations as needed.

22

SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE QUERY TOOL

• Oracle based system.

• Graphics support through ArcView maps and Image Viewer.

• Carries the same management system data used in developing the funding plan provided to Districts on CD’s.

• Allows user to nominate projects consistent with project mix developed in the funding plan.

-District personnel choose projects based on engineering judgement.

23

Sample District Application:

➨ scan needs

➨ analyze sites

➨ field proof

➨ propose projects

➨ summarize funding needs

➨ nominate projects

FUNDING PLAN APPROVAL

PROJECT NOMINATION

SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE

QUERY TOOL

STIP APPROVALS

System Performance Query Tool

24

SPATIAL REPRESENTATION OF MANAGEMENT SYSTEM DATA CONSISTENT WITH FUNDING PLAN

25

ACTUAL ROADWAY PICTURE FROM IMAGE VIEWER OF THIS LOCATION

26

OPENING MENU FOR THE SYSTEMS PERFORMANCE QUERY TOOL

27

RECOMMENDED TREATMENT FROM THE PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM AND THE ASSOCIATED NEEDS FROM THE BRIDGE, CONGESTION,

AND SAFETY MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS

28

DETAIL FOR INDIVIDUAL PAVEMENT RECOMENDATIONS

56

29

A LISTING OF SELECTED RECOMMENDED PAVEMENT SITES

30

PRODUCES PROJECT NOMINATIONS FROM SELECTED SITES

31

FUNDING SUMMARY FOR PROPOSED PROJECTS

32

Program Delivery isMonitored for Total

Delivered And Program Mix

AUG.

MA

NA

GE

ME

NT

SY

ST

EM

DA

TA

Performance Programming Annual Cycle

INVESTMENT ANALYSISPERFORMANCE

OBJECTIVESRESOURCE

CONSTRAINTS

FUNDING PLAN APPROVAL

PROJECT NOMINATION

SYSTEM PERFORMANCE

QUERY TOOL

TECHNICAL REVIEW PUBLIC COMMENT

STIP APPROVALS

POLICY DIRECTION FROM STATEWIDE PLAN

DEC.

APRIL

Pro

gram

Dev

elop

men

t Mod

ule

Fun

ding

Pla

n M

odul

e Pol

icy

Mod

uleUpdated

+ 5 years

Dat

a L

oade

d in

to S

yste

ms

NOV.

Dat

a C

olle

ctio

n fo

r N

ext C

ycle

34

Advantages MDT will Realize from P3

• Improved Accountability for MDT’s transportation program

• Sets clear guidelines for making sound and cost effective investment decisions

• Improves the ability of measuring progress in system performance and program delivery

• Allows tangible justification of the Department’s fiscal needs before Montana’s Legislature

• Management Benefits: predictability resource planning

35

Initial Focus and Next Steps

The focus of initial cycle:Cross management system analysis for pavement and congestion

Next: Incorporating Urban Delay/Pavement and Bridge refinements by Mar. 02