Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

House Transportation Committee March 4, 2015. Mark Gieseke, Director MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "House Transportation Committee March 4, 2015. Mark Gieseke, Director MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management."— Presentation transcript:

1 House Transportation Committee March 4, 2015

2 Mark Gieseke, Director MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management

3 Minnesota’s multimodal transportation system maximizes the health of people, the environment and our economy. 3

4 Minnesota GO 50-year Vision Desired Outcomes Guiding Principles Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan Multimodal Objectives Strategies State Highway Investment Plan Mode-Specific Strategies & Guidance Performance Measures & Performance-Based Needs Investment Optimization System Priorities & Definition

5 Minnesota GO: Investment Priorities & Direction Emphasis on Maintaining existing infrastructure Emphasis on infrastructure & safety, some local/mobility Emphasis on mobility for all modes, address local concerns 5

6 Minnesota GO: Investment Priorities & Direction 6

7  Recommendations of management systems: ◦ Pavement smoothness ◦ Pavement quality  Achievement of plan outcomes and FHWA targets.  Project continuity and coordination with other state or local projects.

8  Identifying congested areas may involve using the following evaluation criteria ◦ Predictable, congestion- free travel options ◦ Return on Investment ◦ Congestion levels ◦ Traffic volumes ◦ Potential congestion improvement using technology or operations ◦ Crashes ◦ Lane continuity

9  Local government and public support  Readiness (MnDOT and local partners)  Return on Investment  Economic development potential  Quality of life benefits

10  Selecting projects in the 4-year State Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)  Selecting projects in the10-year Highway Investment Plan (HIP) Programming is the process of selecting projects

11 7 Steps to Programming - Project Selection Step 1. Collect Project Selection Inputs Step 2. Identify Projects Step 3. Develop Draft Project List Step 4. Project List Review Step 5. Statewide Outcome Balancing Step 6. Public Review and Input Step 7. Approve the Program

12  Pavement and bridge management systems identify needed maintenance  Crash records  Congestion data  Local Priorities

13  Districts review data for recommendations  Public and stakeholder input ◦ Local priorities expressed by local agencies, legislators, stakeholders, and the general public  Districts consider a variety of other factors: ◦ Community impact ◦ Maintenance operations ◦ Conflicts with other projects ◦ Funding ◦ Safety ◦ Congestion ◦ Accessibility

14  Districts select projects o The list should meet the performance goals o The list should fit within budget constraints  The District Engineer ultimately decides which projects to include

15  Specialty offices evaluate District project lists ◦ Assures equity across all Districts ◦ Addresses unique regional issues ◦ Assures that MnSHIP performance outcomes are met  The results of this balancing decide the draft statewide program

16  Notice is published that the draft statewide program list is available for comment  Each district uses their own process to collect input on the draft program list  Districts and specialty offices review the public comments and may make adjustments to the draft program list  The District Engineer makes final adjustments  Finance and Programming offices conduct a final performance and financial review  MnDOT’s senior leadership gives the final review  Commissioner gives final MnDOT approval

17  Projects move in and out of the program  Flexibility needed - budget, project delays, etc.  NexTen projects are not hand picked but instead go through the same process

18 Chris Roy, Director MnDOT’s Office of Project Management & Technical Support

19 19 TH 61 Hastings bridge –First DB project in 1997 First modern DB project in 2002: ‘ROC52’ –29 Awarded Projects 19 ‘Best Value’, $1-234 Million 10 ‘Low Bid’, $2-19 Million –$1.6 Billion Total –Typically 20-30% of MnDOT’s program by cost. 2-3% or program by number (limited to 10% by Statute) Typically 3-5 projects per year over last five years.

20 20 DB Benefits: Accelerated Delivery Risk Transfer (Quantities, etc) Competing/Innovative Designs Contractor ‘Value Engineering’ /ATCs “Best Value” Awards Flexibility DB Drawbacks: Non-Complex Project Cost Efficiency Less Control over Design Third party permits or agreements Design Oversight Resources ‘ROC 52’ in Rochester

21 21 –Acceleration I35W Collapse: completion in (less than) 1 year ‘ROC 52’: Construction duration reduced by 1.5 years –Cost Efficiencies Change Orders reduced from 6% in DBB to 2% ATCs often reduce costs: rough average of 3% reduction Value Engineering: TH 610 and St Croix roadways ‘Fixed cost’ structure –Design Improvements Crookston slope stability Bridge/structure minimization Innovations: MSE Walls, ‘ABC’ techniques, warranties, performance specs

22 22 –Primary Factors Considered Cost Schedule Project Complexity & Innovation Current Status of Design Staffing/Workforce Availability & Experience Risk Allocation

23  Low Bid ◦ Pass/Fail Technical Proposal  Best for: non-complex projects, minimal risk transfer, lower dollar value (under $10 to 20 million)  Best Value ◦ Formal Technical Proposal Scoring  Best for: major bridges, complex highways, unique designs, major risk transfer  Weight of price vs technical score is determined before RFP is issued 23

24 –Prior to letting, technical proposals are submitted –Each Technical Review Committee (TRC) member reviews and comments on them independently By statute, the TRC includes at least 5 members One member is appointed by Associated General Contractors (AGC) –After proposal review the TRC convenes to compare comments and discussion –Following the discussion, each member scores individually –The teams’ final technical scores are averaged from the individual scores

25 The winner is determined using the following formula: Adjusted Score = Price Proposal / Technical Score …the project is awarded to the team with the LOWEST Adjusted Score.

26 Scott Peterson, Director MnDOT Office of Government Affairs

27 ◦ P3 is a phrase that defines a wide variety of agreements between public agencies and private firms ◦ Private entity assumes a role or roles more typically performed by public entity ◦ Provide opportunities to increase net public benefit ◦ MnDOT has been sporadically active for 20 years I-494 & Penn Ave Interchange

28  Concessions and long term leases  Design/Build  Operate and maintain  D/B Operate and Maintain  D/B Finance  D/B Finance Operate  D/B Finance Operate and Maintain  D/B (own) Operate Maintain and Transfer  Financial Contributions

29  Transmart  Connecting Minnesota  Design/Build  MnROAD  Solar on ROW  Transportation and Economic Development (TED) program  Unsolicited Proposals MnROAD

30 ◦ Lower cost and/or more public benefit ◦ Accelerated completion ◦ Raise funds for other public purpose ◦ Reduce public debt ◦ Project cost savings ◦ Project construction time savings ◦ Life cycle efficiencies ◦ Higher quality ◦ Reduction in overall risk Hwy 15/33 rd Street South

31 – Traditional state or federal revenue – New taxes or taxing districts – Tolls – Shadow tolls – Availability payments – Value capture

32 – Usually a blend of public and private sources – Private equity markets – Private debt instruments – Public revenue – Public debt – Innovative public financing – Transportation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) – State Infrastructure Bank – Tapered match – Private activity bonds

33  Clear, measurable performance requirements  Appropriate assignment of risk  Well defined roles of each party  Effective safeguards of other public interests  Assignment of liability B Ramp, Target Field

34  Transferred to private party ◦ Revenue ◦ Construction cost ◦ Project schedule ◦ Operations and Maintenance ◦ Traffic forecasts  Maintained by public sector ◦ Environmental process ◦ Permits ◦ ROW ◦ Legal framework

35  Public skepticism  Public sector capacity in key skill sets  Transparency  Accountability  Accurate calculation of cost, benefits, and risks  Authorized public procurement methods  Availability of revenue streams  Legal obstacles  Data privacy

36 National Examples – Indiana Toll Road ($3.8 billion) – Chicago Skyway ($1.2 billion) – SR-91, Orange County ($100 million) – I-495 / I-95 Express Lanes, Virginia ($2 billion) – I-95, Miami Tunnel, Florida ($500 million)

37  Traditional bond financing is inexpensive  Tolling restrictions  Local veto for new toll roads  No project or combination of projects of sufficient scale  Skepticism about preserving the  Public interest in public infrastructure investments I-494 & Penn Ave Interchange

38 Name of PartnershipType MnDOT StakeProgram TH 7 and Louisiana Avenue Public-Public: St. Louis Park-MnDOT 25.6%TED Penn Avenue and I-494 Public-Private- Public: City of Richfield- Best Buy- MnDOT 22.2%Unsolicited Proposal US HWY 169/Bren Road Public-Private- Public: City of Minnetonka-United Health Group-MnDOT 54.6%Unsolicited Proposal US HWY 10/CSAH 34 Public-Private- Public: Perham-Perham Memorial Hospital, local businesses-MnDOT 62.7%TED TH 15 and 33rd Street South Public-Public: St. Cloud-MnDOT 69.0%TED ABC RAMPS Improvements Public-Public: City of Minneapolis/Target Field- MnDOT 100.0%Unsolicited Proposal

39  Commitment from Executive Leadership  Support of policy makers  The Right Opportunity / The Right Project  The Right Partner(s)  Public Involvement  Transparency and accountability  A Well-Crafted Plan, Contract, and Defined Process

40 Questions? Scott Peterson, Director of Government Affairs


Download ppt "House Transportation Committee March 4, 2015. Mark Gieseke, Director MnDOT Office of Transportation System Management."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google