Title: Rightsizing Workshop
1Right-sizing Workshop
2Session Agenda
- Purpose of the Workshop
- Overarching Concepts Video
- Federal Perspective
- Right-sizing in Planning Linking Planning and
NEPA - Understanding/Implementing Right-sizing for
Ongoing Projects - General Discussion
3FHWA Perspective on Right-sizing
4Considerations
- Design Policy
- Measures of Effectiveness
- Planning Process
- FHWA Oversight Responsibility
5Design Policy23 CFR 625
- Proposed National Highway System (NHS) projects
shall provide for a facility that will - (1) Adequately serve the existing and planned
future traffic of the highway in a manner that is
conducive to safety, durability, and economy of
maintenance and - (2) Be designed and constructed in accordance
with criteria best suited to accomplish the
objectives described in paragraph (a)(1) of this
section and to conform to the particular needs of
each locality.
6Design Policy Cont..
- An important goal of the FHWA is to provide the
highest practical and feasible level of safety - Standards may take into account, in addition to
the criteria described - in 625.2(a), the following
- (i) The constructed and natural environment
of the area - (ii) The environmental, scenic, aesthetic,
historic, community, and preservation impacts of
the activity and - (iii) Access for other modes of transportation.
7Measures of Effectiveness
- Define purpose and need
- Establish MOEs for evaluating alternatives
- Mobility
- Safety
- - cost/benefits
- Community
8MOEs for Mon Fayette
- Delay
- Lane miles of service
- Transit usage
- Accessibility of employment sites
- Number of congested Intersections
- VMT levels of Service
9Design Flexibility References
- Performance measures of operational effectiveness
for Highway Segments and Systems -
NCHRPhttp//trisonline.bts.gov/search.cfm - Flexibility in Highway Design FHWA guidance
- A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway
Design-AASHTO - Traffic Analysis Toolbox -FHWA
- A Guide to Best Practices for Achieving CSS
-NCHRP
10Planning Process23 CFR 450
- Ideally, projects would be sized correctly
through the a comprehensive planning process - 20 year LRTP/TIP/STIP/UPWP
- Air Quality
- Fiscal Constraint
- Project selection criteria
11Harrisburg MPO Project Ranking Criteria
- Potential transportation projects evaluated
against 17 regional criteria. - Extra point given for
- Consistency with the Countys Comprehensive Plan
- Consistency with Regional Growth Management Plan
12FHWA Oversight Responsibility and Right Sizing
- Compliance with laws and regulations -CEQ, NEPA,
executive orders etc... - Prevention of waste fraud and abuse
- Improve safety, mobility and environmental
Stewardship. - Responsive to Congressional and public scrutiny..
- Maintain public trust and confidence.
13Recommendations
- Align MPO/RPO LRTP goals and PennDOT Business
Plan goals in project selection. - Select projects that maximize results.
- Develop cost effective project solutions that
satisfy needs early in the process.. - Enhance management systems and use outputs to
prioritize project selection - Safety, congestion, pavement, bridge..
- Improve scoping process and manage scope creep,
cost and schedules - Engage public early and often
14Right-sizing
- Perspective from Planning
15Right-sizing in Planning
- Focus is meeting the Commonwealths
Transportation Needs - Consideration for
- Community and Regional Goals
- Quality of Life
- Economic Development Initiatives
- Fiscal Constraint
- Social and Environmental Issues
16Program Right-sizing
- Re-focus on Statewide and Regional Transportation
Priorities - Focus on System Preservation
- Fiscal Responsibility
17Expectations for the 2007 Program Update
- Statewide Transportation Priorities
- System Preservation
- Structurally Deficient Bridges
- Project Selection and Scope Management
- Fiscal Constraint
- Fiscal Restraint L K Beyond 2010
18Best
- Scope
- Cost
- Schedule
- Early as Possible
- Often as Reasonable
19Cursory Right-sizing Review
- Right Scope
- Right Cost
- Right Schedule
- May require field view or special meeting
- Use the most up to date information available
20Timing
- Before draft TIPS are developed with Planning
Partners (11/15/05) and submitted to Central
Office (2/3/06) - No mandated approach
- Each District/Local Sponsor may develop its
unique approach to conduct this review
21Linking Planning and NEPA
- March 31st Executive Session
- April 27th-29th Work Group
- Action Plan for PA
- Statewide Planning
- MPO/RPO Planning
- Planning Studies
- Agency Coordination Meetings
- Information Gathering and Sharing
- Outreach
22Improve Effectiveness
- During Project Inception/Conception
- Early information
- Cultural Resources
- Environmental Resources
- Utility Involvement
- Location of Threatened and Endangered Species
- Influence Decision Making Regarding Project
Scopes and Alternatives - Avoidance
23(No Transcript)
24Early Information
- Better Understanding of Issues
- Less Surprises
- Better setting of Expectations regarding
- Schedules
- Cost
- Engaging Agencies early in the process is key to
identifying potential points of controversy and
developing early, cost effective solutions.
25Stewardship of Resources
- Drives How Decisions are Made
- Best Value for our Entire Infrastructure
-
26Understanding and Implementing Right-sizingfor
Ongoing Projects
27Outline
- What does it mean?
- Why?/Purpose True Engineering
- Relationships with standards and criteria
- Relationship with VE/ACTT
- Timing for Right-sizing
- Implementation
28What does it mean?
- Technical Terms
- 23 CFR 625.2
- Laymans Terms
- Size the project to address well-defined
problems within programmed fiscal constraints
29Why?
- Highway and Bridge Needs
- Highway Pavement
- 6 Year Needs 18.0 Billion
- 6 Year Available Funds 13.2 Billion
- Gap 4.8 Billion
- Bridges
- 6 Year Needs 3.3 Billion
- 6 Year Available Funds 1.8 Billion
- Gap 1.5 Billion
- 6 Year Funding Gap 6.3 Billion
30Highway Bridge Conditions
31Definition of Engineering
- The application of science and mathematics by
which the properties of matter and sources of
energy in nature are made useful (cost
effectively) to man in structures, machines,
products, systems and processes.
32Relationship with Standards and Criteria
- Why standards and criteria
- Flexibility
Center Street Bridge, Cumberland County
33Relationships
Borough of Foxburg, Clarion County
34Timing for Right-sizing
- Rightsizing can be addressed during
- Planning
- Programming
- Project Scoping
- Design Field View
- (Re-affirmed during) Final Design
35Applicability
- Capacity Adding projects
- Bridge Replacement
- Major Reconstruction projects (costing over 10
Million) - Other Federal Oversight Projects
36Suggested Prioritization
- Projects to be let within a year
- High Cost Projects (25 Million or more)
- Other projects in Final Design
- Projects in Preliminary Engineering
37Approach
- One half day workshop for districts and
consultants - Pro-teams for High Cost or Complex Projects
- Working level teams (DO/CO/FHWA) for other
projects - VE/ACTT for high cost and complex projects
38Process
- Define Problems (purpose) and Needs
- Define Measures of Success and measurements for
each measure - Define Givens
- Public Participation
- Resource Agency Involvement
- CO/FHWA participation and approvals
- Define Constraints
- Physical
- Socio-economical
- Fiscal
- Environmental
- Others
39Process (cont.)
- Define validation group (D-PMC, Ad Hoc groups,
PMC, etc) - Define/Understand driving forces
- Legal Controls
- Safety Controls
- Public Officials expectations
- Polarized Groups
- Public Sentiments
- Designer/reviewer protecting turfs
40Process (cont.)
- Evaluate Preliminary Options and Solutions
- Engineering solutions
- Must look at constructabilitity up front
- Transportation Operation Solutions
- Incident Management
- ITS tools
- Other Solutions
- Alternate modes of transportation
- Alternate routes
- Manage expectations (communicate with
stakeholders and the public) - Land Use planning, partnering with locals
41Process (cont.)
- Narrow down solution(s) using logics and/or very
preliminary analysis based upon - Constraints
- Meeting the measures of success
- Cost effectiveness including maintenance and
operations costs - Evaluate impacts of selected solutions on
- Safety
- Social/Public
- Economy
- Environmental
- Fiscal
- Other challenges
42Process (cont)
- Validation by
- District PMC
- Ad Hoc Groups (CO/FHWA/others)
- PMC
- Once decisions are reached, move fast towards
construction
43US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
44No Build Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
45NBCP Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
111M
Project Cost
46Parkway Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
206M
Total Project Cost
161M
Cost toComplete
Project Cost
47Expressway Option
US 202 Section 700 Montgomeryville to Doylestown
465M
Total Project Cost
383M
Cost toComplete
Project Cost
48I-79 Kirwan Heights to Parkway
49I-79 Neville Island to I-279
50SR 0078 Section 12M
51 SR 0078 Section 12M
Existing
Total Max Width 76
Before VE/ACTT
Total Width 104
525 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 611
Proposed Rte 940
Existing Rte 940
Proposed Connector
Rte 196
Existing
Proposed Rte 940
Rte 940
Borough of Mount Pocono, Monroe County
535 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 940
Rte 940
Rte 196
Borough of Mount Pocono, Monroe County
545 POINTS INTERSECTION
Rte 611
Proposed Connector
Rte 196
55Foxburg Bridge
56FOXBURG VEACTT SESSION
57FOXBURG VEACTT SESSION
58SR 412 Section 001
Lehigh County, Northampton County
59SR 412 Section 001
60Gravel Run Road Bridge (District 1-0)
61Historic/Section 4(f) Resources
62