case: benchmarking connecticut’s transportation infrastructure capital program

7/30/2019 CASE: Benchmarking Connecticuts Transportation Infrastructure Capital Program

1/81

Benchmarking connecticuts

transportation infrastructure

capital programwith

other states

septemBer 2012

a report By

the connecticut

academyof science

and engineering

for

the

connecticut departmentoftransportation


2/81


3/81

Benchmarking connecticuts

transportation infrastructure

capital programwith

other states

a report By

the connecticut academy

of scienceand engineering

OriginOf inquiry: The COnneCTiCuT DeparTmenTOf TranspOrTaTiOn

DaTe inquiryesTablisheD: July 1, 2011

DaTe respOnsereleaseD: sepTember 5, 2012

Copyright, 2012. ConneCtiCut ACAdemy of SCienCe And engineering, inC. All rightS reServed


4/81

benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstates

connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering

ts s was a a qs Ccc da tasa J1, 2011. t jc was cc b a Aca S C w s Smaa ncas lws, pd, pe a S As, ec Jacks, pd. t c s s w c Acas tasa Sss tcca Ba. t as b w b Aca mb p g. Cab, pd. maa Sa, Acas maa e, . t s b as w aa Aca Cc.

rca h. Sassexc dc

dsca

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible for the facts andaccuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the ofcial views cs Ccc da tasa. t s cs a

standard, specication, or regulation.

t u.S. g a Ccc da tasa scs aacs.


5/81


iiiconnecticutacademyofscienceandengineering

Technical Report Documentation Page

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized

1. Report No.

CT-2276-F-12-6

2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipients Catalog No.

5. Report Date

September 2012

4. Title and Subtitle

Benchmarking Connecticuts Transportation

Infrastructure Capital Program with Other

States6. Performing Organization Code

SPR-22727. Author(s)

Nicholas Lownes, Study Manager

Eric Jackson, Study Advisor

KellyBertolaccini, Research Assistant

8. Performing Organization Report No.

CT-2276-F-12-6

10. Work Unit No. (TRIS)

11. Contract or Grant No.

CT Study No. SPR-2276

9. Performing Organization Name and Address

Connecticut Academy of Science & Engineering

805 Brook Street, Building 4-CERC

Rocky Hill, CT 06067-3405

13. Type of Report and Period Covered

Final Report

July 2011 September 201212. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address

Connecticut Department of Transportation

2800 Berlin Turnpike

Newington, CT 06131-7546

14. Sponsoring Agency Code

SPR-2276

15. Supplementary Notes

Partners: Connecticut Department of Transportation, Bureau of Engineering and

Construction, Division of Design Services, AEC Applications and Research Section;

Connecticut Academy of Science and Engineering; and the Connecticut Transportation

Institute, University of Connecticut. Prepared in cooperation with USDOT, Federal

Highway Administration.16. Abstract

This study was conducted to benchmark Connecticuts performance in capital

programming against other state DOTs, identify ways to improve the performance and

efficiency of the capital programming process and create a tool, a Transportation

Investment Dashboard, to communicate the performance of Connecticuts capital

program to the states transportation leadership.

Current data suggest that Connecticuts capital program may be more reliant onfederal sources than the selected benchmark and best practice states reviewed in

this study. This finding may indicate that expanded state investment and/or

alternative sources of revenue will be needed to keep pace with the states capital

investment needs. ConnDOT is currently involved in many initiatives that are

intended to improve the efficiency of the states capital programming process and

linkage to long-term transportation goals. These initiatives should be continued

and progress should be tracked in a transportation investment dashboard using

relevant financial data and performance measures. These performance measures

should also be used in formalizing the linkage between long-term planning and

capital programming, and to ensure that resources are adequate to meet future

travel demand.

17. Key Words

Capital program benchmarking,

planning and performance;

transportation infrastructurefunding/investment.

18. Distribution Statement

No restrictions. This document is available

to the public through the National Technical

Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif.

(Of this report)

Unclassified

20. Security Classif.(Of

this page)

Unclassified

21. No. of

Pages

78

20. Price

N/A


6/81




7/81



MEMBERS OF THE STUDY COMMITTEE On

BEnCHMARKInG COnnECTICUT S TRAnSPORTATIOnInFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL PROGRAM

WITH OTHER STATES

research team

STUDY MAnAGERnicholas E. Lowes, PhD, PE, Asssa pss

da C a ea e & dc,C tasa a lab Sss, us Ccc

STUDY ADVISOR

Eric Jackso, PhD, Asssa rsac pssCcc tasa is, us Ccc

RESEARCH ASSISTAnTKelly Bertolaccii, gaa rsac Asssa

us Ccc

ACADEMY PROJECT STAFFRichard H. Strauss, exc dc

Terri Clark, Assca dcA G. Bertii, Asssa dc pas

Daiela Bremmerdc, Sac AssssWas Sa da tasa

Jerry Caseydc rss a iama da tasa

Michael Hederso

tasa pa Scasmss da tasa

Joh n. Iva, PhD(Academy Member)pss & Assca da haC & ea eus Ccc

Jack Lettieref Cssnw Js da tasa

Herbert Leviso (Academy Member)pss C e (.)us Ccc;tasa Csa

Sue Mcneilpss C & eaeus dawa

Michael Saudersfa hwa Asa (.)f d Css, Cdot

Richard Tetreaultdc pa dv da tasa


8/81




9/81



TABLE OF COnTEnTS

tABle of ContentS .........................................................................................

gloSSAry of termS ...........................................................................................xeXeCutive SummAry .........................................................................................x

1 introduCtion ................................................................................................1

2 BACKground ...................................................................................................3

3 literAture revieW .......................................................................................54 foCuS groupS ................................................................................................175 StAte Survey ................................................................................................. 196 findingS .................................................................................................357 reCommendAtionS .............................................................................................37

referenCeS ....................................................................................................................43

AppendiCeS ...................................................................................................................45Ax A: Sa S (pas i) w Sa rsss...............................45Ax B: ia Scs tasa is

dasba ms.......................................................................... 56Ax C: Ackws ........................................................................58


10/81




11/81


connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering x

gloSSAry of termS

AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Ofcials

ARRA Aca rc a rs Ac

CASE Ccc Aca Scc a e

CoDOT Ccc da tasa

FHWA fa hwa Asa

FFY fa fsca ya

FY fsca ya (Sa)

GRTA ga ra tasa A

LRTP l ra tasa paMassDOT massacss da tasa

MDOT maa da tasa

MoDOT mss da tasa

MPO ma pa oaza

nCHRP naa Ca hwa rsac pa

nEPA naa ea pc Ac

nJDOT nw Js da tasa

nYSDOT nw yk Sa da tasa

ROW rs Wa

RPA ra pa Ac

STIP Sa tasa i pa

TICP tasa iasc Caa pa

VTras v tasa Ac

WSDOT Was Sa da tasa


12/81

connecticutacademyofscienceandengineeringx



13/81

benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesexecutivesummary


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

t Ccc da tasa (Cdot), k s sa asaacs, s a w a cas csa b. dcas sa s aa scs (sc as as ax), ca a sas,a cas s a asc, as Cdot a saasa acs aa ajs a a a csss.As ConnDOT aims to meet the states long-term transportation goals in this constrained scalenvironment, they need to ensure that available funds are invested as effectively and efcientlyas ssb.

STUDY PURPOSE

ts s was cc bcak Cccs ac caa aagainst other state DOTs, identify ways to improve the performance and efciency of thecaa a css a ca a a tasa is dasbacca ac Cccs caa a sas asa

as.

BRIEF STATEMEnT OF PRIMARY COnCLUSIOn

C aa sss a Cccs caa a a b a ascs a sc bcak a bs acc sas w s s. tsnding may indicate that expanded state investment and/or alternative sources of revenue

w b k ac w sas caa s s. Cdot s cinvolved in many initiatives that are intended to improve the efciency of the states capitala css a ka - asa as. ts as sb c a ss s b ack a asa s asba srelevant nancial data and performance measures. These performance measures should alsob s az ka bw - a a caa a, a s a scs a aqa a a.

SUMMARY OF BACKGROUnD

t ss a sca a a sa sas aa a caa a, a k

a aa cs, sc as Sa tasa i pa (Stip), a s caa as a csab. i aca, scs sa a b ab a s scs. t, a caa xs sa scs s b cs aaxa. is, Ccc as a ca s a scs(f 3(a)) css a s c bcak sas 1992-2009.


14/81



executivesummary

STUDY DESCRIPTIOn

A -as aac was ak s, css a a sca; a ss cs ssss w Cdot s; a a a s, ws a aa cca aass sc bcak a bs acc sas.

SUMMARY OF FOCUS GROUPS

fcs s ssss w sa c Cdot caa apractices. These sessions identied several common issues in the capital program design andplanning process that either can be, or are being changed, to improve efciency. Changesc b cca css, a jcab a css, a s a b c jcs as a aa ca a a sa css. n a ka bw l ra tasa pa (lrtp) a caa a xss, acc,the ve-year capital plan, along with the performance measures currently reported quarterly by

Cdot, a b s s ka.

SUMMARY OF STATE SURVEY RESULTS

Sx sas bcak a bs acc sasw sc s aaass.

Best practice states (Missouri, Vermont, and Washington) were identied through anexamination of the literature on strengthening the planning/programming linkage,ass aa, a ac as; a

Benchmark states (Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) were identied througha sa-sca qaa cas sas bw Ccc a sc sas w a scs, asa asc,acs a ca.

The survey ndings revealed no evidence that a dependency on federal funds over state funds,with the associated lack of flexibility, limited a state transportation agencys ability to link css s - asa as. hw, s a aa a sc sas s cas ac a s a ca.

Another common concern identied in the survey process was the importance of betterca cs a css b as cssasac a a a w ac ass.

A sas s a c k was z resources more efciently. Most states are approaching this challenge by looking for new scs, as w as a cac cqs efcient use of existing funds. Some of the proposed revenue sources include raising the gas tax,


15/81



a a ax, a a as. Aa, s sas c b jcs c a cac cqs accs.

RECOMMEnDATIOnSBased on the study ndings, the CASE study committee offers the following recommendations.

Establish performace measures to track project deliverability ad iovativecotractig methods. pjc ab ac s b as b ca caa jcs a a c a b. Ccc c ass ca csc cacsc w b a ca csc cacs c time. While these are useful measures, they do not necessarily reflect the experience asa ss. t, a aa ac as s b

used that identies whether a project is fully functional and open for public use on. eac ack caabs a ka ac cs a qaa a c (it) scs, as was cas s cas ssas. Cdot s cs cac w a a a caajcs aa ss, csz as s a azaasc. Aa ac ass cs as jcab c:

v Cas(s) a jc

v vaac bw jc b a aca cs

v mass jcs ak s aa a cac

s, sc as s-b, s c: b jcs,sa a cs sas, b ca s, a b contractor claims led. Data measured for alternative contracting methodologiess b aaz a ca w aa s-b-b assss a ac, a.

Uder-program (uder-commit) the capital project pla while maitaiig a biof fully-desiged, o-programmed projects. f s sas s, cs a jc sas caa a s a aa a w b. A sc bcak a bs acc sas w ss s cs -a caa bs, s s -a a sa sa. S sas, sc as Was,

ak csa jc cs sas. o sas, sc as maa, s a a xc . hw, s csaa s a s bc aaab a a scal year. Therefore, to fully utilize available funding it is crucial to have a bin ofjcs a a b s a a c css a a c caa a. i s b a bcas Cdot as jc b s Aca rc a rs Ac Ac (ArrA), s a b cssa -a s b ac baac -a .


16/81



executivesummary

Develop ad maitai a Trasportatio Ivestmet Dashboard to moitorCoecticuts trasportatio ivestmet performace as compared to that of selectedstates. t asba s cca aa a a ca asa Cdot a sas as s s assss Cccscapital planning/programming and project deliverability performance. Preferably

asba w b ss aa. Aa ssac w aa aa a a qc w s aass ac a a w.t asba s b wb-bas as accss b cs-aks, caksa a bc. t ac cs cs cs s bcss w lrtp a tiCp s.

i s ss a Cdot cs s asba ca Cccw sc sas w sc sa ss a caa jcs. ts w b a s sa aa s Cccs lrtp a s sasasa asc.

hw, s w q Cdot sa scs a aa asba ss a aass, as w as cabaa cca w sas caa aass. t, a a qc ssac asba ss s bcs cx c scs a w a a aass Cdot.

Selection of Comparative States

os sc sas c:

t bcak sas (maa, massacss, nw Js) a bs acc sas

(mss, v, a Was) sc a s s s. nw ea tasa Cs sas (Ccc, ma, massacss,

nw has, r isa, a v)

Northeast Association of State Transportation Ofcials states (includes the Newea sas, as w as dawa, maa, nw Js, nw yk, apsaa) as w as dsc Cba, a pc oa, Caaa, a sbs s sas.

Dashboard Data Considerations

Most of the statistical and nancial data used for the sample and proposed dashboards aresb b ac sa aa fa hwa Asa (fhWA). SAx B aa sc a sa asbas.

hw, s a w-a a sba aa b sas bc as aa b fhWA s wbs. ts a a aks ssdashboard data outdated and less useful for analysis to assess capital planning/programminga jc ab ac. ts a c b c b aCdot ak a sabs a caba wk sc sas w


17/81



mutual benet to make state-level data available in a timelier manner. The dashboard conceptc as b x a cas ascs sa wa, bcasa, a s asa ac.

t s -sa caba w b :

d aa a a c a sa a saasbas

Report the commonly dened data

Meet periodically to review the ndings from the dashboard update, identify bestpractices to address capital planning/programming and project deliverabilitycas.

Sample Dashboards

tw s asbas a ccaz: a a sa asba a a saasba a s a w caa sas.

ia sa asbas c c k sascs acs, asc, anance in conjunction with a select group of performance measures that provide a linkagebw lrtps a tiCps.

A xa a sa asba Ccc s sw f eS-1. t s saasba as w c a ab sa tab 3 s (s a 20) a saa k ac a asc acs ac sa.


18/81



executivesummary

figure es-1: CapiTal prOgram invesTmenT DashbOarD (sTaTe example: COnneCTiCuT)

t sa asba cas ac sas asa s, sbss, aas a s caa xs . A sa sa asba s bcak a bs acc sas c s s s sw f eS-2. tSa tasa rs Scs a Sa dot dsbs abs a asba a sa as fs 2(a) a 2(b) sa s sc s .As, ra fa f Caa exs a sw a b asba s a cs fs 4(a) a 4(b) sa s sc s .

Aass a sa asba c a w-aass a a a sa cas cs bw sas.

Capital Program Investment Dashboard: Connecticut

Performance Measure Latest Reporting Period Performance

Fatalities per 100 M VMT 0.71 (CY 2009) Improving

Fatalities per 100,000 population 6.34 (CY 2009) Improving

Pavements with Good Ride Quality (% with IRI < 95) 20 (CY 2010) No Change

State Roadway Bridges in Good Condition (%) 32 (CY 2010) Improving

Road Network with Traffic Volumes > Capacity (%) 8.67 (CY 2010) Improving

Rail Passenger Trips 9,847,219 (CY 2011-Q3) Declining

Bus Passenger Trips 6,856,175 (CY 2011-Q3) Improving

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

Ratioo

fFederalFunding

toC

apital

Expenditure

Federal Fiscal Year

Ratio of Federal Funding to Capital

Expenditures - Highways (1992-2009)

Population (2010) 3,405,565

Rural to Urban Ratio (2010) 0.14

Miles of State Owned Roads (2010) 3,717

Number of State Owned Bridges (2010) 2,800

Total Expenditures ($M) (2009) 1,370

Capital Expenditures ($M) (2009) 554

Approx. Capital Exp. from State (%) (2012) 40.7

Approx. Capital Exp. on Transit (%) (2012) 45.8


19/81



Summary Dashboard (Highways and Bridges)Benchmark and Best Practice States

figure es-2: summary DashbOarD (highwaysanD briDges) benChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes

Admiister periodically a customer survey to provide isight ito user preferecesad to gauge customer satisfactio. Cdot s cs cc a aacs s bs assss s cs sasac. S ssw b s cs sasac w Cdots ac a s as a s s. t s s b s b Cdot cjc w ac ass acs wk sss, jc ab a a bc sasac w sasasa ss .

As noted in the study ndings, most of the benchmark and best practice states includedin this study have signicant experience in using customer surveys to provide an assss cs sasac a ca s as s Cdot.Consideration should be given to contracting with a company/organization experienced , cc, aaz, a s ss. As,Cdot s a a bc awass ak aaab a public of its LRTP goals and its capital planning/programming process using its websc a s aaab bc jc s a s.


20/81



executivesummary

COnCLUDInG REMARKS

t s cas a awk ca w a assssConnDOTs capital planning/programming process and project deliverability performance, asw as ka w as sas lrtp.

p asa aa a a sas as a a bc s sb asbas c cas accab a s as a bass sabs a b sa Cdots caa a, c sas asa asc, a scs s as lrtp. i bc s css qs cas bc awass a ascs sasac.

t a -sa caba bcak a bs acc sas s bcs b Cdot a w s sa s xcwith other states and to learn about innovative solutions to improve the efciency andcss s caa a ss.


21/81

benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesintroduction

connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering 1

InTRODUCTIOn

t Ccc da tasa (Cdot), k s sa asaacs, s a a cas csa b. dcas sa s aa scs, sc as as ax, a ca a cb w cas s aa sas a asaasc, as Cdot, as w as sa asa acs, aa aa caa jc a a a csss s a caa jcfunding is being utilized as effectively and efciently as possible.

t bjcs s s c w:

1. i caa ass sa Cccs ac a

a s caa s a sas asa asca scs as ca sas.

2. d a a a tasa is dasba a w b s cca a asa caa aca caa sa sas as. ts asba w c scs aa aca w sac as.

3. mak cas jc ab ac ass aCdots a s caa a.

Aa, sac was cc s a csss s kabw sas -a asa as, as sas -a as-

a a, a s- caa a, as sas caa a.

t s c a a w, cs ssss w Cdot sa, a a sa ws w asa ac sa bcak a bs acc sas, wcprovided the basis for the studys ndings and recommendations.


22/81

connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering2



23/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesbackground

BACKGROUnD

t Ccc da tasa (Cdot) s sx bas:

hwa oa, pbc tasa, Aa & ps, fac & Asa, pc& pa, a e & Csc. eac bas s -a css, w s ssb saa bas a css, s, a s as. o c as ac s asab ss.Cdot as a cs s ac ass sswas sas - asa as. t sa as aas a aaupdated, ve-year capital plan that outlines all capital projects and funding sources for a ve-a z. f 1 s css a jc, a ,a sws caa a a css. o ss s sac s a c wa Cdot ca ac ass development of the ve-year capital plan.

figure 1: prOJeCT implemenTaTiOnfrOm planningTO Delivery


24/81



background

Ccc aas a a aa l-ra tasa pa (lrtp) as a -level plan useful in directing project-specic plans. The LRTP is updated every 3 5 years andcs a a z a as 20 as. t lrtp s a awk a,engineering, and construction activities, with priorities identied for the rst three to ve years

of the plan that take into consideration need and scal capability. The LRTP also identiesfunding sources and commitments associated with the priorities. The following ve points havebeen identied as goals of Connecticuts LRTP strategy:

psa - Sa g ra

Sa a mza

Efciency

Qa l

Sac Caac is

ConnDOT developed a ve-year Transportation Infrastructure Capital Plan (TICP) in 2009 thatis updated annually. The TICP identies projects with funding source(s), federal and/or state,that are projected to be funded in the next ve years. The capital plan serves as a management s a jc acas a w sac s lrtp.

ts s xas w qss a Cccs caa a:

Wc sas a sa as?

How are other states structuring their expected funding sources given the scalcsa qs b fhWA?

Wa ca a caa xs s ca sa, caac, qa , sac -a as?

Wa s s sas s a a a caa s?


25/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesliteraturereview

LITERATURE REVIEW

STREnGTHEnInG THE PLAnnInG/PROGRAMMInG LInKAGE

Introduction

t a qs ac sa asa ac a -aasa a (lrtp). lrtps a a c cs transportation professionals, regional planners, elected ofcials, and citizens towards common-a as. ms lrtps, c Cccs, a a a z wyears. Because most LRTPs do not include specic projects or set performance targets,monitoring progress towards LRTP goals can be extremely difcult. Agencies typically rely Sa tasa i pa (Stip) a aca specic projects. However, STIPs only have a planning horizon of about ve years and are notexplicitly linked to LRTPs. Successfully bridging the fteen-year gap between these planningzs qs a accs wc k -a as short-term capital project programming. This linkage is dened in NCHRP Report 591, Factorsa S pa-pa lka, as wc c commitments reflect the stated policies, goals, and objectives of the long-range plan or the wc ss wa -a cs a bjcs s b a w sc c jcs a s (Reference 1). Strengthening the planning/a ka s cssa ac as a sas lrtp.

oa, lrtps w s s as ss asa jcs a ss

cssa cas , ak as w w s-ss w - as. hw, sa cas s a cas jc backs w. pjcs b b a as lrtp a z w q ca sac b aca a a s. i ss w back jcs a ab -a as c a s, sa asa acs saway from creating LRTPs as lists of specic projects and towards creating more general policycs. S lrtp was a c c aw cas a caks scss a ac a a ba as a sas asa ss wforcing them to agree to specic projects. It also provided the opportunity to explicitlyca saw cc, a, a sca as sas asaa. t cs swc lrtp a c c a b a s,

ca cqs a csss cc lrtp as s- a (Reference 1).

S sas, sc as fa, psaa a Was, a a ass sgap by developing intermediate-range nancial plans with planning horizons between 8 and12 as (Reference 1). ts sa s as ss Asaa iasc facamaa gs (Reference 2). hw, a saa a s cssarequired to strengthen the planning/programming linkage. According to NCHRP Report 591,


26/81



literaturereview

states and regions with strong planning/programming linkages display certain intermediatecaacscs a ca b xss a lrtp a saa a a. Saasa acs sabs ca as a s cs. A s acass, as w as a aa ss a s ass, s b ss was s cs. pac ass b cs

jc sc, za, a aca. i s as a s ass b aaz a saks. pac aass a sak backs b cs a a ccs (Reference 1).

nChrp r 591 s a cs w sccss sas s basa acs s cc bw a a a. treport suggests focusing on four major categories when working to improve the planning/a ka:

las

Cca

oazaa sc a c

pac as a aca

Sca s a q s a s as ss, sc as caks,as, a cas, sa sas -a as a css a s as s- jc sc css. Cca s a, bw ss w sa asa acs, b as bw sa acsa a a acs (rpAs) a a a azas (mpos). tazaa sc sa asa acs s a ca k bwss ssb a a a. pas s a wa strengthen the planning/programming linkage is to emphasize performance-driven planning.This requires state transportation agencies to broaden their focus from specic projects tooverall performance within regions or corridors. The following discussion suggests specicactions that can be taken to strengthen the planning/programming linkage.

Leadership

B a cas ca b a, a acs as s b s sthe planning/programming linkage. If leaders fail to provide support and commitment s s k, bsss as sa s k c. pz s kabs w s a a caks a as asa ss aa sa a c as lrtp. Acas a sas a css s b s lrtpgoals and outlining programming processes. This may be especially difcult for agencieswhere short terms of ofce result in a high turnover rate of appointed and elected politicalas (Reference 1). fq cca bw sa asa acs apolitical leaders is necessary to ensure that politicians understand the goals and benets ofasa ss a ssac aac s a a z jcs. irecent years there has been a move to lessen the role of elected ofcials in making investmentcss, as z s w scs s sa. Satransportation professionals need to have a thorough knowledge of the planning/programming


27/81



process and maintain the skills necessary to adequately perform these functions. Recent stafngcs a a a ss sa asa acs a the most signicant barriers they face in achieving the necessary level of skill and leadershipfor effective capital project planning/programming (Reference 1). As scs caac a a a ss a c, xs, cca

a asa ssbs a a cas. W s s aas ss s, s b cs as sa acs ak s s planning/programming linkage (Reference 1).

Communication

uss, ss nChrp r 591 ss a q a cacommunication is vitally important to strengthening the planning/programming link. However s a acs a a a ss a q ca s cca; as a as as aa q a wMPOs, RPAs, external stakeholders, and agency nance and budgeting divisions responsible a jcs (Reference 1). Sa asa acs, mpos

a rpAs s a a wk was c cs a a projects do not have conflicting goals. Many transportation agencies, MPOs and RPAs haveca xa saks css caz aaccs. eac cca bw a acs as, as a divisions responsible for budgeting and nance is crucial to strengthening the planning/a k. t q, as a as a cs s ssbfor nancing projects until after they have already reached project selection decisions (Reference1). Funding sources often have signicant legal and nancial management implicationsa ca s sas jcs. t xc bsacs scor delaying projects, nance and budgeting divisions should be included in the planning/a css. dss ssb a jcs

s as b cs a css. i aca sa a a a css, a jcs as. Cca w sa ssb a aa jcss cas a a c s was a Cx Ss dsaac (Reference 1).

Organizational Structure and Culture

ia, a a a cs s b a ac azaasc, a ss sa aa. t ws cc NCHRP Report 591 suggest that sharing a senior level manager can help bridge the planning/

a a. hw, as aszs a cca cac sca as bw a a a ss. dcs azaa cs s cas a ssac a a sca sss. i as, sa asa acs cs as xcs s a basa asc, ca a c a asz jc s a .

t ass as a s as cs as s b wacs a a aa xs asc. S ss satransportation agencies, particular those involved in business and nance, have maintained


28/81



literaturereview

s w (Reference 1). ms as, w, a s ba a cc, sca, a a cs s asa ss.ts scs ca ca c bw a a bsss ssa s b s css a a css.The report also mentioned that very few surveys reported signicant culture clashes between

sa acs a ca saks. t sas bw s asq, sa acs ca a s cca a ca awthe groups to achieve a unied vision. However, before interpreting these results as proof that c cas xss bw sas acs a ca saks, s a a ca saks w s as a s sac (Reference 1).

Performance-Driven Planning

nChrp r 591 ac as b s s a ac sa sa c asa sss, as w as s a

element in strengthening planning/programming linkages. The goals outlined in a states LRTPare used to dene categories for measurement and investment. States must then develop a listof specic measures to gauge performance within each category (Reference 1). f xa, b aas c s a ca b s as ss w sa ca. ms sas a sabs a c a s a ac ass. pac as as as bc a a aa aa. A b naa tasa pc C, a Basapc C, s aa ac ass cc w, a, a sa (Reference 3).

Each measure should be paired with a specic target so that progress can be measured as

bjc as ssb. ra bs ac s ca sa acsca a ss ws c as a sa a sabs a ab aw cas a bc (Reference 4). As s , s a ac sa, ca as, a saks b c ac states long-range goals and strengthening the planning/programming link. Some agenciesa ca a ss c b caz ac assssaa cc a aass. r sa css aa ssks sa ssb jc a ba c as, aa ca ass ws. hw, s- ac ass a a qsabaa qa. va ass s ss b s a aa as c s asba, aa w c bs acca. Kw a aaw b a bc a ac ss c aa qa

(Reference 4). ua, ac s aab a c sa asa ss b as as c was aacs c as.

To strengthen the planning/programming linkage, performance measures should beca a a aca cs. S sas, sc asMinnesota, require regional ofces to analyze and document the expected outcomes of any newjcs (Reference 1). pc cs s jcs ac ass ca


29/81



be difcult and requires signicant effort. However, as more performance data are collected , casa ass s b , c q cthe amount of progress specic transportation investments can achieve. There are several otherbsacs a sa asa acs s ac- a ak a a aca css. ts c :

1. aa w c jcs

2. invest in projects earmarked for a specic funding source, and

3. ass q sss za a aca (Reference 1).

t ca ac ass a css a b ca, a sss s s a ss a asa acs ca akto strengthen the planning/programming linkage.

Summary of Strategies for Strengthening Planning/Programming LinkageStrengthening the planning/programming linkage requires focusing on leadership,cca, azaa sc a c, a ac- a. tab1 outlines some of steps that can be used to promote planning/programming linkage. All of thesss ca b aa w aj sas:

e a a css, asaagency leaders and politicians to regional planning agencies and agency nancials sa, s b k a wk ac c as.

tasa acs ac ass a sswas lrtp as a ca s ass caa jc

a css.

While not all of the ideas identied in this review will be appropriate for every stateasa ac, s w aj sas a a csas agencies interested in strengthening their planning/programming linkage.


30/81



literaturereview

Table 1: sTraTegiesfOr sTrengTheningThe planning/prOgramming linkage

Strategies

Leadership

es a a as sa a a c

as lrtp

p ca as w kw a a css

Focus role of elected ofcials on policy development andaccountability rather than making specic project selectioncss

Maintain the professional skills necessary to make planning/a cs

Commuicatio

Include MPOs and RPAs in the planning/programming process

Cca w ss ssb b anance when making planning/programming decisions

Cs ss ssb a jcs a css

OrgaizatioalStructure ad

Culture

i ssb, a a a cs cs ac w azaa sc

i sc s ssb, s ccasbw a a a cs csca waksss.

S azaa cs jc s jccs

Performace-Drive Plaig

d cas s a ac lrtp as

Develop specic measures and targets to gauge progress inac as

ra bs ac s

Consider decentralizing data collection to agency staff in the eld

d aass c c a jcs ac

ica c ac as as a css

COMPARISOn OF TRAnSPORTATIOn InFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL PLAnS

e sa s q b a aa (23 Cfr 450.216) a a a Stip.hw, s a aa a sa aa a tasa iasc


31/81



Caa pa (tiCp). Sa sas, c Ccc, a cs a a cs s caa a b a wc s c STIP. A search of DOT websites and discussions with several states identied six states thataa tiCps: nw yk, nw Js, ma, nw has, massacss aCcc. t c a a a ac s sas as. f xa:

Connecticut maintains a ve-year plan, whereas Maine has a two-year plan.

Cccs a s a a s caa jcs w aca scs, was massacss css s a s a kas sacas.

tab 2 sazs aaab a a -a bass cas ss tiCps sx s c sas. massacss s c ab as tiCpdoes not provide data in sufcient detail for analysis. Maryland is included in the table, but theaa s a sas b, as maa s a a tiCp. f s sasthat have multi-year plans, such as New York, if annual data were not available in sufcient

a, a as w s caca -a a sw ab. f, cs ab s wa a b caa as, as sa c as atiCp as c. t a ab s bas asss aqualications noted. Population estimates are from the 2010 census data. The source for route-mile and lane-mile information is the 2008AASHTO Transportation Finance wbs aa, wc sbas fhWA hwa sascs ss aa b fhWA. obsas aass aa a a aaab c sas c:

Ccc a ma ca aca scs b a sssa.

maas aa a ak s Saw Caa B a, wc s a cabakw a ss sa , b s a a jc-b-jc bass.

t a a sa scs aaab (.., s) as sa sa.

New York considers funds not yet identied as part of their state funding percentage.

nw has cs cs a acs sas a ac.

ra sas a caa caa a ba sas, a s b w a a ba sas.

la s a s a s s a bc awas, js s

as b sa. ts cas s c a cas wk sz.

Cccs a caa s 3 s a c sas.

Cccs a a a s s c sas.

Cccs ca sa s s s caa a s 3 ws c sas a 40.7%, w a b 61.6% 30.1%.


32/81



literaturereview

Table 2: COmparisOnOf annual CapiTal prOgram (highways & briDges)funDingfOr seleCTeD sTaTes

CT

(note 1)

VT

(note 2)

MD

(note 3)

ME

(note 4)

nJ

(note 5)

nH

(note 6)

nY

(note 7)

Estimated TotalCapital Fudig iCapital Pla($ millios) $823.4 $524.8 $712.6 $688.7 $1,486 $266 $18,711

Estimated AualCapital Fudig icapital pla($ millios) $823.4 $524.8 $712.6 $344.4 $1,486 $266 $3,742.2

Fiscal Years Iclud-

ed i Estimate 1 1 1 2 1 2 5Total Fudig/perYear/per Capita $230 $838 $122 $259 $168 $202 $192

Total Fudig/perYear/ per Route-Mile State Road-way System* $38,543 $36,391 $22,704 $15,085 $38,345 $16,620 $32,691

Total Fudig/perYear/per Lae-MileState Roadwaysystem** $18,076 $17,705 $10,344 $7,366 $17,631 $8,060 $15,415

% State Fuds*** 40.7% 30.1% 40.1% 43.4% 44.2% 50.5% 61.6%

* Route miles as of 2008 from www.transportation-nance.org

** Lane miles as of 2008 from www.transportation-nance.org

*** State funding sources vary signicantly state-by-state and funding percentages should be interpreted accordingly.For example, NYSDOT includes signicant additional funds yet to be identied in their state total. NH includes tollcs.

n 1 (Ct): http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dcommunications/press_release/5-year_Cap_Plan_-_Oct11_Update_11-17.pdf

n 2 (vt): http://www.aot.state.vt.us/CapProg/documents/FY13/FY13TransportationBudgetReports.pdf

n 3 (md): http://www.dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/capbudget/Documents/2013CapImprovPlan.pdf

n 4 (me): http://www.maine.gov/mdot/planningdocs/bcwp2012-2013/documents/pdf/completereport.pdf

n 5 (nJ): http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/capital/tcp13/

n 6 (nh): http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/typ/documents/MASTER_13-22_Gov_2_Leg_1-13-12_print_2-8-12.pdf

n 7 (ny): https://www.dot.ny.gov/programs/repository/NYSDOT-Capital-Plan-March2008.pdf


33/81



RELATED TOPICS

Sa cs a cs a caa a css a s ka -range transportation goals. These topics are briefly discussed belowfor detailed information,

c sc s .

Asset Management in the Planning to Programming Process

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) denes asset management as the systematiccss aa, a a a sca asss cs c. ics sa, a a ac asss, cs caa, a, a sc aca (Reference 5). B cb saa accs w bsss cqs a cc , ass aaawk cas a aa, az aac cs ak (Reference 5). ms saasa acs a ca ass aa cs a a cs a as s x.

ma sac cs aas, - as, s b sa asa acs ass aa cs (Reference 6). ts - as, sc asz aac, cs css, cas b, a qa a cc css, a sa b s, a, sa asaacs. lsa a aas a s b a sas saz a ass aa cs a k cs . Assmanagement goals need to be linked to budgets and nancial plans to ensure the availability aac a sa asc (Reference 6). rsacas cas a ac a, sac bjc, s b b a saa aa(Reference 6) a a ass aa cs s b ssb a s,sa (Reference 8).t acs ss a acs ass aa

framework are very similar to those suggested to strengthen an agencys planning/a ka.

t ass aa a aszs ac s ac ass a a css (References 6, 7, 8, 9). Ass aa xcks c as ac ass (Reference 7). Sa css scbpreviously, policy goals are formulated into more specic asset management objectives whicha s a s a ac ass. ts ass s aw a ac ass b s a ss was -assaa a as (Reference 6). fq caa a a c asas asa asss ca a bas aa caa jcs.Sa asa acs s sa s a acss aa bas

s a ass aa ka a caba. As, saass aa ac ass w bc cas a ss s a a c accab, a a s was cs sasac(Reference 6).

Aca s aac a a asc ca b cca bcascaa jcs s asc as s a q as (Reference 9). Ass aa ss ac ass akbjc cass bw ssa jcs, ak a aca s awk


34/81



literaturereview

jc sc css (Reference 7). ts awk as aws asaacs ak css acss ac ss a s, as w as as bwcaa jc a aac . B a a, acs scc aass c a jc cs, acc jcs,available stafng and resources, and other investment needs (Reference 7). t accac s aass, cs-aks s cs cc a acs(Reference 9). W a ass aa awk, sa acs to adopt worst rst policies, allocating funds towards the infrastructure in greatest need a w a a aac. Sc cs a consider long-term costs and do not yield the most economically efcient results (Reference 8).Ass aa s a aab awk cs ak a cs s

strengthen the planning/programming linkage.

Program Implementation and Project Delivery

i a jc css a cs, a csss s as cs a

risks associated with the implementation of a specic project. Recently, the Georgia Regionaltasa A (grtA) cc a aa jc sk(Reference 10). t s a qa a sk asscaw caa jcs. Cb qaa a qaa acs, ssc ass sk a w axs: k sk a s sk.lk sk s a a qaa sc w s skcss qaa cs. t grtA s as xc ssa sa ass as s sk. t c aazs 37 s sk acs, as was sa a sb-acs, a s as s acs a cas. Csjc sk a css a asa acs s aresources more efciently. GRTA study risk categories relevant for use by other states include w:


35/81



pjc csss jsca bas

pjc s a a a a

Does the project have a service/operation plan?

pjc sc

us a s

pjc

pjc cs sas

vc c sa

Identication of early action contracts

Cac acka

nepA cs css

NEPA nding/decision received

S a cs

pjc ca sss a ss

p

r wa

ds saas

i-ab saas

Signicant facilities/construction

Permits/agreements (Environmental, relocation, ROW, Construction/Relocation,a)

o as (pak a r, la as, sas)

Trafc engineering

pa ws

raa wa

hwa wa

u wa

ea sss

Sc sss

Permitting/Agreements (Construction permits, reimbursement agreements)

Quality/Management

oas

t pa rssbs


36/81


16 connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering


37/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesfocusgroups

FOCUS GROUPS

t s sac a cs ssss w Cdot sa as a s ssw a aass ka bw a a caa a. eac cs s c axa sa bs s as Cdotofces and bureaus. The moderator used broad questions to start a dialogue on issues related lrtp, caa a, ab, a jc sc. A csawas a, a cs acas a scss w a .

t ssss w s cs a cs:

1. exs ka bw lrtp a caa a

2. f ca a caa a acs3. Metrics and measures for efcient capital programming

A summary of the most signicant and relevant ndings from the focus group sessions are bw.

CoDOTs curret capital pla ad recetly developed performace measuresare ot perfectly aliged with the departmets curret LRTP. t caa a aac ass a w a w ac a s a a signicant role in ConnDOTs decision making process for capital project selectiona sac as lrtp. W ac ass

c cac lrtps sac as, s w to certain goals, such as preservation, and redene others, such as quality of life. Ina, acas w caa a a ac ass as ss w w w aa w lrtp. As Cdot css a slrtp, a a wa ak s s - as b a w s caa a a a xs ac ass.

The goals of the LRTP are ot give equal priority. ms cs acasa a a s sa a aac s .pacas ca a s s cssa c c sasasa asc. Sa was as c as a aj . A sa , a w jcs a asz qa , sas sac

lrtp c as. hw, was a s s cssa aqa s b jc a a s. ra, qa s a ca jcs jc sc as. fxa, a swak xas jc b sc as a jc,b swak xas a b c as a a, a jc. pacasexpressed the need to nd ways to fund projects falling outside of the preservation andsa cas.


38/81



focusgroups

Ucertaities i fudig ad costraied budgets are chagig CoDOTsplaig process. In the absence of a federal transportation bill, long-term nanciala as b ca Cdot, wc s a a a. S acas ca a sa s ss cab afederal funding, increasing the departments challenges with longer-term nancial

planning. Also, a signicant proportion of state funding is committed to matchingfederal dollars, thus providing ConnDOT with less flexibility in the allocation of states. i a aa ca , Cdot as sa as aj jcs jc as b sc. Sa acasas xss ac aa a b s-a jcs cas jc bs c w a b a aca bcsaaab. pacas ca a a s Aca rs aRecovery Act (ARRA 2009) funding, ConnDOT nearly emptied its bin of shovel-readyjcs a was ss a b s b s.

Deliverability cocers play a major role i project selectio ad capitalprogrammig. As a Cdots c s a csa a

approach, the department has chosen to focus its limited resources on projects identiedas ab. Sc a ab a a aj scjcs aca bcs aaab. ea assss aaa s wa a s c bas jcs a a a a w cs sc css. Cdots sa ccs a scss jcs , a, asc. t a csss a acas was a Cdot as s ab sc ab jcs.


39/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesstatesurvey

STATE SURVEY

t s sac a cc a - aass a a acsss sc sa asa acs a a s css. t CASes c sc w ss sas aass:

1. Best practice states (Missouri, Vermont, and Washington) were identied through anexamination of the literature on strengthening the planning/programming linkage,ass aa, a ac as; a

2. Benchmark states (Maryland, Massachusetts, and New Jersey) were identied througha sa-sca qaa cas sas bw Ccc a sc sas w a scs, asa asc,acs a ca.

K ac a asc acs w s sc bcak a bs accsas. ts aass was cb w s cs kw a ccto other state transportation agencies for nal benchmark state selection. Table 3 shows thisa Ccc a sc sas. B cc s, saca a back a bs a scs scsa asa acs. ts b cx a a cc aaaz ss s.

isa bs acc sas s a sas s bleading organizations to promote effective and efcient planning and programming. Analyzingbcak sas as a assss w Cccs css cas s sas.

fs 2(a) a 2(b) ca a asa scs a sbss, cnon-capital spending and spending on non-highway modes, respectively. These gures also a a cx bcak Cccs caa a. W apresented in these gures does not provide details on the use of federal versus state funds, twobsas a bas 2009 aa:

Ccc s sc nw Js s b as a sc aacc, Ccc as a ca s sbss b a s a a bcak bs acc sas.

Ccc s sas ca sbss caa xs a c sas.


40/81



statesurvey

Table 3: key DemOgraphiCanD infrasTruCTure faCTOrs useDfOr seleCTiOnOfbenChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes

Key Factors CTMD

Bechmark States Best Practice States

MA nJ MO VT WA

De

mographic(note1)

Total Populatio

(i 1000s)3,406 5,296 6,349 8,414 5,595 609 5,894

Populatio Desity

(per sq. mi.)703 542 810 1,134 81 66 89

Rural/Urba

Populatio Ratio0.14 0.16 0.09 0.06 0.44 1.62 0.22

% Populatio Below

Poverty Lie9 8 10 9 14 11 12

Ifrastru

cture(note2)

Miles of Road

(State owed)3,717 5,148 2,834 2,324 33,677 2,630 7,042

number of Bridges

(State owed)2,800 2,846 3,464 3,719 10,210 1,077 3,175

% Roads i

Poor Coditio4 19 4 28 10 17 4

% Bridges

StructurallyDecient9 7 12 11 18 16 5

Bus Route Mileage 3,436 6,131 6,196 9,641 577 378 8,438

Note 1: Demographic Data Source: User generated tables from the US Census Bureaus American Factnder Web-site, http://factnder2.census.gov/faces/nav/jsf/pages/index.xhtml

n 2: iasc daa Sc: http://www.bts.gov/publications/state_transportation_statistics/state_trans-portation_statistics_2010/index.html


41/81



figure 2(b): sTaTe DOT DisbursemenTs benChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes (2009)(sOurCe: hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs/2009/; Table sf-2)

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%90%

100%

CT MD MA NJ MO VT WA

PercentofStateRevenue

Benchmark States Best Practice States

State Transportation Revenue Sources (2009)

Local Funding

Other State Funding

State Motor Vehicle Tax

State Motor Fuel Tax

Tolls

Bond Proceeds

Federal Funding

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

CT MD MA NJ MO VT WA

PercentofStateDOTDisbursements

Benchmark States Best Practice States

State DOT Disbursements (2009)

Local Governmentgrants

Bond Retirement

Interest

Administration

Maintenance

Capital Expenditures

figure 2(a): sTaTe TranspOrTaTiOn revenue sOurCes-benChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes (2009)

(sOurCe: hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs/2009/; Table sf-1)


42/81



statesurvey

fs 3(a) a 3b) sw w ca ac sas s a scs asca bcak a bs acc sas, sc. As a a cs a a sa scs (s f 2a), as sareceived a signicant percentage of its funding from local sources. Therefore, for the states

sc aass s s, s asab sa a ca s sa scs s b cs b s a scs.

is, Ccc aas a a ca s a s (f3(a)) a s css a s bcak s 1992-2009. Wca bs acc sas, w, Ccc as . n sascac ca b a s qaa bsas, ss aCcc s a b a a a bcak sas.


43/81



figure 3(a): perCenTageOf sTaTe revenuesfrOm feDeral sOurCes (1992 2009):benChmark sTaTes

(sOurCe: hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs; Table sf-1)

figure 3(b): perCenTageOf sTaTe revenuesfrOm feDeral sOurCes (1992 2009):besT praCTiCe sTaTes

(sOurCe: hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs; Table sf-1

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

19 92 19 93 19 94 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 20 01 20 02 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 20 08 20 09

PercentageRevenuesfromF

ederalSources

Year

Percentage of State Revenues from Federal Sources

Best Practice States (1992-2009)

CT

MO

VT

WA

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

35%

40%

45%

50%

55%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

PercentageRevenuesfromF

ederalSources

Year

Percentage of State Revenues from Federal Sources

Benchmark States (1992-2009)

CT

MD

MA

NJ


44/81



statesurvey

fs 4(a) a 4(b) sws a s a scs caa xs 1992 2009 bcak a bs acc sas, sc. Bas aass aaab aa, sac a a ass a a b a b a a s s caa jcs. hw, a cs xaa f 4(b)as a a a c b v 2001 a 2002 xc

sas a caa xs. ts aa as b xa b aa s bAASHTO and FHWA in compiling these nancial statistics, as they do not provide sufcienta bw sc a x a sa s.1

Cccs a caa a xs a s a a bcak sas a sa bs acc sas. o a v, Cccsa aas a sss as ca c sas. ts cca a a ac a caa a , c b asa sas css sc a .

figure 4(a): raTiOOf feDeral funDingTO CapiTal expenDiTures (1992-2009):benChmark sTaTes

(sOurCe: COmpileDfrOm fhwa highwaysTaTisTiCswebsiTe [hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs.Cfm];

1 daa fs 4(a) a 4(b) c fhWA wa sascs wbs (http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policyinformation/statistics.cfm) fa aa s ab Sf-1 a caa xs aa s ab Sf-2.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ratioo

fFederalFunding

toC

apitalExpenditure

Federal Fiscal Year

Ratio of Federal Funding to Capital ExpendituresBenchmark States (1992-2009)

CT

MD

MA

NJ


45/81



figure 4(b): raTiOOf feDeral funDingTO CapiTal expenDiTures (1992-2009):

besT praCTiCe sTaTes

(sOurCe: COmpileDfrOm fhwa highwaysTaTisTiCswebsiTe[hTTp://www.fhwa.DOT.gOv/pOliCyinfOrmaTiOn/sTaTisTiCs.Cfm];

Survey Methodology

t s sac a a qss a aa qss a w s ac sc sa asa acs. ts qss sass- caa as, lrtps, ac ass, caa a csss,a aacs ass jc ab ccs. Sa sss sqss a Ax A. t s sac a w w a a s ca a sss a sc aa a abac sas acs sc a as w sa sa.

Summary of State Agency Survey Responses

A sa s ss ac sa cs a sc acsrelationship to its state government followed by the agencys specic responses to the surveyqss. tab 4 s a b w sss sa sc s qss.

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

1.2

1.4

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009

Ratioo

fFederalFundingtoC

apitalExpenditure

Federal Fiscal Year

Ratio of Federal Funding to Capital Expenditures

Best Practice States (1992-2009)

CT

MO

VT

WA


46/81



statesurvey

Table 4: OverviewOf STaTe agency reSpOnSeSTO SelecTed Survey QueSTiOnS

BenchmarkStates

BestPracticeStates

SelectedSurveyQu

estions

(SeeNote)

CT

MD

MA

NJ

MO

VT

WA

1(a)Doesyourstatemaintaina

documentorprocess

withinwhich

short-termcapitalpr

ogramming

projectsareplanned

indetail?

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1(b)Doesthisdocum

ent/process

identifythefunding

amountsand

sourcesoffundingfortheprojects?

Yes

Yes

-

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

1(c(i))Isthereanysp

ecificlinkbetween

thecapitalprogramm

ing

document/processa

ndthehigh-level

goalsofthelong-ran

getransportation

plan?

No

Yes,

required

bystate

law

No

Yes,

Capital

Invest-

ment

Strategy

Yes,

required

byfederal

law

Yes,

VTrans

LRT

Business

Plan

Yes

1(c(ii))Isthereanyspecificlinkbetween

thecapitalprogramandperformance

metrics?

No

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

3(a)Identify,orprov

idelinkstothe

performancemeasur

esusedand

maintainedbyyourstate?

Referto

ConnDOT

Website

Attain-

ment

Report

-

NJCenter-

line

MO

Tracker

SeeTable

A.1

WAG

ray

Noteb

ook

Note:Tabledoesnot

includeallsurveyquestions.SeeA

ppendixAforstateresponsestoa

llquestions.


47/81



BEnCHMARK STATES

ts sc s a sa accs sc bcak sas:maa, massacss, a nw Js.

Maryland

t a maas da tasa (mdot), sca asa,s c . t s ssb s aa ac Csa tasa pa (Ctp), a b w a sx-a z. Sasas a ak sss c b,but are unable to add items or advocate for specic projects. The primary role of the statessa ( maa ga Assb) asa b css s s a jcs a w sas - asa a cc as. tsa c a sa (Ca 725)2 wc qs mdot sabs ksbetween the states long-range plan (MTP) and the CTP. A rst draft of the CTP is publicly

s aa Sb. t sca asa s a saw ac c xa s s b a sk ca aacs, saks, a ss. C s a ssb ca apriority list of local projects, as well as more detailed project reports. The CTP is nalized ands sa aa Jaa aa.

In addition to the CTP, Maryland also has a ve-year State Transportation Improvementpa (Stip) a s a a jc za a scsa as. t mdot bss a aa Aa r (Ar) wc csxs ac ass, s ass a a qaa k the programming process. Marylands LRTP outlines ve major goals. The survey response

identied safety as MDOTs primary goal, followed closely by preservation of the existingss a a a a a a acs. t a s cas assca w ca, maa as cs b csain obligating funds to specic projects. Further, according to the survey response, at thebeginning of a scal year, only 80% of available funds are designated to specic projects. Given ca w a sa asa jcs, maas cs sas cas s ac a s. fa caccs axa 30% mdots caa xs. maa s cscas caa a pbc-pa pass (ppp) a ssbcas axs a s ra tas A (rtA). i aa scsof revenue was identied as one of the most pressing needs of MDOT, though it was noted thatmdot as b sccss c z s .

Massachusetts

t massacss da tasa (massdot) s css signicant structural and operational changes. Currently, MassDOT is split into four majorss: hwas, tas, Aacs, a rsa m vcs. Aa,

2 A copy of this Chapter 725 can be found at the following link: http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/Ofce%20of%20Planning%20and%20Capital%20Programming/County_Priority_Letters/Documents/Ch_725_hb1155.pdf


48/81



statesurvey

massdot ss massacss Ba tas A (mBtA) a ra tasAs (rtAs). eac ss as a sa, w a sa saa caa s as. mpos a rpAs a ssb jc a. t massacss aas a Stip accac w aqs, s a cc mpo a rpA a cs a a a

a. t as caz a basca aa a ss, as w as a a ssbs MPOs and RPAs, have made it difcult for MassDOT to direct resources in support of thecwas sabs -a asa as. t s ss caa sa cs sas lrtp, ss cs caa jc sccs ak a as ss a as. rc, massdot as ba cs s m massacss a, a aa b- asa a a s cas bc aca planning process. Currently, performance measures are collected by the MassDOTs Ofce ofpac maa a ia ac s ss. ts ass a c k sas - asa as a css.

massdot, cz as sa sc a as, s css a a a sac asa a, wm massacss. ts xcs wm massacss b fba 2013. ts aw a - as, ac ass, a a css,as w as ccas a ca a ca bw massdotdivisions. Once long-term goals are linked to specic performance metrics, MassDOT willa k ac cs b a w aaca css jc sc a a css. massdots s ss as caa a s ak s w css as qaa as ssb. wmMassachusetts will also synthesize the modal capital investment plans into a single, unieda.

massacss c aks a csa aac jc a. massdotadvises MPOs to estimate cost inflation at a rate of 4%, while estimating revenue inflation ata a 3% a as s Stip. t wa s as ss as s a a sa ac s c a xc jc css. i c as, sa as s as a $40 a a s s. massdot as wajc ab ccs wk s bw wa s a departments Ofce of Transportation Planning.

New Jersey

B aw nw Js da tasa (nJdot) s q s nw Js Sa lsa w a aa tasa Caa pa wc sall projects receiving funding in the upcoming state scal year. The legislature reviews andas s c, cs a as a s. t a a a jc sc, sa sa a qs w a aca jcas b as b s a as. nJdot as aas a aabas capital projects for a ten-year horizon with the earliest ve years reported as a supplement tos aa tasa Caa pa. i as, nJdot cs ak a


49/81



csa cs sas ca a b s caa a. hw, c asnJdot as a bas a asc sa , ass sacs b a a sa scs. ga, nJdot aas a s, b, s-a jcs. hw, a c Aca rc a rs Ac (ArrA), nJdots b jcs as b .

t a c wk sck w s, sa-sca jcs sc as asa.

nJdot ccs s caa a nw Jss -a asa as s ass aa-bas caa s sa. t sas caa s sas s cas, wc a w lrtp as, a ss -a aa aas as ac s cas. t -a aa aa sas a s cjc w ac ass jc sca a css. nJdot ss ac cs sa xcperformance improvements resulting from a specic average annual investment over a ten-year. C, nw Js as a caa b axa $2 b a w

ab $1 b c a scs.

BEST PRACTICE STATES

ts sc s a sa accs sc bs acc sas:mss, v, a Was.

Missouri

d sc msss sa , mss da tasa

(MoDOT) does not need to spend signicant time advocating for support of the statesa ( mss ga Assb) s caa jc a. mdot s ba basa css a ss za a sc jcs b ac sas Stip a lrtp. i mss, css, a a sasa, as a b a jc w caa jcs. ts scas mdot a cs- aza. o mdots aazaa s s xc cs sc. eac a, mdot ccsa s asa s s css. A wa mdots a s bc s b bs s ac ass qa s a ac, s- ac (mss tack). W as cs css, s as a mdot aa c cca w

acs ssb caz a. mdot s w a ca ra pa Acs (rpAs) a a sa ma pa oazas(mpos) a aa bass.

MoDOT prepares an annual STIP with a ve-year planning horizon. The STIP includes a list ofprograms with funding amounts and sources. The rst year of the STIP is over-programmed,while the fourth and fth years are under-programmed. Project surpluses are reallocated jcs a a c Stip. mdot as ks a q jcs a cas aa bcs aaab. Sa aw qs jc a jc


50/81



statesurvey

as Stip b css w sas - as. t xs acass bs mss tack a cs a a, qaa ss a css; w, mdot s a qaa aass ac ass w ca s Stip. A a sc css s s ab jcs b a c Stip. mdot as Stip as a

cac w bc, s a jc s b ab b c.

mss s c css s s - asa a. t ca aszs ac s a xs ss, smoney efciently (getting the most for your dollar), and identifying new funding sources.lk s sas, mss s sac ca caa jc a ss ca a , wc c accs 37% mdots caaa. mdot s c a s-b a aa cca ccscontracting methods to promote efcient use of funds.

Vermontt v lsa s s v asa ac(vtas) a as a aj c wc jcs a c sasasa caa a. ts qs vtas sa csa cac w sa.vtas s a q ask ss a sas b legislature. This high level of political involvement does not seem to create signicantbsacs vtas. o s sa a s sa cas sa vtas a asz ac aac a ss sa.

VTrans publishes a ve-year STIP which is submitted to the legislature annually for approval.The STIP identies projects for the next ve years, as well as the project funding sources

(a, sa ca). vtas css ac ass w sc jcs c s Stip. n a ass a ca a css, b aw cs a s sc sa, a, b, a as jcs. t sas -a as a vtas l ra tasa Bsss pa (lrtBp). tdocument identies safety, preservation, planning, and excellence as VTrans major goals. Thes ss ca a s as, vtas acs as ass saa sa. vtas s s s ab ca saks sccss w cx-ss ss. ts css s s a css acas a . vtas, k s sa asa acs, s c new funding sources and implement more efcient contracting methods, such as design-build.Axa 40% vtas b cs a . t sa s skto decrease reliance on federal funding, but it is having difculty identifying revenue sourcesa w b ab sc a sa, a sa. o csa asaa sa s sas caa jc a s a a ax.

Washington

The Washington State Legislature plays a signicant role in transportation planning and capitala. t sa ss sas - asa c as a -


51/81



vides the Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) with specic short-term objec-s ac lrtp as. Wass c lrtp a a c cs,such as agency strategic plans and performance reports, reflect the six state policy goals dened sa:

Sa (sa a sc asa css) psa (aa, s a x ss)

e (qa , csa, ac a a c)

mb (cab a s)

Stewardship (improve quality, effectiveness, efciency of transportation system)

ecc va (sa, s a ac a s s ss c)

t sa scs a cs a cc a jcs, b aws WSdotflexibility to select projects designed to meet safety, environmental, and preservation goals.f jcs sc b WSdot, a s q sa wa specic action plan identifying that the project will meet state transportation goals andbjcs. Was cas saa bs was, s a a. t wab s caz sa jcs a jcs. eac bs q ca a 20-a s s. f wa sa b, WSdot srequired to provide the legislature with a 10-year plan that identies the expected outcomesa ac s as s s. Aa, WSdotcs a qa , ca ga nbk, a xs s acass. t cs sa s s a

WSDOT meets the states LRTP goals. (RCW 47.04.280 Transportation system policy goals.http://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=47.04.280 )

ra a c a a caa a, WSdot aas a aabas a caajcs, tasa exc ia Ss (teiS). teiS aws WSdot saa sa ack ss caa jcs a c s assspecic issues. A summary report generated by the TEIS for the purpose of this survey showeda Wass c caa a cs 44% s a scs. tass ca, WSdot aks csa cs sas a ajcs, w sas aa a b s-a jcs. W jcs ac s b, WSdot s ab sb jcs b. As, a

the end of each federal scal year, when the federal government is redistributing obligateds s b sas, Was s ab c c aaab .Acc s ss, Was as c $100 sbfederal funds over several years. WSDOT is hoping to improve its efcient use of funds by a sc c asa a aac.


52/81



statesurvey

SYnTHESIS OF STATE SURVEY RESULTS

The survey ndings revealed no evidence that a dependency on federal funds over state funds,with the associated lack of flexibility, limits a state transportation agencys ability to link css s - asa as. tw bs acc sas

a a a ac a a Ccc, w a bcaksas w ss a s. ts s a a a ac a s sab; a, sss a c k a - caa jc a s a c a s a. A csxaa fs 2a a 2b sws a w Ccc as -a s ca a s, as as s ca sbssca b a sc ws ca sbss ca caa xs, aac, a asa sc s sas. Bs a s as, as w as sa ca ac afunds, play a role in creating the inflexible funding environment currently being experiencedb Cdot. hw, s a a a a sc sas

s cas ac a s a ca.

Another common issue identied in the survey was the importance of better incorporatingcs a css a as cs sc. fxa, mss, a a s aa, ccs a aa cs s assss cssasac a w w bc bs mdot s a za sc jcs. t as b bc a w sa scs. i mss, mss hwas a tasaCss, a a sa sa, as a a jc wasa jcs. t s mdots bs s asz cs sc.ts s Ccc, w ga Assb as a a asa a css. hw, s bcak sas w

sa a a azaa scs, sc as massacss, maa, aWas, a a cass as a cs sasac abc aca.

A sas s a c k was z resources more efciently. Most states are approaching this challenge by looking for new scs, as w as a cac cqs efcient use of existing funds. Some of the proposed revenue sources include raising the gasax, a a ax, a a as. t s c a cac cq was s-b, wc was a b gaAssb 2012 s Ccc. A s cac , cbeing used in Missouri, is of the use of alternative technical concepts. If a contractor identiesaa s a jcs as a a w cs a xc, s cs sas w mdot. Aa, s sas aca c b jcsc a cac cqs ac cs.

t a aac caa jc ack s a sccss k process to specic performance metrics typically requires additional information technology(it) scs.


53/81



Was a maa s a Caa pa maa Ss (CpmS) aa a ack caa as. ts sss w cs these DOTs, with Washingtons dating back to the late 1980s and Marylands dating tothe late 1990s. Both systems have undergone modications and additions since their acca a asa (maa) a k

w ac ass (Was).

mss ss a cs Stip ia maa Ss (SimS) a ss as acapital plan management tool, with features customized to t the aspects of Missourisdot a a s .

v t Stip s s a a xcs as caa a c.

v t SimS a as sca as b acca aca a s ca msss caa a css.

nw Js ss a pjc r Ss (prS) ack caa jcs w asa aa was k s ack ss a a ac

a c aa s jc za. v a massacss a a scaz swa caa a

a, a jc ack swa a ass cswa s a ass aa a.


54/81


34 connecticutacademyofscienceandengineering


55/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesfindings

FInDInGS

Sa asa acs a ca ca w aa asaasc a s a a s sa a b a bc. ts s accs a caa jc as b a a sa . hw, a ca a csacapital program budgets that are signicantly dependent on federal funding make effective- a a a ca.

The study ndings identify several concepts that were used for the development of studycas ac a s ca Ccc wsc bcak a bs acc sas s jc ab,and strengthening the planning/programming linkage. In addition to strengthening theplanning/programming linkage, ConnDOT, like most state transportation agencies, also needs

to identify ways to generate more revenue and spend funds more efciently in the currentcsa .

The following ve major ndings are based on the research conducted for this study:

Icorporatig a select subset of performace metrics ito the programmig processhelps to alig capital programmig with log-term goals. W a cacas ca ac cs a css, s acca ac acs k ca aaca s ak a jcs b ab ac - as. Bas sac, aas a sa s c s a a qaa ca a a ac cs a css. tslargely reflects the difculty of predicting the effect of specic projects on manyac cs. hw, massacss s css s ac c as a s w wm massacss a. As,v c ss a sbs as c ac cs (cassand fatalities per VMT, percent lane miles in poor/very poor condition, number ofstructurally decient bridges, and transit ridership) in its programming process.t, w a Ccc, s a ca lrtp as the planning/programming process for developing ConnDOTs STIP. Also, ConnDOTass ss was sas lrtp as s ac cs, b as a c w ac cs. hw, Cdot sa a w lrtp a w a b a s

lrtp as w sc ac ass. Establishig a formal process for evaluatig project deliverability prior to project

selectionandprogrammingcanpromotemoreefcientuseoffunds.W a bcak a bs acc sas ac aa jcab, sas s a az, qaa aass asac. S sas, sc as mss, s a a sc css assss ab jcs b a c Stip. o sas, scas massacss, aa jc ab a wk jc s. rss


56/81



findings

Cdot cs s s ca a Ccc c as the second category, but would benet from a deliverability assessment earlier in theplanning/programming process. Georgia DOT recently released a report on theira, qaa assss ab a s scb a w sc s .

Utilizinginnovativecontractingtechniquestopromoteefcientuseoflimitedfuds. Cdot sa w aca s cs ssss a sof the benchmark and best practice state transportation agencies identied the need a a cac cqs c jcs ss a cs c. t s c cac accs s was s-b, wc was az s Ccc b ga Assbs a pbc Ac 12-70, c, J 6, 2012. mssas s a cac cq kw as aa cca ccs.ts s cacs w a c s aa, cs-c ss b s a cs sas aa sbw mdot a cac. As, s sas a a ac

ass w a jcs a c a w c s bsa a cac.

Formally icorporatig Metropolita Plaig Orgaizatios, Regioal PlaigAgecies, ad other local stakeholders ito the plaig process. t a strengthening the planning/programming linkage emphasized the importance ofca mpos, rpAs, a ca a acs a css.t s sc bcak a bs acc sas s s a as sas a a cas cca a ca w sas a acs. i maa, sca asa ccs aaa a cs ss ac cs sa, as w as c Ba. t s s ss s xa s Stip c

saks a c back jc za. msss mpos a rpCs sc s a a bass a w mdot, a, a aa bass. ts aza cas a ss bw a mposa rpCs a s a a ca cca w mdot.

Usig customer surveys as a effective tool to support the capital project plaigprocess. mss, v, Was, maa, a massacss s csss a bc caa jc a css. f s sas,k mss, aj asa css a ac b cs . i sas, k Was, massacss, v a maa, w saa xc bacs a ssb sc jcs,customer service is also an important factor. Elected ofcials may be much more likely

to vote for projects that benet, or at the very least do not anger, their constituents.fq aa cs s a sasac as s s a scjcs a aca s css. Sa c sasa ac cs as cs sc a sasac. mss, xa, ass bc aca b aa s a cs sasac a aa saw s.


57/81


benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesrecommendations

RECOMMEnDATIOnS

Based on the study ndings the CASE study committee offers the following recommendations.

Establish performace measures to track project deliverability ad iovativecotractig methods. pjc ab ac s b as b ca caa jcs a a c a b. Ccc c ass ca csc cacsc w b a ca csc cacs c time. While these are useful measures, they do not necessarily reflect the experience asa ss. t, a aa ac as s bused that identies whether a project is fully functional and open for public use on. eac ack caabs a k ac cs a qaa a c (it) scs, as was cas s cas s

sas. Cdot s cs cac w a a a caajcs aa ss, csz as s a azaasc. Aa ac ass cs as jcab c:

v Cas(s) a jc

v vaac bw jc b a aca cs

v mass jcs ak s aa a cacs, sc as s-b, s c b jcs,sa a cs sas, b ca s, a b contractor claims led. Data measured for alternative contracting methodologies

s b aaz a ca w aa s-b-b assss a ac, a.

Uder-program (uder-commit) the capital project pla while maitaiig a biof fully-desiged, o-programmed projects. f s sas s, cs a jc sas caa a s a aa a w b. A sc bcak a bs acc sas w ss s cs -a caa bs, s s -a a sa sa. S sas, sc as Was,ak csa jc cs sas. o sas, sc as maa, s a a xc . hw, s csaa s a s bc aaab a

a scal year. Therefore, to fully utilize available funding, it is crucial to have a bin ofjcs a a b s a a c css a a c caa a. i s b a bcas Cdot as jc b s ArrA , s- a b cssa -a s b ac baac -a -.

Develop ad maitai a Trasportatio Ivestmet Dashboard to moitorCoecticuts trasportatio ivestmet performace as compared to that of selected


58/81



recommendations

states. t asba s cca aa a a ca asa Cdot a sas as s s assss Cccscapital planning/programming and project deliverability performance. Preferably asba w b ss aa. Aa ssac w aa aa a a qc w s aass ac a a w.

t asba s b wb-bas as accss b cs-aks, caksa a bc. t ac cs cs cs s bcss w lrtp a tiCp s.

i s ss a Cdot cs s asba ca Cccw sc sas a sa ss a caa jcs. ts w b a s sa aa s Cccs lrtp a s sasasa asc.

hw, s w q Cdot sa scs aaa asba ss a aass, a cabaa cca w sas caa aass. t, a a qc ssac asba ss s bcs cx c scs a w a a aass Cdot.

SELECTIOn OF COMPARATIVE STATES

os sc sas c:

t bcak sas (maa, massacss, nw Js) a bs acc sas(mss, v, a Was) sc a s s s

nw ea tasa Cs sas (Ccc, ma, massacss,nw has, r isa, a v)

Northeast Association of State Transportation Ofcials states (includes the Newea sas, as w as dawa, maa, nw Js, nw yk, apsaa) as w as dsc Cba, a pc oa, Caaa, a sbs s sas.

DASHBOARD DATA COnSIDERATIOnS

Most of the statistical and nancial data used for the sample and proposed dashboards aresb b ac sa aa fa hwa Asa (fhWA). SAx B aa sc a sa asbas.

hw, s a w-a a sba aa b sas bc as aa b fhWA s wbs. ts a a aks ssdashboard data outdated and less useful for analysis to assess capital planning/programminga jc ab ac. ts a c b c b aCdot ak a sabs a caba wk sc sas w


59/81



mutual benet to make state-level data available in a timelier manner. The dashboard conceptc as b x a cas ascs sa wa, bcasa, a s asa ac.

t s -sa caba w b :

d aa a a c a sa a saasbas

Report the commonly dened data

Meet periodically to review the ndings from the dashboard update, identify bestpractices to address capital planning/programming and project deliverabilitycas.

SAMPLE DASHBOARDS

tw s asbas a ccaz: a a sa asba, a a saasba a s a w caa sas.

ia sa asbas c c k sascs acs, asc, anance in conjunction with a select group of performance measures that provide a linkagebw lrtps a tiCps.

A xa a sa asba Ccc s sw f 5. t s saasba as c c a ab sa tab 3 s (s a 20) a saa k ac a asc acs ac sa.


60/81



recommendations

figure 5: CapiTal prOgram invesTmenT DashbOarD (sTaTe example: COnneCTiCuT)

CapitalProgramInvestmentDashboard

:Connecticut

PerformanceM

easure

LatestRepo

rtingPeriod

Performance

Fatalitiesper10

0MV

MT

0.71(C

Y2009)

Improving

Fatalitiesper10

0,000population

6.34(C

Y2009)

Improving

Pavementswith

GoodRideQuality(%withIRICapacity(%

)

8.67(C

Y2010)

Improving

RailPassengerTrips

9,847,219(C

Y2011-Q3)

Declining

BusPassengerTrips

6,856,175(C

Y2011-Q3)

Improving

00.2

0.4

0.6

0.81

1.2

1.4

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

RatioofFederalFundingtoCapital

Expenditure

FederalFiscalYear

RatioofFederalFundingtoCapital

Expe

nditures-Highways(1992-20

09)

Po

pulation(2010)

3,405,565

RuraltoUrbanRatio(2010)

0.14

MilesofStateOwnedRoads(2010)

3,717

NumberofStateOwnedBridges(2010)

2,800

TotalExp

enditures($M)(2009)

1,370

CapitalEx

penditures($M)(2009)

554

Approx.CapitalExp.fromState(%)(2012)

40.7

Approx.CapitalExp.onTransit(%)(2012)

45.8


61/81



t sa asba cas ac sas asa s, sbss,a as a s caa xs . A sa sa asbas bcak a bs acc sas c s s s sw f 6. tSa tasa rs Scs a Sa dot dsbs abs a asba a sa as fs 2(a) a 2(b) sa s sc s .

As, ra fa f Caa exs a sw a b asba s a cs fs 4(a) a 4(b) sa s sc s .Aass a sa asba c a w-aass a a a sa cas cs bw sas.

figure 6: summary DashbOarD (highwaysanD briDges) benChmarkanD besT praCTiCe sTaTes

Admiister periodically a customer survey to provide isight ito user preferecesad to gauge customer satisfactio. Cdot s cs cc a aacs s bs assss s cs sasac. S ssw b s cs sasac w Cdots ac a

Summary Dashboard (Highways and Bridges)Benchmark and Best Practice States


62/81



recommendations

s as a s s. t s s b s b Cdot cjc w ac ass acs wk sss, jc ab a a bc sasac w sasasa ss .

As noted in the study ndings, most of the benchmark and best practice states includedin this study have signicant experience in using customer surveys to provide an assss cs sasac a ca s as s Cdot.Consideration should be given to contracting with a company/organization experienced , cc, aaz, a s ss. As,Cdot s a a bc awass ak aaab a public of its LRTP goals and its capital planning/programming process using its websc a s aaab bc jc s a s.

COnCLUDInG REMARKS

t s cas a awk ca w a assssConnDOTs capital planning/programming process and project deliverability performance, asw as ka w as sas lrtp.

p asa aa a a sas as a a bc s sb asbas c cas accab a s as a bass sabs a b sa Cdots caa a, c sas asa asc, a scs s as lrtp. i bc s css qs cas bc awass a ascs sasac.

t a -sa caba bcak a bs acc sas c bcs b Cdot a w s sa s xcwith other states and to learn about innovative solutions to improve the efciency andcss s caa a ss.


63/81

benchmarkingconnecticutstransportationinfrastructurecapitalprogramwithotherstatesreferences


REFEREnCES

1. Cab Ssacs, ic., hdr, ic., Factors that Support the Planning/programmingLinkage, nChrp r 591 (2007).

2. is pbc Wks es Asaa,Australian Infrastructure FinancialManagement Guidelines, (2009).

3. naa tasa pc pjc, Performance Driven: A New Vision for U.S.Transportation Policy, (June 2009). http://www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/les/NTPP%20Report.pdf.

4. Cab Ssacs, ic.,