Transcript
From Cradle to Construction: Planning for Transportation
Infrastructure
NADO Rural Transportation Conf 2013
French Broad River MPO/
Land of Sky Regional Council
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
The Life of a Transportation Project
2
We Started Small
We began with smallest, most up-to-date data set:
State Transportation Improvement Program
– Budgeted Construction Plan
– Has counterpart MTIP at MPO
– Initial GIS files from NCDOT STIP/Programming
– PROJECT BREAKS
3
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
STIP Data (Note Segment Breaks)
4
• Segmented properly
• Not much attribute data
5
Too Much of a Good Thing • STIP also includes major resurfacing projects
– Not included in MPO capital planning process
– Part of the maintenance responsibility of the NCDOT local highway division
– Included in STIP to meet federal requirements
• We had to cull them out; we did so in the attributes rather than delete them
6
Give Me a Break
• By starting with the STIP, we also got smallest increments of a project
• NCDOT breaks projects up by constructability and fundability
• Sometimes the most needed part gets built while the other part(s) languish
7
Example of Breaks
8
Next: SPOT
• The Strategic Planning Office (for) Transportation
– A data-driven process to choose which projects move forward into the construction schedule
– Originated in Gov. Perdue’s Executive Order #2
– Codified by Session Law 2012-84
9
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
SPOT Data Segmented Properly
• These ended up being the model data for the architecture we ended up with
10
Termini as Attribute Became Key
11
Data about roads…
12
…becomes base score
13
Next Layer: LRTP
• Long Range Transportation Plan
– Federal Requirement for MPOs
– Tied to Air Quality Determination
– Fiscally Constrained
– 25 Year Time Horizon
14
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
LRTP Data Were Over-Segmented
15
We made sure each segment had label attribute, then dissolved. When done, we just needed the label (project id), and correct termini (project extent)
The LRTP
16
Last, we added the CTP
• Comprehensive Transportation Plan
– Adopted by all local governments, MPO/RPO, and NC Board of Transportation
– Includes initial Problem Statements/Purpose and Need for NEPA
– 30+ year time horizon
– No Fiscal Constraint
– Unique to NC
– all modes
17
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
Data Created by NCDOT-TPB
18
Data Issue
• CTP data set was very early prototype with limited attribution
• Segment identifiers only placed on segment where label on map was to appear; made finding termini problematic on some projects
19
20
Other segments have no MAP_ID!
MAP_ID only here
Where does A25 end and A24 start?
The Road to Reconciliation
21
At first, the 4 data sets didn’t want to play nice
End Result: A full inventory
22
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint
• 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint
• 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast
• Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP
• 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified
• Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost
• Project Let
• Facility Opened
End Result: Identify Inconsistent Terminii, Progression
23
2040
CTP
LRTP
SPOT
STIP/TIP
NEPA
Construction
• Statewide Systems Plan
• No $ Constraint • 30+ Years
• No $ Constraint • 25 Years
• Based on Revenue Forecast • Scores Projects for Effectiveness
• Results go into STIP • 0-5 and 6-10 Years
• Specific Funding Sources Identified • Project alternatives are assessed
• Final project design and cost • Project Let
• Facility Opened
Taking portion of project
Going beyond original project
Inconsistent Termini Not following progression
Multiple Termini as Attribute
• We wanted to be able to see the lineage of any project segment. We solved it by cross-referencing the projects, and maintaining the original project termini in the attribute data
24
End Result: Reconcile Plans
• Moving ahead with CTP amendments
• Drafting fiscal constraint to allow LRTP amendments
• Reassessment of select STIP projects
25
I approve of clean
databases!
2.0
• Improve attribute table for “ideal” future cross section and cost estimation
• Tie to 2009 NCDOT “Complete Streets” policy
• Add a freight/delivery component
26
Most of all
• Use the reconciled data to drive the joint CTP/LRTP update beginning in 2014
• Use the reconciled data to improve the projects submitted for SPOT in 2014
• Apply Complete Streets principles to all levels of analysis to bolster construction of facilities as Complete Streets.
27
So that someday we build less of this:
28
And more of this.
29
top related