Black presentation

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