Description
A distributed development project is a research & development (R&D) project that is done across multiple business worksites or locations.
Funding Distribution Team
Final Report
December 2008
Executive Summary
The Nebraska Department of Roads is responsible for overseeing and maintaining a vast infrastructure that includes 9,953 miles of highways, 3,526 bridges, 25 rest areas, and 183,268 acres of right-of-way spread over eight field districts. The Funding Distribution Team’s Final Report details a new approach for allocating highway funds. The Team recommends giving top priority to preserving the state’s existing highway and bridge assets. After all asset preservation needs have been met, the next priority is to allocate funds for capital improvements. A new process for a statewide ranking of capital improvement projects is proposed. The proposed process uses a two-tier system and is based upon estimated economic benefit to the highway users.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 2.0 Introduction Current Allocation Process 2.1 General Funding Allocations 2.2 Highway Construction Program Proposed Funding Distribution 3.1 General 3.2 Designated Programs 3.3 Multi-year Projects 3.4 High Priority Bridges 3.5 Asset Preservation, 3R Needs, and Bridge Needs 3.5.1 Estimating Asset Preservation for Pavements and Bridges 3.5.2 Estimating 3R Geometric Improvement Needs for Pavements and Bridges 3.6 Capital Improvements 3.6.1 Tier I Ranking 3.6.2 Tier II Ranking 3.6.3 Delivery Process for Capital Improvement Projects Deployment and Implementation Summary
3.0
4.0 5.0
Appendix A. System Preservation and Optimization Team (SPOT) Recommendations B. Acronyms C. Glossary D. Project Initiation Flow Chart E. Proposed Funding Allocation for Non-Interstate Pavement and Bridges F. State Highway Commission Resolution to Proceed with Procedure
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Faced with declining revenues and extraordinary inflation, the administration of the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) recognized the need to review the process for allocation of funds for highway improvements. The first step of this process was to have a team evaluate the current process and make recommendations that would provide the citizens of Nebraska with a quality roadway system regardless of the funding level. This team, called the System Preservation and Optimization Team (SPOT), furnished a final report to the NDOR administration and Highway Commission. Included in this report was a recommendation to adopt new minimum design standards and to use those standards as needs criteria to identify which roadway segments require improvement. The new standards are intended to bring Nebraska in line with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and meet the reality of today’s financial situation. The recommendations provided by the SPOT are found in Appendix A of this report. On March 23, 2007, the Highway Commission approved the revisions to the Needs Study Criteria recommended by the SPOT. Following the final presentation and acceptance of the SPOT’s recommendations, members of NDOR’s upper level management were assigned to establish the priority for expenditures and to recommend new procedures for the allocation of highway construction funds which reflect those priorities. This group of NDOR representatives is named the Funding Distribution Team (FDT). The following report details the recommendations developed cooperatively by the members of the FDT.
4
2.0 CURRENT ALLOCATION PROCESS
2.1 General Funding Allocations The Department of Roads receives revenues from fees and taxes assessed to the user of the transportation system. These revenues are established by three primary sources – state, federal, and local funds. Highway user fees are derived from fuel taxes, registration fees, motor vehicle sales taxes, heavy vehicle use and sales taxes, lease vehicles taxes, and tire taxes. Revenues are initially deposited in the federal and state highway trust funds and distributed to the state through formulas established by both state and federal law. The Department of Roads Controller Division accounts for all revenues and expenditures by means of a cash flow management system. This system, along with projected state and federal revenues, allows them to estimate the dollar amount available to fund the current and future years’ surface transportation programs after funding is allocated for the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Administration Services and Support Capital Facilities (buildings) Routine Highway Maintenance Carrier Enforcement Division of the Nebraska State Patrol Construction Overhead Public Transportation Payment for Litigation Department of Revenue – Collection of Motor Fuel Taxes
(The preceding categories are not all inclusive, but cover those categories that exceed $1.0 million.) The Nebraska Department of Roads allocates approximately 80% of its total revenues to the highway construction program. Routine maintenance activities and supportive services, as shown in the above list, account for the remaining 20%. Following the creation of the annual needs analysis in 1988, NDOR established a policy to ensure that state highway construction funding was distributed based on “needs”. Geometric and resurfacing needs are assessed for each district annually. Historically, two-thirds of the highway construction program is spent on asset preservation and one-third is spent on capital improvements. 2.2 Highway Construction Program Since 1997, approximately 50% of the highway construction program is allocated for primary highways, and the remaining 50% is allocated for the combined needs of the Interstate system, Missouri River bridges, and the expressway system.
5
Primary Highway Allocations Each year the Department completes an assessment of the highway system comparing roadways and bridges with established criteria. This evaluation is based upon conformance with design standards, and output from the Bridge Management System (BMS) and the Pavement Management System (PMS). These assessments establish the dollar value of the needs in each district and for the state as a whole. Each of the eight districts receives a construction budget based upon the percentage of the “needs” in their district as compared to the total statewide primary highway needs. Using this budget the District Engineer, in consultation with their highway commissioner, selects the appropriate asset preservation and capital improvement projects necessary to accomplish the goals of the department. Interstate/Expressway and Missouri River Bridge Allocations To maintain consistency in the condition and operation of the Interstate system, the NDOR created an Interstate and Expressway Task Force. The Task Force includes the Deputy – Directors for Engineering and for Operations. Other members include Federal Highway Administration representatives, members from the central office divisions responsible for delivering projects and District personnel. Input from District Engineers is a key part of the project scope and selection process. This Task Force is charged with annually reviewing the condition and operation of the Interstate and Expressway systems and establishing the scope and priority for asset preservation and capital improvement projects. The Missouri River bridges capital improvement and asset preservation projects are selected and programmed based on condition ratings, operational characteristics, and agreements with adjoining States.
6
3.0 PROPOSED FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
3.1 General The NDOR allocates funds to preserve, operate, and improve the state highway system. Figure 1 is a flow chart showing the team’s recommendations for prioritizing these funds. 3.2 Designated Programs Funds would be set aside for the following: safety projects, planning activities, research activities, and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects. 3.3 Multi-year Projects These are funds that are necessary for the second and subsequent years of projects under contract that take more than a year to construct. 3.4 High Priority Bridges Each year the Bridge Division will produce a list of high priority bridges according to the flow chart in Figure 2. The Bridge Engineer will examine the condition of these bridges and recommend a course of action to maintain the functionality of these structures. Bridges, not currently programmed for improvement or maintenance, will be programmed by the Bridge Division for the appropriate action and fiscal year. The Bridge Engineer will work with the District Engineer and the Roadway Design Engineer to ensure that the schedule and scope are appropriate. Bridges that are programmed as a part of a roadway improvement project will be reviewed annually to ensure that appropriate repairs are completed when necessary. If these bridges must be improved before the roadway project, the Bridge Engineer will recommend an interim action and program projects to address the immediate issues of these bridges. The Bridge Engineer will work with the District Engineer and the Roadway Design Engineer to make sure these projects are programmed appropriately. The full amount of funds needed to address the needs of specific structures will be allocated annually. After the evaluation process, the Bridge Engineer will verify that all the bridges identified as “High Priority” have been evaluated and programmed for the appropriate improvement.
7
8
3.5 Asset Preservation, 3R Needs, and Bridge Needs The next level of roadway improvements identified by the team is work performed under contract that is generally beyond the capabilities of NDOR maintenance forces and is vital to the preservation of the highway system. The FDT grouped this work in three categories; asset preservation, highway improvements to meet 3R minimum design standards, and improvements to address bridge needs. “3R” is an acronym for rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing. “3R”, as used in this report and commonly by NDOR, refers to the Minimum Design Standards for 3R highway improvement projects as established by the Nebraska Board of Public Roads Classifications and Standards. Asset preservation consists of maintaining the existing roadway to a given condition, maintaining a minimum condition of bridges, and maintaining, and in some instances upgrading, roadside appurtenances such as guardrail. Some asset preservation work is performed by state maintenance forces. The 3R needs are identified by comparing the existing configuration of the roadway to the 3R standards using the information contained in the Pavement and Bridge Management Systems and based upon 20-year traffic projections. The 3R standards are an intermediate step between asset preservation and capital improvement projects. Annually, the Bridge Division will calculate the bridge asset preservation and 3R bridge needs for each District. This information will be submitted to the Materials and Research (M&R) Engineer. M&R will calculate the pavement asset preservation and 3R needs for each District and combine this information with the bridge needs to determine the allocations to the districts. This information will be forwarded to the Program Management Engineer. Once the administration has approved the proposed District budgets, the M&R Engineer will furnish each District with a list of the roadway resurfacing and preventative maintenance candidate projects. The Bridge Division will send the Districts a list of candidate bridges for improvement and repair. Each District’s annual budget will include funding for roadway and bridge asset preservation, and to improve roadways and bridges to 3R standards. District Engineers have the flexibility to use the funding for preservation projects using their best judgment. District Engineers are encouraged to spend about 10% of their asset preservation funds on preventative maintenance projects. Capital improvement projects will not be funded with asset preservation or 3R funds. 3.5.1 Estimating Asset Preservation for Pavement and Bridges The asset preservation category ties into the SPOT recommendation of maintaining the current statewide average pavement condition. The average condition will be based on the Nebraska Serviceability Index (NSI). This category includes all state highways 9
except the Interstate system. Funds will be set aside separately for the Interstate system. A 10-year Pavement Optimization Program (POP) analysis was used to calculate the estimated cost (refer to Appendix E) for asset preservation. The POP is software developed by NDOR to analyze pavement condition and recommend a remediation strategy and provide an estimate of the cost. The POP analysis is based on a combination of current pavement condition, annual pavement deterioration rates, target pavement condition, and a benefit/cost analysis. To stabilize the allocation over time, a 10-year analysis and allocation period was selected. The goal is to bring each district’s average NSI, excluding the Interstate system, to 84.7. This average NSI was recommended by the SPOT and approved by the Highway Commission. Of the estimated annual cost of asset preservation, the FDT has determined that approximately $15 million of asset preservation work is performed by state maintenance forces in the normal course of their activities. Consequently, the asset preservation funds determined by POP to be allocated to the districts should be reduced by the value of the asset preservation work performed by state forces. The FDT recommends that this level of funding for the work performed by state maintenance forces be maintained and be adjusted annually for inflation. The pavement asset preservation funding for each district is calculated with the goal that at the end of the 10-year period all districts would have an average NSI of 84.7. The POP program is designed to select projects based on the highest benefit/cost ratio, but in reality projects may be selected based on other factors than just the benefit/cost ratio. To account for this difference in project selection, a new 10-year analysis will be performed every year using the most recent pavement condition ratings. The administration can choose to stay with the 84.7 NSI as a 10-year goal for the state, or set a different 10-year NSI goal depending on the availability of funds. All bridges are checked to determine if they meet 3R standards (refer to Figure 2). If bridges meet the 3R standards, then any required asset preservation strategy will be performed within the next five years. These strategies would include such actions as bridge deck overlays and replacing the entire bridge deck where the bridge’s substructure and superstructure are adequate (refer to Appendix E). The asset preservation needs for the Interstate system are determined as the result of an annual review by the Interstate Task Force. The Interstate Task Force is a team comprised of Central Office personnel from the Materials and Research, Roadway Design, and Bridge Divisions, the Program Management Section, the Administration and personnel from the District Office. Members of this team perform an annual field review of the Interstate system and evaluate the condition of the roadway, bridges and appurtenances. Following this review the team meets to discuss the findings and to schedule preservation projects for the future one-year program and the five-year planning program. The annual cost for preservation of pavement and bridges on the Interstate has been running around $30 million per year.
10
11
3.5.2 Estimating 3R Geometric Improvement Needs for Pavements and Bridges Sections of roads having an optimum resurfacing year within the next five years are evaluated to determine if they have a 3R deficiency using a twenty year traffic projection. The five- year time period was selected to ensure that the roads that have the most immediate resurfacing needs can be improved to 3R standards. The funds allocated to this category of improvement are equal to one-fifth of the five-year estimated 3R needs. Each district will receive a portion of this allocation based upon their ratio of needs to the state total (refer to Appendix E). 3R needs are the difference between the cost of a 3R improvement and the cost of an asset preservation improvement on the same roadway. The Interstate system was excluded from this analysis as no 3R deficiencies exist on the Interstate. To calculate the amount of funds to be allocated for 3R bridge needs (refer to Figure 2), an analysis will be performed evaluating the condition and geometry of bridges and estimating the funds necessary to address the identified needs. One-tenth of this amount will be distributed to the districts based upon the ratio of the district needs to the statewide needs (refer to Appendix E). These funds, along with the funds allocated to the districts for pavement needs, will be allocated annually as a lump sum to the district to be used at the District Engineers’ discretion to address the 3R needs in the annual program. 3.6 Capital Improvements Capital improvements consist of major modification road projects that extend beyond the work permitted under the 3R. These projects generally entail a correction of vertical or horizontal alignment, removal and replacement of the surfacing and base, increase in capacity or construction on a new alignment. Capital improvement projects will be ranked using a two-tier system. Tier I will consider the engineering economics of the project. This ranking will account for 60 percent of the overall ranking. The Tier II ranking will consider factors about the improvement’s importance to the entire state. This ranking will account for 40 percent of the overall ranking. Stand alone railroad viaduct projects being built primarily using funds set aside for railroad viaducts will not be submitted for ranking. 3.6.1 Tier I Ranking Capital improvement projects will first be analyzed using tools presented in the User Benefit Analysis for Highways manual published by AASHTO, August 2003. The methodology focuses primarily on direct user benefits, or those benefits that are directly impacted by a transportation improvement. User benefits are determined by travel costs in three distinct areas; travel time costs, operating costs, and crash costs. By balancing these user benefits against project costs we can determine which projects will provide the most cost effective improvements for the highway user. 12
The elements of user benefits are quantified using various units of measurement and must be converted to a common, monetary unit of measurement so they can be compared with project costs. Travel time, for example, is measured in minutes while operating costs are measured in dollars and crashes are reported as numbers and types. The AASHTO methodology provides a means for converting each of these benefit components into a common monetary value so they can be aggregated across years, users, and vehicle classes. Since the benefits estimated for each project are expressed in common monetary values, this conversion allows for user benefit comparisons between different projects. 3.6.2 Tier II Ranking Following the ranking of projects through direct user benefits in Tier I, the projects will then be ranked based upon indirect benefits. The Tier II ranking will consider factors about the improvement’s importance to the entire state. These factors are: 1. Functional Classification – 10 Points Maximum Points will be allocated based upon the functional classification of the roadway recognizing the relative importance of each roadway to the transportation system as a whole. Interstate - 10 points Expressway – 8 points Multi-lane Major Arterial – 7 points Major Arterial – 6 points Collector – 4 points Supplemental Funds – 25 Points maximum Examples are train mile tax, enhancement funds, highway safety improvement program and local funds. The points are awarded at a ratio of one-half point for each percent of supplemental funding. Potential Environmental Benefit – 5 Points maximum Points for potential environmental benefit are assessed based upon the expectation that highway projects can have a significant positive environmental impact through improved traffic operations and environmental sensitivity. Some projects will include large mitigation sites necessary for the completion of other projects with environmental impacts. Others may improve air quality through improved operations and reduction in congestion and delay. The points are awarded based on a subjective evaluation of high (5 points), medium (3 points) and low (1 point) benefit. Economic Benefit – 15 Points maximum Economic benefit is ranked based upon a business’ commitment to a significant investment or increase in jobs as evidenced by acceptance under the Nebraska Advantage Act. It is intended to be a method to advance projects already within the ranked projects based upon a business’ request to build a project to facilitate construction or expansion of their business. This 13
2.
3.
4.
factor is related to the actual benefit awarded under the Nebraska Advantage Act or subsequent replacement. Actual Benefit under the Act Number of Points Allocated o Up to $500,000 3 Points o Between $500,000 and $2,500,000 7.5 Points o Between $2,500,000 and $5,000,000 12 Points o Greater than $5,000,000 15 Points 5. Corridor Completion – 15 Points maximum Points will be awarded to those projects that contribute to the completion of a designated corridor of a system such as the N-71, US-81, US-275, and US-30 corridors of the expressway system, the I-80 six-lane corridor between Lincoln and Omaha, and the completion of the remaining segments of the Priority Commercial System. The allocation of points is based upon the percentage of the corridor completed with the project. For example, if there remains 35 miles to complete a corridor and a project in the corridor is 7 miles in length, the project would be allocated: 7 / 35 x 15 = 3 points Corridor length is generally defined by the logical termini in the environmental document. 6. Incident Management – 10 Points Projects which contribute to the completion of the department’s alternate route system for the Interstate system will be allocated 10 additional points. This system was developed to route traffic around closures on the Interstate. It is considered important by the NDOR to have a system of roadways that can handle the traffic from I-80 in the event of an incident or emergency. Ten points are allocated to any project which is necessary to complete the operational aspects of this system. Ratio of Actual Crashes to Expected Crashes – 15 Points maximum Each highway segment has an expected crash rate based upon the traffic volume and the roadway configuration. When the actual crash rate exceeds the expected crash rate, it is an indication that the roadway is not meeting the expectations of the traveling public; therefore, an indication of a need for geometric adjustments. Points are allocated as follows: Ratio of Expected Crashes to Actual Crashes From 0 to <1.0 From 1.0 to 1.5 Greater than 1.5 Points Allocated 0 Points 7.5 Points 15 Points
7.
14
3.6.3 Delivery Process for Capital Improvement Projects Delivering a highway construction program requires stability during the design process. To accomplish the delivery of projects and facilitate program analysis, the following will apply. It is intended that the ranking process will take place each January. The NDOR’s fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30. The term “First Year” refers to the fiscal year beginning six months from the date of ranking. First year – Second Year – Third Year – Fourth Year – Fifth Year – Sixth Year – Set Fixed (120% of the expected funding) Firm Firm Planning and Design Planning and Design
The term “Set” means the program to be published for the next fiscal year and is not subject to change. The term “Fixed” means that the program is nearly certain. The term “Firm” indicates that the projects in these program years are in final design and are on track to be let to contract. Normally these projects will not be ranked again after being included in these years. It is critical to the delivery of the highway program that projects not be moved in and out of these years. The term “Planning and Design” indicates planning years that are more flexible in respect to adding or removing projects. While most capital improvement projects will require developmental time in excess of five years, some may be able to be moved from the beyond program into the 4th or 5th year’s program. 1. The one year program is set and the projects in this year will be published as a part of the “One Year Highway Improvement Program”. The 2nd year is fixed and except for delivery or funding problems will not change. The 3rd and 4th year plans are firm and, while subject to revision, will not vary vastly from the initial ranking. The 5th and 6th year plans will be planning and design projects; these projects will be ranked each year with the other capital improvement projects. The 2nd through the 6th years projects are published as the Five-Year Plan in the NDOR’s annual highway improvement plan. 2. Each year projects would be moved from the 5th and 6th year plans to the firm 3rd and 4th year plans and the fixed 2nd year selected from the 3rd and 4th year plans based upon funding, estimates, and delivery. In order to allow flexibility, the 2nd year will be programmed for 120% of the projected program size. 3. Then, based upon funding, additional projects would be selected from projects not yet included in the 5th and 6th year plans. 4. Public input would be taken on projects that are being considered for inclusion in the 1st through 6th year plans. 15
Programming of individual projects will not be based solely upon the ranking, but also upon the project delivery timeline, available funding versus project cost, pavement and/or bridge condition, and citizen input received through the public involvement process. Those projects not included in the one year program or five-year plan, but anticipated to be included in the future, will be pursued through the preliminary design and environmental studies to ensure they are ready to enter the project delivery program when funding permits.
16
4.0 DEPLOYMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
The fiscal year 2009 highway improvement program has been established and will be published in July 2008. The new system of program management will begin with the fiscal year 2010 program. To accomplish the ranking procedures as detailed in Section 3, the following project initiation and scope determination process will be followed. A flow chart of this process can be found in Appendix D. Each project begins with a Project Initiation Form (DR-73). This form is generally completed by the District Engineer, but in special cases it may be completed in the Central Complex. The DR-73 describes the location, proposed scope of work, current condition of the roadway and other important information about the proposed project which allows the reviewing authorities to accomplish their tasks. The DR-73 is forwarded to the Project Scheduling and Program Management (PSPM) Engineer, who, in concert with other divisions, makes the decision whether the project will be classified as an asset preservation project or a capital improvement project. If a project is classified as an asset preservation project, the DR-73 is forwarded to the appropriate divisions for their input as to scope, work to be performed and estimated cost. The project will be scheduled to coincide with the pavement or bridge needs. A project classified as a capital improvement project will flow from that determination into the analysis phase of a project. Depending upon purpose and need, capital improvement projects generally require a more complete analysis as to the appropriate scope required to meet the needs of the roadway. At the appropriate point in the project’s development, the Planning and Project Development Division (PPD) will conduct an Engineering Review to evaluate the needs of the roadway segment, the appropriate treatment, environmental impacts, specific project issues, and estimated costs. In addition, the PPD Division will coordinate with the Traffic Division, Materials and Research Division, Bridge Division and District to obtain the information necessary to perform the Tier I and II rankings. Once a capital improvement project has been ranked relative to the other capital improvement projects, scheduling will be based upon its ranking, project delivery timeline and other pertinent factors.
17
5.0 SUMMARY
These recommendations, and the resulting processes, have been developed during a time of lean finances; however, the team is confident that they will be relevant in any funding situation. The ranking of the capital improvement projects, based upon objective criteria, provides to the State a tool that will assist, for many years to come, the prioritization of preliminary engineering efforts and construction expenditures.
18
Appendix A SPOT Recommendations Approved by the State Highway Commission March 23, 2007. 1. 2. 3. 4. The preservation of the state highway system is the top priority. Needs criteria are to be redefined to better reflect the AASHTO guidelines. Retain the current pavement condition and smoothness corporate measures. Complete 6-Lane construction of I-80 between Lincoln and Omaha on the current schedule. 5. Slow the 6-lane construction of I-80 west of Lincoln. 6. The construction of the remaining Expressway segments should be determined by the 10,000 average daily traffic (ADT) warrant.
19
Appendix B Acronyms
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials PEP - Pavement Extension Program 3R - Rehabilitation, Restoration and Resurfacing FDT- Funding Distribution Team SPOT- System Preservation and Optimization Team PSPM Engineer - Project Scheduling and Project Management Engineer NSI - Nebraska Serviceability Index PPD - Planning and Project Development Division
20
Appendix C Glossary Primary Highway – All highways on the State Highway System excluding the Interstate, Expressways, and Missouri River bridges. Expressway – A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access and generally with grade separations at major intersections. Pavement Management System – A database that contains pavement condition data of the State Highway System. Bridge Management System – A database that contains bridge condition data of Nebraska bridges Asset Preservation – Maintaining the existing roadway to a given condition, maintaining a minimum condition of bridges, and maintaining, and in some instances, upgrading roadside appurtenances such as guardrail Pavement Optimization Program (POP) – A computer based program that uses pavement management data to compute multiple year benefit/cost analysis for exploring different budget scenarios, calculates costs to maintain the overall pavement condition of the State Highway System at different levels, and generates project candidate lists to meet specific goals. Functional Classification – Classification of a road by the function it serves. Nebraska Serviceability Index (NSI) - A numerical index representing the observed surface distress on the pavement based on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 the best condition. Interstate – A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of access and ingress and egress only at interchanges. The Interstate is the federally designated National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
21
Appendix D Project Initiation Flow Chart
Prepare DR 73 Form And Submit To PSPM Engineer
Asset Preservation Project
Project Type Determined
Capital Improvement Project
Develop Scope And Cost Estimate
PPD Division Performs Engineering Review
Program Project For Appropriate Fiscal Year
Develop Scope And Cost Estimate
PPD Division, Using District Input, Performs Ranking (Tier 1 & 2)
Program Project For Appropriate Fiscal Year
22
Appendix E Proposed Funding Allocation for Non-Interstate Pavements and Bridges Pavements
Asset Preservation Needs Districts Percent of Statewide Need Allocation* (in millions) Average NSI Value Percent of Statewide Need 3R Needs Allocation* (in millions) Improvement Miles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Statewide Total
15.51 5.34 15.79 16.25 12.44 12.92 10.25 11.49 100.00
$29.18 10.05 29.70 30.57 23.40 24.30 19.27 21.61 $188.08 **
83.8 81.6 80.8 84.4 83.9 80.1 84.6 84.5
14.04 0.49 28.75 11.50 1.95 26.80 1.75 14.72 100.00
$1.44 0.05 2.95 1.18 0.20 2.75 0.18 1.51 $10.26
30.8 2.0 21.8 46.8 24.6 57.2 9.1 19.5 211.8
Bridges
Number of High Priority Bridges
Asset Preservation Needs
Percent of Statewide Need Allocation* (in millions) Number of Bridges Percent of Statewide Need
3R Needs
Allocation* (in millions) Number of Bridges
Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Statewide Total
9 5 8 5 0 0 1 2 30
17.21 7.58 16.25 16.00 3.25 5.66 34.06 0 100.00
$0.143 0.063 0.135 0.133 0.027 0.047 0.283 0 $0.831
6 2 5 5 1 2 3 0 24
17.27 25.72 23.49 18.95 0.00 8.14 6.43 0.00
$0.668 0.995 0.909 0.733 0.00 0.315 0.249 0.00 $3.869
9 6 7 7 0 1 1 0 31
*All Allocations were based on 2007 Pavement and Bridge Management Data and 2007 construction prices ** This total includes $15 M of pavement asset preservation work performed by District maintenance forces
23
Nebraska State Highway Commission
Resolution No. 2008-02
WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Roads has experienced a trend of reduced funding available for Highway construction in the past three years, and WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Roads has noted a significant reduction in buying power of the funds available for Highway construction due to inflation, and WHEREAS, in May of 2007, the Nebraska Department of Roads began studying a new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs on Nebraska Highways in response to current and projected funding conditions, and WHEREAS, since August of 2007, while developing this new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs, the Nebraska Department of Roads has continually solicited the comments and advice of the Nebraska State Highway Commission, and WHEREAS, the plan developed places emphasis on maintaining, preserving, and improving Nebraska’s Highways for the benefit of all Nebraskans. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Nebraska State Highway Commission recommends that the Nebraska Department of Roads proceed with the new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs as outlined in the Funding Distribution Team’s final report. Passed and approved this 19th day of December, 2008.
(Signed by)
Rodney P. Vandeberg Richard S. Reiser John F. Kingsbury
Douglas C. Leafgreen Ronald W. Books Greg A. Wolford Jerome A. Fagerland
doc_853612526.pdf
A distributed development project is a research & development (R&D) project that is done across multiple business worksites or locations.
Funding Distribution Team
Final Report
December 2008
Executive Summary
The Nebraska Department of Roads is responsible for overseeing and maintaining a vast infrastructure that includes 9,953 miles of highways, 3,526 bridges, 25 rest areas, and 183,268 acres of right-of-way spread over eight field districts. The Funding Distribution Team’s Final Report details a new approach for allocating highway funds. The Team recommends giving top priority to preserving the state’s existing highway and bridge assets. After all asset preservation needs have been met, the next priority is to allocate funds for capital improvements. A new process for a statewide ranking of capital improvement projects is proposed. The proposed process uses a two-tier system and is based upon estimated economic benefit to the highway users.
2
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 2.0 Introduction Current Allocation Process 2.1 General Funding Allocations 2.2 Highway Construction Program Proposed Funding Distribution 3.1 General 3.2 Designated Programs 3.3 Multi-year Projects 3.4 High Priority Bridges 3.5 Asset Preservation, 3R Needs, and Bridge Needs 3.5.1 Estimating Asset Preservation for Pavements and Bridges 3.5.2 Estimating 3R Geometric Improvement Needs for Pavements and Bridges 3.6 Capital Improvements 3.6.1 Tier I Ranking 3.6.2 Tier II Ranking 3.6.3 Delivery Process for Capital Improvement Projects Deployment and Implementation Summary
3.0
4.0 5.0
Appendix A. System Preservation and Optimization Team (SPOT) Recommendations B. Acronyms C. Glossary D. Project Initiation Flow Chart E. Proposed Funding Allocation for Non-Interstate Pavement and Bridges F. State Highway Commission Resolution to Proceed with Procedure
3
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Faced with declining revenues and extraordinary inflation, the administration of the Nebraska Department of Roads (NDOR) recognized the need to review the process for allocation of funds for highway improvements. The first step of this process was to have a team evaluate the current process and make recommendations that would provide the citizens of Nebraska with a quality roadway system regardless of the funding level. This team, called the System Preservation and Optimization Team (SPOT), furnished a final report to the NDOR administration and Highway Commission. Included in this report was a recommendation to adopt new minimum design standards and to use those standards as needs criteria to identify which roadway segments require improvement. The new standards are intended to bring Nebraska in line with American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) guidelines and meet the reality of today’s financial situation. The recommendations provided by the SPOT are found in Appendix A of this report. On March 23, 2007, the Highway Commission approved the revisions to the Needs Study Criteria recommended by the SPOT. Following the final presentation and acceptance of the SPOT’s recommendations, members of NDOR’s upper level management were assigned to establish the priority for expenditures and to recommend new procedures for the allocation of highway construction funds which reflect those priorities. This group of NDOR representatives is named the Funding Distribution Team (FDT). The following report details the recommendations developed cooperatively by the members of the FDT.
4
2.0 CURRENT ALLOCATION PROCESS
2.1 General Funding Allocations The Department of Roads receives revenues from fees and taxes assessed to the user of the transportation system. These revenues are established by three primary sources – state, federal, and local funds. Highway user fees are derived from fuel taxes, registration fees, motor vehicle sales taxes, heavy vehicle use and sales taxes, lease vehicles taxes, and tire taxes. Revenues are initially deposited in the federal and state highway trust funds and distributed to the state through formulas established by both state and federal law. The Department of Roads Controller Division accounts for all revenues and expenditures by means of a cash flow management system. This system, along with projected state and federal revenues, allows them to estimate the dollar amount available to fund the current and future years’ surface transportation programs after funding is allocated for the following: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. Administration Services and Support Capital Facilities (buildings) Routine Highway Maintenance Carrier Enforcement Division of the Nebraska State Patrol Construction Overhead Public Transportation Payment for Litigation Department of Revenue – Collection of Motor Fuel Taxes
(The preceding categories are not all inclusive, but cover those categories that exceed $1.0 million.) The Nebraska Department of Roads allocates approximately 80% of its total revenues to the highway construction program. Routine maintenance activities and supportive services, as shown in the above list, account for the remaining 20%. Following the creation of the annual needs analysis in 1988, NDOR established a policy to ensure that state highway construction funding was distributed based on “needs”. Geometric and resurfacing needs are assessed for each district annually. Historically, two-thirds of the highway construction program is spent on asset preservation and one-third is spent on capital improvements. 2.2 Highway Construction Program Since 1997, approximately 50% of the highway construction program is allocated for primary highways, and the remaining 50% is allocated for the combined needs of the Interstate system, Missouri River bridges, and the expressway system.
5
Primary Highway Allocations Each year the Department completes an assessment of the highway system comparing roadways and bridges with established criteria. This evaluation is based upon conformance with design standards, and output from the Bridge Management System (BMS) and the Pavement Management System (PMS). These assessments establish the dollar value of the needs in each district and for the state as a whole. Each of the eight districts receives a construction budget based upon the percentage of the “needs” in their district as compared to the total statewide primary highway needs. Using this budget the District Engineer, in consultation with their highway commissioner, selects the appropriate asset preservation and capital improvement projects necessary to accomplish the goals of the department. Interstate/Expressway and Missouri River Bridge Allocations To maintain consistency in the condition and operation of the Interstate system, the NDOR created an Interstate and Expressway Task Force. The Task Force includes the Deputy – Directors for Engineering and for Operations. Other members include Federal Highway Administration representatives, members from the central office divisions responsible for delivering projects and District personnel. Input from District Engineers is a key part of the project scope and selection process. This Task Force is charged with annually reviewing the condition and operation of the Interstate and Expressway systems and establishing the scope and priority for asset preservation and capital improvement projects. The Missouri River bridges capital improvement and asset preservation projects are selected and programmed based on condition ratings, operational characteristics, and agreements with adjoining States.
6
3.0 PROPOSED FUNDING DISTRIBUTION
3.1 General The NDOR allocates funds to preserve, operate, and improve the state highway system. Figure 1 is a flow chart showing the team’s recommendations for prioritizing these funds. 3.2 Designated Programs Funds would be set aside for the following: safety projects, planning activities, research activities, and Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) projects. 3.3 Multi-year Projects These are funds that are necessary for the second and subsequent years of projects under contract that take more than a year to construct. 3.4 High Priority Bridges Each year the Bridge Division will produce a list of high priority bridges according to the flow chart in Figure 2. The Bridge Engineer will examine the condition of these bridges and recommend a course of action to maintain the functionality of these structures. Bridges, not currently programmed for improvement or maintenance, will be programmed by the Bridge Division for the appropriate action and fiscal year. The Bridge Engineer will work with the District Engineer and the Roadway Design Engineer to ensure that the schedule and scope are appropriate. Bridges that are programmed as a part of a roadway improvement project will be reviewed annually to ensure that appropriate repairs are completed when necessary. If these bridges must be improved before the roadway project, the Bridge Engineer will recommend an interim action and program projects to address the immediate issues of these bridges. The Bridge Engineer will work with the District Engineer and the Roadway Design Engineer to make sure these projects are programmed appropriately. The full amount of funds needed to address the needs of specific structures will be allocated annually. After the evaluation process, the Bridge Engineer will verify that all the bridges identified as “High Priority” have been evaluated and programmed for the appropriate improvement.
7
8
3.5 Asset Preservation, 3R Needs, and Bridge Needs The next level of roadway improvements identified by the team is work performed under contract that is generally beyond the capabilities of NDOR maintenance forces and is vital to the preservation of the highway system. The FDT grouped this work in three categories; asset preservation, highway improvements to meet 3R minimum design standards, and improvements to address bridge needs. “3R” is an acronym for rehabilitation, restoration, and resurfacing. “3R”, as used in this report and commonly by NDOR, refers to the Minimum Design Standards for 3R highway improvement projects as established by the Nebraska Board of Public Roads Classifications and Standards. Asset preservation consists of maintaining the existing roadway to a given condition, maintaining a minimum condition of bridges, and maintaining, and in some instances upgrading, roadside appurtenances such as guardrail. Some asset preservation work is performed by state maintenance forces. The 3R needs are identified by comparing the existing configuration of the roadway to the 3R standards using the information contained in the Pavement and Bridge Management Systems and based upon 20-year traffic projections. The 3R standards are an intermediate step between asset preservation and capital improvement projects. Annually, the Bridge Division will calculate the bridge asset preservation and 3R bridge needs for each District. This information will be submitted to the Materials and Research (M&R) Engineer. M&R will calculate the pavement asset preservation and 3R needs for each District and combine this information with the bridge needs to determine the allocations to the districts. This information will be forwarded to the Program Management Engineer. Once the administration has approved the proposed District budgets, the M&R Engineer will furnish each District with a list of the roadway resurfacing and preventative maintenance candidate projects. The Bridge Division will send the Districts a list of candidate bridges for improvement and repair. Each District’s annual budget will include funding for roadway and bridge asset preservation, and to improve roadways and bridges to 3R standards. District Engineers have the flexibility to use the funding for preservation projects using their best judgment. District Engineers are encouraged to spend about 10% of their asset preservation funds on preventative maintenance projects. Capital improvement projects will not be funded with asset preservation or 3R funds. 3.5.1 Estimating Asset Preservation for Pavement and Bridges The asset preservation category ties into the SPOT recommendation of maintaining the current statewide average pavement condition. The average condition will be based on the Nebraska Serviceability Index (NSI). This category includes all state highways 9
except the Interstate system. Funds will be set aside separately for the Interstate system. A 10-year Pavement Optimization Program (POP) analysis was used to calculate the estimated cost (refer to Appendix E) for asset preservation. The POP is software developed by NDOR to analyze pavement condition and recommend a remediation strategy and provide an estimate of the cost. The POP analysis is based on a combination of current pavement condition, annual pavement deterioration rates, target pavement condition, and a benefit/cost analysis. To stabilize the allocation over time, a 10-year analysis and allocation period was selected. The goal is to bring each district’s average NSI, excluding the Interstate system, to 84.7. This average NSI was recommended by the SPOT and approved by the Highway Commission. Of the estimated annual cost of asset preservation, the FDT has determined that approximately $15 million of asset preservation work is performed by state maintenance forces in the normal course of their activities. Consequently, the asset preservation funds determined by POP to be allocated to the districts should be reduced by the value of the asset preservation work performed by state forces. The FDT recommends that this level of funding for the work performed by state maintenance forces be maintained and be adjusted annually for inflation. The pavement asset preservation funding for each district is calculated with the goal that at the end of the 10-year period all districts would have an average NSI of 84.7. The POP program is designed to select projects based on the highest benefit/cost ratio, but in reality projects may be selected based on other factors than just the benefit/cost ratio. To account for this difference in project selection, a new 10-year analysis will be performed every year using the most recent pavement condition ratings. The administration can choose to stay with the 84.7 NSI as a 10-year goal for the state, or set a different 10-year NSI goal depending on the availability of funds. All bridges are checked to determine if they meet 3R standards (refer to Figure 2). If bridges meet the 3R standards, then any required asset preservation strategy will be performed within the next five years. These strategies would include such actions as bridge deck overlays and replacing the entire bridge deck where the bridge’s substructure and superstructure are adequate (refer to Appendix E). The asset preservation needs for the Interstate system are determined as the result of an annual review by the Interstate Task Force. The Interstate Task Force is a team comprised of Central Office personnel from the Materials and Research, Roadway Design, and Bridge Divisions, the Program Management Section, the Administration and personnel from the District Office. Members of this team perform an annual field review of the Interstate system and evaluate the condition of the roadway, bridges and appurtenances. Following this review the team meets to discuss the findings and to schedule preservation projects for the future one-year program and the five-year planning program. The annual cost for preservation of pavement and bridges on the Interstate has been running around $30 million per year.
10
11
3.5.2 Estimating 3R Geometric Improvement Needs for Pavements and Bridges Sections of roads having an optimum resurfacing year within the next five years are evaluated to determine if they have a 3R deficiency using a twenty year traffic projection. The five- year time period was selected to ensure that the roads that have the most immediate resurfacing needs can be improved to 3R standards. The funds allocated to this category of improvement are equal to one-fifth of the five-year estimated 3R needs. Each district will receive a portion of this allocation based upon their ratio of needs to the state total (refer to Appendix E). 3R needs are the difference between the cost of a 3R improvement and the cost of an asset preservation improvement on the same roadway. The Interstate system was excluded from this analysis as no 3R deficiencies exist on the Interstate. To calculate the amount of funds to be allocated for 3R bridge needs (refer to Figure 2), an analysis will be performed evaluating the condition and geometry of bridges and estimating the funds necessary to address the identified needs. One-tenth of this amount will be distributed to the districts based upon the ratio of the district needs to the statewide needs (refer to Appendix E). These funds, along with the funds allocated to the districts for pavement needs, will be allocated annually as a lump sum to the district to be used at the District Engineers’ discretion to address the 3R needs in the annual program. 3.6 Capital Improvements Capital improvements consist of major modification road projects that extend beyond the work permitted under the 3R. These projects generally entail a correction of vertical or horizontal alignment, removal and replacement of the surfacing and base, increase in capacity or construction on a new alignment. Capital improvement projects will be ranked using a two-tier system. Tier I will consider the engineering economics of the project. This ranking will account for 60 percent of the overall ranking. The Tier II ranking will consider factors about the improvement’s importance to the entire state. This ranking will account for 40 percent of the overall ranking. Stand alone railroad viaduct projects being built primarily using funds set aside for railroad viaducts will not be submitted for ranking. 3.6.1 Tier I Ranking Capital improvement projects will first be analyzed using tools presented in the User Benefit Analysis for Highways manual published by AASHTO, August 2003. The methodology focuses primarily on direct user benefits, or those benefits that are directly impacted by a transportation improvement. User benefits are determined by travel costs in three distinct areas; travel time costs, operating costs, and crash costs. By balancing these user benefits against project costs we can determine which projects will provide the most cost effective improvements for the highway user. 12
The elements of user benefits are quantified using various units of measurement and must be converted to a common, monetary unit of measurement so they can be compared with project costs. Travel time, for example, is measured in minutes while operating costs are measured in dollars and crashes are reported as numbers and types. The AASHTO methodology provides a means for converting each of these benefit components into a common monetary value so they can be aggregated across years, users, and vehicle classes. Since the benefits estimated for each project are expressed in common monetary values, this conversion allows for user benefit comparisons between different projects. 3.6.2 Tier II Ranking Following the ranking of projects through direct user benefits in Tier I, the projects will then be ranked based upon indirect benefits. The Tier II ranking will consider factors about the improvement’s importance to the entire state. These factors are: 1. Functional Classification – 10 Points Maximum Points will be allocated based upon the functional classification of the roadway recognizing the relative importance of each roadway to the transportation system as a whole. Interstate - 10 points Expressway – 8 points Multi-lane Major Arterial – 7 points Major Arterial – 6 points Collector – 4 points Supplemental Funds – 25 Points maximum Examples are train mile tax, enhancement funds, highway safety improvement program and local funds. The points are awarded at a ratio of one-half point for each percent of supplemental funding. Potential Environmental Benefit – 5 Points maximum Points for potential environmental benefit are assessed based upon the expectation that highway projects can have a significant positive environmental impact through improved traffic operations and environmental sensitivity. Some projects will include large mitigation sites necessary for the completion of other projects with environmental impacts. Others may improve air quality through improved operations and reduction in congestion and delay. The points are awarded based on a subjective evaluation of high (5 points), medium (3 points) and low (1 point) benefit. Economic Benefit – 15 Points maximum Economic benefit is ranked based upon a business’ commitment to a significant investment or increase in jobs as evidenced by acceptance under the Nebraska Advantage Act. It is intended to be a method to advance projects already within the ranked projects based upon a business’ request to build a project to facilitate construction or expansion of their business. This 13
2.
3.
4.
factor is related to the actual benefit awarded under the Nebraska Advantage Act or subsequent replacement. Actual Benefit under the Act Number of Points Allocated o Up to $500,000 3 Points o Between $500,000 and $2,500,000 7.5 Points o Between $2,500,000 and $5,000,000 12 Points o Greater than $5,000,000 15 Points 5. Corridor Completion – 15 Points maximum Points will be awarded to those projects that contribute to the completion of a designated corridor of a system such as the N-71, US-81, US-275, and US-30 corridors of the expressway system, the I-80 six-lane corridor between Lincoln and Omaha, and the completion of the remaining segments of the Priority Commercial System. The allocation of points is based upon the percentage of the corridor completed with the project. For example, if there remains 35 miles to complete a corridor and a project in the corridor is 7 miles in length, the project would be allocated: 7 / 35 x 15 = 3 points Corridor length is generally defined by the logical termini in the environmental document. 6. Incident Management – 10 Points Projects which contribute to the completion of the department’s alternate route system for the Interstate system will be allocated 10 additional points. This system was developed to route traffic around closures on the Interstate. It is considered important by the NDOR to have a system of roadways that can handle the traffic from I-80 in the event of an incident or emergency. Ten points are allocated to any project which is necessary to complete the operational aspects of this system. Ratio of Actual Crashes to Expected Crashes – 15 Points maximum Each highway segment has an expected crash rate based upon the traffic volume and the roadway configuration. When the actual crash rate exceeds the expected crash rate, it is an indication that the roadway is not meeting the expectations of the traveling public; therefore, an indication of a need for geometric adjustments. Points are allocated as follows: Ratio of Expected Crashes to Actual Crashes From 0 to <1.0 From 1.0 to 1.5 Greater than 1.5 Points Allocated 0 Points 7.5 Points 15 Points
7.
14
3.6.3 Delivery Process for Capital Improvement Projects Delivering a highway construction program requires stability during the design process. To accomplish the delivery of projects and facilitate program analysis, the following will apply. It is intended that the ranking process will take place each January. The NDOR’s fiscal year begins July 1 and ends June 30. The term “First Year” refers to the fiscal year beginning six months from the date of ranking. First year – Second Year – Third Year – Fourth Year – Fifth Year – Sixth Year – Set Fixed (120% of the expected funding) Firm Firm Planning and Design Planning and Design
The term “Set” means the program to be published for the next fiscal year and is not subject to change. The term “Fixed” means that the program is nearly certain. The term “Firm” indicates that the projects in these program years are in final design and are on track to be let to contract. Normally these projects will not be ranked again after being included in these years. It is critical to the delivery of the highway program that projects not be moved in and out of these years. The term “Planning and Design” indicates planning years that are more flexible in respect to adding or removing projects. While most capital improvement projects will require developmental time in excess of five years, some may be able to be moved from the beyond program into the 4th or 5th year’s program. 1. The one year program is set and the projects in this year will be published as a part of the “One Year Highway Improvement Program”. The 2nd year is fixed and except for delivery or funding problems will not change. The 3rd and 4th year plans are firm and, while subject to revision, will not vary vastly from the initial ranking. The 5th and 6th year plans will be planning and design projects; these projects will be ranked each year with the other capital improvement projects. The 2nd through the 6th years projects are published as the Five-Year Plan in the NDOR’s annual highway improvement plan. 2. Each year projects would be moved from the 5th and 6th year plans to the firm 3rd and 4th year plans and the fixed 2nd year selected from the 3rd and 4th year plans based upon funding, estimates, and delivery. In order to allow flexibility, the 2nd year will be programmed for 120% of the projected program size. 3. Then, based upon funding, additional projects would be selected from projects not yet included in the 5th and 6th year plans. 4. Public input would be taken on projects that are being considered for inclusion in the 1st through 6th year plans. 15
Programming of individual projects will not be based solely upon the ranking, but also upon the project delivery timeline, available funding versus project cost, pavement and/or bridge condition, and citizen input received through the public involvement process. Those projects not included in the one year program or five-year plan, but anticipated to be included in the future, will be pursued through the preliminary design and environmental studies to ensure they are ready to enter the project delivery program when funding permits.
16
4.0 DEPLOYMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION
The fiscal year 2009 highway improvement program has been established and will be published in July 2008. The new system of program management will begin with the fiscal year 2010 program. To accomplish the ranking procedures as detailed in Section 3, the following project initiation and scope determination process will be followed. A flow chart of this process can be found in Appendix D. Each project begins with a Project Initiation Form (DR-73). This form is generally completed by the District Engineer, but in special cases it may be completed in the Central Complex. The DR-73 describes the location, proposed scope of work, current condition of the roadway and other important information about the proposed project which allows the reviewing authorities to accomplish their tasks. The DR-73 is forwarded to the Project Scheduling and Program Management (PSPM) Engineer, who, in concert with other divisions, makes the decision whether the project will be classified as an asset preservation project or a capital improvement project. If a project is classified as an asset preservation project, the DR-73 is forwarded to the appropriate divisions for their input as to scope, work to be performed and estimated cost. The project will be scheduled to coincide with the pavement or bridge needs. A project classified as a capital improvement project will flow from that determination into the analysis phase of a project. Depending upon purpose and need, capital improvement projects generally require a more complete analysis as to the appropriate scope required to meet the needs of the roadway. At the appropriate point in the project’s development, the Planning and Project Development Division (PPD) will conduct an Engineering Review to evaluate the needs of the roadway segment, the appropriate treatment, environmental impacts, specific project issues, and estimated costs. In addition, the PPD Division will coordinate with the Traffic Division, Materials and Research Division, Bridge Division and District to obtain the information necessary to perform the Tier I and II rankings. Once a capital improvement project has been ranked relative to the other capital improvement projects, scheduling will be based upon its ranking, project delivery timeline and other pertinent factors.
17
5.0 SUMMARY
These recommendations, and the resulting processes, have been developed during a time of lean finances; however, the team is confident that they will be relevant in any funding situation. The ranking of the capital improvement projects, based upon objective criteria, provides to the State a tool that will assist, for many years to come, the prioritization of preliminary engineering efforts and construction expenditures.
18
Appendix A SPOT Recommendations Approved by the State Highway Commission March 23, 2007. 1. 2. 3. 4. The preservation of the state highway system is the top priority. Needs criteria are to be redefined to better reflect the AASHTO guidelines. Retain the current pavement condition and smoothness corporate measures. Complete 6-Lane construction of I-80 between Lincoln and Omaha on the current schedule. 5. Slow the 6-lane construction of I-80 west of Lincoln. 6. The construction of the remaining Expressway segments should be determined by the 10,000 average daily traffic (ADT) warrant.
19
Appendix B Acronyms
AASHTO - American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials PEP - Pavement Extension Program 3R - Rehabilitation, Restoration and Resurfacing FDT- Funding Distribution Team SPOT- System Preservation and Optimization Team PSPM Engineer - Project Scheduling and Project Management Engineer NSI - Nebraska Serviceability Index PPD - Planning and Project Development Division
20
Appendix C Glossary Primary Highway – All highways on the State Highway System excluding the Interstate, Expressways, and Missouri River bridges. Expressway – A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full or partial control of access and generally with grade separations at major intersections. Pavement Management System – A database that contains pavement condition data of the State Highway System. Bridge Management System – A database that contains bridge condition data of Nebraska bridges Asset Preservation – Maintaining the existing roadway to a given condition, maintaining a minimum condition of bridges, and maintaining, and in some instances, upgrading roadside appurtenances such as guardrail Pavement Optimization Program (POP) – A computer based program that uses pavement management data to compute multiple year benefit/cost analysis for exploring different budget scenarios, calculates costs to maintain the overall pavement condition of the State Highway System at different levels, and generates project candidate lists to meet specific goals. Functional Classification – Classification of a road by the function it serves. Nebraska Serviceability Index (NSI) - A numerical index representing the observed surface distress on the pavement based on a scale of 0 to 100, with 0 being the worst and 100 the best condition. Interstate – A divided arterial highway for through traffic with full control of access and ingress and egress only at interchanges. The Interstate is the federally designated National System of Interstate and Defense Highways
21
Appendix D Project Initiation Flow Chart
Prepare DR 73 Form And Submit To PSPM Engineer
Asset Preservation Project
Project Type Determined
Capital Improvement Project
Develop Scope And Cost Estimate
PPD Division Performs Engineering Review
Program Project For Appropriate Fiscal Year
Develop Scope And Cost Estimate
PPD Division, Using District Input, Performs Ranking (Tier 1 & 2)
Program Project For Appropriate Fiscal Year
22
Appendix E Proposed Funding Allocation for Non-Interstate Pavements and Bridges Pavements
Asset Preservation Needs Districts Percent of Statewide Need Allocation* (in millions) Average NSI Value Percent of Statewide Need 3R Needs Allocation* (in millions) Improvement Miles
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Statewide Total
15.51 5.34 15.79 16.25 12.44 12.92 10.25 11.49 100.00
$29.18 10.05 29.70 30.57 23.40 24.30 19.27 21.61 $188.08 **
83.8 81.6 80.8 84.4 83.9 80.1 84.6 84.5
14.04 0.49 28.75 11.50 1.95 26.80 1.75 14.72 100.00
$1.44 0.05 2.95 1.18 0.20 2.75 0.18 1.51 $10.26
30.8 2.0 21.8 46.8 24.6 57.2 9.1 19.5 211.8
Bridges
Number of High Priority Bridges
Asset Preservation Needs
Percent of Statewide Need Allocation* (in millions) Number of Bridges Percent of Statewide Need
3R Needs
Allocation* (in millions) Number of Bridges
Districts 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Statewide Total
9 5 8 5 0 0 1 2 30
17.21 7.58 16.25 16.00 3.25 5.66 34.06 0 100.00
$0.143 0.063 0.135 0.133 0.027 0.047 0.283 0 $0.831
6 2 5 5 1 2 3 0 24
17.27 25.72 23.49 18.95 0.00 8.14 6.43 0.00
$0.668 0.995 0.909 0.733 0.00 0.315 0.249 0.00 $3.869
9 6 7 7 0 1 1 0 31
*All Allocations were based on 2007 Pavement and Bridge Management Data and 2007 construction prices ** This total includes $15 M of pavement asset preservation work performed by District maintenance forces
23
Nebraska State Highway Commission
Resolution No. 2008-02
WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Roads has experienced a trend of reduced funding available for Highway construction in the past three years, and WHEREAS, the Nebraska Department of Roads has noted a significant reduction in buying power of the funds available for Highway construction due to inflation, and WHEREAS, in May of 2007, the Nebraska Department of Roads began studying a new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs on Nebraska Highways in response to current and projected funding conditions, and WHEREAS, since August of 2007, while developing this new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs, the Nebraska Department of Roads has continually solicited the comments and advice of the Nebraska State Highway Commission, and WHEREAS, the plan developed places emphasis on maintaining, preserving, and improving Nebraska’s Highways for the benefit of all Nebraskans. NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Nebraska State Highway Commission recommends that the Nebraska Department of Roads proceed with the new methodology of allocating system preservation funds and prioritizing capital improvement needs as outlined in the Funding Distribution Team’s final report. Passed and approved this 19th day of December, 2008.
(Signed by)
Rodney P. Vandeberg Richard S. Reiser John F. Kingsbury
Douglas C. Leafgreen Ronald W. Books Greg A. Wolford Jerome A. Fagerland
doc_853612526.pdf