• No results found

State Roads & Bridges Overview

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2021

Share "State Roads & Bridges Overview"

Copied!
30
0
0

Loading.... (view fulltext now)

Full text

(1)

State Roads & Bridges Overview

FIRSST Task Force

Chris Kiefer

Chief of Staff, INDOT

(2)

Current State

(3)

INDOT B

IENNIUM

S

UCCESSES

– FY2015-16

Invested more than

$2.3 billion

in state projects

Repaved

1,870

miles of state highways

Chip-sealed over

3,000

miles of state roads

Crack-sealed & preserved over

12,000

miles

Rehabilitated or replaced

960

state bridges

Serviced

7.2 million

highway lane miles

the past two winters

Invested more than

$640 million

in

(4)

C

OMMUNITY

C

ROSSINGS

Eliminates costly and

time-consuming requirements

More flexibility in project &

consultant selection

1 year vs. 4 years

Bound by IDEM/DNR, not National EPA

Plan development & inspection to meet

local needs

Use own pavement design standards

Less INDOT oversight

Greater collaboration between project

sponsor and business and utilities

Projects can be on non-federal aid routes

Wider range of scopes allowed

Earlier commencement of work

INDOT does not review LPA-Consultant

contract

Greater contract type negotiation

Sign projects less costly – Take on risk of

working within apparent existing right of

way

(5)

Anticipated Source of Funds

Projected funding for Surface Transportation System

• FY14-16 Funding is PeopleSoft obligations and used from Finance each FY • FY17-20 Funding are SPMS Planned based on 7.15.16 5-Year Plan • Excludes funding for transit, rail, air

(6)

Funding Utilization

• Includes all Phases

• FY14-16 Funding is PeopleSoft obligations and used based on Finance Report • FY17-20 Funding are SPMS Planned based on 7.15.16 5-Year Plan

• Excludes funding for transit, rail, air

(7)

Funding Utilization By Asset Group

(CN Only)

Fund Utilization by Asset Group

(CN dollars only)

• Construction (CN) Phase Only- based off 6.27.2016 Funding Analysis

• FY14-16 Funding is PeopleSoft Obligated CN numbers (obligations includes Cost Overruns) based off of 6.27.16 Funding Analysis

• Other includes Statewide, District Discretionary, DNR/Institutional, Gainsharing, Access Roads, SMFR, Economic Development, District Other Construction, Federal Lands Access Program

• FY17-FY20 Funding is programmed SPMS CN (except for Bridge and Roadway)

• FY18-FY20 Bridge and Roadway for Programming Targets as of 7.11.16 Funding Analysis

• Major Capital Asset Group includes Major New, P3, and 2020 TF (excludes Relief, Availability, and IFA payments- P3) • Excludes funding for transit, rail, air

(8)

INDOT Transportation Expenditures - FY2016

In FY16, INDOT spent $1.7B for Operations and Capital Program. The Capital Program (excludes Local

Program spend) absorbs the majority of the State and Federal Funds. Labor and benefits consume about

14% of the funds. Headcount is roughly 12% lower than FY07.

$59 , 4% $100 , 5% $241 , 14% $79 , 5% $8 , 1% $18 , 1% $24 , 1% $1,157 , 69%

Fuel, Supplies, Misc Debt service Labor and Benefits

Maintenance work program Buildings and Grounds Planning and Research Maint equipment & Vehicles Capital program

(9)

INDOT’s Operating Effectiveness

Source: INDOT O&M Inflation Index (FY2005-FY2016), Global Insight 2016 Q2 Forecast Issued 6-3-2016

INDOT continues to improve operational performance through continuous improvement programs. Total actual

operating expenses 2005 through 2016 were $353M LESS than inflation over the same period. FY16

Operating expenses above excludes 27

th

pay of $8.4M which is expected to occur every 10 years.

Updated 7-8-2016

$462.1

$355.0

$343.2

$414.5

$431.4

$401.1

$377.5

$382.7

$380.1

$400.9

$404.7 $412.6

$420.7

$300

$310

$320

$330

$340

$350

$360

$370

$380

$390

$400

$410

$420

$430

$440

$450

$460

$470

$480

$490

$500

FY05

FY06

FY07

FY08

FY09

FY10

FY11

FY12

FY13

FY14

FY15

FY16

Actual 2005 Operating Expenditures inflated to FY 2016 at 2.426% CAGR

FY05

(10)
(11)

State Comparisons – Bridges

% S

TRUCTURALLY

D

EFICIENT

– U.S. 6%

Source: FHWA

1.9%

2.8%

3.4%

6.0%

4.6%

10.5%

8.0%

6.5%

(12)

State Comparisons – Pavement

Source: FHWA

13%

15%

16%

12%

3%

11%

10%

4%

I

NTERNATIONAL

R

OUGHNESS

I

NDEX

(IRI) % P

OOR

(13)

State Comparisons – Safety

D

EATHS PER

100

MILLION VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED

– U.S. 1.08

.67

.77

1.00

.77

.62

.96

.81

.44

Source: NHTSA, FHWA, 2014

(14)

State Comparisons – Mobility

Indiana Congestion Rankings

Yearly Delay per Auto Commuter

Very Large Urban

Areas

Ranking

Chicago, IL / IN

8 / 101

Large Urban Areas

Ranking

Indianapolis

35 / 101

Louisville, KY / IN

35 / 101

Cincinnati, OH / KY / IN

45 /101

(15)

Project Prioritization

Future State

(16)

R

OAD

& B

RIDGE

P

ROJECTS

INDOT Road & Bridge

Preservation and Major

Capital Projects

(17)

Project Prioritization

Data Capture

Assess System Performance

Determine Treatment Possibilities

ID Potential Candidates

Select Project Candidates

Prioritize

Fund / Program

Call for Projects

Project Selection is Data Driven, Judgment Informed, and Financially Constrained.

Annual crash

data &

system safety

analysis

Annual highway

smoothness &

cracking testing

Data

Biennial

bridge

inspection

data

(18)

A 25

YEAR

P

LAN FOR EVERY

A

SSET

– A

REAL BRIDGE EXAMPLE

A life cycle plan for all assets is being created. In this real example, preserving the bridge deck has more

benefit and lower cost than letting the bridge deteriorate and replacing it. We do this for all 5,600 bridges

and 11,500 miles of pavements to determine needs.

(19)

Take Care of What We Have — Bridge

(20)

Take Care of What We Have — Bridge

Return On Investment

(21)

The cost of reconstruction is over 10 times more expensive than a strategy of early and often preservation

treatments.

Take Care of What We Have — Pavement

(22)

Take Care of What We Have — Pavement

(23)

Take Care of What We Have — Pavement

Return On Investment

(24)
(25)
(26)

Plan for the Future — Mobility

Vehicles Hours Impact

Crash Impact

Cost

Lane Miles Added

Hours saved per

day

Hours saved per

year

$8.6 billion

1,200

33,000

11,185,000

Cost

Lane Miles Added

Fewer Severe

Crashes per year

Fewer

Non-Severe Crashes

per year

(27)
(28)
(29)
(30)

References

Related documents

Costumers may download one copy of this PDF file of the Answer Booklet for personal usage ONLY... or f.) dual Meaning came/went out (of) succeeded looked (at) rode washed wore ate

sielSie wLirden wissen PAST PARTICIPLE gewusst PRESENT PARTICIPLE wissend PRE5ENT ich ou wir ihr s ie,/S i e PERFECT ich du wtr ihr sielSie FUTURE ich ou ihr sie/Sie will

The three different newspapers helped us understand how the economic condition is affecting the level of technological adaptation of each newspaper (e.g., the integration of

In FY-16 the Basic Support Program that provides funding for the vocational rehabilitation and visual services program will need an additional $784,598 in State Appropriations to

It addresses the problem of assessing the reliability – in fact probability of failure on demand (pfd) – for a demand-based one-out-of-two system, such as is

The scenarios are simulated in an agent based model incorporating rural residents and farmer characteristics, the environment and different policy interventions for realistic

The table shows the value of Madaga^car's imports of each item from France in the pre- and post-PSI periods as well as the average unit value for these shipments.'

Jacob Zuma, the President of the Republic of South Africa, at the 57 th Session of the International Statistical Institute