1. Patrick Weidemann Ryan Wilson, P.E., AICP Minnesota Department of Transportation MnDOT – ACEC/MN Annual Conference March 5, 2013

3. Minnesota GO 50-year Vision 8 Guiding Principles Statewide Multimodal Transportation Plan Objectives & Strategies in 6 Policy Areas MnSHIP Capital Investment Priorities Supporting Plans

5. Where are we going? (Vision & Guiding Principles) Where are we now? (Transportation System, QOL, Environment, Economy) How did we get here? (Planning Initiatives in last 20 years) How will we guide ourselves ? (Policy Objectives & Action Strategies) What comes next? (Family of Plans & Performance Measures)

6.  20-year State Highway Investment Plan  Establishes priorities for capital expenditures on 12,000 state highway system  Part of MnDOT’s Family of Plans  Required by state law every four years

7. MnSHIP establishes investment priorities Districts create 10-year plan of projects & programs Projects implemented annually through programming schedule Annual performance management cycle ensures consistency with MnSHIP investment priorities Consistent?

8. Implement plan strategies Develop investment programs Set investment priorities Analyze scenarios Develop scenarios Gather information

9. Current investment direction MnDOT Policy Federal & state laws Revenue projections System condition projections Risk identification

10.  Aging + diverse population  More Minnesotans in urban settings  Energy shifts  Transportation technology  Persistent budget challenges  Health impacts  Increased global competition  Changing work environments  Floods and water quality

11.  26 month bill (federal fiscal years 2013-15)  Policy provisions took effect Oct 1, 2012  Consolidates many funding programs into six larger programs  Establishes goals for and priorities National Highway System

12.  National Highway System in Minnesota ◦ 45% of state highways ◦ MnDOT owns 99%+ of NHS

13. Capital revenue 2013 – 2032 = $18 billion

15. 2012 dollars (in millions) under 5% inflation assumption

16.  Two risk assessment activities informed the development of key capital investment risks ◦ District and investment category risk profiles (completed in 2010) ◦ Enterprise Risk Management (2008-present)

17. Develop scenarios Internal technical work groups Internal steering committee  For each (of ten) investment categories: ◦ Identified a minimum “performance level” ◦ Identified risks associated with minimum level ◦ Established successive levels that manage risks

18. Asset Management 1. Pavement Condition 2. Bridge Condition 3. Roadside Infrastructure Condition Traveler Safety 4. Traveler Safety Critical Connections 5. Interregional Corridor Mobility 6. Twin Cities Mobility 7. Bicycle Infrastructure 8. Accessible Pedestrian Infrastructure Regional + Community Improvement Priorities 9. Regional + Community Improvement Priorities Project Support 10. Project Support

19. Investment Category Performance Level 0 MR RR Performance Level 1 Performance Level 2 MR RR MR RR Greater Cost Greater Risk ----- -=-= =+=+ Investment Level Investment Description Outcomes Risks Current investment Level

20.  $30 billion in investment needs to meet performance targets and key objectives ◦ Asset Management: $17.6 billion ◦ Traveler Safety: $1.3 billion ◦ Critical Connections: $5.7 billion ◦ Regional + Community Improvement Priorities: $1.7 billion ◦ Project Support: $2.9 billion  Likely many additional local and regional concerns and opportunities beyond $30 billion

21. Analyze scenarios Public input MnDOT input  Public input (phase 1): September-November  MnDOT input: December 5 th and 6 th

22. To educate stakeholders on key challenges and opportunities To understand stakeholders’ priorities To inform the establishment of statewide investment goals

23. Asset Management Traveler Safety Critical Connections Regional + Community Improvement Priorities Project Support

24. 33% 45% 22% ? ? ?

26. September-November 2012

27. All meetings statewide (217 participants) Statewide, a slight plurality (36%) of meeting attendees selected Approach C Support for Approach C much stronger in the Twin Cities Metro than in Greater Minnesota Greater Minnesota meetings (182 participants) Metro-area meetings (35 participants)

28. Approach preference: Online Interactive Scenario Tool Statewide results Greater Minnesota (136 respondents) Metro-area (238 respondents) A slight majority (53%) of online respondents selected Approach C Strong divide between Greater Minnesota and Metro-area respondents

29. Pursue a balanced program Address pavement needs strategically A statewide network of well-maintained roads is critically important to freight movement and regional access Promote economic competitiveness and quality of life through greater mobility investment Remain responsive to evolving needs

30. Leverage state highway investment to achieve multiple purposes Limitations to the safety benefits from engineering-based solutions Trunk Highway dollars should not be used to support recreational bicycle trips Preserve local control More revenue is needed

31. Focused on December 5 th and 6 th

32. Day 1: Highly similar outreach exercise 1. Grouped attendees into functional areas for small group discussion ◦ Same process as stakeholder meetings ◦ Discussed approach preference ◦ Discussed how to modify the current approach 2. Reviewed public outreach results

33. Day 1 Results  Approach preference ◦ Plurality of meeting attendees chose Approach B ◦ For the rest, slightly more chose A than C  Other themes ◦ Stewardship of the state’s assets is important ◦ Prioritize to achieve some balance ◦ Need to be responsive as possible 33 % 45 % 22 %

34. Day 2: Presentation of draft investment goals  Day 1 discussion results  Evaluation of key capital investment risks  Category adjustments and associated 10- year outcomes  Small group exercise – suggested modifications

35.  General comparison to public outreach results: ◦ Agency leaned more towards A; public leaned more towards C ◦ Greater agency emphasis on asset condition (Pavement, Roadside Infrastructure Condition) ◦ Less emphasis on RCIPs 33 % 45 % 22 % Public vs. MnDOT input Stakeholder Outreach Agency Feedback A B C

36. Set investment priorities Manage key capital investment risks Identify performance targets Assess progress towards key objectives  Present work: build upon cross cutting risks from previous work ◦ Years 1-10: balance management of key risks ◦ Years 11-20: focus on financial and asset risks

37. Management of key capital investment risks Managed risk by 2023 (of 3 ) Rationale GASB-34: poor pavement & bridge condition jeopardizes state bond rating Meet thru 2023 Federal policy: failure to achieve MAP-21 targets on NHS results in lose of funding flexibility Prioritize NHS MnDOT policy: misalignment with 50-year Vision & Multimodal Policy Plan results in loss of public trust Strategic fixes; multimodal Bridges: deferring bridge investments viewed as an unwise/unsafe strategy NHS fully funded; non- NHS reduced Responsiveness: less flexible investment limits responsiveness to local econ. dvpt./quality of life opportunities Solicitations; lmtd. other imprvts. Impact on maintenance: untimely or reduced capital investment leads to unsustainable maintenance costs Rising reactionary costs non-NHS Public outreach: investment inconsistent with MnSHIP public outreach results in loss of public trust Responded to some concerns

38. Develop investment programs Statewide performance program District risk management program Project Support  Present work ◦ Years 1-4 ◦ Years 5-10 ◦ Years 11-20

39. Statewide performance program: achieves performance that manages risk associated with statewide travel District risk management program: manages risk associated most closely with regional travel Project support: expenditures to deliver; varies depending on the project mix

40.  ≈45% of revenue focused on NHS system  Performance driven, planned/programmed collaboratively  Outcomes ◦ Less 10% of NHS bridges structurally deficient ◦ Less 2% of interstate pavements in poor condition ◦ ≈ 4% of non-interstate NHS pavement in poor condition ◦ Implement HSIP funds strategically ◦ Investments in the Twin Cities that improve performance  Notable risks managed ◦ GASB-34 on the NHS system ◦ Federal and MnDOT policy ◦ Responsiveness and public outreach

41.  ≈44% of revenue focused on non-NHS system  Performance based; some corporate minimums based on risk assessment  Flexibility across districts to meet minimums  Investments span existing assets, mobility, safety and RCIPs on non-NHS system

42.  Expenditures(DRAFT) ◦ Asset management: 66%  ≈ 13% of non-NHS pavement in poor condition  Gradual decline in non-NHS bridge condition ◦ Traveler Safety: 8% ◦ Mobility: 13% ◦ RCIPs: 13%  Notable risks managed ◦ GASB-34 on the non-NHS system ◦ Federal and MnDOT policy ◦ Impact on maintenance operations budget

43.  Spring 2013: ◦ Draft MnSHIP plan and implementation strategies ◦ Draft 10-year Work Plan ◦ Public involvement on draft plan in May/June ◦ Adopt in August  Beyond spring 2013 ◦ Manage key capital investment risks through annual 10-year Work Plan update ◦ Annual performance management cycle ensures consistency with MnSHIP investment priorities

44. Patrick Weidemann 651.366.4835 pat.weidemann@state.mn.us Ryan Wilson, P.E., AICP 651.366.3537 ryan.wilson@state.mn.us MnSHIP website – follow & participate Google: MnDOT MnSHIP http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/statehighw ayinvestmentplan/index.html