# Presentation: 458590

## P3  Meeting

- _Meeting Goals:_
- Agree on a distributional mix to guide 2008 projects into the 2004 Tentative Construction Program
- Discuss upcoming integration of  ‘Highway Economic Analysis Tool’
- HEAT into P3

## Meeting Flow

## A Refresher

**&**
**Commission Approvals**

- Dec 03
- Jan 04
- Feb
- Mar
- April
- May
- June
- July
- Aug
- Sept
- Oct
- Nov
- Dec 04

- FHWA provides firm obligation limitation numbers

- PMS Schema Refreshed.
- (mid – January)

_**Commission Approval**_

_**P3 Analysis Step**_

- Commission approves P3 Funding Allocation for yr 6

- Commission approves STIP, which includes new nominations based on approved funding allocation

- Tentative Construction Program
- (TCP) for 5 yrs (’04-
- ’08)finalized

- P3 Analysis.

- District
- Nominations for:
-     Yr 3 – 4 for
-     preservation,
-     Yr 6 for major
-     new projects.

- STIP developed:
-     Public Involvement,
-     Technical review,
-     Review for consistency
-     with P3.

## Background:

- Montana’s Performance Programming Process

**P****3****:**
- A Method to develop an optimal funding allocation and investment plan based on strategic highway system performance goals, and the continual measurement of progress toward these goals.

## The Appropriate Choice

- SAFETY IS IN ALL WE DO!!

## Funds Included in P3 Analysis

- Funds Included in P3 Analysis

- P3

- 72%

- 28%

- Interstate
- National Highways
- State Primary
- Bridge

- Secondary
- Urban
- CMAQ
- Enhancements
- Safety

- Non – P3

- P3

## MT P3 Performance Measures

- 					**I**	            **N**                    **P**
**Pavement **     - Average Ride		            Superior or Desirable
- 	        - % Miles below target          <10%                 <20%             <20%
**Congestion **  - LOS 		               B	            C	     C
**Bridge **          - SD/FO Bridges

- Reduce
- #

- Reduce
- #

- Reduce
- #

## Mechanics of Funding Plan

- Goals are established:
**UNDERSTAND FUTURE FUNDING**
**PREDICT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF FUNDING OVER TIME.**
**ITERATE AGAINST ALL GOAL AREAS UNTIL ACCEPTABLE AND FUNDABLE PERFORMANCE is** predicted by management systems.
**ESTABLISH A FUNDING DISTRIBUTION PLAN** linked to investments based on performance goals.
**GAIN APPROVAL & SUPPORT OF DECISION MAKERS.**

**STEPS**

## TO PREDICT PERFORMANCE AS A FUNCTION OF BUDGETWe Use “Scenario Testing” Capabilities of Bridge, Congestion and Pavement Management Systems

## Tradeoffs in Performance Goals

**Performance**
**Objective A**

**Resources**

****** ****PO A**

****** ****$**

**Performance**
**Objective B**

**Resources**

****** ****PO B**

****** ****$**

**Goal Area**
**Program A**
**(EX: Interstate Pavement)**

**Goal Area **
**Program B**
**(EX: NHS Congestion)**

- Some Goal Areas Take More Resources to Change

## P3 Future Funding Estimates

| Baseline=(Congressional Budget Resolution thru ’09)*(MT % by Current Law) |  |
| --- | --- |
| ↓ | % Then Applied to $1 Billion annual Growth for ’10-’12 |
| ↓ | $ are increased by 13% state share |
| ↓ | $ are increased by estimated state funded construction funds |
| ↓ | $ are reduced to reflect only IM/NH/STPP (only 69.8% of funds available for these systems) |
| ↓ | $ are reduced to account for non-CN phases (average only 70.5% of funds available for CN)  NOTE:  Based on earlier meetings, Eng. will try to cap PE at 13% of program vs 15% in recent years |
| ↓ | $ are reduced to reflect Bridge work done as part of Normal construction projects (on average 10% of CN of IM/NH/STPP is expended on Bridges) |
| ↓ | $ are reduced to reflect 5% take down on reconstruction projects for mitigation and “Context Sensitive Design” costs.  |
| ↓ | $ are converted to current dollars by deflating at 3% annually. |

- (for IM, NH, P roadways)

## Funding Assumptions

- Initial baseline for treatment mix based on historic split and NO funding constraints

- (reduced)

- (reduced)

- (reduced)

- Includes:
-   Comprehensive funding
-     analysis
-   Capped PE at 13 %
-   Does not include inter-
-     system or work type  trade-
-    offs

## Distribution Analysis Assumptions 

-   There is not enough funding to solve all problems
-   We are seeking the best – not a perfect distribution
-   Potential 2008 distributions
-   averages of 2008-2012
-   therefore, any change is gradual
-   New approaches down the road
-   new performance measures
-   gap analysis
-   HEAT incorporation

- NOTE: Analysis options are named:August, September or October

## August Approach

- Structurally Deficient / Functionally Obsolete Bridges  Annual Budget of $ 21.4 Million

- Note:	Estimated BR $  10 percent of core

## September Approach

- Structurally Deficient / Functionally Obsolete Bridges  Annual Budget of $ 25.5 Million

- Note:	The additional $4.1 million is fundable from the 13% (versus 15%) cap on PE

## August/September Congestion

**Desirable**

**Superior**

**Years**

**District 1**

**District 2**

**District 3**

**District 4**

**District 5**

**Statewide**

**Unsatisfactory**

- Rural NI-NHS System

**(includes recommended capacity improvements)**

**Performance Goal Congestion Index **_**>**_**55 (>LOS D) **

## August/September Congestion

**District 1**

**District 2**

**District 3**

**District 4**

**District 5**

**Statewide**

**Performance Goal Congestion Index **_**>**_**55 (>LOS D) **

**Superior**

**Desirable**

**Undesirable**

**August/September Congestion**
**Rural Primary System**

**(includes recommended capacity improvements)**

**Unsatisfactory**

**Years**

## August Run – Pavements – I, N, P

| Measure | System | Value by District |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Missoula |  | Butte | Great Falls | Glendive | Billings | All |
| Distribution of 2008-2012 Funds by District and System |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | I | 4% | 10% |  | 6% | 2% | 9% | 31% |
|  | N | 15% | 4% |  | 5% | 5% | 4% | 32% |
|  | P | 12% | 7% |  | 3% | 9% | 5% | 37% |
|  | U/S | 23% | 15% |  | 23% | 20% | 19% | 100% |
|  | All | 29% | 20% |  | 16% | 17% | 18% | 100% |
| Distribution of District Funds by Work Type |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| % Recon | All | 68% | 34% |  | 34% | 64% | 34% | 49% |
| % Rehab | All | 21% | 46% |  | 34% | 8% | 55% | 32% |
| % Resurf | All | 11% | 20% |  | 32% | 29% | 10% | 19% |

- Average Ride Index

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 20 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Non-Interstate NHS,
- All Districts

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 10 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Interstate, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

## Concerns after August 13th Meeting

- Downward trend on the Primary System
- Decline on the NHS
- Ensure Interstate System preserved

## Sept. Run – Pavements – I, N, P

| Measure | System | Value by District |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Missoula |  | Butte | Great Falls | Glendive | Billings | All |
| Distribution of 2008-2012 Funds by District and System |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | I | 4% | 9% |  | 3% | 2% | 8% | 27% |
|  | N | 12% | 3% |  | 3% | 5% | 4% | 27% |
|  | P | 11% | 8% |  | 8% | 14% | 6% | 46% |
|  | U/S | 23% | 15% |  | 23% | 20% | 19% | 100% |
|  | All | 26% | 20% |  | 16% | 21% | 18% | 100% |
| Distribution of District Funds by Work Type |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| % Recon | All | 62% | 32% |  | 42% | 13% | 23% | 36% |
| % Rehab | All | 24% | 51% |  | 28% | 63% | 66% | 46% |
| % Resurf | All | 14% | 17% |  | 30% | 24% | 11% | 19% |

- Average Ride Index

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 10 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Interstate, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 20 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Primary, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 20 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Non-Interstate NHS,
- All Districts

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

## Concerns After September

-     needs
-    Improved Primary condition was achieved by
-     forcing rehabs (versus reconstruct) on low volume
-     roads.
- _Positives:_
-    Able to level out NHS performance by budgeting
-     more rehabs  (no hard wiring).
-    Able to level out SD bridges without loss to core.

## Oct. Run – Pavements – I, N, P

| Measure | System | Value by District |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Missoula |  | Butte | Great Falls | Glendive | Billings | All |
| Distribution of 2008-2012 Funds by District and System |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | I | 4% | 11% |  | 3% | 3% | 7% | 27% |
|  | N | 12% | 4% |  | 2% | 5% | 5% | 27% |
|  | P | 11% | 10% |  | 7% | 14% | 4% | 45% |
|  | U/S | 23% | 15% |  | 23% | 19% | 20% | 100% |
|  | All | 25% | 23% |  | 14% | 21% | 16% | 100% |
| Distribution of District Funds by Work Type |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| % Recon | All | 53% | 34% |  | 35% | 5% | 19% | 31% |
| % Rehab | All | 32% | 50% |  | 28% | 68% | 60% | 48% |
| % Resurf | All | 15% | 16% |  | 37% | 26% | 21% | 21% |

- Average Ride Index

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 10 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Interstate, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Capacity Enhancement (interchanges) has $5.4 million off the top

## Oct. Cap. Run – Pavement – I, N, P

| Measure | System | Value by District |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- |
|  |  | Missoula |  | Butte | Great Falls | Glendive | Billings | All |
| Distribution of 2008-2012 Funds by District and System |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
|  | I | 4% | 11% |  | 3% | 3% | 6% | 27% |
|  | N | 12% | 4% |  | 2% | 5% | 5% | 27% |
|  | P | 11% | 10% |  | 7% | 14% | 5% | 46% |
|  | U/S | 23% | 15% |  | 23 | 19% | 20% |  |
|  | All | 26.9% | 24.5% |  | 12.0% | 21.6% | 15.1% | 100% |
| Distribution of District Funds by Work Type |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |
| % Recon | All | 52% | 34% |  | 37% | 5% | 19% | 31% |
| % Rehab | All | 33% | 50% |  | 28% | 69% | 60% | 49% |
| % Resurf | All | 15% | 15% |  | 34% | 26% | 21% | 21% |

- Average Ride Index

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 10 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Interstate, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 20 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Primary, All Districts

- Average Ride Index

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- Superior

- Desirable

- Undesirable

- Unsatisfactory

*P3 Goal not to exceed 20 percent poor*

- MDT  Conditions Summary – Non-Interstate NHS,
- All Districts

- Year End Condition

- Percent Lane-Miles with Poor  or Very Poor Ride Index

- Tentative Construction
- Program

- ($5.4 +4.6 for Capacity)

## Source: TranPlan 21 Biennial Public Telephone Survey

## Source: TranPlan 21 Biennial Public Telephone Survey