May 15, 2019 37 Ove rvie w Why T SMO Ne e d fo r a Ne w Pe rspe - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

May 15, 2019 37

Ove rvie w Why T SMO – Ne e d fo r a Ne w Pe rspe c tive Ma ste r Pla n Ove rvie w Stra te g ic Pla n Pro g ra m Pla n Se rvic e L a ye r Bro c hure s Ne xt Ste ps 38

Why T SMO – Ne e d for a Ne w Pe rspe c tive 39

Cha lle ng e s we fa c e : Sa fe ty | Co ng e stio n | F unding Cr a she s a r e Inc re a sing I n 2016, fa ta lity ra te = 1.56 fa ta litie s pe r 100 millio n VMT vs 1.19 na tio na l a ve ra g e (F HWA, 2018) 40

Cha lle ng e s we fa c e : Sa fe ty | Cong e stion | F unding Cong e stion is Inc re a sing T T I we nt fro m 1.16 in 2011 to 1.82 in 2017 (NPMRDS) 41

Cha lle ng e s we fa c e : Sa fe ty | Co ng e stio n | F unding E le c tric a nd Hybrid Ga s T a x is unsusta ina ble F ue l Ec onomy Goa ls Ve hic le s funding mode l 2016 – 35.5 mpg 2025 – 54.4 mpg Pa y little / no g a s ta x 42

Ga s T a x for T ra nsporta tion F unding – HB2 Re c e nt e xtra 10 c e nt pe r g a llo n ta x will pro vide a ppro xima te ly $380 millio n a nnua lly. http:/ / www.aldailynews.com/ ivey-signs-gas-tax-increase-into-law/ GRE AT ST ART – NOW, WE HAVE T O WORK SMART E R 43

Cha ng e Your Pe rspe c tive 44

Ne e d for a Ne w Pe rspe c tive F o c us o n CIT N ne e ds no t a g e nc y ne e ds • IZE Pro mo te INNOVAT • ION IMIZE e xisting infra struc ture • OPT Cre a te PART • NE RSHIPS Consiste nt with HB1 – Joint T ra nsporta tion Committe e 45

Ne e d for a Ne w Pe rspe c tive – T ra nsporta tion Bill (HB1) “…to o pe rate at maximum e ffic ie nc y with g re ate r re turns in hig hway be ne fits fo r the amo unt o f public funds e xpe nde d…” “…e ffe c tive hig hway state plans are we ll o rg anize d with de fine d pro c e sse s fo r ide ntifying all po te ntial so urc e s o f inno vatio n, inc luding b y no t limite d to , bro ad stake ho lde r e ng ag e me nt and partne rships, share d pe rfo rmanc e me tric s and e vide nc e d-b ase d prac tic e s, ado ptio n o f the mo st c o st e ffe c tive te c hno lo g y in mate rials and c o mpo ne nts o f ro ad and b ridg e c o nstruc tio n, and c o st e ffe c tive and e ffic ie nt o rg anizatio nal struc ture s and o pe ratio ns…” 46

Spe nding vs Inve sting 47

A Diffe re nt Pe rspe c tive : F oc us on OPE RAT IONS tation is a utility , “T r anspor e sse ntial fo r o ur ac c e ss to b asic ne c e ssitie s, i.e ., fo o d, she lte r, public safe ty and se c urity, e duc atio n, and re c re atio n. I t sho uld be tre ate d like … wate r, e le c tric ity, waste dispo sa l, natural g as, te le pho ne , e tc .” – E ric Pe te rso n, F o rme r De puty Administrato r o f the Re se arc h and I nno vative T e c hno lo g y Administratio n at the U.S. DOT , E no Bo ard o f Adviso rs 48

Building more c an’t be the only a nswe r Avo id situa tio ns like this… T r anspor tation Syste ms Manage me nt and Ope r ations (T SMO) An inte g rate d se t o f strate g ie s to o ptimize the pe rfo rmanc e o f e xisting infrastruc ture thro ug h the imple me ntatio n o f multimo dal and inte rmo dal, c ro ss-jurisdic tio nal syste ms, se rvic e s, and pro je c ts de sig ne d to pre se rve c apac ity and impro ve se c urity, sa fe ty, and re liab ility o f the transpo rtatio n syste m. MAP-21, SE CT I ON 1103 (a ) (30) (A) 49

DAT A So re a lly, wha t is T SMO? • Optimizing the use o f e xisting fa c ility • Ma ximizing pe rfo rma nc e o f the syste m • T a rg e te d so lutio ns to sa fe ty/ c o ng e stio n c a use s T E CHNOL OGY • Co mple me nt to c a pa c ity pro je c ts COL L ABORAT ION 50

Inc re a se d Re turn on Inve stme nt, Re duc e d Costs 51

SIGNIF ICANT Sa fe ty Be ne fits E xa mple s inc lude : • T ra ffic Inc ide nt Ma na g e me nt • 30 – 40% re duc e d inc ide nt dura tio n • T ra ffic Sig nal Optimiza tio n • 30% c ra sh re duc tio n • T ra ve le r I nfo rma tio n • 4 – 10% drive r stre ss re d uc tio n 52

Be tte r Custome r Se rvic e – Work Zone Ma na g e me nt • T MC Ope ra tio ns • Sa fe ty Se rvic e Pa tro ls • T ra ve le r I nfo rma tio n • T ra ffic Sig na l Co o rdina tio n 53

Be tte r Custome r Se rvic e – Spe c ia l E ve nt Ma na g e me nt • T MC Ope ra tio ns • Sa fe ty Se rvic e Pa tro ls • T ra ve le r I nfo rma tio n • T ra ffic Sig nals Optimiza tio n • Re g io na l T ra ffic Ope ra tio ns Pro g ra m – T usc a lo o sa Tuscaloosa TM C Source: Gresham Smith 54

Ma ste r Pla n Ove rvie w 55

Ma ste r Pla n Ove r vie w 56

Stra te g ic Pla n 57

Stra te g ic Pla n – Busine ss Ca se for T SMO Alabama Crash Severity, 2013–2017 (ADVANCE, 2018) Sa fe ty Co ng e stio n | Funding | 58

Stra te g ic Pla n – T SMO Vision Manag e and o pe rate a safe , re liab le , o ptimize d transpo rtatio n syste m fo r all use rs thro ug h the c o llab o rative e ffo rts o f stake ho lde rs, te c hno lo g y-b ase d so lutio ns, and inno vative strate g ie s. 59

Stra te g ic Pla n – Goa ls a nd Obje c tive s 60

Prog ra m Pla n 61

Prog ra m Pla n Re c omme nda tions • T SMO Prog ra m Struc ture • T SMO Prog ra mma tic Proc e sse s • T SMO Prog ra m Suc c e ss 62

Prog ra m Struc ture : L e a de rship a nd Org a niza tiona l • Cre a tio n o f a Sta te T SMO E ng ine e r a nd Re g io na l Suppo rting Sta ff States with Senior Leadership Positions focused on Traffic Operations 63

Prog ra m Struc ture : L e a de rship a nd Org a niza tiona l • E xa mple wo rk c ha rt: Colorado DOT 64

Prog ra m Struc ture : L e a de rship a nd Org a niza tiona l • E xa mple wo rk c ha rt: New J ersey DOT 65

Prog ra m Struc ture : Prog ra m Support De dic a te d funding fo r: • Ca pita l, • Ope ra tio ns, a nd • Ma inte na nc e . 66

Prog ra mma tic Proc e sse s: Inte g ra tion • Re vise Guide fo r De ve lo ping Co nstruc tio n Pla ns (GDCP) to inc lude T SMO re pre se nta tio n • Inte g ra te T SMO stra te g ie s into ST IP pro c e ss • Wo rk with MPOs/ RPOs/ lo c a l jurisdic tio ns to inte g ra te T SMO stra te g ie s into the ir pla nning pro c e sse s 67

Prog ra mma tic Proc e sse s: Proje c t De ve lopme nt Me thodolog y DAT A DRIVE N NE E DS IDE NT IF ICAT ION 68

Prog ra mma tic Proc e sse s: Proje c t Prioritiza tion Me thodolog y • De mo nstra te s fisc a l re spo nsib ility • Co nsiste nt me tho do lo g y • Da ta drive n a ppro a c h 69

35% Prog ra mma tic 25% Proc e sse s: Proje c t Prioritiza tion 20% Me thodolog y 15% 10% 70

Prog ra mma tic Proc e sse s: Proje c t Prioritiza tion Me thodolog y 71

Prog ra m Suc c e ss • Culture of Colla bora tion • Pe rforma nc e Me a sure me nt • Innova tion 72

Prog ra m Pla n Imple me nta tion • Ne a r T e rm – F Y20 • Sho rt T e rm – F Y21-22 • Mid T e rm – F Y23-25 73

Prog ra m Cyc le 74

Se rvic e L a ye r Broc hure s 75

Se rvic e L a ye r Broc hure s • Ge ne ra l Ove rvie w • L a yma n’s T e rms • Brie f Disc ussion of Be ne fits 76

SE RVICE L AYE R BROCHURE S 77

Ne xt Ste ps 78

Wha t Ne xt? • Prog ra mma tic Org a niza tiona l Cha ng e s • Prog ra m Support – Budg e t • Proc e ss Inte g ra tion a nd Imple me nta tion • Culture of Colla bora tion 79

80

Chris Hilye r Hilye rc @ do t.sta te .a l.us De nnis Motia ni De nnis.Mo tia ni@ kimle y-ho rn.c o m Na ta lie Smusz- Me ng e lkoc h Na ta lie .Me ng e lko c h@ kimle y-ho rn.c o m 81