National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Chapter 2 - Literature Review
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14405.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14405.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14405.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 - Research Findings." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2010. Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14405.
×
Page 15

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

12 To provide understanding of the full inner workings of the selected DOTs and provide some common points of reference for analysis, research was conducted on broader topics includ- ing organizational structure, project prioritization and selec- tion, funding, performance measures, scoping and community involvement, property impacts, environmental concerns, and final design and construction. It is a given assumption that a state DOT is an organization with many units but with one pervading unity in function and alignment toward its mission. In attempting to meet its goals, the state DOT acknowledges and addresses the topics noted. The manner in which the inte- gration and interactions of those elements with other inter- nal and external factors takes place is what makes each DOT unique and what propels it forward. These logical assemblies of independent parts are what were researched in this study. It is important to review the integration of those topics in the context of how DOTs set up their structure, operations, and programs. Within the organizational structure, one finds levels of hierarchy and formal and informal links that form the communication and reporting protocols. To some extent, the organizational structure influences the DOT culture and the individual performance standards for people, teams, and units. The operations of a DOT are defined through the processes and methods by which they deliver projects and programs. Organizational Structure Interestingly, the research revealed that each of the state DOTs selected for case studies had undergone some form of organizational restructuring within the last 10 years. There are many different types of organizational structures; however, most state DOTs can be characterized, generally speaking, as being either centralized or decentralized. It is evident that some states function optimally with a decentralized structure, while other states prefer a centralized office. Most decentral- ized DOTs have district offices that function like miniature DOTs, independent of the headquarters. The headquarters is consulted for major decisions, policy issues, and funding issues. DOT officials in large states such as California and Texas almost could not imagine being centralized and seemed to feel that decentralization lends itself to project acceleration, freeing individual district directors to focus on projects within their jurisdiction rather than having to wait for approvals and reviews from a remote central office. Decentralization in a large state also gives the public a “live body” to speak to, as opposed to an individual sitting in an office in the state cap- ital located perhaps several hundred miles away. Smaller states like New Jersey, on the other hand, expressed that a more cen- tralized organization reduced duplication of responsibilities and operated in a more efficient manner suited to their partic- ular needs. Many state DOTs have reorganized both internally and externally to provide for a more efficient delivery of programs and projects. The intent to reorganize was not always based on the need to deliver projects faster but rather on the realization that some form of efficiencies could be attained if the DOT reorganized parts of its structure. Organizations are becom- ing less vertical and moving toward flatter structures where more horizontal and vertical communication can occur. In Missouri, the DOT organizational structure is overseen by a bipartisan committee, which may balance to some degree the political aspects of difficult decisions and allow profes- sional judgment and functional systems to better influence project selection and implementation. DOTs of some states that were researched have been able to maintain their staffing levels, while others have seen sig- nificant cuts in total staffing, requiring more outsourcing of project management and production. Staffing levels play an important role in deciding which projects are performed in-house versus those that get outsourced. Another trend recognized in most of the states interviewed was that DOTs have introduced a project management philos- ophy or approach to project development. Project managers are finding themselves in an environment where their decisions C H A P T E R 3 Research Findings

heavily impact and influence the outcomes of the project. There is a greater emphasis on the project manager’s responsi- bility and ownership of project successes or failures. DOTs such as in North Carolina have realized that “silos” created by the traditional vertical organizational structure often prevent projects from being accelerated or delivered completely. In many states, these silos have been or are being eliminated, and upper level managers are embracing the con- cept of “thinking outside the box,” while they develop solu- tions that are based on outcomes rather than outputs. The Maine Department of Transportation (MaineDOT) has found that a team approach has significantly helped in accelerating programs. These self-directed teams provide greater input, training opportunities and greater account- ability for projects. Project Prioritization and Selection The state DOTs’ approach to project prioritization and selec- tion was found to depend on who was empowered to make decisions with regard to selecting and prioritizing projects. The role of decision maker usually went to the entity funding the project or their agent. Federally funded projects, in gen- eral, are prioritized by metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) that employ a quantitative transportation planning approach in developing a list of needed projects. Research revealed that in cases where projects were funded principally or entirely by the state legislature, that body—or individual legislators—had the ability to raise a project’s priority by des- ignating funds to build it. Whether state or federally funded, however, both legislatures and MPOs utilize a systematic ap- proach to transportation project prioritization. Most state DOTs also use traffic volumes and truck traffic data indirectly in the prioritization process. Along with vehi- cle delays, safety elements, and potential future growth, these quantities are important factors in overall road user costs and life cycle projections. Funding As alluded to in the preceding paragraphs, the mix of federal and state funding for DOT projects was found to vary greatly from state to state, with some having 80 percent or more of their transportation budgets funded through their state legis- lature. Other states are much more dependent on federal aid, receiving almost all of their funding through U.S. congres- sional allocations. Regardless of their major funding source, all states studied have been confronted with the need to “do more with less,” as funds have become scarce. In addition, projects funded even partially with federal dollars are required to undergo federally established planning and environmental analyses; only projects funded entirely by the state are subject only to state regulations. States own and operate all the fed- erally funded roads within their boundaries. Where projects are predominantly state funded, another dimension is added to project acceleration: There is usually strong political backing and impetus to get a project com- pleted quickly, because elected officials want the ability to say to the public, “This is what I’ve accomplished during my term of office” before they are up for re-election (within two years). It was also noted during the research that the sooner and more quickly a project is built, the lower the cost of the materials. This is obviously an additional incentive to accel- erate a project. Officials at the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) mentioned that consistency in funding accelerates projects, while fluctuations in funding availability results in project delays. MaineDOT is utilizing public–private partnerships (PPP) as an option for funding and construction when developers need a traffic permit to open onto state roads. Transportation improvements are coordinated with private investments and applied to localized improvements. For example, the DOT might negotiate a deal with a superstore chain to pay for an extra turn lane at an intersection project and then use the funding to supplement a total reconstruction project for the intersection. Maine feels that PPPs are an important tool that is still underutilized. Performance Measures Performance measures are a key concentration area for most DOTs interviewed. With the exception of one, the DOTs researched are in various stages of collecting data and infor- mation that is used in performance measures. Some states are quite advanced and have performance measures in place that help agencies to communicate needs and priorities to the pub- lic and decision makers. The North Carolina DOT (NCDOT) has an online performance “dashboard” that is tied directly to the agency’s success in meeting its fundamental goals and can also provide real-time statistics at the county level. Perfor- mance measures may also help agencies make better decisions to address long-range goals, system performance, and imme- diate outcomes. When developing performance measures, DOTs have dis- covered that there is often no baseline for comparisons, because performance was not measured previously. In addition, no standard guideline exists against which to measure current performance. At their most basic level, performance mea- sures can report on a host of varying things such as pavement conditions, safety, bridge conditions, crashes, injuries, travel times, and congestion levels. Moving from mere outputs to outcomes, successful performance is expressed in a variety of ways such as service quality, efficiency, productivity, and 13

return on investment. Performance indicators can be mea- sured in numerous ways, each of which may suggest different problems and solutions. Further complicating the issue of performance measures are the methods and techniques used to report performance. Formats such as scorecards, dashboards, and roll-up or drill- down features are used for both internal and external report- ing but these all vary from state to state. Numerical targets vary, as do baselines, benchmarks, and levels of data analysis. Sufficient historical data does not exist for many states, so it is difficult to quantify whether changes in a process or a man- agement approach have led to significant positive impacts, and if so, to what extent. Using performance measures is a strong trend that was identified in the interviews. Equally important is the concept of transparency. Many states recognized that by becoming more transparent to the public, they would be able to impose slightly more inconvenience to the motoring public as long as they delivered what was promised, on the date promised. Becoming transparent and informing the public by creating an awareness of upcoming project schedules has allowed states to deliver projects more quickly and build credibility at the same time. Through the use of performance measures, DOTs have become more accountable internally as well. Some of the state DOTs studied have a performance dash- board accessible to the public on their website. Others, such as the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT), conduct a Regional Program Dashboard Update, which provides an internal look at where individual regions stand with their projects as a whole. Maine has an internal system of tracking projects that move from green to yellow to red categories, each of which defines the project and associated issues. Maryland DOT has published an Annual Attainment Report for seven years that includes dozens of charts and graphs that track the DOT’s performance from year to year. The Missouri Depart- ment of Transportation (MoDOT), which publishes Tracker on a quarterly basis, has been reporting on performance sta- tistics since 1999. One Caltrans official aptly stated, “What gets measured gets done.” Agencies that have implemented performance measures have expended a great deal of time and effort to get to the point where they feel they are measuring the right things. A difficulty the researchers encountered in trying to draw conclusions from performance measures is that it is not possible at such an early stage to make comparisons between acceleration of past and recent/current projects. Another problem with compar- isons is the fact that no two projects—no matter how similar— are surrounded by identical circumstances. Each project takes place in a unique physical, financial, social, and polit- ical environment. There are, however, some measurements that can be taken and compared with historic records, for example, the percent- age of listed projects that go out to bid in a given year. Regard- less of the magnitude or nature of the project, this measure can be taken for the current year and compared to the same measure over past years. Scoping and Community Involvement A critical aspect of accelerating programs is to determine early on that their components can be designed and constructed in the later phases. This aspect begins with scoping and main- taining the established scope throughout the life of the project such that the purpose and need are met. Often, projects go off track in trying to meet the expectations of the stakeholders. Stakeholders are disappointed when the state cannot accom- modate or complete a project as per their requests. This dis- appointment creates distrust of the government and slows progress altogether. States, such as Missouri with its practical design, are finding that a clear, concise, implementable scope that is developed early in planning—and then maintained through permitting, design, and construction—clears the path for an accelerated project delivery. Also, states are turning to management systems, asset management, and information systems to provide clear and direct responses to the requests of stakeholders and elected officials. Early community involvement was viewed by all the DOTs studied as an aid in expediting projects. There was a general consensus that time spent early on in the planning phase of a project paid big dividends in the form of time saved later through the elimination or reduction of revisions and delays. Some DOTs have adopted a public relations approach that directs public attention during the sometimes difficult con- struction phase to a project’s positive attributes, presenting any temporary negative impacts (closings, detours, etc.) in the light of the long-term benefit to the public. Again, the individ- ual state’s size and population density, and a road’s daily traf- fic volumes and available alternate routes, are all determining factors in the range and degree of interruptions a given trans- portation facility—and its users—will tolerate. In some states, the temporary closing of an interstate highway is a viable con- struction alternative; in other states, this would be unthinkable. Both Caltrans and UDOT pointed out that even severe inter- ruptions to traffic will be tolerated by a public if they are pro- vided with expectations and the agency delivers within the promised time frame. Property Impacts The impacts of projects and construction on adjacent prop- erties presented a range of difficulty levels to the various DOTs interviewed. For New Jersey, with an average of 1,175 persons per square mile, real estate is expensive and ROW acquisition holds a prominent place on the project schedule, to the point of being on the critical path. If a property taking goes into litigation, several years may transpire before construction 14

can begin or resume. In contrast, in Utah, which has an aver- age of 31 persons per square mile, the DOT has been successful in acquiring rights of entry to properties so that construction can proceed while the acquisition and negotiation processes continue. Environmental Concerns One acceleration method used by the Texas DOT (TxDOT) during design–build of a highway through a sensitive habitat area was to purchase in advance tracts of mitigation land out- side of the alignment. This land provided the TxDOT with a surplus “bank” of sensitive habitat acreage to mitigate any negative impacts that might be created during construction of a highway, eliminating the need to shut down construction and acquire mitigation parcels piecemeal as sensitive land was encountered. TxDOT also has advanced the design process on a project while the environmental review was still under way. Admittedly, this was taking a risk, but it was worth the time saved when the project was so much farther along in design at the time environmental approval was granted. North Carolina and Maryland are able to accelerate the environmental review process by partnering with their re- spective department of environmental protection to fund employees dedicated to reviewing DOT projects. Maryland places a great emphasis on its environment. Its spends almost 45 percent of its capital program on preserving the environment. However, acceleration of projects is achieved through creating interagency work groups that meet on an as-needed basis. Maine also recognizes the need to protect its environment through programs that help reduce emissions by using cleaner fuels, reduce the statewide VMT, and make balanced decisions for communities that are impacted by trans- portation projects. Some of the projects undertaken by UDOT are exempt from the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) review process because they are entirely state funded and require no federal permits. For such projects, UDOT has its own environ- mental review process that generally goes much more quickly than a NEPA review—one year, as compared to two or three years for NEPA. Final Design and Construction The research revealed various forms of innovative contracting: • Design–build—Allows construction to begin prior to com- pletion of final design. This parallel processing has been very effective in states such as Maryland in accelerating project startup and therefore ultimate completion. The risk with design–build is that construction might be started before all of the environmental permits and/or approvals have been granted. The Maryland State Highway Admin- istration (SHA) has enjoyed success with its design–build program and spends approximately 10 to 15 percent of its construction dollars for design–build contracting methods. • A + B contracting (biparameter bidding)—Includes built- in financial incentive for the contractor to complete a job on or ahead of schedule, as well as disincentives for not fin- ishing on time. • Construction manager–general contractor (CMGC)— Improves on the benefits of design–build by bringing a con- tractor to the table early in the design process. Pioneered by UDOT, this method realized a time savings of 18 months on a recent bridge project because it allowed fabrication of steel girders to begin while the project was still in the design phase. Design was completed in parallel with the long lead time associated with ordering steel. • Evergreen contracts—On-call or task-order agreements with professional service consultants eliminate having to go through the entire procurement process in the event that they are required on individual projects. Texas uses these types of contracts on a regular basis. • Comprehensive development agreements (CDA)—Agree- ments between a state and a consortium of contractors. Texas uses CDAs to perform all or portions of a given proj- ect’s design, construction, operation, and maintenance. The research also revealed acceleration of construction taking place through: • Roll-in of prefabricated bridges—where land is available for staging, a bridge can be demolished and a prefabri- cated bridge can be rolled in and operational on the same day (usually executed on a weekend night). This method of construction has been used in New Jersey in areas where railroads are involved and the state has a very limited win- dow where passenger service can be shut down. • Use of new products and materials—Almost all states were experimenting with new types of products and materials that are available. Materials that provide better bonding, faster curing times, greater load-carrying capacities, ease of construction, etc. are being used to accelerate the pace of construction. States are making strides in terms of try- ing new products that will provide them with better qual- ity and extend the life cycle of the facility. 15

Next: Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery »
Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 662: Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion explores the experiences of eight state departments of transportation that made improvements in their project delivery and examines the lessons to be learned from their experiences.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!