National Academies Press: OpenBook

Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion (2010)

Chapter: Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery

« Previous: Chapter 3 - Research Findings
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 4 - Accelerating Program and Project Delivery." 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 29

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.

16 Constraints to Accelerated Delivery In 2000, the FHWA Office of NEPA Facilitation conducted a study to identify the causes of delays greater than five years for transportation project environmental impact statements. This nationwide study looked at 89 projects and identified that 57.5 percent of the projects had been active for five to seven years, 28 percent had been active for eight to ten years, and 14.5 percent had been active for more than ten years. The top four single reasons given for the durations of the projects were lack of funding (18 percent), low priority (15 percent), local controversy (14 percent), and complex project (13 percent). (1) While some of these reasons may apply across the board, they may be more pronounced in projects that require exten- sive environmental permitting. This research, in part, attempts to identify elements that derail projects from their onset to the very end. Because derail- ing elements were not the focus of the project, no attempt was made to collect quantifiable data to determine exact time frames for the delays. However, conversations with inter- viewees at the eight researched state DOTs indicated some very specific areas where delays were encountered in projects. DOTs have found time and again that certain elements of a project traditionally cause delays. As a result, these areas are where states are implementing new processes to help expedite or facilitate the momentum of the project. Areas of delay were found to be (a) utility coordination and relocation, (b) rail- road coordination and involvement, (c) ROW acquisition, (d) interagency coordination, and (e) lack of funding. Utility Coordination and Relocation Projects that involve multiple utility relocations often expe- rience delays at some point in the project—either during the design phase, when coordination is instrumental, or more typically during construction, when relocations are critical. Part of the struggle for DOTs is that utility companies are expected to simply relocate their facilities to accommodate the state project and are offered minimal compensation for it. However, utility companies prioritize work that returns a rev- enue stream for them. Another issue is not that utility com- panies do not want to “help,” but that they are struggling with their own resources; therefore, allocating field personnel to a DOT project may be difficult if they have other emergencies to handle. Another issue is that utility lines are inherently not apparent. It is difficult to determine the exact location and depth of sub- surface utilities—so the actual work of identifying and relocat- ing utilities is difficult, especially in urban areas. Subsurface utilities that were installed decades ago pose their own set of challenges when it comes to relocating them. Railroad Coordination Railroad involvement in many projects continues to pose challenges for project delivery. State DOTs are often faced with the challenge of having to design and construct highway projects across railroad properties. Similarly, railroad project managers often face difficulty in meeting the state’s needs while operating within their complex operational and organiza- tional structures. Railroad facilities—including tracks, bridges, drainage structure, trackside equipment, communication and signal systems, warning devices, and electrical/mechanical housing—have to be incorporated into the roadway plans. Due to the extremely high cost of shutting down a railroad line and its subsequent economic impact, any encroachment onto rail- road right-of-way (horizontal or vertical) that could potentially affect railroad operations must be thoroughly reviewed and resolved. The most innovative examples of railroad/highway projects involving structures have included methods that replace entire bridges and overpasses over active rail lines. Perhaps because railroads have predominantly operated and existed as private entities in the past with little need to coordi- nate with other agencies, this emerging necessity to begin coop- C H A P T E R 4 Accelerating Program and Project Delivery

erative coordination is a hurdle for many. Transportation engineers’ experience with or perception of railroad entities has been expressed as “railroads are difficult to work with.” This perception may stem from the fact that railroad opera- tions can rarely be interrupted and public passenger/transit service must be provided at all times. Railroad engineers have different standards, specifications, and requirements from those outlined for roadways. Railroad priorities differ from roadway priorities in many cases. Because of these differences, design and constructability issues require much more coordination effort from both parties as early as scoping and concept development. Right-of-Way Traditionally, delays in ROW acquisition occurred when the ROW function was not integrated during project devel- opment. Property owners were unwilling to sell or accept market value for their property. Projects came to a halt until such issues were resolved, which could take months for a court ruling. Each state has different legal framework regarding acquisi- tions and property owner rights. Other factors that vary greatly from state to state and from region to region include popula- tion density, intensity of land use, and local real estate values. While acquiring acres of undeveloped right-of-way for an entirely new alignment may be completely feasible for a DOT in some parts of the country, the dollar cost—or the environ- mental impacts—of obtaining the right-of-way needed just to widen a highway, especially in a densely developed area, may be so prohibitive as to stall the project indefinitely. Interagency Coordination States continue to make great strides in coordinating with state and federal regulatory agencies and local governments that may be involved throughout the life of a project. These efforts in part stem from traditional long-review time frames from permitting agencies, time wasted in “re-dos” because reports did not include the right information that the review- ing agency was looking for, lack of frequent communication, and differing priorities. State DOTs have seen the benefits of proactively coordinating with regulatory agencies (such as the FHWA, Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Coast Guard, state historic preservation offices, MPOs, etc.) to under- stand the issues better and foster trust between them. Programs that include context-sensitive solutions and envi- ronmental streamlining and stewardship have helped create links across agencies and levels of government. However, there are still some barriers that prevent transportation programs from moving forward when there is a lack of communication, coordination, and collaboration between the agencies. These differences on key issues lead to negative impacts on the deliv- ery of the project and may bring the issue at hand—delivering the facility to the public efficiently and at a reasonable cost— to a standstill. While many states continue to build positive relationships with their local governments and permitting agencies, there remains a gap in seeing the transportation issues as a mutual concern. State agencies need to work across traditional barriers and find innovative solutions that use col- laborative techniques to solve transportation problems. Even though many states have programs that engage and involve local participation from both agencies and the public, the com- mitment or resources may be lacking to support more intense collaborative efforts. Some states do not have the organizational structure for a collaborative decision-making process. Such an organiza- tional structure is perhaps more frustrating when it limits individuals from making the right decisions that shape the future of their immediate environment. State transportation leaders need to continue to involve the public and agencies in the decision-making process so they have ownership and a sense of investment in the solutions that are developed. (2) Lack of Funding Consistently, the research team found a common thread across all states that were interviewed: a lack of funding. The changes that have occurred in the transportation arena over the last 50 years are dramatic. The late 1950s through the 1960s were marked by tremendous growth and building of the National Highway System. Rarely has an investment been so profound as to have such a great impact on the citizens of America, their economy, and mobility options. But in that same period, growth in all other facets of American life has proven to take its toll on the highway system. Decades of pop- ulation growth have resulted in rising mobility needs which in turn have increased the VMT on the roadway network, partic- ularly in urban areas. Table 1 shows the rapid growth in pop- ulation and associated demand for VMT. Forecast figures are based on the historical trends. 17 Year Population VMT 1955 145 million 0.6 trillion 2007 300 million 3.0 trillion 2055 435 million 7.0 trillion Source: Lee, Joung H. Transportation Funding Challenges Facing the United States. Presented at the North Atlantic Transportation Planning Officials 2008 Annual Meeting. Niagara-on-the-Lake, ON. August 2009. http://www.transportation.org/sites/aashto/docs/Lee- 2008-08-12.pdf Table 1. U.S. population growth and vehicle miles traveled, 1955–2055.

In response to the growing need to fund the maintenance of their transportation systems, states have developed a number of innovative approaches to reduce the cost of plan- ning, developing, and constructing a facility. From innova- tive financing options—such as congestion pricing, Grant Anticipation Revenue Vehicles (GARVEE bonds), Trans- portation Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (TIFIA) loans, and freight user fees—to public–private partnerships, states continue to look for ways to use tax dollars wisely and economically. The lack of funding has also initiated many programs such as practical design, performance measures, asset management, and Merger 01 that address the state’s transportation system as a whole and attempt to address the issues using a holistic approach. State DOTs are finding that the monumental era of building highways and bridges has given place to an age of maintenance and preservation. Times of building to the highest design stan- dard have yielded to a more flexible approach in designing a practical network. Transportation planners used to change the surrounding landscape to allow a road to pass through; now they try to change the road to fit into the existing environ- ment, without trying to alter too much of the canvas. Times of unlimited funding have disappeared, to be replaced by eco- nomic and financial constraints that cannot meet the grow- ing need to address our deteriorating system of highways and bridges. Shifts in DOT Cultures— The Intellectual Revolution The last two decades have brought about many shifts in cul- ture, within transportation departments and in other agen- cies as well. Changes in the economy, funding levels, the state of the nation’s infrastructure, organizational structures, and management styles—along with the diversity of multiple cultures and languages, and inclusive workforces spanning from baby boomers to Generations X and Y—have brought about shifts in DOT cultures. Many DOTs have experienced true paradigm shifts—the result of an extensive process that brings about major revision to methods and ideas leading to a transformation of vision among their practitioners. (4) DOTs commonly have long-established processes, identi- fied tasks, well-defined roles and responsibilities, and standard ways of delivering their programs and projects. Disciplines and sectors throughout the industry share a comprehensive understanding of this world view that brings forth the worth and value of their work. While minor changes in work flows or individual units do not typically shake the foundations of a DOT as a whole, major paradigm shifts—fundamental changes in the way business is done—represent a progression from the established framework into something quite differ- ent and new. As such, a change in paradigm characteristically meets with resistance and rarely entails smooth transitions. The paradigm shifts that have occurred at many state DOTs involve progress. This is a fundamental necessity. New discov- eries, new experimental results, and models that do not fit in with known theories, or anomalies in data and information, often set off a chain of events that build momentum toward a cultural shift. Crises often lead to paradigm shifts; more- over, they force leaders and decision makers to see their world differently. (4) After the Interstate 35 bridge collapse in Minnesota, for example, federal and state policies regard- ing bridge inspection cycles changed. Within a month or two, state DOTs across the nation were inspecting their bridges more frequently. The DOTs of today and their leaders see the transporta- tion environment in a very different light than they did two decades ago. First, loyalty in the new paradigm is not as much between the agency (DOT) and the client (stakeholder); it has shifted more to the problem at hand. Whether it be a capacity issue or a safety concern, a congestion problem or an opera- tional challenge, the transformed DOT culture focuses on solving the problem with swift conviction, within the real constraints being faced. Second, the studied DOTS exhibited some form of sus- tained capability that emphasized greater accountability on the part of their managers. Accountability was closely linked to a kaizen-like evolution that encourages a continuous improve- ment of processes, materials, and personnel. State DOTs are implementing programs that reward individuals who think outside the box and improve processes to achieve greater effi- ciencies and commending those who meet and exceed estab- lished goals. This approach promotes highly motivated indi- viduals and fosters a balanced growth environment in which employees can experiment, take prudent calculated risks, develop new ideas, and implement practical solutions to solve problems. Principles of ingenuity and accountability are inter- woven into the new paradigm. Third, this new paradigm values economies of scale in the execution of projects and programs as much as it does paying individualized attention to the smaller “meat and potatoes”– type projects that fall under its umbrella. Fourth, because most transportation challenges cannot be solved through singular relationships, today’s DOTs seek to collaborate and partner with the many stakeholders involved. This collaboration is sought not only for financial stability and leverage, but also for planning and execution. External relationships are cultivated and honored; under the new par- adigm, stakeholders are brought in early as participants in a partnership set up to solve the transportation problem, rather than as “clients” whom the DOT as “vendor” is tasked with satisfying. Transparency and accountability on the part of the 18

DOT go far to help stakeholders see the complexities and ram- ifications inherent in a project; they are less likely to clamor for costly embellishments when they see that trade-offs, compro- mises, and negotiations are required from all quarters to reach the best solution. Interagency collaboration is another type of partnership sought under the new paradigm. Policies established to pro- tect the natural and built environment during the interstate highway era empowered government regulatory agencies with review and approval authority over proposed transportation projects. State DOTs have found that treating transporta- tion issues as mutual concerns, not only between the DOT and stakeholders but also between the DOT and these counterpart agencies, results in forming peer relationships between the agencies involved, with a push toward collaborative leadership. Compared to an adversarial approach, peer relationships build a sense of trust and common ground from which all parties can begin a conversation and “speak the same language,” because the ultimate goal serves the same public. Information flows both ways, and strategies can be aligned in a way that allows programs and projects to be implemented and constructed more expeditiously. “Accountability is mutual; transparency is valued.” (5) Because work flows under the new paradigm are no longer linear in nature, multipronged approaches can be employed to solve today’s complex transportation chal- lenges. Collaborative leadership begins with the premise of a shared vision and confronts both the issues and their solu- tions by sharing responsibility, authority, accountability, and the successes that result when synergies occur. Everybody in the organization, at all levels, is fully engaged in achieving the common goal. (6) Fifth, the new paradigm takes into account the advent of an emerging global economy in which technology and commu- nication are central pillars in any organization that wants to compete in the global marketplace. Many states have invested in advanced technologies, allowing their DOTs to operate more efficiently, obtain real-time data, communicate instan- taneously, and disseminate information more rapidly than ever before. The transportation industry has undergone a dramatic transformation. In comparing the DOT cultures of today with the prevailing thought of the 1980s, “the new paradigm shifts imply new skills, enhanced relationships, new path- ways of accountability, new standards of performance, and new criteria for decision making. These imply a very, very different kind of culture than in traditional . . . approaches.” (5) In some instances, paradigm shifts might have been perceived as radical, revolutionary attempts to overhaul the DOTs. In fact, it is safer to say that they were evolutionary changes that brought about new ideas, identities, innova- tions, and ideologies. Trends and Challenges Transportation engineering projects and programs are unique challenges in comparison to mass production or advanced technology–type endeavors. The difference is that the final product is a one-of-a-kind facility that exists in its own setting—a road that is built through extreme topographic features or a bridge or tunnel that is constructed to provide passage for motorists and navigable vessels alike. Each becomes a hallmark that carries in its history an intense interaction between client, consultant, and contractor—a process of nego- tiations (financial, design, and aesthetic), regulatory challenges, partnerships with government agencies, and a champion that brings the project or program to maturity and completion. These factors alone make it difficult for DOTs to accelerate projects and programs. Yet many states have found ways to deliver their programs and projects more quickly. In the course of preparing case studies, reviewing existing literature, and conducting interviews with representatives of the state DOTs, several salient points became evident. Some of these trends were noticed not only in the DOTs inter- viewed but also in the websites of other agencies and various other current information sources. Challenges were also noted because they pose opportunities for improving current prac- tices and give a more realistic glimpse into the future of state transportation agencies. Many have already recognized and identified core areas for improvement and are taking steps toward that end. The following list of trends and challenges is not exhaustive, but rather representative of the main points that surfaced. Likewise, the order in which they are presented here is not intended to be indicative of their importance or ranking. Trends Performance Measures There has been a deliberate effort by many states to develop or formalize performance measures. Some states have attained a level of maturity with their performance measures after years of developing and refining them, while other states are just beginning the process and realize that they have a long journey ahead of them with this undertaking. For the most part, all states interviewed have at least established some means of measuring their transportation infrastructure, from some- thing as simple as logging pavement conditions to develop- ing elaborate online system-wide measures, fully accessible through the Internet. Research carried out for this project indicates that state DOTs are increasingly identifying performance measures as one of their most pressing needs. More and more states are incorporating performance measures into their operational 19

procedures and implementing ways to improve their trans- portation systems and the operations that create and main- tain them. From the simplest measure of crash rates from one year to the next to more complex outcomes such as measuring customer satisfaction or stakeholders’ quality of life, there are countless ways of measuring a DOT’s performance. Within the framework of performance measures is incorporated policies, systems, programs, financial investment strategies, and project-level objectives. The states studied for this project all measure performance— formally and informally—on varied aspects of program and project delivery. Also varying from state to state is the extent to which performance is measured and the purpose for the measurement. Some states use performance measures for eval- uating infrastructure conditions, such as pavement surface smoothness or the structural capacity of a bridge. For exam- ple, New Jersey has excellent data regarding the pavement con- ditions because it is a relatively easy index to measure. Traffic congestion and other factors are also measured; these factors are then used to classify the condition of the entire transpor- tation system. These measurable factors are also now being applied to develop New Jersey’s asset management approach. Some states track the performance of both the trans- portation infrastructure and the agency that delivers and maintains it. As the name suggests, the Tracker is Missouri’s instrument for monitoring how the state is doing in meeting its performance goals on 18 tangible results. It provides a win- dow for the public to view the agency and hold them account- able for attaining the expectations they have set. Measures for such things as uninterrupted traffic flow, transportation sys- tem safety, environmental stewardship, and innovative solu- tions are a few of the results that Missourians expect. Published as a printed document as well as being accessible online, the measures in the Tracker are updated on a quarterly basis. MaineDOT instituted an internal performance review in 2004 known as “Quality Assessment of Completed Bridge Projects.” Work performed on various bridge projects was scored on a scale of 1 to 4 (“unsatisfactory” to “exceptional”) in terms of safety quality, environmental compatibility qual- ity, functional quality, cost-effectiveness quality, and overall quality. Maine developed a different measurement system to track performance on projects identified in the Biennial Transportation Improvement Program (BTIP) and Mainte- nance Activity Plan (BMAP). An internal dashboard classifies newly kicked-off projects as green, then as they progress they are indicated as green, yellow, or red depending on how con- sistent they remain with the Scoping Report, how close expen- ditures stay within the programmed amount, and how well they adhere to the schedule. California uses performance measures for strategic plan- ning and management. Upper management at Caltrans has focused on strategic objectives and organizational goals and has seen results. Individual performance contracts hold man- agers accountable for reaching their targeted goals. Managers sign performance agreements for the delivery of their pro- grams; their individual job performance is evaluated based on their success in attaining these goals. This type of initiative provides powerful results, lending credence to the maxim, “what gets measured gets done.” Performance management has been used at the Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) for nearly 10 years. An in-depth business planning and performance measure- ment (BP/PM) plan includes approximately 400 measureable goals. Maryland has used performance measures for budget- ing and programming, program management and project delivery, operations, and monitoring results, feedback, and communication. (7) The way in which performance measures are conveyed to the public also plays an important role in the public’s percep- tion of the agency. For instance, North Carolina displays its organizational performance measures in a dashboard format that the public can access on the state website. There is a sim- plicity about the gauges on the dashboard; indicators commu- nicate to the public where and how—and how effectively— their tax dollars are being spent. Behind the dashboard are numerous real-time data collection and reduction efforts, complex logarithms and analyses that convert raw trans- portation numbers into measures that users can relate to. California has a similar display featuring an “odometer” dial, while Missouri uses a multipage report-style format. What is quite clear in all of these agencies is that the public has devel- oped a high regard for the direction that their agencies are moving in and a sense of trust in the decisions being made. The manner in which performance measures are used, reported, or communicated and the way they are used in decision making varies with how formalized their implemen- tation is and how integrated the program is with the rest of the DOT’s procedures and operations. For example, Caltrans uses performance measures as a cornerstone for delivering their programs. It is a formal approach, heavily incorporated in their policies and procedures. Outcome-based performance measures require a great deal of effort to implement as compared to output-based ones. Out- puts are quantitative units of service regarding a program, for example, the number of programs funded, projects designed, contracts let, lane-miles constructed, etc. By themselves, num- bers don’t always paint a clear picture of the actual impacts/ benefits/changes to the public, the transportation agency, or the highway system—the number of miles driven, for instance, merely indicates the numerical quantity of vehicle miles trav- eled in a given period. Outcomes, on the other hand, are the impacts/benefits/changes experienced as a result of a pro- gram’s or project’s implementation. For example, for a main- tenance program, an outcome might be “percentage of the 20

state highway network in overall preferred maintenance condition.” (Notice that this outcome is quite different than outputs, such as the “number of lane-miles resurfaced.”) Out- comes are usually expressed in terms of having short-term, intermediate-term, or long-term effects. It is relatively simple to populate a table with statistics and then present the information—the output—as a graph or chart. Measuring outcomes, by contrast, mandates itera- tive, collaborative processes in which problems are identi- fied, needs are assessed, attainable goals are established, and a commitment is made to revisit and adjust established goals and continue to identify new ones as earlier challenges are met and operational hurdles are overcome. Developing outcome- based performance measures requires the consensus of leaders and subject matter experts from a transportation agency’s var- ious divisions, disciplines, and districts, each of whom brings their unique set of goals, needs, and challenges to the table. Performance measures are important because they show- case the tremendous needs state agencies face and build con- fidence that the agencies are spending tax dollars wisely. They provide a customer-based focus that helps state DOTs address public concerns and build public trust. They help ensure cost- effective use of limited funds; provide a tool to improve areas where progress needs to be made; and serve as a barometer on internal performance, delivery, and overall effectiveness. A Front-End Approach (Planning, Scoping, Purpose, and Need) A shift has occurred in the way projects are developed. The traditional approach placed greater emphases in the design activities and phases. For instance, the final design and envi- ronmental permitting phases of a project often garnered the most attention and support and were allotted the most time for execution. Current project development approaches focus on thoroughly outlining the purpose and need, carefully defin- ing the scope to considerable detail, and outlining the front end of the project even before the feasibility assessment. The front-end approach involves the development of strate- gic information sufficient for owners to address risk and commit resources to maximize the chance for a successful project. (8) Defining the activities involved in the front end differs between state transportation agencies. It is not always clear where the front end ends and the mid-section and back end begin. For instance, some states consider all planning-, scoping-, and purpose-and-need–related activities to be part of the front-end process. The back end constitutes design, bids received and awarded, and construction-related activ- ities through closeout. Some states include several prelim- inary design functions in the front-end process. A 2008 study on front-end planning processes found a statistical signif- icance in the correlation between 7 out of 33 activities per- formed in planning at the front end that contributed to project success. Of those seven, public relations, scope, and execution planning can be directly related to project success. While most states do not formally segment their work into front-end and back-end tasks, it is safe to say that much effort is being expended at the front end. North Carolina divides highway projects into precon- struction and construction, akin to front end and back end, respectively. NCDOT managers place much emphasis in the planning aspects of a project, particularly in coordinating efforts with all of the stakeholders and regulatory agencies, striving to gain concurrence at critical milestones during the planning and design of a project. New Jersey DOT’s pipeline process follows an activity manual that defines over 60 possi- ble activities in the purpose and need and feasibility assess- ment phases of a project alone. Caltrans performs a certain degree of risk assessment at the front end of a project to avoid costly oversights and budget overruns. Most state DOTs use front-end planning to assess the business requirements, select the right technologies, define the scope of work, assemble a team, perform a risk analysis, develop the contingencies, and obtain buy-in from the decision makers and stakeholders. In effect, DOTs are stretching out the front end. Time spent during this period, project advocates have realized, is con- ducive to sound decision making and creating added value. Uncertainties—as well as their solutions—are only revealed over time, through the repeated interaction of stakeholders, specialists, and partners. Successful projects require a front- end process that builds trust among stakeholders and spon- sors in order for all parties to learn from one another and maintain flexibility. No one can determine the exact amount of time needed to build trusting relationships at the front end. This phase can be a costly component of the project when all is said and done, but there is no question that extra time spent at the front end becomes an ally to project acceleration, afford- ing flexibility and better decision making, and often expedit- ing design and construction when the project evolves into a “win-win” during the development phase. In the engineering and construction phases, where expen- ditures on a project multiply rapidly, there is little to be gained by waiting. Time erodes value at the back end of a pursuit. This is the place where programs and projects benefit most from being accelerated. Speedy delivery of projects at the back end, from the onset of design to revenue generation, is of the essence. Furthermore, if projects take too long to implement, administrations change, policy changes, priorities change, and projects don’t get built. It is crucial to strike while every- one is in agreement. Project Management The Project Management Institute (PMI) has formal pro- cesses and procedures stating how a project should be man- aged, from project initiation to execution to closeout. More 21

state DOTs are beginning to use PMI philosophies to deliver projects. Project managers are cognizant of the quadruple constraints of a project (scope, schedule, budget, and quality) and are applying them more and more in their daily program or project management activities. While there are many definitions of a project manager, essentially he or she is at the center of orchestrating the efforts and activities required for final deliverables through forming alliances and providing direction, motivation, and leadership while optimizing time, cost, procurement, quality, communi- cations, risk, scope, and human resources. Another definition characterizes a project manager as “a businessman, a psychol- ogist, an accountant, a technician, part designer, part nuts- and-bolts—a truly rare combination of skills.” (9) Over the last two decades, state DOTs have placed a greater emphasis on the concept of project management. With for- mal processes adopted for project initiation, planning, execu- tion, monitoring, and closing, there is a concerted effort to take a project all the way from its first idea to completion. New Jersey and California DOTs have adopted formal project man- agement approaches to project delivery. Both states use com- prehensive project management manuals and training pro- grams to groom potential project managers and empower them with the skills to take a project from start to finish. Since 2000, Maine has made changes in its DOT that formalize the role of the project manager, involving him or her in a project from its planning phase through construction. Successful project management requires the right orga- nizational climate as well. It requires support from upper man- agement, an alignment of project management processes with the goals and missions of the organization, a formal process for project management, and a culture that supports the project manager and project management efforts, including training. MaineDOT has an excellent cross-training program that allows a project manager to experience first hand all the phases of a project’s life cycle by allowing him or her to follow the proj- ect all the way into construction, where the project manager assumes the responsibilities of a resident engineer. This pro- gram provides the individual with exposure, experience, new skill sets, and a better understanding of the project management process, as well as many aspects of a transportation project that might previously have been unfamiliar to the individual. Some state DOTs have also provided project managers with the ability to execute projects more efficiently. Being the single point of contact from the inception of the project to its com- pletion allows the project manager to be in tune with every aspect of the project. The greater advantage is the consistency gained in project delivery. The project manager essentially becomes the champion for the individual project. Leadership Leadership plays a critical role in how quickly programs are implemented and executed. Leaders of organizations must have the ability to orchestrate the dynamic interplay that must occur between individuals, work teams, agencies, and stake- holders for an initiative to go from inception to fruition. Lead- ership at the very top, in many states, is a politically appointed position. The commissioner’s or secretary’s tenure in office and ability to effect change are often limited by the duration of a given governor’s term or political party’s majority. In recent times, the average length of stay for a DOT commissioner in New Jersey is three years. Unlike many other states, MSHA and Missouri DOT are exemplary in having had a continuity of leadership rather than the transitory leadership characterized by politically based appointments. In Maryland, this continuity and strength in leadership has allowed the Intercounty Connector to advance to construction after five decades of controversy and opposition. Strong leadership at the very top—its direction and guidance—sets the stage for all other performance. The positive influence, practical optimism, and depth of experi- ence provides for complex coalitions to be strengthened, difficult decisions to be made, funding to be secured, and solutions to be implemented that culminate in value-added final products. Communication, Collaboration, and Cooperation The ability of state DOTs to reach out to their internal and external stakeholders, regulatory agencies, clients, and elected officials in an effort to advance and deliver programs has never been so great as it is with today’s technologies. State DOT employees are communicating laterally and vertically, collaborating to reach difficult project and program decisions, and cooperating to meet their end goals. This effort has led to true “partnering” among agencies and the fostering of relation- ships based on trust. If one considers the many external agencies they must col- laborate and communicate with on a single project, state trans- portation officials virtually function within an expanded network. Stronger relationships with agencies such as the FHWA, the U.S. Coast Guard, the Army Corp of Engineers, state regulatory/permitting agencies, and local governments have helped to bring about decisions more quickly. North Carolina’s Merger 01 process built its foundation on the con- cept of concurrence, with all pertinent partners and stake- holders buying into project decisions at key milestones from the beginning. Utah’s CMGC approach solicits the experi- ence of independent contractors and begins collaborating with them as early as the design phase. These approaches have been found to expedite subsequent aspects of a project’s design and construction, eliminating delays and interruptions fre- quently encountered when someone with decision-making authority “sees a project for the first time” at an advanced stage. When this occurs, the modifications required for such a person’s approval are sometimes extensive, requiring re-work 22

after considerable time and budget have already been expended on the design. Time taken to communicate early in the project generally yields gains in owner and user buy-in, as well as in the overall schedule. In every state, federal funding for transportation projects and programs are channeled through a continuing, coopera- tive, and comprehensive (3C) planning process administered by MPOs. These organizations consist of representatives from local governments and transportation authorities in metro- politan areas. A project does not receive federal funding if it is not in an MPO’s Transportation Improvement Plan. Interviewed state DOTs have demonstrated a concerted effort to work with their MPOs and participate in a shared vision identifying needs and prioritizing projects at the MPO level. As DOTs are required to allocate increasingly scarce human, financial, and material resources to delivering their backlog of transportation projects, it is in a DOT’s best interest to communicate and coordinate with the MPOs in their respec- tive state. The value of partnering with regulatory agencies and incor- porating environmental streamlining and stewardship prac- tices into project planning and design is realized in building trust between the agencies and yielding faster turnarounds in the review and approval process. Team Approach (High-Performance Teams, Change Management) The use of high-performance teams, specialized functional teams, or self-directed work teams supports the underlying finding that a team approach can lead to accelerated project delivery. Other types of teams such as change management teams and implementation teams have helped bring about suc- cessful transformations of an organization’s structure and/or culture, resulting in system-wide improvements in program and project delivery schedules. These successes cannot be realized without the concerted efforts of many individuals working together toward a com- mon goal. State DOTs recognize that a supportive team envi- ronment drives project performance. Leadership and techni- cal expertise are not sufficient to meet the missions and goals of a state transportation agency. This deficit, in part, has led to the development of unified team cultures to address today’s demanding transportation issues. MaineDOT moved from a silo-based “assembly line” operation to a more inclusive team approach, accelerating programs through greater communi- cation and clearer assignment of responsibilities. Teams have helped MaineDOT to establish real deadlines and achieve greater transparency and efficiency. This positive environ- ment creates team spirit, cross-functional cooperation, and unified approaches so there is a greater tolerance for ambi- guity, risk, and conflict, which give rise to innovations in behavior and approach. Other types of teams are also instrumental in helping state DOTs achieve strategic goals. For instance, NCDOT’s Inter- agency Leadership Team works to ensure that delivery strategies previously agreed upon are being implemented by different work groups and that these strategies are generating the desired goals. (10) Creative Destruction and Realignment The term “creative destruction,” coined by economist Joseph Schumpeter in 1942, expresses an entity’s or organization’s need for constant re-invention with the idea that “out of destruction a new spirit of creativity arises.” Used primarily in association with capitalism and free market competition, the concept of creative destruction can be applied to private and public organizations in the 21st Century when a trans- formation process takes place, accompanied by innovation. Economic progress occurs through rewarding individuals (or entities) that are innovative. The need to produce better quality services with limited resources and environmental constraints has compelled state DOTs to examine and make dramatic changes to their organizational structures in pursuit of innovative solutions and to empower employees with the freedom to unleash their creative potential. NCDOT deliberately undertook a process of renewal and realignment in which it dismantled and de-layered many of the organizational silos that discouraged coordination among business units. Its new organization relies on performance- based, outcome-driven results and provides DOT-wide checks and balances. New Jersey DOT made a major cultural shift to a project management-based program and project delivery system. Even though there is no legislation requiring it to do so, Utah DOT is proactively moving to implement an envi- ronmental approval process for state-funded projects that is comparable to NEPA. This type of realignment disassembles the old processes so that new ones can be created. It requires huge shifts in institutional cultures and takes many years to implement even when it has been formalized. These shifts in culture require strategic management of the changes that individuals must make in adapting to new and different ways of doing things. DOT personnel may have to adjust to a new way of thinking, modify a process, fine- tune the very activities they have been performing for years, and alter their behavior. Because change in general requires human effort, cultural shifts are difficult to bring about and require the support of upper management. State DOTs that have led the pack in bringing about unparalleled changes have taken many years (up to 10 in some cases) to realize these shifts in institutional culture. To some extent, many state transportation agencies have undergone a form of creative destruction with their organiza- tional structure and internal processes. Through this process, an organization voluntarily or involuntarily does away with 23

established procedures and methodologies to undergo a sort of renewal in which new programs and ideas are set up to replace the old. In a changing era of new technologies and knowledge- based management, state DOTs need to think constantly of how to optimize their assets and deliver quality results. In these paradoxical times, what is great today may only be mediocre or obsolete tomorrow. In the long term, organizations that create an environment in which creative destruction can occur grow richer and more productive as a result. Organizational Profile/Structure Which organizational structure better lends itself to effi- cient program and project delivery, centralized or decentral- ized? The answer does not lie in any one type of organizational structure, but rather in how vertical or horizontal the organi- zation is. Tall, hierarchical silos are gradually being supplanted by flatter structures that afford more opportunity for commu- nication and sharing of knowledge across management lines. Organizational structure can be defined as the visible and invisible framework that connects and weaves all aspects of an organization’s activities so that it functions as a complete dynamic entity. (11) An organization’s structure affects its size, strategy, technology, environment, culture, innovation, and partnerships. The 21st century has seen a huge shift in the way organizations are structured. It is important to recognize that with the changing technological environment, organi- zations have to adapt quickly in order to be successful. State agencies are no exception to the rule. Classical structures organized around delivering size, role clarity, specialization, and control have transformed to deliver speed, flexibility, integration, and innovation. These design principles are evi- dent in the state DOTs that were researched. One premise of this research study was to identify whether an organization’s centralized or decentralized structure fos- ters accelerated program and project delivery. Interestingly, centralization/decentralization was found to have little to do with the speed with which programs are delivered. What con- tributes more to accelerated delivery is how “flat” (horizontal) or “tall” (vertical) the structure is. State DOTs affirm that in order to respond quickly, perform critical functions, make decisions sooner than later, and provide services rapidly, more level organizations respond better to the overall goals of the DOT. The greatest advantage of a horizontal organization is the increased degree of lateral communication that occurs across units and management lines. The relative informality of a horizontal structure creates more opportunities for dif- ferent units to collaborate, thereby building trust and mov- ing toward the common goal of delivering a project. TxDOT restructured itself at the top level, where the executive direc- tor created a flat, non-traditional organizational structure. More than 40 individuals report to him, with only a single “layer”—the deputy executive director and two assistant directors—between him and the Department’s many divi- sions, offices, and districts. (12) NCDOT likewise restruc- tured from a tall pyramid to a flatter, wider configuration that required redefining key positions and functions. (13) The complex environment in which transportation agency leaders are required to deliver aggressive programs requires an organization that is responsive to the needs of the public. State DOTs have found that non-linear, non-hierarchical, more holistic, self-organizing, flexible, diverse, and networked organizational models provide quicker program and project delivery. MoDOT’s organizational structure is perhaps one of the most unique and modern arrangements. At the very top, it is led by a commission of six members—a chairman, a vice chairman, and four commissioners. No more than three of these may be of the same political party. Beneath the commis- sion is a director of transportation who in turn leads a chief engineer and a chief financial officer (CFO). The chief engineer is responsible for the system delivery team (bridge, design, right-of-way, traffic, maintenance, etc.). But on the organiza- tional chart, this system delivery team is pictured on a circu- lar dial, removing any physical representation of hierarchy. The CFO is responsible for a system facilitation team, also represented on a dial. Below the commission are only three levels of hierarchy. This organizational structure allows for a fair and equal representation of the state’s concerns. But from the highest level of authority, the message is clear that even from a political perspective, the organization will move for- ward providing equal representation and reduced hierarchi- cal levels. It is uncertain how state DOTs may restructure themselves in the near future. Few organizations are adept at constantly changing and adapting immediately to the shifting external environment. An organization consists of complex inter- actions between agents, in which cooperation and competi- tion are key elements that shape the organization and drive it forward. In that composite environment, a complex, adaptive system may be required. One question that arises as organi- zations begin to make small changes is, does the shift truly occur as a second-order change, where individuals embrace the transformation? The goal of many transportation agencies may be to become an organization that supports dynamic, interactive work processes that help make effective decisions while supporting the overall mission and goals of the organi- zation. Such a structure allows for a constant flow of informa- tion horizontally and vertically, thereby allowing employees’ everyday responses and decisions to be guided by an overall sense of direction and purpose. (11) Regionalization States that comprise large geographic areas or experience a broad range of climatic conditions have found efficiencies in 24

regionalizing their district offices. Economies of scale and sharing of resources and information have resulted in better quality products and services. Regionalization allows for the flexibility of district offices to operate independently, while providing the support of a larger office when required. Regionalization is not just common to large states with multiple districts. Certainly California and Texas, with 12 and 25 districts respectively, have nearly complete operating capa- bilities within each district to plan, design, and construct projects. District offices in many states are supported by central divisions and offices that help with policies, strategic management, programmatic guidance, and specialty design issues. The reasons for combining district offices into regions are numerous: to share technical expertise and resources; to enable environmental, topographic, and geographic similar- ities to be addressed uniquely; and to accomplish critical tasks at a quasi-centralized regional level so that skill sets are not unnecessarily duplicated in multiple districts. Although New Jersey, the nation’s fourth smallest state, has a centralized DOT, its DOT has three designated regions— North, Central, and South—each with distinct project con- cerns. Community cultures, urban fabric and landscapes, and political climates differ between these regions. Likewise, the 14 districts of North Carolina, a state that spans 500 miles from east to west with elevations ranging from sea level to 6,684 feet (the highest point east of the Mississippi), are grouped into three geographical regions—Mountains, Piedmont, and Coastal Plain. State DOTs will continue to function either as centralized or decentralized structures. Neither configuration has been shown to be better than the other for accelerating programs and projects from concept to completion; however, regional- ization can reap the benefits of each and holds some promise to deliver projects sooner. Transparency Transparency is a concept to which states are becoming more and more attuned. Transparency is about accountability: being responsible for decisions and actions, liable for per- sistent problems and unaddressed concerns, and answerable to the public for the way taxpayer dollars are spent. Closely tied with the adaptation of performance measures, the shift toward transparency is a natural by-product of developing and implementing performance measures and metrics. Trans- parency in an organization is realized when these measures are made available to the public. This frequently involves a shift in DOT culture as well. During the course of interviews, some states expressed concerns about the image portrayed by their DOT or what the public’s perception was. Even a slightly negative image or lack of trust can create roadblocks for managers and admin- istrators trying to expedite programs and projects. Regardless of whether or not a project has full funding, the right design, and minimal obstacles to construction, it can be halted sim- ply because the public feels uneasy about it. One way in which state DOTs have sought—successfully—to gain public sup- port is by becoming more transparent. By allowing the pub- lic to view the DOT’s efforts and have input in some of the decisions that are made, transportation agencies are building public trust and gaining the confidence of elected officials and their constituents. NCDOT recounted its experience of becoming more trans- parent through the use of an online performance dashboard that allows the public to see its internal efficiencies. NCDOT intends to use performance measures as a promotional tool, to help package what it is already doing as an agency and showcase its progress to the public. From its perspective, the dashboard is a measure of how the North Carolina Secretary of Transportation’s delivery measures up against the State Transportation Plan. California also recognizes that credibil- ity is built by becoming more transparent. Upper manage- ment executives at Caltrans meet with local officials and leg- islative representatives on a quarterly basis to keep them up to date on transportation issues. After four consecutive years of delivering 100 percent of the projects on their “Ready to Let” list, Caltrans has gained a great deal of political and pub- lic support. This transparency also translates to greater trust and integrity. As Caltrans continues to experiment with inno- vative, out-of-the-box approaches to project delivery, con- gestion management, and construction, the public is will- ing to be more accommodating on account of Caltrans’ proven track record. Missouri’s Tracker proclaims to the pub- lic that “this document is your window to MoDOT–warts and all. It invites you to hold us accountable for exceeding your expectation.” (14) It is anticipated that as more states begin to develop per- formance measures and incorporate them in their transporta- tion services, they will opt to provide a window for government officials, stakeholders, and the public to see how they are doing. The intentional use of measures and goals, whether for decision-making, planning, tracking, or management processes, will provide reporting information of significant value. The extent to which state DOTs display or provide this information to the external community in a meaningful, user- friendly manner will determine their level of transparency. At least in this sector of government, transparency is on the rise. Challenges The Perfect Storm State DOTs are currently experiencing a “perfect storm.” Given their aging infrastructure, financial limitations, increas- ing congestion, system size and complexity, and increasing 25

population, transportation agencies face demanding and dif- ficult times. They need to look for better ways of doing busi- ness and accomplishing more with fewer resources. There has rarely been a time when a combination of factors has created such challenging circumstances for transportation agencies. Most states have portions of highway infrastructure that are more than 50 years old. Almost 25 percent of the high- way bridges in the United States are more than 50 years old and are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. (15) For example, the Memorial Bridge carrying U.S. Route 1 from Kittery, Maine, to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is 86 years old, and the Waldo–Hancock Bridge in Bangor is 74 years old. It is safe to say that much of the nation’s infrastructure has outlived its life cycle and is now in need of repair and rehabilitation—or outright replacement. In light of this, some state DOTs have shifted priorities to catching up on mainte- nance and rehabilitation projects, placing new capital projects on hold. States are also facing difficult economic times. Increases in transportation funding have not kept up with increases in the cost of materials and labor for new capital projects. While some DOTs are looking at innovative ways of increasing their revenue streams (e.g., tolls, public–private partnerships, etc.), others have perilously extended themselves, borrowing against the future. States must find ways to stretch their transporta- tion dollars further so that the investments they make today will have lasting benefits. The size and complexity of a state’s roadway network must be factored into how DOT leaders shape the transportation system under their jurisdiction. Some DOTs are responsible for operating and maintaining a large share of their state’s highways and multimodal facilities. Other state DOTs in charge of smaller systems still have the challenge of maintain- ing an aging, often complex infrastructure built over differ- ent topographic features and time periods, using a variety of technologies and materials. The problem of increasing congestion that is ubiquitous on the nation’s highways places a strain on the infrastructure as well as the patience of drivers. Congestion statistics are stag- gering, and its effects are most felt in large urban areas where motorists waste time and fuel stuck in traffic. This issue is not easily resolved. States with a high proportion of urbanized area cannot easily build new roads or widen the existing ones to accommodate the ever-increasing traffic volumes. Even in states that are predominantly rural, pockets of congestion still exist where capacity is insufficient. An inadequate transporta- tion system, with its attendant congestion, compromises the economic prosperity of a region, state, or nation. State DOTs are finding innovative ways to provide connectivity to their vital economic generators, but the solutions are more compli- cated, and even more challenging to implement, than simply building new roads or widening existing ones. The option to “build our way out of congestion” does not exist anymore. Demographic transitions occurring throughout the United States and the overall increase in population, largely due to migration, places more drivers on America’s roads. Aging populations, including the maturation of the still very active baby boomers, influence travel patterns and continue to demand more and better mobility options. Travel demand has outpaced population growth due to increasing average trip lengths, and travel behaviors have changed due to differ- ences in work and leisure trips, specialization of labor, and redistribution of people and jobs. (16) This combination of factors creates the “perfect storm” scenario within which transportation agencies must work to find unique solutions for the mobility needs of tomorrow. Outsourcing Pre-Construction vs. Keeping It in House There is a great diversity among the researched states in exercising the option to outsource planning and design of projects vs. keeping the work in house. Some state DOTs have managed to retain their staffing levels from year to year and meet their annual program delivery goals. Other states have undergone significant attrition and have resorted to routinely procuring professional services consultants as a means of help- ing them deliver their programs. The challenge is in finding the most cost-effective balance between what and how much to outsource. The following list shows the percentage of pre-construction work outsourced by the state DOTs that were researched: • California: 10 percent • Maine: 30 percent • Maryland: 30 percent • Missouri: 50 percent • New Jersey: 80 percent • North Carolina: 30 percent • Texas: 60 to 70 percent • Utah: 60 to 70 percent DOTs that have maintained their workforces still have the capabilities to perform most of the work in house. However, that is not to say that there is a correlation between a large work force and the amount of work kept in house. Some states such as Texas outsource a large percentage of their work in order to deliver a large annual program. New Jersey DOT, nearly halved through early retirement programs, has been left with a smaller work force. Hence, New Jersey has one of the highest percentages of projects outsourced to private con- sultants. Because of the broad range of factors involved, it was not possible to establish a correlation in this study between the proportion of work outsourced and the resulting ability of a state DOT to accelerate a project or program. 26

Procurement strategies are being modified and imple- mented so that consultant services can be maintained through- out the life of the project, from conception to completion. The number of multiple procurements on a project—multiple requests for proposals (RFPs) from the agency and multiple proposals from the consultants—can be reduced by acceler- ating the overall project development process through task orders. TxDOT hires one consultant for select projects to do everything from conception to completion through the use of CDAs. New Jersey DOT has begun procuring consultant services using the same consultant to take a project from the beginning to the end—scoping and concept development through final design. Such agreements reduce the ramp-up efforts and the time it takes for a new consultant to become familiarized with a project. From the state’s perspective, two to three months can be lost every time a new consultant has to be procured for the same project. From the consultant’s perspective, non-billable time spent responding to RFPs can be reduced if the entire job is awarded through a single selec- tion process. Right-of-Way/Utilities/Railroads Perhaps the most difficult phases to accelerate in any proj- ect are ROW acquisition and utility relocation. For various reasons, there is no uniform procedure established across the states when ROW and utility issues hold back project delivery. Each state DOT must deal with different municipal and re- gional telephone, electric, gas, and cable TV companies, in addition to local water and sewer authorities. Northern city centers often have central heating plants that deliver high- pressure steam to numerous large buildings via underground pipelines. Technology centers tie into local suppliers of nitro- gen gas for their clean-room environments, again delivered through underground lines. Very often, each of these utility companies or authorities has their own set of procedures for dealing with highway projects. Railroads present an addi- tional set of roadblocks that frequently complicate and delay project delivery. Projects that involve ROW acquisition pose challenges for transportation professionals. Eminent domain takings are the most likely activity to cause delays because the litiga- tion process is so long. But ROW acquisition procedures vary from state to state. Utah uses many methods to keep projects on track, including passing more of the control and the risk to the contractor. However, UDOT has one of the quickest ROW acquisition processes: when a property goes to litiga- tion, it is typically resolved in approximately nine months; meanwhile the use of a “right of entry” allows construction activities to take place in parallel with the negotiation process. TxDOT employs possession and use agreements, beginning construction on a property by paying the owner the appraised value of the property up front, while the ROW acquisition process is just beginning to move forward. Utility issues remain a challenge when it comes to reloca- tion of both above-ground and subsurface features. Even with advance notification, planning, and communication, a utility company’s priorities will differ from the state’s. Utility companies must deal with their own limited resources and in many cases have seasonal constraints on both doing outdoor/ underground work and temporarily shutting down service. Franchise or reimbursement agreements, where the state pays for the cost of the relocation, help expedite the situation, but many partnering sessions are required to bring the utility com- panies on board with a project as early as the design phase. Railroads appear to pose some of the greatest challenges to project delivery. States and railroad companies invariably dif- fer on the valuation of property that may need to be acquired. Their priorities seem to conflict at every turn; each sees the other as a necessary evil to be dealt with. One participant inter- viewed for this project noted, “The number one thing I don’t want in my project is a railroad!” Right-of-way, utilities, and railroads continue to challenge highway departments when it comes to program and project delivery. Alliance agreements, incentivized utility relocations, and appraisal sharing may be innovative approaches to expe- dite projects fraught with utility and ROW issues. (17) Baselines and Targets One of the greatest challenges for states that are moving toward developing and implementing performance measures is the gap in available data—or the complete lack of data— for setting baselines. Without baselines, progress cannot be evaluated; targets cannot be set. More discouraging is the fact that states may not have the technology, resources, or funding to collect the complex data required for input into a meaning- ful metric. All state DOTs have traffic data available to them, but if the data does not provide intelligence, it does nothing to help senior managers make the right decisions. States that have begun their journey toward implementing performance mea- sures are finding that determining baselines for the measures they selected is not an easy task. New Jersey DOT struggles with the tools and techniques currently available because the information generated from its measurement systems (e.g., bridge inspection and pavement condition reports, crash data) are not mature enough to perform sophisticated analyses. Thus the quality of the final product or service is only as good as the quality of information introduced into the equation. Setting an accurate baseline is important because it is then used as an evaluative tool for continuous improvements. Once the base- lines are determined, goals or targets could be set. When state DOTs were asked what was the average number of months (or years) that a project took to go from conception 27

to completion, the responses were vague. Data is simply not collected for this beginning-to-end measure. However, suf- ficient information often does exist for selected phases of a project. For instance, UDOT’s average environmental process for a new alignment takes approximately twelve months and ROW acquisition takes no more than nine months. Perhaps what complicates the attempt for states to set base- lines and identify targets is the size and variety of projects included in a given program for delivery. Capital improve- ment “mega-projects” and very small maintenance projects may be managed simultaneously. This mix of large and small budgets, highway and bridge projects, stormwater manage- ment and utility issues do not share common bases upon which they can be measured side by side. More research is required in this area. Context-Sensitive Solutions For most states, the context-sensitive solutions process (CSS) has become an integral step in development and execution of a project. In the socio-cultural context, it significantly reduces the barriers of public opposition; however, from a pure engi- neering aspect, it may create scope creep and cause a project to diverge from the original purpose and need. While CSS is critical in expediting some projects, it is equally responsible for introducing delays to project design and public outreach. States interviewed expressed mixed feelings about CSS as it relates to accelerating projects from conception to completion. In cases where public opposition was resolved when CSS was implemented during the planning stages of a project, CSS was perceived as a necessary step to accelerating the project. Some states, however, claimed that CSS involves additional funds and time to incorporate appropriately and successfully and still does not achieve the expected results of a general consen- sus between stakeholder and the state. Maryland’s DOT has fully incorporated CSS into its standard operating procedure. While it recognizes that CSS requires additional time and an element of risk, true partnering occurs over time, and stake- holder involvement from the beginning and often through the planning phases generates a mutual understanding and balanced solutions. UDOT also incorporates CSS philosophy into its overall strategic direction. Through CSS awareness training and collaborative multidisciplinary teams, CSS is fully integrated in the way they work. Senior management’s view is that “Context-Sensitive Solutions is more than an initiative. It is a fundamental change in the way we do business. As each of us comes to understand the elements of CSS, it will be woven into the way we do our work, and it will become an integral part of the UDOT culture.” (18) In 2005 MoDOT took a step back from CSS to look at the bigger picture and introduced the concept of practical design by declaring that “state DOTs must deliver the transportation system better, faster, and cheaper than ever before. MoDOT’s Practical Design effort accomplishes that goal by building ‘good’ projects everywhere instead of ‘perfect’ projects some- where.” (19) Practical design has involved a commitment to focus on adequately meeting the purpose and need without unnecessar- ily going beyond, getting the best value for the least cost, never compromising on safety, and collaborating on the solution. An interviewee from MoDOT stated, “We focus on meeting needs, not a wish list. . . . We build partnerships based on needs, not demands.” Perhaps the best approach to incorporating CSS into pro- grams and projects is to be aware that it yields diminishing returns: Applying it judiciously at the front end of a project may indeed expedite it; however, seeking continuous input from all stakeholders as the project proceeds will result in delay and confusion. Most states understood that CSS requires a flexible approach in design standards to fit the project into its surroundings. The biggest challenge encountered is that stakeholders tend to demand more than what has been budgeted for. The resulting impasses create distrust and unwillingness on the part of the public to cooperate with the state. One interviewed employee voiced MoDOT’s solution: “Never do visioning with the stakeholders without having a stated budget at the beginning of your outreach.” Some DOTs are guided by a state policy to incorporate CSS principles into the planning and design of their major projects. As of 2004, 26 states had adopted such policies into their framework. (20) Policy Case studies have shown that state and federal environ- mental regulations and funding issues are often perceived to conflict with existing transportation policies. Some environ- mental streamlining has been accomplished through federal policy changes, but it is a complex arena and only a few states have an environmental policy that matches or exceeds federal NEPA requirements. In fact, many practice streamlining more informally by building strong relationships with state and federal review agencies. Limited revenues in today’s environ- ment also challenge existing funding policies. New sources of funding, new propositions, and innovative funding agree- ments may be on the horizon for some states. But most states are looking for ways to stretch every penny of every tax dollar. State DOTs and the FHWA have made significant efforts over the past five to seven years to achieve both environmental streamlining and environmental stewardship. A track record of environmental stewardship builds trust and public support, smoothing the way for future projects. Most states have moved beyond environmental avoidance and environmental mitiga- tion, to environmental enhancement—projects that leave the environment “better than before.” 28

The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU) authorized three types of delegations of the FHWA’s environmental role: Categorical Exclusion (CE) projects, a five-state pilot delega- tion for NEPA and other laws, and a five-state pilot delegation for Recreational Trails and Transportation Enhancements projects. Utah, one of the states studied for this project, is a pilot state in the NEPA delegation program. This program, combined with its very low (15 percent) dependence on federal transportation funds, has enabled UDOT to move forward on many of its projects without requiring FHWA approval. Inferences Drawn from Trends and Challenges A transition is under way, from an era of new builds and high-profile capital projects with unlimited funding to an era characterized predominantly by projects that rebuild, main- tain, and repair under limited funding options. Despite this radical shift, transportation agencies must still keep pace with the transportation demands of the present decade, while plan- ning for future growth. The trends and challenges noted here are intended to provide transportation decision makers with a starting point, an introductory map, to gauge how well their organizations operate within their existing framework. Trends can be seen as successful elements, factors that contribute to a state’s ability to accelerate program and project delivery. Infused throughout these trends are the challenges that must be addressed through iterative, relationship-based approaches, creative funding opportunities, flexible design options, and exemplary management strategies. By carefully evaluating the potential benefit offered by each trend, and soberly gauging the extent to which the challenges are mirrored in their organ- ization, leaders of state transportation agencies should be able to build on their existing strengths and increase their ability to further their agencies’ stated missions and goals. 29

Next: Chapter 5 - Best Practices Case Study Reports »
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!