Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 662 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 2010 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE* OFFICERS CHAIR: Michael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, Arlington VICE CHAIR: Neil J. Pedersen, Administrator, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS J. Barry Barker, Executive Director, Transit Authority of River City, Louisville, KY Allen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT, Harrisburg Larry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT, Jackson Deborah H. Butler, Executive Vice President, Planning, and CIO, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Norfolk, VA William A.V. Clark, Professor, Department of Geography, University of California, Los Angeles Eugene A. Conti, Jr., Secretary of Transportation, North Carolina DOT, Raleigh Nicholas J. Garber, Henry L. Kinnier Professor, Department of Civil Engineering, and Director, Center for Transportation Studies, University of Virginia, Charlottesville Jeffrey W. Hamiel, Executive Director, Metropolitan Airports Commission, Minneapolis, MN Paula J. Hammond, Secretary, Washington State DOT, Olympia Edward A. (Ned) Helme, President, Center for Clean Air Policy, Washington, DC Adib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley Susan Martinovich, Director, Nevada DOT, Carson City Debra L. Miller, Secretary, Kansas DOT, Topeka Sandra Rosenbloom, Professor of Planning, University of Arizona, Tucson Tracy L. Rosser, Vice President, Corporate Traffic, Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., Mandeville, LA Steven T. Scalzo, Chief Operating Officer, Marine Resources Group, Seattle, WA Henry G. (Gerry) Schwartz, Jr., Chairman (retired), Jacobs/Sverdrup Civil, Inc., St. Louis, MO Beverly A. Scott, General Manager and Chief Executive Officer, Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Atlanta, GA David Seltzer, Principal, Mercator Advisors LLC, Philadelphia, PA Daniel Sperling, Professor of Civil Engineering and Environmental Science and Policy; Director, Institute of Transportation Studies; and Interim Director, Energy Efficiency Center, University of California, Davis Kirk T. Steudle, Director, Michigan DOT, Lansing Douglas W. Stotlar, President and CEO, Con-Way, Inc., Ann Arbor, MI C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin EX OFFICIO MEMBERS Peter H. Appel, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S.DOT J. Randolph Babbitt, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S.DOT Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA George Bugliarello, President Emeritus and University Professor, Polytechnic Institute of New York University, Brooklyn; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering, Washington, DC Anne S. Ferro, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S.DOT LeRoy Gishi, Chief, Division of Transportation, Bureau of Indian Affairs, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, DC John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC David T. Matsuda, Deputy Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT Victor M. Mendez, Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, DC Robert J. Papp (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Department of Homeland Security, Washington, DC Cynthia L. Quarterman, Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Peter M. Rogoff, Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT David L. Strickland, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT Joseph C. Szabo, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S.DOT Polly Trottenberg, Assistant Secretary for Transportation Policy, U.S.DOT Robert L. Van Antwerp (Lt. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, DC *Membership as of July 2010.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 662 Accelerating Transportation Project and Program Delivery: Conception to Completion Dennis Keck Hina Patel Anthony J. Scolaro JACOBS ENGINEERING GROUP INC. Morristown, NJ Arnold Bloch Christopher Ryan HOWARD/STEIN-HUDSON ASSOCIATES, INC. New York, NY Subscriber Categories Highways Administration and Management Research sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2010 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY NCHRP REPORT 662 RESEARCH PROGRAM Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Project 20-73 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway ISSN 0077-5614 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISBN 978-0-309-15490-1 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually Library of Congress Control Number 2010932218 or in cooperation with their state universities and others. However, the 2010 National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved. accelerating growth of highway transportation develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of COPYRIGHT INFORMATION cooperative research. Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials published or copyrighted material used herein. initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research program Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this employing modern scientific techniques. This program is supported on publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, FHWA, a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a particular product, Association and it receives the full cooperation and support of the method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the material in this document for Federal Highway Administration, United States Department of educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission Transportation. from CRP. The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies was requested by the Association to administer the research program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and understanding of NOTICE modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program, conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the approval of authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it the Governing Board of the National Research Council. possesses avenues of communications and cooperation with federal, The members of the technical panel selected to monitor this project and to review this state and local governmental agencies, universities, and industry; its report were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. relationship to the National Research Council is an insurance of The report was reviewed by the technical panel and accepted for publication according to procedures established and overseen by the Transportation Research Board and approved objectivity; it maintains a full-time research correlation staff of by the Governing Board of the National Research Council. specialists in highway transportation matters to bring the findings of The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in this report are those of the research directly to those who are in a position to use them. researchers who performed the research and are not necessarily those of the Transportation The program is developed on the basis of research needs identified Research Board, the National Research Council, or the program sponsors. by chief administrators of the highway and transportation departments The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the National Research and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific areas of research Council, and the sponsors of the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do not needs to be included in the program are proposed to the National endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of the report. Research Council and the Board by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and qualified research agencies are selected from those that have submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office 500 Fifth Street, NW Washington, DC 20001 and can be ordered through the Internet at: http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS CRP STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 662 Christopher W. Jenks, Director, Cooperative Research Programs Crawford F. Jencks, Deputy Director, Cooperative Research Programs Andrew C. Lemer, Senior Program Officer Sheila A. Moore, Program Associate Eileen P. Delaney, Director of Publications Natalie Barnes, Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-73 PANEL Field of Special Projects Debra R. Brisk, Kimley-Horn & Associates, Inc., Minneapolis, MN (Chair) David L. Boswell, Texas DOT, Austin, TX Lisa B. Choplin, Maryland State Highway Administration, Baltimore, MD Charles C. Fielder, California DOT, Eureka, CA C. K. Leuderalbert, Tallahassee, FL Norman H. Roush, URS Corporation, Scott Depot, WV Jeffrey S. Russell, University of WisconsinMadison, Madison, WI Robert J. Samour, Arizona DOT, Phoenix, AZ Rick Smith, Washington State DOT, Seattle, WA Joyce N. Taylor, Maine DOT, Augusta, ME Keith Moore, FHWA Liaison Christopher J. Schneider, FHWA Liaison James T. McDonnell, AASHTO Liaison Frederick Hejl, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The research reported herein was performed under NCHRP Project 20-73 by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc. (Jacobs), Howard/Stein-Hudson Associates, Inc. (HSH), and the Virginia Tech Transportation Institute of the Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University (VTTI). Jacobs (formerly Edwards and Kelcey, Inc.) was the contractor for this study, with HSH and VTTI serving as consultants. Dennis Keck, PE, PP, Director of Project Development at Jacobs, was the Project Director and Principal Researcher. The other authors of this report are Hina Patel, PMP, Senior Designer at Jacobs and co- Principal Researcher; Anthony J. Scolaro, AICP, PP, Principal Planner at Jacobs; Arnold J. Bloch, Princi- pal at HSH and co-Principal Researcher; Christopher Ryan, Principal, Public Involvement and Strategic Planning at HSH and co-Principal Researcher; and Veronica Bailey-Simmons, Melissa Budsock, Max Talbot-Minkin, and Ryan Walsh, all of HSH. VTTI personnel conducted the literature search under the direction of Dr. Ray D. Pethtel. The work was done under the general supervision of Mr. Keck at Jacobs.

OCR for page R1
FOREWORD By Andrew C. Lemer Staff Officer Transportation Research Board NCHRP Report 662 describes how selected transportation agencies have reduced the time required to complete the project delivery process. This process takes new or renewed trans- portation facilities and services from conception to completion, ready for users. Project delivery is a primary indicator of an agency's effectiveness. Individual highway and other transportation projects are developed under programs intended to implement agency and legislative initiatives and other public policy. The way programs are organized and managed can determine the speed and efficiency of project development. Accelerating program func- tions can speed up project delivery. This report describes the experiences of eight state departments of transportation (DOTs) that made improvements in their project delivery and the lessons to be learned from their experiences. The information will be useful to DOT managers seeking to ensure that their agencies' organization, policies, and program opera- tions facilitate project delivery. Transportation agencies seek continually to improve their managerial, organizational, and operational effectiveness and project delivery--the process that takes new or renewed transportation facilities and services from conception to completion--is a primary indica- tor of an agency's performance. Individual highway and other transportation projects are developed under programs intended to implement agency and legislative initiatives and other public policy. The way programs are organized and managed influence the speed and efficiency of project development. Improving efficiency in program functions can speed up project delivery. The delivery process includes planning, programming, design, construction, and related activities. Accelerating delivery entails addressing environmental review issues in a timely manner, acquiring rights-of-way from multiple property owners, developing context- sensitive solutions in design, securing approvals from myriad government agencies, under- standing and addressing various community concerns, assuring that project development resources are available when needed, and identifying and reducing impediments to decision making. It is not unusual for major projects to take five to seven years in the development phases and then three to four years more in construction; projects take far longer when sig- nificant community, environmental, or property acquisition issues must be resolved. Slow project delivery increases congestion and project expenses, adversely affects safety, imposes social costs, and impedes economic development. Much research on accelerating delivery has focused on tools and business practices that can speed the completion of particular phases of the project delivery process. Few studies have addressed the subject of acceleration from a holistic perspective, looking at the agency and program context and full delivery process from initial conception to completion of con-

OCR for page R1
struction. Most agencies have been organized to manage the sequential phases of project delivery individually, without consideration of the overall process. Project development for these agencies entails a series of formal hand-offs between organizational units, with each unit responsible only for its own phase. Delays that arise, however, often are a result of factors that influence several project deliv- ery phases, such as an agency's internal management procedures, legal requirements, and funding uncertainties. In addition, delays are an outgrowth of the way programs are struc- tured and administered. Making changes to expedite completion of each individual phase may improve project delivery, but opportunities to make improvements through better organization and management of the delivery process overall are lost. This report is the product of NCHRP Project 20-73, intended to describe these opportu- nities to improve the overall delivery process and how DOTs and other agencies may take advantage of them. The research provides examples and guidance regarding best practices for accelerating program and project delivery while maintaining quality. A team led by Jacobs Engineering Group Inc., Morristown, NJ, conducted this research. While the project entailed a comprehensive literature review and generic assessment of fac- tors contributing to delays in project delivery, an in-depth review of how eight DOTs achieved noteworthy improvements in their project delivery performance is the core of the work. The research team reviewed agency documents and conducted interviews with key personnel in each agency. The case studies reveal common themes, including factors con- tributing to success; impediments, advantages, and disadvantages of acceleration strategies, techniques, and practices; and organizational and process issues affecting delivery.

OCR for page R1
CONTENTS 1 Summary 4 Chapter 1 Introduction and Background 4 Introduction 5 Background 8 Chapter 2 Literature Review 8 Overview 9 Defining Project and Program 10 Motivational Factors 12 Chapter 3 Research Findings 12 Organizational Structure 13 Project Prioritization and Selection 13 Funding 13 Performance Measures 14 Scoping and Community Involvement 14 Property Impacts 15 Environmental Concerns 15 Final Design and Construction 16 Chapter 4 Accelerating Program and Project Delivery 16 Constraints to Accelerated Delivery 18 Shifts in DOT Cultures--The Intellectual Revolution 19 Trends and Challenges 30 Chapter 5 Best Practices--Case Study Reports 30 California: Performance-Based, Outcome-Driven Results for Program Delivery 38 Maine: A Bridge Program with Accountable Teamwork and Leadership 42 Maryland: Performance Measures for Program Delivery 50 Missouri: A Practical Program of Setting and Meeting High-Performance Expectations 60 New Jersey: Pipelines to Project Delivery 69 North Carolina: Realigning for the 21st Century and Beyond 77 Texas: Evergreen Contracts for Efficiency in Project Delivery 81 Utah: Construction ManagerGeneral Contractor 87 Chapter 6 Implementation and Suggested Research 87 Implementation 87 Suggested Research 89 Chapter 7 Conclusions 91 References