MassDOT
Preliminary Capital Investment Plan
FY 2017 – FY 2021
Massachusetts Department of Transportation
Fiscal and Management Control Board
January 20, 2016
Preliminary and Confidential for Policy Discussion Only
1
Agenda
• Progress on Capital Investment Plan (CIP) Development
• Funding Sources and Existing Commitments
• Portfolio Development and Strategies
• Next Steps
2
Progress on CIP Development
3
CIP Process
#
Establish PSAC
criteria and
scoring
Establish CIP
Approach
Compile
project
universe
Divisions
Score projects
Set division
priorities
Optimize
Portfolio/
Board Input
Prep for
A&F
Final CIP
for Board
Present
to Board
Process
Look back
Iterate
Feb 10
Final for Board /
Public Outreach
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only; subject to change.
4
Project Universe Breakdown
Modernization / Capacity
# Projects
Highway
MBTA
Rail
Transit
IT
Aero
RMV
167
76
7
78
10
41
3
486
45
46
275
18
75
25
Other1
Total
382
Underway
6
976
Design
1262
1
24
93
3
▪
1378
44
Proposed
▪
539
147
12
117
1
14
830
688
217
113
281
15
28
1342
330
3
37
2
24
378
3472
488
877
49
191
Underway
SGR
Projects
eligible for
scoring
using PSAC
criteria
976 projects
across
divisions were
eligible to be
scored2
Some of those
projects will
only be partially
scored based
on the available
information
Design
Proposed
198
28
6
5242
Total
1 Includes Office of Planning and Enterprise Services
2 Due to time constraints and available information, only selected projects (under Modernization/Capacity) were scored; SGR was excluded.
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only; subject to change.
Public Input
• Over 500 people attended the 16 public meetings held by MassDOT
• Employed a more interactive approach to the meetings
• Received over 1,300 comments using a new online tool
• Using the tool is allowing staff to analyze responses in a more
dynamic way
• Feedback received spans the entire Commonwealth and all modes
6
Funding Sources and Existing
Commitments
7
Historical Capital Spending (MassDOT and MBTA)
MBTA & MassDOT
$3,500,000,000
Actuals
FY 2016
Budget
$3,000,000,000
$2,500,000,000
$2,000,000,000
$1,500,000,000
$1,000,000,000
$500,000,000
$-
2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016
MBTA
$558 $407 $499 $378 $397 $408 $493 $631 $781 $1,04
MassDOT $1,1 $1,1 $1,3 $1,5 $1,4 $1,6 $1,5 $1,7 $2,0 $2,19
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only
FY 2017 – FY 2021 Transportation Funding Sources
MassDOT
(FY 17-21)
$11.2 billion
MassDOT
$9.8 billion
MBTA
(FY 17-21)
$6.0 billion
Rail
Enhancement
Bonds
$1.4 billion
MBTA
$4.6 billion
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only; subject to change.
MassDOT Capital Sources ($ millions)* (FY 2017 – FY 2021)
Known Sources
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Total
Bond Cap**
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
750.0
3,750.0
Federal Highway (new)
Federal Highway (Grant
Anticipation Notes)
627.6
641.2
655.7
671.4
671.4
3,267.3
(142.1)
(69.8)
(40.8)
(6.7)
Federal Highway (existing)
522.4
239.4
78.9
29.3
Accelerated Bridge Program**
Metropolitan Highway System
Revenues****
Western Turnpike (WT)
Revenues****
205.2
85.9
49.9
8.3
77.9
77.2
76.95
75.95
76.1
384.0
85.3
101.1
100.4
99.8
99.9
486.5
48.1
48.2
48.5
48.4
48.5
241.8
2,174.2
1,873.1
1,719.7
1,676.6
1,674.8
9,118.4
81.1
77.6
92.6
78.2
24.0
353.0
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
6.6
33.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
60.0
300.0
2,321.9
2,017.3
3,760.0
1,821.4
1,765.4
9,804.8
Tobin Revenues
Subtotal Known Sources
(259.4)
28.8
898.9
349.3
Estimated Sources
Central Artery Trust Funds#
Third Party Funds*
Competitive Federal Grants*
Total Sources*
*Totals may not add due to rounding. Based on past experience. ** Preliminary assumption for planning to be confirmed
by A&F. ***REP bond funds paid to MBTA for capacity-related projects. ****Includes Toll Reserves. WT bonds are fully
paid in 2017 generating an increase in revenues available for capital projects for FY 2018 and beyond. Assumes WT
tolls remain in place.# Subject to FHWA approval.
Preliminary draft estimates for policy discussion only; subject to change.
MBTA Capital Sources* ($ millions) (FY 2017 – FY 2021)
Known Sources
(FAST Act
authorizations)Federal
Transit
Federal Transit (existing
grants)
FY2017
FY2018
FY2019
FY2020
FY2021
Total
$281
$286
$291
$296
$296
$1,449
$666
$446
$203
$43
$31
$1,389
Revenue Bonds
$284
$168
$106
$69
$132
$759
GLX Full Funding Grant Agr.
$150
$150
$150
$150
$150
$750
Rail Enhancement Bonds
$430
$368
$261
$150
$173
$1,382
Subtotal Known Sources
$1,811
$1,418
$1,011
$708
$782
$5,730
Estimated Sources
TIFIA & RIIF (Assumed for
Positive Train Control)
$53
$53
$53
$53
$53
$263
Public Private Partnerships
?
?
?
?
?
?
Competitive Federal Grants
?
?
?
?
?
?
$1,864
$1,470
$1,063
$761
$835
$5,993
Total Sources*
*Totals may not add due to rounding. Amounts are based on current project budget and schedules as of the date of this power point and will
change as additional reviews and adjustments to budgets, schedules and cash flows occur. Actual amounts available for new projects and
programs is much lower as commitments against these funds have been obligated through past CIPs and the federal State Transportation
Improvement Plan.
Preliminary draft estimates for policy discussion only; subject to change
Portfolio Development and Strategies
12
CIP past, current, and ideal processes
Due to time and other constraints, the current FY17 process for CIP portfolio generation is a
transitional approach between past and ideal states
How do we set a
strategic
direction for the
CIP?
Where do
projects in the
CIP come from?
How do we pick
the best projects?
How are MBTA
and DOT CIPs
related?
Past process
Current process
Ideal process

Project list rather than
strategic portfolio

Portfolio to be
informed by
strategic priorities

Portfolio guided by
strategic objectives

Project universe
largely comprised of
projects that have
been advocated for
(either internally or
externally)

Project universe
includes all potential
projects, proactively
gathered from bond
bill, capital
conversations, and
other sources

Project universe
includes all potential
projects, proactively
gathered from bond
bill, capital
conversations, and
other sources

Selection of individual
projects to fund
based on vetted
staff opinion

Selection of individual
projects based on
scores and portfolio
fit as well as staff
opinion

Selection of individual
projects based on
scores and portfolio
fit with staff input

Separate processes
across MBTA and
DOT

Parallel and linked
processes covering
both MBTA and DOT

One process
including both MBTA
and DOT
13
What is a Portfolio Driven Approach?
Projects-first approach
▪ MassDOT and its Boards pick projects,
according to available sources of funding
▪ The final CIP is a list of projects with
projected costs, organized by Division
Portfolio-driven approach
▪ Strategic investment priorities are
articulated by MassDOT and the MBTA
through the Boards
▪ These priorities are weighted and
balanced in different investment
portfolios
▪ MassDOT and its Boards pick a portfolio
which best meets the strategic priorities
while providing balance across modes
and geographies
▪ Projects are mapped to specific priorities
and ranked according to PSAC and/or
other Division criteria
▪ The final CIP presents a portfolio with a
set of strategic investment priorities,
including a list of projects which can best
meet those priorities and their projected
costs
14
Portfolio Optimization: Strategy/Options
Funding could be concentrated on a few priorities or balanced
across several
Methods
Concentrated
vs
Description
Talking point
▪ Concentrate the dollars
▪ High perfor- ▪ Focuses the
for exceptionally strong
performance on a narrow
set of priorities
mance on
the highest
priorities
▪ Spread the dollars for all- ▪ All-round
round average
performance on a wide
set of performance targets
performance
Pros
organization on
doing a few things
very well
ILLUSTRATIVE
Cons
▪ Underfunds some
priorities
▪ Satisfies the many ▪ Feels least like
massDOT
stakeholders /
public mission
change
Balanced
Draft for Policy Discussion Only
15
Portfolio Optimization: Example CIP Scenarios
ILLUSTRATIVE
A
Targets would be
set based on…
Capital would be allocated to
asset categories based on…
Keeping all assets
performing at their
current levels
Today’s performance
Dollars needed to hit performance
targets according to PfP
Highest score according to
PSAC or Division asset
management databases
A heavy focus on
preservation and
modernization
Spending x% of
funding to reduce
asset management
backlog
Highest return on performance
asset management categories
according to PfP
Highest score as determined by
Division asset management
databases
Remaining x% to highest return on
performance Capacity and
Modernization asset categories
Highest PSAC score
B
C
D
Projects within asset
categories would be
prioritized based on…
If massDOT built
its CIP based on…
Fund key MBTA
projects first
High-profile needs
identified by MBTA
Dollars needed to fulfill MBTA
needs -AND- any few remaining
dollars go towards maintaining
current performance
Highest score according to
PSAC or Division asset
management databases
Concentrating
dollars on top
priorities by
Division
High performance for
top 1-3 priorities by
Division
Dollars needed to hit performance
targets according to PfP
Highest score according to
PSAC or Division databases
If excess
funds
Spread around lower
priorities
-ORAllocate to asset
categories with worst
current performance
Highest score according to
PSAC or Division asset
management databases
These options represent theoretical scenarios the Board could choose. They are offered here
as a discussion-starter to illustrate how strategies are translated into constructing a portfolio
Example Portfolio Scenarios vs. Spending
Different portfolio scenarios have significantly different spending profiles
ILLUSTRATIVE
by category and Division
Capital spend by CIP category
Capital spend by Division3
% of portfolio
% of portfolio
Other
DOT-wide
Other
IT
RMV
Capacity
Aeronautics
Transit
Modernization
Rail
MBTA
SGR
Highway
Portfolio2
Current asset
condition
Fix and
modernize
MBTA
megaprojects
first1
A
B
C
Portfolio
Current asset
condition
Fix and
modernize
MBTA
megaprojects
first
A
B
C
1 PTC, GLX, and Red/Orange line cars ; 2 Portfolio D not yet modeled; 3 Assumes project delivery of planned annual spending
can be achieved by the Divisions.
These options represent theoretical scenarios the Board could choose. They are offered here
as a discussion-starter to illustrate how strategies are translated into constructing a portfolio
17
Potential MassDOT/MBTA Priorities
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only; subject to change.
18
CIP Proposed Schedule
Jan. 11/FMCB
• Update on and Status of CIP Development
Jan. 14/CPC
• Update on and Status of CIP
Jan. 20/Joint MassDOT +
FMCB
• Update on Draft CIP
• Public Outreach Process
• Modal overview (FMCB)
Feb. 1/FMCB
Feb. 2/CPC
•
•
•
•
Feb. 10/Joint MassDOT +
FMCB
• Preliminary Draft Document
• Maps of spending across the Commonwealth
Capital Funding
Refinement of Project Categorizations
Updated on Public Outreach
Preliminary Discussion of Major Investments and
Uses
Tentative Deliverables based on
previous meeting outcomes and A&F
Draft for Policy Discussion Only
19
Next Steps
• Continue to refine the project universe (underway vs. programmable)
• Finalize analysis of PSAC scores by Division
• Discuss portfolio options/scenarios at upcoming meetings of the
MassDOT Board and FMCB
• Present draft Capital Investment Plan to joint meeting of MassDOT
Board and FMCB
20
Appendix
• Project Selection Advisory Council Scoring
• Project Universe
• Federal Funds
• Portfolio Development
• Capital Conversations Feedback
21
Project Selection Advisory Council Scoring
•
Divisions cross-walked existing criteria
with those recommended by the Project
Selection Advisory Council
•
The metrics for criteria that matched were
not changed.
•
Metrics were developed for those that did
not match
22
Project Universe
Project group
Needs SGR
score?
Definition
Needs capacity /
modernization score?
▪ Either NTP has been issued,
Underway
procurement has begun, or construction
is underway
▪ Design is underway, scope is
Late
design
Design
known, and PSAC score is
completed, but not yet in
procurement
▪ Preliminary design is done,
Early
design1
but sufficient data not
available to complete PSAC
score for current CIP
Score where
sufficient data exists
▪ Insufficient data to meaningfully score
Proposed
project; in “idea” phase without further
specificity
Preliminary draft for policy discussion only; subject to change.
23
MassDOT Federal Funds* – Fast Act Reauthorization ($000’s)
Federal Funds
Category
National Highway
Performance Program
Surface Transportation
Block Grants
Surface Transportation
Block Grants Set Aside
Highway Safety
Improve. Program
Railway- Hwy
Crossings
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
FY 17-21
Total
326,533
333,780
340,126
347,184
354,422
354,422
1,729,934
152,064
155,923
159,306
162,366
166,212
166,212
810,019
10,753
10,753
10,968
10,968
10,968
10,968
54,624
33,358
34,100
34,742
35,372
36,090
36,090
176,393
2,473
2,528
2,583
2,638
2,693
2,693
13,135
63,175
64,577
65,805
67,009
68,370
68,370
334,130
8,952
9,133
9,325
9,525
9,747
9,747
47,477
17,570
16,806
18,334
20,625
22,917
22,917
101,599
Total MassDOT
STBGP Set Asides:
Recreational Trails
(DCR)
614,878
627,599
641,188
655,687
671,419
671,419
3,267,311
1,187
1,187
1,187
1,187
1,187
1,187
5,935
Total Federal Funds
616,064
628,786
642,375
656,874
672,605
672,605
3,273,246
CMAQ
Metropolitan Planning
National Freight
Program
*Reflects annual apportionment amounts for MassDOT not cash flow or reimbursements.
24
MBTA Federal Funds* – Fast Act Reauthorization ($000’s)
Federal Funds
Category
2016
Sections 5307/5340
135,967
138,100
140,202
142,183
144,558
144,558
709,601
Section 5337
135,702
138,011
140,395
142,812
145,272
145,272
711,762
5,329
5,438
5,556
5,676
5,799
5,799
28,269
276,998
281,550
286,153
290,672
295,629
295,629
1,449,632
Section 5339
Total Federal Funds
for MBTA
2017
2018
2019
2020
2021
*Reflects annual apportionment amounts for MBTA not cash flow or
reimbursements.
FY 17-21
Total
25
Portfolio Development
Term
Portfolio
Definition
Examples
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
Portfolio
Elements
▪
▪
The whole set of projects that gets funded in the CIP
Slices of the overall project portfolio that relate to
PSAC scoring categories
These are still being finalized with Secretary/Board
input
Division Priorities are used to articulate the outcomes
a Division is driving towards
Division
priorities
▪
▪
An item measured in the PfP tool
Asset category
Performance
target
▪
▪
▪
▪
▪
A goal or desired outcome for an asset category in
PfP tool
▪
2017 finalized CIP
2017 draft CIP
SGR: Highway
SGR: MBTA
SGR: Rail & Transit
Modernization: Safety
Capacity: Expansion
“Maintain Highway assets at
70% SGR or better”
“Ensure residents below the
poverty line have transit
access equal to others”
Number of bridges structurally
deficient
MBTA peak hour carrying
capacity
No more than 10% of bridges
should be structurally deficient
Not a spending target
26
Capital Conversations Feedback
Add bicycle/pedestrian infrastructure that promotes statewide
connectivity and closes gaps to transit hubs.
Add safe bicycle infrastructure that adds mobility options in areas of
limited transit service.
Existing roadway congestion compromises bus transit reliability.
Expand use of real time travel information should as it reduces
customers’ travel anxiety.
Prioritize roadway maintenance, focusing on low cost solutions (e.g. line
striping and highway lighting upkeep).
Investigate options to expand intrastate and interstate passenger rail
connections.
27
Capital Conversations Feedback
Recognize and incorporate commuter rail system’s connection to more
affordable housing in the Boston metro region into commuter rail
decision-making.
Consider bus infrastructure solutions (e.g. dedicated bus lanes) that
address issues of travel time reliability on bus routes.
Address growing concerns for access to mobility for our aging
communities, most notably in Central and Western Massachusetts.
Prioritize maintenance of rapid transit signals, stations, tracks and
vehicles.
28