This appendix contains a list of the major projects included in FHWA's Active Project Status Report as of February 21, 2017. These projects use federal funding and have a capital cost of $500 million or higher. These are the projects that would be included in the Online Information Source for Major Transportation Projects.
| AL | Birmingham Northern Beltline |
| CBD I-59 / I-20 Bridge Replacement | |
| AK | Knik Arm Crossing |
| AZ | SR 202L South Mountain Freeway |
| State Route 303: I-10 to US-60 | |
| CA | BART Seismic Retrofit System Wide |
| Centennial Corridor Project | |
| Doyle Drive / Presidio Parkway Project | |
| Gerald Desmond Bridge Replacement | |
| I-405 Sepulveda Pass Widening and High Occupancy Vehicle Improvement | |
| I-405: SR-73 to I-605 | |
| I-5 HOV North (SR-134 to SR-118) | |
| I-5 North Coast Corridor Project, San Diego County | |
| I-5 South Los Angeles County Widening Project | |
| I-80 / I-680 /SR-12 Interchange | |
| I-80/ San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge (East Span) | |
| I-805 Managed Lanes North Project | |
| Marin-Sonoma Narrows | |
| New Route CETAP Mid-County Parkway (MPC) Corridor | |
| SR-11 and Otay Mesa "East" Port of Entry | |
| SR-4 (East) Widening Project | |
| SR-46 Corridor Improvement Project | |
| SR-905 from I-805 to Otay Mesa Port of Entry | |
| SR-91 Corridor Improvement Project /HJOT Lanes Initial Project) | |
| CO | I-70 East |
| North I-25 ROD1, ROD2 and ROD3 | |
| CT | I-95 / New Haven Harbor Crossing |
| DE | US 301 Project, DE/MD Line to SR1 |
| DC | South Capitol Street Corridor Project |
| FL | I-395 Reconstruction |
| I-4 Ultimate W/ Managed (Tolled) Lanes (Moving-4-Ward) | |
| I-75/SR826 Managed Lanes | |
| I-95 Express (Phase 3) | |
| Miami Intermodal Center | |
| Pinellas County Gateway Expressway Project | |
| SR 249 - Wekiva Parkway | |
| Three Mile Pensacola Bay Bridge | |
| GA | I-285/GA 400 Interchange Project |
| Northwest Corridor Project (I-75-I-575) | |
| IL | Circle Interchange |
| Elgin-O'Hare Western Access | |
| O'Hare Con-RAC | |
| IN | US 31 Hamilton County |
| IA | Council Bluffs Interstate System Improvements, Segments 1, 2 and 3 |
| I-74 Quad Cities Corridor Study | |
| KY | Louisville Southern Indiana Ohio River Bridges Project |
| US 68/KY80, Lane Between the Lakes, West of Cadiz, KY | |
| MD | I-81 Improvement Project |
| MI | I-75 |
| I-94/Edsel Ford Freeway | |
| MN | St. Croix River Crossing |
| MS | I-269 Corridor |
| NV | I-15 South |
| I-15/Project NEON | |
| NH | I-93 Reconstruction |
| NJ | Rt. I-295 & 42/I-76 Direct Connection |
| NY | Brooklyn Bridge Contract 6 |
| Goethals Bridge Replacement | |
| Kosciuszko Bridge Replacement, I-278 over Newtown Creek | |
| Route 347 | |
| Tappan Zee Hudson River Crossing / New NY Bridge Project | |
| Willis Avenue Bridge | |
| NC | I-77 Express Lanes from Exit 11 (I-277 Brookshire Freeway) to Exit 36 (NC 150) |
| Monroe Expressway | |
| OH | Brent Spence Bridge Corridor Project |
| Cleveland Innerbelt | |
| I-70/71 Columbus Crossroads -- Phases 1-6 | |
| I-75 (HAM-75-2.30), City of Cincinnati (Mill Creek Expressway) | |
| Portsmouth Bypass | |
| OK | I-40 Crosstown |
| PA | Central Susquehanna Valley Transportation (CSVT) |
| Commonwealth of PA Rapid Bridge Replacement Project | |
| I-95 Betsy Ross Interchange and Bridge Street Ramps Reconstruction | |
| TX | Bergstrom Expressway - US 183 from US 290 to SH 71 |
| DFW Connector | |
| IH 35 (From IH37 to Schertz Parkway) | |
| IH 35E Managed Lanes (Dallas and Denton) | |
| Loop 12 / Interstate Highway 35E Corridor | |
| Midtown Express (SH 183 Managed Lanes Project) | |
| North Tarrant Express 3A & 3B (NTE 3A & 3B) | |
| Project Horseshoe IH-30/IH-35E | |
| SH 288 | |
| SH 99 Grand Parkway, Segment H and I-1 | |
| SH 99, The Grand Parkway (Segments F-1, F-2 and G) | |
| Southern Gateway Managed Lanes Project | |
| Trinity Parkway (from IH 35E/SH 83 to US 175/SH 310) | |
| U.S. 181 Harbor Bride Project | |
| US 281 HOV expansion project | |
| US 290 | |
| VA | I-95 HOV/HOT Lanes, Northern Segment |
| Midtown tunnel/Downtown Tunnel/Martin Luther King Extension Project | |
| Thimble Shoal Parallel Tunnel Project | |
| Transform 66, Outside the Beltway | |
| WA | SR 520 - Pontoon Construction Project |
| SR 520, I-5 to Medina: Bridge Replacement and HOV Project - Floating Bridge and Landings Stage | |
| SR 520, Medina to SR 202: Eastside Transit and HOV Project | |
| SR 99: Alaskan Way Viaduct Replacement Project | |
| WV | WV Corridor H - Section 2, Kerens to Parsons Project |
| WI | I-39/90 |
| I-41 Reconstruction | |
| I-43 North-South (Silver Spring Drive - Wis 60) | |
| I-94 North-South | |
| Tri-County Freeway, USH 10/441 | |
| Zoo Interchange (I-94/I-894/US-45) |
| CA | Alameda Corridor |
| I-15 Managed Lanes, SR-163 to SR-78 | |
| I-215 San Bernardino North Corridor Project (from I-10 to I-210) | |
| SR-52 Extension | |
| CO | I-25/I-225 Southeast Corridor (T-REX) |
| FL | (iROX) I-75 from GG Parkway to SR-80, D/B/Finance |
| Connector - I-4 to Lee Roy Selmon Expressway | |
| I-595 Corridor Improvements | |
| Port of Miami Tunnel & Access Improvements (POMT) | |
| SR826/SR836 Interchange Reconstruction (Palmetto 5) | |
| Tampa Interstate System (TIS) | |
| IN | I-465 Est Leg Reconstruction (Accelerate 456) |
| I-69 SIU 3 Section 4 | |
| LA | I-10 Twin Span Structures |
| MD | Intercounty Connector |
| MA | Central Artery/ Ted Williams Tunnel |
| MN | I-35W St. Anthony Falls Bridge |
| MO | I-64 from Spoede Rd. to Sarah Street |
| New Mississippi River Bridge | |
| NC | Triangle Expressway, Western Wake Freeway |
| TX | Central Texas Turnpike |
| Eastern Extension of the President George Bush Turnpike (SH 190) | |
| Katy Freeway Reconstruction | |
| IH 695 Managed Lanes | |
| North Tarrant Express 3A & 3B (NTE 3A & 3B) | |
| SH 130 Segments 5 & 6 | |
| SH 161 - President George Bush Turnpike Western Extension | |
| Southwest Parkway (SH 121) - Chisolm Trail | |
| UT | I-15 Corridor, Salt Lake County |
| VA | Capital Beltway High Occupancy Toll (HOT) Lanes |
| I-95/I-395/I-495 Springfield Interchange | |
| I-95/Woodrow Wilson Bridge | |
| WI | I-43/I-94/I794 Marquette Interchange |
There is increasing interest across the United States in bringing greater efficiency to the construction and operation of public transportation infrastructure. One set of strategies that has been advanced is to use public-private partnership (P3) concessions to implement and operate large and complex surface transportation improvements. Under the P3 concession approach, a private sector developer/investor raises the necessary financing to fund up-front capital construction costs by leveraging project revenues. These revenues are typically either in the form of user charges or periodic availability payments made by the public sector project sponsor, or some combination of the two. The private partner is responsible for designing and constructing the project, and then operating and/or maintaining it for a designated concession period in exchange for the right to receive the revenue during that time, either in user fees or payments from the project sponsor.
The potential benefits and limitations of using the P3 concession approach are widely cited; however, few data are available to corroborate these claims. The wide variety of specific conditions under which the P3 procurements are negotiated and operated have made comparisons between various types of P3 projects and conventional project delivery difficult to generalize. Study of the features of various P3 procurements could shed light on both their strengths and weaknesses. This information could form the basis for substantiated conclusions about the comparative advantage of different procurement strategies in installing and operating transportation infrastructure under different conditions.
Tier 2 of the Information Source is intended to fill that information void. Such a repository could provide source material that could improve the understanding by interested stakeholders in the collective experience with these approaches.
This Appendix provides further details to supplement Chapter 3, and in particular includes data elements proposed to be included in a Tier 2 database providing information on the financial and performance characteristics of P3 and non-P3 projects. The secondary audience for the information source (and the main audience for Tier 2 information) is expected to include researchers and transportation policy analysts who study alternative delivery methods and project performance. Private sector P3 developers and design-builders may also benefit from being able to evaluate other projects and gain contextual understanding of the issues that public agencies are interested in tracking. The Tier 2 information could also be useful to other transportation stakeholders with an interest in P3 and alternative project delivery methods. The information source is expected to provide quantifiable information on project outcomes for select projects for which more detailed data is available, allowing policy analysts and researchers to assess whether P3 projects delivered benefits and efficiencies compared to non-P3 projects for those specific projects and, if so, under what conditions.
The recommended data elements under this category are primarily identifiers and descriptors that serve to define individual projects within the database. The proposed data elements describe the project name, project type, geographic location and functional class, project length, cost and delivery method. However, some data elements have direct influence on the project outcomes, and thus, serve a purpose beyond providing descriptions. For instance, attributes such as the project type (e.g., greenfield vs brownfield) or toll status (e.g., fixed vs variable), are likely to have different cost outcomes and risk profiles.
The proposed data elements to describe the project information are listed in Chapter 3.
These data elements would be available at the same level of detail for both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 of the information source.
It should be noted that a project might be procured under multiple contracts using different procurement types. If this is the case, the online information source should have the flexibility to assess each contract or procurement type individually, as well as the capability to aggregate information on individual contracts to provide information on the entire project. There are challenges associated with accomplishing this.
The primary sources of data include the FHWA Center for Innovative Finance Support website and project websites maintained by project sponsors. These websites include key project information, location and project limits, purpose and need of the project, procurement information, and schematics of the project concept. The FHWA Center for Innovative Finance Support website maintains project profiles that include key information, such as project description, cost, funding structure, and project delivery method, for each P3 project. The Center's Reports on P3 projects also supplement the information available on individual project profile websites. If additional information is necessary to allow quantification of project footprints and components, it could be obtained from project sponsors or design documents.
Another notable source of project-specific information is the FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) database. HPMS provides inventory information in greater detail for all public roads that are eligible for Federal-aid highway funds, albeit at different degrees for roadways categorized under National Highway System (NHS) vs. non-National Highway System facilities. The HPMS provides project-specific information that includes, but is not limited to, the route number, functional class, speed limit, number of lanes, traffic volume, percent trucks, toll status, etc. No potential challenges are expected in gathering the proposed data elements. Information from such databases would need to be reviewed to determine if the information is structured in such a way that it could be quantified within a project's limits.
For projects financed with tax-exempt debt, the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website is an additional information source. The EMMA website contains continuing disclosure reports and regular updates from bond issuers providing a wealth of information.
The recommended set of data elements captures the key provisions of the State's P3 legislation to supplement the project description information. As of January 1, 2016, thirty-three states as well as the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico have enacted P3 legislation with full or limited authority. Forty-eight states - all but Iowa and Oklahoma - have passed enabling legislation allowing design-build procurements. Many key provisions of the P3 or design-build legislation, including the authorization, time limits, governance, financing and proposal administration, vary from state to state, as the legislation of each state is tailored to reflect the specific objectives of the state. P3 authorization legislation may provide blanket authority to implement P3s, authority for a limited group of pilot projects, or project specific approval.
Given that P3 legislation varies from state by state, the data structure should be flexible, and to the extent possible avoid personal judgement, focusing instead on observable data. In addition, since legislative developments are often fluid, all information will need to be date stamped in order for information source users to determine what authorities were in place at the time different project development decision were made. Key provisions in P3 authorization legislation reflect the political and regulatory environment and the fiscal policies under which the P3 projects are conceived, procured and executed. Capturing the key legislative provisions at the time that projects were procured is essential in order for information source users to be able to make meaningful comparison of P3 and non-P3 project outcomes across states.
The proposed data elements that capture the key legislative provisions are included in Chapter 3.
These data elements would be available at the same level of detail for both Tier 1 and Tier 2. Note that the information should reflect the status of legislation at the time the decision was made with regard to project delivery method.
The primary source of data includes the project delivery/procurement websites of individual public agencies. However, the National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) reports serve as a single source to access this information with relative ease. The key NCSL reports include the following:
The proposed set of data elements captures the sponsoring agency's organizational capacity, past experience, advisory and analytical capabilities, as well as the key policies relating to project procurement. The primary intent of capturing this information is to supplement the legislative information to evaluate the maturity of the agency's procurement experience and practices. In addition, some of the proposed attributes may profoundly shape the bidders' perceptions of procurement risks, which are in turn reflected in their bid prices. This data table could also capture project objectives such as economic development or congestion relief. Information on policy goals and objectives could be programmatic applying to groups of projects developed by an individual project sponsor, or they may vary from project to project. The information source should make that distinction. The point is to capture data regarding policy goals and objectives. For example, was the intent of the owner to minimize toll rates, have maximum flexibility for future toll rates facility improvements, minimize upfront public subsidy/maximize project scope, minimize expected project costs, or involve local proposers, etc.
The proposed data elements, that could be at the same level of detail for both the Tier 1 and Tier 2 levels of the information source, are included in Chapter 3.
These metrics should be date-stamped so that users can track changes over time. Note that the initial information should reflect the status of agency policy and capacity at the time the decision was made with regard to project delivery method.
The FHWA Center for Innovative Finance Support tracks policy initiatives influencing highway development in all states and identifies them in its project profiles and other technical reports. This information could be supplemented from project sponsor websites, which could also serve as important information sources. These websites include key information on P3 statutes and rules, P3 manuals of instruction, a summary of past, current and future P3 projects, and the organizational structure. Furthermore, if needed, any missing information might be addressed through selective questionnaire interviews/information requests with the project sponsor, or possibly fieldwork.
The primary objective of the project development phase is to develop a preferable project concept with an appropriate level of design that is ready for procurement. The project concept establishes a baseline for proposers to build on. The level of detail of the designs prepared by project sponsors depends on the project delivery method. It is typically five to 30 percent for P3 and design-build projects and 100 percent for design-bid-build projects. The project development data included in the online information source is needed to establish a baseline for performance, cost, schedule and risk outcomes that will be compared to those of the final design and actual performance. For instance, this could include comparisons of the net benefits of the base concept with net benefits of the final design, for P3 and non-P3 projects. This would provide an indication of the level of value the private sector has introduced for P3 projects relative to non-P3 projects.
The project sponsor's preferred concept is typically selected from a set of reasonable alternatives using an alternatives analysis. Considering that P3 projects typically involve an environmental impact statement (EIS) or environmental assessment (EA), all reasonable alternatives, including the no-build option, are evaluated during the environmental review process. Much of this information is typically contained in EIS or EA reports. Technical reports, which are ancillary to EIS/ EA reports, also summarize the findings of special studies undertaken to assess existing operational and environmental conditions and potential future changes expected during and after project implementation. In addition, some states have additional environmental requirements that must be addressed.
The review of alternatives begins with the identification of the purpose and need for the project and a set of reasonable project alternatives. These are then assessed for cost, future traffic demand, existing and future operational conditions, engineering factors (primarily mobility and safety), and the analysis of environmental impacts. This process culminates in the selection of a preferred design concept that reflects the economic worth and the trade-offs between the different project benefits, costs and impacts. Project sponsors also often undertake financial feasibility analysis to assess available funding options and public investment needs.
Some of the most important issues arising during the project development stage include the quality of traffic forecasts at a given point in project development, project-specific environmental impacts, and agency-specific environmental requirements. Collectively, these factors have a profound influence on the project risk profile, innovation potential, and cost outcomes. These issues also shape the selection of the preferred alternative.
The identification of potential risks and risk mitigation strategies is another critical activity that typically occurs during the project development phase of major projects. The risk analysis records contain detailed information about the project risks, risk mitigation plans, and risk allocation strategies. This information is usually summarized in a risk register. While it would be ideal to capture all pertinent information from risk assessments in the online information source, key metrics would include risk-adjusted estimates of project costs and schedule. These provide an indication of the completeness of the agency's risk analysis exercise and the private sector's ability to reduce project cost and schedule risks further. This information would be helpful in validating the assumptions made in the Value for Money (VfM) analysis. Two key considerations when trying to obtain this information would include: Is this information documented and compiled such that it can be accessed, and would the owners of the information be willing to share it for inclusion in the information source?
Tier 1 data is discussed in Chapter 3. Data on the project development phase for the Tier 2 level of information would focus on the following considerations:
The project development data included in the online information source will include core metrics that will be necessary to establish a baseline against which later project outcomes could be compared. There is also additional information that it may be helpful to have in order to develop a more comprehensive understanding of project outcomes. If it is practicable to do so, this information should also be collected. However, if the level of effort to collect it is onerous, or if the data is unavailable or unreliable, a decision may be made not to pursue this information, or only include it when it can be easily obtained. When appropriate, the project development metrics should also be date stamped so that users can understand the sequence in which different analyses were made and how certain metrics may have changed and evolved over time.
A list of data elements to be included in Tier 1 are provided in Chapter 3. Tier 2 data are summarized below.
The primary sources of project-development information for Tier 2 include the following:
In addition, missing information could be supplemented through questionnaires, interviews, or specific information requests to project sponsors. While environmental review and technical reports contain a wealth of information relating to pre-bid project development, extracting this information with reasonable quality checks may be a laborious and resource-consuming exercise for project sponsors. Moreover, they may not prefer to reveal some sensitive information, such as those available in risk or financial analyses.
Standardizing the data on project development will likely be challenging, as different agencies may use a variety of reporting or analysis format. Standardizing the data would help to minimize the subjectivity of subsequent analyses performed by users.
Analysts could use project procurement data included in the online information source to evaluate and compare efficiency and effectiveness of the procurement of P3 and non-P3 projects. Process efficiency is a reflection of the maturity of a public agency's procurement practices, while the effectiveness is an indicator of the "value" that the agency locks in at the procurement stage. The efficiency of the procurement process is evaluated in terms of resource expenditure, including stipends paid to qualified proposers, and the duration of procurements.
The effectiveness of the procurement process may be assessed by comparing actual project costs and schedules with pre-bid estimates. Additional effectiveness parameters include market maturity, competitiveness and responsiveness, the level of pre-bid engagement between the project sponsor and proposers, private sector efficiency, value capture through alternative technical concepts, and the evolution of the project design concept over the procurement period.
Information would likely focus on data elements that are captured, derived and aggregated at the conclusion of the procurement process. Data elements that could be readily captured for the Tier 1 level are included in Chapter 3.
More detailed information for the Tier 2 level may include the following data elements:
As with other project phases, certain data metrics would be essential in tracking procurement issues, and are listed as Tier 1 data in Chapter 3. Other desirable procurement information could also be included in Tier 2 of the information source if it could be obtained without excessive effort.
Potential data sources include:
Some of the data elements, such as RFQ/RFP dates, number of submittals, evaluation criteria and scoring and award value, are readily available in the public domain on agency or project websites. Other items, such as stipends, the reasons for issuing RFP addenda and ATCs are typically available from sponsoring agencies in the form of proposer submittals, decision notifications and contract administration documents. It should be noted that the ATC related information is often redacted or requires further quantification and validation of the claims relating to cost, schedule and operational benefits.
While most of this information should be gathered with relative ease, there are potential challenges:
Analysts would use the project implementation data included in the online information source to evaluate how implementation is managed and to compare specific performance outcomes for P3 and non-P3 projects. The information gathering exercise could focus primarily on "quantifiable" performance outcomes of the design and construction tasks in terms of schedule, cost, quality, and work zone performance. In addition to these quantitative measures, qualitative factors that influence the outcomes of the implementation phase could be captured as well. These include the level of integration among project phases, the level of partnering between parties, and the influence of earlier project development stages. These issues, however, are not easily measured.
The different project delivery options forge different levels of integration among the design, construction, finance, operational and maintenance phases of projects. In a traditional design-bid-build environment, design and construction are completed independently and operating and maintenance costs may not be tracked separately. However, with P3 delivery the private sector partner is responsible for the integrated completion of project design, construction and ongoing maintenance and operations. This has the potential to generate opportunities for efficiency gains in terms of cost, schedule and lifecycle performance. This level of integration may result in a smoother implementation process with fewer change orders, claims and disputes. In addition, the certainty of the whole life cost of maintaining the facility is likely to change with the project delivery method.
Since project implementation represents the culmination of earlier development phases, any errors or omissions by the project sponsor in the pre-bid project development and procurement phases may trigger inefficiencies including change orders, claims and disputes during project implementation. As the level of integration increases, the likelihood of such inefficiencies is generally expected to decrease, resulting in better performance outcomes. The information source could enable researchers to explore the influences of earlier stages on outcomes as projects are implemented.
The intent should be to capture meaningful milestones rather than simply assembling a library of project design and project control documents. The information source would focus on the aspects of the implementation phase identified below:
A list of data elements to be included in Tier 1 is presented in Chapter 3 and Tier 2 data elements are summarized below.
The best sources of information on project implementation are project-specific post-construction evaluation reports prepared by project sponsors using project construction and contract administration records. Most project sponsors maintain an electronic document management system where a variety of project documents reside, including quality management plans, change orders, acceptance records, non-conformance reports, project-closeout reports, time extension approvals, liquidated damages, and value engineering details. The sponsor's documentation may also include information on construction partnering sessions, summaries of claims and follow-up actions, decision summaries on settled claims, and implementation costs. It is possible the project sponsors may not wish to share certain information externally, so it will be important to demonstrate the benefits of doing so to these agencies.
Finance-related information is available in the project profiles and other reporting prepared by the FHWA Center for Innovative Finance Support and financial plans and the updates submitted to FHWA's Major Projects Team. For projects financed with bonds, an additional source of information is the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board's Electronic Municipal Market Access (EMMA) website, which contains reports and regular updates from bond issuers. Discrepancies between these different data sources are common and would need to be resolved.
It is expected that most, if not all of the additional data elements identified for the Tier 2 level will not be included in project sponsor reporting. Accessing this data may require significant effort and may involve asking project sponsors to extract information from their internal records. In addition, some records, such as claims or quality assurance, may be subject to version-control issues. Robust quality control measures may be needed to ensure data accuracy. Such efforts could be challenging, time consuming and costly.
As projects move into the operations and maintenance phase, the online information source would provide information on the quality with which service is being provided. Service quality might be assessed using asset conditions by type, implementation of maintenance, preservation and renewal (MP&R) actions, asset life-expectancy and life-cycle costs accrued over the analysis period. Beyond asset condition, additional attributes of service quality include the level of user charges and operating expenses. Researchers may be interested in comparing these types of efficiency measures between P3 and non-P3 projects. Note that the data collection period should be asset-specific but long enough to include at least one major rehabilitation event. Recognizing the need to keep the data collection period similar for all P3 and non-P3 projects, the average duration of the P3 projects included in the information source could also be used for non-P3 projects.
This information could be utilized to evaluate: i) whether projects are maintained in a state of good repair; ii) the effectiveness of managing various asset types in terms of optimizing the applications of MP&R actions to minimize life-cycle costs; iii) the efficiencies of intervention actions to repair deficiencies and restore to acceptable conditions within the contractually stipulated curing period (counter factual equivalents may not be available for non-P3 projects); iv) conditions and residual asset design life at the end of the concession or analysis period; and v) loss of revenue or monetized aggregation of work zone delay costs when the facility needed more frequent repairs due to inadequate maintenance and repair actions.
The online information source could use performance and level of service attributes relating to maintenance quality and operational performance to evaluate service quality. This could be reported in terms of timeliness of maintenance actions, maintenance adequacy, user satisfaction, mobility, safety and incident clearance. Various performance indicators of service quality can also be monetized and aggregated in terms of user costs.
Information on the financial performance of P3 and other revenue generating projects could also be included in the information source. This could also include information on any financial distress or events due to defaults, bankruptcies, and restructuring, as well as renegotiations of tariffs/tolls/availability payments. Such occurrences would also provide an indication of financial, market-related, forecasting and political risks.
Facility performance in the "use" phase is a direct outcome of decisions made during the project development phases. The decisions made during procurement, design and construction phases will have a substantial impact on the net financial, asset and operational performance of transportation projects. For example, the level of construction quality committed to during procurement or achieved during construction influences future asset performance. The appropriateness of design decisions, such as design deviations, or the impact of design flaws on operational performance also influence asset performance, as do the validity of future costs for maintenance and rehabilitation estimated at the time of procurement. The robustness of traffic forecasting during the pre-bid phase affects future financial performance. Researchers could use the online information source to highlight the connections between the project development decisions and service delivery outcomes.
Information capture would focus on the attributes of the operations and maintenance phase discussed below:
The ancillary assets may use a simple index or detailed measurements, such as condition rating for culverts, replacement age or retro-reflectivity for signs and pavement markings, illuminance for roadway lighting, and mean time between failures for Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) devices.
A list of data elements to be included for Tier 1 is presented in Chapter 3. Tier 2 data elements are summarized below.
Regardless of the delivery method, many project sponsors monitor the performance of transportation facilities through condition surveys, field surveys and output from intelligent transportation systems. With P3 projects, private partners may be responsible for monitoring facility performance. These performance monitoring efforts would provide the most online source of information on the performance of the P3 and non-P3 projects included in the online information source.
The Tier 1 level of information can be readily generated from the FHWA's national HPMS and NBI databases as well as project procurement documents. Owner agencies are likely to possess cost per mile estimates of various MP&R activities for pavements and bridges. Additional sources of operating costs and financial information include the EMMA continuing disclosure reports, FHWA Major Projects financial plan updates, and possibly borrowers' annual TIFIA financial plan reports.
For the Tier 2 level, the asset-related information may be generated from the automated systems used to monitor the condition of pavements, bridges and ancillary assets. Other potential data sources for asset-related attributes include:
Potential data sources for compiling information on mobility, incident clearance and safety include internal sponsor records, reports submitted by private partners, and mobility metrics derived from ITS data. Third-party sources may also have mobility data and public agencies often analyze such information for planning purposes.
There will likely be significant challenges in assembling the recommended performance information, as the range of performance data suggested may not be readily available from project sponsors. Project sponsors may have to dedicate substantial resources to collect, check, analyze, summarize and report the recommended data elements. This may also involve collecting information from a variety of existing internal sources and private partners. There may be difficulties in obtaining information from private partners particularly for those data elements not identified in the P3 agreement for reporting. There may also be a need for a significant amount of post-processing to derive usable metrics from the raw data, if this information is not already available as a part of the project sponsor's standard performance reporting practices or within the contractual obligations of their private partners.
