Pennsylvania Public Private Transportation Partnership Board

Transcription

1 Pennsylvania Public Private Transportation Partnership Board Friday, September 27, 2013

2 511PA /Traveler Information System Request for Information (RFI) issued jointly by PennDOT & Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission Customer survey and RFI responses formed the basis of Invitation for Bid (IFB), soon to be advertised. Required Elements: Telephone, website, traveler alert, hands-free, eyes-free, travel delays, weather forecasts/ alerts, & transit options.

3 Sponsorship and Marketing Marketing RFP A Request for Proposals (RFP) has been issued to develop and administer a joint PennDOT and Turnpike sponsorship and advertising program. 511 Freeway Service Patrols Welcome Centers/Rest Areas Sponsor-A-Highway YellowDot Traffic Camera video

4 Unsolicited Proposals Projects Deferred: Bridges that pay for themselves Greater Pittsburgh Area Railway Projects Under Further Evaluation: Capital Area Transit Bus Maintenance Facility Wireless Waterways Projects Recommended for Procurement

5 Wireless Telecom Partnership Proposed by: Site Acquisition Services, Inc., Paoli, PA. Description: Private sector would identify and market existing PennDOT assets (bridges, signs, buildings, maintenance facilities, towers, land, etc.) where wireless antennas and related equipment could be attached or constructed and market those opportunities to wireless service providers.

6 Wireless Telecom Partnership Financial Structure: Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain Compensation based on percentage of revenue Requires zero capital investment by PennDOT Private Sector Responsibilities Startup Costs: Evaluation of assets, legal, & development of marketing campaign Basic Services: Labor, travel, marketing, municipal approvals, construction oversight, lease negotiations, long-term maintenance, ongoing lease compliance Optional Services: Accounting, payment and collection services

7 Wireless Telecom Partnership Benefits Additional revenue generation Private sector investment Accelerated delivery Enhanced safety: Greater wireless coverage improves emergency response Enhanced staffing capacity: Private sector staff/ professional expertise Communications upgrades benefit PennDOT s Intelligent Transportation Systems network Opportunity to capitalize on rapidly expanding market

8 Wireless Telecom Partnership Comparative research by CDM Smith & PFM confirms viability of proposed approach and successful implementation in other states. Potential annual revenue per carrier per site: Macro Sites: $15k to $20k for urban sites $8k to $12k for rural sites Small Cell Sites: $5k - $12k

9 Wireless Telecom Partnership Revenue Generated by Other Agencies/ DOTs Agency # of Sites Annual Revenue* PA Turnpike Commission 141 $744K New Jersey 40 $3.0 M Ohio 45 $2.5 M Florida 60 $1.6 M Michigan 23 $250K-$500K California 243 $2.5 M * Further revenue analysis will be required since several DOTs are in the process of revising their rate schedule to better represent market value.

10 Truck Permitting and Routing System Proposed by: Bentley Systems, Inc., Exton, Pa. Description: Bentley Systems proposed the upgrade/replacement of PennDOT s automated Permit Routing/Analysis System (APRAS) with a more fully functional special hauling analysis, routing and permitting solution.

11 Automated Permit Routing and Analysis System (APRAS) Background Developed in 1998 Enables North America s Motor Carrier Industry to enter applications for Oversize and Overweight Hauling Permits Ensures compliant load dimensions and weights for highway and bridge safety limits Issues permits according to authorized route

12 Automated Permit Routing and Analysis System (APRAS) Background 2012 Statistics Issued 477,750 permits to over 2,600 business partners on behalf of +11,000 hauling companies. Generated $28 million in revenue

13 Automated Permit Routing and Analysis System (APRAS) APRAS Study Conducted a detailed analysis to identify shortcomings with the current application and user needs/expectations for a next generation APRAS solution. Worked with 18 business partners during the study. Worked with 14 PennDOT representatives who are responsible for processing of APRAS permits. Surveyed other states to understand their solutions and customer satisfaction (24 states responded) Surveyed 6 vendors whose solutions are used in over 30 states. Performed site visits to Texas, Oklahoma and West Virginia to learn about their APRAS types of solutions

14 Automated Permit Routing and Analysis System (APRAS) APRAS Findings Routing analysis and validation only occurs after application submission Route generation can generate inaccurate results due to data integration issues. This results in significant manual review and manual entry delaying the issuance of a permit. No graphic map views are available. All routes are text based using state road numbers and direction only. APRAS currently has two different user interfaces that function differently thus requiring separate maintenance and support. When routes are rejected the current solution does not provide clear, concise information to the customer.

15 Automated Permit Routing and Analysis System (APRAS) APRAS Next Steps It was the recommendation of PennDOT s business partners and internal staff to procure an existing solution instead of building a customized solution for the department. A competitive procurement with P3 opportunities should be considered to potentially reduce the overall costs to the department and improve overall performance for our business partners.

16 Office of Policy & Public Private Partnerships Rapid Replacement Bridge Project Presentation to the Public Private Transportation Partnership Board September 27, 2013 Bryan A. Kendro, Director Office of Policy & Public Private Partnerships

17 Why P3 Replace Structurally Deficient Bridges More Quickly Standardization of Design and Construction Better Value to Taxpayers Economy of Scale Savings Lower Life Cycle Costs Frees up dollars for other projects

18 Project Goals & Objectives Accelerate Construction of SD Bridges Reduce negative impacts statewide Continue to ensure the public safety Minimize impact on traveling public Improve system connectivity and mobility for commerce

19 Eligible Bridges Structurally Deficient Full Replacements Single and Multi-Spans Representative of PennDOT Portfolio County / Local Bridges that meet the criteria

20 Project Structure Availability Payments / Not Tolls: State will make performance based payments. Selected bidder will be responsible for: Design Construction Financing Operation (Lifecycle Maintenance)

21 Procurement Process Industry Forum(s) prior to RFQ Two Step Process RFQ with shortlist RFP issued to shortlisted firms Best Value Selection: Combination of price and technical approach

22 Opportunity for Pennsylvania Contractors Much of the construction will be done by local contractors. All contractors performing construction must be prequalified. Brings future funding and projects forward at lower project delivery costs. Frees up dollars, now and in the future, for additional traditional projects.

23 Opportunity for Pennsylvania Engineers Bridges with existing design contracts excluded Existing non-design consultant contracts are expected to continue Increase in total projects requiring consultants Environmental Clearances Right of Way Acquisition Utility / Railroad Coordination New design opportunities from PennDOT and private bidders

24 Next Steps Identify and prioritize specific bridges Decision on project split Industry Forum(s) RFQ RFP

25 Some Key Issues to Address Project split / Bid Packages Specific and transparent criteria for Pre-Qualification and Award Project Administration Sequencing / District Coordination Project detours, commercial/industrial access, etc. Length of Maintenance Requirement and Handback Condition Requirements Contingencies Bridge Substitution / Claims

26 Guidance, Direction and Feedback Transparent Process Public Input Industry & Stakeholder Outreach

27 Contact Information Office of Policy & Public Private Partnerships Bryan Kendro, Director (717)