Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Engineering and Construction Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief Thomas A. Harley P.E

Connecticut Department of Transportation

Connecticut Department of Transportation

Bureau of Engineering and ConstructionBureau of Engineering and Construction

Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief Thomas A. Harley P.E.

Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief Thomas A. Harley P.E.


Organizational Structure

Joseph F. Marie

Commissioner

Bureau of Policy & Planning

Multimodal System

Planning

Bureau of Public

Transportation

Operating of Rails & Buses

Bureau of Highway

Operations

Operating of Highways

Bureau of Engineering & Construction

Multimodal Implementation

of Capital Program

Bureau of Finance &

Administration

Budgeting and HR Operations

Bureau of Aviation &

Ports

Operating of Airport & Sea

Ports


Mission StatementMission Statement

The Mission of the Bureau of Engineering and Construction is the implementation of the capital program for all transportation modes. It includes engineering and construction services as well as property acquisition and management, research and material testing, and quality assurance programs.


Organizational Structure

Thomas Harley, PE

Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief

James Norman, PE

Engineering Administrator

Richard Allen

Rights of Way Administrator

James Fallon, PE

Quality Assurance Division Chief

Lewis Cannon, PE

Construction Administrator


TSB Talking Points April 2010

• Status of the Capital Plan

• How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan?

(Where do projects come from?)

• Major Accomplishments

• Challenges

TSB Talking Points April 2010

• Status of the Capital Plan

• How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan?

(Where do projects come from?)

• Major Accomplishments

• Challenges


Status of Capital Plan• Aviation & Ports – small Capital Program in

good shape. (Not over subscribed.)

• Public Transportation – program is over subscribed, see published 5 yr Capital Plan

• Highway System (including bridges) - over subscribed, see 5 yr Capital Plan

-focus on system preservation (FIF or state of good repair). Few discretionary projects are affordable. System Enhancements take a lower priority

Status of Capital Plan• Aviation & Ports – small Capital Program in

good shape. (Not over subscribed.)

• Public Transportation – program is over subscribed, see published 5 yr Capital Plan

• Highway System (including bridges) - over subscribed, see 5 yr Capital Plan

-focus on system preservation (FIF or state of good repair). Few discretionary projects are affordable. System Enhancements take a lower priority

Bureau of Engineering and Construction Bureau of Engineering and Construction Anticipated Funding

2010-2014 Five Year Capital Program

Federal State Total

Highway and Bridge Program

Total Funding Available $1,594,250,000 $833,790,000 $2,428,040,000

Total Funding Committed to Projects $1,466,430,000 $607,385,000 $2,073,815,000

Total Funding Uncommitted $127,820,000 $226,405,000 $354,225,000

Transit Program

Total Funding Available $1,300,410,000 $839,040,000 $2,139,450,000

Total Funding Committed to Projects $828,803,000 $738,430,000 $1,567,233,000

Total Funding Uncommitted $471,607,000 $100,610,000 $572,217,000


How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan?

• Department’s Long Range Planning, Master Transportation Plan, input from Regional Planning partners are avenues by which major long range initiatives take form and develop momentum (or not).

• Shorter Term Needs and Deficiency identified principally by Department thru:

- Asset Management Programs- Performance Metrics Goals- Safety Programs- Congestion Mitigation Programs

How do new initiatives make the Capital Plan?

• Department’s Long Range Planning, Master Transportation Plan, input from Regional Planning partners are avenues by which major long range initiatives take form and develop momentum (or not).

• Shorter Term Needs and Deficiency identified principally by Department thru:

- Asset Management Programs- Performance Metrics Goals- Safety Programs- Congestion Mitigation Programs


Major Accomplishments

• Implemented Organizational ChangesSpecifically a QA/QC Unit

• Constrained Capital Plan intended to publicize the current fiscal realities

• New Haven Rail Yard• Q Bridge Corridor Progress

- 2nd Bridge contract starting in earnest- Final large contract for interchanges being bid in 2010

• Rte 7 Corridor- Brookfield Bypass- Danbury contracts

• 7 & 15 resolution from consensus building perspective• Moses Wheeler - Phase 1 (under CN) Phase 2 (Bid 2010)

Major Accomplishments

• Implemented Organizational ChangesSpecifically a QA/QC Unit

• Constrained Capital Plan intended to publicize the current fiscal realities

• New Haven Rail Yard• Q Bridge Corridor Progress

- 2nd Bridge contract starting in earnest- Final large contract for interchanges being bid in 2010

• Rte 7 Corridor- Brookfield Bypass- Danbury contracts

• 7 & 15 resolution from consensus building perspective• Moses Wheeler - Phase 1 (under CN) Phase 2 (Bid 2010)

Bureau of Engineering and Construction

Bureau of Engineering and Construction

Challenges

• Funding Constraints- Federal Authority, no long range federal

authorization- Expiration of FIF Funding $’s- Expiration of Gov 95 and Non 95 $- Revenue funds vs bonding

• Addressing the over programming backlog over coming years

• Preservation First

Challenges

• Funding Constraints- Federal Authority, no long range federal

authorization- Expiration of FIF Funding $’s- Expiration of Gov 95 and Non 95 $- Revenue funds vs bonding

• Addressing the over programming backlog over coming years

• Preservation First

Bureau Of Engineering and ConstructionBureau Of Engineering and Construction

Miscellaneous

- Highway Mode Funding Breakdown- Bureau staffing levels and potential

retirements- Department wide staffing and potential

retirements- Use of Consulting Services vs State

Engineering- District Offices

Miscellaneous

- Highway Mode Funding Breakdown- Bureau staffing levels and potential

retirements- Department wide staffing and potential

retirements- Use of Consulting Services vs State

Engineering- District Offices

Highway Funds 2010 (Millions)

Federal Funds, $460

State Bonds, $110

Governor Program - Only Thru 2010, $100

Fix it First- Only Thru 2010, $75

VIP Resurfacing , $50

Pay-as-you-go, $12.4

62

798

127

733

253

607

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

900

Num

ber

of E

mpl

oyee

s

7/1/2010 7/1/2012 7/1/2015

Date Eligible

Bureau of Engineering & Construction Future Rate of Retirement860 Total Employees

Retirement Eligible Remaining Workforce

182

2922

450

2654

892

2212

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

Num

ber

of E

mpl

oyee

s

7/1/2010 7/1/2012 7/1/2015

Date Eligible

Department Wide Future Rate of Retirement3,104 Total Employess

Retirement Eligible Remaining Workforce


State ForcesConsultants

in 1993, the Department initiated an in-house study of the cost of using Consultant Engineers as compared with State forces for designing construction projects. The study

concluded that it was more cost effective to use State forces for projects under $5 million and Consultants for projects over $5 million. Based on these findings, the Department went to the Legislature and was successful in getting more positions

and in converting existing durational positions to permanent positions.

Construction Dollar Value

Number of Projects

77% AccomplishedBy Consultants

67% AccomplishedBy State Forces

From a 2007 Review

Using Consultant Engineers as compared with State forces for Designing Construction Projects

Bureau of Engineering and Highway OperationsBureau of Engineering and Highway Operations

Documents

Connecticut Department of Transportation Bureau of Engineering and Construction Chief Engineer/Bureau Chief Thomas A. Harley P.E