Question

Analysis the infrastructure of the road of New Brunswick? Identify the main road transportation players

Answer 1

Infrastructure analysis of the road of New Brunswick

INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

This paper describes a multi-criteria analysis (MCA) model and methodology developed for the New Brunswick Department of Transportation and Infrastructure (NBDTI) for prioritizing capital investments in its transportation infrastructure. The methodology and MCA model for transportation projects, including a user guide for its application, were developed by Opus International (Canada) Limited (Opus) in 2013. NBDTI has tested this MCA model & methodology and is currently considering utilizing it as a key component in its “Asset Management Decision Framework” to prioritize new capital transportation projects for its longterm strategic infrastructure plan.

The MCA model was developed as part of NB DTI’s continuous improvement initiative to plan and manage its infrastructure more strategically. The process started in 2007 with an asset management system for determining optimal rehabilitation schedules for roads. With a system in place for managing capital investments in existing assets (asset management rehabilitation) , the department required a defendable, transparent methodology for prioritizing capital investments in new infrastructure that:

• Enabled the Department, and in turn the province, to strategically prioritize and plan capital infrastructure expenditures on a more efficient and effective basis;
• Supported the province’s current commitment towards providing appropriate and affordable service to citizens on a sustainable basis;
• Aligned with the Government of New Brunswick’s vision and strategy map; and
• Better positioned the Department, and in turn the Province, to seek future cost shared funding from the Federal government.

The Government of New Brunswick’s Strategy Map for 2012-2013, which highlighted the government’s vision for the future and concisely outlined improvement priorities, was the basis of the new approach.

The MCA model was developed using a three step approach:

1. A literature and current practice review of North American agencies;
2. Stakeholder consultations and the resulting draft methodology and model;
3. Testing and refining of the draft methodology and model.

CURRENT PRACTICE AND LITERATURE REVIEW

Current Practice Review

The current practice review covered processes and models used by 16 agencies in North America to prioritize capital investments in transportation assets. The agencies were identified through a combination of study team experience, Opus’s internal practice information network and library services, and a web-based review.

• Nine of the agencies use some form of multi-criteria analysis (MCA) to prioritize capital investments in infrastructure assets;
• The State of Washington Department of Transportation was the only agency reviewed that used benefit-cost analysis (BCA) solely to set priorities;
• The remaining six agencies use sophisticated models requiring extensive data to select projects that optimize system performance within budget constraints, similar to DTI’s existing models for optimizing roadway rehabilitation projects.

NB DTI required a model that could be applied to a wide range of asset types using readily available data. Therefore, it was decided to use a multi-criteria analysis approach. Furthermore, it was found that agencies using MCA to prioritize a wide range of asset types, tended to base the model on the triple bottom line (or sustainable) measures of social, economic, and environmental impacts.

The multi-criteria models used by the nine agencies were reviewed in detail to identify common practices. Key findings from the review include:

• The number of long-range goals or criteria used for the MCA varied from 5 to 10. The criteria were assessed using 1 to 6 indicators.
• Separate processes are often used to prioritize projects within funding categories and asset groups.
• Agencies work with regional stakeholders to develop and apply the prioritization process
• The results of the project prioritization process are reported in terms of priority categories rather than a ranking.
• Weighting of project prioritization criteria is often left to the discretion of each agency’s decision makers.

Literature Review

A literature review of over 30 documents was conducted to identify best practices in multicriteria analysis. The documents included manuals, consulting reports, journal articles, and electronic reports as listed in the bibliography. It was concluded from the review that a best practice multi-criteria analysis model should include the following:

• Preparation of a thorough description for each candidate project before it can be evaluated within the framework. This description should note the strategic relevance of the project in question and assure the reader that due diligence on costing (life cycle cost analysis, availability of funding in the capital budget and funding partners), the legislative context, and environmental issues has been completed;
• Choice of performance measures which are specific clear and concise. To the extent possible, particularly with cross-asset comparisons, measures should be results based. As well, data for the measurement should be currently available, or available in an efficient and repeatable fashion. It has been observed that some agencies tend to complicate the analysis by including too many measurements, choosing measurements which are not easy to measure and choosing desirable targets rather than those which are realistic and affordable;
• Grouping performance measures by the quadruple bottom line of economic, social, environmental and cultural impacts which will capture current New Brunswick Government policy statements;
• Involvement of stakeholders to achieve transparency and participative decision making. Stakeholders (both internal and external to government) should be consulted concerning appropriate performance measures and the relative weightings. It is noted that DTI has commenced a comprehensive stakeholder engagement process which includes collaboration and partnership levels of involvement;
• Scoring of anticipated performance may be accomplished with a number of techniques but the most commonly practiced approach is the choice of a non-monetary numerical rating scheme. It is desirable to establish definition of high, medium and low valuations to minimize scoring bias. Stakeholder involvement may be utilized both in weighting particular elements and in the scoring itself.

Recommendations for the NBDTI Model

Recommendation 1 – The prioritization model developed for NBDTI should be based on criteria that reflect the triple (or quadruple) bottom line if it is going to be applied across asset groups.

Agencies that prioritized projects for different asset groups, used criteria that reflect the triple bottom line of economic, social, and environmental impacts. Two of the agencies explicitly grouped criteria according to the triple bottom line. It was found in the literature review that a fourth category of criteria – culture – has become common changing the triple bottom line into a quadruple bottom line.

Recommendation 2 – The NBDTI model should have 5 to 10 long-range goals or criteria, and the criteria should be assessed using 1 to 6 indicators . An average of 2.5 criteria per element of the quadruple bottom line will result in a total of 10. Similarly, the maximum total number of indicators would be 20 to 30.

A key finding from the literature review was that MCA practitioners have a tendency to measure too much. The agencies reviewed used an average of 2 to 3 criteria for each component of the triple bottom line and similarly an average of 2 to 3 indicators for each criterion.

Recommendation 3 – NBDTI should start with separate prioritization processes for major funding programs within their department (e.g. capital rehabilitation of roads, capital rehabilitation of bridges, capital rehabilitation of buildings, new roads, new bridges, new buildings). MCA models used in each process should have common criteria.

Four of the nine agencies reviewed used MCA to prioritize projects within existing funding programs, rather than prioritizing projects as a single group. (Details on how the other four agencies applied the MCA across funding programs were not available in the documents reviewed.) For example, Missouri used separate prioritization processes for five programs (safety, taking care of the system, major projects, regional and emerging needs, and interstates). Alaska developed separate evaluation standards and scoring criteria for five programs as well (rural and urban streets, remote roads and trails, transit projects, marine highway system, and stand along trails and recreational access). The NAMS Optimised Decision Making Guidelines refer to this approach as the basic approach (i.e. a number of processes are utilised within each asset area rather than a single process spanning all assets). NAMS recommends that common reporting standards be used for each process to allow progress with time towards a single MCA process spanning all assets.

Recommendation 4 – Include stakeholders in the prioritization process to increase transparency and build trust with the public. Stakeholders can provide input at every stage of the prioritization process from developing the vision and associated performance measures for the MCA to scoring projects and reviewing the final results. Details on stakeholder involvement were not available for three of the agencies reviewed, but the remaining six all included stakeholders in the prioritization process.

Recommendation 5 – Report the results of the prioritization process in categories rather than a ranking. Agencies tend to report the results of the prioritization process in terms of high, medium, and low priority projects rather than ranking them. As noted by a representative from the San Francisco planning agency, the goals of the assessment is to identify outliers – the projects that best and least support the agency’s goals. This information is used to inform decision makers about the trade-offs of different projects. However, other factors besides the results of the MCA analysis will be considered when selecting projects.

DRAFT MCA MODEL AND STAKEHOLDER CONSULTATIONS

A draft MCA model was created based on the Government of New Brunswick’s Strategy Map and the results of the current practice and literature review. The model criteria were grouped into both the quadruple bottom line (QBL) and the key objectives from the strategy map. The criteria, and potential indicators to score the criteria, were selected considering best practices from the literature and agency reviews, and Opus’s knowledge of NB DTI’s information systems. The scoring method for the indicators and weightings for the criteria were not selected at this stage of the process.

Refinement of the MCA model was accomplished through extensive consultation with NB DTI personnel responsible for both the transportation and building assets. Input was also solicited from external stakeholders who were given the opportunity to provide feedback to a survey. Respondents highlighted which priorities they saw decision-making being best based upon.

Three workshops were held with NB DTI staff to finalize the criteria, indicators, scoring method and weightings for the MCA model.

• In the first workshop, the draft model was presented to NB DTI’s Executive Team to get feedback and confirmation on the proposed approach. Overall, the executive input was positive and confirmed approval for the proposed MCA model.
• A second workshop was held with 21 NB DTI staff responsible for planning, designing, and operating transportation infrastructure assets. The participants provided input on the model’s criteria and indicators, and on the content of data sheets describing projects to be prioritized. The model was revised to incorporate key outcomes from the second workshop and sample project data sheets were created for the third workshop.
• A third, and final workshop was held with the majority of the Workshop 2 participants to test the draft model using the sample projects and finalize the criteria, indicators, weightings, and scoring system. With the conclusion of the third workshop, the project team revised the model and scoring methodology, and compiled preliminary weightings prepared by DTI staff. The Workshop also provided excellent feedback on the project summary sheet requirements to ensure sufficient information is provided for evaluators.

NB DTI’S MCA MODEL

The MCA model developed for NB DTI evaluates alternative projects on the basis of 16 indicators. The scores for the 16 indicators are then weighted and combined into three levels of criteria.

The criteria in the first column represent the quadruple bottom line (QBL) which is often used by infrastructure managers to assess sustainability in terms of economic, environmental, social and cultural impacts. It is anticipated that these four criteria will not change over the long term and will eventually be applied to all government infrastructure assets.

The Government of New Brunswick’s three strategic objectives of a stronger economy, an enhanced quality of life, and living within our means are listed in the second column. These will likely change in the medium term as government priorities change. The government’s objectives have been aligned to the quadruple bottom line framework.

More detailed criteria are provided in the third column as measures of the QBL and government’s strategic objectives. These criteria were selected to be applicable across asset types in the long term.

It is expected that the indicators and weights used for scoring the criteria will vary by asset type but the criteria in the first three columns of the model will remain the same for all government assets (e.g. transportation systems, buildings, water systems, etc.).

Proposed projects are evaluated by scoring them against the indicators in the model on a scale from minus 5.0 to plus 5.0 where:

• 5.0 is a very negative impact on the indicator;
• -3.0 is a moderately negative impact;
• 0.0 is no impact;
• +3.0 is a moderately positive impact on the indicator; and
• +5.0 is a very positive impact.

It should be noted that not all indicators have negative impacts. In these cases, projects are scored on a scale of 0.0 to +5.0.

Impacts should be evaluated from the provincial perspective when scoring projects. For example, traffic diverted from an existing service station because of a new bypass will likely stop at a service station at another more convenient location. In this situation, there would be no impact on jobs at the provincial level because they have been transferred from one location to another within the province.

PROJECT PRIORITIZATION USING THE MODEL

The MCA model was developed to prioritize projects for building new transportation assets or for divesting or eliminating existing assets. It does not apply to capital rehabilitation projects or projects to replace existing assets. Capital rehabilitation or replacement projects should be identified and prioritized as part of asset management plans developed under NB DTI’s existing asset management business framework.

The MCA model is used to prioritize projects that change the capacity of the transportation network and therefore have strategic level impacts such as reducing transportation costs through shorter trips, safer roads, or reduced congestion. Asset management plans are used to identify and prioritize projects for maintaining the network condition level of an existing asset without affecting capacity. They establish the acceptable condition levels for an existing asset and identify maintenance and rehabilitation options to preserve assets at the lowest life-cycle costs.

As noted above, it is expected that projects will be scored by an evaluation team to reinforce objectivity in scoring. In its trial application of the model, NB DTI created a team consisting of members with expertise in functional planning, environmental assessments, and safety analysis. The department also envisions consulting with other provincial departmental stakeholders and subject matter experts on project impacts when applying the model including Economic Development, Invest New Brunswick, Environment and Local Government, and the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat.

Several additional points are important to note regarding application of the MCA model:

• The weighting for each indicator should be determined through a collaborative approach amongst decision-makers and those who will be utilizing the model going forward. Weightings will obviously change as priorities change within government. The values are preliminary weightings determined by NB DTI’s Working Group for the study.
• Scoring methods and weightings should be reviewed and adjusted periodically, as appropriate, to reflect the current priorities of NB DTI and the government. For example, the Government of Brunswick and Department of Transportation and Infrastructure have updated their strategy maps since the model was developed last year.
• Consideration should be also given over time to involve stakeholders (local representatives, other Departments, external stakeholders) to develop weightings, and in particular to participate in project scoring.

NEXT STEPS FOR NEW BRUNSWICK

The Department has recently initiated two continuous improvement projects related to the MCA model. One is to extend the model to prioritize its building assets. The second is to develop a guide for estimating planning level benefit-cost impacts to be used in conjunction with the MCA model. The benefit-cost analysis of capital investment projects will provide a measure of the return on investment, which will be particularly helpful to prioritize projects that are of a different scale. Projects located in the top right quadrant of the plot, score high on both contribution to strategy and return on investment, and therefore should be given a higher priority than other projects.

Main road transportation players

New Brunswick enjoys a multimodal, modern transportation infrastructure, with more than 18,000 kilometres of highways and secondary roads crossing the province, convenient air connections to major cities throughout North America and to several destinations in Europe, as well as rail and sea connections through the national ports in Saint John and Belledune to major world markets.

• Transportation
• Maps of New Brunswick

Highways

• Highway Cameras

New Brunswick has a network of well-maintained highways, with many kilometres of four-lane expressway connecting the major centres via the Trans-Canada Highway, Route 2, as well as Routes 1, 7 and 15.

Speed limits are posted in kilometres per hour and most major highways have posted speed limits of 100 km/h (62 mph), with many four-lane sections being 110 km/h (68 mph). The standard maximum limit is 80 km/h (50 mph) on provincial highways and 50 km/h (30 mph) in urban districts unless otherwise indicated.

Seatbelts are mandatory for drivers and passengers. Children under five years of age and under 18 kilograms (40 lbs.) must be in an infant carrier or approved child restraint. The carrying (transporting) of radar detectors in vehicles is prohibited whether the device is in use and connected or not. Vehicles in New Brunswick drive on the right and pass on the left, as they do in all Canadian provinces and territories.

It is illegal to use cell phones and other hand-held devices while driving in New Brunswick. This includes hand-held cell phones, portable GPS, and entertainment devices.

United States driver's licenses are valid for operating a motor vehicle in New Brunswick, as are those of most European nations. Unleaded and diesel gas are available throughout the province and are sold by the litre. There are 3.78 litres in one US gallon, 4.54 litres in one UK gallon.

The driver of a motor vehicle meeting or overtaking a school bus which is displaying red flashing lights must stop not less than 5m (16ft.) from the bus and must not pass until the bus is again in motion or the lights have stopped flashing.

• Distance Calculator

Air

New Brunswick is connected to the rest of North America and to Europe by major airlines, including Air Canada Jazz, Westjet, Continental Airlines and Delta Air Lines.

New Brunswick has three national airports with scheduled service: Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John. The Bathurst airport also has scheduled service. In addition, there are regional airports at St. Léonard and Charlo.

Rail

Round-trip passenger rail service through New Brunswick is provided three days per week by VIA Rail on the Ocean, a full-service train with stops in Moncton, Miramichi, Bathurst, Campbellton and several smaller centres.

Freight services through the province are provided by CN Rail, with intermodal services provided at the Moncton yard. The province also has two shortline railways providing freight services. New Brunswick Southern Railway operates between Saint John and the Canada/US border and New Brunswick East Coast railway operates between Moncton and Campbellton.

Ferries

The province is served by an extensive network of ferries, both large and small. The Department of Transportation operates year-round, daily service between Deer Island and Letete and operates a network of ferries along the lower St. John and Kennebecasis Rivers. Coastal Transport operates year round, daily service between Grand Manan Island and Blacks Harbour and Grand Manan and White Head Island on behalf of the province and East Coast Ferries operates a private seasonal service (last weekend of June through Labour Day) between Deer Island and Campobello Island. Bay Ferries operates the Princess of Acadia on a year-round, daily service between Saint John and Digby, N.S.

• Ferries

Bus

Intercity bus service is available between many New Brunswick communities, with connections to the rest of Canada and the United States. The largest service provider is Maritime Bus.

Fredericton, Moncton and Saint John offer comprehensive urban transit systems to their residents and visitors.

• Maritime Bus
• Saint John Transit
• Fredericton Transit
• Codiac Transit