One Stop Shop Permitting Dan Vogen, Bentley Systems

1. One Stop Shop PermittingDan Vogen, Bentley Systems

2. Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting - Historically • Carriers must apply directly with each jurisdiction • Each application requires re-keying, effort duplication • Applications may be processed & issued “out of order” • Cross-border routing issues may invalidate first permits OR • Carriers go through a service to get their permits • Work is reduced for the carrier but the service has the same duplication and other issues as described above OR • Applicants use a “regional” permit (where available) • Routes and vehicle size options are limited • One jurisdiction issues on another’s behalf • The issuer may not have all the latest data • The agency being issued for does not get permit data for enforcement or historical tracking • Agencies build “accounts payable” with the receiving agency having no data to validate

3. New Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting Approaches • Consolidated (Integrated) System • Goal: Provide one system with combined permitting rules, routing data, fee collection, permit issuance • Pros: • Users use one system – all app entry, routing, and payment is consolidated • Agencies purchase / build and maintain one system • Cons: • Multiple agencies must work together to “combine” permit rules, routing data, permit output, … • Agencies must collaborate regularly on data maintenance, restriction management, … • versus • Interfaced (Connected) Systems

4. Consolidated (Integrated) Systems Permit Services VariousAgency Users All Integrated into One System Carriers Carriers

5. New Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting Approaches • Consolidated (Integrated) System • versus • Interfaced (Connected) Systems • Goal: Each jurisdiction maintains control over their system with a “front-end” system interfaced, one-stop approach • Pros: • Users use one system (the “front end”) – all app entry, routing, and payment is consolidated • Jurisdiction’s maintain control over their own systems and don’t need all the inter-agency personal data & rule coordination • Cons: • Agencies must purchase / build and maintain their own systems • All systems must be able to “talk” to the front-end (interface / connect) • The interfaced system is dependent on all systems being available

6. Integrated Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting Agency Front-End Permit Services Agency Agency Carriers Agency Carriers & Services can interact directly with the individual agencies

7. Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting Approaches • Consolidated (Integrated) System - examples • WV – State DOT with all county roads & Turnpike • MD – State HA & Baltimore City • NC – State DOT with all county roads • MB – Province IT, Winnipeg & Brandon • NJ – State DOT & Turnpike • IA – State DOT with all county roads & all local roads (w/o granting permission for local road travel yet) • versus • Interfaced (Connected) Systems - examples • GotPermits – AL, OH, MN, NE, NJ, SD, WI, WV…

8. Multi-Jurisdiction Permitting Approaches • Requirements / How To… • Consolidated (Integrated) System • Legal or other MOU between the various agencies • Determination of system “owner” • Determination of “roles” of various agency users • Integration or separate definitions of rules, fees, data, … • versus • Interfaced (Connected) Systems • Adhere to a common “communication protocol” • Maintain a front-end that manages the communication with the standalone agency systems

9. Interfacing / Connecting -> “PermitXML” • Anyone can use PermitXML • Enables carrier direct entry from carrier systems • Enables permit service automation from permit service systems • Enables the creation of new multi-jurisdiction processes • Results in Multi-Agency without Compromises • Full agency systems are used • All routing is done based on technology and data in the agency • Restrictions are all managed within the agency • Fees are collected immediately by the agency systems • Permit documents are stored / available in the agency

10. Future Direction • Both approaches - Consolidated (Integrated) & Interfaced (Connected) – have justification, benefits, and ideal situations for implementation • An agency may use both approaches (WV is a good example) • Either method results in a win-win for industry • Bentley will support both approaches and will work with both agencies and industry in their implementations

11. Questions

13. Additional Slides • May be used for clarification and pictorial explanation

14. Current Individual State Permitting Permit and Routing Business Rules & Processes State-Specific and General State-Specific Permit & Routing Data

15. Current Methods for Multiple Permits CARRIER User Interface User Interface User Interface STATE OFFICES Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes State Data State Data State Data

16. Current Methods for Multiple Permits CARRIER PERMIT SERVICE User Interface User Interface User Interface Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes STATE OFFICES State Data State Data State Data

17. Current Methods for Multiple Permits SASHTO / WASHTO / MASTO / Multi-State Agreements on • May be processed by 1 state • Based on “general” rules / restrictions for all other states • Fees collected and disseminated to other states BUT… Where is my record of the permit? What is happening to our bridges? Where is our money? Can anyone else really keep up with our construction?

18. New Method for Multiple Permits Multi-State User Interface CARRIER Multi-State Request Data Multi-State Rules & Processes MULTI-STATE PERMIT SITE PermitXML PermitXML User Interface User Interface User Interface Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes Permit & Routing Rules & Processes STATE OFFICES State Data State Data State Data