Reauthorization Update at the AASHTO-FHWA Asset Management Peer Exchange July 26,2010 Tony Kane Director of Engineering and Technical Services Matthew Hardy Program Director for Planning and Policy

Overview Reauthorization Update Summary of June 2010 Peer Exchange  Data Needs and Considerations Related to a National Performance-based Planning Process Performance Measurement for Sustainability Strategies and Outcomes

REAUTHORIZATION UPDATE

AASHTO Key Reauthorization Themes Funding and Finance Infrastructure Asset Programs Performance Management Institutional Process Reforms, Requirements and Improvements NOTE: the themes may be consistent across various interest groups—it is the details that matter !!!!!

Outlook for Reauthorization Great Uncertainty Right Now  State DOTs and contractors depend on long-term investment time horizons so a multi-year bill is critical Three General Areas:  House  Senate--??  Administration--?? Only One Comprehensive (almost) Bill  Oberstar: Surface Transportation Authorization Act of 2009 (Other related Bills such as: Kerry –Lieberman Climate Change; Safety bills; freight bill)

Reauthorization and Asset Management Oberstar: STAA of 2009:  Requires the planning and programming process to become performance-based and outcome-driven—the bill does this in a stovepipe fashion  Need to develop performance objectives, measures, and targets Key Program Areas in Oberstar’s Bill  Freight Improvement  Highway Safety  Critical Asset Investment  Metropolitan Mobility and Access  Projects of National Significance  Metropolitan Planning  Statewide Planning

Highway Safety (FHWA )House Bill (sample) Adopt strategic and performance-based goals that:  Focus resources on areas of greatest need or priority  Are coordinated with other State highway safety programs  Reflect and support the State's HSIP performance targets  The Secretary shall establish quantifiable HSIP performance targets for each State in coordination with the state no later than 6 months after the date of enactment of the next Surface Transportation Act, and every 6 years thereafter.  HSIP performance targets shall provide for a certain reduction in the percentage of highway fatalities and serious injuries that occur on public roads.

Critical Asset Investment House Bill (sample) The Secretary shall establish quantifiable CAI performance targets for each State no later than 6 months after the enactment of this section, and every 6 years after.  Targets for the State's total deck area of highway bridges that are located on the Interstate System and NHS and rated as structurally deficient  Targets for the State's lane miles that are located on the Interstate System and NHS rated as being in either fair or poor condition (based on IRI-- –the bill spells out IRI levels for defining fair and good and poor-- until the Secretary issues a rule on structural adequacy )

Moving Forward: Highway Bridge Program Malcolm Kerley (VDOT) testified on July 21, 2010 Summary of Comments  Focusing on the “worst first” does not work  Preservation is accomplished by better managing all assets in the system  Asset management is most efficient and effective way to improve health of all bridges with limited funding  Prioritization of bridge rehabilitation and replacement must be accomplished by state transportation professionals

Moving Forward: National Transportation Policy Project Focus: How the U.S. can move federal surface transportation policy towards a performance-driven workshop March 2010, Bellagio, Italy Four key action items: 1.Conduct Baseline Inventory and Assessment 2.Research and Development of Performance Measures 3.Apply Federal Performance Measures in Safety and System- wide Asset Management 4.Consider Competitive Discretionary Programs as a Place to Begin Applying Performance Measurements

Moving Forward: AASHTO Refocus the Federal Program on National Objectives Secretary and the Congress to Establish Goals Through Which the National Objectives Can Be Achieved Plan and Select Projects Based on a State-Driven Performance Management Approach Develop State-Driven Performance Measures Process Two year effort to coordinate all this with the MPO’s and transit properties and FHWA and FTA--the clock is ticking!!!

Moving Forward (2009 International scan on performance management Avoid nationally-set state targets, but provide strong federal vision and national policy goals (eg safety and greenhouse gases) Less is more: Focus on a few, key national policy goals and metrics (eg preservation, safety,congestion,environment,economy ) Carrot versus stick: Use incentives rather than disincentives(eg funding flexibility and performance oversight rather than project oversight) Do it together: Apply collaborative performance management processes (eg change the statewide and metro planning processes to be goal oriented)

PEER EXCHANGE SUMMARY

Overview of Peer Exchange June 22, 2010 in San Antonio  Follow-on to October 2009 Executive Roundtable  Focus on data issues and needs Participation  60 SCOP, MPO, transit and research community members  Expert panel and consultant presentations  Facilitated small and full group discussions  Breakout groups focused on four key questions Draft report currently under review

Key Questions 1.How Can Agencies Ensure Their Data Approaches and Systems Support Performance-based Planning and Programming? 2.How Will Agencies Collect, Manage, Apply and Report Data for Performance-based Planning and Programming? 3.How Can We Ensure Decision-making is Closely Linked to Performance Management Data? 4.What Research and Capacity-building Efforts should be Initiated to Support Development and Use of Performance- related Data?

Question 1: Ensuring Agency Data Approaches Support PBPP Create a process for identifying and defining goals Assess existing data resources before launching new data collection View data as an asset to build institutional support for data collection

Question 2: Collecting & Using Data for PBPP Exploit/leverage existing data sources Use appropriate private data sources Expand and improve data sharing Consider creating a National Data Warehouse Identify data needs vis-à-vis short-term programming and long- range planning Improve economic impact assessment capabilities Consider both quantitative and qualitative performance measures Ensure federal funding accompanies new data collection requirements

Question 3: Linking Decision-making to Performance Data Define clear roles for federal, state, metro & local policy-makers Define clear and enduring national goals and measures Define the scope of a national performance-based process Keep performance measures simple Consider a “certification process” for DOT/MPO performance measurement (rather than legislatively-mandated measures) Maintain a user focus in performance reporting Make performance data part of accountability systems

Question 4: Research & Capacity-building Needs Synthesize best practices across modes, agencies and governmental levels Synthesize data needs and gaps across states and regions Establish data measurement and collection standards Investigate how to address both national and local/state performance objectives Develop multi-modal performance measures Establish common definitions & terminology (e.g., “congested”) Research availability and usefulness of private data sources Guidance on turning “data” into “information” Develop accessible and robust economic analysis tools

PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOR SUSTAINABILITY STRATEGIES AND OUTCOMES

Transportation Sustainability Meeting access and development needs, in a manner that is safe and consistent with human and ecosystem health, while promoting equity amongst generations. Is of affordable; operates fairly and efficiently; offers a choice of modes; supports a competitive economy, as well as balanced regional development Limits emissions and waste within the planet’s ability to absorb them; uses non-renewable resources at or below the rates of development of renewable resources Source: European Union Council of Transport Ministers

Triple Bottom Line Economy EnvironmentSociety

State DOT Performance Metrics Environment Society Economy

Performance Metrics (AASHTO SCOPM) Environment  Greenhouse gas reduction; storm water runoff protection; use of recycled materials Economy  System preservation (pavements and structures; rail cars and buses); freight movement (speed/travel-time and reliability of travel on SFC’s); travel delay and reliability on the major systems; incident clearance times Society  Reduction in fatalities and serious injuries; Access to transportation; rural 4-lane roads and urban; alt. modes

Next Steps for SCOPM Aggressively move towards guides/standards for adoption by appropriate AASHTO committees for ready to go measures such as fatalities; pavement roughness; travel delay and structurally deficient bridges Launch serious comparative study efforts on other measures— such as the environment ;serious injuries; refined asset measures for pavements and structures Develop methods for data storage and display ( national level) Develop long range research road map Get AMPO and APTA support in general and transit performance metrics into the package: Planning conference in September Get CEO buy in and support for AM and PM and the measures at a workshop in the fall a month or so prior to the annual meeting in Biloxi

QUESTIONS ????? DISCUSSION