AASHTO ANNUAL MEETING STANDING COMMITTEE ON PLANNING BILOXI, MS OCTOBER 30, 2010 Potential Changes to STAA Planning Process and Performance Measurement William G. Malley Perkins Coie LLP Washington DC 20005

How STAA Would Change the Planning Process Program Structure  Freight program  CAI, HSIP Programs  Grant programs: Metro Mobility; Projects of Nat’l Significance Performance Management  Mandate to develop “measures,” “targets,” and “strategies”  Major USDOT role in setting or approving measures/targets Planning Process  Increased requirements for State and Metro long-range plans  New plans required – e.g., CAI, HSIP  Consistency required between/among different plans

AASHTO Concerns about STAA Program Structure  Restrictions on use of CAI funds for new capacity  Size of discretionary grant programs Performance Measurement  Process for developing measures and targets  Not enough time for transition Planning  New plans (CAI, HSIP, NTSP)  New requirements for existing State & MPO planning processes  Increased USDOT role in approving plans  Overall increase in complexity, potential for delay

STAA Prospects Difficult to forecast the political environment… What we do know:  Potential for change in committee leadership/composition  But many of the same policy ingredients will be there, including:  Changes to program structure  Increased role for grant programs to fund major projects  Emphasis on performance management and accountability  Increased role for MPOs  STAA will be a reference point, if not a starting point, for transportation authorization in the next Congress.

Potential Changes to STAA

Development of AASHTO Position on STAA SCOP Teams  Statewide Planning Process (Dave Lee)  Metropolitan Planning Process (Bob Zerillo)  Miscellaneous Planning Issues (Chris Hundt) AASHTO Staff  Global review of planning and performance measure provisions: How can they be simplified?  Developed initial set of recommendations to bring STAA closer to AASHTO policies  Revised recommendations based on input from SCOP matrices  Current draft of AASHTO recommendations:  “Proposed Changes to STAA Bill -- Planning and Performance Measurement Issues 10/14/2010”

Key Issues in AASHTO Recommendations 1. Performance Management – Overall Approach 2. Freight Planning 3. CAI and HSIP Plans 4. CAI Eligibility 5. Statewide Long-Range Plans 6. Metro Mobility Plans 7. Other Issues

Performance Management – Overall STAA Require measures and targets in freight, safety, and CAI programs Require measures and targets in State and MPO plans for multiple issues No consistency in how measures and targets are developed Large role for USDOT in setting and approving measures and targets AASHTO Create one process, in Statewide and MPO planning, for setting measures and targets  One timeline  Consistent roles Increase State and MPO role in setting measures and targets  “Backstop” role for USDOT

Freight Improvement Planning STAA Requires a State Freight Plan, which must include performance measures and targets  May be separate from or included in State’s LRTP.  USDOT defines measures and defines targets in coordination with State DOT Allows “Freight Corridor Coalitions” to develop freight corridor plans  Project-specific  Ranked by priority AASHTO State Freight Plans:  Include as part of LRTP to ensure synchronization of update cycles  State-led process for developing measures and targets Freight Corridor Plans:  Allow strategic plan, rather than project-specific  Do not require ranking of each project; instead, require plan to address timing of implementation

CAI and HSIP Plans STAA Requires six-year plan for CAI and HSIP  Must include performance measures and targets  Must be approved by USDOT.  Must be updated biennially  Must meet ‘minimum criteria’ specified in statute Approval requires finding by USDOT that targets are likely to be achieved. AASHTO Retain six-year plan, with changes:  USDOT approval not required  States have flexibility to determine targets  No requirement to make ‘likely to achieve’ finding.  Update every 4 years, same as long-range plans & TIPs.

CAI Eligibility STAA Defines purpose of CAI program as maintaining state of good repair. Limits CAI funding to use for preservation projects; does not allow it to be used for new capacity. AASHTO Broaden purpose to include maintaining functional performance Allow funding to be used for projects that include new capacity if needed to maintain adequate functional performance on an existing facility.

Statewide Long-Range Plans STAA Must address other modes (airport, freight rail, passenger rail, ports) Must include cost estimates for projects of regional, statewide, and national significance Must use data disseminated by USDOT. Requires “coordination” with RPOs where designated. AASHTO Require only consideration of publicly available plans for other modes Require designation only of nationally significant projects Delete requirement to use data disseminated by USDOT Require “consultation” with RPOs where designated.

Metro Mobility Program STAA Discretionary grants allocated by USDOT  $50 billion program “Metro Mobility Plan” is required as a condition for receiving grants  Must include measures and targets AASHTO Use the MPO’s long- range plan as basis for grant awards  Do not require a separate Metro Mobility Plan  Provide flexibility in determining the “performance areas” and measures required in Full Funding Grant Agreements

Other Issues Mode-Share Targets Coordination vs. Consultation Comprehensive Street Design Policies RPO Designation and Requirements MPO Thresholds; Special Rules for Small MPOs Use of USDOT Data in Planning GHG Emissions Reduction Plans Secondary Freight Routes