Reauthorization Update at the AASHTO-FHWA Asset Management Peer Exchange July 26,2010

1. Reauthorization Update at theAASHTO-FHWA Asset Management Peer ExchangeJuly 26,2010 Tony KaneDirector of Engineering and Technical Services Matthew HardyProgram Director for Planning and Policy

2. 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

3. Reauthorization Update

4. 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 !!!!!

5. 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)

6. 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

7. 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.

8. 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 )

9. 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

10. 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: • Conduct Baseline Inventory and Assessment • Research and Development of Performance Measures • Apply Federal Performance Measures in Safety and System-wide Asset Management • Consider Competitive Discretionary Programs as a Place to Begin Applying Performance Measurements

11. 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!!!

12. 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)

13. Peer Exchange Summary

14. 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

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

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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

19. 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

20. Performance Measurement for Sustainability Strategies and Outcomes

21. 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

22. Triple Bottom Line

23. State DOT Performance Metrics Economy Society Environment

24. 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

25. 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

26. QUESTIONS ????? DISCUSSION