AASHTO/FHWA Executive Roundtable on Performance-based Planning & Programming Strawman Framework for National Perform

1. AASHTO/FHWA Executive Roundtable on Performance-based Planning & ProgrammingStrawman Framework for National Performance-based Program October 22, 2009 Palm Desert, California

2. Overview • National Performance-based Program – Introduction & Basic Concepts • Performance-based Planning Framework • Performance-based Programming Framework • Expert Panel Reaction and Discussion • Open Group Q&A and Discussion

3. To avoid this…

4. Let’s keep in a few points in mind… • Assume a new national performance-based paradigm is a GIVEN under pending authorization • Planning and programming concepts and elements presented today are for discussion – NOTHING is written in stone • These are COMPLICATED, THORNY issues - some quite controversial • Keep questions, comments, suggestions and criticisms CONSTRUCTIVE • This is NOT the end of the line – we’re here to take these ideas & help evolve them into workable proposals for FURTHERCONSIDERATION

5. National Performance-based Program • Introduction and Basic Concepts

6. Defining “Performance-based Planning & Programming” What is “Performance-based Planning and Programming?” Approach for strengthening accountability by linking plans & investment decisions (programming) to adopted goals & objectives Tool for helping decision-makers & public gauge extent to which transportation investments move us toward our goals & vision Method for monitoring & reporting performance of nation’s transportation system in context of established national priorities

7. National Transportation Program Major Elements of “National Program” • Performance-based Approach • Key Performance Objectives • Performance Measures • Performance Goals • Reformed Federal Program Structure

8. Performance-based Approach • AASHTO - Directors endorse program that “increase(s) … federal investment,” is “more focused on national interests,” and is “accountable for results” • House T&I Committee – Authorization will be “accompanied by greater accountability, oversight and performance measures” • Bipartisan Policy Center & Others- Consensus that U.S. transportation policy must be more policy-driven

9. National Transportation Objectives

10. National Transportation Performance Goals • AASHTO - Directors endorse national goals set by DOTs , MPOs, transit agencies, local governments and USDOT after Authorization • T&I Committee – Authorization bill language calls for USDOT to set goals in selected areas • FHWA Research – Lays out options for goals, from national-only to tailored, state-specific

11. National Transportation Program Structure • AASHTO - Directors endorse six-part, formula-based program aligned with six national objectives • T&I Committee – Four major elements: (1) Critical Asset Investment program; (2) HSIP; (3) Continuation of STP; and (4) CMAQ • BPC Report – Two-part, multimodal program that directs 65% of funds to formula–based system preservation program and 35% of funds to competitive grant-based capacity program

12. Strawman Framework • Planning • Programming

13. Key Definitions National Performance-based Transportation Program (National Performance Program): A system of national-level goals and measures, along with any changes to the federal program needed to implement a performance-based program

14. Key Definitions Strawman Framework: The consultant’s proposed starting point for a dialogue about the how state planning and programming processes will need to change in response to creation of a National Performance Program.

15. What is a “Strawman?” A brainstormed proposal intended to generate discussion of its disadvantages and provoke the generation of new and better idea A document prepared prior a larger initiative to jump start discussions with a concept that is likely to contain many, but not all the key aspects to be discussed 

16. The Big Questions What parts of the Strawman Framework do you agree with and/or can live with? What is close (we could get there with refinement)? What is a non-starter?

17. Strawman Framework: Planning

18. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements Align LRTP goals to national goals Establish State-level performance measures that align with national performance measures Integrate public input Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current requirements stop short of mandating plan linkages to national goals or performance measures New federal laws, regulations, and/or policies should require linkage state-national goal linkage Provide guidance to define latitude states have to develop their own goals and performance measures Define how “reasonable alignment” will be determined

19. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements Estimate needs to achieve national goals Ensure needs estimates incorporate “local” priorities and circumstances Potential Changes to Federal Rules Existing federal requirements for management systems do not directly extend to needs estimating methodologies; states now develop their needs through any methodology and based on any assumptions they choose FHWA/FTA may need to consider developing guidelines for how states estimate their needs associated with achieving national goal

20. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements Forecast revenues Compare expected revenues to estimated needs Determine resulting funding gap(s) Potential Changes to Federal Rules None anticipated

21. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements Determine appropriate scenarios -- consider different relative priorities between national goals Quantify anticipated outcomes Develop alternative financial scenarios Iterative scenario development Potential Changes to Federal Rules Currently no federal policies related to scenarios May need to provide guidance on the types of scenarios that should be considered and acceptable approaches for trade-off analysis

22. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements Select a preferred investment strategy Develop implementation plan Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current rules provide limited guidance on the relationship between final state plans and national investment priorities FHWA/FTA needs to identify what information plans must provide with respect to states’ anticipated contribution to national goals Identify if/how their role in approving long range plans may need change

23. Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements Key Elements State DOTs should provide regular updates on performance in key national performance goal areas is changing due to plan implementation Reporting would likely be incorporated with capital programming reporting activities Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current federal rules do not require state performance reporting; some DOTs have developed their own performance reporting processes New federal requirements to create performance reporting may be needed

24. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Capital Program Definition: Implements LRTP Chance to refine direction Short-range emphasis (1-5 yrs) Project level Constrained budget Connected to STIP

25. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Programming elements borrow from states’ performance-based programming activities:

26. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Key Elements Align with and expand on LRTP; don’t reinvent! Create program structure that reflects LRTP objectives? Establish performance baseline for national goals? Set practical short-term performance goals, based on national goals? Decide broad distribution of funds among objectives? Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current federal rules silent on above actions? Changes to STIP development requirements may be an option for engaging federal, state and MPO partners

27. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Key Elements Unconstrained list of project needs Chosen based on progress toward national performance goals Compile via blend of data/systems/public input Estimate project costs/forecast revenues Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current federal rules do not specifically require development of an unconstrained menu of projects FHWA/FTA may need to consider new requirements for states to develop an unconstrained menu of projects

28. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Key Elements Select fiscally-constrained shortlist of projects that have greatest impact on desired objectives/performance goals Use management systems/professional judgement/stakeholders’ input to compile program Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current rules do not require project prioritization based on predicted performance impacts A new requirement to apply performance-based prioritization practices to development of the STIP may be necessary

29. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Key Elements Provide a quantitative assessment (or “scorecard”) of expected progress toward national performance goals What is “reasonable progress?” Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current rules do not require performance predictions A new requirement to create a report on performance outcomes of the STIP may be an option

30. Strawman Framework: New Programming Elements Key Elements Provide regular updates on how performance in key national performance goal areas is changing as a result of program implementation Performance should be compared to short-term performance goals Feedback loop for future capital programs Potential Changes to Federal Rules Current rules do not require any reporting of performance associated with national performance goals

31. Strawman Framework: Final Observations Fork in the road? LRTP/CP approach consolidates performance-based planning in well-established practices DOTs understand Don’t let others dictate solutions Starting point for discussion

32. Expert Panel Discussion • Reaction & Comments • Participant Q&A