Transcript Slide 1

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 Systemwide 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 Performancerelated 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 longrange 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
Society
Environment
State DOT Performance Metrics
Economy
Society
Environment
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