aashto/fhwa executive roundtable on performance-based planning & programming strawman framework...

AASHTO/FHWA Executive Roundtable on Performance-based Planning & Programming

Strawman Framework for National Performance-based Program

October 22, 2009

Palm Desert, California

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

To avoid this…

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 FURTHER CONSIDERATION

National Performance-based ProgramIntroduction and Basic Concepts

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

National Transportation Program

Major Elements of “National Program”Performance-based Approach

Key Performance Objectives

Performance Measures

Performance Goals

Reformed Federal Program Structure

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

National Transportation Objectives

AASHTO FHWA BPC

Safety X X X

Economic Growth X X X

Mobility/Congestion X X X

Environment X X X

System Preservation X X

System Operations X

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

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

Strawman Framework

PlanningProgramming

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

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.

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

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?

Strawman Framework: Planning

Goal & Measures Alignment

Needs Identificatio

n

Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Performance Reporting

Strawman Framework: New Planning Elements

Goal & Measures Alignment

Needs Identification

Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization

Performance Reporting

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


Goal & MeasuresAlignment


Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization


Key Elements—Estimate needs to achieve national goals—Ensure needs estimates incorporate “local”

priorities and circumstances


—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




Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization


Key Elements—Forecast revenues—Compare expected revenues to estimated

needs—Determine resulting funding gap(s)


—None anticipated




Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization


Key Elements—Determine appropriate scenarios -- consider

different relative priorities between national goals

—Quantify anticipated outcomes—Develop alternative financial scenarios—Iterative scenario development


—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




Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization


Key Elements—Select a preferred investment strategy—Develop implementation plan


—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




Gap Analysis

Scenario Developmen

t

Plan Finalization


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


—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

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


Alignment with Plan

Goals

Identify Project Needs and Revenues

Prioritize Projects

Quantify Predicted

Performance Impacts

Report on National

Performance Goals

Programming elements borrow from states’ performance-based programming activities:



Prioritize Projects

Qu an tify P red ic ted

Pe rfo rm an c e Im pa c ts

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?


—Current federal rules silent on above actions?

—Changes to STIP development requirements may be an option for engaging federal, state and MPO partners



Prioritize Projects



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


—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



Prioritize Projects



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


—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



Prioritize Projects



Key Elements—Provide a quantitative assessment (or

“scorecard”) of expected progress toward national performance goals

—What is “reasonable progress?”


—Current rules do not require performance predictions

—A new requirement to create a report on performance outcomes of the STIP may be an option



Prioritize Projects



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


—Current rules do not require any reporting of performance associated with national performance goals

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

Expert Panel Discussion

Reaction & CommentsParticipant Q&A

aashto/fhwa executive roundtable on performance-based planning & programming strawman framework...

Documents

national goals

system of national

formula based program

national interests

multimodal program

discussion slide

system preservation

california slide