Key Issues in Transportation Programming (2008)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S 4 3 Key Issues in Transportation Programming Summary of a Conference KATHERINE F. TURNBULL, Texas Transportation Institute Rapporteur November 12–14, 2006 Seattle, Washington Sponsored by Transportation Research Board Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Washington State Department of Transportation Florida Department of Transportation Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc. HDR Engineering, Inc. Washington, D.C. 2008 www.TRB.org 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:31 PM Page i

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 43 ISSN 1073-1652 ISBN 978-0-309-11344-1 Subscriber Category IA planning and administration Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly from the TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-academies.org/trb, or by annual subscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers are eligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research Board Business Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334- 2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu). Printed in the United States of America. NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the National Research Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsi- ble for the project were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance. This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approved by a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the National Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. This project was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, the Federal Highway Administration, the Federal Transit Administration, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Transportation, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., and HDR Engineering, Inc. Committee on Key Issues in Transportation Programming: A Conference Thomas B. Brigham, HDR Engineering, Inc., Chair Alix Bockelman, Metropolitan Transportation Commission Lowell R. Clary, Florida Department of Transportation Jay Kline, Dallas Area Rapid Transit Paul F. Maxwell, Contra Costa Transportation Authority Edward A. Mierzejewski, Center for Urban Transportation Research, University of South Florida Lance A. Neumann, Cambridge Systematics, Inc. John P. Poorman, Capital District Transportation Committee Elizabeth B. Rushley, Ohio Department of Transportation Gregory A. Selstead, Washington State Department of Transportation Liaisons Fred Abousleman, National Association of Regional Councils David H. Clawson, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Charles R. Goodman, Federal Transit Administration Delania L. Hardy, Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations Harlan Miller, Federal Highway Administration Gloria M. Shepherd, Federal Highway Administration Rapporteur Katherine F. Turnbull, Texas Transportation Institute TRB Staff Kimberly M. Fisher, Associate Director, Technical Activities Division Freda R. Morgan, Senior Program Associate Bruce A. Millar, Meeting Coordinator Gregory W. Wheeler, Registration Assistant TRB Publications Office Samantha Enslen, Editor Jennifer J. Weeks, Editorial Services Specialist Mary McLaughlin, Proofreader Javy Awan, Production Editor Juanita Green, Production Manager Cover design by Beth Schlenoff, Beth Schlenoff Design. Typesetting by Carol Levie, Grammarians. 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:31 PM Page ii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Academy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. Charles M. Vest is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per- taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to asso- ciate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. Charles M. Vest are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisci- plinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and dis- seminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activi- ties annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their exper- tise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 4:44 PM Page iii

60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:31 PM Page iv

Contents Preface......................................................................................................................................................xi OPENING PLENARY SESSION...............................................................................................................1 Welcome from the Washington State Department of Transportation ....................................................1 Gregory Selstead Welcome from the Conference Planning Committee .............................................................................1 Thomas Brigham The Federal Highway Administration Perspective.................................................................................2 Dan Mathis The Federal Transit Administration Perspective ....................................................................................4 Brigid Hynes-Cherin A State Perspective ................................................................................................................................5 Gail Achterman A Regional Perspective ..........................................................................................................................7 Charlie Howard POLICY AND POLITICS IN THE PROCESS..........................................................................................9 Evolution of the Transportation Planning and Programming Processes ................................................9 John Sweek Local Official’s Perspective—Tampa, Florida ......................................................................................10 Scott Paine Local Official’s Perspective—Fairfax, Virginia.....................................................................................11 John Mason 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:31 PM Page v

AGENCY RELATIONSHIPS AND ROLES............................................................................................12 Federal Review of Transportation Improvement Plans........................................................................12 Ned Conroy Alaska DOT–MPO–Transit Relationships: A State Apart ...................................................................13 Jeff Ottesen Conflict or Confluence? MPO and State DOT Programming Responsibilities ....................................14 John Poorman Planning and Project Development at the Thurston Regional Planning Council .................................15 Thera Black STEWARDSHIP AND ROLE OF THE STIP AND TIP .........................................................................17 State Perspective on the STIP: Theory, Law, and Reality ....................................................................17 Sandy Straehl Programming for Transportation: One MPO’s Experience..................................................................19 Lucy Ayers Integrating Asset Management into the Metropolitan Planning Process..............................................20 Wayne McDaniel Revenue, Fiscal Constraint, and Finance in Transportation Planning..................................................21 Harlan Miller INSTITUTIONAL AND ORGANIZATIONAL ISSUES ........................................................................22 Report on the Policy and Politics in the Process Panel ........................................................................22 Thomas Brigham Tampa Local Official’s Perspective .....................................................................................................22 Scott Paine Fairfax Local Official’s Perspective......................................................................................................23 Jay Kline Report on the Agency Relationships and Roles Panel .........................................................................23 Doug Allen Summary Report on MPO and State DOT Programming Responsibilities..........................................23 John Poorman PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT ...............................................................................................................25 National Surface Transportation Policy and Review Study Commission.............................................25 Steve Heminger Transit Programming Challenges.........................................................................................................27 Jacob Snow 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:31 PM Page vi

Programming Challenges Within Washington State.............................................................................27 Aaron Butters UNTANGLING THE PURSE STRINGS: Funding, Distribution, and Allocation...................................30 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board........................................................................30 Stevan Gorcester Transportation Programming in the Houston–Galveston Region........................................................31 Ashby Johnson California Department of Transportation Funding..............................................................................32 Rachel Falsetti THE TIGHTROPE ACT: Striking a Balance Among Transportation Needs ..........................................34 San Francisco Bay Area Case Study ....................................................................................................34 Steve Heminger Regional Versus County Investments...................................................................................................36 José Luis Moscovich Expansion Versus Rehabilitation Programming in the San Francisco Bay Area: A View from Transit ...........................................................................................................................37 Ian McAvoy The Unique Challenges of Meeting Transportation Needs in Marin County ......................................37 Dianne Steinhauser GETTING THE MOST BANG OUT OF A BUCK: Project Prioritization ............................................40 State of Good Repair “Fix It First” Policy ..........................................................................................40 Jonathan Davis Transportation and Decision Making in Portland ...............................................................................41 Patricia Bugas-Schramm Project Prioritization: How to Communicate?.....................................................................................43 Omar Smadi PROGRAM DELIVERY AND MANAGEMENT...................................................................................44 Management: Scope, Schedule, Budget, and Risk................................................................................44 John Reilly Program Management Support for State Departments of Transportation: “The Delivery System of Last Resort” ................................................................................................45 Hal Kassoff Practical Design...................................................................................................................................49 Joseph G. Jones 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page vii

HOW TO MANAGE UNCERTAINTY AND RISK ..............................................................................50 Project Cost and Schedule Risk Assessment ........................................................................................50 Bill Roberds The Cost Estimate Validation Process and Risk-Based Estimating at WSDOT ...................................51 Mark Gabel ACCOUNTABILITY AND REPORTS FOR THE PUBLIC AND DECISION MAKERS ......................53 Project Delivery Reporting in Washington State ..................................................................................53 Daniela Bremmer and Greg Jones COST ESTIMATION AND MANAGEMENT ......................................................................................56 A New Strategy for Cost Estimating and Cost Estimating Management .............................................56 Stuart Anderson Cost Estimation and Management ......................................................................................................57 Ananth Prasad PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING: Ballot Box Programming ..........................................................59 Key Programming Issues in California ................................................................................................59 John Barna Ballot Measures in Santa Clara ...........................................................................................................60 John Ristow Ballot Measures in Southern California ..............................................................................................61 Jim Gosnell PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING: Dealing with Uncertainty ..........................................................62 Major Moves: 10-Year Construction Plan...........................................................................................62 John Weaver Planning and Programming at the Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments ......................63 Ronald Kirby Tolling Projects in Houston.................................................................................................................64 Ashby Johnson Public–Private Partnerships in Texas ...................................................................................................65 Teresa Lemons THE PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING CONNECTION ...............................................................67 Transportation Planning and Programming: Challenges and Implications ..........................................67 John Mason 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page viii

Transportation Planning and Programming: Changing Conditions, Changing Priorities .....................68 Ronald Kirby Our Role as Planners and Programmers: A Positive Vision for the Future ..........................................69 John Poorman Transportation Planning and Programming: Dealing with a Changing Landscape..............................70 Harlan Miller CONFERENCE PARTICIPANTS ...........................................................................................................72 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page ix

60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page x

xi Preface On November 12–14, 2006, TRB convened theKey Issues in Transportation ProgrammingConference in Seattle, Washington. Approxi- mately 150 individuals from across the transportation community—transportation agency staff (at national, state, regional, and local levels) and representatives from the private sectors and academia—participated in the conference and shared ideas and experiences. The conference was sponsored by TRB, FHWA, FTA, the Washington State Department of Transportation, the Florida Department of Transportation, Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc., and HDR Engineering, Inc. BACKGROUND It has been more than 10 years since the last transporta- tion programming conference was held in Irvine, Cali- fornia, in 1995. That conference (published as Transportation Research Circular 456: Conference on Transportation Programming Methods and Issues, in December 1996) focused on • Goal and objective setting, • Programming methods, • Multimodal programming processes, and • Program implementation and communication. Since then, many agencies have developed processes to link transportation improvement programs to plan- ning, performance measures, or an asset management system. Other agencies have developed ranking or scor- ing processes to evaluate candidate projects and to program the higher-scoring projects on a priority basis. In addition, the Intermodal Surface Transportation Effi- ciency Act of 1991, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, and the Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA-LU)—the last three federal reauthorizations of surface transportation programs—have all required a more intermodal approach to transportation planning and programming. This conference highlighted success- ful approaches to multimodal programming and its links to planning and performance measures to support the core objectives of SAFETEA-LU and the general objective of effective use of transportation funds. CONFERENCE PLANNING To plan the conference, TRB assembled a committee, appointed by the National Research Council, to orga- nize and develop the conference program. The event brought together individuals from state, regional, and local transportation agencies and from the consulting and academic communities with experience in develop- ing and employing programming processes, linking long- range plans to the programming process, and evaluating the success of the process through application of perfor- mance measures. The conference was designed to help state, regional, and local transportation agencies improve programming practice and thereby the effec- tiveness of transportation investment. The conference explored many aspects of the programming process, including 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page xi

• The current state of the practice and long-term implementation experience, • Successful practices in linking planning and pro- gramming, • The linking of programming processes to the development of performance measures and asset man- agement systems, • Programming and politics, including examples of programming processes that have successfully dealt with political challenges, • Data requirements and data manageability in the consideration and evaluation of a large number of can- didate projects and in the management of the program of projects over time, and • Effective approaches to public involvement for programming. The conference provided real-world experiences to assist state, regional, and local transportation agencies in improving programming practice and thereby the effectiveness of transportation investment. CONFERENCE FORMAT The conference opened with four workshops: Tools, Data, and Methods; Cash Forecasting and Management Processes and Their Relationship to Programming; Linking Planning and Programming; and Implications of SAFETEA-LU for Programming. The conference was organized around a series of plenary sessions and break- out sessions that focused on the following issues: • Institutions and organizations, • Program development, • Program delivery, • Ballot box programming, • Dealing with uncertainty, and • The planning and programming connection. This report contains summaries of the plenary and breakout sessions. The conference summary was pre- pared by Katherine F. Turnbull of the Texas Transporta- tion Institute. The appendix contains a list of all conference participants. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS This volume has been reviewed in draft form by indi- viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and techni- cal expertise, in accordance with procedures approved by the National Research Council’s Report Review Committee. The purposes of this independent review are to (a) provide candid, critical comments that assist the institution in making its published report as sound as possible and (b) ensure that the report meets institu- tional standards for objectivity, evidence, and respon- siveness to the committee’s charge. The review comments and draft manuscript remain confidential to protect the integrity of the deliberative process. TRB thanks the following individuals for their review of this report: Tamar Henkin, TransTech Management, Inc., Washington, D.C.; Paul F. Maxwell, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, Pleasant Hill, California; Mark L. Stout, New Jersey Department of Transporta- tion, Trenton, New Jersey; and Thomas L. Thomson, Chatham County–Savannah Metropolitan Planning Commission, Savannah, Georgia. Although the reviewers listed above provided many constructive comments and suggestions, they did not see the final draft of the report before its release. The review of this report was overseen by C. Michael Wal- ton, University of Texas at Austin. Appointed by the National Research Council, he was responsible for making certain that an independent examination of this report was carried out in accordance with institutional procedures and that all review comments were carefully considered. KEY ISSUES IN TRANSPORTATION PROGRAMMINGxii 60627_TRB_S1_Front.qxd:00-CP43_Front.qxd 11/14/08 3:32 PM Page xii