Resource Allocation of Available Funding to Programs of Work (2017)

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.

68 Appendix C descriptive Summary of Survey Results The following results were collected in response to the survey questions. Descriptive statistics are provided graphically in tables and sometimes graphics following each of the major questions of the survey. Q1. Does your agency have a strategic process for allocating all, or a significant portion of its program resources/revenues between programs of work? Value Percent Count Yes 88 37 No 12 5 Total 42 Yes 88% No 12%

69 Q2. What programs/categories are addressed by your agency’s resource allocation strategy? Check all that apply. Value Percent Count Highway Preservation 97 36 Bridge Preservation/Rehabilitation 97 36 Highway Expansion 87 32 Bridge Expansion 78 29 Highway Safety 89 33 Highway Operations and Routine Maintenance 70 26 Ports/Waterways 14 5 Aviation 32 12 Transit Capital 41 15 Transit Operations 30 11 Bicycle & Pedestrian 57 21 Other - Write in 24 9 Other - Write in 16 6 Other - Write in 13 5 Other - Write In 1 CMAQ Environmental Stewardship Ferry ITS Intermodal Connector Lands and Buildings Municipal Partnership Program Ports as in Transload Facilities Supporting infrastructure—signs, drainage, pavement markings, signals, etc. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

70 Other - Write In 2 Business Partnership Program Community and regional priority projects, and jurisdictional transfer Other statewide programs Rail Safety and Expansion Travel Demand Management Urban/Local Other - Write In 3 ADA Compliance Greater Minnesota and Twin Cities Mobility Interstate Maintenance Local Preservation Planning Partnership Program Q3. Indicate what percentage of your agency’s annual resources the agency has discretion over in the resource allocation strategy. (In comparison to resources that are designated for a particular program based on a federal or state statutory or other external requirement.) Value Percent Count Less than 20 percent 5 2 20 to 40 percent 33 12 40 to 60 percent 8 3 60 to 80 percent 27 10 More than 80 percent 27 10 Total 37 Less than 20 percent 5% 20 to 40 percent 33% 40 to 60 percent 8% More than 80 percent 27% 60 to 80 percent 27%

71 Q4. What is the dollar value of annual outlays your agency made for transportation programs (all programs combined) in the last fiscal year? Please enter approximate millions of dollars. For all Programs Combined, and For all Programs included in your agency’s allocation strategy. Responses not included due to free response format allowing many inconsistent entries. Q5. What factors determine how resources are allocated under your agency’s strategy (for those resources over which the agency has discretion)? Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Program needs as determined by analytic methods or models (pavement, bridge, travel demand, etc.) 0% 0 13% 5 87% 32 Performance trends or objectives as benchmarked by quantifiable performance measures set by the agency outside of a long-range planning process 8% 3 30% 11 62% 23 Investment or performance targets set in a long- range planning process 3% 1 54% 20 43% 16 Investment or performance targets set by legislature, secretary, transportation board or other executive body 13% 5 38% 14 49% 18 Benefit-cost, return-on-investment, or other economic analysis 13% 5 57% 21 30% 11 Special studies or plans of program needs 19% 7 62% 23 19% 7 Other (Please specify any additional factors below. If none, please rank “Unimportant.”) 76% 28 5% 2 19% 7 Please list other factors or give additional detail on how the agency makes resource allocation decisions. Response Adhering to the long-range transportation plan for capital highway investments is critically important. The plan uses performance measures and targets to the greatest extent possible (not all investment categories have associated performance measures). Data Collection Vehicle Goal oriented criteria is being implemented to ensure investments are maximized to achieve multiple performance targets. Highway Maintenance and Operations Funding allocations are driven by a needs distribution process. Highway Construction Programs are now subject to a new prioritization process to allocate funds. This process is further detailed at the following site. http://www.virginiahb2.org/ Large Capital—new roads and bridges, tend to come from outside planning and communities support vs. the routine preservation needs coming from internal management systems and analysis. Most recently (10 years) the large capital projects have come with their own funding such as P3 efforts and so are separate from the routine gas revenues. Local Preservation Levels that have been discretionarily given to local programs. The Ohio Department of Transportation has given over $300 million in discretionary dollars for local programs. Local partner goals and priorities Prioritization Process as written in law Project prioritization and modal mix—Florida’s Strategic Intermodal System prioritizes projects (all modes). Once the projects have been identified, they are entered into a Strategic Investment Tool where they are scored and ranked based on ability to meet Florida Transportation Plan goals and objectives, then examined for cost feasibility, any stipulations and project plans. Special studies or plans of program will be more important in future building of our capital plan. Strategic Plan goals and objectives Asset management planning needs State wide policy objectives including sustainability and stewardship

72 Response The MDOT Highway Program is based on implementation of the goals and policies outlined by the State Transportation Commission (STC), emphasizing an asset management approach to preserving the transportation system and providing safe mobility to travelers. Road and bridge preservation projects included in the five-year program are prioritized based on approved asset management strategies, with a specific focus on doing the right repair at the right time to extend the life of Michigan roads and bridges, and keep them in good condition. MDOT pavement programs include a combination of long-term fixes (reconstruction), intermediate fixes (resurfacing/repair), an aggressive Capital Preventive Maintenance (CPM) Program, and routine maintenance of the system. Using a mix of fixes and a mix of preventive maintenance, resurfacing and reconstruction optimizes the preservation, and timely replacement of assets for available highway funding is the most cost-effective practice. It’s more cost-efficient. The appointed executives including the Chief Engineer (civil service) allocate the projected available budget among the various highway programs – Preservation, Operations, Safety and Capacity each year. The Port and Airport Programs investment levels are set by the Legislature. We prioritize our projects utilizing data on safety, system performance (congestion), economic impacts, etc. Within certain areas, WSDOT does have flexibility for making limited resource allocation decisions. WSDOT works toward managing its assets on a lowest life-cycle cost basis. Increasing interaction on investment decisions between (1) maintenance and preservation capital and (2) highway operations and safety capital improvements are being incorporated into allocation decisions with increasingly refined performance goals. Also consider allocations to meet environmental stewardship goals/mandates and improve transportation system operations Emphasis for our resource allocation is on preservation of the system which is most important. We essentially split our program to between 80 and 85 percent preservation of the program and the rest to enhancing the system. Q6. Which action was most significant in initiating the development of your agency’s resource allocation strategy? Internal proposal by staff 46% Long-Range Planning Process 13%Staff or Consultant Work w/ Public Engagment 3% Direction from state officials 11% Direction from an independent board 23% Specified by legislature 5% Other - Write In 19%

73 Value Percent Count Internal proposal by staff, which was approved by leadership over time 46 17 Agency staff or consultant work with public input as part of a long-range planning process 13 5 Agency staff or consultant work with public input outside of a long-range planning process 3 1 Direction by elected or appointed officials/bodies, which was implemented by agency staff 11 4 Direction from an independent board or commission 23 1 A process specified by the state legislature 5 2 Other—Write In 19 7 Total 37 Other—Write in Collaborative proposal developed by MoDOT, representatives of MPOs and RPCs Direction from CEO FHWA influence; bridge and pavement conditions Highway Corridor Priorities (HCP) based on Customer Service Levels (CSL) It’s a combination. The strategy is to meet the four goals of the department. Safety, Preserve, Optimize Mobility. Each area having a strategy for achieving the best benefit. Some of these are also legislatively guided for specific fund category, such as the state capacity dollars. Direction of Secretary Internal proposal by agency staff, supported by consultants, ultimately codified by the state legislature at the policy level. Q7. Were any other efforts important to the development of your agency’s strategy? Check all that apply. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 Internal proposal by staff, which was approved by leadership over time Agency staff or consultant work with public input as part of a long-range planning process Agency staff or consultant work with public input outside of a long-range planning process Direction by elected or appointed officials/ bodies, which was implemented by agency staff Direction from an independent board or commission Legislative action Other - Write In

74 Value Percent Count Internal proposal by staff, which was approved by leadership over time 40 14 Agency staff or consultant work with public input as part of a long-range planning process 51 18 Agency staff or consultant work with public input outside of a long-range planning process 26 9 Direction by elected or appointed officials/bodies, which was implemented by agency staff 40 14 Direction from an independent board or commission 17 6 Legislative action 27 10 Other - Write in 14 5 Other - Write In Coordination with COGs/MPOs Highway/Bridge/Multimodal Committee Recommendations Internal Buy in from Investment Class Managers N/A Significant biennial public involvement process Q8. Why does your agency use the resource allocation strategy that it does? Check all that apply. 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 Ensure objectivity and consistency in funding levels over time Ensure minimum core needs are met for each program Achieve long-term performance targets/ goals Ensure transparency in investment decisions Satisfy requirements of state statutes Satisfy executive policy objectives of secretary, governor, board of transportation, or other policy entity Other - Write In

75 Value Percent Count Ensure objectivity and consistency in funding levels over time 65 24 Ensure minimum core needs are met for each program 78 29 Achieve long-term performance targets/goals 87 32 Ensure transparency in investment decisions 68 25 Satisfy requirements of state statutes 51 19 Satisfy executive policy objects of secretary, governor, board of transportation, or other policy entity 51 19 Other—Write in 11 4 Other—Write in Can evaluate the results of our decisions in the future Incorporate public input on trade-off discussion of investment priorities MPOs and RPCs are included in decision-making and are supportive of the program Show needs vs resources in response to funding proposals. A legislative committee is meeting now to look at sustainable funding sources. They ask How much do you need? Q9. What factors could help your agency be more confident in your resource allocation strategy and its associated decisions? Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Better performance benchmarking data (more years, more variables, more confidence in accuracy) 3% 1 27% 10 70% 26 More case studies or ex-post evaluations of investment outcomes at the program level 35% 13 49% 18 16% 6 More agency discretion over program investment levels 27% 10 46% 17 27% 10 More input from stakeholders or the public about needs and outcomes 22% 8 54% 20 24% 9 Better predictive models for transportation performance impacts (pavement, bridge condition, travel demand, etc.) 8% 3 24% 9 68% 25 Better predictive models of economic outcomes (benefit-cost, economic impact, etc.) 8% 3 38% 14 54% 20 Other (Please specify any additional factors below. If none, please rank “Unimportant.”) 84% 31 8% 3 8% 3 Please list other factors or give additional detail on the factors above. Response 1. Improved asset condition information for present and future state; there are existing data gaps that need to be addressed. 2. Improved forecasting tools to evaluate predictive conditions relative to desired performance goals. Better business process practices and business analyst type disciplines (MBAs, not engineering) Dashboards and other performance communication tools Developing better tools for capture and analysis of multi-objectives in investment decision making. Less bonding assumptions and Federal and State funding that align with the funding needs. More involvement by modal partners is of interest Predictive models for calculating needs on the system can always be improved. Including all bridges (pedestrian, railroad, culverts over 10') in the bridge model would be an improvement as well as calibrating the pavement model to be reflective of different contexts (primarily the characteristics of urban pavements) would be improvements. Having better data/more years of data to help determine mobility needs statewide would help as well. Resulting outcomes for different programs are difficult to quantify and compare. Therefore, it is difficult to reallocate across programs since outcomes are not easily comparable. For example, some improvements may show results quickly, such as alleviating traffic tie-ups or improving pavement markings, other improvements may need many years to fully feel improvement benefit. This question doesn’t make sense. It’s assuming we don’t have good data, case studies already. Very misleading.

76 Q10. How much support or scrutiny does your allocation strategy get from stakeholders, elected officials and other outside the agency? Value Percent Count Policy is respected and broadly supported by stakeholders outside the agency 30 11 Policy is generally accepted but sometimes questioned/scrutinized 57 21 Policy is controversial but has sufficient support not to be changed 3 1 Policy is widely seen as inadequate and will likely change soon 3 1 Other—Write in 8 3 Total 37 Other—Write In Generally supported by stakeholders outside the agency but occasionally we receive legislative inquiries New way of doing spending allocation. Not sure of reaction yet Reviewed every 5 years Q11. What factors contribute to the level of support/acceptance of your resource allocation strategy? Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Data and models demonstrating how the policy meets core needs 5% 2 30% 11 65% 24 Respected and broadly supported 29% Generally accepted, but sometimes questioned 57% Controversial but not expect to change 3% Inadequate and expected to change 1% Other - Write In 8% Consistency/transparency of how allocation decisions are made 0% 0 19% 7 81% 30 Involvement of stakeholders in initial development of the policy 11% 4 51% 19 38% 14 Ability to demonstrate the outcomes of allocation decisions 5% 2 41% 15 54% 20 Other (Please specify any additional factors below. If none, please rank “Unimportant.”) 92% 34 0% 0 8% 3

77 Please list other factors or give additional detail on the factors above (e.g., where is there particularly strong support or opposition to the strategy?). Response Alignment of strategy with widely accepted long range plans (e.g., WA Target Zero Safety Plan) or mandatory regulatory requirements (e.g., ADA). By keeping the trust of the public at the core of our decision making. FDOT external partners are involved in the FDOT Strategic Intermodal System Policy Plan and other modal and freight plans. People want/enjoy transparency in how decisions are made. We strive to provide this, but there is always more work to be done. Willingness to re-evaluate/mature every 2 years Q12. What factors do you believe prevent your agency from having a more formal resource allocation strategy? Check all that apply. 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Very small percentage of resources over which agency has discretion Limited staff or technical resources to consistently implement a resource allocation strategy Unpredictable funding cycles, needs, and resource levels make consistent policy impractical Political environment does not allow state discretion in resource allocation Other - Write In

78 Value Percent Count Very small percentage of resources over which agency has discretion (due to federal and state requirements dictating how funds are spent) 20 1 Limited staff or technical resources to consistently implement a resource allocation strategy 60 3 Unpredictable funding cycles, needs, and resource levels make consistent policy impractical 40 2 Political environment does not allow state discretion in resource allocation (elected officials and other policy bodies specify all resource decisions) 20 1 Other—Write in 20 1 Other - Write in Culture - broad allocation by program areas have been used for years or decades and there is concern about changing those for fear of some programs losing funds. Q13. What factors could make it easier for your agency to allocate resources among programs? Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Better performance benchmarking data (more years, more variables, more confidence in accuracy) 0% 0 80% 4 20% 1 More case studies or ex-post evaluations of investment outcomes at the program level 0% 0 80% 4 20% 1 More agency discretion over program investment levels 40% 2 40% 2 20% 1 More input from stakeholders or the public about needs and outcomes 0% 0 80% 4 20% 1 Better predictive models for transportation performance impacts (pavement, bridge condition, travel demand, etc.) 0% 0 20% 1 80% 4 Better predictive models of economic outcomes (benefit-cost, economic impact, etc.) 0% 0 40% 2 60% 3 Other (Please specify any additional factors below. If none, please rank “Unimportant.”) 80% 4 0% 0 20% 1 Please elaborate, give additional detail or list other factors. Response Department-wide buy in for a performance-driven cross-program resource allocation strategy Q14. How long have you been with your agency (in years)? Count Response Count Response 2 3 2 20 1 3.5 2 23 2 4 3 25 3 7 3 26 4 10 2 27 3 12 1 28 1 13 1 29 1 14 1 30 1 15 1 31 3 16 1 34 3 17 1 41

79 Q15. In this time, has your agency experienced an increase or decrease in the amount of discretion that it has over resource allocation among programs? Value Percent Count Agency has more discretion over resource allocation 14 6 Agency has about the same level of discretion over resource allocation 64 27 Agency has less discretion over resource allocation 22 9 Total 42 Q16. For your agency, what issues do you believe account for the change in discretion? Unimportant Somewhat Important Very Important Authority (or constraint) due to state law or programs 33% 14 36% 15 31% 13 Authority (or constraint) from governors, secretaries, transportation boards, or other executives 24% 10 57% 24 19% 8 Need to meet requirements associated with federal transportation law 17% 7 38% 16 45% 19 Need to justify utilization of scarce funds 19% 8 33% 14 48% 20 Need to respond to instability in funding levels or program needs 21% 9 31% 13 48% 20 Enhanced agency abilities (or continued inability) to predict, benchmark, or report the outcomes of resource allocation decisions 29% 12 38% 16 33% 14 Other (Please specify any additional factors below. If none, please rank “Unimportant.”) 86% 36 5% 2 9% 4 More 14% Same 64% Less 22% Details on factors affecting changing discretion at your agency. Response Bad question. Based on if you think there’s a change in discretion. If you don’t think there isn’t a change, these questions don’t apply. Federal requirements have made a significant impact on priorities; i.e., asset management requirements and upcoming performance requirements. It is the same no change.

80 Lack of funding to consistently apply the right treatments to all roadways at the right time, resulting in a prioritization approach. Legislative directives (state bonding) impact predicted revenues for our long-range planning horizon. As legislative packages direct money to certain projects, less money is available to meet the outcomes associated with the plan (and therefore less money is discretionary). Similarly, the focus on the NHS with MAP-21 puts more of an emphasis and total percentage of the pot onto a pre-determined network/condition targets (once approved). Legislative involvement in specific detailed investment decisions which have resulted in more funding restrictions through legislative budgetary action. Nearly routine change in highway leadership on a 2- or 4-year cycle changes directions, areas of emphasis. Making resources allocation more systematic and quantitative is a response, (defense) to changing executive staff. Project prioritization model. The additional need to communicate the need for infrastructure investments. The level of discretion has remained relatively consistent during my time at the agency. We have a robust State $ stream. The majority of these funds are focused on increased capacity type projects, which has allowed us to use a good portion of the Federal NHPP and STP funds for Preservation and Rehabilitation efforts. With MAP-21 and Fast Act, and the 50% fund category transfer, we exercised at the full 50% of NHPP funds to STP, allowing more flexibility of doing the right project at the right time. We have had consistent discretion. Q17. Do you have a policy document or example guidance that describes your resource allocation strategy, which you could share with the research team? Yes 45% No 55% Value Percent Count Yes 45 19 No 55 23 Total 42 If you answered yes, please provide a link to the document below or provide contact information for the specific person who should be contacted for more information. Response E-mailed a draft of a forthcoming policy document. Existing plan (2014): http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/mnship/ Plan update: http://www.minnesotago.org/learn- about-plans/minnesota-state-highway-investment-plan Response

81 Funding sources and allocation at: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:0:1:T,V:4500, Run the Prezi. Annual Statistical Summary, pages 5–11 found at: http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/f?p=100:pg:T,V:1023,64718 and lastly our Asset Management Home page has a lot of information at: https://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=15663419239657232 I will be sending three files via e-mail: (1) our Highway Project Selection Process Manual which includes our resource allocation strategy (Section II.D), (2) a copy of our FY14–15 Budget Partition, and (3) a chapter from our Statewide Transportation Plan which includes information regarding long term budget allocations. MDOT Highway Funding Allocation Process the Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) has developed a template process to accomplish the effective usage of financial resources on Michigan’s Highway Capital program. This process allocates estimated financial resources to template categories or programs in order to achieve approved transportation improvement goals and allow for the ability to monitor that the program improvement strategies are constrained within the department’s available revenue. The process allocates a target amount to a template category annually based on its improvement strategy and needs. The amount indicates the level of obligation authority from federal aid and state revenues. Target changes due to the extra funds and/or target transfers between template programs are also administered throughout the year to fully utilize the approved obligation authority. The target development and monitoring process assists in setting the level of funding Strategy currently being tested and developed The site below has guidance documents on the allocation of funds for Construction Programs. Further information can be provided for Maintenance and Operations upon request. http://www.virginiahb2.org/ http://epg.modot.org/index.php?title=121.2_The_Planning_Process http://kdotapp.ksdot.org/TWorks/ http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/transprog/SHOPP/2016%20SHOPP/2016_SHOPP_Program_Development_Guidelines_6-3- 15.pdf http://www.floridatransportationplan.com/ http://www.iowadot.gov/program_management/FINAL_2016-2020_5YrProg.pdf http://www.iowadot.gov/program_management/investing_in_iowas_future.pdf http://www.iowadot.gov/program_management/2016-2020_Highway_Program_Brochure.pdf http://www.mdot.maryland.gov/newMDOT/Planning/CTP/Final_CTP_16_21/Documents/Attainment_2016_1_18_ Single_LR.pdf http://www.ncleg.net/Sessions/2013/Bills/House/PDF/H817v10.pdf http://www.ncdot.gov/strategictransportationinvestments/ http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/STIP/Pages/WhatsChanged.aspx All the info you want should be available from this main page and the side links I am probably the best person to talk to about this process www.dot.ga.gov www.mass.gov/massdot/CIP Alternatively, you can upload files here, or e-mail directly to kschroeck@edrgroup.com. 4 Files Uploaded Q18. (Optional) Please provide any additional comments you have regarding your agency’s strategy for making cross-programmatic funding allocations. Response All proposed needs are based on asset models, data analysis and field visits. These are scored and prioritized for 4 major asset groups of bridges, pavements, safety and mobility using an established quantifiable method. The scoring looks at condition improvement based on treatment, and benefits and costs using quasi cost effectiveness measures converted to a 100 to 0 score. There are four Individual asset teams that screen and review the projects scores and set priorities. Projects are given an A, B, C, D grade based on priorities. All four asset group projects are combined and reviewed by an oversight team made up of leadership responsible for bridge, pavement and safety, mobility and capital funds. Analysis using models looks at long-term needs and helps establish the funding levels to sustain our metrics based on 20-year forecast of revenues. Project scopes and the ABCs are then compared to funding availability for multi- year planning horizons. For example, all “A” projects Doing more with less, finding a way to stretch every dollar. For question #3, the answer assumes the question meant full discretion and not partial. There are multiple state code requirements that influence the resource allocation strategy. It starts with what do we need to spend to maintain existing roads in an acceptable state of repair; for example, how many miles of roadway do we need to resurface such that all roads are on a resurfacing cycle that maintains a good state of repair. Also, how many bridges should we replace each year; whatever is left over is what we can spend on roadway expansion. Response

82 MDOT is pursuing a prioritization model which may allow for cross-program optimization in the future. The norm for the Idaho Transportation Department is to set performance program funding targets for the most future year of the program update process. For example, when developing the new FY17 to FY21 program, targets are developed only for FY21. Targets previously set for the nearer years—FY17 through FY20—are maintained at the levels identified in earlier program update cycles. Cross programmatic funding allocations are initially made in January (at the start of the annual STIP update cycle). A few months later in the process (March or April) the Idaho Transportation Board is provided discretion to reset targets based on information learned since January. Adjustments are made to the draft program to better follow the new allocations. The legislature controls overall investments through a budget program structure which generally limits the ability for WSDOT to move funding investments between budget programs outside the annual legislative budget development process. Within the existing budget program structure, the state legislature generally allows greater latitude among certain activities such as maintenance, preservation, and safety. The survey information provided is based on the WVDOH capital program. This is something we are actively working towards. We are currently procuring a consultant to assist in the development in a performance-based long range plan. I anticipate including in that plan a new process for strategic resource allocation. It will be supported by (and will include by reference) a Transportation Asset Management Plan (currently under development), modal plans, regional plans, and other relevant program plans and we will work to develop a strategy across those programs for effective performance based resource allocation. Examples from other states or agencies would be very helpful to accomplish. This survey covers the times when we do have discretion as an agency to make resource allocation decisions—namely within the highway project realm. It does not cover the types of decisions we do not have the ability to create strategy around; namely, the modal trade-off. These decisions are directed by federal and state laws. There are some states that have more discretion across modes, which will be interesting to see. Another comment—this survey does not go into too much detail on how we make the resource allocation decisions. Maybe having one last free-form question related to (in plain language/high-level, not too long) how agencies make these decisions more details/themes would emerge. We build the budget by maintaining our primary assets first; pavement and bridge, with safety coming on board. After that and the removal of federally mandated funds (TAP, etc.) the rest goes to other categories. We use multi-year revenue estimates to derive a multi-year allocation strategy. Components of the allocation strategy are driven by anticipated growth rates for several spending categories. For example, we use a producers’ price index to grow the allocations set aside for Highway Maintenance and Operations. We review anticipated costs for state employees to derive a growth rate personnel costs in administrative program areas. Virginia law sets requirements on the order of funding. Debt service on outstanding bonds is the first priority. We’re heading in this direction and there are a lot of gears turning—we may be about 2 years out from having a system in place. Q19. (Optional) Discuss what prevents including other programs being included in your strategy (e.g., not within the domain of my agency, allocation to those programs is governed by federal/state requirements, etc.) You can see your responses to Q2 by advancing one more page to the “Review Page.” Response NCDOT has two primary pots of funds. The Highway Fund is primarily for Operations and Maintenance projects across all modes (including highway resurfacing, except interstate maintenance), while the Highway Trust Fund is used for capital projects subject to the STI legislation. In order to implement a true cross-asset resource allocation process, legislation would have to need to be updated. Not having performance targets and not the right asset information to track performance. Nothing prevents including other programs. Beginning simply and maturing over time (and in consideration of federal performance requirements). Some allocation requirements are set by Code of Virginia requirements or the Budget/Appropriation Act of Virginia. Some federal funds are dedicated to others; cities and counties, or dedicated to specific activities; transportation alternatives or safety. Some state funds are dedicated to others as well; ie state highway patrol. The lack of ability to predict future performance with a funding amount. Things like bringing signs into MUTCD standards or percent of guardrail above a certain performance when the targets or standards are changing make it difficult to trade off. We have a process for allocation, which is basically an internal allocation across programs, but it’s not really strategic, performance driven, or defensible to the public or elected officials. It is meant to ensure a minimum amount of preservation and safety, but does not adjust to changing needs. The financial management division drives many of the allocation decisions, rather than planning and engineering While INDOT does have some aviation, rail and some transit responsibility, it is primarily a pass-through type grant program. Our core work is highways with dedicated state funding and law that directs funding to highways. Response

Abbreviations and acronyms used without definitions in TRB publications: A4A Airlines for America AAAE American Association of Airport Executives AASHO American Association of State Highway Officials AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials ACI–NA Airports Council International–North America ACRP Airport Cooperative Research Program ADA Americans with Disabilities Act APTA American Public Transportation Association ASCE American Society of Civil Engineers ASME American Society of Mechanical Engineers ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials ATA American Trucking Associations CTAA Community Transportation Association of America CTBSSP Commercial Truck and Bus Safety Synthesis Program DHS Department of Homeland Security DOE Department of Energy EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FAST Fixing America’s Surface Transportation Act (2015) FHWA Federal Highway Administration FMCSA Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration FRA Federal Railroad Administration FTA Federal Transit Administration HMCRP Hazardous Materials Cooperative Research Program IEEE Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 ITE Institute of Transportation Engineers MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (2012) NASA National Aeronautics and Space Administration NASAO National Association of State Aviation Officials NCFRP National Cooperative Freight Research Program NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program NHTSA National Highway Traffic Safety Administration NTSB National Transportation Safety Board PHMSA Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration RITA Research and Innovative Technology Administration SAE Society of Automotive Engineers SAFETEA-LU Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (2005) TCRP Transit Cooperative Research Program TDC Transit Development Corporation TEA-21 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (1998) TRB Transportation Research Board TSA Transportation Security Administration U.S.DOT United States Department of Transportation

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD 5 0 0 F ifth S tre e t, N W W a s h in g to n , D C 2 0 0 0 1 A D D R ESS SER VICE R EQ UESTED NO N-PRO FIT O RG . U.S. PO STAG E PA ID CO LUM BIA, M D PER M IT NO . 88 Resource Allocation of Available Funding to Program s of W ork NCHRP Synthesis 510 TRB ISBN 978-0-309-39001-9 9 7 8 0 3 0 9 3 9 0 0 1 9 9 0 0 0 0