AASHTO SCOPM Meeting Minutes
October 14, 2011
Detroit, MI

Welcome and Introductions: Kevin Keith

NCHRP Update: Andy Lemer

-NCHRP 20-24(37) Research Projects—These are the Comparative Performance Measures efforts under whichStates volunteer to provide their data into one system to benchmark specific performance measures. Three new studies are beginning:

  • Congestion – RFP on the street
  • Structural Health Index – need to form panel and develop scope of work
  • Serious Injuries – will utilize outcome of full NCHRP project that is currently underway to develop acomprehensive approach.

-NCHRP 08-36(104)and NCHRP 20-24(78)—Pilot studies to evaluate how performance measures can be integrated into the planning and programming process. Pilots to be conducted in Kansas City Region, Pennsylvania, and Washington, DC Region.

-NCHRP 20-24(82)—Study to review consistency of pavement data in the HPMS across States. Panel and scope of work under development.

-NCHRP 25-39—Identify promising environmental performance measures for State DOTs that will allow for national comparisons.

Status of Comparative Studies (NCHRP 20-24(37)): Mara Campbell

-Complete studies include on time/on budget, pavement smoothness, bridge condition, fatalities, and incident management reports

-Currently working on studies to compare Congestion (speed based measures), Pavement condition health/structural adequacy, and Serious injuries (work with NCHRP full project).

-Kevin Keith emphasized that these efforts are all voluntary and Mara explained the process by which they request State participation.

-Kevin encouraged States to volunteer their data and input for the completion of these studies.

Standing Committee on Planning Update: Deb Miller

-Summarized SCOP’s efforts to advance performance-based planning and programming(PBPP) during two national summits in Dallas (September 2010) and Chicago (October 2011) by bringing together Transit, MPO and state DOTs. The transportation planning process involves all the partners that contribute to the performance measures.

-SCOP is fully vested in the PBPP and has funded NCHRP 08-36(104), a pilot program to examine opportunities and hurdles concerning PBPP.

FHWA Update: Jeff Paniati

-Expect performance management in the next authorization and the situation we are in right now is an “opportunity” to get prepared

-FHWA focus during pre-authorization: Building our Strength, Advancing Best Practices, Partnering with Key Stakeholders to Design a program.

-FHWA is working actively to advance good performance management practices but not prejudging the next authorization.

-Internal activities – awareness efforts, looking at capacity needs – developing a plan, trying to get our systems integrated (leveraging the RADS system), commitment to organization (new office)

-FHWA is partnering to design an approach to national performance management:

  • Tier 1 measures – safety, pavement and bridge, serious injury definition, mobility freight, environment and livability just getting started.
  • Target setting – how are States setting these targets?
  • Reporting – if we want to tell the national performance story: how do we do that?what will such a report look like? How can we effectively report national performance measures to citizens as well as Congress?

SCOPM Draft Action Plan 2012-2014: Kevin Keith

-The Action Plan reflects a focus on the significant few things that the SCOPM can work on to get something done over the next few years.

-Need to be prepared but also continue to advance the best practice. SCOPM will take lead responsibility to carry out the action plan but will work with other committees (as they will remain in the lead in their respective performance areas).

  • Continue to work on national performance measures.
  • Continue outreach, Tier 1 measure development, Tier 2 measures, Tier 3 measures
  • Using performance management to make better decisions
  • Best practices, training and education
  • Framework for a national program
  • Performance targets (SCOPM does not endorse but will need to conduct work to be prepared), PBPP (engaged with SCOP), Performance Reporting (maximum opportunity to be effective)
  • Comparative Performance Measures
  • Building on next steps

Highlights of the discussion regarding the SCOPM Action Plan:

-Matt Hardy walked through the comments received from five western States and the response from AASHTO staff. A discussion on the intent of the comments ensued.

  • Several States commented on desire to clearly note that, under the current fiscal situation, States will be challenged to meet any new requirements for performance management.
  • SCOPM would like to partner with FHWA to be prepared and feel that the time is right to provide input now – it may be too late to wait.
  • It was noted that in the Chicago workshop several agencies indicated that it is difficult to execute good performance management practices in this difficult fiscal environment – especially when everything is short term management (extension to extension).
  • Kansas – we need to operate in a performance based environment regardless of the system.
  • It was noted that we need to identify cost effective, least burdensome measures that satisfy performance measures (look at the least burdensome approach).

-The term “Tier” was perceived by attendees in the Chicago workshop to indicate “priority or importance” when it is more an indication of “readiness”. SCOPM may want to consider renaming the “Tier” label to something more appropriately representing “readiness”.

-Measures should be developed by States and not FHWA – theme of the action plan

-Need to make a better case for funding needs – need good measures to get this done.

-Need data to tell the story – there is a need to communicate that performance measures are slipping. Concern that States will be required to collect new data when they are having to “tighten their belt”.

-Comment raised to focus the plan only on the limited set of measures adopted in Las Vegas– concern with reference to “livability”, focus on State progress – no sanctions.

-Concerned with the use of the term, “ensure”, in the document.

-Action items regarding changes to SCOPM Action Plan:

  • Remove “livability” from the charge statement
  • Add a statement that the committee recognizes that this is happening during a constrained fiscal period
  • Edit text to communicate that emphasis is “limited”
  • Keep the reference to organizational measures.
  • Reference that SCOPM will advance performance management efforts through planning and public involvement process.

-Lance will make changes, as noted above, and send to AASHTO Staff. AASHTO staff will send out to SCOPM committee.

-It was noted that any changes to the Charge Statement will need to go through the AASHTO BOD.

Infrastructure Health Assessment Workshop Briefing: Peter Stephanos

-Pete provided a summary of the outcome of the infrastructure health assessment workshop held on 10/13/2011.

-In general, feedback from the workshop was positive. There is recognition that work is still needed to utilize a Tier 1 measure in a truly consistent manner for pavements.

-Comments:

  • HPMS is not reflective of true investment needs
  • Proposed health assessment reporting could be used inappropriately
  • Any reporting could be translated into some Congressional proposals for funding.
  • FHWA and AASHTO need to coordinate efforts to develop and advance new measures to report on infrastructure condition.

Subcommittee on Asset Management: Ananth Prasad

-Ananth provided a brief overview of the SCOAM priority work activities and how they support SCOPM work objectives. An emphasis of the subcommittee is to look beyond pavements and bridges and bring connectivity between SCOPM and SCOAM.

-Recently completed research activities:

  • AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation
  • Safety and Asset Management Peer Exchange—Exchanged lessons learned, ideas and knowledge – focused on management of safety assets

-9th International Conference on Asset Management in San Diego in April 2012 – travel for States can be provided by AASHTO (different opportunities). SCOPM will plan to support the international conference

Other Items Discussed

-Standing Committee on Public Transportation has identified two rural-based transit measures they would like to bring forward to the committee and seek funding for a comparative performance measure study. This will occur during the May 2012 SCOPM meeting.

-Stan Gee – Organizational Management – webinar scheduled for December to have the – will be looking at how organizations are dealing with tough

-TRB Performance Measures Workshop – Sunday workshop to highlight current state-of-the-practice to measure performance in areas of national interest.

1