Nevada Transportation Conference Mary Lynn Tischer March 22, 2011 Silver Legacy Hotel in Reno

Discussion Points Reauthorization Highlights of the 2012 Budget Proposal for Transition to Performance-based Federal-aid Program Future Funding Alternative Funding Mechanisms

Reauthorization SAFETEA-LU expired September 2009 6 consecutive short term extensions Most recent to September 30 Congressman Mica has held field hearings Administration released 2012 budget with outline of reauthorization proposal

Administration Proposal: Surface Transportation Summary Is a $556 billion, six-year proposal to improve the Country’s highways, transit, and rail infrastructure and to ensure safety of these systems Highways to receive $336 billion, a 48% increase over SAFETEA-LU

FHWA Budget Highlights Simplify the highway program structure by consolidating over 55 programs to 5 core programs Focus investment on safety, state of good repair, and livability Increase attention to highways of national interest through the enhanced National Highway System Establish a performance-based highway program

FY 2012 Budget Programs Core Federal-aid highway programs Safety ($2.5 billion) National Highway Program ($32.4 billion) Livable Communities ($4.1 billion) Federal Allocation ($1.4 billion) Research, Technology, & Education ($641 million)

National Highway Program Highway Infrastructure Performance Program (HIPP) – provides for investments in state of good repair, operational performance and safety on an enhanced NHS Enhanced NHS – 220,000 mile network, including the Interstate System, all principal arterials, intermodal connectors, that will carry 55% of all traffic and 97% all truck freight Flexible Investment Program (FIP) - provides for investments on any part of the Federal-aid highway system and off-system bridges

Transportation Leadership Awards (“Race to the Top”) New competitive grant program ($1.3 billion) Will reform the way transportation investments and decisions are made and implemented to better realize performance outcomes and to integrate performance management into the budget and project selection process

FY 2012 Budget: Creates Performance Management Framework Outlines key elements of performance-based program Recognizes need to address performance in national goal areas of: Safety Infrastructure Condition Economic Competitiveness Environmental Sustainability Livability Focuses initially on safety, pavement and bridge conditions

FY 2012 Budget: Outlines Performance Management Process Secretary, with input, establishes quantifiable performance measures and national performance goals States work in partnership with FHWA to set state targets Envisions planning process as vehicle to implement performance management Calls on States to report annually on progress in meeting targets Provides additional flexibility when targets are met Requires performance improvement plan when targets not met

Pavements & Bridges Performance requirements for NHS+ Requires risk-based asset management plan Provides accountability: If State meets targets for 3 consecutive years, it may use apportionments on non-NHS roads States that do not meet targets for 2 consecutive years must develop improvement plan

Safety Builds on Strategic Highway Safety Plans Provides accountability: If target is met in previous year, State may transfer up to 50% of HSIP funds to other programs If target is not met in previous year, State must use obligation authority equal to prior year HSIP apportionment only for highway safety improvement projects States that do not meet targets for two consecutive years must develop improvement plan

Future Funding Financing Commission predicted drop in fuel tax revenue of 26-42 % by 2035 Two Commissions mandated by SAFETEA-LU suggest possibility of Mileage-based User Fees

Report to Senators Boxer & Carper: Mileage –based User Fees Technically feasible Several concerns Administrative costs Privacy Enforcement Need for Interoperability & standards Relationship between federal and state gov.

Further Research-Office identified in the Budget Policy Issues: requisite functionality Dual or single system Relationship of federal and state gov. Technology: enforcement retrofitting /”industry” standard architectures Field trials