The phrase,'Unsound Transit', was coined by the Wall Street Journal to describe Seattle where,"Light Rail Madness eats billions that could otherwise be devoted to truly efficient transportation technologies." The Puget Sound's traffic congestion is a growing cancer on the region's prosperity. This website, captures news and expert opinion about ways to address the crisis. This is not a blog, but a knowledge base, which collects the best articles and presents them in a searchable format. My goal is to arm residents with knowledge so they can champion fact-based, rather than emotional, solutions.


Monday, March 10, 2008

Performance Based Planning: Best Practice- Montana 2003

July 30, 2001
7,483 Words including Figures and Tables
Sandra S. Straehl
Montana Department of Transportation
PO Box 201001
Helena, MT 59620-1001
Ph. 406-444-7692
Fax. 406-444-7671
Lance A. Neumann, Ph.D.
Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
150 Cambridge Park Drive
Cambridge, MA 02140
Ph. 617-354-0167
Fax. 617-354-1542

The Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT) Performance Programming Process (P3) is defined as “a method to develop an optimal investment plan and measure progress in moving toward strategic transportation system goals.” Transportation goals are based on the policy directions defined in the Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan. The distribution of funding is established through a series of tradeoff analyses based on analyzing how the program can best meet overall performance goals. P3 allows system performance to be tracked over time, and for various policy options to be systematically analyzed. In addition, P3 commits projects to the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) whose contribution to system performance has been estimated through an analytical process. This paper provides a case study of the MDT process. It describes the Montana context that led to the development of P3, the key steps of P3, and it explains the impact of the process on MDT decision-making. Lastly, the paper provides a discussion of implementation issues and next steps in MDT’sin MDT’s incremental implementation of this process.

The Montana Transportation Commission makes investment decisions annually on over $300 million in State and Federal funds. Even with the recent funding increases of the TEA 21 Federal-Aid Highway Program, the state’s transportation needs continue to exceed available resources. Developed over the 1999-2000 biennium, the Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT or Department) Performance Programming Process (P3) is an analytical process that ensures the best systemwide investment decisions are made given:
• The strategic direction articulated through the statewide planning process;
• Available resources allocated through a tradeoff analysis; and
• System performance monitored over time.
Originally the P3 process was intended to reflect all investment-related goals and actions in MDT’s long-range statewide plan. It also was intended to encompass all program funding categories. However, as the paper documents, a variety of institutional, technical and resource issues required a more focused and limited initial application of P3 to demonstrate the concept and meet the schedule requirements of the Department’s annual programming and budgeting cycle. While the ultimate objective continues to be a comprehensive application of P3, the authors believe many agencies will need to adopt a similar incremental implementation process to be successful.
P3 is defined as “ a method to develop an optimal investment plan and measure progress in moving toward strategic transportation system goals (1).” While many States have undertaken performance-based planning because of a state statutory directive, P3 developed from the foundations of the long-range statewide transportation planning process and improvements in Department analytical capabilities. The specific catalyst for P3 development was the need to develop a more rational project selection process that would consider the resources available for program delivery, and the need to articulate to State legislators what would be accomplished with additional state budget authority available through TEA 21.
The MDT has jurisdictional authority over approximately 6,692 centerline miles of rural Federal-aid arterial highways that include designated Interstate, Non-Interstate National Highway, and Montana Primary System routes. Funding allocations to the State’s five financial districts for these systems historically were based on system attributes. In the case of the Interstate and non-Interstate National Highway Systems, the allocation was based entirely on the percentage of lane-mileage. For the State Primary System, distribution was based on a calculation of lane-mileage, pavement condition, congestion and safety. While these approaches provided consistency, there was no consideration of the Department’s overall program goals, nor was there any consideration of an overall optimal allocation package to achieve system performance.
Policy Linkage and Technical Capability
In 1995 MDT adopted TRANPLAN 21 (2), Montana’s first long-range, statewide, multimodal transportation plan. TRANPLAN 21 is a strategic policy plan that commits the Department to specific goals and actions. Some of these strategic actions suggested specific linkage between the policy direction of the plan and the set of projects that would ultimately be programmed for construction through the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Table 1 lists several of the TRANPLAN 21 actions that have a bearing on the development or implementation of P3. The linkage between these policy plan actions and P3 are in three general areas: the direction to develop a needed technical capability, the direction to develop the fundamental process approach, and in the relative weighting of investment alternatives.
Independent of the policy directions adopted in TRANPLAN 21, MDT concurrently began the upgrade of its technical capabilities. Specifically, MDT developed an Oracle-based relational database information system called the Transportation Information System or TIS. The TIS allows information to be passed back and forth between the various management systems as information is tied to a linear referencing system capable of portraying and analyzing attributes from multiple data sets. This analysis could be displayed within a geographic information system (GIS). It was necessary to develop P3 before TIS data integration was completed. Consequently, a significant effort on the part of management system analysts was required to complete the analysis. Once the TIS is finalized, it will take significantly less brute force to accomplish the P3 analysis.
Even before MDT efforts to integrate data sets and long before the development of P3, information from the Pavement, Bridge, Congestion and Safety Management Systems was used within the Department. Based on data collected on various cycles, the management systems reported on recent conditions and historic trends. The management systems also suggested site-specific correction strategies and a project ranking in some cases. However, these management systems had never been used to predict system performance based on various funding levels, to recommend an optimal funding plan, or to guide the overall project mix in the STIP.
Early Initiatives
The original impetus to begin developing P3 came from the Department Director’s Office after State Legislators asked what MDT had accomplished as a result of the funding increase received in the 1991 ISTEA authorization and what would it achieve with the funding increase of the 1998 TEA 21 authorization. In addition to these legislative inquiries, there was concern that the construction program was not accurately reflecting needs or picking the right projects and that the project selection process had to be redesigned.
Given the policy directions of TRANPLAN 21 along with the Department’s improving technical capability and the questions raised by the Legislature, in 1999 staff initiated an effort to redesign MDT’s programming and project selection process. Based on the NCHRP Synthesis 243 “Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection” (3), a decision was made to work toward linking system performance with MDT’s capital programming and project selection process. An overall process flow chart for P3 is shown in Figure 1. This flow chart is a slight modification of the capital programming process shown in NCHRP Synthesis 243 (3). Two specific modifications are the addition of explicit public involvement and providing a higher level of emphasis on overall policy direction.
To implement the proposed process, multiple cross-divisional work teams were formed to develop performance measures. These work teams were organized around the policy issue-areas of TRANPLAN 21, and included: economic development, freight mobility, roadway system performance, personal mobility, accessibility, and safety. This first attempt to establish program-level performance measures was not successful. The teams proposed performance measures based on their professional knowledge, but the Department had no technical way to assess the relative cost of achieving these measures or of predicting whether a particular set of measures would be supportable with a particular funding package. While a significant amount of time went into these efforts, only limited progress was made in moving towards a performance-based program. What was missing was linkage between investment strategies and future predicted performance. On the positive side, these efforts did begin an internal discussion on system performance. Over time these discussions raised the level of comfort with the idea that the investment program would be directed at achieving a particular level of system performance. This initial effort also generated a menu of potential performance measures; some of these would later be used to tie performance to investments within P3.
Current Developments
In 2000, progress was achieved in developing a performance-based approach to funding allocations and project selection. This approach relied on the management systems to develop and predict performance and optimize an investment program based on estimated future funding. The optimized investment program was developed by iterating future funding packages and testing the resulting predicted performance until an overall best solution was achieved. Specific products from the analysis include: a funding allocation plan that distributes funds by geographic district, by highway system and by broad improvement category, and a method to link STIP nominated projects to the performance-based funding allocation plan. While data and analysis tools were not available for all areas of the investment program, approximately 70 percent of the state and federal highway program was allocated through this analytic process. As data and analysis tools are refined, the percentage of the overall program included in the tradeoff analysis will increase.
Because some funding programs were not included in the tradeoff analysis, the pavement and congestion management systems are the principal management systems used in the initial P3 tradeoff analysis at this time. In performing the tradeoff analysis, decisions regarding which areas of performance and systems to emphasize were guided by the policy directions in TRANPLAN 21.
Progress after the initial unsuccessful effort would not have been possible without a commitment and explicit support from the Office of the Director. On a practical level, progress was enabled through a narrowly targeted consultant services contract directed at institutionalizing an organizational change rather than either performing the analysis or developing a specific software tool. In short, MDT staff along with expert consultant guidance designed the entire analytical process to be performed with existing tools. The organizational approach was to develop a single team representing all the management systems – thus concentrating on technical capability rather than policy interests. This approach required staff to take ownership and negotiate the results – including selecting and supporting one or more of the several possible measures of performance that can be generated by each of the management systems. In several cases existing management and analytical systems were adapted, and in other cases staff independently developed needed tools and innovative approaches.
Montana’s Performance Programming Process (P3) combines several different annual and multiple-year activity cycles to plan, program, and deliver the majority of Montana’s highway improvements. These different cycles or modules are linked together through P3, which ensures all efforts are moving in the same direction. This linkage is important because it improves efficiencies in the business practices of the Department, it provides a demonstration of accountability to the Department’s stakeholders, and also because demonstration of linkage is now required by Federal statute in Title 23 of United States Code as amended by TEA 21. In 23 USC at 135(f)(2)(C)(i), the State’s Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) is required to include projects that are consistent with the long-range transportation plan (4). While the individual states may choose different methods to demonstrate this consistency, MDT intends to rely on the linkage designed into and integral to P3. The following describes the four activity cycles that comprise this process. These cycles are shown in Figure 2.
Vision – Policy Direction From Statewide Plan
Montana’s statewide transportation plan sets a direction and a vision for how its transportation system will be managed and developed into the future. The planning document is based on extensive public comment and technical analysis. While it gives a policy direction such as “improve pavement conditions on the Interstate and National Highway Systems,” it does not specify which projects should be built or the timing of individual improvements.
The cycle for updating the statewide long-range transportation plan (TRANPLAN 21) is roughly every five years, although it could be updated partially or completely at any time. Because it has been about five years since its adoption and also because of concern over Montana’s economy, MDT has recently undertaken an update to TRANPLAN 21. The scope of work for the plan update assures consistency and continued linkage with P3 by requiring review and update of goals and objectives to reflect the goals and objectives adopted within P3, by requiring that to the extent possible new investment areas are associated with measurable performance goals, and by directing that the plan’s policy goals and actions reflect a comprehensive view of highway system performance that protects existing investments (5).
The TRANPLAN 21 update will provide a forum to discuss the currently adopted performance goals with the public and stakeholder groups, and the tradeoffs driven by any new policy directions that may come from the plan update itself. While the plan update has yet to start, putting the policies of the plan into the context of performance-driven investments may put flesh on the necessary abstractions of a policy plan. It will be interesting to see if this linkage can be readily communicated, and whether it will encourage increased public interest in the long-range plan.
Performance Goal Driven Funding Distribution Plan
Given the direction set in the statewide policy plan, the next question is: What can be achieved in highway system performance given currently available and anticipated revenues? This question is answered through a series of tradeoff analyses that recommends a funding plan by geographic district, designated highway system and type of work (Figure 3). Overall, the aim of the funding plan is to get the best statewide highway system performance for the available funding and to move the overall investment program toward specific performance goals. The tradeoff analysis is performed between the Congestion and Pavement Management Systems on specific highway analysis sections and corridors for all rural arterial routes. In this analysis, funding transfers between Federal-aid program categories are not restricted, and 100 percent state construction funds are reserved for pavement resurfacing.
Figure 4 shows the four analytical steps in the iterative process that is followed to maximize the investment program for both pavement and congestion on Montana’s rural Interstate, National Highway, and State Primary Systems. These same steps will be followed in the future as P3 is expanded to include other investment areas.
First Analytical Step
The tentative future construction program is generally considered set for the next five years. The introduction of P3 could not disrupt the development of this program, so the first step in the annual development of the funding distribution plan is to load the approved five-year tentative construction program into both the pavement and the congestion management systems. These are the “committed” projects for the analysis. Securing the committed program implies a gradual change that will take six-years to finally alter the allocation process. The gradualness of this change was important in overcoming institutional concerns about process change. It also ensures that no committed projects will be pulled from the program – avoiding problems with both follow-through on commitments and the possibility of returning Federal-aid funds invested for preliminary engineering on projects that would not proceed to construction. In the case of the Pavement Management System, resurfacing projects were only loaded from the first two years of the tentative future construction program. Since resurfacing projects take a relatively short time to deliver, it was decided that P3 would be used to allocate the available funds between districts for years three through five. Table 2 provides a general description of the kind of treatments MDT considers within each of the three general categories: reconstruction, rehabilitation and resurfacing.
Second Analytic Step
The second analytic step begins to incorporate target performance goals within the analysis for different designated systems. The targeted performance goals for pavement condition and congestion on the state systems are shown in Table 3.
The congestion management analyst considers which roadway sections need to have capacity enhancements to meet these targeted performance goals through a slightly modified level-of-service analysis. The analyst uses two concepts to constrain these needs to “needed rather than desirable” levels: the concept of amber routes and the concept of geometric design standards.
“Amber Routes” are routes or route segments that may need to have capacity expansion but on which the state cannot move forward for reasons other than fiscal constraint. For example, some principal arterial corridors within Montana are within National Parks or in close proximity to Federally protected river segments. Both of these issues would preclude general capacity expansion – regardless of available funding. The same situation could occur if a Tribal government would not concur in the State’s development plans for a highway under state jurisdiction within Tribal lands. Since the funding analysis is intended to distribute funds to districts for system performance needs, eliminating “amber routes” from the set of needed capacity additions is a realistic method of preventing a distribution of funds to needs that cannot be addressed. These “amber routes” are only assigned pavement surface-oriented strategies.
“Geometric Design Standards” have been defined in Montana for all routes under state jurisdiction. The standards are based on functional classification and volume and can range from AASHTO design standards for higher volume, higher functional classifications to a “maintain existing level of development” for low-volume, lower functionally classified routes. On most of the non-Interstate highways, the roadway widths are between 28’ and 40’. If the congestion analyst determines a capacity enhancement is needed on an analysis section, the Geometric Design Standards guide assigning a potential improvement and ultimately what performance can be achieved.
The pavement management analyst allocates a budget for each of the analysis years to the strategies shown in Table 2 by summing the treatments assigned by the pavement management system and considering the potential set of capacity enhancing projects from the Congestion Management System against other potential reconstruction projects identified from a pavement perspective. The analyst maximizes the investment package around the targeted performance goals for both pavement and congestion.
Third Analysis Step – Iteration
The decision of how much to dedicate to capacity enhancements versus pavement preservation and betterment is an iterative process that cannot be totally solved by the pavement analysis described above. The reconstruction projects assigned by the Pavement Management System are tested for overall congestion improvements within the Congestion Management System. If congestion performance goals are not adequately supported, the pavement analysis will reassign treatments that pull in more of the needs identified by the Congestion Management System to bring up the predicted system performance relative to congestion. Ultimately, the performance goals are all constrained by funding and a desirable versus a superior performance level was achievable. The decision of how much weight to give to capacity versus pavement is made by a steering committee representing the Director’s office and Administrators as guided by the policy directions coming from the statewide plan.
Fourth Analysis Step – Proposed Funding Plan
The last analysis step is to develop a proportional performance-based funding distribution plan with the associated predicted performance levels for the analysis period. This analysis also assigns a strategy (including “do nothing”) for each highway system analysis section. The congestion management information is included as strategies where capacity enhancement was the selected strategy.
The development of the proposed funding plan builds on the results of the iterative analysis described in Steps 2 and 3. Various funding allocations and distributions of treatment types are tested in terms of their impact on system performance. The capability to predict system performance is essential for P3 and is a fundamental requirement for any performance-based programming process. By evaluating different funding scenarios in terms of the predicted performance for various components of the highway system, MDT’s management team was given the information necessary to make tradeoffs among various performance goals and develop a recommended funding plan with explicit performance targets.
Because reliable performance prediction is a critical element of P3, there are several management system assumptions that need to be carefully monitored over time to ensure the analysis reflects actual conditions closely enough that it can support fiscal distribution decisions. Two of these assumptions are the reliability of the construction cost estimates, and the actual pavement life derived from the various treatments. If actual projects either cost more or don’t perform for their anticipated lifespan, then the assumptions will underestimate needed resources or the predicted performance measures will be too high. In both of these areas, the analysts felt the assumptions were reliable enough to proceed but should be monitored over time and improved if necessary.
Performance Linked Investment Decisions – Statewide Transportation Improvement Program
The funding distribution plan described above defines funding levels by district, system and type of work (see Table 3 and Figure 3). This funding plan is based on predicted system performance given anticipated funding and a specific program mix being delivered. Clearly, these predictions will only come about if projects are developed and delivered consistent with the plan. While P3 does not “pick” projects, it does guide the project nomination process by providing information to be used in nominating projects that is equivalent to that used in developing the funding plan and then ensuring the nomination package parallels the funding plan.
System Performance Query Tool
Consistent with the geographic extent of Montana and the corporate culture of encouraging decisions at the level closest to the customer, it would have been unacceptable to orient P3 toward project selection. It is entirely appropriate that MDT’s District Administrators retain the authority to nominate highway improvement projects. The linkage between project nomination and a performance-based program is through the funding distribution plan supported by the “System Performance Query Tool.” The query tool is an Oracle-based system that provides the District Administrators the same management system information used to develop the funding distribution plan. The query tool supports the District Administrator in building project nominations. It allows mapped views using ArcView/GIS of the actual roadway under consideration, it includes the option of viewing an actual picture of the roadway through the MDT image viewer, and it simultaneously displays historic improvement and maintenance information along with any selected management system information (Figure 5). The Query Tool also provides a search function that displays all projects within a specific needs category on district maps. This search function also has the capability of color-coding all roadway segments within specific condition ranges identified by the various management systems.
The System Performance Query Tool supports the district level-nomination of projects consistent with the project mix developed in the funding distribution plan. From the perspective of P3, it does not matter which project of a particular category is nominated within a District’s system-level mileage. Invariably for Montana, in all improvement categories on all systems there are more needs than available funding. Which project within a particular treatment category is selected does not matter as long as the overall project mix is consistent with the program funding allocation plan developed through P3. The information provided by the query tool encourages consistency with the P3 analysis, but allows the District personnel to choose projects based on their engineering judgment and public input.
At its core, the System Performance Query Tool is simply a mechanism to make basic inventory and management system output information readily available, display the information in graphical form, and perform simple data manipulation tasks to support project identification and priority setting. While it has no additional analytic capability, the system was critical to get District support for P3 and make it possible for Districts to easily nominate projects consistent with the recommended funding plan.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP)
Nomination packages are reviewed for consistency with the P3 funding distribution plan. Any differences are negotiable between the district staff, Headquarters programming staff and Department Administrators. To date, the level of consistency between the project nominations and the funding distribution plan has been greater than 90 percent and there has been no need to negotiate differences. After consistency evaluation and preliminary field review, proposed projects entering the STIP are provided to the public for comment, followed by all necessary approvals and programming for project development.
System Performance – Ongoing System Monitoring
Annual cycles of data collection and system monitoring go on concurrently with project development and delivery, thus forming an important feedback loop to track the actual performance of the highway system after the investments are implemented. This feedback loop increases the predictive capacity of the management systems and MDT’s overall accountability.
The Performance Programming Process (P3) has both a direct and crosscutting impact on decision-making. The clearest example of its direct impact is in the funding allocations for the Interstate, Non-Interstate National Highway, and Montana Primary Systems. Before establishing P3, funding was distributed to both Interstate and National Highway Systems based on the percentage of system lane-miles within each District, and the allocation to Montana’s Primary System was based on district-level roadway attributes. Through P3, funding is allocated proportionately to each of these systems based on the funding needed to meet and maintain overall system performance goals. This change implies a “right-sizing” of the investment program. It also implies changes over time and the possibility of transfers between Federal-aid program categories to ensure all parts of the system are being supported commensurate with their needs relative to the various performance goals. Figure 3 summarizes the funding distribution for various systems and districts before and after the introduction of P3.
There are also crosscutting implications from implementing a performance-based programming approach. Since the only way to actually hit predicted performance is to deliver the investment program that it is based on, it has become crucial for the Department that the tentative construction program is delivered on time and on budget. Because of this, MDT has begun quarterly reporting on its internal business performance relative to actual program delivery and program mix versus that in the planned program. Montana’s highway contractors have welcomed this direction as it also helps with their business planning.
Montana’s P3 is not static. Rather, the process will be incrementally improved over time as more descriptive management system information becomes available and as information system integration matures. Since incremental process improvement requires defining next steps, priorities have been established for the next several years. Currently, the Department is investigating cost effective approaches to an urban pavement management system and an urban congestion management system appropriate to the scale of Montana’s cities. Once these capabilities are developed, the 280 miles of arterials and collectors under state jurisdiction within urban boundaries will be integrated into the performance-based funding plan analysis. After this is accomplished, the next area for integration is expected to be interchanges.
There are other gaps as well that staff hopes to refine over time through either Department efforts or through progress from applied research on the national level. One of these areas is how to integrate safety into a performance-based programming process. While the safety program demonstrates cost-beneficial highway system improvements, comparing the benefits of pure safety projects and programs to the other program areas has been more difficult than expected. Issues surrounding this include how much safety benefit should be credited to regular highway construction projects that improve highway safety but don’t specifically call it out, consensus on how to credit accident and severity rate improvements from highway spot safety improvements, and agreement on how to prorate or attribute the accident and severity rates back to actual program investments since there are many factors influencing these rates (weather, speed enforcement, demographics of drivers, etc.) outside the control of the Department. MDT hopes some of these questions will be addressed at a national level.
P3 has an open architecture that allows emerging policy issues to be considered and weighed against other commitments. This aspect allows a new Chief Executive, Governor or Legislative Committee to inquire about the impacts of new directions and direct policy shifts. Such redirections are possible within the annual cycle while the basic program and budget cycle continues. This approach will minimize construction program disruptions as long as any new policy direction begins implementation in the first year after the committed program (year six in the current program). One such potential policy shift related to economic development will be considered within the current update of the statewide transportation plan (TRANPLAN 21).
The Montana Department of Transportation’s Performance Programming Process (P3) is an effective approach for connecting transportation policy objectives coming from the statewide long-range plan to the short-range highway construction program and budget. Process implementation has been advanced through an institutional change as opposed to developing a specific software application, or simply adopting a set of performance goals. In addition, it was found that efforts to establish performance measures absent a fiscal analysis of their impact made little difference on decision-making. To avoid waiting until the “perfect” tool was available, P3 was advanced incrementally. However, some technical prerequisites exist for the analysis: a relational database tied to a linear referencing system through the Department’s Transportation Information System was crucial. Progress was also linked to the ability of the congestion and pavement management systems to evaluate the impact of funding levels, on system performance and to determine the optimal distribution of these funds to achieve specific performance targets. Linkage to project-level decisions is through a performance-based funding plan against which project nominations are analyzed. One of the technical products supporting this analysis is the “System Performance Query Tool” that provides the District Administrators with the same management system data for highways within their responsibility that was used in developing the funding plan. The Query Tool also includes spatial analysis capabilities on digitized map bases, and a budget support tool that assists in populating a matrix with project nominations. Final linkage is achieved by ensuring consistency between the package of project nominations and the performance-based funding plan, which distributes about 70 percent of overall funding by District, System and work strategy. Progress to date has been premised on respect for the organization’s culture. For example, the process does not disrupt any project in the future construction program and does not supplant engineering judgment of the District Administrators relative to which specific projects they advance for programming. Institutionalizing P3 would have been impossible without strong support and direct involvement by the highest organizational level and the inclusion of key staff on the project start-up team. Benefits of implementation include a commitment to track construction program delivery and a high level of organizational alignment as staff work through the technical details of how to improve information exchange between the management systems. Also, a specific tradeoff analysis technique was developed between management systems to provide information to decision-makers on predicted performance for different measures at various funding levels. This approach supports informed decision-making before any specific set of performance measures is adopted and will be used to the extent possible in weighing new policy options in Montana’s update of its Statewide Transportation Policy Plan.

As members of the P3 technical team the following individuals have made significant contributions to its progress: Bill Cloud, Becky Duke, Jeff Ebert, Quinn Ness, Shannon Schultz, Jeff Sillick, Sandra Straehl, and Jon Watson. The following members of the Administrative Steering Committee continue to provide frank comments and invaluable mentoring: James Currie, Patricia Saindon, Gary Gilmore, John Blacker, and Jim Walther. Lance Neumann of Cambridge Systematics has been a critical team member throughout by providing the vision of a process and the guidance to achieve it.

1. Montana Department of Transportation. Performance Programming Process: A Tool for Making Transportation Investment Decisions. November 2000.
2. Montana Department of Transportation. Montana TRANPLAN 21: Transportation Planning for the 21st Century. February 1995.
3. Neumann, L., Ph.D., Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection. NCHRP Synthesis 243, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
4. Title 23, United States Code: As Amended by TEA 21. Section 135 (f)(2)(C)(i).
5. Montana Department of Transportation. Request for Proposal: TRANPLAN 21 Update. May 2001.
6. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, “Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process,” NCHRP Research Results Digest 226, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (July 1998).
7. Pratt, R. and Lomax, T. “Performance Measures for Multimodal Transportation Systems,” presented at the 73rd Annual Meeting of the Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. (January 1994).
8. California Department of Transportation. “Transportation System Performance Measures, Final Report,” Transportation Information Program, Sacramento, CA (August 1998).
9. Neumann, L.A., F.D. Harrison, and K. Sinha, Transportation Research Circular 406: Transportation Planning, Programming, and Finance: Proceedings of a Conference, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (April 1993)
10. Transportation Research Circular 465: Conference on Transportation Programming Methods and issues, December 1996, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C.
11. Rutherford, G.S., NCHRP Synthesis 201: Multimodal Evaluation in Passenger Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1994)
12. Neumann, L.A., Markow, M.J., Schlatter, E.W., Hain, R.A., Morin, P., Transportation Research Record No. 1606, Planning and Administration: Transportation Planning, Programming, and Land Use, “Washington State’s Highway Capital Construction Programming Process, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1997)
13. NCHRP Synthesis 238: Performance Measurement in State Departments of Transportation, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (1994)
14. NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. (2000)

TABLE 1 Actions In Montana’s TRANPLAN 21 Linked To Performance Programming
TABLE 2 The Three Major Treatment Types For Addressing Pavements Under The Performance Programming Process
TABLE 3 Performance Targets For Pavement and Congestion For Montana’s Interstate, Non-Interstate NHS And Primary System
FIGURE 1 Overview of performance-based capital programming process.
FIGURE 2 Montana Department of Transportation Performance Programming annual cycle.
FIGURE 3 Comprehensive Funding Allocations P3 Distribution versus Historic Distribution.
FIGURE 4 Overview of process tradeoff analysis between pavement and congestion management systems.
FIGURE 5 System performance query tool provides a spatial representation of management system data consistent with funding plan.

TABLE 1 Actions In Montana’s TRANPLAN 21 Linked To Performance Programming
Action Responsible Office(s) Linkage to Performance Programming Process (P3)
Prioritize support for “basic” industries as criteria in programming and project selection. Planning Relative weighting investment alternatives.

Factor state and local economic development program priorities into the programming process. Planning Directs a fundamental process approach.

Monitor highway freight corridors and prioritize improvements in these corridors. Planning*
MCS Fundamental process approach and relative weighting.
Identify and address impediments to efficient freight movements in highway freight corridors. Planning*
MCS Fundamental process approach and relative weighting.

Establish a process for ensuring project selection reflects policy and planning goals. Planning*
District Offices
Maintenance Directs a fundamental process approach.
Continue to use the existing Geometric Design Standards for preserving and developing the highway system. Engineering*
District Offices
Planning Directs a fundamental process approach.
Establish criteria (goals and standards) to be used to determine reconstruction needs and whether to add capacity. Planning*
District Offices
Maintenance Directs a fundamental process approach.
Ensure that the Pavement Management System is used as a planning, program development, and engineering tool. Engineering*
District Offices
Maintenance Developing technical capability and fundamental process approach.
Ensure use of the Pavement Management System is institutionalized. Engineering*
District Offices
Maintenance Developing technical capability and fundamental process approach.
Use the Pavement Management System to define strategies and funding levels that will maintain existing performance. Engineering*
Maintenance Developing technical capability and relative weighting of investment alternatives.
Prioritize system preservation and maintenance. Engineering*
District Offices
Planning Weighting of investment alternatives.
Use the Bridge Maintenance System as a planning, program development, and engineering tool. Engineering*
Planning Directs a fundamental process approach.
*Indicates lead office.

TABLE 2 The Three Major Treatment Types For Addressing Pavements Under The Performance Programming Process
(also known as Preservation) Resurfacing consists of applying some sort of treatment to the existing riding surface in order to lengthen its usable life. This can be a very cost effective way to decrease highway costs while maintaining a quality-riding surface. All work is usually conducted on top of the existing blacktop surface. Resurfacing includes the following treatment types in order of increasing magnitude (and costs):
• Asphalt Cement (AC) Crack Seals
• Seal and Cover
• Rut Fill (leveling), Seal and Cover
• AC Thin Overlay (up to 60 mm deep)
• Mill and Fill (up to 60 mm deep, each)
Reconstruction Reconstruction includes the repair or replacement of all highway elements needed to bring the highway to a modern design standard. Reconstruction can occur on a road’s existing alignment or on a new alignment. Examples of work elements typically addressed on reconstruction projects are:
• Horizontal and Vertical Geometrics
• Pavement surface, base, and subgrade
• Major Widening (adding a through-lane to increase capacity)
• Drainage
• Intersection improvements
• Number of lanes
• Sidewalk, Curb and Gutter
• Signing and lighting
• Structural rehab or replacement
• Landscaping and Wetlands
• Guardrail
• Slope Flattening
Rehabilitation Rehabilitation covers the gray area between a full reconstruct and a resurfacing project. Basically, anytime the depth of milling and/or an overlay operation exceeds 60 mm, the project is considered to be a “Rehab.” Rehabilitation includes the following treatment types:
• Minor Widening (without increasing capacity)
• Portland Cement Restoration (concrete)
• Structural Overlay (exceeds 60 mm)
• Mill, Fill, and Overlay
• Structural Rehab (repairs and replaces asphalt section down to gravel)
• Surface Reconstruct (repairs/replaces pavement, gravel, and subgrade on same alignment)

TABLE 3 Performance Targets For Pavement And Congestion for Montana’s Interstate, Non-Interstate NHS And Primary System
Pavement Congestion Safety Bridge
Interstate Average Ride Index: Desirable or Superior (<10 percent of miles below desirable) Congestion Index ≥70 (Level of Service B) Reduce number of sites with correctable crash features. Reduce number of functionally obsolete, structurally deficient, and substandard bridges on the state highway system.
NHS Average Ride Index: Desirable or Superior (<20 percent of miles below desirable) Congestion Index ≥55 (Level of Service C) Reduce number of sites with correctable crash features. Reduce number of functionally obsolete, structurally deficient, and substandard bridges on the state highway system.
Primary Average Ride Index: Desirable or Superior (<20 percent of miles below desirable) Congestion Index ≥55 (Level of Service C) Reduce number of sites with correctable crash features. Reduce number of functionally obsolete, structurally deficient, and substandard bridges on the state highway system.

FIGURE 1 Overview of performance-based capital programming process.

FIGURE 2 Montana Department of Transportation’s performance programming annual cycle.

FIGURE 3 Performance-based allocation for first year beyond tentative construction program versus historic distribution reflected in first years of tentative construction program.

FIGURE 4 Overview of process for tradeoff analysis between pavement and congestion management systems.

FIGURE 5 System performance query tool provides a spatial representation of management system data consistent with funding plan.

The articles are posted solely for educational purposes to raise awareness of transportation issues. I claim no authorship, nor do I profit from this website. Where known, all original authors and/or source publisher have been noted in the post. As this is a knowledge base, rather than a blog, I have reproduced the articles in full to allow for complete reader understanding and allow for comprehensive text searching...see custom google search engine at the top of the page. If you have concerns about the inclusion of a specific article, please email for a speedy resolution.