Network NewsAASHTO Multi-State Transit Technical Assistance Program

Winter 2016

Early each calendar year, the MTAP Steering Committee approves an annual work plan to guide our efforts

in service of our members. Within the work plan, there are emphasis areas. Some of these emphasis areas are administrative in nature (such as getting this newsletter out every now and then) and others are more content oriented, such as coordination with the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA), and, of course, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA).

Each member of the Steering Committee has specific objectives and deliverables for the year which they fulfill with considerable support from AASHTO staff. We report on our accomplishments at our monthly conference calls which normally take place the first Tuesday of the month at 2:00 p.m. Eastern Time. The monthly calls are an important avenue for members to guide the Steering Committee in implementation of the work plan.

Here is a summary of our 2016 Work PlanObligations that we carry over and remain relatively the same from year to year include:

• MTAP Communication º Publish the MTAP Newsletter º Offer and manage the Alert process º Maintain and improve the MTAP website º Monthly Steering Committee/membership conference

calls

Continued on page 2

• Membership Renewal and Retention º Maintain membership º Maintain member technical assistance directory º Survey members annually º Hold Steering Committee Elections º Issue annual outstanding member service award

• MTAP Meetings º Help plan and deliver State Partnerships (2016) and/

or State Programs (2017) meeting each summer and a business meeting in the winter

º Plan and implement state DOT Roundtable in conjunction with CTAA Expo

• MTAP Budget—Maintain a budget including distribute and oversight of travel funds

• MTAP Coordination—Maintain effective working relations and partner as needed with National RTAP, CTAA, APTA, and FTA (see more below).

• Technical Initiatives º Support and guide, as needed, Section 5310/5311

program managers conference calls º Based on issues brought forward at monthly Steering

Committee meetings and MTAP Alerts, work with AASHTO staff to develop and schedule a conference call or webinar to share best practices on specific technical issues

• Orientation and Training º Update the MTAP website and Course Offering brochure

as necessary.

Message from the MTAP Steering Committee Chair | Our 2016 Work Plan

2

Message from the MTAP Steering Committee Chair | Our 2016 Work Plan—Continued

º Continue to work with SURTC on the enhancement/update (to reflect MAP-21 and FAST Act) of the FTA 101 training course for state DOTs (if needed)

º Work with FTA for the development on training materials which focus on state DOT staff and our subrecipients.

• Research º Facilitate discussion among members on research needs

that could be meet though NCHRP 20-65 and keep members advised on the status of previously approved NCHRP 20-65 state research projects.

Also in our annual work plan—under the category of MTAP Coordination—is our goal to maintain effective communications and relations with FTA. Within this area are some planned activities unique to or particularly important for 2016 and they include:

• In 2016 we will continue to closely monitor FTA rulemaking, policy making, circulars, and other formal and informal decisions made toward implementation of FAST (and as such MAP-21). We will help facilitate the development and submission of formal AASHTO comments, generally through the Standing Committee on Public Transportation, to the docket and informal input to FTA.

• On an as-needed basis we will dialogue with FTA on issues of common concern to state DOTs.

• We are also hoping to plan and implement a face-to-face or web-based structured dialogue with FTA Headquarters and Regional Offices sometime this calendar year.

We want to ask leaders from across a broad range of FTA program areas and offices in DC, as well as regional leadership to join MTAP leadership in a discussion on rural and specialized transit. Our goal would be to create a common understanding and language between FTA and the states on: the state of the rural and specialized transit industry; the role of the states; interrelationships of FTA offices; and opportunities for AASHTO/FTA partnerships to ensure FTA requirements remain relevant to the rural and specialized environment across all FTA programs/offices.

We want our work plan to be fluid so we can to respond to the needs and opportunities of our members as they arise. As you look forward to 2016, if there is something we, your Steering Committee, can be doing to assist you, please contact us. And, please consider joining us for our monthly conference calls to help guide us in implementation of our work plan.

• Sharon EdgarChair; Edgars@michigan.gov

• Dave HarrisVice Chair; DavidC.Harris@state.nm.us

• Katelyn DwyerAASHTO Staff; KDwyer@AASHTO.org

The 2015 MTAP Outstanding Service Award went to Ed Coven, State

Transit Manager at Florida DOT. Coven has actively participated in MTAP for years and is always generous with information. His cooperation with MTAP was always to further understanding, strength and efficacy of the state DOT transit community.

Coven was appointed Manager of the Public Transit Office for the Florida Department of Transportation in March 1996. In this position, he is responsible for statewide transit planning and operations programs, federal and state grant programs, commuter assistance programs, transit research, and departmental policies and procedures relating to public transit. He is responsible for the development and implementation of the state of Florida’s

New Starts Transit Program, and he currently serves as the department’s advisor to the Florida Commission for the Transportation Disadvantaged.

Prior to his appointment, he served as the grant programs administrator in the Transit Office. He originally joined the Florida DOT in 1989 as a public transportation specialist in the Office of Policy Planning. Prior to joining the DOT, he served for seven years as a transit planner with the Broward County Office of Planning and MPO in Ft. Lauderdale, Florida.

Coven holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Geography, and a Master of Science degree in Urban and Regional Planning, both from Florida State University in Tallahassee.

• Dave HarrisMTAP Vice Chair, New Mexico DOT

MTAP Outstanding Service Award

3

The AASHTO Standing Committee on Public Transportation (SCOPT)

together with the Standing Committees on the Environment and Planning and the Subcommittee on Highway Transport held a joint conference on 21st Century Mobility for Freight and Passenger Transportation July 6–10, 2015. Salt Lake City, Utah, with its extensive rail transit network and growing bicycle infrastructure, was an appropriate setting to explore topics that will impact the future of transportation.

Keynote speaker Dan Tangherlini kicked off the discussion by describing how technology is driving huge changes in transportation. CEOs of state DOTs in Kentucky, Minnesota, Oregon, and Utah, who chair the above AASHTO committees reacted to Tangherlini’s remarks. Utah’s Carlos Braceras may have captured it best when he said, “If you feel like you’re in control, you’re not driving fast enough.” His message was that DOTs cannot be in control, the customers are. They are going to find new ways to better use DOT assets. DOTs must be ready to help with those new ways.

SCOPT Chair and Minnesota DOT CEO Charlie Zelle welcomed attendees to a SCOPT meeting that was held during the conference. FTA staff described their ongoing preparation of safety and asset management programs required under MAP-21. AASHTO staff reviewed their promotion of funding for transportation and their effort to establish a resource for innovative transportation financing. Finally the entire group discussed reauthorization guidance to Congress and public transit research opportunities.

Much of the conference focused on autonomous vehicles. Presentations and panels discussed the technology and how it can impact freight (tightly aligned truck platoons), transit (Las Vegas monorail, Honolulu light rail), planning, laws, and insurance.

MTAP Chair Sharon Edgar (Michigan DOT) moderated a breakout session covering state multimodal planning. MTAP member Ed Coven (Florida DOT) was one of the presenters, describing development of Florida’s long-range plan. Other breakout session topics included, Leveraging Emerging Technology, Opportunity

Costs of Not Investing in Transportation Infrastructure, Project Delivery, Cross-Modal Research, Flooding Risks, and Public–Private Partnerships. Another concurrent session entailed a mobile workshop touring Salt Lake City’s transit and bicycle infrastructure.

Representatives of four states presented information about performance-based planning and performance management across different transportation modes in a town hall session. Subsequent discussion groups focused on cross-modal issues, organizational performance and future research needs.

The AASHTO Conference on 21st Century Mobility for Freight and Passenger Transportation was a unique opportunity to integrate public transportation with other transportation disciplines in an effort to explore how to improve the entire transportation network.

• Mike SchadauerMinnesota DOT

A CONFERENCE WITH A GRAIN OF SALT

4

In October 2013, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) issued a

consolidated advance notice of proposed rulemaking (ANPRM) requesting comments on a wide range of topics pertaining to implementation of the transit safety and transit asset management provisions of Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21). The ANPRM laid out FTA’s initial thinking/proposals, requesting reactions, and comments. It also asked 123 specific questions for which FTA sought specific answers. AASHTO spent many hours taking comments from its members and preparing comments. For details on our comments see our Summer 2014 newsletter.

The considerable effort that SCOPT and MTAP members put into analyzing the October 2013 ANPRM was just the starting point. FTA has rolled out more detailed proposals in a series of topic-specific notices of proposed rulemakings (NPRM) in 2015 and AASHTO was able to draw upon our prior analysis to develop and submit detailed comments on each individual FTA proposal.

A brief summary of the two NPRMs related to transit asset management and safety issued in 2015 and AASHTO’s comments is provided below.

FTA PROPOSES TRANSIT SAFETY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND AASHTO COMMENTS

TRANSIT SAFETY PROGRAMIn August 2015, FTA published a proposed rulemaking on “Public Transportation Safety Program” proposed rule (Docket Number FTA-2015-0009).

The proposed rule included the following elements: (1) Formal adoption of the “Safety Management Systems” (SMS) approach as the foundation for FTA’s safety oversight and regulatory approach; (2) procedures to implement the FTA Administrator’s authority to conduct inspections, investigations, audits, etc., of a public transportation system; (3) procedures to implement the FTA Administrator’s authority to take appropriate enforcement actions; and (4) proposed contents of the National Safety Plan.

AASHTO’s comments focused on two main areas of concerns as described below. AASHTO decided to comment on this NPRM not only for its specific content but to provide FTA comments that might guide the next anticipated safety rulemaking which will lay out the proposed rules for individual agency safety plans.

AASHTO’s first areas of concern related to the safety program NPRM was to ensure the transit safety regulations are relevant and properly scaled.

AASHTO expressed concerns that FTA’s proposed “approach” to safety—in particular the language that FTA uses to talk about the issue—is relevant only to the experiences, organizational cultures and institutional capacities of large, urban rail systems. By continuing to use an urban rail focused approach, AASHTO expressed concern that FTA may be inadvertently making it difficult for the nation’s small urban and rural bus systems to embrace, much less implement, FTA’s safety objectives.

AASHTO advocated that for bus-only systems, FTA’s focus and approach to safety not be based solely on SMS but be drawn from the language and concepts set forth in the voluntary bus safety program that emerged from the Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) signed by FTA, AASHTO, the American Public Transportation Association (APTA), and the Community Transportation Association of America (CTAA) in 2003. AASHTO believes the 2003 MOU lays out a program of driver training, drug and alcohol compliance oversight, vehicle maintenance, specification standards and current NTD reporting, that has provided bus-only systems with an unparalleled safety record at or approaching zero fatalities

5

Continued on page 6

comments. This summary does not cover the full range of AASHTO’s comments. Visit AASHTO’s website to see all of our comments to FTA.

Scope of the RequirementsThe proposed rules requires all providers to have a TAM Plan, including each individual Section 5311 and Section 5310 subrecipient. In general a provider is a recipient of federal funds that owns, operates, or manages capital assets. The proposed rules also define two tiers of providers. Tier I providers are those operators with one hundred and one (101) or more vehicles in revenue service or operators of rail fixed-guideway public transportation systems. These providers must develop their own, individual TAM plan. Tier II providers are those transit operators with one hundred (100) or fewer vehicles in revenue service and that do not operate rail fixed-guideway public transportation systems. The proposed rules mandate that states and direct recipients become the sponsor for (i.e., develop) a group TAM plan for all their tier II subrecipients, including but not limited to Section 5311 subrecipients.

AASHTO Comments AASHTO recommended the TAM plan requirements for Section 5310 subrecipients be scaled back. Specifically, AASHTO strongly recommended that TAM plans for providers that only receive Section 5310 funds be required to include “FTA-funded” assets only.

AASHTO did not support the use of the FTA defined tiers in terms of the mandate it would place on the states to prepare group plans. For the group plan provisions, AASHTO recommended that state DOTs only be mandated to do a group TAM plan for its subrecipients under the Section 5311 and Section 5310 programs. AASHTO opposed placing a mandate on the states to do a group plan for subrecipients of the Section 5307 or Section 5339 programs.

and should drive FTA’s approach under MAP-21.

AASHTO’s second area of concern regarding the safety program NPRM was the need to provide flexibility when FTA proposes rules for individual agency safety plans. AASHTO acknowledged that the statutory language in MAP-21 provides FTA the authority to require safety plans for each of a state’s subrecipients under both the Section 5310 and 5311 programs. However, AASHTO argued that FTA has the ability to allow a state DOT, as the “direct” grant recipient, to take on the safety planning for its subrecipients in a single statewide approach and to submit a single comprehensive plan that covers all its subrecipients. Therefore, AASHTO recommended that states have the flexibility of approaching the requirements at the state (i.e., grant recipient) level and asked that the FTA rules allow for but not require implementation at the individual subrecipient level.

AASHTO was also adamant in its position that the application of SMS and a requirement for individual agency safety plans for Section 5310 operators is not practical for either the states or FTA. AASHTO’s position was that each state should determine the best approach to guide their Section 5310 subrecipients on safety and that FTA could monitor and evaluate the state’s approach via the State Management Review process.

As noted above, using bus-specific language and concepts will become even more critical when FTA proposes the rules for individual transit agency safety plans. These proposed rules are expected in early 2016 and AASHTO will review those rule carefully and submit comments to the docket.

TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENTIn September 2015, FTA issued its proposed rules regarding Transit Asset Management (Docket Number FTA–2014–0020).

A very high-level summary of the proposed rules is below by major content area. For each content area, the content of the rules is followed by AASHTO’s

TAM Plan Content and TimelinesPer the proposed rules, Tier I providers’ plans must include all of the following elements, while group plans for tier II providers may limit their plans to the first four elements

1. Inventory of capital assets2. Condition assessment of each capital

asset sufficient to monitor and predict performance of each capital asset

3. A list of the provider’s analytical processes or decision–support tools

4. A project-based prioritization of investments, including those projects for which funding will be sought under the SGR Grants Program;

5. A transit asset management and SGR policy;

6. A strategy for the implementation of the TAM plan;

7. A description of annual key transit asset management activities spanning the time horizon of the TAM plan;

8. A specification of the resources, including personnel, needed to develop and implement the TAM Plan; and

9. An outline of how the TAM plan and related business practices will be monitored, evaluated, and updated, as needed, to ensure the continuous improvement of transit asset management practices.

FTA proposed that a TAM plan must cover a horizon period of at least four years and that the initial TAM plan be completed no later than two years after the effective date of the final rule.

AASHTO Comments AASHTO supported FTA’s proposal that smaller providers (Tier II providers as defined by FTA) be allowed to develop TAM plans that cover only elements #1–#4. AASHTO also recommended additional limits on TAM plans for those providers who only receiving Section 5310 funds by limiting the plan content to FTA-funded assets only.

6

In response to the FTA proposal that TAM plans be completed in two years, AASHTO recommended a phased in approach, such as: An initial TAM plan due in two years that may at the provider’s discretion be limited to revenue vehicles only. Then allowing the initial plan to be amended to add in facilities one year after FTA has come to the state to train the state and its subrecipients on Transit Economic Requirements Model (TERM) and amended to include all other required assets in four years. AASHTO also suggested that the TAM plan be valid for four to eight years to allow agencies to better align other plans, such as their capital plan.

Asset Definition, Classes, and CategoriesThe proposed rules describe a capital asset as a unit of rolling stock, a facility, a unit of equipment, or an element of infrastructure. An asset class means a subgroup of capital assets within an asset category. Asset category means a grouping of asset classes. For example—buses are a class of assets within the asset category of rolling stock.

AASHTO Comments AASHTO proposed that a specific definition of asset be included and only assets that meet that definition be included in a TAM Plan. The definition AASHTO was proposed is an asset meets all of the following: a) FTA-funded assets or assets that the provider considers likely to be maintained, replaced, or repaired with FTA funds; b) an initial cost of at least $50,000 (as determined by the provider) or any rolling stock; c) a Useful Life Benchmark (ULB) of at least five years or greater.

Performance Measures and TargetsWithin three months a transit provider or group TAM plan sponsor must set State of Good Repair performance targets for the following fiscal year for each asset class. The target must be set based on the following performance measures.

• Nonrevenue, support-service and maintenance vehicles—the percentage of vehicles that have met or exceeded their useful life benchmark. There will be a default ULB established by FTA or the provider may establish their own ULB.

• Rolling stock—the percentage of revenue vehicles within a particular asset class that have either met or exceeded their ULB—the default ULB established by FTA or a ULB established by the transit provider.

• Infrastructure-rail fixed-guideway track, signals, and systems—percentage with performance restrictions.

• Facilities—percentage of facilities within a class (e.g., administration, maintenance, etc.) rated below a condition 3 on the TERM scale

AASHTO Comments AASHTO acknowledged that MAP-21 called for targets to be set three months after the rule is issued and each fiscal year thereafter. However, AASHTO suggested ways to reduce the burden of these statutory requirements. Specifically, AASHTO suggested the rules could define the initial target setting (the ones due in three months) as preliminary and could note that these preliminary targets may be of limited use in guiding investment decisions until there is additional information of existing asset conditions. In addition, AASHTO suggested the rules could

allow for the annual target setting to be limited to revisiting the prior year’s target based on prior year investments and updating if significant changes are needed. The rules should only require a full re-evaluation of targets every four to eight years as determined by the provider (for an individual plan) or a sponsor (for a group plan). In addition, consistent with its recommendations to phase in the assets covered in a plan, AASHTO recommended that facilities be exempted from target setting until training is provided on the use of TERM for the state DOT and its subrecipients.

NEXT STEPSThe transit asset management and safety provisions of MAP-21 remain in place under the FAST Act and additional proposed rulemakings, as well as final rules for issues covered in the two NPRM discussed above are expected in 2016. With leadership from SCOPT and MTAP members, AASHTO will continue to provide detailed comments on each FTA proposed rulemaking. In addition, as final rules are issued MTAP will continue to dialogue with FTA on implementation, specifically how FTA and AASHTO can provide technical assistance to state DOTs as we comply with the new requirements and pass them down to our subrecipients.

• Sharon EdgarMTAP Chair, Michigan DOT

FTA PROPOSES TRANSIT SAFETY AND ASSET MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS AND AASHTO COMMENTS—Continued

7

NCHRP 20-65: Researching the Most Pressing Problems Facing the Industry

The National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) is a

forum for coordinated and collaborative research which addresses issues integral to the state Departments of Transportation (DOTs) and transportation professionals at all levels of government and the private sector. The NCHRP provides practical, ready-to-implement solutions to pressing problems facing the industry. It is administered by the Transportation Research Board (TRB) and sponsored by the member departments (i.e., individual state departments of transportation) of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO), in cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA).

Several AASHTO standing committees request and receive annual allocations under NCHRP. This funding is allocated for small projects that are of direct interest to the requesting standing committee. The Standing Committee on Public Transportation has received $450,000 a year from NCHRP for a number of years and these funds are labeled as the NCHRP 20-65 project. The 20-65 project is guided by a panel of expert stakeholders and a TRB senior program officer. The panel and program officer oversee an annual process that includes:

• Soliciting research ideas from anyone in the industry, generally each the summer

• A panel meeting to select research ideas, often in August [At this point the individual research projects are assigned a “task” number so that within the NCHRP 20-65 “project” five to six “tasks” are funded a year]

• Panel members finalize the selected ideas into formal research problem statements

• The TRB Senior Program Officer solicits research proposals from consultants and universities

• Panel members score and selecting a researcher for each task

• The program officer and panel guide the research through conference calls with the researcher and panel review and approval of research deliverables such as work plans, progress reports, survey questions, draft and final reports

• Final reports are published through the TRB process mostly in the form of Research Results Digests

Many of the state DOT members are also active in MTAP and/or SCOPT—including Charles Carr (Mississippi), Sharon Edgar (Michigan), Chuck Dyer (Ohio), Ron Epstein (New York), Dinah Van Der Hyde (Oregon), David Harris (New Mexico), and David Spacek (Illinois).

A summary of some of the NCHRP 20-65 research tasks recently completed, nearly completed and underway is provided below.

Task 48—“Condition of State and Federally Funded Transit Assets” looked at state of current practice in state DOT asset management. This research has been completed and is pending publication

Task 49—“Impact Assessment Indicators for Administration of Public Transportation Grants” has also recently been completed but not yet published. This research looked at how state DOTs measure the effectiveness of their grant administration processes. Commonly used indicators include:

• Administration cost as a percentage of total annual expenditure

• Total transit funding level• Federal funding lapsed• Timeliness of grant administration

activities• Provision of grantee support

Task 52—“Selected Indirect Benefits of State Investment in Public Transportation” looked at various models/methods states have used to measure the indirect benefits of transit services and has been published as Research Results Digest (RRD) 393 and is available for download on TRBs website at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_393.pdf

Continued on page 8

8

Task 53—“Independent Cost Estimates for Design and Construction of Rural and Small Urban Transit Facilities” created a spreadsheet tool that can be used to generate an initial estimate of a rural transit structure. It has been published as RRD 397 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_397.pdf

Task 55—“Estimating the Long-Term Impacts of MAP-21 on the Nation’s Local Rural Transit Bus Infrastructure” looked at the impact on the changes to the Section 5309 bus and bus facilities program under MAP-21 and was published as RRD 394 http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/nchrp_rrd_394.pdf

Research in progress includes:Task 56—“Best Practices in Rural Regional Mobility” which will try to categorize how much of the nation’s rural transit service is multi-county.

Task 57—“Assessment of State DOT Transit Vehicle Procurement Models” is looking at state and consortium procurement practices and pros and cons of each.

Tasks 58, 59, 61, and 62 in combination they documenting and analyzing the changes in the Section 5310, 5316 and 5317 programs over the last several authorizations. The four tasks are:

• Task 58—“Documentation of FTA Section 5310 Recipients and Projects Before the Enactment of “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century” (MAP-21)”

• Task 59—“The Determination of How Federal Section 5316 Funds Were Used Under the Safe,

Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy For Users (SAFETEA-LU) and The Transportation Equity Act For The 21st Century (TEA 21)”

• Task 61—“Determine How Federal JARC and New freedom Funds Were Provided under MAP-21”

• Task 62—“The National Perspective—An Assessment of Section 5310 program Administration Under MAP-21”

Task 60—“The National Mobility Management Initiative: State DOTs Connecting Users and Rides for Specialized Transportation” focused on different approaches state and regional transportation agencies are taking to providing information and tools (such as call-centers) to connect riders to specialized services, with a specific focus on Veteran Transportation Community Living grantees.

The MTAP Steering Committee and SCOPT Executive Committee both monitor NCHRP 20-65 research and when possible make arrangement for researchers to present their results to our members. For example, tasks 49, 53, and 57 were presented at the MTAP/SCOPT winter business meeting in early December 2015. MTAP members are encouraged to propose research ideas and make use of NCHRP 20-65 research reports. For more information about the NCHRP 20-65 project, visit the SCOPT Research Page or contact TRB Senior Program Officer Gwen Chisholm Smith at gsmith@nas.edu or NCHRP 20-65 panel chair, Sharon Edgar at edgars@michigan.gov.

• Sharon EdgarMTAP Chair, Michigan DOT

The 16th Biennial FTA State Programs Meeting and State Public Transit

Partnerships Conference were held in Washington, DC,on August 12–14, 2015. The theme was Keeping America Moving and the opening plenary session featured leaders from FTA, APTA, CTAA, and AASHTO describing their organizations’ focus on achieving the theme. A second plenary session titled Rides to Wellness highlighted the challenges of helping disadvantaged people reach healthcare services and success achieved in Pennsylvania and Missouri. The first afternoon featured concurrent sessions on various FTA programs as well as a State Public Transit Association Leaders Roundtable.

MTAP held a breakfast business meeting early the morning of the second day. A plenary session describing the Future of Public Transit followed, in which representatives from FTA, ITS America, and U.S. DOT explained how the rise of on-demand tools will lead to mobility improvements. The remainder of the second day offered concurrent sessions about FTA and NTD programs.

The third day offered repeated versions of concurrent sessions, giving attendees an opportunity to catch topics that they missed earlier. The conference concluded with a mid-day plenary session summarizing what was learned about Keeping America Moving.

The State Public Transit Partnerships Conference consistently provides a valuable opportunity to learn from and communicate with staff from FTA, supporting organizations like APTA and CTAA, and other state departments of transportation. The 2015 edition was no exception.

• Tom GottfriedMinnesota DOT

Keeping America Moving

NCHRP 20-65: Researching the Most Pressing Problems Facing the Industry—

Continued

9

A FAST Exchange of Information

Amid the energy of the passing and signing of the Fix America’s

Surface Transportation (FAST) Act, the Standing Committee on Public Transportation (SCOPT) and Multi-State Technical Assistance Program (MTAP) held their winter meeting at AASHTO’s headquarters in Washington, DC, on December 3–4, 2015.

One of the greatest benefits of attending these meetings is hearing directly from and having an opportunity to ask questions of FTA managers. Leaders of FTA’s State Management Review, Transit Asset Management, Safety, Research, and State Programs provided updates and listened to attendees’ concerns. Many of these programs are continuing to produce guidance to comply with the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act. MTAP members reminded FTA representatives to make their guidance relevant for rural, smaller transit providers.

Consultants summarized three recent research projects conducted on behalf of SCOPT and MTAP:

Impact Assessment Indicators for Administration of Public Transit Grants—a summary of approaches used by states to measure their own efficiency and effectiveness at administering their transit grant programs

Assessment of State DOT Transit Vehicle Procurement Models a review of methods used for acquiring buses: statewide procurement, by consortia, or direct by subrecipient

Independent Cost Estimates for Design and Construction of Transit in Rural and Small Urban Areas—the result was a spreadsheet tool that assists in developing estimates of transit facilities in a variety of settings

MTAP Chair Sharon Edgar led a discussion that focused largely on a recent FTA Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) about changes in infor-mation requirements for the National Transit Database (NTD). MTAP supports submitting asset data for Section 5310 and 5311 subrecipients on a statewide bases rather than individually. While that may not be acceptable to FTA for Section 5311 assets, MTAP is prepared to fight hard to keep it statewide for Section 5310 assets. Sharon also covered Asset Management and Safety. MTAP reached consensus that a Group approach of one statewide plan for statewide assets was preferred to a Grouped approach of one plan with subrecipients’ assets covered individually.

Shayne Gill, AASHTO’s Program Director for Multimodal Transportation reviewed the SCOPT Work Plan, which

calls for working toward multimodal approaches to planning and research and generally raising the awareness level of transit in AASHTO. There was also concern raised about a federal emphasis on serving all without more discussion on efficiency—we do not seem to be speaking the same language. Katelyn Dwyer, MTAP Program Specialist, led a review of MTAP’s work plan, updating responsibilities and the MTAP Steering Committee members assigned to each.

Finally, policy experts from AASHTO, CTAA, and APTA shared their perspective on the FAST Act. They were almost giddy as they described this first law in over 10 years that provides long-term funding certainty for surface transportation. They noted that FAST is an amendment to existing law. Therefore the requirements of MAP-21 hold unless FAST specifically changed something.

It was exciting to be in Washington, DC, as the FAST Act was completed, learning about administering important transit programs with my peers from other states. Thank you, Katelyn Dwyer and Shayne Gill of AASHTO, for planning a useful and well-run meeting.

• Mike SchadauerMinnesota DOT

Network NewsAASHTO Multi-State Transit Technical Assistance Program

Upcoming Activities

APTA Bus and Paratransit ConferenceCharlotte, North CarolinaMay 15–18, 2016 ◆ Info

CTAA EXPOPortland, OregonMay 22–27, 2016 ◆ Info

Transit State of Good Repair Track at the National Conference on Transportation Asset ManagementMinneapolis, MinnesotaJuly 10–12, 2016 ◆ Info

State Public Transportation Partnerships/Transit Midwest ConferenceKansas City, MissouriAugust 14–16, 2016 ◆ Info

National Conference on Rural Public and Intercity Bus TransportationAsheville, North CarolinaOctober 2–5, 2016 ◆ Info

Additional information regarding the above upcoming activities can be found on the MTAP website at www.mtap.org.

444 N. Capitol Street, N.W. Suite 249

Washington, DC 20001

MTAP Program SpecialistKatelyn Dwyer

202-624-3698202-624-5806 faxkdwyer@aashto.org

www.mtap.org

Gone Fishing: Congratulations to Our Recent Retirees!

MTAP would like to thank and congratulate our recent retirees: Bobby Killebrew (Texas DOT), Marianne Freed (Ohio DOT), and Dave Spacek (IDOT).

Meet Katelyn Dwyer!First, let me introduce myself in case anyone reading this has

not already become acquainted with me. My name is Katelyn Dwyer and I am AASHTO’s new Multi-State Transit Technical Assistance Program Specialist and I will be managing the MTAP program. Since starting with AASHTO in August 2015, I have had the chance to work with many of you and I am excited to continue our great work. I hope to pick up where

Andy House left off and provide each of you with the support that is needed to continue to grow and improve the MTAP program. Before going any further, let me give you some background about me.

I am originally from San Francisco, California. I attended California Polytechnic State University (Cal Poly) in San Luis Obispo, California (on the beautiful central coast of California—four hours between Los Angeles and San Francisco) and graduated with a degree in Nutrition Science. It was during my time at Cal Poly that I became interested in a career in transportation. As a San Francisco native with great transit options, I prided myself of being car-free (and driver license free). It was only in April 2015 that I got my license!

Immediately following college, I moved to Washington, DC, and began graduate school at American University. I graduated with a Master’s in Public Administration. During graduate school, I interned for Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi, Senator Dianne Feinstein, Coalition for Smarter Growth (a local non-profit focused on the DC, Virginia, and Maryland region), and the Northern Virginia Transportation Commission. Prior to coming to AASHTO, I was a Project Coordinator for AARP’s Livable Communities team, spending much of that time helping older adults age in place under the AARP Network of Age Friendly Communities. This Network of Age Friendly Communities focused on eight issue areas including housing, outdoor spaces and buildings, civic participating, and employment—and yes, transportation! My prior work experience has provided me with local, regional, and state level transportation knowledge and experience. I am excited to continue learning more about issues facing the states and their subrecipients.

Thank you for the opportunity to introduce myself, and I look forward to working with and getting to know each of you.

• Katelyn DwyerMTAP Program Specialist, AASHTO