The Pew-MacArthur Results First initiative, a project of The Pew Charitable Trusts and the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, works with states to implement an innovative cost-benefit analysis approach to policy evaluation that helps them invest in policies and programs that are proven to work. This webinar takes a look at how Results First works and why using this approach to policy decision-making can lead to better, more efficient use of scarce state dollars while simultaneously ensuring that outcome goals are being met or exceeded.

As state leaders continue their search for better, more efficient ways of doing business, a few strategies have emerged. Several states are putting one strategy into place—using an evidence-based, rigorous cost-benefit model to make policy decisions—thanks to the efforts of The Pew-MacArthur Results First Initiative. The initiative will be discussed during a webinar at 3 p.m. EDT Tuesday, May 28.

I have an article appearing in this week’s Capitol Ideas electronic newsletter that looks at some of the issues discussed January 13-17 at the Transportation Research Board’s annual meeting in Washington, D.C. The gathering brought together more than 10,000 transportation professionals from around the world, including many officials who focus on transportation policy at the federal, state and local levels. As usual there was plenty more that happened during the five-day meeting than I had space to recount in the article. So here’s a roundup of additional comments from a variety of speakers on a variety of topics including MAP-21’s focus on performance measurement, efforts to accelerate project delivery, what MAP-21’s expansion of the TIFIA program will mean for states, how federal restrictions on tolling might need to change to allow states to meet their infrastructure needs, and why many expect federal transportation programs could see cuts well before MAP-21 expires in 2014.

Every five years, the Tennessee Higher Education Commission completes a master plan that provides guidance on what universities and colleges should be doing for the state. There was just one problem with it. “It wasn’t paid much attention to by the institutions, I think, because there wasn’t much linkage between the state goals and the funding,” said David Wright, chief policy officer for the higher education commission. “The funding was based on (student) enrollment. The formula itself, even for all of its faults, had not been fully funded since the mid ’90s. Nothing was driving institutional behavior other than their own institutional goals or institutional statistics.

While MAP-21, the surface transportation authorization bill approved by Congress this summer, had numerous provisions (and a few notable omissions), observers say the legislation’s establishment of transportation performance measures is one of the key reforms with the potential to be truly transformative for the federal-aid highway program. National transportation goals will be emphasized and there will be important roles for state governments and metropolitan planning organizations in developing performance measures and targets. CSG has long been a supporter of state performance measurement initiatives through efforts like our States Perform website. That’s why we jumped at the chance to host an upcoming webinar for Cambridge Systematics that will help the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) design a performance reporting approach that policymakers at all levels will find useful.

As 2012 dawns, there is still no agreement on new legislation to authorize federal surface transportation programs. The previous legislation, known as SAFETEA-LU, officially expired in 2009 and the programs have been operating under a series of temporary extensions since then, the latest of which expires at the end of March. The primary cause of the delay in approving a SAFETEA-LU successor is of course money. The federal gas tax in recent years has not produced the kinds of revenues it once did and faces an unsustainable future. The Highway Trust Fund, which relies on the gas tax, has required frequent infusions of cash to continue programs. Yet the still struggling economy and other factors have made efforts to seek new revenues to fund transportation politically impossible. While some state governments have used this time of uncertainty at the federal level to move forward on their own to creatively fund infrastructure improvements, others appear to be hunkering down, making the decision to do only maintenance on existing facilities and hoping they can ride out the lack of revenues, shaky economy and growing infrastructure needs until better times are upon us. Here is my expanded list of the top five issues in transportation for 2012.

As 2012 dawns, there is still no agreement on new legislation to authorize federal surface  transportation programs, and much of the transportation funding states received from the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act is gone. While some state and territorial governments (“the states”) have used this time of uncertainty at the federal level to move forward on their own to creatively fund infrastructure improvements, others appear to be hunkering down, making the decision to do only maintenance on existing facilities and hoping they can ride out the lack of revenues, shaky economy and growing infrastructure needs until better times are upon us. Here are the top five issues in transportation for 2012.

I blogged previously about last week’s National Transportation Policy Summit in Washington, D.C. hosted by the University of Virginia’s Miller Center. You can read my previous postings on the appearance by House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee Chairman John Mica and the panel with five former U.S. Secretaries of Transportation here and here. But the forum also featured several other panels with transportation advocates, stakeholders and analysts weighing in on what might be needed to convince the public and their leaders that now is the time to move forward on infrastructure investment. Among the questions they addressed:

• How can transportation advocates win support for projects and investment in the post-earmark era?
• What’s the best way to identify the most “shovel-worthy” projects?
• Can more accountability and transparency in transportation programs help win back a public skeptical of government?
• Will an injection of politics into transportation policy help or hinder efforts to move forward on infrastructure?
• What words does the public respond to best as policy makers try to make the case for infrastructure investment?
• What’s the best way to emphasize the impact of infrastructure on economic development and job creation?
• How can developing a plan and vision for transportation at all levels of government and demonstrating visible benefits to the public help advance the cause?

Here is some of what the panelists at the Miller Center forum had to say on those issues.