1. Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Key Themes from Day 2 Breakouts National Forum on Performance-Based Planning and Programming September 15, 2010 Breakout Session Facilitators

2. Setting Goals and Selecting Appropriate Performance Measures

3. Setting Goals and Selecting Measures Groups struggled with how to approach this topic area Need for a strategic federal role/guidance is strongest in the following areas of national importance: » Preservation » Freight/economy » Connectivity/Access General need clarification of the Federal role in setting strategic direction for the nation’s transportation system (Guidance not mandates) 3

4. Setting Goals and Selecting Measures - Part 2 Transportation agencies (state DOT, MPO, transit) at different levels generally find their strategic goals are aligned where needed Keeping state-level goals general is a key to fitting MPO/transit agency goals into the framework Federal level dictates on metrics and standards are not a popular idea – should focus on guidance and processes that drive good performance management practices External metrics need to be clearly understood by the public 4

5. Setting Goals and Selecting Measures Some strategic goals are difficult to translate into quantitative measures, e.g. economy or livability-related goals Help is needed on how to make decisions when goals/measures lead in divergent directions e.g. choice between Purple Line and Inter-county Connector in Maryland 5

6. Next Steps Transportation agencies need to become better at working with non-transportation partners to set their strategic goals Do “pilot studies” that provide a real world example of coordinated performance-based planning/programming USDOT should put some ideas out for discussion on potential performance areas and how to apply them 6

7. Setting Performance Targets and Tracking Performance Results

8. Why Set Targets? “Sets the bar” Provides focus, direction Helps communication, marketing, and accountability Frames expectations, what you can/can’t do Helps internal performance evaluation, resource allocation Sets priorities Establishes credibility 8

9. Why Not Set Targets? Some outcomes difficult to measure Wrong targets, unintended consequences Targets/measures could compete with each other Lack of control over specific areas If the bar is too low, may not achieve what is really possible Not all measures suitable for targets 9

10. Approaches/Process Types of Targets » Specific quantity » Range » Moving average » Incremental improvement/trend » Modified over time Data/Analysis » Need enough reliable data/tools to set targets » Need staff/resources to evaluate » Need to understand the resources and money necessary to achieve a target 10

11. Approaches/Process Who Should be Involved in Setting Targets? » Staff » Public, Customers, Taxpayers » Stakeholders » Decision-makers » Service agreements as a tool 11

12. Challenges and Issues Achievement affected by factors beyond an agency’s control Lack of public understanding of a target; poorly defined target Differences in priorities among states, regions Differences in data sources Slow moving measures vs. fast-paced world 12

13. Implementation Look to some existing national examples, programs » Strategic Highway Safety Plans Need collaboration » Federal rulemaking process may not work for this » But Federal government should lead the process Process will be iterative over time—maybe 8-12 years Common national databases (adequacy of HPMS, NTD?) 13

14. Next Steps Continue discussion amongst organizations here Reach some agreement on: » Process » Goals » Performance measures/targets Educate legislators on existing agency performance capabilities Mobilize NOW 14

15. Project Priority Setting and Tradeoff Analysis

16. Observations Allocation across programs » General consensus that performance measures can play a key role in informing these decisions » A few good examples where provided, but project level approaches were more common Allocation to projects » Multiple examples – quantitative measures, qualitative considerations, and b/c » Less agreement on the extent to which measures should or can influence project decisions 16

17. Moving Forward Lack of funding flexibility » Maximize performance within constraints » Analysis can make the case for improving flexibility Dealing with existing pipeline of projects » Empty pipeline – through implementation or crisis » Focus on longer term projects that can be done after pipeline » Better communicate implications of maintaining pipeline projects 17

18. Moving Forward Institutional/organizational difficulties » Need strong direction from leadership » Frame Federal requirements as an opportunity Lack of measures and analytical approaches outside of the preservation program areas » Accept that you don’t have to measure everything – qualitative approaches are OK » Develop decision frameworks to conduct tradeoffs across modes 18

19. Implications for LRTPs and STIPs/TIPs

20. Define and promote national goals 20

21. Define and promote national goals Research relationships and organizational structures that work 21

22. Define and promote national goals Research relationships and organizational structures that work Continue comparative measure efforts 22

23. Define and promote national goals Research relationships and organizational structures that work Continue comparative measure efforts Research timeframe and fiscal constraint requirements 23

24. Define and promote national goals Research relationships and organizational structures that work Continue comparative measure efforts Research timeframe and fiscal constraint requirements Pilot the process 24

25. Implications of Broader Planning Process Encompassing Sustainability and Livability

26. Definitions Livability - Skepticism of federal definitions by some » Some thought definitions should be different for urban, suburban and rural areas respectively » There was some general agreement that livability is a subset of sustainability Sustainability – Economic/Fiscal, Environmental, and Social (livability is part of social) 26

27. Goals Suggested San Francisco approach to Sustainability » Reduce energy intensity of travel » Manage demand to optimize existing assets » Some strategic capacity expansion What communities want in access and choice Help economic competitiveness Enhance the environment Sustainable funding strategies 27

28. Measures Suggested Qualitative measures that resonate at personal level » Walk dog at midnight? » Can FedEx get to your house? » Can an 80 yr old cross the street? » Is the area attractive to smart young workers? Housing and transportation costs as % of household income System life cycle cost/trip Travel time and reliability Mode share Emissions or energy intensity/trip 28

29. General Points Some skepticism about the value of livability to rural states Opportunity for transportation agencies to make the case for transportation decisions and investments to improve quality of life General agreement that goals and measures should be at the regional level with collaboration of DOTs, MPOs and transit 29