International Scan: Linking Transportation Performance and ...
Transcript of International Scan: Linking Transportation Performance and ...
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
International Scan:Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability
American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
National Cooperative Highway Research ProgramWebinar Presentation
April 22, 2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
2
Background of the Scan The US Congress is considering a performance management approach
for Federal transportation programs and their grant recipients
State DOTs, transit agencies and MPOs would be accountable for achieving performance targets in exchange for continued Federal funding
DOTs, transit agencies and MPOs all use some form of performance measurement
However, fewer agencies have performance management systems thatlink performance to project-selection and budget processes
We wanted to learn from the experience in Sweden, the UK, Australia and New Zealand who use performance management for surface transportation programs
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
3
Purpose of the Scan Seek examples of goals
translated into agency performance measures
Find ways to effectively set performance measures based on public, legislative input
Find examples of performance tied to budgets
Find ways agencies can demonstrate accountability through performance measures
Seek advice on what works, what doesn’t
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Final Report
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 44/20/2010
It is available at: http://www.internatio
nal.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf
We will repeat this web address at the end of this presentation
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
5
Where We Went The Swedish Road
Administration The British Department for
Transport The New South Wales Road
and Traffic Administration in Sydney, Australia
The Victoria Department of Transport and Vic Roads in Melbourne, Australia
The Queensland Department of Transport and Main Roads in Brisbane, Australia
The New Zealand Transport Agency
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
6
Scan Team Members State DOT
Carlos Braceras, Scan Co-Chair and Deputy Director, Utah State DOT
Daniela Bremmer, Director, Strategic Assessment, Washington State DOT
Leon Hank, Chief Administrative Officer, Michigan State DOT
Federal Highways and Federal Transit
Robert Tally, Jr., Scan Co-Chair and Indiana Division Administrator, FHWA
Jim March, Acting Director Office of Transportation Policy Studies, FHWA
Kristine Leiphart, Deputy Associate Administrator, FTA
Connie P. Yew, Stewardship/Oversight Team Leader, Office of Infrastructure, FHWA
J. Woody Stanley, Team Leader Strategic Initiatives Team
Local/MPO Jane Hayse, Chief Transportation Planning Division,
Atlanta Regional Commission
AASHTO Tony Kane, Director Engineering and Technical Services,
AASHTO
Private Sector Steven Pickrell, Senior Vice President, Cambridge
Systematics
Other Jenne Van der Velde, Strategic Advisor, Public
Works and Water Management, Dutch Ministry of Transport
Scan Logistics/Recorder Jake Almborg, American Trade Initiatives
Gordon Proctor, Report Facilitator
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
7
The Observations Were: National goals were clearly ingrained into
transportation agency performance management systems
Broad national goals – not hard, specific targets – were used
Budgets and targets were not linked, but…. Ambitious national visions spurred investment Reporting was constant, improvement was
iterative http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
Considerations
Carlos Braceras
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
9
Considerations: Set a limited number of high-level transportation
policy goals with a few, clearly articulated, measures and targets
Collaborate with transportation agencies to negotiate targets (based on their local priorities) which implement the national goals and measures
Track, measure and report performance in clear language appropriate for the audience
Emphasize incentives, instead of penalties Understand that the true benefit of performance
management is achieving long term improvement to the decision and investment process
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
10
Considerations The major policy goals were remarkably
consistent;─ Safety;─ System preservation;─ Economic growth;─ Environmental sustainability;─ System operations (congestion and trip
reliability). Asset management was strong
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
11
Considerations Less is more, in
terms of measures─ Evolution was from
many measures to fewer
─ Agencies have extensive metrics, but few targets are required by the central government (e.g. safety and greenhouse gases)
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
12
Considerations
‘Do it with people, not to them’─ Performance targets are negotiated, not imposed─ The metrics are benchmarks for continuous
improvement, rather than milestones for penalty.─ Performance agreements across agencies are
common─ Managing to short term targets can compromise
progress toward long-term goals
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
13
Considerations Metrics are translated into personal terms
─ ‘The Journey Home’─ ‘We Are Community Builders’─ ‘We are a travel agency’─ ‘Support for the Journey’─ Support for ‘Active Travel’ of walking, cycling
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
14
Considerations PM takes time
─ Agencies had systems for more than a decade
─ PM is long-term, iterative process Important Outcomes Difficult to Measure
─ Environment, economy, quality of life measures are elusive
Candor can earn criticism─ Media, politics can exploit candid reporting
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
15
Considerations Continuous communication was found
between agencies, Ministries and parliament
Service Level Agreements, other forms of negotiations, were used
Reporting and communication were on-going
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
16
In other words….
Less is more Do it together Use compelling language Carrots instead of sticks Not a black box
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
IMPLEMENTATION PRIORITIES
Dr. Anthony KaneAASHTO
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
18
Main Implementation Audiences
Key Federal , State and local policymakers , including the US Congress
State DOTs, Local government and MPO’s ---transport leaders and operators
Performance Management professionals and researchers
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Top 10 Implementation Priorities1. Brief Congressional Staff
─ House—done─ H and S—after the final report is printed
2. Conduct DOT CEO Workshop(s)─ Oct 2009─ Feb 2010─ TBD
3. Present scan findings to other key stakeholder groups
─ TRB, Universities,USDOT,OMB,GAO─ AASHTO,AMPO,NACE,APWA ,APTA,etc.
19http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Top 10 Implementation Priorities4. Develop illustrative ways to present
performance information─ NCHRP 20-24 (37 F&G )
5. Develop a performance management website
─ NCHRP 20-24 (37 F ) plus new solicitation of the state DOTS
6. Conduct peer reviews on performance management
20http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Top 10 Implementation Priorities
7. Evaluate comparative safety, and greenhouse gas emission efforts from Australia and Europe
─ Scan follow-up funds
8. Synthesize best practices in benefit-cost analysisfrom abroad
─ FHWA and other contract resources
9. Case study report on the use of British public service agreements
─ FHWA and other contract resources
21http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Top 10 Implementation Priorities
10. Development of an R&D performance management road map (e.g.)10.1 Document Australian risk management
practices10.2 Develop guidance for measuring
sustainability and livability10.3 Performance Management Leadership
Module10.4. Etc.(NCHRP 20-24 (75)—panel to be named)
22http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Follow-up Implementation Contacts
Tony Kane [email protected] Jim March [email protected] for executive summary of report:
http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10009/pl10009.pdf
23http://www.international.fhwa.dot.gov/pu
bs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf 4/20/2010
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Questions? Report is available
at: http://www.internatio
nal.fhwa.dot.gov/pubs/pl10011/pl10011.pdf