Transcript PowerPoint Presentation - Slide Title

Performance Based Planning
AMPO Management & Operations Work Group Meeting
Boston MPO
July 26-27, 2010
© 2010 AMPO • 1029 Vermont Ave., NW, Suite 710 • Washington, DC 20005 • tel: 202.296.7051 • fax: 202.296.7054
STAA on Performance Measures
Surface Transportation Authorization Act released in 2009 by
Chairman Oberstar, House T&I Committee
• Does include language on developing measures and statistics for key
programs.
• Does not include cross-cutting national performance targets for
measuring the success or failure of federal transportation investment.
• Planning Section:
– MPOs shall implement a system of performance management.
– Measure the degree to which the LRTP reduces congestion, improves
mobility and safety, increases state of good repair, decreases GHGs,
consistent with land use plans, and more.
– Establish target levels of performance.
– Certification of the plan is dependent on meeting the performance measures.
July 26, 2010
2
Performance Measures - AMPO
• AMPO is partnering with AASHTO, APTA, NADO, FHWA, FTA, and
TRB to conduct a national forum on performance-based planning in
September 2010.
– How does the current planning process incorporate performance and
accountability?
– What are the effective approaches and evolving changes needed to
realize a performance-based, outcome-driven planning and programming
process?
– How do we synchronize transportation planning with plans and policies
related to housing, the economy, energy, environment, and climate
change?
– What federal, state, and local relationships and roles and responsibilities
support a performance-driven planning process?
– How do we get there?
July 26, 2010
3
Research Insights
Early Insights from Volpe
– Significant evolution underway.
– Of the areas studied, none has a complete integrated framework in
place.
– Common disconnects or gaps in frameworks exist.
– Significant challenges have been encountered.
 Appropriate data and measures.
 Evaluation of overall performance planning priorities.
– Identification of the agency being held directly responsible is difficult
for topics of livability, sustainability, health, economics.
July 26, 2010
4
Key Issues
• Need to develop a working definition of performance-based
planning (key goal of September National Forum).
• How will this change the way we do currently do transportation
planning and programming?
• Goal in using performance measures should be continuous
improvement, not punishment.
– European scan highlighted several methods that focused on
incentives system, and show positive trends to target over time.
• Identify what the public wants to see, not what engineers and
planners want to see.
– Concerns about technocratic overkill and onerous steps that make
a program difficult to administer. KISS!
July 26, 2010
5
Key Issues
• Some things are easier to measure. Others are more difficult
(quality of life, economic, environmental)
– Qualitative “measures” are ok.
– Balance data-driven and qualitative-driven decision-making.
• How do we provide a strong vision and national policy goals,
yet allow state/regional/local development of the correct
performance measures?
• Focus on a few good measures.
• Performance measurement is one of many parts of the
decision-making process.
• Federal government should fund capacity building and
research to improve models and data.
July 26, 2010
6
Key Issues
• ARRA can serve as a pilot for what works in reporting.
• USDOT should approve the process of developing performance
measures, not the targets themselves.
• Recognize that it takes a few authorization cycles before we get
where we want to be.
July 26, 2010
7
Thank You!
AMPO
1029 Vermont Ave., NW
Suite 710
Washington, DC 20005
Rich Denbow
[email protected]
July 26, 2010
8