Transcript TCC Presentation Format - Performance management

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Linking Transportation
Performance and Accountability
International Scan( August 2009)
Sponsored by :
American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative Highway Research Program
Tony Kane
AASHTO
Washington Legislative Briefing ,March 1, 2010
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Context of Scan

Reauthorizing the federal legislation for transportation
programs (performance is key)

Stabilizing the financially drained Highway Trust
Fund that supports highway and transit programs

Ensuring greater accountability from state, regional
and local recipients of federal transportation aid
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Scan Team Members
State DOT

Carlos Braceras, Scan Co-Chair and Deputy Director,
Local/MPO
 Jane Hayse, Chief Transportation Planning Division,
Atlanta Regional Commission
Utah State DOT

Daniela Bremmer,
AASHTO
Director, Strategic Assessment,
Washington State DOT

Tony Kane, Director Engineering and Technical Services,
AASHTO

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
Private Sector
 Steven Pickrell, Senior Vice President, Cambridge
Systematics
Other
 Jenne Van der Velde, Strategic Advisor, Center for
Transport and Navigation, Dutch Ministry of Transport
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
Scan Logistics/Recorder
 Jake Almborg, American Trade Initiatives
 Gordon Proctor, Report Facilitator
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Criteria for selecting organizations: mature,
sustained performance management systems






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.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
What We Have Learned – Brief Highlights









Metrics; Quality over Quantity– Less is more
Metrics: Focus on trends instead of short terms targets
Metrics: Just one decision tool-manage expectations
PM Process: A journey-Incremental, evolutionary and
dynamic
PM Process: Focus on priorities, not measures or
targets
Project/Program Decisions: focus on Value for Money
Fed-State-Locals: Collaborative goal setting- frequent
dialogue
Employees: Linkages to personal Performance Plan
Executives: Hands on; performance review meetings
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
What We Have Learned – Brief Highlights (cont.)
Budgets: PM did not result in increased funding for
maintenance and preservation but allowed budgets to be
maintained in light of overall general fund budget shortfalls
when competing with other sectors such as health care or
education; and, supported stimulus programs and national
network plans
 Reporting: Fewer public reports; also confidential fed-state –
region performance analysis and reporting
 Targets: Few national targets-broad high level goals
Linkages between national, state and regional transportation
agency goals and comprehensive plans
 Targets: If done wrong, can stifle innovation, creativity and
risk taking
 Climate Metrics: key focus but no targets on KMT(VMT)

U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
Key Findings-Lessons
Learned for
Reauthorization
“A Performance Based
Federal Aid Program”
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Key Findings - Lessons for Reauthorization

1. Avoid nationally set State targets
but provide strong federal vision and
policy goals
•Few, if any, national, quantitative targets except for climate change
and safety; “It is not about targets but about priorities” (UK)
•”Focus on trends not short terms targets” (Sweden)
•States/local jurisdictions translate policy goals into viable
performance objectives against which progress would be reported
•State-based Targets – but developed in a partnership between
federal, state and local transportation authorities.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Key Findings - Lessons for Reauthorization

2. Less is more: Focus on a few, key
national policy goals and metrics
•initial efforts tended to result in too many public goals, objectives and
metrics. (New Zealand referred to is as: “Avoid Analysis Paralysis )
Focus on a few key national priorities and metrics that can be
evaluate for progress over time and communicated in a clear and
straightforward manner; For example in Europe ( greenhouse gases
and safety); in Australia/NZ (safety). All agencies had metrics for
safety/asset condition/operations/environment and the economy
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Key Findings - Lessons for Reauthorization

3. Carrot versus Stick: Use incentives
rather than disincentives
•Provide performance incentive rather than punitive strategies to
encourage active use of performance management programs
Provide resources and funding to support data collection and analysis
•Allow for a flexible and iterative process in defining metrics and targets
to meet changing state or federal funding and policy needs.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Key Findings - Lessons for Reauthorization

4. Do it together: Apply collaborative
performance management processes
•The following quote from Sweden best characterized this finding: ”we
do it with them not to them”
•Interagency performance reports (UK, AU) were held confidential
between states and federal government entities to allow for frank and
open discussions
•Outcomes and results reported in consistent public, annual reports
•Metrics used as milestones to allow for ongoing improvement instead
of punitive actions such as funding withdrawal or negative
communication such as ranking of organizations against each other.
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Key Findings - Lessons for Reauthorization

5. A Means not an End: Performance
measurement is one of multiple
decision tools but can’t replace a
balanced decision process or funding
increases
•Performance metric/data can be a critical decision tool for maximizing and
allocating existing resources
•Can not replace the need for balanced policy decisions and revenue
increases
•Performance management used in careful combination with cost benefit
analysis (Value for Money), state and federal policy priorities and funding and
budget scenarios
U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Highway Administration
Federal Transit Administration
National Cooperative
Highway Research
Program
Some Key SCAN Follow-up
Activities



American Association of
State Highway and
Transportation Officials
Small contract to have white papers developed
on the AUSTROADS and EU collaborative
decision- making/benchmarking/goal setting
processes in safety and greenhouse gases (in
Europe only)---models for the USA
FHWA research and NCHRP efforts
Publish scan report in March----brief many
groups such as the
Congress/AASHTO/APTA/AMPO/NACE/ITE/
TRB/USDOT/etc.