Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision Making (2009)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

27C H A P T E R 3 Performance Measurement FrameworkFor any state, the process of deciding how, where, and when to add highway capacity typically engages many stakeholders in an array of policy, planning, fiscal, public involvement, and engineering activities that are staged over a lengthy time period and involve consideration of many factors ranging from environmental impacts to safety concerns. This section describes the primary dimensions of the performance mea- surement framework developed for this project. Collaborative Decision-Making Context – Who, Why, and How This framework supports a collaborative decision-making process that is under development. The framework is based on performance-based investment decision making or manage- ment processes models. Figure 3.1 summarizes the relation- ship between the collaborative decision-making framework and the performance measures framework. The Collaborative Decision-Making Framework (CDMF) provides the overall context for the Performance Measure- ment Framework. The CDMF identifies key decision points in the planning and project development process that could be improved by taking a more collaborative approach. The Performance Measurement Framework helps to support the CDMF by identifying relevant performance factors and mea- sures to consider at the various stages of planning and project development. Performance measures hold promise as part of the collab- orative decision-making tool kit that transportation practi- tioners can use to make this process more manageable. During the decision-making process, however, hundreds of perfor- mance measures may be applicable at different resolutions of detail. The framework described in this section offers practitio- ners a way to organize how they use performance measures so they serve as an effective decision-support tool for exam- ining when, where, and how to add highway capacity. Theperformance measures framework is intended to be flexible, expandable, and modular. It can serve practitioners inter- ested in improving or creating a comprehensive performance measures framework, but it also supports the needs of prac- titioners looking to capture the impacts on a specific factor, or focusing on a specific phase in the capacity project delivery process. Creation of a universally applicable performance measure- ment framework is possible because states’ decisions about highway capacity follow the same general pattern and are driven by many of the same basic concerns. Decision making often starts with consideration of broad, statewide needs, solutions, and goals. As consensus emerges, the focus of deci- sion making evolves toward specific consideration of local project-level needs and solutions. Along this continuum, dif- ferent performance measures can be used at varying resolu- tions of detail to support decision making. Creating a framework allows transportation practitioners to customize the specific performance measures they use at each stage of the highway capacity decision-making process to meet unique considerations. For example, sometimes eco- nomic impacts may be a primary concern; at others, environ- mental impacts may the primary issue. The framework helps point practitioners toward the right performance measures to help them make decisions. The structure of the performance measurement framework is intended to offer flexibility. Capacity-related performance measures may be grouped in two ways; either according to when during the capacity project delivery process they are helpful, or according to what factors they help to consider during the capacity project delivery process. The highway capacity decision-making performance mea- surement framework adopts these two dimensions as organiz- ing principles. In the “capacity project delivery stages” dimension, performance measures are arranged according to their relevance for sequential stages in capacity project delivery from long-range planning, through corridor planning,

28Who is responsible? How are tradeoffs made between agencies and actors? Who? How are projects developed? Context Sensitive Solutions How? What types of project impacts are important to making informed decisions? What? What detail resolution is required at each stage of the planning process? When? Collaborative Decision-Making Framework Performance Measures Framework KDP KDP KDP Why? Fundamental objectives for project? Are you meeting the goals you identified up front? Tracking projects throughout the process Figure 3.1. Relationship between performance measurement framework and collaborative decision-making framework.programming, environmental review, to project design. In the “capacity decision-making factors” dimension, perfor- mance measures are arranged according to their relevance to critical categories of factors that influence decision making, including transportation, environmental, community, and economic factors. Linking Measures to Decisions – When The performance measures identified within each of the fac- tors are intended to support key decisions throughout the phases of the project development process, including long- range planning, programming, corridor studies, environmen- tal review, permitting, and design. This section describes how performance measures can be used in each of these phases. Long-Range Planning Performance measures can be used to support capacity-related elements of a state DOT’s long-range plan, particularly by bringing leadership accountability to agencywide vision. The long-range plan is customarily a strategic document that defines and builds support for a broad vision that responds to high-priority statewide transportation needs. As a “map” for policy-makers and their stakeholders, the long-range plan is made more effective by including per- formance measures that translate an agency’s vision into measurable metrics that help DOT leaders gauge and guide statewide progress toward important goals and hold them accountable to stakeholders. The hallmarks of good capacity- related long-range plan-level performance measures include several defining characteristics that together distinguish them from other areas where performance measures are used by DOTs:• High-Level Perspective – Measure(s) offer insights on trends and issues at statewide or regional levels that are relevant to senior DOT leadership, legislators, and the general public; • Handful of Measures – A small, but carefully chosen set of measures helps distill complex data into broad insights that are relevant to policy measures; • Reflective of Strategic Goals – Measure(s) in the long- range plan relate to appropriate strategic goals such as con- gestion relief, safety, or environmental quality; and • Accountable Implementation Focus – Measures in the long-range plan provide targets from which the success of the long-range plan can be gauged over its life span. Programming Stage Performance measures can support state DOTs’ capacity- related programming activities. Programming describes the process by which state DOTs select and invest limited trans- portation funds in a list of projects that will be built in a set time- frame, usually of about three to five years, and that is intended to ensure resources go where they are needed most, including capacity needs. The mix of projects included in a state DOT’s program determines how well it is able to address priorities established in the long-range plan or other strategic documents. Performance measures can improve a DOT’s ability to make programming decisions that support achievement of strategic goals. The hallmarks of a good set of programming- level performance measures include several defining charac- teristics that together distinguish them from other areas where performance measures are used by DOTs: • Provide Insights on How to “Close the Gap” – The program is a DOT’s tool to address gaps between current performance and desired targets. Measures should inform decisions on where to apply more resources.

29• Measures are Used as Predictive Tools – Many of the measures used in conjunction with programming are intended to provide perspective on anticipated future per- formance as determined by specific investment strategies. • Measures Bridge the Gap Between Project and Strategic Levels – Measures used in programming are based on the expected outcomes of individual projects, but they also can address potential gaps in achieving strategic goals identi- fied in long range planning. Corridor Studies Performance measures can support a state DOT’s capacity- related preprogram studies. A preprogram study is custom- arily used by state DOTs and their partners to engage in broad brush thinking about alternative solutions to complex, corridor-level transportation problems. It often includes strategies for addressing capacity needs. As the foundation for subsequent project-level NEPA and design work, a well executed preprogram study expedites delivery of project solutions that meet all stakeholders’ needs. At the preprogram stage, performance measures help plan- ners distinguish between alternative concepts for transporta- tion solutions. The hallmarks of a good set of preprogram study-level performance measures include several defining characteristics that together distinguish them from other areas where performance measures are used by DOTs: • Corridor-Level Perspective – Measure(s) should offer insights on trends and issues at a regional or corridor level that is relevant to DOT managers, local officials, and stake- holders in the project. • Applicability to Conceptual-Level Project Solutions – Measures must be capable of distinguishing among project concepts for which footprint details are vague. • Address a Broad Range of Issues – To help distinguish among project concepts, measures should cover a wide range of metrics – from environmental impacts to eco- nomic development potential – that are tailored to specific corridor-level issues. • Focus on Supporting Integrated Analysis of Needs and Challenges – Performance data establishes integrated understanding of both transportation needs and potential impediments to alternative solutions. • Data Can be Used to Support NEPA Review – Perfor- mance data and conclusions based on it should be usable in subsequent NEPA studies. Environmental Review Performance measures can be used to support state DOTs’ capacity-related environmental review activities. Environ- mental review is the collection of processes that address fed-eral and state requirements for analysis of a program or project’s impacts to the natural and social environments. Although the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) sets the broad federal guidelines, it is supplemented by a variety of environmental laws, such as the Clean Water Act, Clean Air Act, and Historic Preservation Act; Executive Orders, such as Environmental Justice; and U.S. DOT implementing guidelines, such as Section 4(f ) for Parklands and others. In addition, most states now have equivalent legislation that augments federal environmental reporting requirements. Performance measures can improve a DOT’s ability to make NEPA decisions that support speedy project delivery. The hallmarks of a good set of environmental review-level performance measures include several defining characteris- tics that together distinguish them from other areas where performance measures are used by DOTs: • Project-Level Focus – Measures are used to define the need for the project, to describe the existing environment. • Comparison of Alternatives – Measures gauge potential impacts of multiple alternatives, as well as to determine the significance of those impacts. • Bridge Stakeholders Interests – Measures can be devel- oped to bridge the goals of collaborating resource agencies with the mitigation commitments of the transportation agency. Design and Permitting At the design stage, performance measures are not used fre- quently. Those that are used tend to focus on project and pro- gram delivery rather than the direct impacts of individual projects or alternatives. For example, measures can track the delivery status of specific components of a project or the sta- tus and function of programmatic permitting efforts. There are exceptions to this general rule and they usually include measures that can help in the selection of specific design features, including those that help mitigate environmental impacts. For example, the climate change factor includes a measure that addresses the need for infrastructure design to accommodate severe weather events. Measurement of Capacity Impacts – What The performance measurement framework is focused prima- rily on examining the impacts of major capacity investments on five key sets of planning factors: transportation, environ- ment, economic, community, and cost. Table 3.1 presents the specific performance factors identified through this research effort. These factors represent the substantive issues – the what – that performance measures are trying to address.

30Transportation Environment Economics Community Cost Mobility Reliability Accessibility Safety Table 3.1. SHRP 2 C02 Performance Factors Ecosystems, Habitat, and Biodiversity Water Quality Wetlands Air Quality Climate Change Environmental Health Economic Impact Economic Development Land Use Archeological and Cultural Resources Social Environmental Justice Cost Cost-EffectivenessSHRP 2 C02 Framework Measures The specific measures included in the SHRP 2 framework are designed to be general enough so that any agency could adapt them to support their own objectives. In many cases, each of the measures could be calculated and monitored in a number of ways, depending on the tools and data available, and the objective that the measure supports. Chapters 4 through 8 provide detailed examples of applications for each of the SHRP 2 measures. The performance measurement framework provides hun- dreds of potential measures. The tenets of performance man- agement described in chapter 2 suggest that performance measures should be selected to reflect a strategic direction for an agency or group of agencies. A strategic direction typically includes a vision or mission statement, a set of high-level goals, and more specific objectives that detail how the agency hopes to achieve progress with each of the goal areas. From the perspective of this framework, the planning factors represent generic goal statements. In general, it is assumed that a transportation agency pursing a capacity proj- ect intends to achieve transportation benefits (i.e., improved mobility or safety), that improve or minimize impacts on the environment (i.e., improve the quantity or quality of wet- lands) and the community (i.e., do not disrupt established communities), all while providing the greatest benefit relative to the cost of the project. The performance measures contained in the framework for highway capacity decision making are linked to more spe- cific, but still generic, objectives. In general, the measures are intended to help address either or both of two broad types of objectives: 1. Identification and Prioritization of Statewide Capacity Needs – Some measures can help practitioners identify, understand, and prioritize capacity needs on a regional or statewide scale. A measure such as “throughput efficiency” or “level of service,” for example, can be used to identify seg-ments of highway where travel conditions are sufficiently congested to merit consideration of additional capacity. 2. Support for Evaluation of Project-Level Options – Once priorities for meeting capacity needs are established, other measures can help practitioners evaluate potential trans- portation solutions in terms of their impact on a range of transportation, environmental, economic, and com- munity factors. A measure such as “acres of wetlands impacted,” for example can help add insight on the rela- tive impact of several possible project-level alignments in a particular corridor. Based on the literature and case studies conducted as part of this research project, specific objectives were developed within each factor area. Individual agencies will define objec- tives in more detail to suit the specific conditions they need to address. Examples of agency objectives that reflect this additional level of definition are provided in Table 3.2. Each objective should be supported by one or more per- formance measures that can provide information to help an agency make decisions, improve policies and practices, and gauge progress. A set of measures, supporting the established objectives should be selected carefully, with attention paid to the following characteristics: • Relevance – Why is this issue significant to each phase of the capacity decision-making process? What purpose does it serve? How should it be considered differently at the many stages of the transportation planning process? For example, at the planning and preprogram phases, mobility issues are key for identifying transportation needs. • Processes and Approaches – How are or should these issues be incorporated into the specific phase of the process? What agency is primarily responsible for addressing each issue at each phase? • Level of Detail – What type of data and scale are appro- priate to support the analysis of this issue? How do the

31SHRP 2 C02 – Generic Example – Specific Factor Objective Agency Objective Mobility Air Quality Climate Change (Environment broadly) Land Use Table 3.2. Example-Specific Objectives Used to Organize Performance Measures Reduce Recurring Congestion – Improve Travel Time Reduce greenhouse gas emissions from transportation sources Integration of land use and transportation planning efforts Arizona DOT – Long-Range Transportation Plan Florida DOT – Florida Transportation Plan Oregon DOT – Oregon Transportation Plan Maintain and enhance the ability of goods and people to move through and around urban areas with minimal delay. Make transportation decisions that conserve and optimize nonrenewable resources and promote the use of renewable resources (materials, facilities, and sources of energy) and include strategies to decrease greenhouse gases and air pollutants. Support the sustainable development of land with a mix of uses and a range of densities, land use intensities, and transportation options in order to increase the efficiency of the transportation system. Support travel options that allow individuals to reduce vehicle use.data and scale requirements change across stages and measures? • Quantity versus Quality – What number of measures and associated data collection and analysis provide the highest return on investment to support effective performance- based decision making? What is in the Framework Chapters 4 through 8 describe the SHRP 2 C02 Performance Measurement Framework in more detail. Each section pres- ents the relevant material for each of the five factors identi- fied above. The remainder of this section provides a short introduction to the material that can be found in these sec- tions and in the web tool. • Literature Review – For each of the five broad areas, the relevant literature reviewed as part of this effort is pre- sented. This literature provides the context within which the measures were developed. • Performance Factors and Objectives – Each of the broad areas is separated into a number of factors that capture the range of issues within that area. For example, transporta- tion includes mobility, accessibility, reliability, and safetyas the most prominent factors in the consideration of major transportation capacity expansion. Several broad objectives are defined for each factor. • SHRP 2 Performance Measures – Within each factor, a handful of summary level measures are defined. These summary level measures are meant to have the broadest applicability. They are measure concepts that require refine- ment to be specifically applied. • Measure Applications and Case Studies – For each SHRP 2 measure, one or more specific example measures are defined. Also, each factor includes at least one specific case study that applied one of the measures in the SHRP 2 framework. • Data Gaps and Investments – Detailed information has been compiled on the primary data requirements of each of the performance measures identified as part of the performance measurement framework. In addition, the research team undertook an analysis of potential data gaps and worked to identify high-return investments in data collection, management, and data sharing in the environ- mental and community areas. Data investments that can be leveraged to address multiple purposes were of particu- lar interest. Detailed treatments of each factor are included in Appendix B.