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.

63C H A P T E R 9 Conclusions – Using Measures in Decision MakingThe previous sections of this report described the develop- ment of the performance measurement framework, related performance measures, and the key data sources currently used and needed to support those measures. Ultimately, the investigation of performance measures for the SHRP 2 Capac- ity program is focused on providing information to a data- driven, collaborative decision-making process. This concluding section begins to address the question of how to best link performance measures to the collaborative decision-making framework being developed in SHRP 2 C01. Links to Decision Making Chapter 3 provided broad outlines of how performance measures can help inform decisions at various phases of the process. This chapter attempts to make more specific links, both to key decision points and across the key phases of the project development process. Key Decision Points for Performance Measures The SHRP 2 C01 project has identified several phases of the project development process within which key decisions are made, including long-range planning, programming, corri- dor studies, environmental review, and permitting. For each of these, the C01 project has identified several key decision points. Table 9.1 identifies the links between the collaborative decision-making framework and the performance measure- ment framework. Three types of links are described: 1. Select Factors – The performance measurement frame- work is organized around several high-level planning fac- tors. For each of the key phases, it is important to identify which of these factors are under consideration. 2. Select Measures – Within the identified factors, specific measures should be selected that help address the specificconcerns of the agency or agencies evaluating a new capac- ity project. 3. Use Measures – After selection of the measures, they should be used to evaluate specific projects. Several key concepts from within the table warrant more detailed explanation, including: • Consistency Analysis – One of the key uses of performance measures for project analysis is as a tool to evaluate how proposed investments by a transportation agency conform to existing plans and studies in other areas. Land use, water, wildlife, and other similar plans help form the context within which DOTs make decisions. For some issues, such as air quality, a specific determination of conformity is required, through which expected contributions to criteria pollutants are modeled. Consistency suggests a more qual- itative assessment. Examples could include the extent to which proposed investments are in areas that have an estab- lished regional transportation-land use vision or a determi- nation if a project is within a vital area for wildlife or water quality, as defined by a habitat or water quality plan. • Screening Process – At several linkages a screening process is suggested. At the long-range planning level, this process is used to qualitatively assess a plan’s impact on broad planning factors (e.g., positive or negative impacts on mobility, water quality, etc.). At more detailed levels, the screening process uses measures to evaluate how individ- ual projects or project alternatives will actually impact these factors. • Red Flag Analysis – Agencies can use measures to identify segments of road with known environmental or commu- nity concerns. Some agencies maintain a ‘red map’ of roads to which adding capacity is simply not feasible. Using measures to flag challenging projects early in the process can lead the agency to focus on projects that can be devel- oped easier and faster or to identify when extraordinary

64Key Decision Point Linkage How Measures Influence Decision Making Long-Range Planning 202 203 204 207 Programming 301 302 304 Corridor Studies 403 404 407 408 Environmental Review 503 504 505 507 509 Approve Vision and Goals Approve Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Approve Transportation Deficiencies Approve Plan Scenarios Approve Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Approve Project Priority List Adopt Conformity by MPO Approve Goals for the Corridor Approve Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Approve Range of Alternatives Adopt Preferred Alternative Approve Purpose and Need Reach Consensus on Study Area Approve Evaluation Criteria and Methodology Approve Alternatives to be Carried Forward Approve Preferred Alternative Select factors Select measures Use measures Use measures Select measures Use measures Use Measures Select factors Provide measures Use measures Use measures Use measures Select measures Select measures Use measures Use measures • Vision and goals of the LRP should define the universe of performance factors considered. • Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 202; and • General statewide or regional targets should be set collaboratively for measures. • Use targets set in 203 to determine deficiencies in the state or region; • Environmental PMs used in geospatial analysis of potential ‘fatal flaws’ for significant natural resources; and • Transportation PMs define level of need (i.e., funding required to achieve targets set in 203). • PMs used in a screening process for plan scenarios. • Measures selected for consistency analysis (i.e., are the set of projects programmed consistent with the vision and goals set in 202); and • Measures selected for prioritization algorithm – readily available data and quantifiable. • Use consistency process or prioritization algorithm to prioritize and select projects. • Air Quality measures support this process; and • Potential future ‘conformity’ or consistency processes for GHG emissions or other natural resources. • Goals should be consistent with those developed in 202; and • Goals for the corridor study define the universe of performance factors considered. • Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 403; and • Reasonable range of expectations set for each measure (i.e., what is the best that can be done for congestion or what is the worst allowable impact). • Measures used within a high-level screening process to identify feasible alter- natives (i.e., those without fatal flaws). • Measures used at a more detailed level to evaluate a narrower range of alternatives in greater depth. • Minor – inform the purpose and needs with performance analysis of the suitability of the proposed solution. • Identify measures that can address the appropriate scale (e.g., corridor, water- shed, ecosystem, etc.) relevant for the review. • Measures are selected from within the factors identified in 403; and • Specific targets set for measures that require a minimum or maximum regulatory threshold to be met. • Measures used within a high-level screening process to identify feasible alternatives (i.e., those without fatal flaws). • Measures used at a more detailed level to evaluate a narrower range of alternatives in greater depth. Note: Key Decision Points are taken from SHRP 2 Project C01. Numbers may change. Table 9.1. Linkages Between Key Decision Points and Performance Measures

65public and stakeholder involvement may be required to advance a particularly challenging project. Linking Performance Measures Across Phases In addition to linking to key decision points, performance measures should show some consistency across the phases of the project development process. Although measures used in long-range planning may not be the exact measures used in corridor analysis or programming, it is vital that decisions made using performance measures at one phase not be incon- sistent with measures used at a later stage. Performance measures should be refined across scales – from statewide or regional in nature (at the long-range plan level) to corridor or alignment in nature. The key is to define measures broadly in the early stages and more specifically in the later stages. For example, measures of capacity projects at long-range planning stages should be prioritizing among competing corridors for funding by indicating general levels of congestion or identifying red flag issues in corridors that may be stumbling blocks for future project development. The performance measures framework is designed to help address consistency by identifying high-level measure concepts that can be useful at one or several phases. Table 9.2 presents several examples of specific measure definitions that could be applied during the phases of project development. These are intended to be examples only, not a comprehensive list. In addition, some performance measures are only relevant during certain phases. For example, the travel-time reliability index requires examination of specific corridors and only has significant use during corridor studies. Similarly, given the often yearly frequency of updates to agencies’ Transportation Improvement Programs (TIP), many measures do not apply at this phase. The best case measures for programming are those that evaluate the overall consistency between the proposed program and other major domains, such as land use, water quality, habitat, etc. These measures are qualitative in nature. Summary of High-Value Opportunities for Data Improvement Though each factor examined in the previous section has unique data gaps and opportunities, five common themes emerged: 1. Use of remote sensing for data capture; 2. Further development of tailored GIS applications that facilitate use of multiple data layers for specific program and project-level analysis tasks; 3. Further development of modeling and simulation tools that support scenario analysis;4. Cultivation of stronger interagency partnerships to facili- tate data sharing and collaborative approaches to data analysis; and 5. Support for data and metadata standards and data clearing- houses to enable integration of data from disparate sources. Each of these is discussed in turn below. Remote Sensing Applications Remote sensing technology currently is being used to provide a variety of data sets that would be prohibitively expensive to collect via field survey methods. Availability of remote sens- ing imagery provides valuable baseline information for long- range planning and screening of alternatives. Additional work is needed on specific applications of remote sensing for wetland quality, land use classification, and detailed physical features of land cover. Needs include: • Data collection (air and satellite photography); • Image processing software; • Education and training within the DOT community; • Development of specific methods for imagery analysis and translation; and • Development of effective information presentation formats geared to project developers and resource agency partners. In the short, two activities are needed: 1. Additional targeted research to investigate the potential of remote sensing to produce meaningful data for significant natural resources such as wetlands; and 2. Guidance materials for state DOTs and other transporta- tion agencies to understand how they might use data from remote sensing for specific applications (e.g., wetlands qual- ity monitoring). The effort to produce guidance material might appropriately fall within the purview of the Trans- portation Research Board, through either the SHRP 2 pro- gram or the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). GIS Applications for Program and Project Analysis GIS-based tools that incorporate multiple data layers and facilitate specific analysis tasks provide tremendous value to planners and project engineers, eliminating the need to iden- tify and track down data sources and develop custom queries and analysis capabilities. Specific applications where these types of tools would add value include: • Integrated screening analysis based on transportation, environmental, land use, and cultural resource data;

66 Factor Corridor Study Environmental Review Mobility Ecosys and Water Q Climate Land U Social Table 9 rcent of corridor highway miles with level of service E or F ze and fragmentation of habitats impacted by the corridor stance from highway right- of-way within the corridor to water bodies on the Clean Water Act Section 303d impaired water bodies list, by segment pected life of investments in the corridor given the potential for inundation relative to normal expected life cycle pulation weighted percent of municipalities in a cor- ridor with adopted land use plans that conform to a regional transportation- land use vision rcent of municipalities in the corridor that are divided by highway facilities Projected improvement in level of service of impacted segments and surrounding highways Expected change in habitat size and fragmentation Distance from highway right- of-way within the corridor to water bodies on the Clean Water Act Section 303d impaired water bodies list, by segment Planned elevation of new infrastructure investment relative to expected level of inundation from a severe weather event N/A Percent of walking trips crossing arterials with a peak period of over 1,000 vehicles per hourMeasure Long-Range Planning Programming tem, Habitat Biodiversity uality Change se .2. Examples of Performance Measure Refinement Across Scales Level of service Loss of habitats Water quality protection areas Infrastructure vulnerability Local-regional plan consistency Community cohesion Percent of state highway miles with level of service E or F, current and projected Number, size and signifi- cance (i.e., endangered status) of habitats adja- cent to or overlapping state highways (qualitative measure) Number of water bodies on the Clean Water Act Section 303d impaired water bodies list adjacent to transportation infrastructure Percent of or total lane-miles of state highway that are subject to inundation from a severe weather event Percent of municipalities with adopted land use plans that conform to a regional transportation-land use vision N/A Change in project percent of state highway miles with level of service E or F Number or percent of projects in the TIP that may impact habitats of significance Number or percent of projects in the TIP that are adja- cent to water bodies on the Clean Water Act Section 303d impaired water bodies list Number or percent of projects in the TIP that would be constructed in areas with significant risk of inundation over the life of the project Number or percent of projects within the TIP that are within municipalities that do not have a local land use plan that conforms to a regional transportation- land use vision N/A Pe Si Di Ex Po Pe

67• Provision of a regional overlay of individual agency plans to support cross-agency collaboration on identification of needs and assessment of cumulative resource impacts; and • Analysis of transportation facility vulnerability related to climate change. Existing examples of these tools (e.g., Florida’s Environ- mental Screening Tool) can serve as models for development of nationally available capabilities. Modeling and Simulation Tools Development of simulation or scenario analysis tools that build on the GIS capabilities described above would provide further value for early exploration of capacity project alterna- tives. Specific applications of value include: • Impact assessment for proposed facilities or programs of projects on water quality, habitat, and historic and cultural resources; and • Analysis of the implications of various climate change sce- narios on infrastructure vulnerability. In the short term, there is an existing Environmental Information Management System (EIMS) developed as part of NCHRP 25-23 project that presents an opportunity to build a decision support tool. This system provides a plat- form on which environmental management tools could be developed in a consistent manner for use by multiple agen- cies. The EIMS is being considered as part of AASHTO’s Cooperative Software Development Program, but has yet to be adopted. Interagency Partnerships Environmental and natural resource agencies at the federal, state, and regional levels offer a wealth of data that are needed to support performance assessments for many of the factors in the SHRP C02 framework. Transportation agencies already are tapping into many of these data sources. Partnerships can be pursued at all levels of government to further strengthen data sharing initiatives, leverage existing monitoring resources, and jointly pursue development of new data sets and tools that meet common needs. Specific examples of successful partnerships include GIS data sharing agreements in Oregon and New York State, and the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program. SHRP 2 Project C01 addresses the question of partnerships among multiple agencies to advance the needs of both trans- portation planning and resource protection. However, that project focuses on providing a framework for collaborative decision making and not a process to actually implementthe framework. Additional guidance that identifies model processes to actually implement the Collaborative Decision- Making Framework may make a useful desk reference for agencies. Though it would likely be difficult to provide com- prehensive guidance for all of the relevant processes that agencies currently use, it is possible to develop guidance around a common set of processes that apply to many trans- portation agencies. Data Sharing A prerequisite to data integration and sharing across dis- parate data producers and users is availability of metadata that documents dataset content, derivation, accuracy, and suitability for specific purposes. Use of the federal metadata standards developed by the Federal Geographic Data Com- mittee (FGDC) has become fairly widespread for geospatial datasets. (Federal Geographic Data Committee) The FGDC also endorses a variety of other standards for specific data types (e.g., wetlands, vegetation, soils.) Programmatic guide- lines and tools that encourage and facilitate provision of com- plete and consistent metadata would be of value. Standardization of land use classifications would facilitate sharing of land use data across jurisdictions. Use of the Amer- ican Planning Association’s Land-Based Classification Stan- dards (LBCS) is a promising approach. These classifications could be adopted for use within nationally developed toolsets that include land use data. Use of existing data clearinghouses for sharing data sets across agencies represents a low-cost, high-value practice. Major clearinghouses at the national level are Geodata.gov and the National Biological Information Infrastructure (NBII). Both sites provide access to a wealth of information resources, and include provision for state and local agencies to share their data. They are supported by well-defined stewardship arrangements and processes for data submittal and updating. The National Information Exchange Model (NIEM) is another potentially useful resource for support of informa- tion sharing initiatives across governments. NIEM is a joint initiative of the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security. NIEM’s function is to “develop, disseminate, and support enterprise-wide information exchange standards and processes that can enable jurisdictions to effectively share critical information in emergency situations, as well as sup- port the day-to-day operations of agencies throughout the nation.” NIEM provides a framework within which commu- nities of interest can identify information sharing require- ments, develop common standards, and implement the standards through technical tools and training. NIEM cur- rently focuses on criminal justice, public safety, and emer- gency response data exchange. However, it incorporates several foundational elements of value to any data sharing effort –

68including standards for measurement units, and location identification. In the short term, a more detailed evaluation of existing data standards and available data clearinghouses would pro- vide useful information to form the basis of potential data standards. Following that, it may be useful to pursue a small number of pilot applications or mockups of how a data standard-setting process and clearinghouse would operate. For example, a land use data clearinghouse might have the following steps:• Adoption of standard land use classifications across juris- dictions; • Each jurisdiction providing standard metadata and using the clearinghouse to post their data; and • The DOT accessing these data sets and combining them for use in an analysis. The pilot applications could help to define these steps and provide the tools to develop the clearing houses within indi- vidual states or nationally.