Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009)

National Cooperative Highway Research Program

American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials

U.S. Department of TransportationFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability

International Scan( August 2009)

Tony KaneAASHTO

Washington Legislative Briefing ,March 1, 2010

Sponsored by : American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit AdministrationNational Cooperative Highway Research Program




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




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, Center for

Transport and Navigation, Dutch Ministry of Transport

Scan Logistics/Recorder Jake Almborg, American Trade Initiatives

Gordon Proctor, Report Facilitator




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.




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




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)




Key Findings-Lessons Learned for

Reauthorization“A Performance Based Federal Aid Program”




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.





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





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.





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.





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




Some Key SCAN Follow-up Activities

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.

Documents

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009)