Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009)

1. 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

2. 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

3. 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 Scan Team Members

4. 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.

5. 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

6. 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)

7. Key Findings-Lessons Learned for Reauthorization“A Performance Based Federal Aid Program”

8. 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.

9. 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

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. 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

13. 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.