Regional Workshop on Performance-based Planning and Programming - Workshop Summary

3. Key Workshop Themes

Facilitators engaged workshop attendees in a broad ranging discussion of the challenges and opportunities presented by performance based planning approaches. Following large group discussion, smaller breakout sessions provided participants the opportunity to further identify significant issues and to share lessons learned. The following major themes emerged from these discussions.

Many Agencies are Using Performance Measures Today

One overriding finding from the workshop was that most agencies are using performance measures within their planning process in one form or another. Most of the state DOTs were focused on asset management, while most of the MPOs had a focus on congestion management. Participants generally felt that they had a basis from which to build. A number of participants observed that they are trying to put transportation goals and objectives, and performance, into a broader context that also recognizes broader economic, social and environmental goals.

Challenges to Implementation Remain

Overall, participants recognized performance-based planning and programming as good management practice, but noted that additional guidance is needed to really implement it as a day-to-day practice of most transportation agencies. Participants identified a range of potential challenges to implementing performance-based planning and programming, including:

Identifying measures.Participants acknowledged that defining clear and useful measures is easier for some performance areas than for others. Traditional measures of highway or bridge performance are relatively well established, while non-traditional areas such as livability or sustainability or broad social and economic consideration can be quite difficult to assign measures to. These themes are often examined in long-range planning approaches, but many organizations have less experience doing so from a performance based planning perspective. Building consensus among stakeholders around common measures was also considered important but sometimes difficult to accomplish.
Recognize differences. Attendees pointed to the need to consider rural and urban areas differently in several contexts. Primarily, national target setting processes must recognize the unique nature and needs of systems in urban and rural areas. Secondly, organizations and transit providers in predominantly rural areas face greater resource and technical capacity limitations implementing and managing performance measure systems. Finally, performance measures must be selected that work for both urban and rural areas so as not to penalize smaller systems or rural roadways.
Linking planning and programming. Several participants noted existing disconnects in their own organizations between current measurement practices and decision making processes, while others noted the potential for enhanced measurement to close those gaps. To make a real connection, criteria will have to be developed to map state and national goals to performance measures that are used in state and regional selection processes. While political involvement in project selection is unlikely to disappear, performance measurement may make the implications of political choices more clear. Measures must be identified that can make a difference and impact key areas within the timeframe of a STIP – as elected officials and decision makers need to know that the decisions they made and projects they prioritized are making a difference.
Communication is critical. Performance measures alone may not be effective tools unless they and their purpose are communicated to leadership and the public. Attendees noted that public relations component of performance measurement was often overlooked or undervalued. Measures can be helpful in educating the public and informing decision makers, and when integrated with social media or new technologies can help improve engagement and involvement in planning processes. Performance measures when communicated effectively help make tradeoffs and choices very clear to stakeholders.
Overcoming technical complexities. Many organizations noted that they face technical challenges collecting and managing data. Common data concerns included the availability of data at different geographic scales, developing consistent trend datasets, the validity and integrity of public and private data, and the use of qualitative and quantitative sources. Common management concerns expressed included difficulties changing internal agency culture, integrating multiple existing data systems, and working with new technologies to compile and report measures. It was noted that expanded technical assistance in data management areas may be necessary to ease implementation efforts.
Evaluating tradeoffs.Participants recognized that performance based planning processes will increasingly emphasize resource allocation decisions that involve tradeoffs between various program areas, such as preservation, safety, mobility, and others.Â Investment in one area may affect performance in another or an investment in one program area may impact multiple performance goals. Similarly, understanding among staff and leaders that national performance measures will not be the only measures used by state and regional entities to aid decision making and investment allocations will also be helpful when making resource decisions.

Establishing a National Program

Workshop attendees were cautiously optimistic about the rulemaking outcomes and eventual implementation of the performance-based planning approach embedded within MAP-21. Several key points were raised on the forthcoming national program, including:

Rulemaking must be transparent, open, and provide opportunities for input and feedback.
Implementation must be consistent across the country and interpreted similarly by FHWA divisions.
Approach should not place undue constraints on local priorities and choices.
National measures should result in meaningful outcomes and the national vision and purpose of the program should be communicated.
National measures could mesh or support existing performance management efforts already occurring at the state or local level to the extent possible.
Expand technical assistance efforts to aid organizations in developing consistent, valid, and comparable data collection and management systems.
Participants offered input and ideas for a successful national program. Some of these ideas included:
Ask for input. Participants observed that the details of a national performance management program will be established primarily through the agency rulemaking process, currently in progress. This process should provide opportunities for input and feedback from all stakeholders.
Learn from others.Suggestions were made that existing lessons learned and the cautions and challenges raised in this workshop should be taken into account when designing the national approach.
Be flexible.There are aspects of MAP-21 that will likely have to be prescriptive, but other areas may offer broad guidance to enable states and stakeholders to implement and pursue within their own framework. If a clear and consistent vision is established at the national level, it can still allow individual states and regions to determine appropriate measures, targets, and planning approaches to address regional and local priorities. Participants noted that if federal goals are too loosely defined, then federal performance reporting is likely to be too general to be of value.
Provide support.Attendees did express concerns with the technical complexities of data collection and management. It was noted that while areas such as bridge and pavement performance measurement were well developed and supported by tools and common measures, other areas such as safety, freight, and economic vitality measurement techniques may benefit from additional technical assistance.