Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009) - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Loading...

PPT – Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009) PowerPoint presentation | free to download - id: 4954c0-MTIzN



Loading


The Adobe Flash plugin is needed to view this content

Get the plugin now

View by Category
About This Presentation
Title:

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009)

Description:

Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability International Scan( August 2009) Sponsored by : American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:83
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 14
Provided by: StephenF87
Category:

less

Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: 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
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
  • 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

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 cant 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.
About PowerShow.com