SHRP2 Implementation | February 2013

Assessment Workshop on Performance Measures for Highway Capacity Decision-MakingKYOVA Interstate Planning CommissionNovember 16-17, 2015

• Understand the history and intent of SHRP2.

• Understand and be able to practically apply the elements of Performance Measures for Highway Capacity Decision-Making.

• Develop framework and Action Plan Outline.

• Decide upon “next steps” for developing and implementing the Action Plan.

• Establish a collaborative framework for advancing a performance-based decision-making process in the region.

2

Workshop Objectives

What is SHRP2?(Second Strategic Highway Research Program)

• Products developed from objective, credible research.

• Solutions that respond to transportation community challenges – safety, aging infrastructure, and congestion.

• Tested products, refined in the field.

• Focus on Safety, Renewal, Reliability, and Capacity

3

Save lives. Save money. Save time.

SHRP2 Solutions offer new technologies and processes to enhance the efficiency of transportation agencies.

Capacity Research Approach

• Compile lessons learned from case studies of successful delivery of 23 large and complex capacity expansion projects from across the United States.

• Develop methods to integrate transportation, environmental, community, and economic planning.

• Develop methods for addressing issues that were not being adequately addressed in the transportation planning and project development process.

4

C02 Research Objectives

• Facilitate a collaborative decision-making approach to highway capacity expansion investments.

• Develop a performance measurement framework that integrates environmental, economic, and community considerations into highway capacity decisions.

• Incorporate performance factors spanning a broad range of potential impacts resulting from new transportation infrastructure.

• Identify specific performance measures and provide examples of their application.

5

C02 Research Benefits

• Expands evaluation process to include non-traditional measures.

• Has a more comprehensive focus. Less on the measures and more on the framework.

• Focuses on capacity expansion (a specific application).

• Resides within a broader context of collaborative transportation decision-making.

6

Key C02 Research Elements

• Development of the overall performance measurement framework;

• Literature review on performance measurement, focused on “non-traditional” areas (e.g., environment, community, and travel time reliability);

• Interviews with transportation agencies to determine the extent to which they are using performance measures relative to the literature review; and

• Targeted case studies to identify performance measures and applications used by agencies.

7

C02 Research Products

• A framework for performance measurement to support highway capacity decision-making at all stages of project development.

• A structured inventory of performance measures that transportation and other agencies can use to evaluate transportation plans, programs, and projects.

• A set of case studies to describe the use of measures in specific contexts.

• A web-based resource providing easy access to (and application of) the above products.

8

9

C02 Research Deliverables

• SHRP2 Report S2-C02-RR (Performance Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision-Making) is available at: http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/161859.aspx.

• Research results and products have also been incorporated into PlanWorks: Better Planning. Better Projects, which is available at: https://fhwaapps.fhwa.dot.gov/planworks/.

Key Findings from Literature Review

1. Performance measures should be driven by strategically-aligned goals and objectives.

2. A mix of input, output, and outcome measures should all be included in performance measurement.

3. Performance measurement efforts should concentrate on the “vital few.”

4. Early attempts at performance measurement should emphasize process as well as results.

10

Key Findings from Literature Review (continued)

5. Performance measurement programs are most effective when integrated throughout an organization.

6. Performance measurement reporting should be appropriately tailored to intended audiences.

7. Successful performance measurement programs require high-level “buy-in.”

8. Practitioners should strive for consistency of performance measurement terms and definitions.

11

Capacity Research Conclusions

1. Collaborative decision-making is a key to success, supported by an effective strategy for enhancing the environment, improving economic vitality, and achieving community goals.

2. The transportation planning and project development process as practiced and as defined in Federal statutes and regulations is an elaborate and complex process that involves a series of decision points.

3. Decisions need to be agreed to by key decision-makers at each point in the process and not revisited.

4. Many of the key decisions that enable a project to be approved should be made before the NEPA process begins.

12

Performance Measurement Framework

TransportationMobility

Reliability

Accessibility

Safety

EnvironmentEcosystems, Habitat, and Biodiversity

Water Quality

Wetlands

Air Quality

Climate Change

Environmental Health

EconomicEconomic Impact

Economic Development

CommunityLand Use

Archeological and Cultural Resources

Social

Environmental Justice

CostCost

Cost-Effectiveness

Topics and Factors Considered in the Framework:

13

Performance Measurement Framework (continued)

Long-Range Planning

Set goals and objectives.

Monitor systems.

Understand high priority concerns.

Assess system-level impacts.

Corridor Planning

Develop project concepts.

Conduct broad-based impact analysis (“red flags”).

Set corridor-specific objectives.

Programming

Select projects for design.

Select projects for construction.

Environmental Review

Develop, refine, and evaluate alternatives.

Identify preferred alternative.

Identify localized impacts.

Actions Addressed at Each Stage:

14

Evolution of Performance-Based Planning and Programming

15

Other Related FHWA Resources

16

Structuring the Break-Out Groups

17

C02 Performance Measures Factors MAP-21 National Goal Areas (NHS)• Transportation (includes Mobility, Reliability,

Accessibility, and Safety)

• Environmental (includes Ecosystem/Biodiversity/Habitat Protection, Water Quality, Wetlands, Air Quality, Climate Change, and Environmental Health)

• Economic (includes Economic Impact and Economic Development)

• Community (includes Land Use, Archeological/Historical/Cultural Resources, Social, and Environmental Justice)

• Cost (includes Cost and Cost Effectiveness)

• Safety

• Infrastructure Condition

• Congestion Reduction

• System Reliability

• Freight Movement and Economic Vitality

• Environmental Sustainability

• Reduced Project Delivery Delays

Initial Thought Process:

18

Action Plan Characteristics

• Tangible, Achievable, and Measurable Action Steps;

• Well-Defined Assignments and Schedules for the Action Steps;

• Designate a “Champion(s)” for the Entire Action Plan or Action Plan Sub-Components;

• Primary Emphasis on the Short-Term, But Can Also Have “Connection Points” to Associated Mid- and/or Long-Term Efforts; and

• Focus on Continuous Process Improvement and Change Management.

19

KYOVA’s Next Steps

• KYOVA Freight and Safety Summits

• Preparation of the Action Plan and Performance Measures Documentation

• Continued stakeholder involvement

• Integration of the Performance Measure process into the region’s Metropolitan Transportation Plan update

20

Thank You

Questions?

Saleem A. Salameh, Ph.D., P.E., M.ASCETechnical Study Director/ Deputy Executive DirectorKYOVA Interstate Planning Commission

Noel F. Mehlo, JrPlanning SpecialistFHWA – Ohio Division