Monitoring the Performance of the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan, 1991

7/28/2019 Monitoring the Performance of the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan, 1991

1/122

0 F F I C I A L D 0 C U M E N TDO NOT REMOVE FROM THE

RESEARCH OFFICE

Monitoring thePerformance of theWashington StateTransportationPolicy PlanWA-RD 235.1


2/122


3/122

Final Report

Research Project GC8719, Task 28Transportation Policy Plan Perfom1ance

MONITORING THE PERFORMANCE OF THEWASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATIONPOLICY PLAN

Dr. Gary PivoAssistant ProfessorUrban Design and Planning

byLawrence D. FrankPredoctoral Research AssociateUrban Design and Planning

Washington State Transportation Center (TRAC)


4/122

DISCLAIMER

The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors, who are responsible forthe facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarilyreflect the official views or policies of the Washington State Transportation Commission,Department of Transportation, or the Federal Highway Administration. This report doesnot constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.


5/122

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section flu:fChapter 1. Introduction and Approach................................................................... 1Chapter 2. Literature Review................................................................................... 7

Definition .. ........ ...... ........ .... ...... .... .... ...... .... .............. .... .. .... ...... .. ...... .. ...... .. ..... 7Theory and Purpose.......................................................................................... 8Components for Performance Monitoring Systems......................................... 9

Chapter 3. Review of Other State Agencies............................................................. 11Procedure.......................................................................................................... 11Telephone Interviews ........ .......... .......... ................................ ........ ................... 11Findings............................................................................................................ 12General Conclusions . ..... .................... ...... .......... .... ...... ................................... 13

Chapter 4. The Development of Indicators for the Washington StateTransportation Policy Plan........................................................................... 15Goals and Programs in the Plan .............. .. ................ ...... .................. .. ............. 15Relationships Between Goals and Programs.................................................... 15Indicator Development..................................................................................... 17The Interview Process ..... .......... ...... ...... ...... ........ ...... ........ .......... ......... 17Indicators for Performance Monitoring................................................ 19

Chapter 5. The Identification of Data Sources........................................................ 25Strategies for Filling the Data Gaps................................................................. 26


6/122

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Continued)

Sectjon ~References................................................................................................................... 55Appendix A. Program Areas within Policy Plan..................................................... A-1Appendix B. Goal Indicator Development Process................................................. B-1Appendix C. Identification of Data Sources............................................................ C-1Appendix D. Survey Results from Indicator Refinement Process......................... D-1Appendix E. Indicator Data Assessment Forms ..................................................... E-1Appendix F. Monitoring Programmatic Action Strategies.................................... F-1


7/122

Figure1.11.21.37.17.2a7.2b7.2c7.3

LIST OF FIGURES

The Policy Cycle ............................................................................. ..A Model of Monitoring ................................................................... ..Performance Monitoring Research Tasks ........................................ .Trend in Accident Rate ....................................................................Population Density for Selected Central Cities ................................Populat ion Density for Suburbs ...................................................... .Population Density for Selected Eastern Cities ............................... .Abandoned Freight Rail .................................................................. ..

~34539

40414243


8/122

LIST OF TABLES

2.1 Performance Versus Program Monitoring.......... ............ ............ ...... 83.1 Summary of Transportation Monitoring Activities inSelected States....................................................................... 134.1 Summary of Goals in the Washington State Transportation PolicyPlan........................................................................................ 164.2 Level of Support from Programs Referred to in the WashingtonState Transportation Policy Plan........................................... 184.3 Indicator(s) for Each Goal Statement........................................... ..... 204.4 How Conventional Are the Recommended Indicators for Each Goal? 235.1 Availability of State Level Data for Monitoring the Goals in theWashington State Transportation Policy Plan....................... 265.2 Suggested Strategies for Collecting Additional Data Needed toMonitor the Progress Toward the Goals in the WashingtonState Transportation Policy Plan..................... ..................... . 276.1 Refined Indicators after Comments................................................... 30

7.1 Goal Selection Process by Selected Criteria Items........................... 357.2 Criteria for Each Level of Effort....................................................... 367.3 List of Goals and Indicators Selected for Demonstration Purposes.. 377.4 Data Availability for Grouped Levels of Effort by GeographicAvailability of Data............................................................... 38


9/122

CHAPTER 1INTRODUCTION AND APPROACH

Much criticism has been directed at public agencies for the insufficient implementationof carefully developed plans. Implementation can easily be left out when management and thegeneral public are not aware of discrepancies between an effort's planned and actual status.Performance monitoring is a means of tracking the implementation of a plan to avoid thiscommon planning disaster. Performance monitoring is "the periodic measurement of progresstoward explicit short and long run objectives and the reporting of the results to decision makersin an attempt to improve pro),'Tam performance." Q)

Performance monitoring, in the context of the Washington State TransportationPolicy Plan, can show whether the state is moving toward the 19 goals laid out in the plan. Forexample, one of the goals is to conserve scarce resources (the reduction of total gallons offossil fuel consumed in the state per year). Perfom1ance monitoring would rrack changes in theindicators that measured whether fuel consumption was increasing or diminishing. An exampleof an outcome indicator is the total consumption of fuel in the state per year for rransportationpurposes. On the other hand, Program monitoring can assess whether programs designed


10/122

This paper reports on the development of indicators useful for measuring progress toward theplan's goals.

The purpose of monitoring is to provide a feedback loop within the policy cycle. Thisidea is presented graphically in Figure 1.1. This diagram conveys a simplified model of thetheory behind monitoring policy. Unfortunately, the process of monitoring is not so simple.External forces can counter the efforts of programs. The model of monitoring in Figure 1.2presents a more detailed picture of the forces at work in the determination of outcomes. Thisframework demonstrates the dynamic nature of the world in which decisions are made and theeffect of countervailing forces. This framework can be applied to the process involved in thedevelopment of outcome indicators for each of the goals discussed later in this chapter.

Figure 1.3 breaks down the project's tasks. The literature review and review of otherstate transportation planning agencies constitute the second and third chapters in this report.The Washington State Transportation Policy Plan and the indicator development process arediscussed in the fourth chapter. The fifth chapter is devoted to the identificat ion of dataresources and their level of availability. Chapters 6 and 7 discuss the refinement anddemonstration of performance monitoring indicators. Chapter 8 explores program monitoringindicators, and Chapter 9 gives conclusions and recommendations.


11/122

Make Policy

Monitoring


12/122

..,..

MonitoredTrends andPrograms

MonitoringActivities

A Model of Monitoring

PresentConditions I: Other

DesiredOutcome(eg. reducedcongestion)

(eg. congestion) 1 BackgroundFutureOutcomes

EstablishBaseline

: Forces. ~ . . . . A( , ' - : : ; ; ; ; ; : : : : : : = = = = = ~ ' : : : ~ ~ ;('"

PresentPrograms

(eg. Transit Programs,Road Building)

ProgramMonitoringII

Figure 1.2 A Model of Monitoring

... UndesiredOutcome(eg. increasedcongestion)

OutcomeMonitoring


13/122

LITERATURE REVIEW-applications of performance monitoring-applicability to project 'EVELOPMENT OF CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK-the policy cycle-a model of monitoring 'EVIEW OF OTHER STATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNING AGENCIES-survey of activities of other state transportation agencies-performance monitoring in other state transportation agenciesl

THE WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN-goals in plan-programs in plan-relationships between goals and programs'NDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS-purpose of developing indicators-interview process- recommended outcome indicators

'DENTIFICATION OF DATA SOURCES AND AVAILABILITY-data available at state level-data available at local level


14/122


15/122


16/122

Table 2.1. Performance Versus Program Monitoring

Performance Monitoring Program Monitoring documents whether progress toward documents progress toward programgoals occurred, not why objectives focuses on outcomes and goals focuses on program products not ultimategoals provides feedback to policy makersabout the effectiveness of plans and provides information to aid in thepolicies allocation of scarce funds amongcompetitive programs

THEORY AND PURPOSEThe premise underlying performance monitoring is that better information systems and

control mechanisms make government more effective and better able to accomplish its goals."A performance monitoring system is a system of information and action. It provides adynamic view of the organization through static snapshots and is a tool to detect breakdowns.Its purpose is to provide the organization with beacon lights for steering the organization'scourse." QQ)


17/122

political context How well a program is doing may be less important than the political positionof its supporters. Nevertheless, performance monitoring can clarify the trade-offs involved.cru

COMPONENTS OF PERFORMANCE MONITORING SYSTEMSThe three basic components of a performance monitoring system are as follows (1): A data component, which provides a framework for collecting and measuring

infom1ation. Data can be useless if collection is isolated from the activities anduser of the information. The performance monitoring system must includecontinual interaction with management. The collection of data requires anagreement with management about what infom1ation is needed and agreementwith personnel on what will be monitored and if it is collectible. (]_)

An analytical component, which involves comparisons of actual versus plannedperformance. UJ.)

An action component to provide the framework for acting on infom1ation. Thisusually involves a determination by decision makers of whether program orpolicy changes are needed in light of monitoring results.


18/122


19/122

PROCEDURE

CHAPTER 3REVIEW OF OTHER STATES

A survey of state transportation planning agencies was conducted for the AmericanAssociation of State and Highway Transportation Officials!fransportation Research Board(AASHTO!fRB) conference on statewide planning held in the spring of 1989 in Boston,Massachusetts. Of the states represented, 44 responded to the survey, which providedinformation on the level of planning the agencies were perfom1ing. This information served asa starting point for the selection of states with the highest likelihood of having somethingsimilar to perfom1ance outcome monitoring or program monitoring under way. The presenceor absence of strategic planning and the description of each state's process was the mostgermane piece of infom1ation provided by the survey.

TELEPHONE INTERVIEWS

Telephone interviews were conducted with the state transportation agencies that werejudged from the survey to be most likely to have some type of performance monitoring


20/122

FINDINGSAlthough several state agencies use program monitoring in their capital planning

process, very little performance monitoring is conducted. Florida is by far the most ambitiousin monitoring the performance of its transportation policy. This is consistent with Florida'scommitment to growth management. Some ongoing data gathering may reveal additional statesthat have related performance monitoring activities. Table 3.1 summarizes the results of thetelephone interviews with the II states selected from the AASHTO{fRB survey. Thefollowing four states are presented because they illustrate a variety of monitoring activities.

I. California. Currently, the state department of transportation in California isdeveloping an "Executive Information System." The purpose of this systemwill be to monitor the implementation of projects. This will include someevaluation of the efficiency of capital outlays.

2. Florida. The Florida State Department of Transportation is in the preliminarystages of developing a performance monitoring system similar to the conceptbeing discussed here.The Florida Department of Transportation is currently performing several


21/122

Table 3.1 Summary of Transportation Monitoring Activities in Selected States

States Working Towards States With Program MonitoringPerformance MonitoringFlorida California

IllinoisHawaiiNew YorkPennsylvaniaMarylandMichiganWisconsin

3. Maryland. Maryland has a program similar to the one being developed inCalifornia. There is a quantitative component as part of an annual process todevelop goals and policies for state transportation project expenditures. Totaldollars available are set first, then distributed among projects.

4. Pennsylvania. Much of the literature developed on performance monitoringstems from the experience of Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. The


22/122


23/122

CHAPTER 4THE DEVELOPMENT OF INDICATORS FOR THE

WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN

This chapter is divided into two sections: identification of goals and programs that arepart of the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan, and the indicator developmentprocess. The purpose of this portion of the study was to generate a list of outcome indicatorsuseful for tracking progress toward the goals in the Washington State Transportation PolicyPlan.

GOALS AND PROGRAMS IN THE PLANThe Washington State Transportation Policy Plan contains goals in four areas: personal

mobility, economic vitality, natural environment, and institutional framework. There are 19goals distributed among the four goal areas. The goal statements represent desired futureconditions, for example, revitalized economically isolated areas. Table 4.1lists the goals in theplan. The plan also contains related programs in four categories: working together, protectingour investments, personal mobility, and economic opportunity. The programs are activitiesdesigned to achieve the goals. Approximately 30 programs are referred to in the plan,


24/122

Table 4.1 Summary ofGoals in the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan

I. provide safe, reliable, and convenient access to employment, educational, recreational,cultural, and social opportunities for all citizens in urban and rural environments;2. provide cost effective accessibility for goods;3. provide cost effective accessibility for people;4. link land-use planning to transportation planning;5. link land-use development directly to transportation development;6. support international trade;7. revitalize blighted urban areas;8 . revitalize economical! y isolated areas;9. conserve scarce resources;

I 0. reduce pollutants and other waste by-products from the transportation system;II. avoid the disruption and degradation of historically and environmentally significantlocations;12. include effective urban design in transportation facilities;13. ensure the collection of the appropriate revenue to support the transportation system;


25/122

indicate which programs are supportive of several goals and which programs arecompletely unrelated to the goals within the plan,

provide an overall gauge of how well the programs and the goals arecoordinated, and

indicate the level of implementation for each of the programs.A glance at the matrices (Appendix A) shows the goals that have significant program

support within the plan and those with little to no support. It is important to note that otherprograms not discussed in the plan also support the goals; however, these were not reviewedfor this report. The level of program support for each goal is summarized in Table 4.2.Support is measured by the number of programs in progress that help to fulfill the goal. Thetable shows how the majority of goals have moderate or extensive program support, althoughthree goals have no program support in the plan.

INDICATOR DEVELOPMENTThe Interview ProcessTo establish a set of indicators that can measure progress toward the goals it is

important to understand what the goals in the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan


26/122

Table 4.2. Level of Support from Programs in Progress Referred toin the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan

Extensive Support Moderate Support No Support(6 or more programs in (1 to 5 programs in progress) (No programs in progress)progress)safe, reliable, convenient link land use & transportation degredation of sensitive areasaccess developmentcost effective access-goods support international trade effective urban design

cost effective access-people revitalize blighted urban areas sensitivity to publicparticipationconserve scarce resources revital distressed areasfacilitate regional coordination reduce pollutants fromtransportationconnect land use & collection of apropriate revenuetransportation planningpreserve needed system sponsor innovative research


27/122

The interviews consisted of questions intended to document the process by which thegoal was established, gain information on potential measures to monitor progress, and gainreferences to data sources to monitor recommended indicators.

Indicators for Performance MonitoringAfter these discussions, the researchers identified the major legislative concerns

associated with each goal and developed related performance measures. The idea was toidentify a limited number of indicators that were simple to understand by the general public andbased as much as possible on existing data sources. More complex indicators could provideuseful information for policy discussions. However, simple indicators would ease theintroduction of performance monitoring for transportation policy. A set of 42 indicators wasdeveloped for the plan's 19 goal statements. The list of indicators is located in Table 4.3. Inthis table, the indicators are associated with the goals they are intended to monitor. (SeeAppendix B for more detailed information about the indicator development process.)Information more qualitative in nature obtained in the interviews is presented in the issues andconcerns section of Appendix B.

An example of the process used in the development of the indicators can be illustratedwith the goal of linking land use development directly with transportation development. The


28/122

Table 4.3. Indicator(s) for Each Goal StatementGoal Statement Indicator(s)

I) provide safe, reliable, and convenient access to - safety = # of incidents per pm pk hr in systememployment, educational, and recreational - reliability =variation in travel time a t specifiedopportunities in order to reinforce a senseof community statewide locations

- convenience = traveltime at specified locations2) provide cost effective accessibility for goods - total cost of moving goods/total value of trade3) provide cost effective accessibility for people - vehicle occupancy rates at specified locations4) link land-use planning directly with -#of jurisdictions complying w{concurrencytransportation planning provisions in Growth Management Act

- # of Regional Transportation PlanningOrganizations (R1POs) formed5) link land-use development directly with - #of dwelling units per acretransportation system development - % modal split over lime

- average trip length- average traveltime between specified points intrans. system

6) support international trade - total value of freight in state per year7) revitalize blighted urban areas - average household income in distressed areas

- # of jobs per unit of area in distressed areas8) revitalize economically isolated areas - unemployment rates measured in distressed areas9) conserve scarce resources - average fuel consumption per mile (both

passenger and freight)- total consumption of fuel in state fortransportation purposes


29/122

Table 4.3. Indicator(s) for Each Goal Statement (Continued)Goal Statement lndicator(s)

12) include effective urban design in - presence or absence of p::dcst.rian amenities at transittransportation facilities nodes- presence or absence of pedestrian linkages to transitnodes- % of highway system with landscape lreatment andbuffering

13) ensure the collection of appropriate revenues - amount of revenue available to support theto support the transportation system transportation system/amount of revenuerequired to support the transportation system

14) encourage opportunities for public/private -presence or absence of policy that discourages jointpartnerships development-presence or absence of policy that encourages jointdevelopment- # of jointly developed transportation projects

15) promote greater sharing and coordination of -#of transportation projects with shared personneltechnical expertise between state and local - #of technical-applied manuals produced in stategovernment16) promote sensitivity to public participation - % of citizens who feel they have opportunities forparticipation

- #of programs that promote public participation17) facilitate interjurisdictional and regional - # of Regional Transportation Planning Organizationscoordination (RTPOs) formed

-#of projects successfully built by TransportationImprovement Bureau with regionalcooperation


30/122


31/122

Table 4.4. How Conventional are the Recommended Indicators for Each Goal?

Goals With More Goals With LessConventional Indicators Conventional Indicatorsprovide safe, reliable access to all provide cost effective access for goodsopportunities provide cost effective access for peoplerevitalize blighted areas

link land use planning with transportationrevitalize isolated areas planningreduce pollutants ensure the collection of revenueavoid disruption and degradation of support international tradesignificant locations include effective urban designassure the preservation of the system

encourage public/private partnershipssponsor innovative research promote sharing of technical expertiseconserve scarce resources promote public participationlink land use development withtransportation development facilitate regional coordination


32/122


33/122

CHAPTER 5THE IDENTIFICATION OF DATA SOURCES

Once recommended indicators have been identified, the researchers investigated whetherthe information they would require is available. The assessment focused on data sourcespresently or soon to be available at the state level. The information was primarily collectedthrough staff members in state agencies, with some help from local agency staff.

During the process of investigating available data sources, some adjustments were madeto the list of indicators. While not allowing indicators to diverge too far from their originalobjective, the researchers sought to make the best use of existing data.

For each goal, the availability of data to track the related indicators was determined.For example, the indicator developed to monitor the safety component of the goal to providesafe, reliable, convenient access is the number of accidents per million miles travelled. TheTraffic Safety Commission's annual report is statewide and provides the data required. Theresults for all the goals are summarized in Table 5.1. Appendix C lists the actual data sourcesfound for each indicator.

Three levels of data availability were found:


34/122

Table 5.1. Availability of State Level Data for Monitoring the Goals in the Washington StateTransportation Policy Plan

Data A vail able Some data available but Data does not exist andcollection needed collection requiredprovide access for goods provide safe, reliable access link land use andto all opportunities transportation developmentsupport international trade link land use and provide access for peopletransportation planningavoid disrupting significant promote sharing technical include effective urbanlocations expertise designrevitalize urban areas facilitate regional promote public participationcoordinationrevitalize isolated areas reduce pollutantsconserve resources encourage private/publicdevelopmentensure the collection ofrevenuesassure the preservation ofsystemsponsor innovative research


35/122


36/122


37/122

CHAPTER 6COMMENTS ON INDICATORS AND FURTHER REFINEMENT

This portion of the study obtained feedback from key individuals involved in thedevelopment of the initial indicators (see Table 4.3) and refined the indicators based on theircomments. The indicators in Phase I were developed after interviews with key individualsresponsible for the creation of the goals in the plan (see Table 4.1). The majority of thoseinterviewed were members of the Desired Future Conditions Subcommittee of the WashingtonState Transportation Policy Plan Steering Committee. This subcommittee was charged with thedevelopment of goals for the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan.

The respondents were asked whether the indicators listed in Table 4.3 were accuratemeasures of progress toward the goals. If they felt they were inaccurate, an alternativeindicator was requested. They also were asked which goals should be selected to furtherdemonstrate the feasibility of performance monitoring. Responses were received from fiveindividuals. They are presented in Appendix E. In general, the following comments weremade on the accuracy and quality of the recommended indicators:

I. Make the indicators simple where possible.


38/122

Table 6.1. Refined Indicators after CommentsPre Comment

. safety = number of incidents per pm pk hr in system- reliability= variation in travel time at specified locations. convenience = travel Lime at specified locations. none. total cost of moving goods/ total value of trade- vehicle occupancy rates at specified locations. number of jurisdictions complying w/concurrencyprovisions in Growth Management Act. number of Regional Transportation Planning

Organizations (RTPOs) formed- number of dwelling units per acre. percent modal split over Lime. average !rip length- average travel time between specified points in trans.system. total value of freight in state per year- average household income in distressed areas- number of jobs per unit of area in distressed areas. unemployment rates measured in distressed areas. average fuel consumption per mile (both passenger and

freight)

After Comment- number of accidents pe r million YM T- variability in travel Lime between locationsaverage !rip durntion between locations- percentage of transit vehicles and stops that are handicappedaccessible- total cost of moving goods per ton mile- total cost per person mile of travel- consistency between land use and transportation plans- deleted- population density in cities- percent of population living/working within 1/4 mile of transiservice- employment density in cities- jobs/housing balance in cities- annual public investments in port facilities and services- dollar value of transportation investments in distressed areas

- (ditto)- dollar value of transportation investments in distrcsse


39/122

Table 6.1. Refined Indicators after Comments (Continued)Pre Comment After Comment

- #of historically significant locations adversely affected by - delcledtransportation system development- presence o r absence of pedestrian amenities at transit nodes - percent of intermodallinkages with all weatherdesigns- presence or absence of pedestrian linkages to transit nodes - deleted- % of highway system with landscape treatment and - visual quality index rating along state highwaysbuffering- an10unt of revenue available to suppon the transportation - amount of revenue generated to suppon a

system/amount of revenue required to suppon the mode/amount of revenue requiredtransportation system- presence or absence of policy that discourages joint - (same) - presence or absence of policy thatdevelopment discourages joint development- presence or absence of policy that encourages joint - (same)- presence or absence of policy thatdevelopment encourages joint development- #of jointly developed transportation projects - (same)-# of jointly developed transportationprojects- # of transportation projects with shared personnel - (same)-# of transportation projects with sharedpersonnel- #of technical-applied manuals produced in state - dollar value of technical assistance to localgovernment- % of citizens who feel they have opponunitics for - percent of district budgets devoted to publicpanicipation information/panicipation activities- # of programs that promote public panicipation - delete- # of Regional Transportation Planning Organizations - (same)-# of Regional Transportation Planning(RTPOs) formed Organizations (RTPOs) formed- # of projects successfully built by Transportation - (same)-# of projects successfully built by


40/122


41/122

CHAPTER 7FURTHER DEMONSTRATION OF SELECTED GOALS

Five goals were selected for further testing to more rigorously demonstrate thefeasibility of performance monitoring. The objective was to thoroughly assess the datarequirements for the indicators of the selected goals and to present historical baseline data forthe indicators in graphic form where possible to illustrate how an actual monitoring reportmight look.

Five goals were selected that were representative of the range of issues involved in theimplementation of performance monitoring. This enabled the analysis to be generalized to theother goals that were not selected for detailed study. Four criteria were used to make theselection, including the recommendations of the survey respondents (see Chapter 6), theavailability of existing data for the indicators, the quantifiability of the indicators, and thegeographic scale at which progress would be monitored. Survey response scores and ratingsfor the other criteria are displayed in Table 7 1. Five goals were selected that together coveredthe range of scores given for the criteria and were of high priority to the survey respondents.The goals that were selected are indicated in Table 7.I .


42/122

The level of effort measures can be grouped into three categories: data available at the state level, data available at the local level, and primary collection of data required.The distribution of indicators among these three categories is displayed in Table 7.4. Of

the 19 indicators recommended for the five goals, sufficient data were available to constructhistorical baseline trends for 15 percent (3) of the indicators, which are presented in Figures7.1 to 7.3. However, with limited effort in reformatting and calculating, 42 percent (8) of theindicators could be made fully operational with data that are already collected at the state level.Primary data collection would be required for approximately 37 percent (7) of the indicators bymethods that are already known or need to be developed. This would require a significantcommitment of resources. The remaining 21 percent (4) of the indicators could be madeoperational with data that are collected at the local or regional level. This suggests that pro!,'Tesstoward many aspects of the policy plan's goals can be monitored at this time. However, manyother aspects of the goals cannot be monitored without additional data analysis or collection.Cnless these efforts are made, planners and policy makers will be unable to fully monitor orguide progress toward the goals of the policy plan.


43/122


Table 7 .1. Goal Selection Process by Selected Criteria ItemsGoal in Plan Survey Existing Data Measurability LocaVResponse Available ** *** RegionaV

Score* StateReporting****

. / Safe, reliable, convenient access 7 moderate high allCost effective access- goods 4 moderate high stateCost effective access- people 0 low moderate regional. /Link land-use ping. with trans. 3 low low regionalLink land-use devel. with trans. 6 low moderate regionalSupport international trade 0 moderate moderate stateBlighted urban areas 0 high moderate localEconomically distressed areas 0 high moderate regionalConservation of scarce resources 0 high high state. / Reduce pollutants 5 moderate high regionalDegradation of significant locations 0 moderate high state. / Effect. urb. design 4 low moderate regionalCollect appropriate revenue 5 high high statePublic/private development 0 moderate high local


44/122


Table 7 .2. Criteria for Each Level of Effort

Level Criteria1 Data collected regularly at the state level

Data made available to project staffData is in a form which is readily usable

2 Data collected regularly at the state levelData not easily accessible now to project staffData is in a form which is readily usable

3 Data is collected regularly at state levelData is not in a form which is readily usable

4 Data is available at local or regional levelData is collected on aregular basis

5 Data is available at local or regional levelData is not currently collected on a regular basis

6 The collection of primary data is requiredA well developed methodology exists for data collection

7 The collection of primary data is requiredA methodology for data collection needs to be developed


45/122


Table 7 .3. List of Goals and Indicators Selected for Demonstration PurposesGoal Proposed Indicators Level ofEffort

1. Provide safe, reliable and Number of accidents per million vehicle 1convenient access miles travelledVariability in travel time between 6locationsAverage trip duration between locations 6Percent of transit vehicles and stops that 5are handicapped accessible

2. Link land use development with Percent of population living and working 3-4transportation development within 1/4 mile of public transit serviceEmployment density in cities 3Population density in cities 1Jobs/housing balance in cities 3

3. Reduce pollutants from the Total air pollutants attributable to vehicles 3transportation system Pollutant mix in water runoff fromhighways 6Number of people exposed to greater than70 CNEL due to transportation systems 64. Include effective urban design in Percent of intermodallinkages with all 7transportation facilities weather designs


46/122


Table 7.4 . Data Availability for Grouped Levels of Effort by Geographic Availability of Data

Data Available at State Level Data Available@ Local Level Primary Data CollectionRequiredLevel of Effort 1 - 3 Level of Effort 4 - 5 Level of Effort 6 & 7Number of Indicators Number of Indicators Number of Indicators

8 indicators 4 indicators 7 indicators


47/122

WASHINGTON STA1E TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN

1-:::;;>"

200000

~:::;; 100000-120635r- 113751

r-

122918 125920126807 128800

120056,_ r- r- -r-

75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89Year

Indicator: Accidents per million VMTGoal: To provide safe, reliable and convenient access


48/122

WASIDNGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN

.E0"""'5c0"'"'>-~ c"'c0~: ;0 .0c._

7000

Seattle6000

5000

:==s000


49/122


0""'

"'0!!!"'e,>-"""'"'l

7000

6000

5000

4000

c 3000.Q:


50/122

WASHINGTON STA1E TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLAN

E0""'-'0~


51/122


sao

400

"0"'0"0 300"'


52/122


53/122

CHAPTER 8TOWARD PROGRAM MONITORING

The purpose of this chapter is to explore the issues associated with program monitoringand the feasibility of program monitoring for the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan.Most of this report has focused on performance monitoring, or measuring progress toward the19 stated goals in the W a ~ h i n g t o n State Transportation Policy Plan. However, as noted inChapter 1, a variety of public agency programs are the primary vehicles used to achieveplanning goals. In fact, if programs designed to reach planning goals are not effectivelyimplemented, those goals probably will not be achieved. Therefore, in addition to performancemonitoring, program monitoring is an important source of quantitative and qualitativeinformation on the implementation of adopted plans. According to one author, "programsshould be monitored to ascertain their compliance with (or deviation from) stated goals,responsible expenditures of allocated funds, and detection of problems before they mushroominto crisis."(H)

As noted in Table 2.1 above, program monitoring activities focus on program objectivesand program products rather than ultimate goals. This distinction is important. While


54/122

PROGRAM MONITORING ISSUESA significant issue with program monitoring is the institutional and organizational

relationship between the planning entity that sets goals and objectives and the programmanagers that oversee their implementation. Most programs that help carry out plans are notunder the direct authority of a single planning entity. The Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT), for example, is responsible for only a few of the many programsthat assist the implementation of the state Policy Plan goals. The state Transportation PolicyPlan, a process sponsored by the STC, does not have the statutory responsibility or resourcesto monitor other departmental and agency program implementation activities in any great detail,with the possible exception of the WSOOT.

Another important issue concerns the preferred criteria that will be used to monitorprograms. Program managers tend to see the objectives and performance of their programsdifferently from the the eyes of an "external" evaluator. Resistance may be high to proposedmeasurements of their programs against output or productivity standards developed by others,e.g., the state Transportation Commission's state Policy Plan.

A third issue is critical: who does the monitoring? External monitors can be perceived


55/122

PROGRAM MONITORING DATAProject staff developed a data matrix to organize useful program monitoring

information. The matrix is displayed in Appendix F. Programmatic Action Strategies aredisplayed across the top of the matrix. Information useful for program monitoring is providedfor each action strategy.

Level of Proeram ImplementationMany of the action strategies in the Policy Plan require legislative action to be

implemented. Therefore, one kind of information worth collecting is whether legislation existsto support the strategy, or legislative efforts are under way on pending legislation, or nolegislative efforts are under way.

Institutions Involved in the StrateeyInformation was obtained from the Policy Plan's "Preliminary Implementation Plan"

(1990) on the agencies involved in the implementation of each programmatic action strategy.For example, the programmatic action strategy "Define and develop a system of heliports toserve state needs" has WSDaT listed as the only institution involved, while other strategies relyon the cooperation of several state and/or local agencies.


56/122

Program QualityThe quantity of outputs generated by a program may be the same in two instances, but

the quality of the outputs may vary between instances. Therefore, an indicator was developedto measure the quality of a given program. This assessment usually requires the opinions ofpeers or a panel review. For example, the programmatic action strategy, "Update the 1985ports and transportation system study" has been assigned the quality measurement:comprehensiveness of update. The comprehensiveness would need to be assessed by adesignated peer group.

Institutions With Related ProgramsInstitutions with other programs that involve related activities are listed to encourage

coordination. If efforts can be coordinated between programs with similar missions, thengreater efficiency will result.

FUTURE WORKOnce program monitoring data have been collected, various analyses can be conducted

to learn more about the programs and their effectiveness. For example, when inputs andoutputs are compared over time, changes in the cost-effectiveness or efficiency of programs can


57/122

CHAPTER 9MAJOR FINDINGS AND FUTURE WORK

MAJOR FINDINGSPerformance monitoring can be applied to transportation policy to track progresstowards planning goals.

Other states have little experience with performance monitoring in transponation policy,but the state ofFlorida is working to build a performance monitoring system.

Conventional indicators can be used to track progress towards approximately half of thegoals in the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan. Less conventional indicatorswill be required for the other goals.

Data needed to track changes in about half the indicators are currently available. For theother indicators, data gaps can be filled through data collection from local governmentsand new data collection efforts.Environmental factors such as economics, politics, and technology influence the natureand extent of policy implementation.


58/122

the Department of Trade and Economic Development, and the Department ofEmployment Security.

4. Collect data and where necessary calculate measurements for historic baselineconditions for those indicators that rely on existing data available at the statelevel. These may include the following indicators: Number of accidents per-million VMT Total cost of moving goods per ton-mile Total cost per person-mile of travel Population density in cities Employment density in cities Jobs/housing balance in cities Annual public investments ($) in port facilities and services Dollar value ($) of transportation investments in distressed areas Average fuel consumption per mile Amount of air pollutants attributable to vehicles Presence/absence of policy that discourages joint development Presence/absence of policy that encourages joint development


59/122

Number of rail miles abandoned per year Operational hours of ferry service per capita Percentage of transportation budget for research Dollars devoted to innovative R & D

5. Develop and implement procedures and establish formal agreements forcollecting data available at the regional or local level. These include at aminimum Regional Transportation Planning Organizations and local transitagencies. These agreements should address data for the following indicators: Variability in travel time between locations Average nip duration between locations Percentage of transit vehicles/stops that are handicapped accessible Consistency between land use and transportation plans Percentage of population living/working within 1/4 mile of transit

service Acres of resource lands designated under the Growth Management Act

lost by transportation development


60/122

7. Develop and implement procedures for collecting primary data that are currentlynot collected statewide. This includes data for the following indicators: Variability in travel time between locations Trip duration between locations Consistency between land use and transportation plans Pollutant mix in water runoff from highways Number of people exposed to greater than 70 CNEL due to the

transportation system Visual Quality Index rating along state highways

8. Develop long-term targets and 5-year benchmarks as a means of predicting andevaluating progress toward the goals in the plan. This should be based on astudy of historical trends, desired future conditions, and the likely progress thatcan be made toward the desired future conditions.

9. Develop and implement a program monitoring system. For each progrdm thisprocess should include the following: the establishment of a lead agency; the establishment of the authority to monitor between agencies;


61/122

special account to fund transportation projects in economically distressed areasof the state."The following indicators are proposed to monitor progress toward this goal: average household income in distressed areas; number of jobs per unit of area in distressed areas; unemployment rates measured in distressed areas.The program's relationship to progress toward the goal can be tested bycomparing data collected for these three indicators in similar locations that doand do not have suppon from this program.


62/122

jj


63/122

REFERENCES

1. Poister, Theodore. Performance Monitoring. Lexington, Massachusetts:Lexington Books, 1982.2. Washington State Department of Transportation3. Pennsylvania State Department of Transportation4. Poister, Theodore. "Performance Monitoring in the Evaluation Process,"Evaluation Review, Vol. 6, No.5, October 1982.5. Grant, D.L., ed. Monitoring Ongoing Programs. New directions for progressevaluations, no. 3. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1978.6. Wholey, J. S. Evaluation, Promise, and Performance. Washington, D.C. TheUrban Institute. 1979.7. Waller, J. D. Monitoring for Government Agencies. Washington, D.C. TheUrban Institute. 1976.8. Hatry, H.P. eta!. How Effective Are Your Community Services? Proceduresfor Monitoring the Effectiveness of Municipal Services. Washington,D.C.: The Urban Institute, 1977.9. Sharfstein (A.C. Hyde and L. Schafritz, eds.). Program Evaluation in thePublic Sector. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1979.

10. Altman, Stan. "Performance Monitoring Systems for Public Managers," PublicAdministration Review, January/February 1979.

11. Wilson, Tabas, Henneman. Comprehensive Planning and the Environment.


64/122

APPENDIX APROGRAM AREAS WITHIN POLICY PLAN


65/122

Readinl,' the Matrices Located in Appendix A1. The goals are on the vertical axis and the programs are on the horizontal

3XIS.

2. Figures A.l, A.2, and A.3 correlate the first mne goals with all 30programs, and Figures A.4, A.S, and A.6 correlate the remaining ten goalswith the same 30 programs.


66/122

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN APPENDICES A-C

RTPO- Regional Transportation Planning OrganizationEIS -Environmental Impact StatementDTED -Department of Trade and Economic DevelopmentWSDOT- Washington State Department of TransportationDCD -Department of Community DevelopmentHPMS -Highway Performance Modeling SystemPSWQU- Puget Sound Water Quality AuthorityDOE- Department of EcologyTIB -Transportation Improvement BureauBN- Burlington Northern


67/122

~- (/ ) -'-ii> - m;; I!! iii :ii . -;. .. ~ ~ : 5 l : ~ i , . , 1; ; _! gc ~ g , _ 6 ] .!l "0 a. ... ~ . 1 ! , 2ll l a. Be-; a. 0 ra . : BE _ ~ ~ r Ill C>;: !> 8 .... g> 0t :g .!i ::J E i ~ I D ; o ; ; :i .2 : : ; ~ ~ " 2 -g 8 "0 ..iS o>.l!l c 1S !> :ii e .&i ''c. ~ c . . ! 0 . . ~ ~ . a..2 oil 8 "11 s:.:: I h.'"I I I L I i L I

I I !I i I 'I I I i! IL L lI I I I ! III I iI I I ''I IIi

-I ~+ I'

GP1 10-2-90PersonalMobility

12EQ ID Cl~ ~ ! ! l. ;a =:rg 'i._-jI D t : ~ c5. g i 5

I I L

I I LI L

.. r : : : = ~ ~ - = : : : _ : : _ " _ ' = --1----- I_ -- ---------- ---------- ~ ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - ---- ---------- -- - - ~ J ~ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ~ - __ __1 ___________1_____1__ _____ - - - - - - - - - -:; reduce pollutants and other 1 I ica wastes from trans. system ! :zw ! i

Note: Refer to list of abbreviatons located altho front of the appendices

1/IV


68/122

>'(f )


69/122

>-' I (f )..::UJrc..::- '((9

lla: Stuolemo:H.,.,k: P t r i ~ < m A.O"l

Washington State Transportation Policy PlanPROGRAM AREAS WITHIN POLICY PLAN

LEVEL OF PROGRAMIMPLEMENTATION

in progresslegislation required Lno work 10 date Nprogram unrelated to goal

-.;;,., ~ >~ ~ g g l ~ E : : . ~

Economic Opportunity"'. , ;-o.!1 i (tl viIt) ... .B c" E 8,! 0 3 'O " = t t ~ O ...,_ t: . E~ ~ = ~.g :ii8 . 9 ~ 1 ;

.Eo. !H f'E ~ ~ ~E o "

0.E_g 8..- al c :s s


70/122

>"""Cll~a:c(- 'c(0(! }

Jl.o: SLu11 A.04

Washington State Transportation Policy PlanPROGRAM AREAS WITHIN POLICY PLAN

LEVEL OF PROGRAMIMPLEMENTATIONin progresr; I Ilegislation required I Lno work to date I Nprogram unrelated to goal

cCD environmentally significant local

Working Together. g' {I c Er:: .Q gg c . 2 i l i ~,i g! - .".....: g [ l i t ~ ~ ! ! ! ~E , , c.:;>8 - '~ ~ - ~ ... " ' ~ t i SloE "" .!5 - 5 ~ Ql Ql=rt 2!0..\'ll a. .eo

E-c:.. 0::; .!:;:

1

1

avoiding the disrupdon anddegradation of historically and

I . . . . t+ + Imzw

"'"!!!

including effective urban design intransportation facilities

I nsure the collection of appropriat'1 evenues to support theltransportation systemI encourage opportunities fOr'public/private partnershipspromote greater sharing andcoordination of technical expertisebtwn. state and local govern.promote sensitivity to public

L

Protecting Our InvestmentsIH ..... iii,S! .....la ! 2 - -!H - c -ac c .QI._ Ioo2 !L < el .2 ,g.ga."1iJ . il 2:- ~ - r o~ . W 0"C lB t:j.a a U ~S..= oe 8 Q.,

. j .......I

L L

GP4 10290PersonalMobility

t'O . ! .il' ,"158.. s.-s "iii .g :.m e c18.


71/122

~V l~UJa: a. .2 .!.! !1: ..!!! Q._ >- Jin progress I .E :! : I -g a a j E 1 g b oe ! 2 ! t [t -i t I i.2 - e E c 8. :II o 5 ~ ! I , . , t im" ' . o t: a ; = ~ 1-, o : . . ! olegislationrequired L l ~ x ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' 7 e!8'j" S o o t ~ ~ .... 8_] ! ~ . g f f ~ ~ ~ ! -c1.e 1 ~ 1 = ' ; _ ~ l ! l~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ c 1 - = 1 1 1 " " ~ ! l5E s g , : : : : ~ l ; ' 1 ~ . o . a ~ i ! , ;:.:EJ;,., "CCO.!I :ca-- .Qlc : G i ~ a .noworktodate N ~ " " : ~ ~ ~ i ! ' ~ J : ~ ! ~ E = ~ ~ $ . 2 ! ~ - ! : : ~ ~ = 1 : : ~ :E"" I ~ ] ; ~ ~ l i E'E : : : : ~ I . - ~ - a . 0 i! 8 .ci 8 . Ill-S 111 111 8. 111 ,E g j-g E 8programunretatediDgoel 3 ~ 8 ~ ! a i ~ : ; ' i S ~ 5 ~ j ! j c ~ " & . " 2 ~ .aio"2 :o-!;.i"2 m!:.:s 1 o o ~ E c : 8 ~II) "-


72/122

>'a..CIJ lc2'1P"~ . - o ~ . ~ n ~iI+j

~ Ii1I I I II

Economic Opportunity! Ji -~ . . ! ! 1 ""'e c10 IIi :z 0 J!l "t::So .g "E ""Hli '. 8.. :8d.


73/122

APPENDIX BGOAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS


74/122

NOTE: The number assigned to each of the goals in Appendix B is used to reference theindicators it1 the idemification of data sources wbles located in Appendix D.


75/122

t:O'- ~w[(00z00w

f-z-' Wo!;(!;;Z>zw

Washington State Transportation Policy PlanGOAL INDICATOR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS GLIND2 12-5-90

GOAL ITEM & REFERENCE#, TYP. ISSUES & CONCERNS INDICATOR1) to provide safe, reliable, and - to provide a measure of the general public's - safety .. I of incidents per pm pk hr in systemconvenient access to employment, satisfaction - reliability .. variation in travel time at specified locationseducational, and recreational - primary mission of WSDOT - convenience travel time at specified locationsopportunities in order to reinforce - to be worked towards but not fully attainablea sense of cummunity statewide2) providing cost effective -socia l costs need to be accounted for - total cost of moving goods/ total value of tradeaccessibility for goods -goo ds represent economic flow- provide for all weather system3) providing cost effective - need to identify all costs -vehicle occupancy rates at specified locationsaccessibility for people - need to identify benefits of transit tonon-users4) linking land-use planning directly _ land use plans often don't recognize -#of urisdictions complying w/concurrency provisions inwith transportation planning impact of transportation facilities Growth Management Act- I of RTPOs formed5) linking land-use development - do people like living in transit friendly - # of dwelling units per aaedirectly with transportation system environments - % modal split over timedevelopment - average trip length- average travel time between specified points in trans. system6) supporting international trade - cooperation between ports, WSDQT, and -total value of freight in stale per yearprivate sector essential7) revitalizing blighted urban areas - opportunity for expenditures on facilities -average household income in distressed areasto yield positive economic impacts on -#of obs per unit of area in distressed areas8) revitalizing economically isolated ~ d i s t r e s s e d areas" if proper1y planned - unemployment rates measured in distressed areasareas9) conserve scarce resources - total consumption of fossil fuels need to -average fuel consumption per mite (both passenger and freight)decline even with increasing population -to tal consumption of fuel in state for transportation purposesand economic activity significant role fordemand mgt. strategies10) reduce poUutants and other - to resolve air quality problem -AIR: amount of pollutants attributable to trans.wastes from transportation system - to reduce contaminaniS from highways -WATER: %of highway miles with runoff treatment systementering into water supply -WATER: particulate mix of runoff as compared to standards- to mitigate impacts of noise pollution developed by PSWOA and other agencies-NOISE: #of people exposed to extreme levels from

~ ~ - - ~ ~ - - t r a ~ ~ p o r t a t i o ~ _ ! y s t e m __ --Note: Refer to list of abbreviatons located at the front of the appendices

I

1116/ill


76/122

IJ:j'(fJ

to surrounding land uses -%of highway system with landscape treatment and buffering

13) insure the collection of to develop a dependable and predictable - amounl of revenue available to support the transporlationappropriate revenues to support the funding mechanism for new facilities system'amount of revenue required to support the transporlationtransportation system system

14) encourage opportunities for - ability to provide needed services - presence or absence of policy that discourages joint developmentpublic/private partnerships - institutional barriers - presence or absence of policy that encourages joint development- provision of incentives for private sector -I of jointly developed transportation projects15) promote greater sharing and to minimize duplication of efforts #o f transportation projects with shared personnelcoordination of technicalexpertise between stale and - lo maximize potential for technical -#of technical-applied manuals produced in statelocal government improvement

16) promote sensitivity to public - minimize impact of NIMBY through - % of citizens who feel they have opportunities lor participationparticipalion effective public forum #of programs that promote public participation17) facilitate interjurisdictional and - lo be able to identify rewards for coord - # of AT POs formedregional coordination to reduce waste in the provision of mobility - #o f projects successfully built by TIB w/regional cooperation to recognize local well being can depend- upon reqional well beinq - #o f interlocal agreements18) assure the preservation of need to maintain flexibility to do other -%of existing highway system at an acceptable standard of repair.the needed system - things; not just main ain system - %o f existing railroad system at an acceptable level of repair i-dollar value of deferred maintenance of transit facilities .19) sponsor innovative research and to recognize the potential of private sector - %o f annual transportation budget devoted to researchdevelopment in cooperation with - development of new transportation - $devoted to innovative research and developmentacademia, private sector and others technologiesin order to identify new cost effective the importance of developing viablemethods and address current and - alternatives to auto travelfuture transportation needs

Note: Refer to list of abbreviatons located at the front of the appendices

111"191


77/122

APPENDIX CIDENTIFICATION OF DATA SOURCES


78/122

NOTE: The numbers assigned to each of the goals in Appendix C are used toreference the indicators to the appropriate goals in Appendix B and Table 4.1.


79/122

(")'- rn


80/122

0N(/ )


81/122

APPENDIX DSURVEY RESULTS FROM INDICATOR

REFINEMENT PROCESS


82/122

APPENDIX DSURVEY RESULTS FROM INDICATORREFINEMENT PROCESS

I. General Comments on Preliminary IndicatorsRESPONDENT #1 (A Metrooolitan Plannine Oreanizatjon (MPOll:Recommends approaching the indicators in a more simplistic manner forstatewide monitoring and applying more specific and complex measures to themetropolitan areas. The setting of performance objectives is also recommendedprior to the development of indicators.Rank Order of Goals - no rank order was indicatedRESPONDENT #2 fWashjneton State Department of Transportation\:Indicators need to be transportation related, as with the case of blighted/distressedurban areas. Questions how urban design goal indicators will be implemented;are they nominal, etc.Rank Order of Goals

#l safe, reliable, convenient access#2 preservation of needed system#3 reduce pollutants#4 ensure collection of appropriate revenue#5 link land use development with transportation development

RESPONDENT #3


83/122

needs to take into account total trip time not just the link. This is somewhatconfusing and may not be practical. Good ideas for indicators of the urban designgoal were provided.Rank Order of Goals #1 assure the preservation of the needed system #2 provide cost effective accessibility for goods #3 link land use planning with transportation planning #4 safe, reliable, convenient access #5 reduce pollutantsRESPONDENT #5 fWasbingtun State Transoortatjon Commjssjon):Particular areas of concern are that we be sensitive to issues that are statewide andpertinent to non-Puget sound residents. In addition, attempting to createquantifiable, measurable indicators is essential. Sensitivity to political issues andtransportation relatedness were concerns as well.Rank Order of Goals - none indicated

II. Indicators in DetailGoal # 1 - Provide safe, reliable, convenient access

Comments: safety; use number of accidents (as opposed to incidents) permillion of vehicle miles travelled (MPO, WSDOT) reliability; locations for monitoring must be for total trip notjust link (WSDOT) convenience; locations for monitoring must be for total tripnot just link (WSDOT)


84/122

Goal #3 -Provide cost effective accessibility for peopleComment: indicator needs to relate to goal; assess costs andtransportation alternatives (University of Washington)Alternatives: investment/people moved system wide and site specific(WSDOT)

cost per person-mile of travel (MPO)

Goal #4 -L ink land use planning directly with transportation planningComments: indicators provided are a superficial measurement. It does notmean that they are doing it. (WSDOT)

number of RTPOs functioning (Transportation Commission)Alternative: number of RTPOs in compliance with regional developmentstrategy requirement of state planning standards (MPO)

Goal #5 -L ink land use development directly with transportation developmentComment: differentiate between within Puget Sound and east versuswest (Transportation Commission)Alternatives: percentage of population near transit (WSDOT)

concurrency compliance (WSDOT)level of service on links (WSDOT)


85/122

Goal #7 - Revitalize blighted urban areasComments: the indicators developed are not sufficiently transportationrelated (Transportation Commission, WSDOT, University of

Washington)Alternatives: average housing price/average salary # of housing rehabs

dollar value of transportation related development (MPO)

Goal # 8 - Revitalize economically isolated areasComments: indicator needs to be more transportation related (Universityof Washington)

maybe for ongoing monitoring of where the areas are - notuseful beyond that (WSDOnAlternative: number of new jobs created a result of transportationimprovements

Goal # 9 - Conserve scarce resourcesComments: although already indicated; measures need to deal separatelywith passenger and freight (Transportation Commission)

compare to potential (University of Washington)Alternatives: average fleet fuel efficiency in MPG (Wsoon

ton-mile per unit moved for freight (TransportationCommission)


86/122

Goal #10 - Reduce pollutantsComments: AIR: relate directly to fuel consumption (WSDOn

when using number of days in violation of EPAstandards as an indicator there are too many othervariables affecting measure (WSDOnWATER: need to focus on effectiveness of treatment system(WSDOn

expand measure to include a water quality analysis(WSDOnNOISE: use a given DHB level not "unhealthy" as opposed

to using a level using unhealthy in indicator(WSDOn measure of unhealthy level should be that which isgreater than 70dba (MPO)

Alternative: NOISE: number of miles of highways that are noisegenerators (expose people to excessive noise)(WSDOn

Goal #11 -A oid the disruption and degradation ofhistorically andenvironmentally significant locationsComments: with regard to environmentally sensitive habitat, indicator isirrelevant due to "No net loss legislation" (WSDOn


87/122

Goal #12 - Include effective urban design in transportation facilitiesComments: the indicators developed will all be useless unless they arecarefully operationalized. For example, "Presence or absenceof pedestrian amenities at transit nodes." How is thismeasured - standards must be developed for the collectionof data. (WSDOT)

the indicator (percentage of highway system with landscapetreatment and buffering) is foolish (WSDOT) confusion over the indicators ask for a yes or no or to somedegree (WSDOT) the indicator: (percentage of highway system with landscapetreatment and buffering) is not applicable in easternWashington (Transponation Commission)

Alternatives: all weather intermodallinkages (WSDOT) sidewalks/highways as a percentage of the total highwaysystem (WSDOT) roadmiles of urban corridors revitalized through urban designand access control (WSDOT)

Goal #13 -Ensure the collection ofappropriate revenues to support thetransportation systemComments : indicator should be the amount of revenue required asopposed to the amount of revenue available to support the


88/122

Goal #15 -Promote greater sharing and coordination of technical expertiseComment: indicator calling for the number of technical applied manualsproduced in and disseminated by the state is too bureaucratic

(Transportation Commission)Alternative: dollar value of technical assistance to local governments

Goal # 1 6 - Promote sensitivity to public participationComments: regarding the indicator (percentage of citizens surveyed whofeel they have opportunities for participation), ifconstituencies have a problem they will speak up. (WSDOT)

regarding the indicator (number of programs that promotepublic participation), this information is hard to obtain on astatewide level. (WSDOT)Alternative: percentage of district budget devoted to public informationactivities (WSDOT)

Goal #17 - Facilitate interjurisdictional and regional coordinationComment: Is the indicator, "# of interlocal agreements" a bureaucracymeasure? (WSDOT)Alternative: number of regionally significant transportation projectscompleted versus programmed (MPO)

Goal #18 -Assure the preservation of he needed system


89/122

APPENDIX EINDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORMS


90/122

APPENDIX EINDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORMS

The Indicator Data Assessment Forms are comprised of seven sections:CATEGORY

I. Proposed Indicator(as per data source)

l l . Explanation ofProposed IndicatorIll . Current DataA vailability

IV. Recommended DataSource(s)V. Proposed DataCollection Process

DATAThis is the indicator that was developed in response to theavailability of existing data, further research and interviews withsubject experts.This statement describes how the indicator applies to the goalstatement.This section applies to those indicators for which there is existingdata. The analysis includes the identification of sources, coverage,time frame available, frequency of collection, geographic unit ofanalysis, format in which the data is available, and the method bywhich it is obtained. Data was available for certain indicators toenable the project staff to produce historical or baseline trends.If there is insufficient data available to support the indicator thenalternative sources are identified.This section identifies how the data might be obtained if sufficientdata does not exist. Two pieces of information are disclosed: research references which contain a method for data collection; and


91/122

Goal # 1PROVIDE SAFE, RELIABLE, CONVENIENT ACCESS



92/122

PERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRA TlON PROJECTINDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORM

GOAL #1: PROVIDE SAFE, RELIABLE, CONVENIENT ACCESSCATEGORY

I. Proposed Indicator(as per data source)II. Explanation of

Proposed IndicatorIII. Current DataAvailability

DATANumber of accidents per million vehicle-miles travelled

Monitors the total number of accidents per total travel to estimatewhether the roads are safer relative to increased usage. Sources Agency- WSDOT

Uni t - Accident Data Branch Funding- state and federal

Coverage entire state highway system Time Frame Available 1977 and on Frequency compiled monthly Geographic Unit of by highway milepostAnalysis Format of Data computer file Method/Measurement continuous surveyTechnique



93/122

PERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTINDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORM

GOAL #1: PROVIDE SAFE, RELIABLE, AND CONVENIENT ACCESS

CATEGORYI. Proposed Indicator(as per data source)

II. Explanation ofProposed Indicator

Ill. Current DataA vail abilityIV. Recommended DataSource(s)V. Proposed DataCollection Process

DATAVariability in travel time between locations

The variability in travel time between specified locations estimateshow well individuals are able to depend on the system to arrive at aprojected time. Simply put, it measures how well they can rely ontheir arrival occurring when they expect.Not available

Travel panel surveys

Research "Developing a Household Travel Panel SurveyDocumentation for the Puget Sound Region" (Murakami &Watterson, Puget Sound COG, 1990)

MethodologyOverview I. Establish panel surveys lor each RTPOsimilar to that which is outl ined in thepaper cited above.2. Compile data from travel logs on traveltimes for one month intervals three times a

WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION PO LICY PLAN


94/122

, PERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTINDICA TOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORM

GOAL #1: PROVIDE SAFE, RELIABLE, CONVENIENT ACCESS


II. Explanation ofProposed IndicatorI l l . Current DataAvailability

DATAAverage trip duration between locations

The amount of time required to travel between fixed points is ameasure of convenience. People generally use time-distance as ameasure of accessibility. Sources Agency - PSCOG

Uni t - Technical Services Division Funding- U.S. Department ofEnergy and WSDOT

Coverage Puget Sound Region Time Frame Available 1989 and 1990 Frequency not known Geographic Unit of Puget Sound RegionAnalysis Format of Data computer file Method/Measurement household travel panel survey

Technique



95/122

I.

II.

III.

IV.

v.


GOAL #1: PROVIDE SAFE, RELIABLE, CONVENIENT ACCESS

CATEGORY

Proposed Indicator(as per data source)Explanation ofProposed Indicator

Current DataA vailabilityRecommendea DataSource(s)Proposed DataCollection Process

DATAPercentage of transit vehicles and stops that are handicappedaccessibleUses the proportion of the transit vehicles and stops that arehandicapped accessible as an indicator of access available tohandicapped patronage.Not available

Transit authorities

ResearchDocumentation MethodologyOverview

None1. Assess the number of vehicles and stopsthat are equipped for handicapped serviceusing applicable guidelines.2. Determine the percentage of total vehiclesand stops that are handicapped accessible.3. Conduct biannually.


96/122

Goal #2LINK LAND USE WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT



97/122

I.

II .

III.

IV.

v.

PERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECTINDICA TOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORM

GOAL #2: LINK LAND USE WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENTCATEGORY

Proposed Indicator(as per data source)Explanation ofProposed IndicatorCurrent DataAvailabilityRecommended DataSource(s)Proposed DataCollection Process

DATAPercentage of population living and working within 1/4 mile ofpublic transit serviceThe percentage of the population within walking distance to publictransit service measures how well land use and transit arecoordinated.Not available

U.S. Census Block Data for population, DES or U.S. Journey toWork Census for jobs ResearchDocumentation MethodologyOverview

NoneI. Geographically overlay transit network onpopulation and job data.2. Count population and jobs in blocks thatare mostly within a 1/4 mile of transitlines.3. Divide by total population in service area.

WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLANPERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


98/122

INDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORMGOAL #2: LINK LAND USE WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT


II. Explanation ofProposed IndicatorIII. Current DataA vailability

DATAEmployment density in cities

Employment density is a good predictor of the feasibility of amultimodal transportation system and the demand for transportationfacilities. Sources Agency- Department ofEmployment Security for jobs andOFM for city area

Funding- State Coverage statewide Time Frame Available historical Frequency annual Geographic Unit of cityAnalysis Format of Data tabular and computer file Method/Measurement Continuous surveyTechnique



99/122


GOAL #2: LINK LAND USE WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENTCATEGORY

I. Proposed Indicator(as per data source)II. Explanation ofProposed Indicator

Ill. Current DataA vailability

DATAPopulation density in cities

Based upon the assumption that population densities are associatedwith the ability to provide multimodal transportation service and thedemand for transportation facilities. Sources

Coverage

Agency - Office of FinancialManagement Uni t - Forecasting division Funding- Statestatewide

Time Frame Available 1967 and on Frequency Geographic Unit ofAnalysis Format of Data

annualjurisdiction

tabular prior to 1980, computer fileafter 1980 Method/MeasurementTechnique continuous survey for both land areas,including annexations and population

WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLANPERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECT


100/122

INDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORMGOAL #2: LINK LAND USE WITH TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT

CATEGORY


III. Current DataAvailabilityN. Recommended DataSource(s)V. Proposed DataCollection Process

DATAJobs/housing balance in cities

Uses the ratio of jobs to households as an overall indicator ofregional "balance." "Balance" is a measure of the degree to which itis possible to live and work within a specified area, which affectstravel demand and vehicle miles travelled.Not available

OFM for dwelling units Department of Economic Security for jobs ResearchDocumentation

MethodologyOverview

I. Lincoln Institute for Public Policy:"Achieving Job/Housing Balance; LandUse Planning for Regional Growth"Resource Manual, 1991.2. Methodology currently being developedby Puget Sound Council of Governments.1. Obtain jobs data at city level2. Obtain dwelling unit data at city level


101/122

Goal #3REDUCE POLLUTANTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEM



102/122


GOAL #3: REDUCE POLLUTANTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM

CATEGORY DATAI. Proposed Indicator Amount of air pollutants attributable to the vehicles(as per data source)

II. Explanation of Measures the amount of pollutants attributable to vehicles.Proposed Indicator

III. Current DataAvailability Sources Agency- Washington StateDepartment of Ecology Uni t - Air Programs Funding- state and federal

Coverage urban areas Time Frame Available 1979 to date Frequency annually Geographic Unit of countyAnalysis

Format of Data computer files Method/Measurement annual survey

WASHINGTON STATE TRANSPORTATION POLICY PLANPERFORMANCE MONITORING DEMONSTRATION PROJECf


103/122

INDICATOR DATA ASSESSMENT FORMGOAL #3: REDUCE POLLUTANTS FROM THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMCATEGORY


I l l . Current DataA vail ability

DATAPollutant mix in water runoff from highwaysResearch conducted at the University ofWashington for WSDOTfrom 1977 to 1982 has established that among a host of variables.highway runoff quality is most highly correlated with the number of vehicles passing by a given point, and the purification potential of vegetation in the right of way downslopefrom the paved surface.Therefore, average daily trips in conjunction with purificationpotential of vegetation can be used as a predictor of runoff quality.Purification potential is defined as the ability of the vegetative coverin the right-of-way to remove pollutants from highway runoff.Permanent Traffic Recorder System (PTR) for traffic volumes only. Sources

Coverage Time Frame Available Frequency Geographic Unit ofAnalysis

Agency -WSDOT Uni t - Travel Data Branch Funding - state and federalstate highway system1965 and onsummarized monthlystate highway system


104/122


105/122

Goal #4INCLUDE EFFECTIVE URBAN DESIGN IN

TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES



106/122


GOAL#4: INCLUDE EFFECTIVE URBAN DESIGN IN TRANSPORTATIONFACILITIESCATEGORY


III. Current DataAvailability

DATAPercentage of intermodal linkages wi

Documents

Monitoring the Performance of the Washington State Transportation Policy Plan, 1991