Memorandum

Date       March 7, 2013

To           Boston Region MPO

From      Anne McGahan, MPO Staff

Re            The Development of Performance Measures and
Performance-Based Planning

PURPOSE

The federal Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) establishes performance-based planning as an integral part of the metropolitan planning process. It requires that each metropolitan planning organization (MPO) establish performance measures and targets that track progress toward attainment of critical outcomes for its region. The performance-based planning approach reflects best practices for transportation planning and programming and can enhance an MPO’s effectiveness in many ways. The Boston Region MPO staff has begun the process of integrating this approach into the MPO’s practices.

The purpose and organization of this memorandum are threefold:

This memorandum is intended to be an instrumental step in the long-term process of the MPO and its staff continuing to develop performance measures and beginning to implement robust performance-based planning in our region. This work will be funded through the Long-Range Transportation Plan work program.

As required by MAP-21, MPO staff will coordinate with MassDOT and the MBTA during the development of these performance measures.

BACKGROUND: concepts, definitions, and legislation

CONCEPTS AND DEFINITIONS

Performance measures are intended to be used by MPOs at both broad and more focused levels. At a broad level, they can help to demonstrate how well a region’s transportation system as a whole or segments of the system are doing in meeting the visions adopted by the MPO and reflecting its policies. Many states and metropolitan areas are already monitoring how close they are to achieving specific goals related to access to key regional population, employment, cultural, and recreational centers; the mobility of disadvantaged populations; air quality; and economic health. Common methods used to measure performance include tracking average speeds and crash rates.

At a more focused level, performance measurement can gauge the impacts of the decision-making process on the transportation system. It can answer questions about whether the performance of components of the transportation system is getting better or worse over time and whether the stated goals of specific transportation investments are achieved.

Performance-based planning at an MPO means bringing all of these various kinds of information into its planning process. The data are useful to both regional and local decision makers and are critical for assessing the level of success of the region’s management of its transportation network and the level of effectiveness of its transportation investments.

Key terms related to performance-based planning may be defined as follows:

LEGISLATION REGARDING PERFORMANCE MEASURES

As will be described in section 3, the Boston Region MPO has been engaged in performance measurement through its Congestion Management Process (CMP). The impetus for developing and operating a CMP began with the federal Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA) in 1991. ISTEA required state departments of transportation and metropolitan planning organizations to implement such a process. The successor legislation to ISTEA, the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), adopted in 1998, continued to require each transportation management area with a population of over 200,000 to maintain a CMP as part of its metropolitan planning process.

According to 23 CFR 500.109a, an  effective  CMP  is  a  systematic  process  for  managing  congestion  that  provides information  on  transportation  system  performance  and  on  alternative  strategies  for alleviating congestion and enhancing the mobility of persons and goods to levels that meet state and local needs. The CMP leads an MPO to seriously consider implementation of strategies that use existing and future transportation facilities most efficiently and effectively.3

MAP-21, which took effect on October 1, 2012, promotes performance-based investment decisions in support of national goals. It requires MPOs to establish performance targets that spur progress towards attainment of outcomes critical for the MPO’s area. These targets should be coordinated with those of relevant state agencies and public transportation providers to ensure consistency. The MPO is required to establish its performance targets no later than 180 days after the date on which the state agencies and the public transportation providers establish theirs.

The Congressional conference report that accompanied MAP-21 stated that the nation’s surface transportation programs had not provided sufficient accountability for how tax dollars were being spent on transportation projects and would benefit from a greater focus on key national priorities. The highway program should, it said, focus on key outcomes such as reducing fatalities, improving road and bridge conditions, reducing congestion, increasing system reliability, and improving freight movement and economic vitality. The report also stated that transportation improvement programs and long-range transportation plans should be developed through a performance-driven, outcome-based approach to planning for metropolitan areas.

The Boston Region MPO’s Progress in the DEVELOPMENT OF PERFORMANCE MEASURES

BACKGROUND

Since the mid-1990s, the Boston Region MPO has been monitoring its transportation system through its Congestion Management Process (CMP), as described below. In this way it has been gathering, for use in performance management, information on freeways, arterial roadways, intersections, transit, park-and-ride lots, high-occupancy-vehicle (HOV) lanes, and bicycle and pedestrian transportation. The MPO has begun to expand this process so that performance management will eventually be used in all aspects of MPO planning, including the Long-Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), Transportation Improvement Program, and Unified Planning Work Program. It committed in its current LRTP and in the work scope for its next LRTP to carrying out this evolution of its planning methods.

Other foundational work, in addition to the CMP process, has been completed through the identification and adoption of visions and policies for the region in the LRTP. The next major step is to develop specific, detailed performance measures and to establish specific performance targets for a subset of the measures. Details on the ongoing and upcoming work are provided below.

WORK TO DATE

Congestion Management Process of the MPO

The Boston Region MPO’s Congestion Management Process (CMP) has developed numerous performance measures and monitors them. CMP work has also included defining thresholds for these performance measures and using them to identify when congestion is occurring or to distinguish between desirable and undesirable outcomes. However, no specific performance targets have been established. The measures and their associated thresholds are presented in Table 1.

Table 1

Congestion Management Process Performance Measures and Thresholds

Roadways, Intersections, and Interchanges

Performance Measure

Threshold

Average observed travel speed

< 50 mph (limited-access roadways)

≤ 21 mph (partially limited-access arterials)

≤ 14 mph (other arterials)

Speed index – the ratio of the observed speed to the posted speed limit

< 0.70

Delay

≥ 55 seconds (arterials)

Traffic volumes (all modes)

Depends on roadway capacity of functional class

Volume-to-capacity ratio – the ratio of the traffic volume to roadway capacity

> 1.0

Level of service

E or F

Approach speed

Varies

Approach delay

Varies

Number of crashes

No threshold currently established

Crash rate

MassDOT Highway Division District average

Vehicle occupancy

No threshold

High-Occupancy-Vehicle Lanes and Parallel General-Purpose Lanes

Performance Measure

Threshold

Travel time savings in HOV lane

One minute per mile

Vehicle occupancies

No threshold

 

Transit Vehicles

Performance Measure

Threshold

On-time performance

Varies by transit mode and time of day

Passenger crowding

Varies by transit mode, vehicle type, and time of day

 

Park-and-Ride Facilities (MBTA and MassDOT)

Performance Measure

Threshold

Lot capacity and utilization

Full: ≥ 85%

Underutilized: < 50%

Time a lot fills up

There is insufficient parking capacity if the lot fills to 100% before the departure time of the last AM peak-period train.

Bicycle parking capacity and utilization

Full: ≥ 85%

Underutilized: < 50%

Visions and Policies of the MPO

The MPO’s identifying and adopting visions and policies for the future of our region in its current LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region, was the next step toward performance-based planning. It adopted visions and policies in seven areas:

Paths to a Sustainable Region also lists examples of performance measures that could be used to track our progress toward attaining success in each of the vision topic areas. These lists of measures have been employed in the work described immediately below.

Performance Measures: Progress by the MPO Staff

Staff in several groups within the MPO staff have been involved in the beginning stages of developing performance measures for the MPO. Building on the lists in the MPO’s LRTP, Paths to a Sustainable Region, staff added a broad array of other potential measures to create a Draft Universe of Performance Measures, which is provided as Appendix A of this memorandum. Other resources used in producing this list included the Congestion Management Process, the LRTP Needs Assessment, TIP criteria, published lists of performance measures used by other MPOs and agencies, and ideas of the staff. The source(s) of the data that would be required to develop and monitor each measure are also included in the list.

The MPO can select specific performance measures for its use from this Draft Universe of Performance Measures, and additional ones can be proposed, as well. More details on selecting performance measures are provided in section 4 of this memorandum, “Next Steps.”

Performance Measures: Progress by State Agencies

MassDOT is currently working on performance measures under two separate programs:

The MBTA division of MassDOT is monitoring its system and service, also under two programs:

A summary of the work in these four programs is provided below. Some of the measures identified in this work are pertinent to the MPO’s activities and should be taken into consideration by the MPO when selecting its own performance measures from the Draft Universe.

MassDOT Performance Management

As part of the reorganization of MassDOT, its Office of Performance Management and Innovation was tasked with developing and reporting performance metrics that will enhance the management of each of MassDOT’s operating divisions and departments. MassDOT’s performance management is an ongoing and systematic approach to improving results using evidence-based decision making and management. Under the program, numerous metrics have been identified for all divisions. Two of the divisions are members of the Boston Region MPO: the Highway Division and the MBTA. The metrics for these divisions focus on MassDOT goals under the following categories:

The latest data on these metrics are reported in MassDOT’s Strategic Plan 2013–2015. Some of the metrics apply to the MPO’s functions; a list of these is provided as Appendix B.

GreenDOT Implementation Plan

In December 2012, MassDOT published its GreenDOT Implementation Plan. This plan has three primary objectives:

The plan has 15 broad sustainability goals that are supported by tasks to be implemented through 2020. Several of these goals apply to activities in which the MPO is responsible for playing a role; they are presented in Appendix C. The MPO will consider these goals and their associated tasks in the development of its own performance measures.

An example of GreenDOT Implementation Plan goals that, with their associated tasks, are relevant to the MPO’s work is that of tripling the shares of travel in Massachusetts by bicycling, transit, and walking by 2030. Progress toward this goal will be measured by person-miles traveled by auto, transit, bicycling, and walking. Table 2 shows the baseline person-miles traveled for 2010 and the goals for 2020 and 2030.

 

 

 

 

Table 2

MassDOT Mode Shift Goals

 

Mode

2010 Baseline

(person-miles traveled)

2020 Goal

(person-miles traveled)

2030 Goal

(person-miles traveled)

Transit

1,830,000,000

3,994,000,000

5,926,000,000

Bicycling

150,200,000

333,000,000

516,000,000

Walking

101,100,000

223,900,000

333,600,000

MBTA Service Delivery Policy

The MBTA’s Service Delivery Policy (SDP) is the primary tool that the Authority uses to guide the design and evaluation of transit services in its efforts to meet the needs of the riding public. The SDP establishes quantifiable service standards and associated performance measures and thresholds. The MBTA uses the performance measures in its service-planning process to identify which services need improvement and to determine whether past service changes have been effective. The types of standards found in the SDP are:

MBTA ScoreCard

The MBTA’s monthly ScoreCard gives its customers quantitative information that indicates how well the Authority is serving them. It furthers the MBTA’s goals of transparency and accountability, and this practice of showing the public exactly how the system is performing reflects the Authority’s commitment to safe and reliable transportation. The ScoreCard reports on the following metrics:

More detail on the MBTA’s metrics is provided in Appendix D.

NEXT STEPS

MPO Activities

Approach

Staff will continue to work toward recommendations on performance measures to be adopted by the MPO. The recommendations will be coordinated with measures that are being developed by MassDOT and the MBTA. It is the staff’s goal at this time to recommend at least one performance measure and associated performance target for each vision topic. This set of measures and targets can be expanded in the future. A possible approach for developing the initial set of measures is represented by the following example:

Additional examples of potential performance-tracking questions are:

The MPO may want to consider having two tiers of targets: those that are measured at the systemwide level and monitored through the Long-Range Transportation Plan, and those that are measured at the project level and monitored through the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). To apply this concept to the example above: in addition to the target of reducing the number of structurally deficient bridges by X% by the year 20XX, a target would be established for the total number of bridge projects funded in each TIP fiscal year. Regardless of how the MPO configures its performance targets, the TIP will likely be key in documenting annual progress toward meeting them and in tracking other trends.

Implementing the Approach

To implement the approach outlined in the bullet list above, the first step would be to establish for each vision topic a set of questions that covers all of the important facets of the MPO’s vision. Once the questions have been established, the performance measures that best address the questions would be selected from the Draft Universe of Performance Measures, starting with one measure per vision topic,and performance targets would be determined.

(It should be noted that, although the categories in the universe of performance measures mostly correspond to the MPO’s vision topics, there are some differences. Categories were chosen that best organized the measures. In any case, for each vision topic there are pertinent measures in more than one category.)

Staff are hoping to begin this process with the MPO over the next few months. The MPO may want to consider establishing a committee to provide guidance in the development of the performance questions and measures.

State Activities

The MBTA is developing a Transit Asset Management system as part of its Transit Asset Management Pilot Program, currently underway. This program is using the MBTA’s State of Good Repair Database to help meet the new asset management requirements under MAP-21, including:

In addition to monitoring the performance measures reported through the ScoreCard and using its existing service standards, the MBTA is currently in the process of determining whether additional performance measures should be incorporated into the Service Delivery Policy.

MPO staff will continue to coordinate with MassDOT and the MBTA during the development of their performance measures.

 

AM/am

 

 


APPENDIX A

DRAFT UNIVERSE OF POTENTIAL PERFORMANCE MEASURES
DEVELOPED FOR THE BOSTON REGION MPO

 

Mobility
Mode Data Source
Mode Share by Trip Purpose
All Model/ACS JTW, MBTA
Average Peak Period Travel Time by Mode
All CMP, Model
Miles of Projected Vehicle Traveled Reduced per Dollar for Projects
All CTPS
Traffic Volume to Capacity Ratio
Auto DOT/CTPS, CMP, Model
Percent Lane Miles Operating under Level of Service E or F
Auto CMP, Model
Average Vehicle Occupancy during Peak Periods
Auto CMP, Model
Travel Speed Index
Auto CMP, Model
Total Weekday Travel Time Savings for HOV Users Compared to Non-HOV Users in the Same Corridor
Auto CMP, Model
Share of Park and Ride Lot Spaces Used by Lot
Auto CMP
Share of Bridges with Sufficient Clearance for Double-Stack Trains (20' 8")
Freight GIS
Network Connectivity Index
Ped/Bike GIS/Municipalities
Bicycle parking availability and utilization at MBTA stops
Ped/Bike CMP, MBTA, GIS
Share of Streets with Bicycle Facilities (non limited-access highways)*
Ped/Bike DOT, Municipalities, GIS
Share of Streets with Sidewalks on Both Sides (non limited-access highways)*
Ped/Bike GIS
Bridges Accommodating Bikes and Pedestrians
Ped/Bike GIS
Share of Region's Population Residing within 1/4 Mile Walk of a Retail Land Use
Ped/Bike GIS
Share of Region's K-12 Students that Walk or Bike to School
Ped/Bike TBD
Transit Passenger Crowding (vehicle load factors) by Time Period
Transit MBTA
Percentage of Land Area with More than 5,000 People per Square Mile that has Bus or Rapid Transit Service within ¼ Mile*
Transit GIS, MBTA
Average Bus Speeds by Peak and Non-Peak Period
Transit MBTA, Model
Percentage of Transit Stations that are Accessible to Persons with Disabilities*
Transit MBTA, CMP
Average Transit Waiting Times (by mode, line, time of day)
Transit MBTA, Model
Average Weekday Transit Service Miles per Capita
Transit MBTA, Model
Preservation, Modernization, Efficiency
Mode Data Source
Percent of Bridges by Each Condition Category (excellent/good/deficient)
All GIS, MassDOT, MBTA
Percent of Traffic Signals in a State of Good Repair
All MassDOT/CMP
Percent Highway Lane Miles by Condition Category (excellent/good/deficient)
Auto CMP, PMS, MassDOT
Average Age of Transit Fleet (buses, locomotives, etc.)
Transit MBTA
Mean Miles between Transit Vehicle Breakdowns
Transit MBTA
Percent of Rapid Transit and Commuter Rail Track Miles under a Speed Restriction
Transit MBTA
Climate Change
Mode Data Source
Annual Pounds of Greenhouse Gas Emissions Produced by the Transportation System*
All Model
Annual Emission Reduced by the Use of Alternatives to Single-Occupancy Vehicles (transit, rideshare, walking & biking)
All Model, GHG Program
Vehicle Miles Traveled per Capita*
Auto Model
Average Vehicle Occupancy
Auto Model, CMP
Fuel Consumption per Capita
Auto DEP
Number of Publically Available Electric Vehicle Recharging Stations
Auto TBD
Number of Electrified Truck Stops along Key Freight Routes
Freight MassDOT
Percent of Land in Region Covered by Forest
Land Use GIS
Transit Miles per Gallon of Fuel Consumed
Transit MBTA
Environment
Mode Data Source
VOC, NOX, and CO Emissions per Day
All Model
Number of Days per Year Meeting Ozone Standard
All NWS
Number of Days per Year Meeting PM 2.5 Standard
All NWS
Miles of Noise Barriers in Residential Areas along Highways and Rail Lines
All MassDOT, GIS
Acres of Greenfield Development
All GIS
Number of Green Communities in the Region
Land Use EOEEA
Percent of Households in the Region Living within 200 Meters of a Major Roadway (defined by a AWDT threshold to be determined)
Auto GIS, Model
Percent of People in the Region Working within 200 Meters of a Major Roadway
Auto GIS, Model
Public Health and Safety
Mode Data Source
Number of Crashes at Railroad Grade-Crossings
All MBTA
Average Time from Crash Report until Removal of Vehicles Involved in the Crash
All Registry
Percent of Bridges by Each Condition Category (excellent/good/deficient) for Bridges on the Evacuation Network
All MassDOT
Percent of Crashes Resulting in an Injury*
Auto Registry, MassDOT
Percent of Crashes Resulting in a Fatality*
Auto Registry, MassDOT
Percent of Signals with Emergency Vehicle Pre-Emption
Auto MassDOT
Number of Truck Crashes per Capita
Freight Registry, MassDOT
Number of Crashes Involving a Pedestrian per Capita
Ped/Bike Registry, MassDOT, EOPS
Number of Crashes Involving a Bicyclist per Capita
Ped/Bike Registry, MassDOT, EOPS
Number of Transit Accidents per Transit Mile
Transit MBTA, NTD, MassDOT
Livability
Mode Data Source
Population Density by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ)
All Census, Model, GIS
Developed Acres per Capita
All GIS/MAPC
Percent of Center-Line Miles that are Considered a Complete Street
All TBD
Households to Jobs Ratio by Transportation Analysis Zone (TAZ)
All GIS
Registered Automobiles per Household*
Auto Registry, Census
ADA Compliant Intersections
Ped/Bike MassDOT
Percent of Transit Stations with Bicycle Accommodations*
Ped/Bike CMP
Percent of Transit Stations with Full Sidewalk Coverage within 1/4 mile radius
Ped/Bike GIS
Percent of Population within 1/2 Mile of a Shared-Use Path or On-Road Bicycle Facility
Ped/Bike GIS
Percent of Population within 1/4 mile of a Transit Station
Transit Model, GIS
Percent of Employment within 1/4 mile of a Transit Station
Transit Model, GIS
Transportation Equity
Mode Data Source
Average Travel Time to Industrial, Retail, and Service Jobs
All CTPS
Average Travel Time to Hospitals
All CTPS, Model
Average Travel Times to 2 and 4 year Institutes of Higher Learning
All CTPS, Model
Average Commute Time for Those Earning Less than 200% of the Federally-Defined Poverty Level Compared with Those Earning More than this Level
All CTPS
Share of Household Income Spent on Transportation by Income Category
All Census, CTPS
Attendance at MPO Transportation Equity Forums
None CTPS
Number of Small-Group Discussions Held in Environmental Justice Areas
None CTPS/DOT
Average Wait Time at Bus Stations in Environmental Justice Areas Compared to Non-Environmental Justice Areas
Transit Model, MBTA
Average Number of Transfers per Transit Trip for Trips Originating in Environmental Justice Areas Compared to Trips Originating in Non-Environmental Justice Areas
Transit Model, MBTA
Percent of Population with Access to a Paratransit Service
Transit GIS
Average Number of Industrial, Retail, and Service Jobs within a 40-Minute Transit and 20-Minute Auto Trip
Transit, Auto CTPS
Average Number of Industrial, Retail, and Service Jobs Within a 40-Minute Transit and 20-Minute Auto Trip
Transit, Auto CTPS
Economic Benefit
Mode Data Source
Cost/Benefit Ratio for Major Projects (benefits include reduced emissions, new transit riders, reduced toxics exposure, HH income to transportation, travel time to jobs, etc.)
All Model/GIS
Average Weekday Vehicle Hours of Travel (VHT) under Congested Condition
Auto Model Plus
Freight Volume by Weight and Value
Freight FHWA FAF
Freight Mode Share
Freight FHWA FAF, MassDOT
Fare Box Recovery Ratio
Transit MBTA
Revenue Generated per Transit House
Transit MBTA
MBTA Ratio of Debt Service to Farebox Revenue
Transit MBTA


 

APPENDIX B

MASSDOT PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT GOALS AND INDICATORS PERTINENT TO MPO PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT4

  1. Highway Division

    a. Safety

    b. Customer Service

    c. Fiscal Responsibility

  2. Rail and Transit Division

    a. Customer Service

        • Ensure that at least 95% of Red Line trips run on time
        • Ensure that at least 95% of Orange Line trips run on time
        • Ensure that at least 95% of Blue Line trips run on time
        • Ensure that at least 95% of Commuter Rail trips run on time
        • Maintain at least 99% level of MBTA escalator availability
        • Maintain at least 99% level of MBTA elevator availability

APPENDIX C

MASSDOT’S GREENDOT GOALS AND TASKS
PERTINENT TO MPO PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT5

 

  1. Air

    a. Improve air quality

    1. b. Reduce greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
  2. Planning and Policy Design:

    a. Design a multi-modal transportation system

    b. Promote healthy transportation and livable communities

c. Triple mode share of bicycling, transit, and walking


 

APPENDIX D

MBTA’S SERVICE DELIVERY POLICY AND SCORECARD PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS PERTINENT TO
MPO PERFORMANCE MEASURE DEVELOPMENT6

 

  1. Service Coverage Guidelines (Bus & Rapid Transit)
  2. Span of Service Standards (All Modes)
  3. Frequency of Service Standards (All Modes)
  4. Schedule Adherence (All Modes)
  5. Vehicle Load (All Modes)
  6. Net Cost per Passenger (Bus)
  7. Ridership (All Modes)
  8. Vehicle Availability (Subway, Bus, Commuter Rail)
  9. Mean Miles Between Failures (Subway, Bus, Commuter Rail)
  10. Speed Restrictions (Subway)
  11. Percent of Scheduled Service Operated (Subway, Bus)

 

1 Performance-Based Planning and Programming, white paper, Cambridge Systematics, prepared for Federal Highway Administration Office of Planning, Environment and Realty, February 15, 2012.

2 Ibid.                                                                             

3 Mobility in the Boston Region, Existing Conditions and Next Steps, 2004 Congestion Management System Report, Chapter 2, Boston Region Metropolitan Planning Organization, December 2004.

4 Selected by MPO staff. Source of text: MassDOT.

5 Selected by MPO staff. Source of text: MassDOT.

 

6 Selected by MPO staff.