As of September 1, 2012, the University Transportation Center for Mobility (UTCM) is no longer an active center of the Texas A&M Transportation Institute. The archived UTCM website remains available here.

UTCM HomeConference Site MapContact Conference Webmaster

Conference on Performance Measures for Transportation and Livable Communities

SEPTEMBER 7-8, 2011 • AUSTIN, TEXAS

BREAKOUT SESSION 2:
Sustainability, Livability, Planning, and Policy Performance Measures

Click on the icon to view a PDF of the slide presentation.

Presiding

ANTOINETTE QUAGLIATA, Federal Transit Administration

	NCHRP Project on Sustainability Performance Measures JOE ZIETSMAN, Texas Transportation Institute
	Oregon Least Cost Planning – Livability and Quality of Life Indicators MARIAH VanZERR, CH2M Hill
	Planning for Sustainability at a Regional Scale CARISSA SCHIVELY SLOTTERBACK, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota
	Performance Measures or Indicators: Methods for Evaluating Transportation Policy DAVID HITCHCOCK and JENNIFER RONK, Advanced Research Center

---

NCHRP Project on Sustainability Performance Measures

JOE ZIETSMAN, Texas Transportation Institute

Slides [PDF , 1.9M]

Joe Zietsman discussed a National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) project developing sustainability performance measures for state departments of transportation and other transportation agencies.  He described the focus of the project, the major work activities, and the elements of the flexible performance measures application framework.  Joe covered the following points in his presentation.

• NCHRP Project 08-74 – Sustainability Performance Measures for State DOTs and Other Transportation Agencies focuses on developing guidance for transportation agencies to understand and apply concepts of sustainability through performance measurement.  The two-year project was initiated in 2009 and was completed in the summer of 2011.  The report, A Guidebook for Sustainability Performance Measurement for Transportation Agencies, will be available soon.
• A number of activities were conducted for the project, including performing a literature review, developing a flexible sustainable performance measures application framework, and developing the guidebook for use by transportation agencies in applying this framework.
• The project focused on the three sustainability dimensions-environment, the economy, and social systems.  In addressing sustainability in transportation, the broad versus transportation-centric approaches were examined.  The project used the following prescribed principles in the development of transportation-related sustainability performance measures, “sustainability entails meeting human needs for the present and future, while preserving environmental and ecological systems, improving quality of life, promoting economic development, and ensuring equity between and among population groups and over generations.”
• The performance measures for sustainability are based on a hierarchy of goals, objectives, and measures to help define robust performance measures.  While the hierarchy is not absolutely essential and measures can be developed without using it, the hierarchy approach is more robust.  It is important to note that no one single indicators measure is a “sustainability measure” in isolation.  Further, the set of measures need to be applied appropriately.
• The development of the transportation sustainability flexible performance measures framework focused on answering the question – “what does a transportation agency need to be equipped with in order to successfully address sustainability issues through performance measurement?”  The framework consists of fundamental components, overarching components, and auxiliary components.  The framework follows the traditional process of developing goals, objectives, and performance measures related to sustainability.  The framework includes an implementation step and a feedback loop.
• The guidebook describes the application of the framework.  It includes a spreadsheet-based compendium.  The flexible framework enables agencies to understand and address sustainability.  The compendium is a rich resource of possible measures and sample applications.
• A set of 11 key transportation sustainability goals are included in the guidebook.  The goals reflect principles of sustainability in the transportation sector.  The goals link back to principles of environmental and ecological systems; quality of life; economic development and prosperity; and ensuring equity.  The 11 sustainability goals focus on safety, accessibility, mobility, efficiency, security, prosperity, feasibility, ecosystems, waste generation, resource consumption, and air quality.  Agencies may select from, add too, or modify the 11 goals.  The objectives and performance measures presented in the guidebook include goal-specific objectives based on focus areas.  Examples of focus areas include planning and operations.  The performance measures include process measures, output measures, and outcome measures.

[ Top ]

Oregon Least Cost Planning – Livability and Quality of Life Indicators

MARIAH VanZERR, CH2M Hill

Slides [PDF , 977K]

Mariah VanZerr discussed the Oregon Least Cost Planning (LCP) project.  She described the project background, the project activities, the recommended livability and quality of life indicators, and the next steps.  Mariah covered the following topics in her presentation.

• LCP was defined by the 2009 Oregon Legislature in the Jobs and Transportation Act (House Bill 2001) as follows:  “Least-cost planning means a process of comparing direct and indirect costs of demand and supply options to meet transportation goals, policies or both, where the intent of the process is to identify the most cost-effective mix of options.”
• The LCP concept was developed in the electric utility industry to consider a broad set of choices for meeting electricity demand.  Key characteristics of LCP include, measuring costs and benefits of investments and actions as often as possible using quantitative and qualitative evidence, while accounting for environmental, social, and economic effects.
• There are a number of LCP categories being used in Oregon, including mobility, accessibility, economic vitality, environmental stewardship, and safety and security.  Other categories are funding the transportation system and finance, land use and growth management, quality of life and livability, and equity.
• Examples of categories, descriptions, and general indicators were reviewed.  Examples of categories include environmental stewardship, safety and security, and quality of life and livability.  A description of the quality of life and livability category focuses on the extent the plan or action improves the quality of living and working environments, and the experience for people in communities across Oregon.  General initiatives identified include physical activity, exposure to pollutants, community cohesion and severance, streetscape and journey ambiance, and access to recreational resources and open space.
• The research objectives for the livability and quality of life general indicators project were to understand the current application of livability and quality of life indicators to transportation systems and to facilitate a decision regarding the inclusion of livability and quality of life indicators in the LCP tool.  The project examined how livability and quality of life are currently defined in the literature, the current understanding of how transportation impacts livability and quality of life, and the methods currently being measured by other agencies to measure livability and quality of life impacts.
• The literature review examined a wide range of journals, publications, reports, and other information.  Academic journals reviewed were the Applied Research in Quality of Life Journal and the Social Indicators Research Journal.  The HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities report and the FHWA Livability in Transportation Guidebook were examined.  Regional transportation plans from different agencies and transportation-related health impact assessments were also reviewed.
• The results highlight the variety of definitions of livability and quality of life.  Livability typically refers to a community’s services and amenities.  Quality of life refers to how those amenities shape and benefit the human experience.  For example, where livability might be concerned with the transportation choices a community offers its residents, quality of life refers to the associated health benefits received by residents who have the choice to select more active travel modes.
• The results also indicate that transportation impacts livability and quality of life in numerous ways.  For example, traffic congestion affects businesses, transportation amenities influence housing price and development locations, and transportation emissions affect air quality and greenhouse gases.  Transportation projects can divide communities and some modes may increase social capital.  Transportation projects affect modal availability, access to destinations, streetscape amenities and other factors.  Transportation networks may serve some populations more than others.
• Regional transportation plans from four areas were reviewed.  The plans include the Puget Sound Regional Council Transportation 2040 Plan, the Central Indiana Transportation Plan, the Portland Metro 2035 Regional Transportation Plan, and the MTC’s San Francisco Bay Area Transportation 2035 Plan.  In addition, transportation project evaluation criteria from different plans were reviewed, along with transportation-related health impact assessments.
• The Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC) Transportation 2040 plan included health, safety, and security indicators under the quality of life heading.  The MTC plan included one affordability indicator designed to measure both equity and livable community goals.  The Central Indiana Task Force identified a single property value premium indicator to measure community livability benefits.  Various health-related impact assessments measured impacts on air quality, traffic collisions, physical activity, and included specific accessibility indicators.
• The general indicator selection criteria focus on the ability to distinguish portfolios of actions at the system level and the ability to forecast the impacts of various alternatives.  Other criteria are readily available data and no overlap with a different indicator category.
• Five general livability and quality of life indicators were recommended for the Oregon LCP.  These indicators are physical activity, exposure to pollutants, community cohesion, streetscape and journey ambiance, and access to recreational resources and open space.  Social capital was recommended for future consideration as an indicator.
• The next steps on the project include working with project stakeholders to develop specific indicators for each general indicator and arranging these in an LCP tool.  The tool will be tested on a planning process.  A guidebook on the use of the LCP tool will also be prepared.  Additional information is available at the project website at http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/TD/TP/LCP.shtml.

[ Top ]

Planning for Sustainability at a Regional Scale

CARISSA SCHIVELY SLOTTERBACK, Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota

Slides [PDF , 2.1M]

Carissa Schively Slotterback discussed a research project examining planning for sustainability at a regional scale.  She described the project methodology, case study examples of sustainability planning at a regional level, emerging best practices, and next steps in the project.  Carissa covered the following topics in her presentation.

• The project examined approaches to planning and implementing sustainability at a regional scale.  The research project is also developing a model framework for regional sustainability planning and implementation.  This model framework can be used by MPOs, regional agencies, and other groups.
• The research focuses on the framework used by organizations and stakeholders interested in regional sustainability planning and evaluating sustainability planning efforts.  The model framework being developed can be adapted for use in a variety of contexts and by a variety of users.
• The project is funded by the CTS at the University of Minnesota.   It is being conducted in collaboration with a research advisory group.  The project is aligned with the HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership and Sustainable Communities Grants in the Minneapolis-St. Paul metropolitan area and Region 5.
• A case study methodology is being used in the project.  The case study analysis focuses on the content of regional plans, the processes used to develop the plans, and the approaches being used to implement and monitor the plans.  A diverse set of case studies are being examined.  Elements being examined in the case studies include the organizational context, geography, sustainability issues, and planning issues.
• A wide range of planning documents were reviewed.  Examples of these planning documents include the Capital Regional District in Victoria, BC, Regional Growth Strategy; the New South Wales, Australia, Metropolitan Plan for Sydney 2036; and the Denver Regional Council of Governments, Metro Vision 2035.  Other examples include the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Go To 2040; the St. Cloud Minnesota Joint Planning District, Sustainability Framework Plan; the DVRPC, Connections 2035 Plan–Regional Plan for a Sustainable Future; and the Long Island Regional Planning Council, Sustainable Strategies for Long Island 2035 Plan.  Interviews with key participants were also conducted.
• A number of emerging best practices related to the plan content, the planning process, and implementation were identified through the literature review and the interviews.  Emerging best practices related to the plan content include taking the time to define sustainability relative to the local context, including land use, transportation, and the environment.  Other best practices are documenting participation efforts in the plan and displaying plan and background information online.
• Emerging best practices related to the planning process include engaging multiple stakeholders – including the private sector – and working through existing networks.  Other planning process best practices are using online participation and monitoring efforts, and using issue-specific work groups to help make connections and provide resources.
• Emerging best practices related to implementation are including clear steps in the plan and thinking beyond agency implementation to provide grants to support local efforts or toolkits to assist in regional activities.  Other implementation best practices are to start small and focus on visible outcomes, and to link to indicator or monitoring systems using varied approaches.
• One case study example is MetroPulse, which is a web resource for the regional indicators project created in partnership with the Chicago Community Trust and the Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning.  This customizable site provides extensive data on issues that shape the livability of local communities.  MetroPulse was created to facilitate effective decision making and to measure the region’s progress in implementing the Go to 2040 comprehensive plan.  MetroPulse includes a wide range of transportation information, including road conditions, the travel time index, the percent of the population that is obese, the percent of regional trails that are complete, a pedestrian environment factor, the percent of transit vehicles and stations that are ADA compliant, a bridge condition rating, and schools with Safe Routes To School Programs.
• The DVRPC Tracking Progress Toward 2030 is another good case study example.  It tracks progress in the Philadelphia area toward meeting the regional goals using a dashboard dial. The dial arrow points to green for positive trends, yellow for mixed trends, and red for negative trends.  Other information is also provided in the report on the trends influencing goals, objectives, and measures.
• The Capital Regional District in Victoria uses a webpage and reports to monitor the Making a Different Together:  The Regional Sustainability Strategy.  Status reports are provided on the various elements related to natural systems, social resiliency, and the built environment.  Transportation is one of the elements under the built environment.  Examples of factors that are monitored include the percentage of all trips made by different modes, the percent of work trips by different modes, and the average home to work trip distance.  Information on progress toward meeting the targets is displayed graphically.
• The next steps in the project include developing and finalizing a framework for regional sustainability planning and implementation.  The final framework should be available by the end of 2011.

[ Top ]

Performance Measures or Indicators: Methods for Evaluating Transportation Policy

DAVID HITCHCOCK and JENNIFER RONK, Advanced Research Center

Slides [PDF , 540K]

Jennifer Ronk discussed research on performance measures and indicators for use in evaluating transportation policy effectiveness.  She also described the Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grant received by H-GAC.  The Houston Advanced Research Center (HARC) is one of the 25 member organizations participating in the H-GAC project.  Jennifer covered the following topics in her presentation.

• HARC was established in 1982 by George P. Mitchell.  HARC is a non-partisan, non-profit research organization dedicated to moving knowledge to action to improve human well-being and protect the environment.  It conducts research on a variety of topics for a wide range of sponsors.
• There is a difference between indicators and performance measures.  Indicators focus on trends or patterns, while performance measures focus on achieving specific targets or goals.  They measure success.  HARC has extensive experience developing and applying indicators in other fields.  A challenge is relating this experience specifically to transportation and sustainability issues.  Good indicators do not necessarily equal good policy.
• H-GAC was selected for one of the HUD Sustainable Communities Regional Planning grants.  A consortium of 25 organizations, including HARC, is participating in the project, which will develop a regional plan for sustainable development.  The planning process includes extensive public engagement, technical analysis, and visioning activities.  The consortium coordinating committee will work with local government partners to encourage the voluntary adoption and implementation of plan elements.
• Current related activities at HARC include three steps.  The first step is indicator research.  This step is examining HARC’s indicator research in other fields, the Performance Measurement Frameworks and the Development of Effective Sustainable Transport Strategies and Indicators conducted by Georgia Tech, TTI’s numerous indicator projects, research undertaken by the European Union, and other research projects.  A second step focuses on measuring what matters.  Additional data driven methods of selecting indicators are needed.  Benchmarking represents the third step.  This step includes examining the policies that are used in places that are highly ranked in specific measures and attributes.

[ Top ]

The State of TexasTexas Homeland Security Statewide Search (TRAIL)Statutorily Required ReportsTTI Rules and Procedures

Copyright Statement and Legal Notices

Please send comments, suggestions, and queries about this web site to the UTCM Webmaster.

University Transportation Center for Mobility™
Texas Transportation Institute · Texas A&M University System · 3135 TAMU · College Station, Texas 77843-3135
ph. (979) 845-2538 · fax (979) 845-9761