FDOT • FHWA • FTA • MPO STATEWIDE MEETING
Jacksonville
Collaboration Workshop
MAP-21 Performance Measures
April 3, 2014
OVERVIEW & SUMMARY
On Thursday April 3, 2014 a
Performance Workshop was held at the
FDOT District 2 Urban Office in
Jacksonville. The morning session was
part of a larger two-day FDOT / FHWA /
FTA / MPO Statewide Meeting covering
additional topics.
The Performance Workshop occurred in two overall components: a series of presentations by
FHWA and FDOT on the subject, followed by a facilitated discussion. Approximately 95
individuals participated in the workshop.
DOCUMENT PURPOSE AND SCOPE
This document is designed to only report the results of the facilitated portion of the workshop.
The document is not a plan, nor does it reflect any decisions or commitments. It is primarily an
un-prioritized inventory of the many issues and opportunities associated with the expansion of
performance measurement through: (1) federal rulemaking in this area and (2) recognition of
the obvious benefits of collaboration between FDOT and the state’s MPOs.
The last section of this Workshop Report discusses some potential next steps. Whatever next
steps are established, it is expected that this will be a highly useful reference document. In
short, the Workshop Report provides a wealth of information for future consideration based on
an intensive brainstorming session.
Important Scope Note – the FHWA presentations focused largely on MAP-21 implementation
of performance measurement including the pending rulemaking, best practices nationally, etc.
Portions of this report apply directly or indirectly to Florida’s implementation of MAP-21
performance measurement rules. For the most part, this document covers a broad spectrum
of issues that might go well beyond the federal requirements with an overall focus on
performance collaboration between FDOT and MPOs.
METHODOLOGY
A basic four-step methodology was followed in the conduct of the workshop and the
development of this report:
1. The Performance Workshop was designed around 3 broad discussion areas:
o Performance Measurement Topics – addressed as part of a collaborative
process between FDOT and MPOs
o Value Added – ways to approach and bring value from collaboration
1
o Innovative Ideas – participants were given an opportunity to suggest what
innovation might look like, including their ideas for innovative approaches to
performance measurement
2. FDOT consultants facilitated the discussion among the participants and recorded key
points from that discussion
3. Use of a participant “hand-in” Worksheet – 41 participants provided additional written
comments in addition to the
facilitated discussion
4. The input from the facilitated
discussion and the completed
worksheets were used to draft
this report
SYNOPSIS OF RESULTS
At a high level the Performance Workshop discussion highlighted eight themes:
1. Standardize the data framework and process for performance measurement
2. Standardize performance reports
3. Improve communication and collaboration around performance
4. Consider the implications of MPO size moving forward
5. Make sure that performance measurement incorporates planning Visions and that it is
relevant to the public
6. Consider performance measurement in relation to the various transportation systems
and networks (e.g., SIS and lower order networks as well)
7. Communicate performance measurement expectations – align expectations with the
level-of-effort required
8. Improve LRTPs by making them more performance-focused
Each theme is covered in greater detail in the Workshop Results section of this report. In
addition, the completed worksheets proved to be a highly valuable source of participant
engagement. Participants were able to provide further input that has been captured
comprehensively for future use. The highlights can be found in the Other Opportunities and
Innovations section. A quick scan of the participant input in both sections demonstrates the
very wide range of ideas and issues for potential consideration.
LOOKING AHEAD
The last section of this document draws some overall conclusions as well as several possible
considerations for moving forward. Clearly, performance management and measurement is a
positive development that is here to stay.
2
Through an informal polling during the workshop, an
overwhelming majority of the participants view performance
measurement as an opportunity more than a federal
compliance requirement. As this opportunity is further
evaluated and ways to effectively and efficiently collaborate
are determined, this workshop report will become an
invaluable source of information.
WORKSHOP RESULTS
COMMON THEMES
This section is organized around eight common themes from the Performance Workshop
discussion. For the sake of brevity and ease of review, each common theme is presented
along with the related points of discussion. There has
been some editing for clarity. Some possible implications
are also noted where appropriate. As part of the editing
process caution was taken to remain true to the
comments offered by the workshop participants. This
“raw data” presented under each theme could be further
grouped and analyzed in the future to help identify
potential actions or initiatives.
1. STANDARDIZE THE DATA FRAMEWORK AND PROCESS FOR PERFORMANCE
MEASUREMENT

There is not a need for 26 separate MPO processes for collecting data

There is a need and benefit for having a single Performance Data System
(framework/process) that both the MPOs and FDOT can use – design a single
performance measurement system that both FDOT and the MPOs can use flexibly but
consistently

Develop an analysis of best practice “cross cutting” methods/processes – this will help
to contribute to the common framework/process – again to prevent having 26 different
ways of developing Performance Reports

Consider data as an investment – various data collection activities may serve multiple
purposes – so there is the need to be organized in ways that take advantage of using
data for more than a single purpose whenever reasonably and beneficially possible

Models/tools from modal perspectives can be useful for other modal planning and data
sharing too – leading to better / integrated planning

Consider transit planning at the state level versus at the MPO level as it relates to
performance measurement
3

Qualitative measures – don’t tie everything to quantitative data, consider qualitative
performance measures as well

Use performance measures to reinforce our priorities or “emphasis areas” – to get a
clear focus on what’s truly important – reflective of transportation priorities

We are still early enough in the development stage of performance management /
measurement that there should be consideration of what products we will need and
what products should be developed
2. STANDARDIZE PERFORMANCE REPORTS

There should be some similarity or general consistency between MPO performance
reports – similar to the above comments related to having a unified process / data
system for developing Performance Reports

Develop benchmarks based on a national review to help develop a performance report
template that draws on proven “best practices”

Visualization provides an opportunity in performance report design – ideas such as
interactive mapping using MapQuest-like methods should be considered as a way to
leverage technology

Non-TMA MPOs should be allowed to combine their LRTP and transit development
plan (TDP) planning documents together

Need to consider both the timeliness of performance measures and performance
reports (for users and decision makers)
3. IMPROVE COMMUNICATION AND COLLABORATION AROUND PERFORMANCE

FDOT & MPOs have a good collaboration network in the MPOAC from which to build
upon

There is still opportunity to improve higher executive level MPO/FDOT communication,
particularly with respect to how information is shared and processed among executive
leadership

Collaboration should pivot around the MPOAC – FDOT working with the MPOAC to
best reflect and coherently address both MPO and State needs

Consider forming a performance measurement group with FDOT Central Office and
District Offices (with MPO representation) to move forward on beneficial collaboration
efforts

Any collaboration approach should make the best use of existing resources (note:
safety data was specifically noted with this comment)

Performance measures also have much to do with effectively telling a story – as such,
we should develop a set of best practice “success stories” particularly related to
funding and the associated return-on-investment, impacts, outcomes, etc.
4
4. CONSIDER THE IMPLICATIONS OF MPO SIZE MOVING FORWARD

Proposed performance reporting rules presumably will apply to all MPOs regardless of
size (both TMA and Non-TMA MPOs)

Need to be sensitive to what will be required for smaller MPOs vs. larger MPOs

FHWA is considering what smaller MPOs should be doing

Another implication of varying MPO size and capacity could be the opportunity for
greater collaboration and sharing of ideas, etc. to lessen the burden of “being on your
own”
5. MAKE SURE THAT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT INCORPORATES PLANNING
VISIONS AND THAT IT IS RELEVANT TO THE PUBLIC

Performance measures should be related to our planning Visions

We need to be “proactive” – measures should have some future focus on what we are
trying to achieve in order to measure progress toward broader aspirations and strategic
goals

Performance measures should be meaningful to the public – capture people’s attention

Think ahead as to how performance measures can be used interactively online
o This could include “gamification” of the LRTP process thru MetroQuest

Integrate performance measures into the planning process – helping the public to
better engage related to community investments

FHWA will encourage that performance measures be relevant to the public

Should remember that performance reports are developed as a means of
transparency / accountability to the public
6. CONSIDER PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN RELATION TO THE VARIOUS
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND NETWORKS (E.G., SIS AND LOWER ORDER
NETWORKS AS WELL)

MPOs want data/performance measures for more than the National Highway System
(NHS) – to be useful, performance measures need to be applied to a larger network of
facilities that are meaningful to metropolitan areas

Will need to establish what MPOs need and want – at what level, etc.

Determine direction for SIS Targets and Measures

There appears to be a need for an overall commonality of approach (at least at some
level of comparability) across networks
7. COMMUNICATE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT EXPECTATIONS – ALIGN
EXPECTATIONS WITH THE LEVEL-OF-EFFORT REQUIRED

Performance measurement will require more work, but no extra resources to do so
5

How will MPO performance measurement stack up against other priorities?

What will be specifically expected/required of MPOs, including the public involvement
aspects related to performance measurement?

States have 1 year to set targets – MPOs have 6 months after that time to set their
targets – MPOs and States should be coordinating their efforts to set targets

Participants were asked generally where we should be six months from now. Their
response was threefold; we should: (1) Know what’s in the federal rules; (2) be clear
as to the expectations for FDOT & MPOs; and (3) have direction regarding where
FDOT is headed statewide
8. IMPROVE LRTPS BY MAKING THEM MORE PERFORMANCE-FOCUSED

Need to be clear as to how performance measures affect the LRTP

Performance measures should be used to evaluate the progress and attainment of
LRTP goals and objectives

Return-on-Investment – consider carefully what it is being measured – the measures to
some extent should reflect a forward-looking orientation consistent with good planning

Need to also consider what we are measuring in relation to how it relates to our future
population – be careful to not perpetuate the past

Quantify benefits – how various improvements may provide an effective use of limited
funds

Develop “rules of thumb” to help quantify benefits of LRTP projects

Use more Mobility measures, such as tracking the number of shared ride options
available (and the extent of their use; as well as usage trends)

LRTPs are becoming more policy based, but should not lose focus on optimizing funds
by grouping projects

Keep air quality in view with respect to performance measures

Also be sure to keep an asset management tie-in in view with a focus on ensuring
asset quality over time
OTHER OPPORTUNITIES & INNOVATIONS
In addition to the Performance Workshop discussion, 41 participants completed and submitted
a worksheet on performance measurement topics, collaboration and innovation. The
worksheet was used primarily to encourage participant thinking in relation to the discussion.
Many of the participants, however, also listed various ideas related to potential future
opportunities and potential innovative approaches.
This section lists many of the items from the worksheets for future consideration. Even though
not all worksheet input is included, it is important to note that a complete documentation of all
6
41 responses has been prepared for future reference if useful to do so. These varied
comments are loosely organized under four broad topic headings below.
MORE ON COLLABORATION / ENGAGEMENT / PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

Coordinate meetings, perhaps through the MPOAC, on performance measurement and
target setting

Engage universities & community colleges – they are our future – use webcasts and
find out their visions

Use new ways to reach out to the public, because meetings and public workshops are
not as effective as they use to be

Consider all sectors for potential collaboration as beneficial, including the private sector

Freight transportation, for example, entails potential private sector collaborators who
have a stake and shared interest in Florida Transportation System performance

Host retreats, providing stakeholders the opportunity to get away and get to know each
other and their common transportation interests – better relationships would be formed
as a result

Webinars and Go-To-Meetings

Consider all modes of freight and passenger transportation for potential collaboration

MPOAC/FDOT meetings should include FDOT district representatives

Hold stakeholder meetings between MPOs and district level DOTs

To have a good dialogue, there is a need for the ability to communicate the bottom line
of performance measurement

We must translate performance measures into plain English and similarly translate
costs into comparable units like a 5-year or annual investment level

Look broadly for allies, or others interested in the performance of the transportation
system (e.g., stakeholders with an interest in the economy, housing, access to
opportunity, etc.)

Make greater use performance information as the key talking points for public outreach
ADDITIONAL DATA ISSUES AND IDEAS

As new, faster and cheaper ways are found to collect data for performance
measurement, it is important that states and MPOs are made aware of these beneficial
methods – the necessity to collect data will spur innovation to get data more effectively
and cheaply

Establish a statewide data user group to promote data sharing

We need a comprehensive database with “read” access for all and “write” access for a
few specified users responsible for database management

Would like real-time data access, not just data snapshots
7

The state should maintain the database, but MPOs would be given access to the data

Digital communication and data sharing – cost must be considered as well as the
return on investment

Examine how emerging technologies may/will impact performance data collection
options – i.e., how “autonomous” vehicles may impact operations and safety

The use of social media should be considered

Public and private collaboration includes traffic data such as MetroQuest, real time
data, and data collected over a period of time, which can easily identify mobility level of
service

Specific data supporting multimodal needs for LRTPs, CMPs, TDPs should be
identified

Use tools such as T-BEST, Fairbox Boarding and the associated data along with
collaborative TDP development between transit operating agencies and MPOs

Incorporate crash data management system with public input (i.e., MetroQuest)

Use GIS to visually display performance related data to transportation options (e.g., %
of population within distance from: transit, bicycle, pedestrian)

Types of data that can/should be shared include:
o Usage statistics
o Freight movement
o Traffic counts
o Transit ridership
o Capacity of facilities
o Transit service times, capacities
o Roadway service volumes (facility specific, not statewide averages)
MISCELLANEOUS MEASUREMENT TOPICS AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

Need to measure the increase in modal options over time

Need to measure reductions in sprawl

Need to measure the maintenance of environmental and agricultural land

Going outside the transportation world to identify outcome measures that could lead to
a slower rate of sprawl

Measures that lead to interaction between/among modes

Target setting – is more sensitive to system level SIS, principal arterial state, local
arterials and collectors, fixed route transit and cross county transit

Freight movement by mode: impacts; job creation are relevant secondary measures
that get at important outcomes associated with freight mobility

Transit capital vs. ridership to convey the relationship between investment and usage
8

Standardize pavement management standards with county and municipalities, which
would mean that the public would no longer see jurisdictional boundaries

Identify targets for greenhouse gas reduction

SIS facilities should be considered as corridors – also include parallel facilities that
relieve congestion on the SIS

Consider how land use decisions in the future will affect performance measures

Collaboration on capital investments in technology

Mobility – shared ride options like taxis, carpools, and vanpools are important

Quantify benefits of various improvements to be able to project benefits out to the
LRTP horizon year

MPOs have to collect data for non-state arterials

There is a need to “translate” state performance measures in the MPO's LRTP
MANAGING THE CHANGE TO A GREATER PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT FOCUS

Each MPO should identify a performance measure champion to work on a team
dedicated to identifying resources the MPO currently has and develop best practices

Need champions/points of contact and expertise and a go-to place for information, etc.

Performance based planning is an opportunity for MPOs to break out from their “feeling
of uniqueness” and work with FDOT to develop standard/statewide performance
measures

MPO-to-MPO state peer exchange of best practices, processes, duties

Consultant support may be necessary to support performance measurement and
assisting MPOs in the planning process

Meeting new federal requirements in the simplest and most cost-effective manner
should be a key focus

FDOT transparency in coordination with MPOs, for example, emailing comments on
NRPM dockets

Provide guidance on how to incorporate performance measures into the LRTPs

Consider performance based programs in other disciplines such as human resources,
technology, manufacturing, etc. for potential application to transportation performance

Consider a performance measurement clearinghouse to share information and as a
site where data can be located with regards to development of objectives and to
access information

In order to integrate performance measurement into LRTPs, we need:
o Forecasting – we can measure pavement condition and fatalities per capita today,
but how do we estimate what it will be in 2040?
9
o Guidelines for estimating the quantifiable benefits of making different types of
investments are necessary
SOME OVERARCHING CONCLUSIONS
The Performance Measurement Workshop resulted in a rich dialogue with numerous ideas and
opinions conveyed through discussion and in writing. The participants are to be commended
for their active involvement and appreciation for the importance of the topic. At a very high
level at least five overarching conclusions can be drawn from the workshop results:
1. FDOT-MPO collaboration is essential and opportune, particularly in terms of ensuring
an efficiency and effectiveness of effort
2. MPOs are concerned about the resources required to comply with pending federal
reporting requirements specifically and an expanded focus on performance
measurement in general – as such, a collaborative approach to be truly innovative must
consider ways to share best practices, share data, and other resources
3. There are many data issues related to performance measurement that need to be
sorted out and prioritized by FDOT and the MPOs
4. Performance measurement should be multimodal with a focus on intended outcomes
that ties it to planning – there should also be an opportunity to collaborate with modal
operators including those related to freight, public transportation, bicycle pedestrian, etc.
5. Performance measurement, if properly deployed, provides an opportunity for greater
communication and engagement with the public and other transportation stakeholders
CONSIDERATIONS FOR MOVING FORWARD
Another frequently made point at the workshop was the idea of a Data Collaboration Task
Force. Data is indeed a key area for needed collaboration. As the results are reviewed,
however, it is also clear that data as important as it is might be limiting as there may be equally
important topics to be determined and prioritized that require a collaborative approach. Listed
below is a possible approach for moving forward that allows sufficient time and attention to
start small and ramp-up as interests and resources, including the time of participants, allows.
1. Establish an ad hoc Performance Measurement Collaboration Task Force
consisting of some appropriate mix of FDOT, MPO and MPOAC membership
2. Hold an organizational / start-up meeting to focus the effort
3. Establish topic priorities for a 6 to 12 month period in the form of a Task Force action
plan
4. Engage others in carrying out the Task Force’s priorities – and communicate progress
regularly
5. Evaluate the benefits of the Task Force after a year and determine if there is merit in
continuing, reorganizing, etc.
10
NOTES
11