Gabriel raises a great question about how to define accessibility. Given that it’s a core concept in the Administration’s Livability and Sustainable Communities efforts, I propose to Lisa, that a future blog topic look at Accessibility and Livability. We could hear from how Oregon DOT, the Bay Area’s MTC (thanks for the lead Scott), the Administration and others are working to define Accessibility and Livability.

Scott, thanks for pointing us to the GAO report on the tremendous economic benefits of real-time travel information. Roger, I expect that would help on the critical safety issues you raised. At a TRB panel on performance measurement, EPW staffer Susan Binder emphasized the need for information, not just raw data. Janette Sadik-Khan, the NYC DOT commissioner made a similar comment at the Bipartisan Policy Center’s Performance Driven event on Monday. And recall Emil’s recommendation to refocus the mission of BTS to acquire essential data and optimize the use of information technology for real-time measurement of system performance.

Steve, thanks for your emphasis on user needs and stakeholder engagement for defining performance measures. I think Lisa’s blog provides a useful forum for doing just that. And I like James’ riff on the topic, that performance measures empower local decision makers.

Incidentally, CCAP is conducting an informal survey of state, MPO and local government needs for technical assistance (data, tools, models, etc) for developing and implementing plans to reduce transportation GHG emissions. Given the many synergies in policy outcomes and performance measurement, I expect what we learn will have broader application (certainly for issues like accessibility, livability and the economy). Please let me know if you’d like to bend our ear on that topic.

Alas, the sun will soon set soon in New York, and I must log off. It has been a pleasure serving as guest moderator. Thanks for everyone’s contributions and to all the blog readers as well. I look forward to our future discussions.

Roger A. Wentz, CAE, the president and CEO of the American Traffic Safety Services Association, sent this response to Steve's question:

Performance-based approaches to highway projects, and especially roadway safety infrastructure projects, are a key element to reducing the staggering number of fatalities that occur each year on our nation’s roads. Through these metrics, coupled with data-driven techniques, state DOTs and municipalities will be able to best assess where the needs are the greatest and alleviate those problems first.

For example, rural roads currently have a tremendous need for improvements and safety infrastructure upgrades. How many times have you driven on a winding road only to see no guardrail to keep you away from a cliff, signs to alert you of a curve, or even pavement markings to show where your lane is? This scenario plays out on America’s roads all too often.

In addition, not only must data be collected in greater quantities, it needs to be standardized so that the information can be shared across state lines in an effort to have a holistic view of where the challenges lie. ATSSA is advocating that states share best practices and benefit-cost ratios in order to reach our national goals through a Toward Zero Deaths Roundtable.

At the end of the day, we all want to reduce deaths and increase safety on our roads. Occasionally, we differ on which route to take to get there. In truth, in order to get toward zero deaths, it will take efforts from all stakeholders and a national commitment. Performance measures and solid, effective data collection is certainly a step in the right direction.

The responses this week are encouraging relative to how much agreement there is on the need to track, measure and allocate dollars based on (1) performance and (2) projected/promised performance. Included in the latter is a need for more robust alternative analysis for national, state, and local programs. This will help (1) plan better solutions, (2) get out of the modal stovepipes, and (3) better orient solutions to user needs.

In order to be effective in this transformation, however, we have to recognize that the development of these performance measures and how they "waterfall" down from the national government to the states and localities needs to be part of the consensus-building process with the various interests that will be influential in writing the surface transportation authorization. A key group will be the state departments of transportation.

In addition, we have to recognize that these performance measures and how funds are allocated will necesarily vary depending on whether we are discussing rural, metropolitan, intercity, national and international transportation. The responses this week seem to mostly focus on the metropolitan environment. Just consider the example of VMTand the availability of alternatives.

The diversity of the nation and the fact that it is federal make it very different from smaller unitary nations from which examples are often drawn. Simply put, a fair amount of deference will have to be afforded to the states and localities; otherwise reform will not occur.

Steve Van Beek

I would agree with Steve, Rob, Michael and others that performance measurement is fundamental to addressing our nation’s transportation challenges. The key to a safer, more efficient and more sustainable transportation future lies in transitioning to a performance-based approach to managing our transportation operations and investments.

We have the technological capability today to collect the real-time traffic and multimodal system information needed to implement meaningful performance measures if we have the political will. A recent GAO report looked at the growing availability of real-time information in the U.S. and examined barriers to broader deployment such as lack of dedicated funding and the need for greater federal leadership. GAO estimates that a $1.2 billion investment in a nationwide real-time information system would generate over $30 billion in safety, mobility and environmental benefits (a 25:1 benefit-cost ratio). Not only would this help commuters and operators avoid congestion, find more efficient routes and make better use of multimodal travel options, but it would also provide state and local officials with the real-time data they need to measure congestion levels, travel times, transportation-related emissions, and other performance indicators. Japan has had nationwide real-time traffic information since 2003…we have some catching up to do!

I joined Rob Atkinson and his team at the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation (ITIF) this week for the release of their illuminating new report, Explaining International IT Leadership: Intelligent Transportation Systems, which explains why countries like Japan, South Korea and Singapore have made significant progress in improving system performance using ITS, why the U.S. is lagging behind. Just as importantly, the report highlights what our policymakers can do to help the U.S. can reclaim its leadership role in the use of technology to improve safety and mobility, reduce congestion and emissions, create more livable communities, and improve our nation’s economic competitiveness.

This report should be the wake-up call that we need to reexamine our approach to funding and managing our transportation system in order to encourage greater performance, a better return on investment, and new innovations. The ITIF report lays out a series of steps for how the U.S. can move to a performance-based system that are worth reading for anyone involved in this debate. These include:

• Establishing national performance goals and a state and metropolitan performance management process that sets short- and long-range performance targets;
• Tying a modest share of surface transportation funding to actual improvements in performance;
• Providing state and local agencies with dedicated funding to deploy ITS solutions;
• Establishing large-scale ITS demonstration projects;
• And a National Scorecard that would publish data on traffic-related fatalities, congestion levels, travel times, and other performance measures.

During a recent House Science and Technology Committee hearing, Ann Flemer, Deputy Executive Director for Policy of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (and in full disclosure, the vice chair of the ITS America Board) testified about the Bay Area’s performance management process which includes specific performance measures in categories including maintenance, safety, livability, accessibility, affordability, economic competitiveness, environmental sustainability, and others. Performance-based planning and management can and is being done successfully in places like the Bay Area.

Transitioning to a more accountable system will in many cases require new ideas, technologies and multimodal operational strategies. While this may be outside the comfort zone for some, the result will be a safer, more efficient transportation system for the American public and a more competitive advantage for our nation in the global economy.

Like Steve, I also look forward to seeing which projects are selected for TIGER grants. This program, created and funded through the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, puts performance-based transportation policy into action and lays the groundwork for future reform.

Gabriel’s call for profit maximization as a performance measure, however, misses the mark. It was Republican President Dwight Eisenhower who recognized that the interstate highway would never happen without healthy levels of public investment. While the gas tax was intended to make highways self-financing, user fees now cover barely half of total costs.

Furthermore, Rob is right to question federal transportation policy’s peculiar insulation from benchmarks, and Janet is correct that getting these benchmarks formulized will take some real work. Accepting that the government is going to play a key role, it only makes sense to hold Washington accountable for how our tax dollars are spent. Performance measures help make that happen and actually empower local decision makers. Communities can finally ask questions like: how many people will this project serve? Will it be a net-plus for economic development? What will the impact be on air quality? Failing to account for these questions will only lead to failure down the line.

Steve –

How right you are to seek transport policies that “maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure and minimize the need for new infrastructure”! As these are the incentives of the private sector, do you support the privatization of transport infrastructure?

“Measure”, “learn” and ”do” (in that order) indeed seem a useful basis for transport policy, but the transport policies of the current administration, as evidenced by its early and blind support of anything on rails, seem more akin to the reported prayer

“Give me chastity and continence, but not yet”.

My suggested criterion “Maximize miles travelled per Capita”, is “subject to the travelers paying the costs arising from their travel choices”, so your important point about existing facilities not being maintained does not seem relevant.

I confess I do not know how Oregon, or you, or Emil, or Michael, define “accessibility”, but suspect that a policy of maximizing accessibility would, in practice, not differ much from a policy of maximizing miles of travel. Do not both tend to maximize the opportunities for beneficial interaction which all of us favour?

Best wishes to you and the CCAP!

Requiring performance measures as a condition of federal funding is avaluable concept.Each significant project should be required to post target performance goals prior to construction and results should be measured after implementation and compared to goals.When running the Colorado Highway Department we applied this concept on highway projects, measuring condition and defining goals relating to safety, congestion, physical adequacy, public support and the like.

Of course, each state and locality is different and performance goals will vary. the role of the federal government should be to specify the general areas for which performane measures will be required and state should then determine which are relevant and specify quantities.

Emil, Janet, Michael, Gabriel: Thanks for weighing in.

Emil, I’m very impressed by the high quality of and broad support for the NTPP Performance Driven report. I also appreciate your emphasis on the need for improved data and analytical tools and institutional reform. And Janet, thanks for your call for devoting real resources to measurement. It’s hard to imagine the private sector investing $500 billion without clear goals, R&D on what works well and a robust measurement effort to feedback into operations and planning decisions.

CCAP proposes a “Do. Measure. Learn.” frame for transportation policy:

• Do. Support for implementation of projects, policies and programs that advance national goals.
• Measure: Support for improved data and measurement
• Learn: Evaluate best practices, modify policy accordingly

Michael’s proposal for pilot projects to test performance across a range of factors would allow us to Measure while Doing. I see that as applied R&D. CCAP believes that Federal transportation policy should support the ‘Do’ element through: technical assistance, compendia of best practices, and substantial incentives for implementation of locally-defined solutions that achieve multiple policy objectives.

And as I’ve testified to both the House and Senate, improved travel and economic data will be critical as we transition to performance-based policy, so that we can more effectively track policy outcomes and evaluate policy effectiveness, especially at the state and local level. Working with partners in our VMT and Climate Policy Dialogue, CCAP developed a set of recommendations for improving travel data and models that have generated strong support, and helped precipitate a forthcoming TRB study, “Strategies for Improved Passenger and Freight Travel Data.”

Gabriel, I’m confounded by your proposal to maximize VMT per capita given that we can’t even convince the public to pay for maintaining existing infrastructure at current driving levels. I think we should prioritize policies that maximize the efficient use of existing infrastructure and minimize the need for new infrastructure. I think Emil and Michael are right on when they emphasize accessibility as a primary outcome (Oregon DOT has a handy primer on Accessibility and Mobility Differences).

No unhappiness at all Gabriel. In fact quite the contrary. I was noting that in your first post you had presented what struck me as the only truly different approach to measuring performance thus far on the blog. So I was encouraging other experts who might also have a different points of view to follow your lead to foster a more wide-ranging debate of competing ideas. That's all. My goal is always to have as many voices and viewpoints as possible represented on the blog for readers and policymakers to consider.

Steve is correct that we need to design performance based funding systems that spur higher system efficiency, productivity, and safety. With a rising debt burden and high unemployment, America cannot afford to throw money at business-as-usual transportation investments designed for the last century. Public investments in transportation should contribute to more productive communities and regions, job growth, and simultaneously reduce transportation’s contribution to climate change, health costs, and energy insecurity.

As the 2009 Moving Cooler study suggested, a range of available transportation investments and policy bundles could produce such results. But experience in the US and abroad shows that a combination of measures can reduce time spent in traffic and distance driven while improving accessibility and mobility, saving consumers and society a lot of money in the long run. Optimal results come from improved transit, walking, cycling, smart traffic management, transit oriented development, parking pricing and management, smart road user charging, such as pay-as-you-drive insurance and congestion pricing, along with encouragement for telework, ridesharing, and more efficient supply chains. Such initiatives are at the core of the Obama Administration’s livability strategy. They are at the heart of smart transport policies being adopted across the world from Stockholm and Copenhagen to Seoul, Guangzhou, and Singapore.

Gabriel Roth asserts that it is inappropriate for government “to find measurement efficiencies to minimize cost and effort … to reduce VMT, thereby reducing fuel use and GHGs, reducing wear-and-tear and improving safety.” He even argues that we should strive to maximize VMT so long as people pay the costs. But there is no intrinsic value in driving for its own sake, save for the occasional Sunday drive in the country. Driving is but a means to an end for most trips. America’s high level of car-dependence is the product of decades of public policies that have subsidized driving and sprawl and damped investment in urban centers and non-automobile travel choices. We can’t afford more of that, especially when so many real costs of driving remain hidden to users.

Now that recent economic, demographic, and policy changes have caused VMT per person in the US to crest and start to fall over the past decade, we face a new opportunities.

With the right metrics guiding performance-based funding systems, America could enhance transportation to reinforce urban infill growth, reduce average trip lengths, expand the share of travel by means other than driving, and improve travel safety and physically active transportation with complete streets and smarter traffic management. That would cut fuel use, GHGs, VMT, and health care costs, while saving consumers and businesses money. It would create more jobs building buses, bike lanes, and high technology instrumented roads and transit systems that deliver high performance, compared to equal spending on old-fashioned road expansion. As Rob Atkinson notes, it would enable America to compete better with places like Singapore, Japan, Korea that are seizing global leadership in 21st century intelligent transportation systems. It would help the US boost freight system productivity and efficiency of supply chains.

Such a shift in investment patterns, which could be driven by smart performance-based transport funding programs, would not restrict or dictate travel choices, as Gabriel suggests, but expand choices and support them with fuller information on true costs of transportation consumption.

Well-designed performance metrics would ensure that transportation agencies better consider and internalize the costs of travel in user fees and pricing systems. Infrastructure managers and decision-makers would need to consider the long-term GHG and health costs of different investments and alternatives to those investments, including operating, system management, and pricing strategies. They would need to account for induced traffic and land use impacts of different investments and the sometimes large differences in construction GHG impacts of various transportation alternatives. As Emil Frankel notes, we need to jump start better data collection and institutional capacity building as soon as possible. As Janet Kavinoki notes, we need to invest more in data. And we need to begin making more informed, smarter choices with the knowledge we now have.

James Coreless is right that the National Transportation Objectives (NTO) bill proposed by Representatives Jay Inslee, Rush Holt and Russ Carnahan and Senators Jay Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg is a good place to start framing performance metrics and goals.

How might that legislation might be combined with Gabriel Roth’s idea of creating urban and regional highway authorities as regulated as public utilities? Such authorities could have a mandate to produce improved system performance for more than just highways, for a balanced set of NTOs. Why not also competitive tendering of public transport services in the same corridors? Why not better management and pricing of parking? Why not link these opportunities to each other, enabling better coordination and cross-subsidies so that a road authority can truly deliver congestion-free, congestion priced roadways, with money back guarantees to customers should they get stuck in a jam? Singapore adjust road user charges to keep arterials and freeways congestion free at least 85% of the time and provides world-class subsidized public transportation and transit-oriented housing. Can America learn from that?

A pilot program could test multi-modal, shorter-term, performance-based corridor, subregional, or metropolitan level concessions that reward system managers who demonstrate timely short-term progress to meet both mobility and livability goals, guided by the kinds of metrics framed in the NTO bill. Maybe that’s a place that the left and right could unite in advancing mutual goals.

Lisa –

I believe I detected in a recent comment of yours some unhappiness with my choice of “profitability” as a performance measure for transport investment. You asked for “a greater diversity of thought … so we could get a real debate going.”

So, allow me to offer another performance measure, to please not only you and Steve, but also the folks at the Bipartisan Policy Center. How about “Maximize miles travelled per Capita”, subject to the travelers paying the costs arising from their travel choices?

Most people seek to maximize their travel within the time and money constraints that bind them. Those who have more money tend to travel more than those who have less, and those who can choose their places of residence tend to live in places where they can travel more, rather than less.

Maximizing travel within constraints of time and money may run counter to the policies of some governments, but those who work for such governments can be seen to choose travel modes that maximize their own miles of travel. They choose cars rather than transit.

If you only read the first page of the NJ blog posting here’s the summary: If Federal policy shifts toward a performance-managed policy, programmatic and investment approach, then the perspectives of the users should inform performance metrics.

To make that happen it will take a large investment of time and resources to identify the indicators, and then collect, maintain and analyze the related data. In spite of what we policy professionals think we know, the assumptions made by us about what to measure are unlikely to reflect what users view as important. Congress will not be able call for a thorough performance managed transportation system, and then provide an arbitrary deadline and wildly insufficient amount of money and then expect great results.

The Chamber, through the Let's Rebuild American initiative, has been exploring performance indicators and the associated data reflective of business interests in an effort to answer questions such as "how is infrastructure important to business, how does it affect the U.S. economy, and what are the most important improvements to make?"

In the process, we've learned a few things that are important for the practical implementation of a performance-managed approach to transportation that I'd like to share, because it is now very clear to me that this kind of approach -- while it sounds great on paper and is definitely needed -- is going to be harder and more resource intensive than anyone expects.

1. It's not easy figuring out what to measure, and it will require some mindset changes of those holding the yardsticks. The business community’s perspective on “performance” differs greatly from Federal government’s perspective. Traditionally, for example, the Federal government measures the condition and supply instead of the performance of infrastructure. Businesses don’t measure infrastructure performance; they measure business performance, so the challenge is to isolate the infrastructure factors that affect what businesses care about. I'm sure that this observation applies to other users of transportation systems – commuters, emergency management agencies, military users, etc, who are all stakeholders in the performance game.

2. Related to the identification of indicators, data availability is a big challenge and will be an ongoing expense. Essentially, there are two interrelated data challenges: publicly available data is sometimes a problem, and not everyone measures everything or in the same way.

When I tell data experts about these conclusions they laugh at me and say, “If only you’d have asked me I would have told you about these problems.” Yep, I get that. And I’m sure data experts will continue to shout into the wind and tell policy makers that performance management is going to require resources. But as far as I know we’re the only organization that’s just jumped in and started trying to figure out which performance indicators are reflective of what our members really want and then set out to get the data and do the analysis, and so I hope that our practical experience can reinforce those messages.

If you’re read all the way through this post, it bears repeating: Congress (the providers of authorizations and money) must come to understand that just requesting reports doesn’t translate to performance measurement or management. Resources (money, expertise, technology, data systems and more) are going to be required and patience will be priceless. If the ultimate result is a meaningful shift in the approach to making policy, programmatic and capital investment and maintenance and operational decisions in every mode of transportation in order to support a seamless system that serves both people and freight we're going to have to make the necessary investments to do so.

As Steve's questions suggest, performance measurement needs to be at the core of a reformed federal transportation role and programmatic structure. Performance is central to the June 2009 report of the Bipartisan Policy Center's National Transportation Policy Project (NTPP). NTPP's recommendations were based on the proposition that U.S. transportation policy needs to be more performance-driven, more directly related to a set of clearly articulated goals, and more accountable for results.

These values of goals, outcomes, measurement, and accountability are particularly important in the context of the need for substantially increased investment in transportation, but severe constraints in the availability of public capital. We need to spend more on the Nation's transportation infrastructure and systems, but we must spend wisely. Investments should be targeted on those programs that will bring the greatest public benefits and the greatest returns, in terms of critical national goals, such as economic growth, national connectivity, metropolitan accessibility, energy security, environmental sustainability, and safety. Measuring performance and evaluating outcomes are critical in such a policy setting.

NTPP concluded that performance measures can be most effective, when they are directly linked to these national goals, and performance measures can best promote outcome-based decision-making, when they are mode-neutral and directly linked to funding and resource allocation. If perfomance measures are to be effective, there must be consequences.

NTPP was senstive to how clear federal goals and defined outcomes might alter federal-state and local partnerships. This is why there is such a strong emphasis in the NTPP report on applying the full suite of goals and outcomes to broadly framed state or metropolitan programs, rather than to specific projects. The federal government should be concerned about progress toward the achievement of national goals, but be indifferent and non-prescriptive about how state, local, and regional entities choose to advance those objectives.

.As Steve's second question suggests, this system is not possible in the absence of adequate data and analytical tools, and without significant institutional reform. Even as Congress struggles through a series of short-term extensions of the federal surface transportation programs, it can take steps to authorize and direct U.S. DOT to undertake new and targeted federal pilot and reserach programs to measure, apply, and refine performance measures. There should be strong federal support for efforts at the state, metropolitan, and corridor levels to improve data, to develop adequate institutional skills and resources, and to enhance performance management and planning capacity. It should also be noted that NTPP called for refocusing the mission of U.S. DOT's Bureau of Transportation Statistics to acquire essential data and to optimize the use of information technology for the real-time measurement of system performance.

While there remain disagreements about what the specific goals and measures might be, there is broad consensus that federal programs should be performance-driven and focused on national objectives. This is the time to debate these matters, to promote and advance comprehensive and rigorous national piloting and testing programs, and to apply and refine performance measures. These opportunities will be available to Congress in every action it takes on federal surface transportation programs in the months ahead, whether extensions, appropriations, jobs bills, or energy and climate-change legislation. These opportunities should not be lost.

Steve –

Thanks for your further challenge, but I find it difficult to agree that it is “critical” — or even appropriate — for government to “to find measurement efficiencies to minimize cost and effort … to reduce VMT, thereby reducing fuel use and GHGs, reducing wear-and-tear and improving safety”.

Most of us have to ration the use of our limited resources to best meet our needs, but it is another matter for others to dictate such choices to us. So long as travelers pay the costs arising from their choices I do not understand the basis for travel choices being restricted by any government — particularly by the US federal government.

Your reference to “maximize policy outcomes” is not convincing. Current federal policies are confusing and conflicting. Fixed rail services, for example, whether “High-Speed” or “Light”, are more likely to increase GHGs than to reduce them.

Thanks Keith, Rob, James and Gabriel for your responses.

I agree with Rob that ITS can play an important role in efficient system management and measurement of outcomes.

I appreciate Keith's framing that there's real tension between meaningful policy reform to restore confidence in the program, and state concerns about federal intrusion. Any responses to his challenge for "traditional transportation interests" to propose specific and meaningful performance measures that will yield better policy outcomes from federal transportation policy? James offered some detailed and comprehensive measures from the reform camp.

I'm intrigued by Gabriel's idea that maximizing local property values could serve as a performance measure for livability. I would think that folks in places like Portland, Arlington, and Tampa, FL that have attracted major new private investment around transit stations might be on board with that.

On a new but related theme, it strikes me that it will be critical to find measurement efficiencies to minimize cost and effort and to maximize policy outcomes. For example, improved accessibility not only enhances economic performance, but can reduce VMT, thereby reducing fuel use and GHGs, reducing wear-and-tear and improving safety. I look forward to seeing the projects selected for TIGER grants -- the emphasis on multiple benefits and integrated approaches will offer important lessons for performance measure design and implementation.

-Steve Winkelman

Steve –

Thank you for framing so neatly the need for performance measures.

In market economies we use profitability as a principal performance measure. We use it not only to enrich investors, but also to please others, as profits can only be made in providing goods and services that customers wish to pay for.

We use profitability as the performance measure in shipping, aviation (with the notable exception of our congested government-owned airports and air traffic control) and freight rail. And we use it for the provision of food, water, telecommunications and other necessities.

The main sector in which we have abandoned profitability is roads. One way of restoring that performance measure to that sector is to establish urban and regional “highway authorities” run on commercial principles, in the manner of public utilities. By being self-financing, they would meet Keith Lauglin’s desire for “meaningful performance measures to ensure that the taxpayer’s transportation dollars are invested wisely”.

Rob Atkinson, who pointed to the importance of information in transport planning could, if pressed, explain how modern Information Technology can enable roads to be operated more safely and efficiently, and how vehicles can be rationally charged for road use as easily as cell-phone users are charged for telephone use. Payments for road use could then be based on costs, removing the need for national or state subsidies.

How about using profitability to enable communities to achieve the “livability” standards their people desire? I am not clear what these standards are (no doubt James Corless can help us to define them) but, whatever they may be, they should reflect local needs and thus the values of local properties. Could maximizing property values serve as a performance measure for “livability”?

There is more to life than profitability, but its use as a performance measure would go a long way to give travelers the facilities they are prepared to pay for in their “pursuit of happiness”, and protect them from the unfortunate legislation authored by Representatives Jay Inslee, Rush Holt and Russ Carnahan and Senators Jay Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg.

Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood’s announcement earlier this month that livability would be considered in awarding New Starts transit projects was a terrific step forward. We need to follow-up that up with more ambition and the funds to pay for it.

The best way to measure performance is to craft a set of data-based and easy-to-understand National Transportation Objectives. This already is the subject of legislation authored by Representatives Jay Inslee, Rush Holt and Russ Carnahan and Senators Jay Rockefeller and Frank Lautenberg.

The legislation contains many of the 20-year benchmarks Transportation for America calls for in our campaign blueprint. Some of these measures include:

• Reduce vehicles miles traveled by 16 percent
• Triple walking, biking, and public transit use
• Reduce transportation-generated carbon dioxide levels by 40 percent
• Reduce delays by 10 percent
• Improve public safety and lower congestion costs by reducing traffic crashes by 50 percent
• Increase the share of major highways, regional transit fleets and facilities and bicycling/pedestrian infrastructure in good state of repair condition by 20 percent
• Increase by 50 percent the number of essential destinations accessible within 30 minutes by public transportation or 15 minutes by walking, for low- income, senior and disabled populations

These targets are discernible, quantifiable and achievable, especially under the leadership of Secretary LaHood, who has been very supportive of performance-based planning. Passage of the National Transportation Objectives Act would help to move this process forward and we will be pushing to make it a part of the next transportation reauthorization bill.

Thank you, Steve. I am not surprised that you have teed up this issue in a manner that is fact-based and analytical. And I would certainly agree that we need to discuss “specific formulations for measuring various policy outcomes.”

However, there is a more fundamental challenge that you allude to when you observe that such an approach is “a frightening prospect to some (who believe they cannot or should not meet the national goals).”

A major challenge to those who support the creation of meaningful performance measures to ensure that the taxpayer’s transportation dollars are invested wisely is the undeniable fact that many of the traditional stakeholders in the federal transportation funding process consider the program to be an entitlement. In this view, the role of the federal government is to collect the proceeds of the federal gasoline tax and distribute the proceeds by formula – and without strings – to the state departments of transportation.

Many of us in the transportation reform movement no longer have confidence in this approach and will not support additional revenues for the program absent reforms that include effective performance measures.

But attempts to establish such performance measures will be characterized by some as onerous and burdensome federal requirements imposed on state officials who better understand what’s needed in their states.

So, in the broadest sense, there are two ways to frame the performance measures debate; they are either (1) a necessary reform to protect the taxpayer and restore confidence in the program; or (2) an unjustified federal intrusion on state authority.

If the first framing is accepted by all parties to the debate, we have the opportunity for a breakthrough consensus that will permit a well-funded reform-oriented bill to move forward. If the traditional transportation stakeholders succeed in imposing the second framing, reform advocates will sit on the sidelines and the current stalemate will continue.

I don’t doubt that many of our allies in the transportation reform movement will be able to make some excellent suggestions for “specific formulations for measuring various policy outcomes.” However, it would be far more meaningful if some of our colleagues among the traditional transportation interests were to come forward with specific and meaningful performance measures that will merit the support of all of us who seek better outcomes from federal transportation policy.

Federal surface transportation policy is distinguished by its almost complete lack of performance accountability. Currently, the funding allocations for the major programs (for example, National Highway System, Interstate Maintenance Program, and Surface Transportation Program) are based largely on formulas reflecting factors such as state lane miles and amount of vehicle miles traveled. As a result, while there is substantial process-based accountability for how federal funds are used, there is woefully little attention paid to results. Performance measurement, evaluation, and benchmarking are notably absent from surface transportation funding. Transportation agencies at all levels of government face virtually no accountability for results. This is one reason why so many voters are reluctant to support increased gas taxes. As such, any efforts to improve the surface transportation system will require that DOT allocate at least a modest share of highway trust funds should be allocated to states based on relative progress in three facets: congestion relief predominantly, but also vehicle emissions, and safety.

But performance systems depend first and foremost on information. Without accurate and timely information on performance it is difficult to hold grantees accountable for results. This is where Intelligent Transportation Systems come into play. For example, the development of a nationwide real-time traveler information system can enable states and the federal government to know the actual traffic flow performance of the lion’s share of freeways and arterials.

Unfortunately, as the Information Technology and Innovation Foundation documents in a new report to be released at an event on Wednesday “Explaining International IT Leadership: Transportation,” the United States is woefully behind in the deployment of ITS systems compared to the world leaders. For example, Japan enhances the accountability of its road administrators by illustrating the effect of road construction and improvement projects in addressing traffic congestion with three-dimensional maps of traffic congestion using data on traffic volume and travel time collected from probe cars

While deploying ITS systems will help enable the development of a performance-based system, moving to a more performance-based system will also spur the deployment of ITS (and with it the wide array of benefits ITS will bring).

Holding states accountable for real results will allow federal and state transportation funds to go farther, achieving better results for the same amount of funding. It will also provide stronger incentives for states to adopt innovative approaches to managing highways, including implementing intelligent transportation systems. One reason ITS has not been as widely deployed in the United States is because state DOTs continue to be largely focused on their traditional roles of overseeing the building and maintenance of bricks and mortar infrastructure. Given that ITS can in many cases have better performance on mobility, safety and emissions than building conventional infrastructure, holding states accountable for performance will have the effect of putting ITS on a level playing field with concrete, steel, and asphalt. It would also send a clear message to the states that the federal government values ITS and expects to see its implementation. Moreover, there is a positive synergy between greater performance standards and ITS. Performance standards will drive ITS, while ITS will enable performance to be better measured.

In order to move to a more performance-oriented transportation financing system Congress should charge DOT with developing an ITS assessment and benchmarking study that would: 1) make a rigorous assessment of the cost-benefit impacts of ITS projects that have been deployed in the United States over the past two decades, and 2) develop benchmarks for state adoption of ITS. Each year, DOT should issue a status report, holding states accountable to these ITS adoption benchmarks. As part of developing these benchmarks, DOT should develop performance goals for traffic-related fatalities, traffic congestion, and travel times.

Congress should also require each state DOT and MPO (metropolitan planning organization) to develop a performance management process to monitor progress toward meeting national performance goals. State DOTs and MPOs should establish short-term and long-range performance targets in areas including traffic-related fatalities, traffic congestion, and travel times, and provide regular performance reports on their progress towards meeting established performance targets.

Finally, DOT should make funding available to state DOTs, MPOs, or local agencies that lack the ability to collect necessary performance data in order to fill the gaps in their data collection systems (including through the use of ITS systems).