Exploring the Relationship between Agency Performance Measures and Operations Investments in a Metropolitan Area

Transcription

1 Exploring the Relationship between Agency Performance Measures and Operations Investments in a Metropolitan Area Submitted on August 2, 2002 Word Count: 4,046 Authors: Eric Dumbaugh Ph.D. Student, Department of City Planning Georgia Institute of Technology 1676 Braeburn Drive Atlanta, GA Phone: (404) edumbaugh@aol.com Michael D. Meyer, P.E. Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology 790 Atlantic Drive Georgia Institute of Technology Atlanta, Georgia USA Phone: (404) FAX: (404) michael.meyer@ce.gatech.edu

2 Exploring the Relationship between Agency Performance Measures and Operations Investments in a Metropolitan Area by Eric Dumbaugh Ph.D. Student Department of City Planning Georgia Institute of Technology and Michael D. Meyer, P.E. Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering Georgia Institute of Technology ABSTRACT Performance-based planning focuses on the use of performance measures to provide decision makers with information on the transportation system, and provides a means for identifying the actions that might best address transportation system needs and advance organizational missions. This paper seeks to determine whether the performance measures adopted by four transportation agencies in Atlanta Georgia, as well as those recently espoused by its Chamber of Commerce, could lead decision makers to adopt strategies aimed at enhancing system operations. Because strategies that seek to enhance system performance often require a good deal of interagency cooperation for their success, this study then seeks to determine whether there are common definitions of need and performance across the agencies. Or, in other words, do performance definitions lead decision makers from different agencies to a shared understanding of the need for operational improvements, or do they encourage the adoption of agency-specific strategies? This paper concludes that the performance measures adopted by each of the agencies would at least permit the consideration of operational strategies, although the wide variation in the way these agencies define and measure performance may act as a barrier to the development of interagency strategies to improve system performance. In the case of Metropolitan Atlanta, the development of a shared definition of system performance emerged only after significant external pressure was applied to each of the individual agencies. While this study focuses solely on the decision making process of a single metropolitan region, these findings suggest that those interested in promoting operational and systems strategies in other regions would do well to look not only at whether the measures adopted by individual agencies would support operational strategies, but also at the degree of consistency in the definition of performance across the agencies. 1

3 INTRODUCTION Performance-based planning has become an important concept to many state and metropolitan transportation agencies in the U.S. This concept promotes the idea of systematically monitoring the performance of the transportation system to provide feedback to decision makers on trends and impacts of changes to the transportation system. While recent literature has examined the mechanics of how to put such a planning process in place (4, 10, 11, 13, 14, 15), very little attention has been given to whether different agencies and organizations in a metropolitan area, each pursuing its own mandate and mission, develop performance measures that support strategies aimed at improving the operation of the transportation system. Given an increasing concern for the efficient operation of the existing transportation system, and thus the importance of strategies that enhance system operating performance, this study first seeks to understand whether the performance measures adopted by agencies responsible for planning and programming transportation investments can lead decision makers to adopt operational strategies, or whether they direct decision makers towards capital-oriented system expansion. A second question asked by this study is whether there is some level of consistency in the measures adopted by the multiple agencies responsible for the transportation system. While transportation decision making is often compartmentalized among different agencies, the regional transportation network nevertheless exists as a single system. The effective operation of this system requires that its constituent components, including highways, arterial streets, and transit network, also perform effectively, and that the agencies responsible for their performance work cooperatively to direct transportation investments towards areas of critical need. As a consequence, the adoption of strategies aimed at enhancing the performance of a region s transportation system would seem to require, at the very least, a common definition of what constitutes effective system performance. Independent definitions of system performance would appear to lead agency decision makers away from developing a systems-based approach to addressing a region s transportation needs. Correspondingly, this study seeks to understand whether there is some consistency in the way that multiple agencies in a single metropolitan area define performance. Specifically, do the measures adopted by these agencies, which have overlapping jurisdictions, prioritize similar strategies to enhance system-wide operational effectiveness, or do their measures encourage agency decision makers to adopt independent, agency-specific approaches? METHODOLOGY To understand the relationship between performance measures and investments in operations, this paper examines the performance measures used by four agencies responsible for planning transportation investments for the Metropolitan Atlanta region, as well as those subsequently promoted by its Chamber of Commerce. These measures were identified through the guiding policy documents adopted by each of the agencies, and an understanding of their evolution and use was derived through interviews with agency representatives. While this paper focuses on the decision making process of a single region Atlanta and necessarily contains elements unique to the region, the common Federal framework for regional transportation planning and decision making suggests that there will be at least some similarities with the decision making processes of 2

4 other regions, and further, the Atlanta experience, while unique, can serve to provide those interested in advancing operational strategies in other areas with a benchmark to compare how their own performance measures may relate to the adoption of operational strategies. As a guide for determining whether agency performance measures could support investments in operations, adopted performance measures are examined for their effectiveness at encouraging ten conventional operational strategies. The following list is not meant to exhaustively itemize all of the operational improvements that may be undertaken in a metropolitan area, nor does it consider the political expediency of the individual strategies themselves. Instead, it is intended to serve solely as a frame for determining whether operational strategies could logically emerge from adopted performance measures. Or, in other words, could the performance measures adopted by each of the individual agencies lead agency decision makers to adopt one or more of these operations strategies? Performance measures that encourage one or more of these investment strategies can be said to be operations-permissive: Bottleneck Relief (BR), which includes the reconstruction of key choke points along a corridor to free up roadway capacity. Signal Coordination (SC), which increases capacity by timing signals to maximize through-put along a corridor or segment of a corridor. Congestion Pricing (CP), which seeks to reduce peak-period travel demand by modifying the fare structure of toll roadways based on demand. High-Occupancy Vehicle Lanes (HOV), which provides priority service for buses and multipleoccupant vehicles, encouraging reductions in demand along a corridor. User Information Services (UIS), such as warning messages on interstate billboards or information messages over the radio, or informational kiosks in transit terminals that inform drivers which corridors are congested or when a transit vehicle can be expected to arrive. Incident Management (IM), which seeks to quickly remove disabled vehicles from the vehicle travel way and address accidents quickly, thereby lessening the traffic impacts associated with the vehicle obstructions in the roadway. AVL/Fleet Monitoring Systems (FMS), which allow managers of vehicle fleets, such as a bus service, to coordinate and evaluate their fleet in real time. Transit Fare Restructuring (TFR), which seeks to encourage transit use through competitive pricing. Bus Route Realignment (RR), which can increase ridership and performance by modifying route to capture new riders, or to more effectively provide service to existing riders. Travel Demand Management Programs (TDM), which are formal programs, such as corporate sponsored carpools and vanpools, that reduce demand along a key corridors or in specified areas Understanding the weighting agencies may place on specific operations strategies is more difficult, however. This study consequently assumes that transportation decision making across the agencies follows a rational model that agencies weight each of their performance measures equally, and that operational strategies that help advance agency performance targets are actually considered by decision makers. Thus, strategies that emerge from multiple performance targets are treated as being weighted more heavily by 3

5 an agency than those strategies that emerge from a single performance target. Listing an agency s performance measures, and then summing the number of times a particular strategy could emerge provides an approximate weighting of each strategy among the individual agencies; dividing this by the total number of operations-permissive measures provides a normalized metric that can be used to compare the weights placed on particular strategies across the agencies. While this method is admittedly limited in that it ignores the political and institutional weightings assigned by agencies to various strategies, it nevertheless adheres the requirements of the rational planning process that underlies regional transportation decision making, and represents a reasonably objective means of understanding the emphasis placed on individual strategies by the agencies. It is important to note from the outset that performance measures for specific agencies will be targeted towards advancing the mission that has been given those agencies. It should not be surprising if performance measures for transportation agencies will differ in a particular metropolitan area. Nevertheless, given the supposedly cooperative nature of regional transportation planning, it would seem important that transportation priorities, as expressed through their performance measures, be compatible across the agencies, particularly where jurisdictional authorities overlap. The types of strategies that emerge out of agency-specific performance measurement should be consistent enough across the agencies to permit these strategies to be adopted and prioritized by the agencies responsible for managing the region s transportation network. REGIONALLY SIGNIFICANT TRANSPORTATION DECISION MAKING IN THE ATLANTA METROPOLITAN AREA Four agencies have principal responsibility for prioritizing and implementing transportation investments in the Atlanta metropolitan area: The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC), the metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the region. The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT), which is responsible for the performance of the state roadway system, as well as other supporting modes of transportation. The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA), the primary transit provider in the region. The Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA), a state-created authority with the ability to direct federal transportation dollars in counties in the state that are out of compliance with federal air quality standards The Atlanta Regional Commission (ARC) The ARC is the MPO for the Atlanta region, and is consequently responsible for developing Atlanta s Regional Transportation Plan (RTP), as well as programming transportation projects into the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP). The ARC is 4

6 guided by a 39-member Board of Directors, which includes representatives from each of the 10 counties under its jurisdiction, elected officials from the major municipalities, as well as fifteen appointed private citizens. While the ARC s Regional Transportation Plan has four goals, determining the agency s objectives and performance measures is complicated because they vary throughout the RTP (3). In some cases, the RTP lists a variety of objectives and performance measures; in others, particularly those pertaining to the investment strategies encouraged by the RTP, only a few key performance targets are presented. Nevertheless, the ARC has adopted eight formal performance targets adopted by the ARC, which are clearly delineated throughout the RTP and are used to direct transportation investments (see Table 1). Of the eight performance measures indicated in the RTP, seven meet the criteria of being operations permissive. Table 2, below, indicates each of the strategies supported by these seven measures. TABLE 1 ARC s Performance Targets Performance Targets Operations-Supportive 45% travel in congested conditions levels of service E or F X 33 vehicle miles traveled per capita 1.3 vehicle hours traveled per capita X 35 minutes average travel time X 30% of jobs accessible within 60 minutes via transit for low income areas X 55% of employment opportunities accessible via transit X 40% of population within 0.4 miles of transit X 10% of home-based work trips made by transit X TABLE 2 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by the ARC Atlanta Regional Commission BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM % Travel in Congested Conditions VHT Per Capita Average Travel Time % Jobs Within 60 Minutes for EJ Households % of Employment Transit Accesible 1 1 % of Population within 0.4 Miles of Transit 1 % of Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Total Weight The performance measures adopted by the Atlanta Regional Commission would appear to lead to a consideration of all ten of the operational strategies examined in this study. The strategies are weighted roughly equally, although bus route realignments received the highest rating. Fleet Management Systems was the strategy least heavily weighted of the operations measures, although it too can emerge from the performance 5

7 measures. Considered on the whole, these results are as one would expect. The ARC, as the MPO for Atlanta, is responsible for programming Federal dollars throughout the region. The performance metrics of an agency with such wide-reaching interests should not preclude the consideration of any of the individual strategies. The Georgia Department of Transportation The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) is responsible for the construction, operations, and maintenance of state roads, including many major arterials through metropolitan Atlanta, as well as the region s interstates. GDOT is directed by a State Transportation Board made up of individuals elected by the General Assembly for five-year terms, and comprised of individuals from each of the State s 11 Congressional Districts. Functionally, the Georgia Department of Transportation is divided into seven districts, 4 of which have jurisdiction over roadways in the Atlanta Metropolitan area. Like the ARC, the Georgia Department of Transportation s performance measures are not immediately apparent from the organization s documentation. In addition to the performance measures included in its Statewide Transportation Plan, GDOT undertakes a results-based budgeting process that includes additional goals, objectives and measures. To further complicate the identification of agency measures, there is little consistency between the goals and measures included in the two documents. Conversations with GDOT representatives helped in the identification of five operationspermissive measures actually used by the agency. These measures, as well as their respective sources, are indicated in Table 3, below: TABLE 3 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM B Incident Detection and Response Time of HERO Units 1 1 B # of Major Incidents HERO Responded To 1 1 B # of Minor Incidents HERO Responded To 1 1 STP Urban Transit Service Levels 1 1 STP % of Urban Congested Roadways Total Weight B = Budget Performance Measures STP = Statewide Transportation Plan Performance Measures Interestingly, there is no consistency between the operations-permissive measures incorporated into the two documents. GDOT s budget (7), despite including goals such as having a road network that is operationally-efficient, includes measures tailored exclusively to the organization s HERO incident response system and the performance of its HERO vehicles. Because GDOT s budget is necessarily tailored towards the allocation of its resources, it is revealing that none of the budget s measures are related to any of the other operational strategies. The Statewide Transportation Plan contains measures that at least consider other operational strategies (8), but no metrics are included in the agency s budget that would indicate the extent to which GDOT s annual efforts are advancing them, suggesting that they may be undervalued by agency decision makers. Even assuming that the agency weights the measures in the two documents equally, strategies related to the agency s incident response system are nevertheless more heavily weighted by the agency than any of the other measures. 6

8 The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) The Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority (MARTA) is the primary transit provider for the Atlanta region. MARTA is responsible for providing transit service to the City of Atlanta, as well as to Fulton and DeKalb Counties, and has been contracted to provide service to a third suburban county as well. MARTA, like GDOT, has formally incorporated its goals, objectives and performance measures into its annual budget (12). Operational goals and performance measures adopted by MARTA aim primarily to reduce system failures and increase on-time performance for its rail, bus and paratransit systems. Of these, two measures meet the definition of being operations-permissive (see Table 4). TABLE 4 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by MARTA MARTA BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Transit Ontime Performance Customer Satisfaction Ratings Total Weight While MARTA has adopted only two operations-permissive measures, these measures are broad enough to allow the consideration of a wide-range of strategies. Further, an interesting and unique facet of MARTA s performance measurement is that, in addition to objectively measuring system performance, they have also adopted a measure to gauge customer satisfaction with the system. Customer satisfaction, perhaps as much any other single measure, would appear to best capture the performance of the transportation system. Roadways and transit networks exist not for themselves, but to meet the needs of their users. Understanding whether operational performance meets the transportation needs of system users is essential to understanding whether or not a system is performing effectively. To obtain information on customer satisfaction, MARTA actively surveys riders to develop a customer satisfaction index. This focus on the user s perception of the system s performance allows the agency to identify issues most directly of interest to system users, and does not necessarily assert a given range of strategies. Instead, customer satisfaction ratings can be increased using a wide range of strategies from decreasing air conditioning failures to increasing service frequency along specific routes. Because of its link not to system performance, but to the perception of system performance by system users, these measures, at least theoretically, can encourage innovation in the transportation services MARTA provides. MATI AND GRTA: METROPOLITAN ATLANTA S EFFORTS TO ADVANCE PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT Metropolitan Atlanta s 1998 air quality conformity lapse, which threatened the loss of Federal transportation funding, forced regional decision makers to rethink transportation planning and performance measurement. The Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce, which has always played a highly active, although often discreet role in 7

9 policy-making for the Metropolitan Atlanta Region (1, 16), was immediately concerned about the effects declining mobility would have on the region s continued economic viability. From the perspective of Chamber of Commerce, the absence of a shared vision and common performance measures appeared to be a major barrier to improving the performance of the transportation system in the Atlanta region. As an agency representative explained, the Chamber s members think of performance metrics, goals and targets as essential they know they [can not] run their companies if metrics and goals differed across divisions (17). To encourage regional transportation agencies to adopt a coordinated approach to decision making, the Chamber of Commerce developed its Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Initiative (MATI). MATI provided regional decision makers with seven recommendations: 1. Establishment of clear targets 2. Aspiration-based planning process 3. Coordination of regional transit 4. Adequate and flexible funding 5. An informed community willing to change behavior 6. A business community that takes initiative as a role model and shaper of policy 7. Aligned authority and accountability: Empower one regionally focused agency with integrated responsibility for planning, resource allocation/authority, and monitoring of implementation of all forms of transportation in the Atlanta region These recommendations were forwarded to Governor-elect Roy Barnes, who, upon taking office, responded with Senate Bill 57, creating the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority (GRTA). GRTA was given jurisdiction over all counties in the State that are currently out of compliance with Federal Clean Air Act standards, and the authority to approve or reject the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for these counties. Effectively, Senate Bill 57 gave GRTA control over the allocation of all Federal transportation funding for the Metropolitan Atlanta Region (9). GRTA has since adopted its own independent set of goals, objectives and performance measures (18). Of the sixteen measures adopted by the agency, eight would lead to the consideration of operational strategies. Like the Atlanta Regional Commission, with which GRTA shares planning responsibility, GRTA has adopted performance measures that would permit the consideration of a broad range of operational strategies (see Table 5). 8

10 TABLE 5 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Total Transit Ridership HOV Lane Miles 1 Average Travel Time Per Trip Total Duration of Highway and Transit Incidents 1 1 Transit On-Time Performance % of Population within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit 1 % of Employment within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit 1 # of Vanpools in Operation 1 Total Weight COMPARING INTERAGENCY PERFORMANCE MEASURES With four individual agencies responsible for planning and prioritizing transportation investments in the Atlanta region, a second question asked by this study is whether the performance measures between agencies could encourage the adoption of operational strategies in a multi-jurisdictional regional planning environment. Specifically, given that many operational strategies may require intergovernmental cooperation for their effectiveness, do these agencies prioritize similar operational strategies when their jurisdictions overlap? Table 6, below, shows the approximate weighting individual agency performance measures give to each of the operational strategies. TABLE 6 Operational Weightings Strategy ARC GRTA GDOT MARTA Bottleneck Relief Signal Coordination Congestion Pricing HOV Lanes User Information Systems Incident Management AVL/Fleet Management Transit Fare Restructuring Bus Route Realignment TDM While all of the agencies have measures that would permit the adoption of most of the operational strategies considered in this report, the emphasis on individual strategies varies considerably among the individual agencies. By itself, this is not especially surprising. Given that the organizational missions vary amongst the agencies, one would expect some variation in the types of strategies that would emerge, as well as the weights assigned to these strategies by each of the individual agencies. Nevertheless, the variations in the way each of the agencies weight individual strategies suggests that there is little interagency coordination how to define and prioritize operational investments. Thus, attempts to promote the adoption of a specific operational strategy, such as the removal of bottlenecks along a corridor, would appear to prioritized differently across the 9

11 agencies, despite the fact that these agencies should have a shared interest in the corridor s performance. These weightings, however, implicitly assume that the decision making process across organizations is rational, which in practice, does not accurately reflect the actual political and institutional forces that may guide the types of decisions that emerge. Going beyond these approximate weightings, which fail to capture the actual internal emphasis assigned to particular strategies by each of these agencies, and taking a broader view of the measures themselves, it is readily apparent that there is little consistency between the agencies in how they define system performance. While the agencies clearly have an interest in similar aspects of the transportation system, such as roadway congestion and transit performance, the absence of consistent definitions of system performance is further indicative of the lack of coordination between the agencies on how to best identify and address system needs (see Table 7). This necessarily leads to process inefficiencies, such as redundant data collection and analysis efforts, but can lead to more serious institutional deficiencies as well. Differing performance definitions across the agencies prevents a common interagency vocabulary for discussing system needs, which can foster institutional isolation and hinder the interagency cooperation needed to successfully implement operational strategies (5, 6). Table 7 Variations in Performance Definition ARC GRTA GDOT Congestion and Travel Time Measures % Travel in Congested Conditions % of Urban Congested Roadways Average Travel Time Average Travel Time Per Trip VHT Per Capita Transit and Paratransit Performance % of Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Transit On-Time Performance % of Population within 0.4 Miles of Transit % of Population within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit % of Employment Transit Accesible % of Employment within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit Total Transit Ridership # of Vanpools in Operation Urban Transit Service Levels MOVING TOWARDS UNIFORM PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT A shared vision of Atlanta s future, as well as uniform and aggressive performance targets, was at the heart of the Chamber of Commerce s 1998 Metropolitan Atlanta Transportation Initiative. Interestingly, the least likely outcome of this process, the creation of a strong, centralized transportation planning authority, was the first to emerge. In practice, however, the Georgia Regional Transportation Authority began to undertake an independent direction focused on the provision of new transit service rather than focusing on the developing a cooperative decision making environment. From the perspective of the Chamber of Commerce, which was instrumental in creating GRTA, the agency was emphasizing transit too heavily, and not focusing enough on its intended purpose of setting aggressive targets, drafting and evaluating a plan against those targets, and tracking the region s progress with performance measures (18). Sensing that organizational inertia was still preventing the individual agencies from undertaking the cooperative, aspirations-based vision espoused by the Chamber, the Chamber contracted a nationally-recognized planning and engineering firm to develop 10

12 one for them. Out of this process, the Chamber developed a series of thirteen performance measures it believed would best address the region s transportation needs, nine of which can be considered operations-permissive (see Table 8). TABLE 8 Operations-Permissive Measures Endorsed by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Average Travel Time Transit Trip 1 Average Travel Time Auto Trip Population within 0.25 Miles of a Bus Stop 1 % of Employment within 0.25 Miles of a Bus Route 1 % Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Per Capita VHT % Travel Under Congested Conditions Duration of Congestion by Facility Type Monthly Person Hours of Delay Total Weight These measures, taken on the whole, are similar to those adopted by the Atlanta Regional Commission, with two notable additions: duration of congestion by facility types and monthly person hours of delay. While both are measures of system mobility, the latter is particularly revealing of the Chamber s interest in regional transportation. Person hours of delay translates into lost employee productivity, increased stress amongst regional residents and employees, and a threat to the perception of the overall quality-oflife in the region. The Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce is currently undertaking an active campaign to have these measures consistently adopted by all of the agencies responsible for transportation planning in the region. Attempting to create a sense of urgency behind the issue, the Chamber is attracting local press attention to the need for consistent performance measurement across the individual agencies, and is urging agency decision makers to uniformly adopt these measures (2). To date, these measures have been formally adopted by GRTA, and are currently under review by the ARC s Board. The Chamber is working with the Georgia Department of Transportation to encourage their adoption of these measures as well (17). CONCLUSION This study examined whether the stated performance measures adopted by four agencies responsible for transportation planning in Metropolitan Atlanta would support the consideration of operational investments. Examined solely from the perspective of whether these measures could lead decision makers towards the consideration of ten conventional strategies aimed at enhancing operational performance, this study found that, at least as they are defined, the measures could support such decisions. Nevertheless, the mere presence of measures that would permit the consideration of operational strategies does not indicate that an institutional willingness to undertake such efforts exists. An important finding of this study is that while all of the agencies had measures that, when considered independently of one another, would seem to support the 11

13 adoption of operational strategies, the actual definitions of performance varied widely across the agencies, even where agencies were attempting to measure similar system characteristics. Because of the high degree of interagency cooperation needed to successfully undertake many operational strategies, shared definitions of system needs are essential for building institutional support between agencies. A key step in encouraging the implementation of strategies aimed at increasing the operational performance of a region s transportation system is to ensure that the agencies responsible for transportation decision making share a common vision of the region s future, as well as shared definitions of goal advancement. In the case of Metropolitan Atlanta, transportation agencies appeared unwilling to adopt a common definition of system performance, despite concerns over a recent air quality conformity lapse and a growing public mandate to address the increased traffic congestion associated with the region s rapid population growth. The move towards the adoption of shared set of performance measures occurred only after the Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce twice exerted significant external pressure on the agencies. While this study focuses solely on the decision making process of the Metropolitan Atlanta region, this nevertheless suggests that those interested in promoting operational and systems strategies in other regions would do well to look not only at whether the measures adopted by individual agencies support operational strategies, but also at the levels of consistency in the definitions of system performance between the agencies. Agencies lacking the will to develop consistent definitions of system needs would seem to be unlikely to undertake the cooperative efforts needed to successfully advance operations-enhancing strategies. 12

14 REFERENCES 1. Allen, F. Atlanta Rising: The Invention of an International City. Longstreet Press, Atlanta, Atlanta Journal-Constitution, Chamber: Improve air, traffic measures. ARC GRTA urged to establish better criteria of gains. February 18, Atlanta Regional Commission, Transportation Solutions for a New Century, RTP Volume 1: 2025 Regional Transportation Plan. Atlanta, GA, Cambridge Systematics, A Guidebook on Performance-based Transportation Planning, NCHRP 446, Transportation Research Board, Booz-Allen & Hamilton, Organizing for Regional Operations: An Executive Guide, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Forester, J. Planning in the Face of Power. Journal of the American Planning Association. Winter, pp Georgia Department of Transportation, Annual Budget. Atlanta, GA, Georgia Department of Transportation, Statewide Transportation Plan Atlanta, Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, 2001 Annual Report. Atlanta, GA, Heminger, S. Success in Incorporating M&O strategies into regional transportation planning: The Bay Area. Presentation at the annual conference of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Sept Atlanta, GA Kasoff, H. Implementing Performance Measurement in Transportation Agencies, in Transportation Research Board, Conference Proceedings 26, Washington D.C., Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority, Back to Basics: Fiscal Year 2002 Operating and Capital Budgets, Atlanta, GA, Morris, M. Success in Incorporating M&O strategies into regional transportation planning: Dallas-Ft. Worth. Presentation at the annual conference of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Sept Atlanta, GA., Pickrell, S. and L. Neumann, Use of Performance Measures in Transportation Decision Making, in Transportation Research Board, Conference Proceedings 26, Washington D.C., Poorman, J. Performance measures in metropolitan transportation planning. In Conference Proceedings for Performance Measures for California Transportation System Users and Investors. Los Angeles: UCLA Extension Public Policy Program, Stone, C. Regime Politics: Governing Atlanta, University of Kansas Press Lawrence, KS, Thompson, C. Vice President of Transportation, Metropolitan Atlanta Chamber of Commerce. Personal Interview, April 4, 2002; October 30-31, Ware, C. and Ben Johnson. Letter to Crandle Bray and Sonny Deriso. February 6,

15 LIST OF TABLES TABLE 1 ARC s Performance Targets TABLE 2 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by the ARC TABLE 3 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GDOT TABLE 4 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by MARTA TABLE 5 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GRTA TABLE 6 Operational Weightings TABLE 7 Variations in Performance Definition TABLE 8 Operations-Permissive Measures Endorsed by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce 14

16 TABLE 1 ARC s Performance Targets Performance Targets Operations-Supportive 45% travel in congested conditions levels of service E or F X 33 vehicle miles traveled per capita 1.3 vehicle hours traveled per capita X 35 minutes average travel time X 30% of jobs accessible within 60 minutes via transit for low income areas X 55% of employment opportunities accessible via transit X 40% of population within 0.4 miles of transit X 10% of home-based work trips made by transit X 15

17 TABLE 2 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by the ARC Atlanta Regional Commission BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM % Travel in Congested Conditions VHT Per Capita Average Travel Time % Jobs Within 60 Minutes for EJ Households % of Employment Transit Accesible 1 1 % of Population within 0.4 Miles of Transit 1 % of Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Total Weight

18 TABLE 3 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM B Incident Detection and Response Time of HERO Units 1 1 B # of Major Incidents HERO Responded To 1 1 B # of Minor Incidents HERO Responded To 1 1 STP Urban Transit Service Levels 1 1 STP % of Urban Congested Roadways Total Weight B = Budget Performance Measures STP = Statewide Transportation Plan Performance Measures 17

19 TABLE 4 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by MARTA MARTA BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Transit Ontime Performance Customer Satisfaction Ratings Total Weight

20 TABLE 5 Operations-Permissive Measures Adopted by GRTA Georgia Regional Transportation Authority BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Total Transit Ridership HOV Lane Miles 1 Average Travel Time Per Trip Total Duration of Highway and Transit Incidents 1 1 Transit On-Time Performance % of Population within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit 1 % of Employment within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit 1 # of Vanpools in Operation 1 Total Weight

21 TABLE 6 Operational Weightings Strategy ARC GRTA GDOT MARTA Bottleneck Relief Signal Coordination Congestion Pricing HOV Lanes User Information Systems Incident Management AVL/Fleet Management Transit Fare Restructuring Bus Route Realignment TDM

22 TABLE 7 Variations in Performance Definition ARC GRTA GDOT Congestion and Travel Time Measures % Travel in Congested Conditions % of Urban Congested Roadways Average Travel Time Average Travel Time Per Trip VHT Per Capita Transit and Paratransit Performance % of Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Transit On-Time Performance % of Population within 0.4 Miles of Transit % of Population within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit % of Employment Transit Accesible % of Employment within 0.25, 0.5 miles of Transit Total Transit Ridership # of Vanpools in Operation Urban Transit Service Levels 21

23 TABLE 8 Operations-Permissive Measures Endorsed by the Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce Metro Atlanta Chamber of Commerce BR SC CP HOV UIS IM FMS TFR RR TDM Average Travel Time Transit Trip 1 Average Travel Time Auto Trip Population within 0.25 Miles of a Bus Stop 1 % of Employment within 0.25 Miles of a Bus Route 1 % Home-Based Work Trips by Transit Per Capita VHT % Travel Under Congested Conditions Duration of Congestion by Facility Type Monthly Person Hours of Delay Total Weight