Developing a Guide to Effective Methods for Setting Transportation Performance Targets (2023)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

1 C H A P T E R 1 Introduction Background and Purpose As the concept of performance management has taken hold in transportation agencies over the past few decades, many state departments of transportation (DOTs) have made great strides in developing processes for setting goals and objectives, selecting performance measures, and monitoring system performance to help communicate to the public and stakeholders. The key step of setting targets, however, has generally been one of the most challenging components of performance management from both a technical and policy perspective. In 2010, NCHRP Report 666: Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance- Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies identified steps that state DOTs could use to establish performance targets, and it documented a range of both quantitative and qualitative approaches that could be used in target setting. The passage of the Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21) in 2012, followed by the Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act in 2015, and associated Federal rules have since elevated target setting from a “best practice” to an essential aspect of transportation decision making for the Federal-aid Highway Program. The performance management requirements have been maintained under the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA) of 2021, and the large increase in Federal funding for transportation puts continued emphasis on state DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) to demonstrate progress toward national goals and provide accountability for use of Federal funds. All 52 state DOTs are required to establish and publicly report near-term (one-, two-, and/or four-year) targets in relation to a consistent set of national performance measures that have been developed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA). The national performance measures address safety, infrastructure condition, and system performance including travel time reliability, freight reliability, congestion, and emissions reductions associated with the Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program (CMAQ). A target is defined by FHWA as “a quantifiable level of performance or condition, expressed as a value for the measure, to be achieved within a time period” (23 CFR § 490.101). Meaningful, data-driven targets can help to define desired outcomes, track progress, communicate with stakeholders, and guide investment decisions. State DOTs and metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) both must establish targets and are required to coordinate to ensure consistency to the maximum extent practicable. For most of the performance measures (including the measures for safety, infrastructure condition, travel time reliability, and freight reliability), MPOs can establish targets by either supporting the state DOT target or selecting a unique target specific to the MPO planning area. In contrast, the traffic congestion measures require target setting at the urbanized area (UZA) level, and coordination is required between the MPOs and state DOTs to establish a single, unified target.

2 The purpose of this project is to disseminate a practitioner-ready guide for state DOTs that focuses on methods for the target-setting component of transportation performance management. The resulting guide is designed to help state DOTs and MPOs identify effective methods for setting transportation performance targets for the national measures. It provides a menu of target setting methods for the national performance measures. Agencies can use the guide to assess the options available and choose methods based on data availability, staff expertise, and program objectives. The guide discusses issues that agencies should consider in selecting a target setting method and provides tips to help make the target setting process itself valuable for agencies. It also provides information on considerations related to setting targets for performance measures that are not required. This Conduct of Research Report summarizes the overall conduct of research used as part of the NCHRP Project 23-07, including the research approach, key findings, and outreach conducted to support the development and dissemination of the Guide to Effective Target Setting Methods (the Guide). Process The effort to develop the Guide and supporting outreach products involved three key phases of work, which are described in this document and shown in Figure 1. The phases of work included: • Phase I: Foundational Research to Document Target Setting Methods – This initial phase of work included a review of literature on target setting methods used during the first performance- reporting period (with submittals completed in 2018), along with a set of focus groups of state DOTs and MPOs, which were used to identify a range of possible target setting methods for each of the national performance measures. • Phase II: Developing and Vetting Target Setting Methods – The second phase of work involved developing and selecting a set of recommended methods for target setting, followed by pilot testing Figure 1. Three Phases of Research for NCHRP 23-07

3 of the recommended methods by a set of state DOTs that volunteered to try different methods to assess their ease of use, challenges faced, and other considerations. This phase also included developing the Guide outline and outreach plan. The research team also conducted additional research on methods used for adjustments to targets during the first mid-performance period Progress Reporting that was due in October 2020, conducted additional literature view, and organized and facilitated a focus group discussion with state DOTs about their experiences with target setting. • Phase III: Outreach and Technical Assistance – The final phase of work involved development of the Guide and development and delivery of a series of six web-based practitioner workshops and two in-person workshop. The activities conducted – including the research methods, pilot process, outreach activities, and findings – are discussed in the following chapters.