non-traditional performance measures when one size does not fit all: 20142014

N O N -T RA D I T I O N A L P E R F O R M A N C E M E A S U R E S

WHEN ONE SIZE DOES NOT FIT ALL:

2014

2

“If you can’t measure it, you can’t manage it.”

“In most endeavors, measuring, monitoring, and

tracking results are among the most crucial elements of

understanding real outcomes.”-Lou Earle, Austin FIT

WHY MEASURE PERFORMANCE?

• Assess progress towards meeting goals• Support the decision making process about

where, when, and how service should be provided• Meet regulatory reporting requirements

(Source: TCRP Report 141)

4

WHY DOES ONE SIZE NOT FIT ALL?

5

WHAT’S AT STAKE?

• Program success• Conducting activities that will not achieve

desired outcomes (scope creep)• Not meeting customer needs• Accountability/

transparency/reputation• Funding

LOGIC/PATHWAY MODEL

Inputs• Money• Time• Equipment

Activities• Transit Service

• Advocacy• Travel Training

• Planning

Outputs• Miles & Hours

• Brochures & Meetings

• People trained

• Plans prepared

Outcomes• Improved air quality

• Increased funding

• Increased independence

• Compliance

WHAT DO WE MEAN BY OUTCOMES?

• Outcomes = What you want to achieve• Long-term:• Improve air quality• Reduce congestion

• Medium Term:• Reduce single occupant vehicle trips

• Short-term• Increase transit ridership

• Outputs = Results of the things you do• Increase hours and miles of transit service

• Activities = The things you do to achieve your desired outcome• Invest 5311 funds in transit service

8

EXAMPLE OUTCOMES

• Increased use of transit services by seniors in rural areas• Universal access to a travel information system• Transportation options for residents in urban gap

areas• Multi-modal transportation options for every

county• Enhanced access for transit-dependent individuals• Employer sponsored shuttle programs for

commuters• Improved options for veteran population• Increased ridership overall

OUTCOME MEASURE QUESTIONS

• How is the service affecting the community and region? • How does the transportation service impact

health and quality of life outcomes?• How does the service impact the area economy

and jobs?• How much of the population is being served?• What share of needs is being met?• How does providing public transit service

increase household income or reduce costs?

10

NATIONAL TRENDSTRENDS IN PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

11

THE “HUMAN” IMPACT OF SERVICE

Image Credit: Senior Solutions of Colorado

Image Credit: cuny.edu

12

ECONOMIC VALUE ADDED

CREATING CONNECTIONS

• Developed vs. Non-developed area• Rapid growth in urbanized areas• Planning for both decreases in rural areas

and new urbanized areas

Image Credits: Bike Across America

14

MEASURES FOR FUNDING DECISIONS

• Nontraditional measures can describe the system’s impact on the community.

15

CASE STUDIESTRANSPORTAT ION COORDINAT ION PERFORMANCE

16

CASE STUDIES: CITY-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

• Operates within Johnson County, Texas• Dispersed population and development

patterns• Part of North Central Texas Council of

Governments 16-county coordinated region• South of Dallas/Ft. Worth Metroplex• Large veteran & older adult populations

17

18

MEASURES FOR CITY-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

• Local investment per operating expense• Overall increase in local match from cities• Passengers per revenue mile• Revenue miles per

operating expense• Monitor performance

measures and establish review process to increase performance

19

LESSONS LEARNED: CITY-COUNTY TRANSPORTATION

• Coordination with the larger region; especially for NEMT and veterans’ services• Critical to set agreed-upon plan with cities

in Johnson County• Enlist partners to help further the vision• Incorporating transit and transit

coordination into long-range regional plan

20

CASE STUDIES: MARIN COUNTY

• Funded through Measure B• Marin Catch A Ride (CAR)• Volunteer driver

programs• Travel navigators• Providing choices• Isolation survey to

measureprogram success

21

MARIN COUNTY MEASURES

• Ridership trends, including the change in ridership demand for paratransitvs. C-A-R program• Costs associated with

reduction in overall paratransitservice provision• Use information to justify

moving funds betweenprograms

22

LESSONS LEARNED: MARIN COUNTY

• Think outside the box when looking for sustainable funding streams• Work together with regional partners despite

the competition• Programs weren’t meant to work in a silo• Be persistent with outreach & education

23

CASE STUDIES: IDAHO

• Statewide mobility management program• Community Transportation Association

of Idaho (CTAI)• Established I-Way• Consideration for multiple services,

or “choices” statewide• Local Mobility Management

Networks

24

I-WAY MEASURES

• Total Passenger Trips Provided broken down by rider type and by service mode

• Total Service Miles, Hours, and Days broken down by service mode

• Operating and Capital Costs broken down by service mode• Revenue Sources (Federal, State, Local, and Rider Fares)

broken down by service mode• Changes to services (route structure, times, etc.)• ADA or general service complaints received by service

provider• Other operating information including the number of

accidents and incidents, completed training, drug and alcohol testing, and contracts with disadvantaged business enterprise firms.

25

LESSONS LEARNED: IDAHO

• Need strong leadership at the state level• Must have a clear vision• Consideration for demand, not population• Urban and rural,

not urban vs. rural• Consideration of

trade-offs• No “one size fits all”

26

CASE STUDIES: SOUTHWEST AREA REGIONAL TRANSIT

• Regional transit district in Southwest Texas• Lead agency for coordinated transportation in

the Middle Rio Grande Valley• Highly rural• Competes with local economy for workers• Underwent MAJOR

agency change

27

28

SWART MEASURES

• Number of new lines of credit for day-to-day operations and maintenance purchases.• Increase number of Veteran and non-Medicaid

clientele ridership• Establish monthly reporting to

banks and TxDOT Public Transportation Division• Obtain comptroller’s Gold

Leadership Circle

29

LESSONS LEARNED: SWART

• Support from State and District TxDOT offices• Sell, sell, sell• Share your successes and measures• Consistent reporting • Don’t be afraid of numbers that are not

increasing• It’s never as bad as you think…

30

LESSONS LEARNED FROM CASE STUDIES

• No two programs are alike• Need for creative sustainable funding

streams• More focus on the impacts of programs• Use goals & outcomes to develop measures• Need emphasis on qualitative

measurements

31

THIS PRESENTATION & SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS ARE BASED ON:

• TxDOT Research RMC 0-6633: Performance Measures for Public Transit Mobility Management

• Best practices in Mobility Management, sponsored by the National Center for Mobility Management

• Research findings funded by TxDOT’s Cooperative Research Program and the Federal Transit Authority

Full research reports may be accessed at the following link, under projects & publications: http://tti.tamu.edu/group/transit-mobility/

32

Meredith Highsmith, AICPAssociate Research Scientist

Transit Mobility ProgramTexas A&M Transportation Institute

M-highsmith@tamu.edu512.407.1110 @hottransitmomma