Is Performance Measurement Improving Planning Practice? The Case of Location Affordability in Long-Range Transportation Plans
Abstract
Transportation planning in the United States is moving to widespread use of performance-based planning methods as new federal requirements for metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) are implemented. In addition to requirements for measures of safety, infrastructure condition, and travel reliability, many MPOs are adopting additional performance measures including those of complex socioeconomic issues. This study explores current planning practice in using a performance-based approach to tackle such an issue: location affordability, defined as an affordable level of combined cost burdens for housing and transportation. A review of long-range transportation plans at 21 large MPOs provides information on how location affordability is represented in regional transportation plans, how it is defined and measured, and how it is integrated into the planning process. The results are interpreted using a theoretical framework designed to help match planning methods to the conditions of a planning situation. The framework, Christensen’s matrix of planning problems, provides insights into the use of performance measures for location affordability and how performance measurement programs can be designed to support more effective planning for this and similarly challenging issues.
Get full access to this article
View all access and purchase options for this article.
References
1. Center for Neighborhood Technology. Housing + Transportation Index. Center for Neighborhood Technology. http://htaindex.cnt.org. Accessed July 18, 2016.
2. Federal Highway Administration. FHWA Publishes Performance Management Final Rules and NPRMs Required by MAP-21. Federal Highway Administration. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule.cfm. Accessed December 2, 2016.
3. Transportation for America. Transportation Performance Measures, 2017 Survey. Washington D.C., 2017.
4. Christensen K. S. Coping with Uncertainty in Planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 51, 1985, pp. 63–73.
5. Poister T. H., Aristigueta M. P., Hall J. L. Managing and Measuring Performance in Public and Nonprofit Organizations. An Integrated Approach. Wiley, San Francisco, CA, 2015.
6. Gudmundsson H., Hall R. P., Marsden G., Zietsman J. Sustainable Transportation. Indicators, Frameworks, and Performance Measurement. Samfundslitteratur, Frederiksberg, Denmark, 2015.
7. Triantafillou P. The Political Implications of Performance Management and Evidence-Based Policymaking. The American Review of Public Administration, Vol. 20, No. 10, 2013, pp. 1–15.
8. Grant M., D’Ignazio J., Bond A., McKeeman A. Performance Based Planning and Programming Guidebook. Report No. FHWA-HEP-13-041. Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2013, p. 133.
9. United States General Accounting Office. GAO-15-217 - SURFACE TRANSPORTATION - DOT is Progressing toward a Performance-Based Approach, but States and Grantees Report Potential Implementation Challenges. United States General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., 2015.
10. Meyer M. Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured–At Least According to Conventional Wisdom. In Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Operations: Conference Proceedings 26, Washington, D.C., National Academies Press, 2001. Available at: http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf.
11. Karner A. Planning for Transportation Equity in Small Regions: Towards Meaningful Performance Assessment. Transport Policy, Vol. 52, 2016, pp. 46–54.
12. Center for Neighborhood Technology. H + T Index Methods. Center for Neighborhood Technology. 2015. https://htaindex.cnt.org/about/HT_Index_Methods_2013.pdf
13. Baer W. C. General Plan Evaluation Criteria: An Approach to Making Better Plans. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 63, No. 3, 1997, pp. 329–344.
14. Center for Transportation and the Environment. Integration of Context Sensitive Solutions in the Transportation Planning Process. Center for Transportation and the Environment, Washington, D.C., 2007.
15. Lyons W., Peckett H., Morse L., Khurana M., Nash L. Metropolitan Area Transportation Planning for Healthy Communities. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2012.
16. Proffitt D., Bartholomew K., Ewing R., Miller H. Accessibility Planning in American Metropolitan Areas: Are We There Yet? Urban Studies, 2017.
17. Mansfield T., Hartell A. Institutionalizing Sustainability at the Level of State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, 2012. 2271: 9–18.
18. Jones D. K., Evenson K. R., Rodriguez D. A., Aytur S. A. Addressing Pedestrian Safety: A Content Analysis of Pedestrian Master Plans in North Carolina. Traffic Injury Prevention, Vol. 11, No. 2, 2010, pp. 57–65.
19. Boisjoly G., El-Geneidy A. M. How to Get There? A Critical Assessment of Accessibility Objectives and Indicators in Metropolitan Transportation Plans. Transport Policy, Vol. 55, 2017, pp. 38–50.
20. Bills T. S., Walker J. L. Looking Beyond the Mean for Equity Analysis: Examining Distributional Impacts of Transportation Improvements. Transport Policy, Vol. 54, No. 2016, 2017, pp. 61–69.
21. U.S. Department of Transportation. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Database. U.S. Department of Transportation. https://www.planning.dot.gov/mpo.asp. Accessed July 21, 2016.
22. Ewing R., Hamidi S. How Affordable is HUD Housing? Housing Policy Debate, Vol. 26, No. 3, 2016, pp. 437–455.
23. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. Sustainable Communities Regional Planning Grants. US Department of Housing and Urban Development. https://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/economic_development/sustainable_communities_regional_planning_grants. Accessed March 14, 2017.
24. Hand, R. Region Forward Coalition Baseline Progress Report. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C., undated.
25. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. Go To 2040 Update Appendix. Indicator Methodology. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL, 2015.
26. East-West Gateway Council of Governments. State of the System 2045. Technical Supplement to the Long-Range Transportation Plan for the St. Louis Region. East-West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis, MO, 2015.
27. East-West Gateway Council of Governments. Connected 2045. East-West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis, MO, 2015.
28. Southern California Association of Governments. Plan Performance. Performance Measures. Southern California Association of Governments, Los Angeles, CA, 2016.
29. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area. Final Performance Assessment Report. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, CA, 2013.
30. Dean B. Major Transportation Capital Project Evaluation Measures. (Memorandum). Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL, 2009. http://www.cmap.illinois.gov/documents/10180/31056/BoardMemo–CapitalProjects06-10-09.pdf/2cc054fa-23a5-4420-ae6a-00a5a94658eb. Accessed March 4, 2017.
31. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning. DRAFT Preferred Regional Scenario. An Interim Product of the Go To 2040 Plan. Chicago Metropolitan Agency for Planning, Chicago, IL, 2009.
32. Austin A. 2016 CLRP Amendment. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C., 2016.
33. Swanson J., Ritacco S. Briefing on the Performance Analysis of the Draft 2016 CLRP Amendment. Metropolitan Washington Council of Governments, Washington, D.C., 2016. https://www.mwcog.org/assets/1/28/10072016_-_Item_4_-_2016_CLRP_Performance_Analysis.pdf. Accessed March 7, 2017
34. East-West Gateway Council of Governments. Transportation Improvement Program Fiscal Years 2017 Through 2020. East-West Gateway Council of Governments, St. Louis, MO, 2016.
35. Metropolitan Transportation Commission. Plan Bay Area. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, San Francisco, CA, 2013.
36. FHWA Office of Planning Environment & Realty. An Overview of Transportation and Environmental Justice. https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/environmental_justice/overview. Accessed March 4, 2017.
37. Christensen K. S. Cities and Complexity: Making Intergovernmental Decisions. Sage, Thousand Oaks, 1999.
38. Rittel H. W. J., Webber M. M. Dilemmas in a General Theory of Planning. Policy Sciences, Vol. 4, 1973, pp. 155–169.
39. Head B. W., Alford J. Wicked Problems: Implications for Public Policy and Management. Administration & Society, Vol. 47, No. 6, 2015, pp. 711–739.
40. Landau M. On the Concept of a Self-Correcting Organization. Public Administration Review, 1973, Vol. 33, No. 6, pp. 533–542.
Cite article
Cite article
Cite article
OR
Download to reference manager
If you have citation software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice
Information, rights and permissions
Information
Published In
Article first published online: August 16, 2018
Issue published: December 2018
Authors
Metrics and citations
Metrics
Journals metrics
This article was published in Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board.
VIEW ALL JOURNAL METRICSArticle usage*
Total views and downloads: 135
*Article usage tracking started in December 2016
Altmetric
See the impact this article is making through the number of times it’s been read, and the Altmetric Score.
Learn more about the Altmetric Scores
Articles citing this one
Receive email alerts when this article is cited
Web of Science: 0
Crossref: 1
- Examining the nonlinear effects of neighborhood housing + transportati...
Figures and tables
Figures & Media
Tables
View Options
Get access
Access options
If you have access to journal content via a personal subscription, university, library, employer or society, select from the options below:
loading institutional access options
Alternatively, view purchase options below:
Purchase 24 hour online access to view and download content.
Access journal content via a DeepDyve subscription or find out more about this option.
