Act 44 Performance Standards Regulation Development April 24, 2009 Bob Kaiser - Michael Baker Jr.,...
-
Upload
julie-weaver -
Category
Documents
-
view
215 -
download
0
Transcript of Act 44 Performance Standards Regulation Development April 24, 2009 Bob Kaiser - Michael Baker Jr.,...
Act 44 Performance Standards Act 44 Performance Standards Regulation DevelopmentRegulation Development
April 24, 2009April 24, 2009 Bob Kaiser - Michael Baker Jr., Inc.
Walt Cherwony - Gannett Fleming, Inc.
Anna Lynn Smith, Parsons Brinckerhoff
In association with:
Draft - Discussion Purposes Only
Draft – Discussion Only2
Discussion Outline
1. Overview of Development Process
2. Progress to Datea. Researchb. Data and Definitionsc. Peer Selection Process d. Performance Measures Selectione. Overall Processf. Continuous Improvementg. Estimated Timeline of Events
(preliminary)
3. Next Steps4. Questions / Discussion
Draft – Discussion Only3
Overview
Research & Development Tasks 1. Background2. Legal Req., Research Materials,
Gap I.D. 3. Peer Selection Process4. Performance Measure
Development Process5. Data and Definitions6. Performance Review Process 7. Potential Impacts8. Consultation
Draft – Discussion Only4
Overview (continued)
Schedule
Jan March May July
1 Background
PA Bulletin
2 Research
5 Data, Definitions
3 Peer Selection
4 Performance Measures
6 Devel. Overall Process
7 Impacts
8 Consultation
Draft – Discussion Only5
Overview (continued)
3-18-09
Draft OverviewPennsylvania Public Transportation Agency Performance Review Process
Review Cycle Initiated
System Notification and
Kick-Off
Field Work/Data Acquisition &
Analysis
Draft Performance
Report
Review Report with Transit
Agency/Finalize
Follow-up, Corrective Action, and Monitoring
DOT Planning and Preparation.
DOT-Award Recipient Consultation.
Draft Report of Findings v. Prior-Established Performance
Standards. Identify Poor & Exemplary Performance.
DOT-Award Recipient Consultation. Review Results, Discuss Action Plan, Identify Action Plan Elements. DOT-
Grant Recipient Meeting.
Document Exemplary Performance. Track
Corrective Action Plan Implementation. Report
Results.
Peer selection, Data Acquisition & Analysis, Draft
Initial Performance Standards
Draft – Discussion Only6
# PPTA Recommendation for Topics Studied To-DateCurrently Planned
Under Study
1 Focus on Continuous Improvement √
2 Consultation w/ Subject Agency √
3 Peers Individual to Subject Agency / Mode √
4 Number of Peers: 8-12, Possible Exceptions √
5 Peer Selection Characteristics / Criteria √
6 Peers Include PA Systems As Possible
7 Act 44 Perf. Standards - Four (4) √
8 Additional Meas. Per Subj. Agency Needs / Priorities √
9 Final Additional Measures
10 NTD Data (as available) √
11 dotGrant Data (NTD not avail.) √
12 Other Data Sources √
13 Training for Grantees √
14 5 Year Interval √
15 Regular Consultations during Review √
16 Special Considerations / Circumstances Beyond Control √
17 Document Exceptional Performance & Best Practices √
18 Straightforward Performance Standard Calculation √
19 2 Yr. Waiver to Gain Compliance w/ Standard √
20 Compliance Metric √
21 Additional Waiver Time to Gain Compliance w/ Standard √
22 Funding Sanctions Triggers √
PPTA Committee Recommendations
Draft – Discussion Only7
Overview (continued)
Systems Encompassed Urban and Rural Public Transit
Systems
Modes Encompassed Fixed Route Public
Transportation Modes Evaluation by Mode
Not being considered at this time: ADA paratransit Shared ride Other, non-public transit
Draft – Discussion Only8
Overview (continued)
Trial Applications Peer Selection Process Performance Review Metrics
Application Peer and Trend Analyses
Potential Impacts Process, Schedule, Funding
Systems/Modes SEPTA (MB, HR, CR, LR) PAAC (MB, LR) AMTRAN (MB) Endless Mountains (MB)
Draft – Discussion Only9
Progress To-Date
Materials Identification and Review Legislation: Act 44, Act 3 PPTA Performance Review
Committee Notes Prior Audits & Processes (Act 3,
TFRC) STAC White Paper Other States’ Activities Databases (NTD, dotGrant,
Census) TCRP Synthesis # 56
Draft – Discussion Only10
Progress To-Date (continued)
Data and Definitions NTD and dotGrant Data,
Definitions Applied By Mode Urban: NTD Rural: dotGrant Definitions: Act 44 as data permits
Act 44 “Special Considerations” “Circumstances Beyond Award Recipient’s
Control”
Events beyond grantee’s control which negatively affect performance, i.e., strikes, infrastructure failures, natural disasters.
Added Consideration of :» New, restructured, revised services» Discontinued services» Man-made disasters» Other (i.e., Special Events)
Draft – Discussion Only11
Progress To-Date (continued)
Perf. Review Major Analytical Components
Peer Review Trend Analysis (intra-agency) Functional Analysis (as warranted) Annual Risk Assessment by DOT
Regular Cycle 3-6 years; average 5 years More frequent – per performance data
Data Timeliness 1-2 year NTD data lag may be filled
with local or dotGrant data, where feasible.
Draft – Discussion Only12
Progress To-Date (continued)
Graduated Approach Basic Review
In compliance per base metrics and no “best practices” to document. Close out.
Step 2 Review In compliance; minor issues or Best
Practice from Basic Review. Possible Group 2, 3 metrics. Resolve via agency-developed “improvement plan” or document Best Practice.
Step 3 Review Potential or demonstrated non-
compliance. Group 2, 3 metrics; Functional review. May result in Action Plan to rectify non-compliance, potential funding implications per Act; or “Improvement Plan.”
Draft – Discussion Only13
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Identification Modal Number of Peers
10-12 Initial Selection 8-10 Final Selection (desired) 5 Minimum
System Types Urban compared to Urban (NTD) Rural compared to Rural (dotGrant)
Small urban if nec. to secure minimum number of peers.
Draft – Discussion Only14
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Review (continued) Identification Process
Process to identify and select peers based on attributes of system under evaluation.
Includes consultation with subject system.
Approaches Researched & Trialed1. Modal Characteristics Primary, Sort by
Descending Criteria2. Service Area Characteristics Primary,
Sort by Descending Criteria3. Modal Characteristics Match
Draft – Discussion Only15
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Review (continued) Key Criteria from NTD / dotGrant
Revenue Vehicle Hours * Revenue Vehicle Miles * Peak Vehicles Service Area Population
Other Considerations Modal:
– Fixed Guideway: # Stations, Route Miles– Bus: System Design Type, Service Type
Professional Expertise Major Generators Special Circumstances /
Considerations Climate * Car miles/hours for
FG
Draft – Discussion Only16
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Initial Identification Method Results#1 Modal Characteristics Primary,
Sort by Descending Criteria#2 Service Area Characteristics
Primary, Sort by Descending Criteria
Both Inadequate: Insufficient # peers for many
modes / systems Peers disparate from Act 3, TFRC
studies “Spread” inadequate for smaller
systems Over-reliance on “professional
judgment” – Add or delete prospective peers
Draft – Discussion Only17
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Identification Results Modal Characteristics Match
Selected Developed when #1 and #2 proved
inadequate.
Adequate # peers for all modes Good match-up to Act 3, TFRC peers. Good “spread” for smaller systems
– Many prospective peers
Minimizes need for “professional judgment” to arrive at initial set of candidates
Final peers to be selected via DOT/Agency consultation
Draft – Discussion Only18
Progress To-Date (continued)
Peer Selection Alternative Method #3 - Modal Characteristics Match Mode: Motor Bus
Evaluation Step >> 1 2 3 4 5
Subj System Anywhere PA - - - - -Metro -- USA 8.2% 2.6% 6.8% 60.6% 19.6%MTA -- USA 236.4% 157.7% 230.7% 141.5% 191.6%
Additional Considerations: Service Complexity (FG) Service Type (MB)ClimateSpecial Considerations
STEP 5 - Match Across Steps 1- 4
Prospective Peers
City StateRevenue Vehicle Hours
Revenue Vehicle Miles
Peak Vehicles
Service Area
Population
Avg. Δ From Subj
System
Draft – Discussion Only
SUMMARY:
INITIAL PEER IDENTIFICATION BY
METHOD
Peers initially identified by selection alternative. Final peers to be determined after consultation with transit agency.
19
Draft – Discussion Only20
SEPTA MBInitially Identified
Peers
Alternative 1
Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2
Service Area Characterist
ics Sort
Alternative 3
Transit System
Characteristics Match
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Miami-Dade Transit King County Department of Transportation – Metro Transit Division (Seattle)
Suburban Mobility Authority for Regional Transportation
Metropolitan Transit Authority of Harris County (TX)
Mass. Bay Transp. Authority
Port Authority of Allegheny Co.
Metro Transit (Minneapolis)
Maryland Transit Administration
Denver Regional Transp. District
Dallas Area Rapid Transit Orange Authority TA Chicago Transit Authority
Draft – Discussion Only21
SEPTA CR Initially Identified
Peers
Alternative 1Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2Service Area
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 3Transit System
Characteristics Match
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
Northeast Illinois Regional Commuter Railroad Corporation
Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company, dba: MTA Metro-North Railroad
New Jersey Transit Corporation
Maryland Transit Administration
Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board
Southern California Regional Rail Authority
MTA Long Island Railroad
Draft – Discussion Only22
SEPTA HR Initially Identified
Peers
Alternative 1Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2Service Area Characteristi
cs Sort
Alternative 3Transit System
Characteristics Match
Metropolitan Atlanta Rapid Transit Authority
Port Authority Trans – Hudson Corporation
Chicago Transit Authority
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
Draft – Discussion Only23
SEPTA LR Initially Identified
Peers
Alternative 1
Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2
Service Area Characterist
ics Sort
Alternative 3
Transit System
Characteristics Match
Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority
San Francisco (Muni)
San Diego Trolley, Inc.
Tri-Met (Portland, OR)
LACMTA
Denver Regional Transportation District
Sacramento Regional Transit District
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Greater Cleveland RTA
Santa Clara TA
Port Authority of Allegheny Co.
Draft – Discussion Only24
PAAC MB Initially identified
Peers
Alternative 1
Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2
Service Area
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 3
Transit System
Characteristics Match
King County DOT– Metro Transit Division (Seattle)
Mass. Bay Transp. Authority
Houston Metro
Dallas Area Rapid Transit
Metro Transit -Minneapolis
MARTA – Atlanta , GA
Tri-Met (Portland, OR)
Greater Cleveland RTA
Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District (CA)
Maryland Transit Administration
Draft – Discussion Only25
PAAC LR Initially Identified
Peers
Alternative 1Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2Service Area Characteristi
cs Sort
Alternative 3Transit System
Characteristics Match
Denver Regional Transp. District
Sacramento Regional Transit Dist.
Santa Clara Valley TA
Bi-State Development Agency (St Louis, MO)
Metro Transit - Minneapolis
Maryland Transit Administration
Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority – Buffalo, NY
The Greater Cleveland RTA
Utah Transit Authority (UTA)
Draft – Discussion Only26
AMTRAN MB Initially Identified Peers
Alternative 1Transit System Characteristics
Sort
Alternative 2Service Area
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 3Transit System Characteristics
Match
Harrisonburg, VA
Fargo (ND) Metropolitan Area Transit
City of Bangor (ME)– BAT
Jackson Transit Authority (TN)
Wausau Area Transit System (WI)
Santa Maria Area Transit (CA)
City of Union City Transit Div. CA)
Billings (MT) Metropolitan Transit
Missoula (MT) Urban Transp. Dist.
City of Rome (GA) Transit Department
Lawton Area Transit System (OK)
Eau Claire Transit (WI)
Muncie Indiana Transit System
Oshkosh Transit System (WI)
Cambria County Transit Auth. (PA)
Iowa City Transit
Janesville Transit System (WI)
Sheboygan Transit System (WI)
Williamsport Bureau of Transp. (PA)
Williamsburg Area Transport (VA)
Draft – Discussion Only27
Endless Mtns. TA MB
Initially Identified Peers
Alternative 1
Transit System
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 2
Service Area
Characteristics Sort
Alternative 3
Transit System
Characteristics Match
Altoona Metro Transit
Monroe Co TA
Schuylkill Co. PA
County of Lebanon TA
ATA of No. Central PA
Pottstown
Fayette County
Indiana County TA
Hazelton Public Transit
Draft – Discussion Only
Information Sources
Act 44 Section 1513 Act 3 STAC Study PPTA / PennDOT Cmte. Other States’ Practices TFRC Transit System Audits TRB / TCRP
29
Draft – Discussion Only
Cycle
Regular 3 – 6 yr intervals (5 year avg.)
As Needed If warranted based on data
Annual Risk Assessment by PennDOT Annual dotGrant data Possibly supplement with NTD
submittal Performed by PennDOT from
agency submittals 30
Draft – Discussion Only
Measures (continued)
3 Groups of Measures Group 1 – Act 44 Metrics
Performance Standard associated w/ these
Group 2 – Best Practices Metrics No performance standard associated
w/ these Supplement and Explain Group 1
Results Others as appropriate to situation Calculated by PennDOT during
performance review Group 3 – Customer Service
Metrics PennDOT encourages regular use by
agency
31
Draft – Discussion Only
Measures
Group 1 – Act 44 Measures Performance Standards to be Implemented
32
Measure Source Applicability by Mode
Bus LR HR CR
Operating costs per revenue vehicle hour Act 44 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Operating costs per passenger Act 44 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Operating revenue per revenue vehicle hour Act 44 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Passengers per revenue vehicle hour Act 44 ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Draft – Discussion Only
Measures (continued)
Group 2 – Supporting Meas. – No Perf. Std.
33
Measure Source Applicability by Mode
Bus LR HR CR
Operating expense per revenue vehicle mile National Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Revenue vehicle hours per employee hour National Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Revenue vehicle miles per total vehicle mile (percent “live” miles)
National Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Total vehicle hours per peak vehicle PPTA, Act 3 Reviews, National
Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Farebox recovery ratio (operating revenue/operating expenses)
TFRC ,STAC White Paper, Act 3
Reviews
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
General and administrative costs per total costs
National Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Total vehicle hours to total fleet vehicles National Best Practice
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Subsidy per PassengerPPTA
♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Draft – Discussion Only34
MeasuresHistorical
perspective/ Source
Applicability by Mode
Bus LR HR CROn-time arrival and departure PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Frequency of service Transit ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Span of service National Best Practice ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Vehicle cleanliness PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Fares PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Driver courtesy PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Safety PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Overall rider satisfaction PA Act 3 Guidance ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Easy Transfers River Valley Transit ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Bus Stop Locations River Valley Transit ♦
Adequacy of routes (i.e., coverage) River Valley Transit ♦
Printed information River Valley Transit ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Telephone information National Best Practice ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Web page National Best Practice ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
System map National Best Practice ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Number of complaints received or formally “closed-out” per month
National Best Practice ♦ ♦ ♦ ♦
Group 3 – Customer Service & Satisfaction Meas.
Draft – Discussion Only
“Regular” Cycle
Years 1, 6
“As needed” Cycle
• Not more than every three years
• Not less than every six years
• As DOT may determine appropriate
Types of Performance Review Cycles
Years 2, 3, 4, 5
Group 1
Act 44 measures•Operating costs per revenue vehicle hour
•Operating costs per passenger
•Operating revenue per revenue vehicle hour
•Passengers per revenue vehicle hour
Additional metrics for efficiency and effectiveness
• Operating expense per revenue vehicle mile
• Revenue vehicle hours per employee hour
•Revenue vehicle miles per total vehicle mile (percent “live” miles)
•Total vehicle hours per peak vehicle
•Farebox recovery ratio (operating revenue/operating expenses)
•General and administrative costs per total costs
•Total vehicle hours to total fleet vehicles
•Subsidy per passenger (operating cost minus operating revenue divided by passengers)
Potential other metrics
•As Appropriate
Group 2
Customer satisfaction metrics
•On-time arrival and departure
•Frequency of service
•Span of service
•Vehicle cleanliness
•Fares
•Driver courtesy
•Safety
•Overall rider satisfaction
•Easy Transfers
•Bus Stop Locations
•Adequacy of routes (i.e., coverage)
•Printed and Telephone information
•Web page
•System map
•Number of complaints received per month
Group 3
35
Draft – Discussion Only36
PennDOT BPT Reporting Responsibilities and Schedules (five-year)
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
Annual financial audit Annual business plan reporting/monitoringPA public transportation annual performance reportAnnual risk assessments (proposed)Act 44 performance reviews (proposed regular cycle - review each year reporting on Act 44 Group 1 requirements only)Act 44 performance reviews (proposed regular cycle - review Group 1 and Group 2 measures every five years)
Transit Agency Reporting Responsibilities and Schedules (five-year)
J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J
FTA triennial review (conducted on recipients of 5307 funds; scheduled as convenient during year)Annual NTD data collection and reporting (typically based on FY end)Annual financial audit Operating and capital budgetsPA public transportation annual performance reportingOperational reviews (internal reporting, schedule determined by transit agency)Act 44 performance reviews (proposed regular cycle - review each year reporting on Group 1 requirements only)Act 44 performance reviews (proposed regular cycle - review Group 1 and Group 2 measures every five years)Customer satisfaction surveying (proposed biennial [urban] or triennial [rural] requirement, schedule determined by transit agency)External auditor general audits
Draft – Discussion Only
Establishing Performance Standard
Peer Analysis to Establish Standard Metric
Peer Average, Median, Mode, Other? Accounting for current performance
(good, otherwise) Allow for Future Events, Progress
Project at current review, or at next review?
– Next review in 3-6 years
Trend Analysis Direction: Improving, Declining,
Flat 5 years in analysis; Most recent 2
years
38
Draft – Discussion Only
Passengers / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Revenue Vehicle HourMode: MOTOR BUS
Operating Revenue / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Passenger
Sample Results: Peer Review Analysis
39
Draft – Discussion Only
Mode: MOTOR BUS Passengers / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Revenue Vehicle Hour
Operating Revenue / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Passenger
Sample Results: Trend Analysis
40
Draft – Discussion Only
Establishing Performance Standard (cont.)
Measuring Achievement of the Standard Approaches Under Study
Standard Deviation Approach X% of Peer Mean X% of Peer Median Quartile or Quintile Other Suggestions?
Incorporate Trend Results ? Step(s)
One > One
41
Draft – Discussion Only
Passengers / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Revenue Vehicle HourMOTOR BUS PEER ANAYLSIS
Operating Revenue / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Passenger
Peer Average Peer Median 1 Std Dev. 5th Quintile Direction to Pass
Sample Peer Mean, Median, Standard Deviation, Quintile
Illustrative Only
42
Draft – Discussion Only
Passengers per Revenue Vehicle Hour
Peer Average
Peer Median 1 Std Dev.
5th Quintile Direction to Pass
Illustrative Only
43
Draft – Discussion Only
DRAFT Performance Review Outcomes
1 = Standard
MetTrend
Improving
3 = Standard Not MetTrend
Improving
2 = Standard
MetTrend
Declining
4 = Standard Not MetTrend
Declining
Standard Not Met
Performance Deteriorating
Standard Achieved or Exceeded
Performance Improving
Continuous improvement and potential
transferability to other agencies.
Action Plan required
by Act 44.
Standard Not Met
Standard Achieved or Exceeded
Action Plan required by Act 44.
May warrant further research
and possible Improvement
Plan.
04-20-09 44
Draft – Discussion Only
Mode: MOTOR BUS Passengers / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Revenue Vehicle Hour
Operating Revenue / Revenue Vehicle Hour Operating Cost / Passenger
Sample Results: Trend Analysis
+.07+.12
+.57 +4.54
+.57 5 year trend / Calculated slope
Illustrative Only
45
Draft – Discussion Only46
Progress To-Date (continued)
“Continuous Improvement” Approach to Establish Performance Standards Peer Rev. + Trend Analysis +
Functional Rev. Establish Minimum Perf. Std. by
Mode Possible Performance Targets by
Mode PennDOT – Agency Discussions
Technical Assistance & Measure Progress
Achieve Standard Achieve Goal
StandardGoal
Current Performance
Draft – Discussion Only47
Overview (continued)
Conceptual ProcessPennsylvania Transit Performance Review
Draft 3/20/09
Report to Governor & General Assembly
Off Cycle Review
On Cycle ReviewResultsPennDOT
Annual ReviewRisk Assessment
PennDOT Technical Assistance
Improvement PlanPennDOT Technical Assistance
Waiver
Compliance Measurement Action Plan
FinancialPenalty
Fail
Pass
Pass
Fail
Approved
Not Approved
Draft – Discussion Only48
DRAFT Potential Act 44 System Performance Review Process
System Review Phase
As Needed Review Cycle
Regular Review Cycle (5 yr intervals)
Results
Action Plan
Improvement PlanSystem Monitoring
System Improvement and Monitoring Phase
Risk Assessment/ System Monitoring
Full Compliance
Data Collection and Analysis Phase
Customer Satisfaction Survey
4/20/2009
Group 1Performance Measures evaluated:
ACT 44 measures only
Prepare “Action Plan” with corrective
steps to improve performance
Action Plan Quarterly Progress Reports
Action Plan Approval
Department prepares annual
public transportation
performance report to Governor and
General Assembly
Department conducts trend line analysis
Data collection
Special exceptions
Examine reasons Possible “Best
Practice”
Customer satisfaction surveys (Group 3)
Regular System Review
Peer selection
Performance standards and goals developed
Reevaluated periodically
Annual Risk Assessment
SystemMonitoring
Compliance Measurement
Improvement Plan
Waiver Request
Financial Penalty
Customer satisfaction surveys (Group 3)
Improvement Plan
Customer surveys
PennDOT Requirement
PennDOT Consultation
Transit Agency Task
Joint Participation
ACT 44 Non Compliance
ApprovedPass
Fail
Yes
No
Group 2Performance Measures evaluated
Non-Regular System Review
Penn
DO
T C
onsu
ltatio
n an
d Te
ch A
ssis
tanc
e
Penn
DO
T C
onsu
ltatio
n an
d Te
ch A
ssis
tanc
eStandard Not Met and Trend Declining
Standard Not Met but Trend Improving
Standard Met and Trend Improving
Standard Met but Trend Declining
Group 2Performance Measures + Others as necessary evaluated
Publish, Transfer “Best Practice”
Functional Review
Draft – Discussion Only49
Estimated Timeline of Major Events - ASample - Preliminary Draft
5 Yr. Performance Review CycleScenario: Compliance in 1st Review, Non-compliance in 2nd Review
Draft Timeline of Events to Potential YearFinancial Reductions under Act 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
First Performance ReviewEstablish Standards & Measure COMPLYDevelop & Implement Action Plan >>>>PennDOT Technical Assistance >>>>
2nd Perf Rev: Review & Update Stds. Finding of Non-Performance FAILDevelop & Implement Action Plan >>>>Waiver PeriodPennDOT Technical Assistance >>>>Monitor ProgressFinal Progress AssessmentFinancial Penalty Applied
PennDOT Reviews / Audits X X X X X X X X X XTriennial ReviewsTransit Agency Activities * X X X X X X X X X X
* Includes quarterly dotGrant report, annual NTD report & certification (urban areas), annual audit, system operational review, etc. 5 year cycle is preliminary
Draft – Discussion Only50
Estimated Timeline of Major Events – BSample - Preliminary Draft
5 Yr. Performance Review CycleScenario: Fail 1st Review, Compliance in 2nd Review
Draft Timeline of Events to Potential YearFinancial Reductions under Act 44 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
First Performance ReviewEstablish Standards & MeasureFinding of Non-Performance FAILDevelop & Implement Action Plan >>>>Waiver PeriodPennDOT Technical Assistance >>>>Monitor ProgressFinal Progress AssessmentFinancial Penalty Applied
2nd Perf Rev: Review & Update Stds. COMPLYDevelop & Implement Action Plan >>>>PennDOT Technical Assistance >>>>
PennDOT Reviews / Audits X X X X X X X X X XTriennial ReviewsTransit Agency Activities * X X X X X X X X X X
* Includes quarterly dotGrant report, annual NTD report & certification (urban areas), annual audit, system operational review, etc. 5 year cycle is preliminary
Draft – Discussion Only51
Next Steps
Finalize Perf. Review Process Method to Develop Performance
Standards Peer Analyses Trend Analyses Functional Reviews
Overall Process Map and Description
Impacts of Inadequate Performance Process* Process Impacts
* Test vs. 4 systems / 8 modes