An Agency Analysis of the Neighborhood Connectivity Division Located in the City of Austins Department of Public Works

John P. Maxwell December 7, 2011 P A 384C Fall 2011

Executive Summary In 2008 the City of Austin completed a restructuring within the Department of Public Works that combined four orphan programs into one new division. The Bicycle Program, Pedestrian Program , Child Safety Program and Urban Trails Program were all integrated together to create the Neighborhood Connectivity Division. In 2010, a new program called the Neighborhood Partnering Program was added as a fifth program within the Neighborhood Connectivity Division to enhance the community aspect of the new division. The Department of Public Works is an infrastructure building department by its very existence so the new divisions focus on capital projects related to transportation should not be surprising. In 2009, the City of Austin issued updates to the Bicycle Master Plan and the Sidewalk Master Plan to guide the focus of the projects for the future. These Master Plans are the publics guide of what to expect for the infrastructure plans and how the city was going to accomplish these goals. With this integration and concentration of the non-automotive transportation infrastructure projects, the Bicycle Program, Pedestrian Program, Urban Trails Program and Neighborhood Partnering Program were organized into two work groups: Project Engineering & Construction (PE&C) and Project Planning (ProjPl). The fifth program, the Child Safety Program was left out of these CSP is organized into its own work group. The work group organization has caused some issues as the four infrastructure programs are focused on project management while the Child Safety Program is focused on safety initiatives for children (specifically the bicycle and pedestrian safety and managing crossing guards to make sure that the children get to and from school safely) The skills that are required in the first set of work groups is much different than the skills needed in the Child Safety Work Group. The managing skills and expertise are also much different for a project/engineering team than for a formulaic safety organization. Along with the lack of fit between the Child Safety Program and the others, there is another issue that is related to the disconnection of the current performance measure to the Master Plans. The Bicycle and Sidewalk Master Plans are broad and deep research reports that reflect the will of the people. This disconnection has caused the infrastructure programs to focus solely on outputs and finishing projects rather than on the outcomes prescribed by the Master Plans. There are two recommendations that should be adopted by the Neighborhood Connectivity Division to correct its two major issues. The first is to migrate the Child Safety Program to another department. This would alleviate the issues surrounding the disparate nature of the work done by the infrastructure and Child Safety Program work groups. The Child Safety should move its bicycle safety program to the Parks and Recreation Department as they already have a Youth Bicycle Racing Team. The crossing guard aspect of the Child Safety Program should be folded into the Austin Independent School Districts Police Department. The second recommendation is the revise the performance measures currently used by the infrastructure departments. Master Plans should be created for the Urban Trails Program and the Neighborhood Partnering Program. Then , a balanced scorecard type of performance measures should be adopted with the Master Plans as the focus and the scorecard providing the framework for the short-term goals to be adopted by these infrastructure building programs.

Background The City of Austin prides itself on being a leading example of a big city that is friendly to bicycles and other forms of green friendly transportation. One of the most famous residents of the Austin area is Lance Armstrong. It can be said that Austin strives to have bicycling as a foundation for its transportation network. With the demographics of people who live in Austin, the city has found an increasingly loud voice of bicyclists demanding safe streets and access to bike lanes. With its improvement as a bicycle haven and effort by the city, in 2007, Austin was designated as a Silver Level Bicycle Friendly Community by the League of American Bicyclists.1 The department in charge of administering and overseeing the bicycle program is called in fact, the Bicycle Program. It is part of a larger organization called the Neighborhood Connectivity Division (NCD). In 2008 the City of Austin formed the division within the Department of Public Works (DPOW). Within different parts of the city government there were four organizations that were considered orphan within the citys structure. These organizations were thought to have a common-type of purpose so they were brought together to create a new division that could share common types of employees and mutual skills to the benefit of Austins taxpayers.

The four organizations that were brought together are: the Bicycle Program (BP), Pedestrian Program (PP), Child Safety Program (CSP) and Urban Trails Program (UTP)2. The BP as described previously is responsible for the maintenance and building of the bike lanes, managing the construction of bike racks and managing the laws and local bicycle interest groups. The future plans of the BP are organized into a Master Plan. The Bicycle Master Plan was adopted in 1996 and was last updated in 20091. The PP is the organization that manages the planning and construction of sidewalks in the city. The PP must make sure that the pedestrian facilities are all compliant with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA). The program takes care of those areas where it is necessary for the sidewalks and ramps to be accessible for those with disabilities such as the Capital Metro bus stops and ease of entry to public facilities. The PP also has a Master Plan that

1 2

Austin2009BicycleMasterPlan Krause,S.

is called the Sidewalk Master Plan3 and illustrates the plans for sidewalks in the City. The Master Plan was adopted in 2000 and last updated in 2008. The CSP is in charge of providing pedestrian and bicycle safety training to Austins school aged children. In addition to the safety training, the CSP is responsible for managing school crosswalks at busy intersections. The UTP is accountable for the trails and greenways that provide not only utilitarian need but also a recreational need. The CSP and UTP do not have a Master Plan.

These organizations were brought together under the duty of streamlining organizations that were related to connecting the disparate neighborhoods of Austin through different types of transportation methods and connections amongst the citys various areas. These programs were brought together under the DPOW rather than the Austin Department of Transportation (ADOT) because the DPOW is the natural fit for building things where the ADOT is more focused on long-term planning of the transportation network in the city. As the wordy vision statement of the DPOW illustrates its focus on infrastructure:

to provide an integrated approach to development, design, construction, and maintenance of the Citys infrastructure systems that enhance Austins position as an environmentally responsible City that offers an exceptional and sustainable quality of life to its residents.

In 2010, there was a new program created that is called Neighborhood Partnering Program (NPP) which was created to facilitate the building of more infrastructure projects. This program was designed by Councilman Bill Spelman to allow for neighborhood groups to make requests for building different types of projects. The NPPs coordinator is Sara Krause who was the main source for all of the information for this agency analysis. The chief idea of the NPP is to forgo the queue of projects that neighbors complain to the city about and put forward plans to complete minor capital building projects that the neighbors all agree on. The city has a limited number of dollars
3

HastingsAustinSidewalkMasterPlan

and must spread this money around in an efficient manner to ensure that capital projects are being constructed correctly. This new program has been given added importance as it has a rapid response function. The NPP has been given top billing on the NCDs website. The hallmarks of this original city program are to avoid legal liabilities, ensure project has neighborhood consensus and that the money is spent evenly around the city. In order to achieve these requirements, the city requires that groups applying for funding provide meeting minutes and matching funding or labor to show credible proof that the stakeholders in the area neighborhood have bought in to the projects. In 2010 there was $700,000 allocated to the NPP with 26 projects approved for completion.4 The projects vary from art to parks to construction of neighborhood parks.

These five programs forming the NCD have been brought together to yield a synergy between departments and to provide neighborhoods with a tool to connect the City of Austin. The mission statement of the NCD bears out this goal:

The Mission of the Neighborhood Connectivity Division is to improve opportunities for safe multi-modal transportation and encourage partnerships with communities within the City of Austin.

There was no information provided as to when this mission was created. From the reading of the mission, it seems to have been adopted after the NPP was created.

The NCD is organized into three separate working groups. The three groups are Project Engineering & Construction, Project Planning and Child Safety Program. All three work groups report to the NCD manager Michael Curtis. As the NCD is organized underneath the DPOW, Howard Lazarus, the DPOW director, is ultimately responsible for the management of the NCD. [Figure 1 for the NCD Org. Chart] One interesting fact about the work groups is that the staff of the BP, PP, UTP and NPP are broken up between the Project Engineering & Construction and Project Planning while the CSP has its own work group. The Project Engineering and Project Planning work groups have Program
4

Toohey,M.

Consultants while the CSP has a Program Coordinator which speaks to the organization about the type of work done by each work group.

Public Policy Environment The City of Austin has a council-manager form of city government. The mayor of Austin is Lee Leffingwell. The council has six members that are at-large. The council hires a city manager to carry out the councils wishes. The city manager for Austin is Mark Ott. It is interesting that the organizational chart has Austin residents at the top of the chart. [See City of Austin Org. Chart] The City of Austin is a liberal leaning city and has a history of citizen engagement in its city government. The city manager is above the DPOW Director Howard Lazarus who oversees the outcomes and outputs of activities of the NCD and reports that information up to the council and mayor. The main committee that oversees the NCD is the Comprehensive Planning and Transportation Committee. In addition to the bureaucratic mechanisms like the council and committees, the NCD must also manage with the other departments within the city.

The DPOW manages the right-of-way for the city and tells other departments where they can build capital projects and construct things for the city. NCD must consult with DPOW and see where they can build and compensate landowners if the NCD wants to build on private land. The DPOW will indicate to NCD if it can build its projects and if the sidewalks or urban trails are within the compliance of the right-of-way. The NCD also must also consult with the ADOT to look at if the planning of the transportation network. Some other programs and divisions in the city that the NCD must consult with are the Art Department, Watershed Department, Parks and Recreation, and the Water Utility. NCD will consult with these groups when building projects to see if the urban trails, sidewalks, and bike lanes are going to have an impact on any of these departments. One example of where an issue could rise is when the Water Utility is planning on replacing an area of pipes and the NCD just built new sidewalks. If the NCD could have received additional information from the Water Utility, a new section of sidewalk would not have to be ripped up only to be replaced again.

Some higher profile organizations that the NCD must communicate with are Capital Area Metropolitan Planning Organization (CAMPO), Capital Metro, Texas Department of Transportation (TxDot). NCD consults with these groups mainly on the management of congestion in the Austin Metro Area. The NCD is part of the solution to ease the traffic concerns that haunt the capital area. The NCD is part of the overall Austin transportation network and the managers must think of the overall system when it is making decisions on using resources for the transportation network. There is the potential for conflict if the NCD only looks out for the city and its needs. The network design of transportation problems dictates that the NCD manage itself within the framework of the system. For example, if NCD is constructing or refurbishing a Capital Metro bus stop for a route that is about to be discontinued, many resources have been wasted and should have been focused elsewhere.

The NCD has a large number of customers that the division must serve and deliver public value to. The main customers are people who use bicycle lanes, people who use sidewalks, urban trail enthusiasts, and children using bicycles and who also use the crosswalks to get to and from school. Two main external actors that the NCD must manage its relationship with are the League of Bicycle Voters (LBV) and Boy Scouts for Scout Projects. The relationship with the LBV is very important. The LBV is an outspoken group and NCD, specifically the BP, must be diplomatic with such a strong stakeholder. The LBV will send people into the NCD office to give feedback to the engineers and planners. The NCD must be mindful under this pressure and must be tactful in the treatment of this group. Although the LBV is an active group, this is the only powerful stakeholder group that takes up the attention of the NCD. The PP has interest from people with disabilities, but this is not nearly as active as the LBV. The UTP and CSP do not have much in the way of interest groups. The NPP has the most stakeholders due to the nature of the partnership types of projects that the NPP manages. The nature of these types of projects: bike lanes, sidewalks, trails, parks, etc. which are visible to the general public makes the NCD vulnerable to attacks. If the NCD ignores the wishes of the public with respect to sidewalks and bike lanes, it will make this sensitive to the leaders of the NCD. The NPP is an opportunity to make a good impression with 7

neighborhood groups by making the connections between the city and these neighborhood stakeholders.

NCD delivers value to the taxpayers by way of its infrastructure projects, its safety training for children and providing safe crossing for school children. The organization punches above its weight given that bicycle commuting is very important to the people of Austin. The value is derived from the fact that people value the ability to get around the city in forms of transportation other than by car in a safe and clearly defined manner. The public also values children crossing busy intersections in a safe manner while getting to and from school on a daily basis.

Organizational Management and Culture The organization of NCD is a relatively flat organization with a small chain of command between the director of DPOW and the project employees. The DPOW director Howard Lazarus oversees a department that strives to create a strategy that will deliver a rapid response type of organization. Since the DPOW is an infrastructure building department by definition, managing the citys capital improvement plan, the organization is arranged so that information can flow quickly from the top to bottom and vice versa. The BP, PP, UTP and NPP are organized into two work groups: Project Engineering & Construction (PE&C) and Project Planning (ProjPl). The CSP is organized into its own work group. This design suits the infrastructure nature of the job as it organizes the separate programs into project management groups. DPOW Director Lazarus has a background in civil engineering and has both government and private experience and has designed an organization built for rapid response and project management. Behn5 says: Organizations work not because of the solid vertical lines on the formal org. chart and this is true in the case of NCD. The focus of the organization is to share the resources in the work group to help complete infrastructure projects. The relationship with the horizontal lines is important to NCD. The ProjPl and PE&C utilize project management

Behn,R.D.March2008

tenets from the project triangle6. The triangle monitors the three main constraints of time, cost, and scope.

In addition to the NCD having a good connection to the organization of the DPOW, NCD has a similar culture to the DPOW. In fact, the slogan of DPOW is Austins Groundbreaking Team and a logo that has two shovels. [Figure 2] Culture as defined by Hill and Lynn7 is: the values, beliefs, ethics, and motives of the individual participants. The culture of the NCD is a forward looking department with individuals who are focused on project management and have strong beliefs in the development of the mission of the NCDs programs. The job titles give a glimpse into the belief system of the NCD. The PE&C and ProjPl work groups have job titles like Project Manager, Engineering Associate, Project Coordinator and Planner; smart, driven and adaptable. The drive to make Austin a world-class city by having the infrastructure to make multimodal transportation possible for anyone is the single most important institutionalized value in the two project work groups. The CSP group is a little different in terms of the job titles and the type of work it performs. This program is more focused on the safety of children and has the substance of a public safety department. CSP is less of a project driven program and this has caused a bit of a conflict within the NCDs culture. This conflict will be explored further when examining the current issues facing the division.

Current Issues In this time of fiscal cutbacks and a resistance by the American people to let government spending continue, the pressure on elected officials and potential for problems in local government are magnified. While Austin is not immune from these problems the active role that citizens play in driving Austins future means that capital spending and investment in infrastructure will continue. The NCD faces issues that are common to departments that are integrated into one division when they had previously been separate. The people must learn how to work together and to value NCDs success over the success of the individual program. As the NCD was being formed, the goal was to create a world-

6 7

ChatfieldandJohnson HillandLynn

class project management division that could provide rapid response and complete infrastructure programs that could help facilitate a network of safe and well designed transportation alternatives to automobiles. The combination of these four orphan programs into one division was going to create issues in the way the division worked to serve the city and fulfill its mission. The leadership of Howard Lazarus has helped to lead the completion of the Sidewalk Master Plan and the Bicycle Master Plan. He has also put in place a division that has a very big mandate, but was somewhat lacking in tracking metrics to measure the success of those broad-based community Master Plans.

Current Issue #1: CSP Lacks Strategic Fit The PP, BP, UTP and NPP are all infrastructure building programs. The four programs complete different types of projects, but the skill set necessary to complete projects such as a bicycle lane or a pedestrian bridge is similar. The output may differ in that it is a bike lane and not a sidewalk, but skills such as taking measurements, consulting the right-ofway, writing procurement contracts with suppliers, and managing the time, budget and scope constraints are all shared by infrastructure building programs. The integration of the three infrastructure programs initially and then the NPP, into PE&C and ProjPl work groups was designed to assist in the completion of project work. However, the fit between PE&C, ProjPl and CSP is poor. Some lessons learned from the integration of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) can be applied to the integration of NCD. Although the scale and importance of the DHS integration is much greater than that of the NCD integration some lessons from both can be drawn. From Peters8, two of the five hurdles that DHS encountered can be applied to NCD. The first hurdle is Personnel Pitfalls. Having engineers and project planners within a division that has crossing guards and designs safety coloring books is a difficult challenge for integration. The DHS had to combine personnel from 18 different unions while NCD had to combine infrastructure specialists with project engineers and planners. This presents a tricky challenge to bring all parties into an effective department. The other DHS hurdle that can be applied to the NCD is Multiple Mission This is may be the largest hurdle that NCD currently has to overcome. DHS had to combine fighting terrorism home and abroad with installing
8

Peters,K.

10

and maintaining buoys, carrying out research on hoof-and-mouth disease, and inspecting zoos, circuses and pet shops The disparate nature of the objectives of the DHS obviously puts pressure on the managers to be able to effectively complete these different types of activities. The managers of NCD must be sure that the multiple mission aspect of the division does not divert their attention from managing effectively. While the work groups are set-up for project management and to response in an expedited manner, CSPs type of work does not fit into a project planning and completion work division. Two of Gulicks organization principles9 apply to the organization of CSP as a separate work group within NCD.

The first principle that is violated the principle of the objective: organization must have a common purpose6. Presenting bicycle and pedestrian training to schoolchildren, overseeing crossing guards for major intersections and conducting an anti-idling program does limit work for those in the CSP, but it leaves the rest of the division difficulty in building a first class citizen infrastructure programs. The mission statement of the NCD reminds us that the goal is to make multi-modal transportation safe in the city. The CSP does work to that end, but not in the same way as the other programs. Engineering traffic flows, designing width of bike lanes and surveying slopes of sidewalk ramps for those with disabilities is a tangible way of making multi-modal transportation safe. CSP has intangible methods of achieving the safety end of the divisions mission. Managing infrastructure projects by having the adaptability to respond to constraints and make difficult decisions are not the objectives that CSP has. When asked by Sara Krause whether the CSP has had any issues since being places in NCD the response was simple, No. This program fits perfectly with the mission and goals of the NCD. I would have to respectfully disagree with that statement. The objectives of the four infrastructure programs are much different than the objectives of the CSP. The CSP is a great program to have for Austin, but it does not fit within an infrastructure project planning group.

The other Gulick principle that is violated by having the CSP within the NCD is the principle of coordination6: administrators should always look for ways to realign the
9

Gulick,L.

11

organization to minimize friction. By having the CSP in the NCD, there is a possibility of problems between the two infrastructure work groups and the CSP work group. The potential exists for the CSP to feel marginalized and have a lower impact on its clients by being placed in NCD. The decision makers in the DPOW and NCD are engineering and project people. Trying to manage a program that has more of a focus on safety outcomes could make the manager less likely to focus attention on the CSP and not allocate much in the way of budget resources, thus decreasing its overall effectiveness and reinforcing the negative perception of CSP. The managers may come to hold a Theory X view of the CSP workers and a Theory Y10 view of the knowledge workers in PE&C and ProjPl. In addition, if the management takes a lesser view of the CSP, the other two work groups may be less likely to help their peers and increase the friction between the workers and make overall productivity decline. The integration of separate programs was going to be difficult even if they had high expectations when the plans were announced three years ago.

Current Issue #2: Lack of Broad-Based Performance Measures The integration of the NCD had a goal of creating infrastructure projects under one shop that had mission of helping to create the multi-modal transportation network. This relatively new program has to manage building capital projects and partnering with the public at-large. One of the key communications that this infrastructure has to make is: how does the NCD demonstrate that it is meeting its mission and is reporting feedback to the public. The way to express the inclusive return to the public was through a BP and PP Master Plan as these two programs are the most visible to the public and stakeholders like the LBV.

As the biography page of Lazarus has prominently displayed, the DPOW was instrumental in the completion of the 2009 BMP Update and the 2009 SMP. The NCD website has these two plans in the BP and PPs section and provides the broad-based plan that is supposed to lead the department into the future. One can view these Master Plans

10

McGregor,D.

12

through the lens of Moores strategic triangle11. The enormous amount of attention and fanfare associated with the Master Plans makes it important to see how the city views the public value related to bicycle and pedestrian projects. The citizen input and open forums solicited the feedback that policymakers needed to determine what the public wanted to see in the long-term. The list of acknowledgement that shows the authorizing environment includes many people and has buy-in from nearly every department in the city. The policy environment is very open to the completion of these Master Plans. The operational capacity seems to be there given the organization of the NCD and the work groups that have designed to carry out the goals of the people. All pieces of the strategic triangle would seem to be in place to make sure that the Master Plans are carried out. In most places with performance measures, the problem is that there are no performance measures or there is nothing to compare the government activities to. As Behn12 says: First, you have to choose the what that will be compared. In the case of the NCD and their stewardship of the BPM and the SMP, the what has already been determined. When looking at performance measures for the private industry, Drucker13 says: Whether business executives like it or not profit certainly will be used to measure their performances. Although there is no such profit in the government sphere, the outcomes of the Master Plans will be what the NCD should ultimately be judged by.

As Attachment 1 shows, the BMP has two main goals contained as the focus: Goal One percentage of all trips made by bicycle and Goal Two- number of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes. These two goals are then measured by 36 benchmarks in four categories: the bikeway system, education & promotion, safety & enforcement, and implementation & funding. The benchmarks are the backbone of the BMP and provide Austin the path to become a city with a successful bicycle program. The goal of the SMP2 is to: complete a City-wide ADA-compliant sidewalk network, the goal of the Sidewalk Master Plan is to provide an objective mechanism for the Citys use in prioritizing sidewalk construction projects. In contrast to the BMP the SMP is mainly determined by federal law to make Austin compliant with ADA. However, the measuring system for
11 12

Moore,M. Behn,R.D.September2008 13 Drucker,P.

13

sidewalks that is called Pedestrian Infrastructure Management System (PIMS). The sidewalk projects are then determined through the Absent Sidewalk Priority Matrix (ASPM) which uses 13 weighted elements to guide the PP to where sidewalks and sidewalk ramps should be constructed. [See Attachment 2] The PIMS and ASPM are key features of determining if Austin is meeting its goal of implementing the ADA sidewalks city-wide. ASPM brings in socio-economic and common sense elements to determine if sidewalks are being constructed in priority areas where sidewalks are currently absent.

Figure 3 shows a collection of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Infrastructure performance measures that are delivered from the PE&C and ProjPl work groups to the NCD management team on a quarterly basis. Of the 7 pedestrian quarterly performance measures (QPM), 4 of them are output measures, 2 are demand measures and one is an efficiency measures. The bicycle QPMs follow a similar pattern save for the fact that that program has 2 result measures that deal with percentage increases in priority one bicycle routes and annual spending of bicycle allocated funds. The problem with the performance measures used by the BP is that there is no concrete connection of quarterly performance measures to the overall goals stated by the Master Plans. Without these interim tracking measures, the Master Plan becomes almost meaningless. Like the in Oregon Benchmarks case having too many benchmarks can distract the implementation of the overall goals of a government organization. The BP seems to be preoccupied with the active LBV group as 2 of the 7 BPs QPMs are concerned with responding to customer service requests (CSRs). The PPs QPMs has a closer connection to the SMP. The measures focus on the output construction of the sidewalks and ramps. But, in the QPMs there is not one measure that speaks to the ASPM. Both the BPs and PPs QPMs are focused on short-term goals including yearly objectives and whether that specific quarters activity is meeting the yearly output, demand, result or efficiency goal.

Although it is common in government to complete a plan and then just file it away, the three sides of the strategic triangle have already been accomplished via the BMP and SMP. The QPMs for BP and PP do not connect to the BMP or SMP in a way that would

14

strengthen the mandate of NCD by providing evidence that the Master Plans goals are being met.

Recommendations Being a relatively new division within the City of Austin, the NCD has had a pleasant transition. The division has set itself up well for a nice future and can report to the authorizing environment that its is working toward its mission statement of creating more opportunities for multi-modal transportation. However, after analyzing the NCD there are two key recommendations that the NCD should adopt to correct issues that have affected the optimal performance of the division.

The first recommendation is to migrate the CSP to another department. The infrastructure nature of the NCD makes it difficult for the CSP to fit in there. The project management orientation of the work groups makes managing the CSP difficult for an engineering/project planning type of manager. For an engineering and planning management team to deliver leadership and management to a safety progress group, it will have to devote less attention to its core focus. The mission of the CSP is a noble one, but from am organization standpoint it does not make sense. The CSP should be moved under the Parks and Recreation Department where it can join with the Youth Bicycle Racing Team (YBRT)14. From a synergy standpoint if there are already resources being given toward a YBRT, it stands to make more sense to have the safety training aspect of the CSP to either be a peer program or be folded into the YBRT. Since the YBRT already has kids who are interested in bicycling, they can use the kids on the team to help with their school training classes which will improve the efficacy of the training as kids see people their own age and the message may have more impact. The crossing guard part of the CSP should not be part of the City government in the first place. There should be a strong effort for the Austin Independent School District (AISD) to adopt this program. The city has knowledge of the school system and is a partner governmental organization, but AISD should ultimately be responsible for the safety of the children getting to and

14

CityofAustinParksandRecreation

15

from school. In fact the AISD has their own Police Department15 that is responsible for campus safety. The police are more well-informed of the pedestrian laws and can offer the added benefit of the enforcement of those laws. The crossing guards should be employees of the school system and would be directly accountable to AISD by making sure the kids are protected. The current structure of decentralization between the City and AISD makes it difficult for the school to respond to problems with the crossing guards. This added layer of communication between the City and AISD only makes the likelihood for ineffective crossing guards more likely.

The second recommendation is to modify the BPs and PPs QPMs to make the connection between the BMP and SMP more clear. Performance measures are used for the following two reasons according to Moore11: to meet demands for external accountability and to establish a clear, significant mission and goal for the organization. The current disjointed monitoring method makes it difficult for the public to see if the NCD is accountable to the mandate that was established with the Master Plans adoption. For NCD overall, to enhance the overall credibility of their performance measure would be to utilize a balanced scorecard for the entire department. Kaplans16 balanced scorecard can develop a strategy for a governmental department and see if that strategy meets expectations. As Figure 4 (revised Balanced Scorecard) shows the Vision and Strategy go at the center of the flow-chart and the outputs and outcomes form an active feedback analysis tool where the managers can bring in more than just day-to-day or quarter-to-quarter objectives. The balanced scorecard asks the following questions (revised for a government agency): What must we excel at? Can we continue to improve and create public value? How do we look to taxpayer? How do clients see us?

15 16

AISD Kaplan,R.S.&Norton,D.P.

16

Implementing a measure that focuses not just on short-term quarterly goals and the longterm outcomes of Master Plans but on an overall life-cycle analysis may be beneficial to an infrastructure project team. The balanced scorecard would use the Master Plans to create the clear, significant mission for the NCD and by succeeding in the four balanced scorecard areas, the NCD would integrate the QPMs and Master Plans into a single external and internal accountability matrix. The NCD would need to create a UTP and NPP Master Plan and add to the existing Master Plans. The new measures for the BP to meet the balance scorecards requirement should keep the two main goals in mind: increase the percentage of bicycle trips and decreasing the number of bicycle-motor crashes. Also, measures should include at least one measure from each of the four categories of benchmarks that were established by the BMP. The current BP QPM does not give enough effort to keep the broader public value in mind. The balanced scorecard allows a measure for to track LBVs requests and staff costs per mile but it also shows that the BMP is at the heart of the BPs agenda. For example a new balanced scorecard quarterly performance measure could use the BPs current #6 QPM and add a tracking of how much of the overall Bicycle Network established in the BMP was enhanced by the current quarters construction. With respect to applying the balanced scorecard to the PP and its QPMs, the ASPM should be the focus. Since the goal of SMP is to be ADAcompliant and establishing equitable sidewalk access across geographic and socioeconomic ranges, the QMPs should integrate these goals into the QPMs. The best way to do this is to make an ASPM measure within the current performance measures. For example, PP QPMs #1 and #4 could be modified to include a percentage of how much that the sidewalk construction met the Matrixs weights. The PP may look really good by just constructing hundreds of thousands of feet of ADA-compliant sidewalk, but if none of this sidewalk is in areas of need, is the PP really delivering public value? The focus of both QMPs should be more focused on outcomes that have been expressed in the Master Plans and focus less on a narrow construction outputs. The integration of the QMPs and the Master Plans can strengthen both to management and can also bolster the clout of the NCD by showing that quarterly construction progress is taking place along with a prospective of broad-based planning. The two other programs should focus on creating a Master Plan and then apply the balanced scorecard to create their performance measures. 17

Appendix A. NCD Annual Budget: FY 2011 $2,804,368 FY 2012 $2,582,790 B. NCD number of staff: 15 FTE, 234 Seasonal Employees, 1 Temporary Employee C. NCD Organization Chart: Please See Figure 1 for NCD Organizational Chart D. NCD Mission and Goals Statement: The Mission of the Neighborhood Connectivity Division is to improve opportunities for safe multi-modal transportation and encourage partnerships with communities within the City of Austin. DPOW Vision: The forward-looking vision for the Public Works Department is to provide an integrated approach to development, design, construction, and maintenance of the Citys infrastructure systems that enhance Austins position as an environmentally responsible City that offers an exceptional and sustainable quality of life to its residents. E. NCD Performance Measures: Please See Figure 3 for Performance Measures F. NCD Reporting Framework: the NCD is within the DPOW, which is ultimately overseen by Mark Ott the Austin City Manager, the City Council and Mayor oversee Mr. Ott and the Council and Mayor are responsible to the People of the City of Austin

G. NCD Project Completion Measures* a. BP Total Number of Miles of Bike Lanes in the City of Austin1: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi. vii. 2005 105 2006 117 2007 121 2008 131 2009 137 2010 161 2011 168

1 Sourceforthisinformation:EmailcorrespondencewithBarrera,Nadia;Evans,Clinton;Krause,Sara; Moore,ChrisfromtheNeighborhoodConnectivityDivision

18

b. CSP Children Trained in Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety1: i. Approximately 45,00 per year at the elementary school level c. NPP Projects Approved/Started (as of 8/1/2011)2: i. 26 projects *The project completion information for the PP and UTP were unavailable at the completion of this report

Toohey,M.

19

Figure 1: NCD Org. Chart

20

Figure 2: DPOW Logo

21

Figure 3: NCD BP and PP Performance Measures

22

Figure 4: Revised Balanced Scorecard How do we look to the taxpayer?

How do clients see us? (Bicyclists, Sidewalk users,  LBV, Boy Scouts

Vision and Strategy of the NCD (The Programs Master Plan)

Orginal Source: Kaplan and Norton Harvard Business Review 1992

23

Attachments   1. 2009AustinBicycleMasterPlan:GoalsandBenchmarks 2. 2009AustinSidewalkMasterPlan:AbsentSidewalkPriorityMatrix 

24

Chapter 5 :: Implementation & Funding

County Sheriffs Department, University of Texas Police Department, and Texas Department of Public Safety to establish and/or improve reporting methods for bicyclerelated accidents and citations. 4.2.3 4.2.4 4.2.5 4.2.6 Update the Austin Bicycle Plan every 10 years. For this Plan, the interim update shall begin by December 31, 2014, and a major update by December 31, 2019. Hold an annual meeting with the bicycling community stakeholders to solicit feedback on bicycling issues, maintenance, and facilities, this meeting may be combined with other agencies, seeking the same goal. Evaluate new facility treatments and pilot projects and programs. Annually update the short and long term bicycle network project list and program list. Continue to use and expand use of public surveys to evaluate public opinions of facilities, programs, and Plan implementation.

4.2.7

Attachment 1: BMP

Best Practices: Measuring Progress Based on Benchmarks

Cities with successful bicycle programs have a tradition of establishing and consistently and accurately measuring benchmarks that show progress toward achieving their goals. For example, Portland and Seattle both conduct manual bicycle counts rather than rely solely on the Decennial Census travel mode to work counts. Portland also counts bicycle use of the bridges over the Williamette River, into downtown, which is a strong indicator of work-related trips into the employment center. These cities also collect data for their benchmarks regularly to measure interim progress toward Plan goals. In order to ensure implementation of the Bicycle Plan, the City of Austin should strengthen its efforts in data collection to better monitor progress toward the goals and objectives of the 2009 Bicycle Plan Update.

Table 5.1 Bicycle Master Plan Benchmarks Benchmark

Goal 1 Percentage of all trips made by bicycle

Baseline Measurement
2000 US Census: Central city: 3.23% Citywide: 0.96% To be calculated in 2009

Benchmark Target
Central City: 8% (2015); 10% (2020) of all commute trips Citywide: 2% (2015); 5% of all commute trips(2020) Maintain number of bicycle-motor vehicle crash rates through 2015 and reduce bicycle-motor vehicle crashes 5% by 2020. 34% of network is currently exists as recommended 60% complete by 2015, 70% complete by 2020, and 100% by 2030

Data Collection Frequency

Every two years

Goal 2

Number of bicycle-motor vehicle crashes.

Every ve years.

BIKEWAY SYSTEM Obj 1.0 Percentage of Bicycle Network completed Annually

City of Austin

231

2009 Bicycle Plan Update

25

Chapter 5 :: Implementation & Funding Table 5.1 Bicycle Master Plan Benchmarks Benchmark
BIKEWAY SYSTEM (continued) Obj 1.0 Number of gaps and barriers connected Contact adjacent jurisdictions to discuss bicycle system and connectivity improvements Miles of bicycle lanes in network with parking in the bicycle lane Number of short-term bicycle 3,600 short-term parking installed at existing bicycle parking developments by City Bicycle Rack spaces Program Begin sale of bicycle parking racks at wholesale pricing through City of Austin Bicycle Rack Program Number of long-term bicycle parking installed at ABIA Install Share the Road signs on all streets that are gaps in the bicycle network. Percentage of Capital Metro buses and rail cars that can safely accommodate 3 bicycles None N/A By 2015 None N/A By 2010 Provide a total of 3,950 spaces by 2015 (includes existing) 55.0 miles of bicycle lanes have parking in the bicycle lane Remove parking in 100% of bicycle lanes by 2020 Every two years Every two years N/A By 2009 Annually Approximately 101 in existing bikeway network Provide improved connectivity at 12 network gaps by 2020 Annually

Baseline Measurement Benchmark Target

Data Collection Frequency

Obj 1.0

Obj 1.1

Obj 1.2

Obj 1.2

N/A

Obj 1.2

Provide 5 long-term spaces by 2015 and a total of 10 long-term spaces by 2020

Every two years N/A

Obj 1.2

Obj 1.3

100% of Capital Metro buses and rail cars will be able to safely accommodate 3 bicycles by 2020 100% of Capital Metro transit stops will have bicycle parking by 2020, as identied by criteria

Every two years

Obj 1.3

Percentage of Capital Metro transit To be calculated in stops with bicycle parking 2009

Every two years

Obj 1.4

Include maintenance within the operating budget of the Transportation Division of Public Works Establish guidelines for maintenance of multi-use paths and bikeways that serve as bicycle commuter routes Add bicycle lane sweeping as a stand alone item within the Solid Waste Services street sweeping program.

N/A

Include within the operating N/A budget by FY 2009-2010

Obj 1.4

N/A

By 2015

N/A

Obj 1.4

N/A

By 2015

N/A

City of Austin 232

2009 Bicycle Plan Update

26

Chapter 5 :: Implementation & Funding Table 5.1 Bicycle Master Plan Benchmarks Benchmark
EDUCATION & PROMOTION Obj 2.0 Number of adult bicyclists and motorists educated through city classes about bicycle and motorist safety Number of Austin bicycle maps and bicycle safety brochures distributed each year Number of stakeholder contacts in Bicycle Program listserve Number of media pieces per year 58 media pieces in 2008 Increase number of media pieces (radio, television, Internet, or print) to 75 annual occurrences by 2015 and increase 10% each year Starting in 2010 345 stakeholders in 2008 350 stakeholder contacts by 2015, and increase by 10% every year 4004 distributed in 2008 Distribute 5,000 Austin Bicycle Map Brochures each year Annually Calculate starting in 2009 Educate 1,000 bicyclists and motorists annually Annually

Baseline Measurement Benchmark Target

Data Collection Frequency

Obj 2.0

Obj 2.0

Annually

Obj 2.0

Annually

Obj 2.0

Provide a bicycle rider educational N/A presentation to the PTA of every school served by a new bicycle facility. Hire one staff member to focus on education and promotional programs Number of citywide events and/ or rides promoting utilitarian and recreational cycling N/A

N/A

Obj 2.0

By 2011

N/A

Obj 2.1

To be calculated in 2009

Offer 1 annual citywide event and/or ride promoting cycling, in partnership with other public agencies, non-prot groups, and/or private sector groups To be calculated in 2009 Increase bicycle mode share of children commuting to school to 25% by 2020 85.9% of elementary school students N/A 90% of school-aged children

Annually

Obj 2.2

Percentage of bicycling mode share of children commuting to school Percentage of school-aged children receiving bicycle safety education annually Bicycle lane use education and bicycle safety information provided at schools served by new or improved bicycle lane (or more conservative) facility.

Every two years

Obj 2.2

Annually

Obj 2.2

100% of schools served by N/A new or improved bicycle lane (or more conservative) facility.

City of Austin

233

2009 Bicycle Plan Update

27

Chapter 5 :: Implementation & Funding Table 5.1 Bicycle Master Plan Benchmarks Benchmark
EDUCATION & PROMOTION (continued) Obj 2.3 Number of participants at Bike to Work Day breakfast % of City of Austin employees who commute by bicycle Usage rate of City Cycle bicycle eet. Implement a Citywide Bike Share Program % of APD law enforcement ofcers trained in bicyclist and motorist behavior laws and bicycle issues in conjunction with the City Bicycle Program Reduction of work-age (16+) bicycle-related crashes as share of bicycle commuters per US Census Bureau. The bicycle-related crash rate among bicycle commuters was 4.1% in 2000 and 4.9% in 2006 N/A To be calculated in 2009 Train 100% of APD law enforcement ofcers N/A By 2020 N/A To be calculated in 2009 Increase by 100% by 2020 Every two years To be calculated in 2009 10% of City of Austin employees by 2015 and 15% by 2020 Every two years 781 participants in 2008 1,000 participants in 2009 and increase by 10% for every subsequent year Annually

Baseline Measurement Benchmark Target

Data Collection Frequency

Obj 2.3

Obj 2.3 Obj 2.3 SAFETY & ENFORCEMENT Obj 3.0

Every two years

Obj 3.1

Reduce bicycle-related crashes as share of 16+ bicycle commuters to 3% by 2020

Every two years

IMPLEMENTATION & FUNDING Obj 4.0 New Bicycle Program staff 1 new employee by 2011 2 new employees by 2015 3 new employees by 2020 N/A

Obj 4.0 Obj 4.0 Obj 4.1 Number of grant funding applied for and obtained by bicycle program Funding for Bicycle Plan implementation Bicycle Plan Implementation Charter N/A

Percent of action items completed

To be calculated in 2009

Complete 10% by 2015, 40% Every two by 2020, 100% by 2030 years Create and execute by 2015 N/A

To be calculated in 2009 N/A

At least an application for every available funding opportunity

Annually

Obj 4.1

At least $2-3 million per Annually year in funding starting in FY 2009-2010 until next Bicycle Plan update or until Plan is fully implemented N/A N/A Evaluate benchmarks annually. Interim update every 5 years and complete update every 10 years Annually Every 5 years.

Obj 4.2 Obj 4.2

Time frame to evaluate benchmarks Time frame to update Bicycle Plan

City of Austin 234

2009 Bicycle Plan Update

28

Attachment 2: SMP
LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, INC.

Pedestrian Attractors Score(PAS): 0 - 100 Base Score Weight 50%

TABLE 1 ABSENT SIDEWALK PRIORITIZATION MATRIX

Criteria
(Multiply Possible Points by number of attractors within specified radius) State or Local Government Offices Commuter Rail Stations Transit Stop (Max. of 50 pts.) Major Grocery Stores Places of Public Accommodation (parks, libraries, etc.) Public or Private Schools Employers with > 500 Employees Public Housing Public Parking Facilities Religious Institutions 5x (max 100 pts.) 5x 2.5x 2.5x 7x 3.5x 8x 4x 8x 4x 8x 4x 9x 4.5x 9x 4.5x 10x 5x 10x 5x 1/8 Mile 1/4 Mile

Element
Proximity to Attractors Weight: 45%

Proposed Points

Median Household Income Weight: 5% b) No Residential Population Weight: 25% b) Population >/= 4,000 and < 8,000 c) Population >/= 1,000 and < 4,000 d) Population >/= 500 and <1,000 e) Population < 500 Existing Facilities on Street Weight: 10% a) Yes b) No For local / residental streets, is there an existing complete sidewalk on either side of the street? a) Yes b) No Request Weight: 10% b) No Project requested by citizen through 311 a) Yes b) No Core Transit Corridors Weight: 2.5% Is the sidewalk within a 1/4 mile of a Core Transit Corridor? a) Yes b) No Bicycle Lanes Weight: 2.5% Are there bike lanes on both sides of the street? a) Yes b) No a) Yes Project requested by ADA Task Force both sides of the street? For arterials and collector streets, are there complete sidewalks on a) Population >/= 8,000 Total population residing within 1/2-mile radius of proposed project a) Yes

Within a census tract at or below Median Household Income (n=$48,950) 100 0

100 75 50 25 0

0 100

0 100

75 0

25 0

100 0

100 0

29

LOCKWOOD, ANDREWS & NEWNAM, INC.

TABLE 2 CONTINUED
Pedestrian Safety Score(PSS): 0 - 100 Street Classification Weight: 45% c) Residential Pedestrian Health Status Weight: 35% c) Moderate d) Low e) Very Low Number of incidents reported to APD involving pedestrians and motorized vehicles in previous 36 months multiplied by 10 only applied to sidewalk on the street where the incident took place Base Score Weight 10% Is there fiscal posting for this block? a) Yes b) No Addition to base score (max 10 points) Project requested via Adopted Neighborhood Plan - Age of Neighborhood Plan One point per year since the adoption of the neighborhood plan, up to 10 points Addition to base score (max 10 points) As approved by the Director of Public Works or Director of Transportation (Safe Routes to School, special recurring events, trail connectivity, or other) 10 point addition for absent sidewalk segments within 1/2 mile of location. a) Yes b) No 10 100 0 10X (max 100 pts.) 25 0 50 b) High 75 a) Very High 100 50 b) Collector 75 a) Arterial 100 Base Score Weight 40%

Pedestrian/Automobile Incidents Weight: 20%

Fiscal Availability Score(FAS): 0-100 Existing Fiscal Availability Weight: 100% Neighborhood Plan Score(NPS): 0 100 Neighborhood Request Weight: 100% Special Consideration Score(SCS): 0 - 100 Special Consideration Weight: 100%

1 point / per year (max 10 pts.)

10 0

30

Footnotes and Bibliography

1. Program, DPOW. N.C.D.-Bicycle Program. (2009). Austin 2020 Bicycle Plan Update. Department of Public Works. Austin, Texas: p. 3. http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/downloads/2009_bicyclemasterplan.pdf 2. Krause, Sara Personal Interview Conducted with the Author October 3, 2011 3. Hastings, J. a. M., Richard (2009). Sidewalk Master Plan. City of Austin.-DPOW-N.C.D.-Pedestrian Program p. v http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/publicworks/downloads/sidewalk_mp_resolution.pdf 4. Toohey, M. (2011, August 1, 2011). Small steps, a big impact, Austin American-Statesman. 5. Behn, R. D. (March 2008). "Beware the Dysfunctional Org Chart." Bob Behn's Public Management Report 5(7). 6. Chatfield, C. & Johnson, T. (2007). A short course in project management. Retrieved from http://office.microsoft.com/en-us/project-help/a-short-course-in-project-management-HA 010235482.aspx 7. Hill, C. J. & Lynn Jr., L. E. (2009). Public Management: A Three-Dimensional Approach. Washington D.C.: CQ Press. p. 192 8. Peters, K. M. (2003). Five Homeland Security Hurdles. GovExec, (February 15, 2003), 1-4. From www.govexec.com website 9. Gulick, L. (1937). "Notes on the Theory of Organization." Republished in Classics of Public Administration Sixth Edition (2003): 79-87. 10. McGregor, D. (1960). The Human Side of Enterprise. New York: McGraw-Hill Book Company. 11. Moore, M. (2006). Recognising Public Value: The Challenge of Measuring Performance in Government 12. Behn, R. D. (2008). "Compared with What?'. Bob Behn's Public Management Report, 6(1).

31

13. Drucker, P. F. (1990). Managing The Non-Profit Organization: Practices and Principles (pp. 107). 14. Parks and Recreation, City of Austin Youth Bicycle Racing Team. Retrieved from: http://www.ci.austin.tx.us/parks/biketeam.htm November 21, 2011 15. Austin Independent School District, "AISD Police Department." Retrieved from: http://archive.austinisd.org/schools/police/ November 23, 2011 16. Kaplan, R. S., & Norton, D. P. (1992). The Balanced Scorecard--Measures That Drive Performance. [Article]. Harvard Business Review, 70(1), 71-79.

32

List of Course Concepts: 1. Gulicks Principles of Organization: This concept is how work should be structured within an organization. Gulicks theories helped me to evaluate the organizational set-up of the NCD and how its work groups are organized. It also established where the CSP should be located and the problems of its current set-up and why it should be moved.

2. Project Management: This was related to the network government presentation. Evaluating the way teams should be organized to complete projects and to use the project management triangle of constraints (time, budget and scope)

3. Moores Strategic Triangle: Help evaluate the way that the NCD is working within the framework of that triangle and especially to deliver public value since NCD is a tangible, infrastructure heavy organization. When looking at the Master Plans, all three sides of the Strategic Triangle are present, it is up to the NCD to use the Master Plans in the correct way.

4. Robert Behns Newsletters: The first one focused on organizational charts and helped to shine a light on the way to view the management of the organization and the way a person in the CSP could feel marginalized given the current set-up. The second newsletter was the performance evaluation and shows the need to link performance measures to objective targets. Since the Master Plans establish the benchmarks, the performance measures should tie into those target to get a sense of where the NCD is moving toward.

5. Hill and Lynn: As one of the three dimensions explored in the text, culture is an important part of examining the way an organization works. Since it is the shared values, ethics, norms, etc. the feel of the organization can be derived from asking about the culture.

33