an agency analysis of the neighborhood connectivity division

7/27/2019 An Agency Analysis of the Neighborhood Connectivity Division

1/33

1

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


2/33

2

Executive Summary

In 2008 the City of Austin completed a restructuring within the Department ofPublic Works that combined four orphan programs into one new division. The BicycleProgram, Pedestrian Program , Child Safety Program and Urban Trails Program were allintegrated together to create the Neighborhood Connectivity Division. In 2010, a new

program called the Neighborhood Partnering Program was added as a fifth programwithin the Neighborhood Connectivity Division to enhance the community aspect of thenew division. The Department of Public Works is an infrastructure building departmentby its very existence so the new divisions focus on capital projects related totransportation should not be surprising. In 2009, the City of Austin issued updates to theBicycle Master Plan and the Sidewalk Master Plan to guide the focus of the projects forthe future. These Master Plans are the publics guide of what to expect for theinfrastructure plans and how the city was going to accomplish these goals.

With this integration and concentration of the non-automotive transportationinfrastructure projects, the Bicycle Program, Pedestrian Program, Urban Trails Programand 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 programsare focused on project management while the Child Safety Program is focused on safetyinitiatives for children (specifically the bicycle and pedestrian safety and managingcrossing guards to make sure that the children get to and from school safely) The skillsthat are required in the first set of work groups is much different than the skills needed inthe Child Safety Work Group. The managing skills and expertise are also much differentfor a project/engineering team than for a formulaic safety organization. Along with thelack of fit between the Child Safety Program and the others, there is another issue that isrelated 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 thewill of the people. This disconnection has caused the infrastructure programs to focussolely on outputs and finishing projects rather than on the outcomes prescribed by theMaster Plans.

There are two recommendations that should be adopted by the NeighborhoodConnectivity Division to correct its two major issues. The first is to migrate the ChildSafety Program to another department. This would alleviate the issues surrounding thedisparate nature of the work done by the infrastructure and Child Safety Program workgroups. The Child Safety should move its bicycle safety program to the Parks andRecreation Department as they already have a Youth Bicycle Racing Team. The crossingguard aspect of the Child Safety Program should be folded into the Austin Independent

School Districts Police Department. The second recommendation is the revise theperformance measures currently used by the infrastructure departments. Master Plansshould be created for the Urban Trails Program and the Neighborhood PartneringProgram. Then , a balanced scorecard type of performance measures should be adoptedwith the Master Plans as the focus and the scorecard providing the framework for theshort-term goals to be adopted by these infrastructure building programs.


3/33

3

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

1Austin2009BicycleMasterPlan

2Krause,S.


4/33

4

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

3Hastings AustinSidewalkMasterPlan


5/33

5

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

4Toohey,M.


6/33

6

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.


7/33

7

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


8/33

8

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

5Behn,R.D.March2008


9/33

9

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 multi-

modal 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-

6ChatfieldandJohnson

7HillandLynn


10/33

10

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-of-

way, 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

8Peters,K.


11/33

11

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

9Gulick,L.


12/33

12

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

10McGregor,D.


13/33

13

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

11Moore,M.

12Behn,R.D.September2008

13Drucker,P.


14/33

14

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


15/33

15

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

14CityofAustinParksandRecreation


16/33

16

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?

15AISD

16Kaplan,R.S.&Norton,D.P.


17/33

17

Implementing a measure that focuses not just on short-term quarterly goals and the long-

term 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 ADA-

compliant and establishing equitable sidewalk access across geographic and socio-

economic 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.


18/33

Appendix

A.NCD Annual Budget: FY 2011 $2,804,368 FY 2012 $2,582,790B.NCD number of staff: 15 FTE, 234 Seasonal Employees, 1 Temporary EmployeeC.NCD Organization Chart: Please See Figure 1 for NCD Organizational ChartD.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 MeasuresF. 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. 2005 105ii. 2006 117

iii. 2007 121iv. 2008 131v. 2009 137

vi. 2010 161vii. 2011 168

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

18


19/33

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 ofthis report

2Toohey,M.

19


20/33

Figure 1:

NCD Org. Chart

20


21/33

Figure 2: DPOW Logo

21


22/33

Figure 3: NCD BP and PP Performance

Measures

22


23/33

Vision and Strategy

of the NCD

(The Programs Master Plan)

Vision and Strategy

of the NCD

(The Programs Master Plan)

How do clients see us?

(Bicyclists, Sidewalk users,

LBV, Boy Scouts

How do we look to the

taxpayer?

Orginal Source: Kaplan and Norton

Harvard Business Review 1992

Figure 4: Revised Balanced Scorecard

23


24/33

24


25/33

2231

C

ityofAustin

2009Bicycle

PlanUpdate

listandprogramlist.

4.2.5

Evaluatenew

facilitytreatmentsandpilot

projectsandprograms.

4.2.6

UpdatetheA

ustinBicyclePlanevery10ye

ars.ForthisPlan,the

interim

updateshallbeginbyDecember3

1,2014,andamajor

updatebyDecember31,2019.

4.2.7

Holdanannu

almeetingwiththebicycling

community

stakeholderstosolicitfeedbackonbicyclingissues,maintenance,

andfacilities,

thismeetingmaybecombin

edwithotheragencies,

seekingthesamegoal.

Table5.1BicycleMasterPlanBenchmarks

Benchmark

Baseline

Measurement

BenchmarkTarget

Data

Collection

Frequency

Goal1

Percentage

ofalltripsmadeby

bicycle

2000U

SCensus:

Cen

tralcity:3.23%

Citywide:0.96%

CentralCity:8

%(2015);10%

(2020)ofallcommutetrips

Citywide:2%(2015);5%of

allcommutetrips(2020)

Everytwo

years

Goal2

Numberofbicycle-motorvehicle

crashes.

Tobe

calculatedin

2009

Maintainnum

berof

bicycle-motorvehicle

crashratesthrough2015

andreduceb

icycle-motor

vehiclecrashes5%by2020.

Everyfive

years.

BIKEWAY

SY

STEM

Obj1.0

Percentage

ofBicycleNetwork

completed

34%ofnetworkis

curren

tlyexistsas

recom

mended

60%complete

by2015,70%

completeby2020,and

100%by2030

Annually

BestPractices:Mea

suringProgressBasedonBen

chmarks

Citieswithsuccessfulbicycleprogramshaveatraditionofestablishingandconsisten

tlyandaccurately

measuringbenchmarksthatshowprogresstowardachievingtheirgoals.Forexample,PortlandandSeattleboth

conductmanualbicy

clecountsratherthanrelysolelyontheDecennialCensustravelmodetoworkcounts.

Portlandalsocountsbicycleuseofthebridgesovert

heWilliametteRiver,intodowntown,whichisastrong

indicatorofwork-rela

tedtripsintotheemploymentcenter.Thesecitiesalsocollectd

atafortheirbenchmarks

regularlytomeasureinterim

progresstowardPlangoals.Inordertoensureimplemen

tationoftheBicyclePlan,

theCityofAustinshouldstrengthenitseffortsindatacollectiontobettermonitorprogresstowardthegoalsand

objectivesofthe2009

BicyclePlanUpdate.

Attachment1:BMP

25


26/33

232

CityofAustin

2009BicyclePlanUpdate

Obj1.0

Contactadjacentjurisdictions

todiscussbicyc

lesystem

and

connectivityim

provements

N/A

By2009

Annually

Obj1.1

Milesofbicycle

lanesinnetwork

withparkinginthebicyclelane

55.0miles

ofbicycle

laneshav

eparkingin

thebicyclelane

Removeparkingin100%of

bicyclelanesby2

020

Everytwo

years

Obj1.2

Numberofshort-term

bicycle

parkinginstalledatexisting

developmentsbyCityBicycleRack

Program

3,600short-term

bicycleparking

spaces

Provideatotalof

3,950

spacesby2015(includes

existing)

Everytwo

years

Obj1.2

Beginsaleofbicycleparkingracks

atwholesalepricingthroughCity

ofAustinBicycleRackProgram

N/A

By2010

N/A

Obj1.2

Numberoflong

-termbicycle

parkinginstalledatABIA

None

Provide5long-termspaces

by2015andatot

alof10

long-term

spaces

by2020

Everytwo

years

Obj1.2

InstallShareth

eRoadsignsonall

streetsthatare

gapsinthebicycle

network.

N/A

By2015

N/A

Obj1.3

PercentageofCapitalMetro

busesandrailc

arsthatcansafely

accommodate

3bicycles

None

100%ofCapitalM

etro

busesandrailcars

willbeabletosaf

ely

accommodate3

bicycles

by2020

Everytwo

years

Obj1.3

PercentageofCapitalMetrotransit

stopswithbicyc

leparking

Tobecalculatedin

2009

100%ofCapitalM

etro

transitstopswillha

ve

bicycleparkingb

y2020,as

identifiedbycriteria

Everytwo

years

Obj1.4

Includemaintenancewithin

theoperatingb

udgetofthe

TransportationDivisionofPublic

Works

N/A

Includewithinthe

operating

budgetbyFY2009-2010

N/A

Obj1.4

Establishguidelinesfor

maintenanceo

fmulti-usepaths

andbikewayst

hatserveasbicycle

commuterroutes

N/A

By2015

N/A

Obj1.4

Addbicyclelanesweepingasa

standaloneitem

withintheSolid

WasteServices

streetsweeping

program.

N/A

By2015

N/A

26


27/33

2233

CityofAustin


Obj2.0

Numberof

Austinbicyclemaps

andbicyclesafetybrochures

distributed

eachyear

4004

distributedin

2008

Distribute5,000Austin

BicycleMap

Brochures

eachyear

Annually

Obj2.0

Numberof

stakeholdercontactsin

BicyclePro

gramlistserve

345stakeholdersin

2008

350stakehold

ercontacts

by2015,and

increaseby

10%everyye

ar

Annually

Obj2.0

Numberof

mediapiecesperyear

58mediapiecesin

2008

Increasenum

berofmedia

pieces(radio

,television,

Internet,orprint)to75

annualoccurrencesby

2015andincrease10%

eachyear

Annually

Obj2.0

Provideab

icycleridereducational

presentatio

ntothePTAofevery

schoolserv

edbyanewbicycle

facility.

N/A

Startingin2010

N/A

Obj2.0

Hireonestaffmembertofocus

oneducat

ionandpromotional

programs

N/A

By2011

N/A

Obj2.1

Numberof

citywideeventsand/

orridespro

motingutilitarianand

recreationalcycling

Tobe

calculatedin

2009

Offer1annualcitywide

eventand/orride

promotingcy

cling,in

partnershipw

ithother

publicagenc

ies,non-profit

groups,and/

orprivate

sectorgroups

Annually

Obj2.2

Percentag

eofbicyclingmode

shareofch

ildrencommutingto

school

Tobe

calculatedin

2009

Increasebicy

clemode

shareofchild

ren

commutingtoschoolto

25%by2020

Everytwo

years

Obj2.2

Percentag

eofschool-aged

childrenre

ceivingbicyclesafety

education

annually

85.9%

ofelementary

schoolstudents

90%ofschoo

l-aged

children

Annually

Obj2.2

Bicyclelan

euseeducation

andbicyclesafetyinformation

provideda

tschoolsservedbynew

orimprove

dbicyclelane(ormore

conservative)facility.

N/A

100%ofscho

olsservedby

neworimpro

vedbicycle

lane(ormore

conservative)

facility.

N/A

27


28/33

234

CityofAustin


Obj2.3

%ofCityofAustinemployeeswho

commutebyb

icycle

Tobecalculatedin

2009

10%ofCityofAustin

employeesby2015and

15%by2020

Everytwo

years

Obj2.3

UsagerateofC

ityCyclebicycle

fleet.

Tobecalculatedin

2009

Increaseby100%

by2020

Everytwo

years

Obj2.3

ImplementaC

itywideBikeShare

Program

N/A

By2020

N/A

SAFETY

&ENFOR

CEMENT

Obj3.0

%ofAPDlawe

nforcementofficers

trainedinbicyclistandmotorist

behaviorlawsandbicycleissuesin

conjunctionwiththeCityBicycle

Program

Tobecalculatedin

2009

Train100%ofAPD

law

enforcementofficers

Everytwo

years

Obj3.1

Reductionofw

ork-age(16+)

bicycle-related

crashesasshareof

bicyclecommutersperUSCensus

Bureau.

Thebicyc

le-related

crashrateamong

bicyclec

ommuters

was4.1%

in2000and

4.9%in20

06

Reducebicycle-related

crashesasshareof16+

bicyclecommute

rsto3%

by2020

Everytwo

years

IMPLEMENTATION

&FUND

ING

Obj4.0

NewBicycleProgram

staff

N/A

1newemployee

by2011

2newemployeesby2015

3newemployeesby2020

N/A

Obj4.0

Percentofactionitemscompleted

Tobecalculatedin

2009

Complete10%by2015,40%

by2020,100%by

2030

Everytwo

years

Obj4.0

BicyclePlanIm

plementation

Charter

N/A

Createandexec

uteby

2015

N/A

Obj4.1

Numberofgrantfundingapplied

forandobtainedbybicycle

program

Tobecalculatedin

2009

Atleastanapplic

ationfor

everyavailablefunding

opportunity

Annually

Obj4.1

FundingforBicyclePlan

implementation

N/A

Atleast$2-3millio

nper

yearinfundingstartinginFY

2009-2010untilne

xtBicycle

PlanupdateoruntilPlanis

fullyimplemented

Annually

Obj4.2

Timeframetoevaluate

benchmarks

N/A

Evaluatebenchm

arks

annually.

Annually

Obj4.2

TimeframetoupdateBicyclePlan

N/A

Interimupdateevery

5yearsandcomplete

updateevery10

years

Every5

years.

28


29/33

6

Pla

cesofP

ublicA

ccomm

odatio

n(park

s,librarie

s,etc.)

8x

4x

Public

orPriv

ateSch

ools

8x

4x

Em

plo

yers

with

>500Em

plo

yees

8x

4x

PublicH

ousing

7x

3.5x

PublicP

arkin

gF

acilitie

s

5x

2.5x

Religio

usIn

stitution

s

5x

2.5x

(max100pts.)

MedianHouseholdIncome

Within

acen

sustractator

belo

wM

edianH

ouseh

oldIn

com

e(n=

$4

8,950)

Weight:5%

a)Ye

s

100

b)No

0

ResidentialPopulation

Total

popula

tionre

sidin

gwithin

1/2-milera

diu

sof

pro

posedpro

ject

Weight:25%

a)P

opula

tion

>/=8,000

100

b)P

opula

tion

>/=4

,000an

d/=1

,000an

d/=500an

d

an agency analysis of the neighborhood connectivity division

Documents