Measuring the Performance of Livability Programs

Abstract

Livability programs seek to make communities better places to live for both current and future generations by influencing the structure and the uses of the land and built environment, including the transportation infrastructure. As such, livability programs explicitly link transportation, land use, the environment, and sustainability. This study explored how transportation and partner agencies should structure the performance measurement of metropolitan livability programs. Existing research suggested that a good performance measurement approach would help an agency achieve the objectives of the program and its customers by influencing agency and stakeholder decisions and actions. An analysis of the performance measurement approaches used by five mature metropolitan livability programs was provided. Four measurement types were identified by the agencies as particularly useful in supporting program decisions: delivery of project commitments (did the program get what was funded?), percentage of the region's development that occurs in targeted development areas (is the program developing where it wants to develop?), leveraged funding (did the program close the financing gap?), and transportation access factors such as induced ridership, cost per induced rider, and bicycle and pedestrian access (did the program achieve a transportation–land use link?). Results of the analysis suggested that good performance measurement in livability programs would require efficient, decision-oriented approaches that would reflect the full range of the objectives of the program and its customers, unconstrained by agency structure. Good performance measurement would require a balanced view across all livability objectives, incorporating both the volume and nature of development, affordability, and land value, and quantifiable and subjective goals.

Cite this work

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 14 citations exist upstream.

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.