Measuring built environment performance

The Movement and Place Framework has established a set of built environment performance indicators for evaluating Movement and Place projects. The indicators are based on qualities that contribute to a well-designed built environment, and are grouped under themes relating to user outcomes. Project teams are required to use these indicators for measuring and evaluating options.

Core indicators

The nine core built environment indicators (mode share, public transport accessibility, freight network accessibility, public space, mix of uses, tree canopy, road safety, air quality and noise, permeability) are the minimum data inputs for each relevant theme for all projects to report against, ensuring that they are focused on both movement and place outcomes.

These have been selected based on available public and government data, or new data sets currently under development, that are good proxies for the outcomes that are sought under each theme. Each has a measurable direction for improvement (for example increase in tree canopy, increase in sustainable mode share) and they can be cumulatively used to compare whether outcomes are balanced across all aspects of the built environment.

These indicators will be refined and updated over time. Data sets are being prepared by Transport for NSW to support projects using the core indicators on areas and links – some indicators and datasets may vary depending on use (for example, an indicator of street tree canopy for link-based projects, and overall tree canopy for area-based projects).

Supplementary and project-specific indicators

Supplementary indicators are not required for every project but are selected by the project team according to the context and objectives. Supplementary indicators should be selected from the NSW Movement and Place Framework standard list to enable similar projects to be compared.

Similarly, project-specific indicators can be adopted (in addition to the core and supplementary indicators) where the context and objectives cannot be addressed from the indicators included in the standard list.

For example, within a metropolitan centre, average speed is a supplementary indicator to journey time reliability in order to determine not only that public transport trips are reliable, but also that they are reliably fast (or faster than a benchmark rate). This is not a substitute for JTR but a complement.

The performance indicators selected by the project team are used at three different stages of the core process:

• Step 1: establish evaluation criteria for the project objectives
• Step 4: present a gap analysis including the current, baseline (planned intent), and desired future performance of the study area
• Steps 5 and 6: develop and compare options, and assess the preferred option.

For more information, including measures and data sources, see built environment indicators, or refer to the Practitioner's Guide to Movement and Place.

Establishing evaluation criteria for the project objectives

Decision-makers should be able to identify the set of performance indicators that were selected by the project team at the beginning of the project life cycle (Step 1) and ascertain why and how they apply to the plan or project. The selection of performance indicators should be a result of working as a group with the core team and stakeholders and be focused on both movement and place outcomes.

Decision-makers should be able to identify the evaluation criteria used to measure the objectives of the project and to achieve the shared vision. Where project teams have identified thresholds or targets for some of the indicators, these should be set to quantify the minimum desired outcome and demonstrate an improvement compared to the existing state. A target or threshold may be either a project-specific target or a pre-determined benchmark establishing a minimum standard that the project team chose to adopt.

Establishing a baseline

Decision-makers should be able to identify the lowest-performing element in the current performance indicators, and identify gaps between the current performance, baseline (planned intent), and desired future performance. This gap between the baseline and the target is the problem definition. Decision-makers could check whether projects:

• Have used indicators to compare current performance with baseline and desired future performance of the built environment.
• Measured this baseline performance against targets (desired future performance).
• Have linked the project’s problem definition to the measures they have selected using the built environment indicators.

Developing and assessing options

When assessing an option’s relative merit and value against the existing state, all projects, as a minimum, should aim to improve on each aspect of the built environment themes. In addition, an option should neither degrade any indicator nor focus improvements solely on one indicator where more holistic outcomes have been identified. However, acknowledging trade-offs may required to achieve a best fit for the objectives of projects or plans, if a particular outcome worsens one indicator in delivering another, decision-makers should refer to the project team’s supporting documentation about how the collaborative process established the preferred solution.

Decision-makers could also look to the gap between the target and current state to assess the level of improvement to look for against each indicator. It may be appropriate for projects to select an option that gives a slight improvement against one indicator if it aligns with the overarching vision for the place as reflected in the target. On the other hand decision-makers may need to ask projects for further justification if the recommended option only shows a slight improvement against an indicator and the target shows a much greater gap from the baseline.

Case study Smith Street, Kempsey Pacific Highway before and after demonstrates how a project can use the built environment indicators to establish a preferred option to better match a typical street layout to its Movement and Place function.

Reviewing trade-offs

Each project objective may have several acceptable options. Some options that meet one objective may produce outcomes that conflict with other objectives. The process of evaluating options will involve determining which is best for the particular context, and this may require making trade-offs between the objectives.

To determine whether a trade-off is desirable in a given circumstance, consider:

1. Do the objectives favour one option over another? Could the less-favoured option be done differently (in a different location, or in a different way) that would be more aligned to the objectives?
2. Which objectives does each option align with, and what are the networks and systems underpinning those objectives? Are there alternatives for achieving each objective or is this the only option?
3. Consider the principles that apply to the desired street environment for the project (in Step 4), or the relative performance against the core indicators (in Steps 5 and 6) to determine which option is preferable.
4. Consider the evaluation criteria used to measure the objective – does a particular option worsen one indicator in delivering another? If so, is it justified? For example: a lower level of service for vehicles may be justified due to reprioritisation of road users. Does one option improve multiple indicators? Options that result in no worsening of indicators and an even spread of improvements are generally favoured over options that improve one indicator at the expense of others.

Options may need to be short-listed and evaluated before they can be eliminated.

Alignment with design and transport policies

The Movement and Place built environment performance indicators can be mapped to both the Better Placed and Future Transport policies as follows:

These indicators have also been mapped to Transport for London's Healthy Streets Approach at a street level, and to Greater Sydney Commission's The Pulse at a district or regional level, so the indicators can be used at the appropriate scale without needing to map alignment in each project.