CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS 36

ISBN 0-309-09417-8

NON-PROFIT ORG.US Postage

PAIDWashington, DCPermit No. 8970

Performance Measures

to Improve Transportation

SystemsSummary of the Second National Conference

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD500 Fifth Street, NW

Washington, DC 20001

www.TRB.org

ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED

Performance M

easures to Improve T

ransportation Systems

PR

OC

EE

DIN

GS

36

99395mvpCoverA 12/13/05 2:21 PM Page 1

TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD

2005 EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE*

Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah Department of Transportation, Salt Lake City Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, AtlantaExecutive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board

Michael W. Behrens, Executive Director, Texas Department of Transportation, AustinAllen D. Biehler, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, HarrisburgLarry L. Brown, Sr., Executive Director, Mississippi Department of Transportation, JacksonDeborah H. Butler, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GeorgiaAnne P. Canby, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C.John L. Craig, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads, LincolnDouglas G. Duncan, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, Tennessee Nicholas J. Garber, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia, CharlottesvilleAngela Gittens, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FloridaGenevieve Giuliano, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development,

University of Southern California, Los Angeles (Past Chair, 2003)Bernard S. Groseclose, Jr., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority, CharlestonSusan Hanson, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University, Worcester,

MassachusettsJames R. Hertwig, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FloridaGloria Jean Jeff, Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, LansingAdib K. Kanafani, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, BerkeleyHerbert S. Levinson, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, ConnecticutSue McNeil, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware, NewarkMichael R. Morris, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments, ArlingtonCarol A. Murray, Commissioner, New Hampshire Department of Transportation, ConcordMichael S. Townes, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Virginia (Past Chair, 2004)C. Michael Walton, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, AustinLinda S. Watson, Executive Director, LYNX–Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority, Orlando

Marion C. Blakey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Joseph H. Boardman, Administrator, Federal Railroad Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Rebecca M. Brewster, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, Georgia (ex officio)George Bugliarello, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, Brooklyn, New York; Foreign Secretary, National Academy of

Engineering, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)J. Richard Capka, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Thomas H. Collins (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)James J. Eberhardt, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio)Jacqueline Glassman, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)Edward R. Hamberger, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C. (ex officio)David B. Horner, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)John C. Horsley, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C.

(ex officio)John E. Jamian, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Edward Johnson, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, John C. Stennis Space

Center, Mississippi (ex officio)Ashok G. Kaveeshwar, Administrator, Research and Innovative Technology Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)Brigham McCown, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S. Department of

Transportation (ex officio)William W. Millar, President, American Public Transportation Association, Washington, D.C. (ex officio) (Past Chair, 1992)Suzanne Rudzinski, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio)Annette M. Sandberg, Administrator, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation

(ex officio)Jeffrey N. Shane, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S. Department of Transportation (ex officio)Carl A. Strock (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Washington, D.C. (ex officio)

* Membership as of December 2005.

99395mvpCoverA 12/13/05 2:21 PM Page 2

C O N F E R E N C E P R O C E E D I N G S 3 6

Performance Measures to Improve TransportationSystemsSummary of the Second National Conference

KATHERINE F. TURNBULL, Texas Transportation Institute

Rapporteur

August 22–24, 2004Beckman CenterIrvine, California

Sponsored byTransportation Research BoardFederal Highway AdministrationFederal Transit Administration

Washington, D.C. 2005

www.TRB.org

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page i

Transportation Research Board Conference Proceedings 36ISSN 1073-1652ISBN 0-309-09417-8

Subscriber CategoryIA planning and administration

Transportation Research Board publications are available by ordering individual publications directly fromthe TRB Business Office, through the Internet at www.TRB.org or national-academies.org/trb, or by annualsubscription through organizational or individual affiliation with TRB. Affiliates and library subscribers areeligible for substantial discounts. For further information, contact the Transportation Research BoardBusiness Office, 500 Fifth Street, NW, Washington, DC 20001 (telephone 202-334-3213; fax 202-334-2519; or e-mail TRBsales@nas.edu).

Printed in the United States of America.

NOTICE: The project that is the subject of this report was approved by the Governing Board of the NationalResearch Council, whose members are drawn from the councils of the National Academy of Sciences, theNational Academy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine. The members of the committee responsi-ble for the project were chosen for their special competencies and with regard for appropriate balance.

This report has been reviewed by a group other than the authors according to the procedures approvedby a Report Review Committee consisting of members of the National Academy of Sciences, the NationalAcademy of Engineering, and the Institute of Medicine.

The views expressed in the presentations and papers contained in this report are those of the authors anddo not necessarily reflect the views of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council,or the sponsors of the conference.

The conference was sponsored by the Transportation Research Board, the Federal HighwayAdministration, and the Federal Transit Administration.

Steering Committee on Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems: Second NationalConferenceLance A. Neumann, Cambridge Systematics, Inc., CochairSandra Straehl, Montana Department of Transportation, CochairDaniela Bremmer, Washington State Department of TransportationKathryn Coffel, Tri-County Metropolitan Transportation District of OregonFrankie Giles, Virginia Department of TransportationRobert Johns, University of MinnesotaYsela Llort, Florida Department of TransportationMichael Meyer, Georgia Institute of TechnologyGeorge Scheuernstuhl, Denver Regional Council of GovernmentsWayne Tanda, Los Angeles Department of TransportationAmy Van Doren, Marin County Transit District

Liaison RepresentativesRonald Fisher, Federal Transit AdministrationTony Kane, American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsGloria Shepherd, Federal Highway Administration Dale Thompson, Federal Highway Administration

RapporteurKatherine F. Turnbull, Texas Transportation Institute

Transportation Research Board StaffMark Norman, Director, Technical ActivitiesKimberly M. Fisher, Transportation Planner and Environmental SpecialistFreda R. Morgan, Senior Program Associate

TRB Publications OfficeNorman Solomon, Senior EditorJackie Kearney, ProofreaderJennifer J. Weeks, Editorial Services Specialist

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page ii

The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguishedscholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science andtechnology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it bythe Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal governmenton scientific and technical matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy ofSciences.

The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the NationalAcademy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in itsadministration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciencesthe responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering alsosponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research,and recognizes the superior achievements of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of theNational Academy of Engineering.

The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to securethe services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters per-taining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the NationalAcademy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, onits own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Finebergis president of the Institute of Medicine.

The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to asso-ciate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy’s purposes of furtheringknowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policiesdetermined by the Academy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to thegovernment, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administeredjointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. WilliamA. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council.

The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves theNational Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board’s mission is topromote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplin-ary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy byresearchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that pro-mote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and dissem-inates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board’s varied activitiesannually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and prac-titioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise inthe public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agenciesincluding the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organi-zations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org

www.national-academies.org

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page iii

www.TRB.orgwww.national-academies.org

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page iv

Contents

PREFACE ...................................................................................................................................................vii

SESSIONS AND TOPICS

Opening Session ........................................................................................................................................3Tony Kane, Lance A. Neumann, Gloria Shepherd, Theodore H. Poister, and Douglas MacDonald

Impact of Performance Measures on Internal and External Relationships ..............................................13Robert Johns, Mark C. Larson, Lisa Klein, Sarath Joshua, Jeffrey Lindley, and David Ekern

Tying Together Performance-Based Program Development and Delivery................................................20George Scheuernstuhl, Steven M. Pickrell, Robert Romig, Jeff Price, Brian Smith, and Gregory Selstead

Data and Tools Required to Support Decision Making...........................................................................31Sandra Straehl, Louis H. Adams, Anthony Pietropola, Jeff May, Mark Wolfgram, and Leonard Evans

International Use of Performance Measures ...........................................................................................42Michael Meyer, Michael Halladay, Takayuki Oba, Douglas MacDonald, Connie Yew, C. Michael Walton, Bob Arnold, Ken Philmus, Randy Halvorson, Jeff Price, and Gary White

Measuring Performance in Difficult-to-Measure Areas ...........................................................................52Michael Meyer, Timothy Lomax, Randy Halvorson, and Barbara Ivanov

Closing Comments ..................................................................................................................................60Lance A. Neumann

Breakout Session Summaries ...................................................................................................................62George Gerstle, Kristine Leiphart, Joe Crossett, Craig Secrest, Gregory Selstead, Keith Cotton,Barbara Ivanov, Robert Romig, Brian Watts, Leonard Evans, Mark C. Larson, Randy Halvorson,Anthony Pietropola, Kent Barnes, William Cloud, Robert Winick, Jeff May, Louis H. Adams, Riju Lauanya, Timothy Lomax, Steven M. Pickrell, Michael Meyer, and Mark Hallenbeck

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page v

RESOURCE PAPERS

Performance Measurement in Transportation: State of the Practice ........................................................81Theodore H. Poister

Organizing for Performance Management ..............................................................................................99Mark C. Larson

Linking Performance-Based Program Development and Delivery .........................................................121Patricia G. Hendren, Lance A. Neumann, and Steven M. Pickrell

Issues and Challenges in Using Existing Data and Tools for Performance Measurement ......................131Louis H. Adams, Frances D. Harrison, and Anita Vandervalk

PARTICIPANTS..........................................................................................................................................141

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page vi

v i i

Preface

On August 22–24, 2004, the TransportationResearch Board (TRB) convened the SecondNational Conference on Performance Measuresin Irvine, California. The conference—sponsored jointlyby TRB, the Federal Highway Administration, and theFederal Transit Administration—brought togetherapproximately 125 individuals from across the trans-portation planning communities, at national, state,regional, and local levels and from the public and privatesectors and academia. More than 20 state departmentsof transportation participated in the conference, alongwith a similar number of local and regional agencies.

The first National Performance Measures Confer-ence was held in November 2000. With transportationagencies just beginning to explore performance meas-ures at that time, the first conference focused on the def-inition of performance measures. Potential measureswere identified, and their use within transportationagencies was encouraged. Since 2000 the use of perfor-mance measures has increased greatly, both in the num-ber of agencies adopting them and in the applications ofthe measures. Thus the second national conference con-tinued the dialogue on the use of performance measuresin transportation agencies and provided a forum toexchange perspectives on performance measures usedthroughout the transportation delivery process.

The Second National Conference on PerformanceMeasures had two primary objectives: to explore theimplementation and use of performance measures andto discuss how to monitor the impact of performancemeasures on the delivery and quality of transportationservices. To plan the conference, TRB assembled a com-mittee, appointed by the National Research Council, toorganize and develop the conference program. The plan-ning committee was cochaired by Lance Neumann andSandra Straehl. The summary of the conference was pre-pared by Katherine Turnbull of the Texas Transporta-tion Institute, who also supported the committee in

developing the conference program and inviting selectedspeakers and participants.

The program was designed to maximize the exchangeof information and perspectives among the participants.Two workshops, Performance Measures Basics andCommunicating Transportation Systems Performanceand Measurement, were held at the beginning of theconference. Resource papers were commissioned on thefive themes discussed during the conference:

• Performance Measures—State of the Practice,• Impact of Performance Measures on Internal and

External Relationships,• Tying Together Performance-Based Program

Development and Delivery,• Data and Tools Required to Support Decision

Making, and• Measuring Performance in Difficult-to-Measure

Areas.

The papers were presented in panel sessions, andeach was followed by a panel discussion. The panels,composed of experts from across the country, exploredaspects of each topic in more depth. Breakout sessionsto encourage the exchange of information and experi-ence followed. The conference participants also had theopportunity to hear a report on an International Scan ofPerformance Measures.

This conference summary report is based on the con-ference agenda. The presentations made in each confer-ence session are summarized, starting with apresentation by the resource paper authors and contin-uing through the panel discussion. The breakout ses-sions are summarized at the end of the main report.These summaries highlight a variety of agency experi-ences with the use of performance measures and identifyresearch that could improve the use of performancemeasures. The resource papers prepared for the confer-

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page vii

ence appear in this document, and a list of conferenceattendees is provided.

This report has been reviewed in draft form by indi-viduals chosen for their diverse perspectives and techni-cal expertise, in accordance with procedures approvedby the National Research Council’s Report ReviewCommittee. The purposes of this independent revieware to provide candid and critical comments that willassist the institution in making the published report assound as possible and to ensure that the report meetsinstitutional standards for objectivity, evidence, andresponsiveness to the project charge. The review com-ments and draft manuscript remain confidential to pro-tect the integrity of the deliberative process.

TRB thanks the following individuals for their reviewof this report: Mark E. Hallenbeck, University of Wash-ington, Seattle; Charles L. Purvis, Metropolitan Trans-portation Commission, Oakland, California; and

Sandra Straehl, Montana Department of Transporta-tion, Helena.

Although the reviewers listed above provided manyconstructive comments and suggestions, they did notsee the final draft of the report before its release. Thereview of this report was overseen by C. Michael Wal-ton, University of Texas at Austin. Appointed by theNational Research Council, he was responsible formaking certain that an independent examination ofthis report was carried out in accordance with institu-tional procedures and that all review comments werecarefully considered.

The committee thanks Katherine Turnbull for herwork in preparing this conference summary report andextends a special thanks to the Federal Highway Admin-istration and the Federal Transit Administration for pro-viding the vision and encouragement that made theconference the success that it was.

PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMSv i i i

99395mvp1_8 12/13/05 12:17 PM Page viii

SESSIONS AND TOPICS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 1

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 2

3

WELCOME

Tony Kane

On behalf of the Transportation Research Board (TRB),the American Association of State Highway and Trans-portation Officials (AASHTO), the Federal HighwayAdministration (FHWA), the Federal Transit Adminis-tration (FTA), and other sponsors, it is a pleasure towelcome you to the Second National Conference on Per-formance Measures. The first conference was held in2000.

This conference focuses on the ultimate purpose ofperformance measures: to improve transportation ser-vices for our customers. The opening session this after-noon highlights the objectives of this conference andsummarizes the state of the practice in the use of perfor-mance measures by transportation agencies at differentlevels of government throughout the country.

Representatives from some 20 state departments oftransportation are participating in this conference. Anequal number of personnel from local and regional agen-cies are attending. Performance measurement and per-formance-based management aids the decision-makingprocess at all levels of government. Our partners in theprivate transportation sector also use performance-basedmanagement—for example, to ensure the timely deliveryof freight and the efficient movement of travelers.

We have seen numerous changes and advances inthe application of performance measures within

transportation agencies since the first conference in2000. Legislation and policy directives at the fed-eral, state, and local levels have influenced the use ofperformance-based management techniques. Perfor-mance measures are also being used by transporta-tion organizations throughout the world. TheMonday night session will highlight examples ofinternational applications of performance-basedmanagement.

Representatives from a number of state departmentsof transportation will discuss the evolving role perfor-mance measures are playing in the decision-makingprocess during sessions throughout the conference. Dur-ing my tenure at FHWA and the past 4 years atAASHTO, I have seen advances in the state of the prac-tice with performance-based management. State depart-ments of transportation have a strong interest in sharingtheir experiences and in learning from the experiencesof others.

At AASHTO, we are developing a new strategic planfor 2005 through 2010. Performance measurementplays a key role in the new strategic plan, which wasdeveloped by a 15-member committee made up of sec-retaries of state departments of transportation. The planwill be voted on by the board of directors at the annualmeeting in Philadelphia this September.

The Conference Planning Committee has done anexcellent job of organizing interesting sessions. I hopeyou will participate actively in the conference and shareyour thoughts and ideas on performance measures.

Opening Session

Tony Kane, Moderator, American Association of State Highway and Transportation OfficialsLance A. Neumann, Cambridge Systematics, Inc.Gloria Shepherd, Federal Highway AdministrationTheodore H. Poister, Georgia State UniversityDouglas MacDonald, Washington State Department of Transportation

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 3

CONFERENCE OBJECTIVES

Lance A. Neumann

It is a pleasure to welcome you to the Second NationalConference on Performance Measures on behalf of theConference Planning Committee and the TRB Commit-tee on Performance Measurement. I would like to rec-ognize Sandy Straehl from the Montana Department ofTransportation, who served with me as cochair of theConference Planning Committee.

Many of you participated in the first conference, whichfocused primarily on defining the concept of performancemeasurement, identifying potential performance mea-sures, and promoting the use of performance-based man-agement within transportation agencies. In the 4 yearssince the first conference, we have seen widespread use ofperformance measures by state departments of trans-portation and a continuing interest in this topic at all levels of government.

We have learned a great deal over the past 4 yearsthrough projects and studies sponsored by FHWA, TRB,the National Cooperative Highway Research Program,state departments of transportation, and other agencies.As a result, the planning committee believed that thisconference should focus on the implementation and useof performance-based management and how we moni-tor progress to ensure that these programs do make adifference in the delivery of transportation products andservices.

The planning committee wanted to highlight the wealthof experience in the use of performance measures at thisconference and especially to share lessons learned. Theworkshops this morning provided a great starting pointfor sharing experiences and learning from each other.

This conference focuses on the implementation of per-formance measures as a practical management tool and onthe steps needed to accomplish this goal. As with the firstconference, the topics to be covered over the next 2 daysare both broad and comprehensive. The sessions focus ona series of themes the planning committee identified asimportant in promoting the implementation and ongoinguse of performance measures. The workshops this morn-ing addressed the basics of performance measurement andcommunications.

This opening session highlights the use of perfor-mance measures at state transportation agencies andpresents the views of a senior executive on the use ofperformance measures in a political decision-makingenvironment. The second session this afternoon willexplore the influence of introducing performance mea-sures on internal organizational relationships, as well asexternal institutional relationships and partnerships.

The first session on Monday will examine linking per-formance management in plan development, program

development, and budgeting with performance manage-ment in program and project delivery. Experience indicatesthat this link is critical to the successful use of performance-based management. Potential issues and opportunitiesassociated with the data needed for performance measureswill be addressed at the second session on Monday.

Speakers at the Monday night session will shareinformation on the international experience with per-formance-based management. The conference will closeon Tuesday with a session on performance areas thatare difficult to measure.

You will also have the opportunity to share yourexperiences and views during the breakout sessions onMonday and Tuesday. These sessions focus on a varietyof topics and issues and will add to the breadth of theconference. You are encouraged to participate in thebreakout sessions that best meet your interests.

FHWA and FTA helped fund this conference. Themembers of the planning committee put forth creativeideas, hard work, and dedication in organizing this con-ference. Kim Fisher, Freda Morgan, and other TRB staffprovided outstanding support. Finally, Katherine Turn-bull of the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) will becompiling the conference proceedings.

In summary, the conference objectives include defin-ing the state of the practice and acknowledging recentwork in the use of performance measures, sharing expe-riences and resources, and identifying key areas that needfurther research or additional peer exchange. I encour-age you to participate in all parts of the conferenceactively. I look forward to productive discussions.

Thank you for participating in this important confer-ence. I look forward to hearing your thoughts and ideasin helping to advance the state of the practice in the useof performance-based management.

WELCOME AND FEDERAL PERSPECTIVE

Gloria Shepherd

It is a pleasure to participate in this conference on behalfof FHWA. We at FHWA have been pleased to work withmany other partners in organizing and supporting thisimportant conference.

I should recognize my colleagues at FHWA whohelped with the conference planning activities and whoare participating in the session. Jeff Lindley, Director ofOperations, willingly supported funding the conference.Jeff will be speaking at the second session this after-noon. Dave Ginger is participating, and Mike Halladayfrom Safety will be speaking Monday night. I also rec-ognize Bob Arnold, who was on the international per-formance measures scan, and the other FHWA staffparticipating in the conference.

4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 4

As you can tell both by FHWA’s willingness to be afunding partner and by the number of staff participatingin this conference, performance measures are an impor-tant subject at FHWA. We assisted in sponsoring a perfor-mance measures peer exchange in South Carolina this pastMay. Representatives from a number of states shared theirexperiences in the use of performance measures at the peerexchange. One of the areas of interest was implementingperformance measures in specific program areas, includ-ing safety, asset management, and operations. Discussionsfocused on both potential performance measures andimplementation strategies for incorporating performance-based management into state transportation agencies.

The summary of this peer exchange has been postedby TRB as an e-circular at trb.org/publications/circulars/ec073.pdf. Numerous stakeholder groups are also inter-ested in the application of performance measures bytransportation agencies. Among the stakeholders arepublic officials, interest groups, and environmentalorganizations. They are interested in how transporta-tion agencies allocate public funds and make decisionson project priorities.

Performance-based management can help statedepartments of transportation communicate needs andpriorities to the public and to decision makers. Commu-nicating effectively with these groups is especiallyimportant in times of limited resources. Requests foradditional funding, bonding authority, and other financ-ing options have been considered in many statesrecently. Clearly communicating how these funds willbe used and tracking progress on promised projectsappear to be important factors in successful initiatives.

We have an obligation to ourselves as transportationprofessionals and to the public we serve to spend fundseffectively and efficiently. The use of performance mea-sures helps ensure that transportation agencies followup on commitments.

FHWA also helped sponsor a roundtable discussionof performance measures and statewide transportationplanning in Washington, D.C., in October 2003. Issuesdiscussed at the roundtable included strategic planning;measurement of the cost and performance of alternativeprojects; and techniques to compare, prioritize, andselect alternative investments. Modal investment strate-gies, monitoring of the performance of transportationorganizations and multimodal transportation systems,and techniques for communicating performance mea-sures to stakeholders were also discussed. The issue ofhow we communicate with the public and with policymakers is important. These groups want to know howpublic funds are being spent. They want to know whatimprovements or better services they will receive fromincreased investments in the transportation system.

At FHWA, we are interested in working with you toaddress these issues and other topics of concern. We

need to look at how performance measures can improvethe safety and the efficiency of our transportation sys-tem. We are also interested in the use of performancemeasures to enhance the planning process. We are inter-ested in how well the transportation planning processworks, how well it informs the public, and how we canimprove long-range plans.

We at FHWA are pleased to participate in this confer-ence. We look forward to continuing to partner with allof you to enhance the use of performance measures withall elements of the transportation system. Thank you.

STATE OF THE PRACTICE OFPERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT

Theodore H. Poister

As one who has had a window on this field for many years,it is a privilege to be able to participate in this conference.It is clear that interest in the use of performance measureshas grown tremendously over the past 20 years. At thispoint performance measurement has become an integralpart of the way many state departments of transportationdo business.

It may be helpful at the outset to remember the over-all governmental context within which performancemeasures are applied. The federal Government Perfor-mance and Results Act of 1993 requires all federal agen-cies to develop and use performance measures. Moststates have some type of executive or legislative man-date to use performance-based management, and manystate transportation agencies have been using perfor-mance measures for a number of years. There are alsoinitiatives at the local government level, although theyare not as far reaching. Phoenix, Arizona; Dallas, Texas;Charlotte, North Carolina; and Dayton, Ohio, are justa few cities that have been using performance measuresfor some time.

Little research has assessed whether managementmatters and whether performance measures matter. Webelieve that performance measures make a difference,but research to support this conclusion is lacking. Tworecent studies focus on the impacts of strategic planningand management. The first examined police depart-ments throughout the country, and the second focusedon fire departments in New York State. Both studies (1,2) concluded that management does make a differenceand that agencies with strong management practices,including performance measures, do perform betterthan agencies without strong management practices.

One of the more ambitious research projects is theGovernment Performance Project (GPP), which was con-ducted by a group of university researchers and Govern-ing magazine. Complete information with regard to the

5OPENING SESSION

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 5

purpose, approach, and results is available at gppon-line.org. Through an extensive survey and follow-up sitevisits and interviews, the project graded all 50 state gov-ernments, a sample of federal agencies, and 25 local gov-ernments over a 3-year period. The agencies were gradedon financial management, human resources, informationtechnology, capital management, and managing forresults. Planning, goal setting, and management and eval-uation were included in the assessment. (See additionalinformation at gpponline.org.)

As you might expect, grades for the various states var-ied widely. A second round of the GPP focusing on statedepartments of transportation and environmental protec-tion programs in particular, in addition to general stategovernment, is under way. All the state transportationdepartments will be involved in this effort.

I think transportation agencies are on the leadingedge in the application of performance measures. At thefederal level, transportation agencies participated intesting many planning and measurement efforts. At thestate level, the transportation agencies are frequentlythe leading agencies in applying performance-basedmanagement. At the local level, transit agencies haveused performance measures for many years. For exam-ple, the city of Charlotte, North Carolina, pioneered theuse of the balanced scorecard in the public sector, andthe Charlotte Department of Transportation was thecity agency selected to pilot test the balanced scorecardapplication.

There has been substantial growth in the develop-ment and use of performance measures by transporta-tion agencies during the past 20 years, especially in thepast 5 to 10 years. Currently, transportation agenciesvary widely in the approaches used and the level ofexpertise within the agencies.

Recent trends and the current status of performancemeasures can be examined from a number of perspec-tives. We can focus on what is being measured, how per-formance is being measured and reported, and howperformance measures are being used in the decision-making process.

We can first look at what state transportation agen-cies are measuring. We are seeing a move toward morecomprehensive approaches in the application of perfor-mance measures. We are also seeing performance mea-sures being used as part of transportation agencies’overall strategic management processes. A number oftransportation agencies use the balanced scorecardapplication, and many of them have adapted or modi-fied the original balanced scorecard model to meet theirown particular needs. (See the resource paper “Perfor-mance Measurement in Transportation: State of thePractice” in these proceedings for examples of balancedscorecard models.)

Figure 1 is an example of a logic model developedout of the tradition of evaluation research. It providesan example of how evaluation research maps programsand services, system performance, and impacts. Imme-

6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Program

Construction

Maintenance

Safety

Operations

Public

Transportation

Outputs

Projects Completed

Lane Miles

Bridges Built

Miles Resurfaced

Repairs Made

Treatments Applied

Projects Completed

Turn Lanes Added

Stripes Painted

Messages Displayed

Incidents Cleared

Signals Timed

Vehicle Hours

Vehicle Miles

Seat Miles

Immediate

Outcomes

> Capacity

> Connectivity

> Condition

Smoother

Pavements

< Hazards

More Efficient

Operation

> Coverage

< Headways

Intermediate

Outcomes

< Congestion

< Travel Times

> Convenience

> Ride Quality

< Operating

Expense

< Crashes

< Injuries

< Fatalities

< Congestion

< Delays

< Crashes

< Waiting

> Ridership

> Convenience

Longer-Term

Outcomes

Mobility

Quality

of Life

Economic

Development

Environmental

Enhancement

Community

Development

System PerformanceProgram & Service Delivery Impacts

FIGURE 1 Example of transportation program logic model.

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 6

diate, intermediate, and longer-term outcomes are allidentified and monitored. While the outputs focus onagency activities and service delivery processes, theimmediate outcomes tend to focus on conditions, suchas pavement smoothness. The intermediate outcomesfocus more on system performance, such as travel timesand safety. The longer-term outcomes address broaderimpacts. This model is an example of the holisticapproach being used at many transportation agencies.

Many performance measures focus on transportationagency operations. Incident management represents onefunction that has come to the forefront recently. Statedepartments of transportation realize that clearing inci-dents quickly is important in maintaining traffic flowand minimizing secondary accidents. For example, theMaryland State Highway Administration’s CHARTProgram measures incident duration, initial responsetime, and overall recovery time.

Performance measures at many state departments oftransportation address program delivery. The VirginiaDepartment of Transportation’s new strategic planfocuses on the effective delivery of annual state trans-portation improvement plans. Many states have experi-enced increases in funding, which result in moreprogramming activities. That generates additional pres-sure to deliver the program. For instance, Georgia’s bud-get will roughly double as a result of the governor’s newFast Forward program. Thus, on-time and on-budgetperformance measures continue to be a major focus atmany state transportation agencies. Cycle times foroverall projects, as well as particular elements, are alsobeing considered. The Pennsylvania Department ofTransportation has 10 teams examining all aspects ofprogram delivery to streamline the process, and they areattempting to develop performance measures in each ofthose areas.

Performance measures at many state departments oftransportation continue to address system condition.Pavement condition, pavement roughness, and bridgecondition are common performance measures at moststate departments of transportation. Safety performancemeasures also continue to be important. Typical safetyperformance measures focus on crashes, injuries, andfatalities. Other elements such as pedestrian and bicycleaccidents and at-grade railroad crossing accidents aremeasured in some states. Improving safety continues tobe a high priority of FHWA as well as state and localtransportation agencies.

Applying performance measures to traffic flow andcongestion is a growing area of interest. Volume–capac-ity ratios have traditionally been used to measure con-gestion. The annual urban mobility report published byTTI examines performance measure data for 75 urbanareas in the country. The reports present the travel timeindex, percentage of congested vehicle miles traveled

(VMT), delay per person, percentage of congested lanemiles, cost of congestion, and percentage of congestedtime for each area.

FHWA’s urban congestion report examines monthlydata for 10 metropolitan areas that are instrumented toprovide real-time data. Performance measures used inthat report include the travel time index, the bufferindex, the average duration of congested travel per day,and the percentage of congested travel.

Some agencies apply performance measures to envi-ronmental and economic factors. Environmental indica-tors may address acres of wetlands replaced, acres ofreforestation, storm water enhancements completed,and air quality noncompliance days in urban areas.Economic development indicators may focus on jobscreated or retained through initiatives where trans-portation is a contributing factor.

Many state departments of transportation conductregular customer satisfaction surveys. Regular surveysof motorists or the public at large are conducted in Min-nesota, New Mexico, Illinois, Kentucky, Pennsylvania,Ohio, Georgia, and many other states. Florida uses amix of survey methods for different customer segments,such as resident travelers, visiting travelers, disabledtravelers, property owners, and elected government offi-cials. The Minnesota Department of Transportation isone of the few state departments of transportation withan in-house market research group. The departmentconducts regular surveys of residents and other usergroups. The Pennsylvania Department of Transporta-tion conducts an annual highway administration cus-tomer survey. This program includes a large samplemail-out survey to obtain reliable data at the countylevel. The findings are presented at the county and dis-trict levels on an annual basis. The information is usedin the development of an annual work program for eachdistrict.

Performance is measured and reported by state depart-ments of transportation in a variety of ways. Performancemeasures focus on resources and workload, outputs, ser-vice quality, efficiency, and productivity. Other measuresmay examine outcomes, cost-effectiveness, benefit–costratios, return on investment, and life-cycle costs.

Performance indicators are specified in a number ofways. How performance measures are specified is impor-tant. For example, performance measures addressinghighway safety often include traffic fatalities per1,000,000 VMT and traffic fatalities per 100,000 resi-dents. The results of these two measures may suggest dif-ferent problems and solutions. Pavement conditionmeasures typically include the percentage of lane miles ingood condition and the percentage of VMT on lane milesin good condition. Focusing on just one of these measureswould promote different types of project programmingand investment decisions.

7OPENING SESSION

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 7

Many indices are used with performance measures.Examples include pavement rating scales, productivityindices, and customer satisfaction indices. The FloridaDepartment of Transportation focuses on 11 key mea-sures tied to strategic objectives and executive board ini-tiatives. These measures are reviewed on a monthlybasis. Some of these measures, including work programdelivery, employee satisfaction, system condition, sys-tem performance, and customer satisfaction areweighted indices combining numerous indicators.

The Ohio Department of Transportation’s organiza-tional performance index (OPI) focuses on the perfor-mance of 12 districts and 88 county-level maintenanceunits. The OPI consists of measures in eight functionalareas, most of which are indices themselves. These mea-sures are also combined into a single index of overalldepartment performance. The aggregate OPI provides areading of overall performance at the executive level.Where there is slippage, managers can drill down to lookat specific measures in individual districts to identifyproblems and formulate corrective actions.

Benefit–cost ratios are also used as a performancemeasure by some state departments of transportation.Benefit–cost ratios are typically estimated for projects inthe planning stage. However, VicRoads in the state ofVictoria, Australia, tracks aggregate benefit–cost ratiosafter the fact for all projects completed during a givenyear. The agency monitors an achievement index for allcompleted projects. It examines the actual benefit–costratios after 2 years in relation to the benefit–cost ratiosoriginally estimated.

State transportation agencies use a number of meth-ods and techniques to report performance measure data.These formats include scorecards, dashboards, and roll-up and drill-down features. Performance measures arereported both internally and externally. State trans-portation agencies communicate performance measuresto the public and other external stakeholders throughreports, updates, and Internet sites. For instance, theMaryland Department of Transportation publishes anAnnual Attainment Report of Transportation SystemPerformance. The Washington State Department ofTransportation issues a Measures, Markers, and Mile-posts report. The Virginia Department of Transporta-tion uses a quarterly report card or project dashboardon the department’s Internet site.

Many states use performance measures for integrat-ing strategic planning and management. Pennsylvania,Minnesota, Kentucky, Virginia, Maryland, California,Illinois, South Carolina, New Mexico, and Georgia allemphasize performance measures linked to strategicplanning processes.

Performance measures are also used in the trans-portation systems planning process in some states.Performance-based planning uses performance mea-

sures to tie planning to goals, standards, and targets forsystem performance. Ohio, Minnesota, and Pennsylvaniaemphasize this approach.

Performance measures are used in some states forprogramming and project selection. These efforts useperformance measures to evaluate alternatives andassess trade-offs in costs and performance among com-peting projects. They typically focus on pavement,bridge, safety improvement, and congestion mitigationprojects. Montana has a performance programmingprocess, and New York uses an asset management pro-gram with reduction in excess user costs as a commonperformance criterion.

Other states use performance measures in programand project delivery. Management information systemstrack the achievement of project milestones and the bud-get status of individual projects to monitor on-time andon-budget measures, usually on a district and statewidebasis. Many states, including Virginia, Washington, andCalifornia, report project status data to the public ontheir Internet sites.

Operations management represents another area forapplying performance measures. One approach appliesperformance-based management for districts, divisions,and organizational units through goal setting and mea-surement with regard to business plans, program plans,work programs, and operating plans.

Performance measures may also be used internally.One example of an internal program is employee perfor-mance planning and evaluation. Examples of thisapproach include South Carolina’s accountability sys-tem, the California Department of Transportation’s per-formance agreements, and Ohio’s career professionalservice. Performance-based budgeting is also used insome states. Examples of performance-based budgetinginclude Colorado’s investment strategy, Minnesota’sactivities-based budgeting focused on project and servicelines, and New Mexico’s program budget.

The use of performance measures in contract man-agement appears to be increasing at many state trans-portation agencies. Performance measures may addresscontract design, construction, maintenance, and ser-vices. Comparative measurement and benchmarkingmay be used in these efforts.

Many transportation agencies are integrating variousperformance measurement systems. The Florida Depart-ment of Transportation integrates the Florida long-range transportation plan, the short-range component,the annual strategic objectives, and the executive boardinitiatives through performance measures. The Min-nesota Department of Transportation’s measurementpyramid helps link the use of performance measures inthe different plans.

In conclusion, a number of common themes haveemerged since the first national conference on this topic

8 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 8

in 2000. First, the state of the practice continues toadvance. Second, there continues to be wide variation inprograms among state departments of transportation,with practices evolving within individual agencies. Third,some agencies have mature measurement systems. Theseinclude a range of interrelated measurement programs,alignment of measures with goals and objectives, perfor-mance reporting tailored to audiences, systematic proce-dures for reviewing performance data, and data used tostrengthen planning and decision making and communi-cation with external stakeholders. Finally, agencies arelearning from each other and sharing experiences withdifferent approaches.

A number of recent trends can also be identified.First, measures are more strategic and outcome- andcustomer-oriented. Second, while there is an emphasison program delivery, a strong focus on system perfor-mance continues. Third, we are seeing an increased useof customer satisfaction measures. Fourth, more holisticapproaches are being applied in terms of coverage andintegrating systems. Fifth, performance is being moni-tored at various levels with data analysis systems pro-viding roll-up and drill-down capabilities. Sixth, the useof standards and numerical targets is increasing.

Other recent trends include more sophisticated soft-ware applications, system support, and data displays.While there is greater proliferation of performance mea-sures, some departments of transportation are recogniz-ing the need to focus more selectively on a few vitalmeasures. There are also more disciplined efforts toalign measures with goals and objectives and to focuson real-time, actionable measures. It is also fair to saythat many departments of transportation are makingmore intentional use of measurement systems to sup-port other management, planning, and decision-makingprocesses. Finally, there is increased reporting of perfor-mance data directly to the public and other stakeholdersto promote transparency in government.

A number of continuing challenges face transportationagencies in the application of performance measures.Some of these challenges include agreeing on commonterminology for terms such as dashboards, benchmark-ing, and performance management (see the resourcepaper “Performance Measurement in Transportation:State of the Practice” on pages 81–98 of these proceed-ings for examples). As will be discussed in other sessions,we need improved measures in difficult-to-measure areas,such as congestion, delay, travel time, and reliability;freight transportation; environmental impacts; and safetyand security. Developing measures that facilitate cross-modal comparisons with regard to service levels, quality,travel times, and costs is also important.

Obtaining systematic feedback from other externalstakeholders beyond motorists and the public at large,such as other user groups, local governments, legisla-

tors, and the media, continues to be a challenge. Inter-preting the implications of customer feedback in rela-tion to engineering and professional planning criteria isalso a challenge. Setting appropriate targets that areaggressive yet realistic continues to be a challenge. Andmany states need to use measures in a more disciplinedway to articulate the relationship between strategicplans and transportation system plans more clearly.

We also need to place greater emphasis on measuringresults after projects have been completed. Implement-ing workable comparative measurement systems to sup-port benchmarking and process improvement representsanother challenge for many state departments of trans-portation. Strengthening linkages between measurementsystems and employee performance managementprocesses is also being considered. Finally, institutional-izing strategic planning and performance measurementmore effectively in agencies, through developing bothinternal and external buy-in, continues to be a challengefor many transportation agencies.

References

1. Nicholson-Crotty, S., and L. J. O’Toole, Jr. PublicManagement and Organizational Performance: TheCase of Law Enforcement Agencies. Journal of PublicAdministration Research and Theory, Vol. 14, No. 1,2004, pp. 1–18.

2. Donahue, A. The Influence of Management on the Costof Fire Protection. Journal of Policy Analysis andManagement, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2004, pp. 71–92.

USING PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN APOLITICAL DECISION-MAKING PROCESS

Douglas MacDonald

I appreciate the invitation to participate in this confer-ence. In listening to the other speakers this afternoon, Iam struck by what is being accomplished by differenttransportation agencies throughout the country. Perfor-mance measures are being applied in a wide range of sit-uations to improve the transportation project selectionprocess and the delivery of transportation services.

I was asked to discuss performance measures and thepolitical decision-making process. I think you can sim-plify the discussion of politics and performance mea-sures by focusing on a single mission. That mission is toincrease the investment in transportation assets and ser-vices. In addressing this mission we first have to con-vince the public of the value received for tax dollars. Wemust also convince the public that what we are going todo with the next tax dollar makes sense.

9OPENING SESSION

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 9

It is important to start with the fundamental issue thatwe are in a crisis situation in transportation. More fund-ing is needed for transportation, and it is critical that weaddress transportation investment needs. The reasonsfor the current crisis are well known. First, our trans-portation infrastructure is aging. Second, our currentsystem is not keeping up with the demands of a growingpopulation. Third, funding for transportation has beendiminishing. Finally, transportation is a critical compo-nent of our economic and social well-being. I think mostpeople would agree that these four conditions define acrisis situation for our transportation system.

The solution to this crisis is more funding for trans-portation. To obtain additional funding we need to focuson two key elements. First, we must convince taxpayersthat they get a dollar’s worth of value for a dollar’s worthof tax. Transportation agencies must be accountable tothe public. Performance-based management can helpestablish and maintain accountability.

Performance measures provide internal guidance toensure that agencies are in fact providing a dollar’sworth of service for a dollar’s worth of tax. Performancemeasures help identify performance weaknesses as wellas performance strengths. Agencies must address theirweaknesses. One of the criteria an agency can use to testthe ability of its performance measures system is whathas been learned about the agency’s strengths and weak-nesses. The integrity of a performance measures systemis also critical.

The integrity of performance measures is linked to anagency’s credibility. In the political process, credibility is

critical. It takes a long time and a lot of effort to estab-lish credibility with policy makers. Credibility can belost quickly if inaccurate information is presented or ifattempts are made to cover up errors or problems.

All of the performance measures described in the pre-vious presentations are relevant to accountability andreporting on values. The measures addressing projectand service delivery are especially important. I thinkpolicy makers and the public in many states are inter-ested in project delivery performance measures. Deliver-ing projects on time and on budget has become themantra at transportation agencies. Delivering projectson time and on budget is not easy, as we all know.

I was fortunate to have a lot of experience in projectdelivery before coming to the Washington State Depart-ment of Transportation. I spent 9 years as head of theagency responsible for cleaning up the Boston Harbor.At any given time, we had 25 to 30 prime contractorsworking to modernize the wastewater treatment systemand plant. The benchmarks for compliance on thecleanup were set by a federal district court judge, whoentered the schedule for improvements as an order ofthe court. We had a large and complicated program toaddress the requirements. We were also fortunate, how-ever, to have an excellent federal district court judge. Hebrought a lot of proactive judgment to the process. Bymeeting schedules and being accountable, we were ableto build strong working relationships with the variousgroups involved in the cleanup process.

Some state transportation agencies are experiencingan infusion of new funding. These funds are frequently

1 0 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Puget Sound

SpokanePuget Sound

Tri -Cities

Current Daily Vehicle Hours of Delay per Lane -Mile

Measuring Congestion24 hour vehicle delay, in WSDOT ’s view, is the most basic and accessible measure for describing congestion. It indicates which roadways are congested, and gives an indication of the severity of congestion and how long it lasts.

Congestion is primarily concentrated in the urban areas, especially Puget Sound, Vancouver and Spokane.The highest spike depicted on the map is located at the interchange for I-5 and I -90 in Seattle, where the average tally is about 825 vehicle hours of delay per lane mile per day.

FIGURE 2 Current daily vehicle hours of delay in Puget Sound region. With demandgrowing and supply stagnant, congestion as measured by traveler delay hasincreased. WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation.

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 10

linked to specific projects or programs, however. InWashington State, the recently passed Nickel Tax pro-gram is dedicated to some 150 to 160 projects over thenext 10 years. We are committed to delivering the proj-ects on time and on budget, but we all know the diffi-culties that can arise in constructing and reconstructingtransportation facilities.

It is important to build credibility in meeting on-timeand on-budget expectations. One way to build credibil-ity is to use narrative reporting in addition to charts andother graphics. Do not underestimate the effectivenessof telling your story, including possible problems, innarrative reporting.

The second part of accomplishing our mission is toconvince taxpayers that what we are going to do withthe next tax dollar makes sense. I think one of the trapstransportation professionals sometimes fall into is totalk about strategies. I suggest that we do not invest instrategies. We invest in opportunities. We have opportu-nities to do various things with available funding. Thechallenge is to use performance measures to help defineand select among the opportunities generated for addi-tional investments. As the Monday evening session onthe international scan will point out, performance mea-sures have been used in Canada, Australia, NewZealand, and Japan to target, deliver, and measuresafety projects.

As you all know, there are many ways to describecongestion. Among them are trip times, travel speeds,trip-time reliability, delay times, and the buffer index.One of the techniques we saw used in Japan on the scantour illustrates traveler delay.

We believed this was a powerful way to present infor-mation on congestion to the policy makers and the pub-

lic graphically. Figure 2 is one example showing currentdaily vehicle hours of delay per lane mile in the PugetSound region. We also use Figure 3 to illustrate the rela-tionship between delay and efficiency. Figure 4 showsthe percentage of productivity lost because of delay onfreeways in the Puget Sound region.

There are two ways of dealing with the congestionproblem. We can increase capacity and we can increaseefficiency. We know that incidents and accidentsdegrade the efficiency of our freeways and that one way

1 1OPENING SESSION

I-405 NB @ 24th NE, Weekdays in May, 2001

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

2400

Hourly Volume/Lane

Spe

ed

Slightly lower speed,higher throughput

Much lower speed,lower throughput

Max throughput is reached at roughly 50 mph.

Volume and Speed Relationship

Northbound I-405 at NE 24th Street

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

12 A

M

3 A

M

6 A

M

9 A

M

Noo

n

3 P

M

6 P

M

9 P

M

Lost Capacity

Percent of Productivity Lost Due to Delay

(b)(a)

FIGURE 3 Relationship between delay and efficiency. (a) Maximum freeway throughput is typically at speeds of 45 to 50mph. This accommodates about 2,000 vehicles per hour per lane. System throughput drops dramatically when traffic volumeforces speeds to drop below 50 mph. (b) During the peak period on I-405, congestion reduces the throughput of the two general-purpose lanes in Renton to the capacity of one free-flowing lane.

Percent of Productivity Lost Due to Delay

50% 100%

FIGURE 4 Percentage of productivity lost to delays inthe Puget Sound region. Lost productivity on PugetSound freeways is staggering. In the peak travelperiod on an average weekday, delay causes signifi-cant loss in productivity—as much as 60 percent.

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 11

to increase efficiency is through the use of incidentresponse teams or highway helper programs. We havedocumented the average delay savings with incidentresponse teams through the use of performance mea-sures. Presenting this type of information to policy mak-ers and the public is critical to build support for thesetypes of programs.

We have also been able to use performance measuresand monitoring to show the benefits of restriping a seg-ment of SR-167 from two lanes to three lanes, whichwas suggested by a commuter, and the opening of ahigh-occupancy vehicle lane extension on I-5 South.

Both of these situations provide powerful informationto present to policy makers and the public concerningthe benefits of transportation improvements and whatthe department can do with additional funds.

The key is to use this type of information to build abalanced program that includes both operational andcapital improvements, along with enhancement proj-ects, that will provide the greatest return on invest-ments. The ability to tell the story and to communicatewith policy makers is a key part of the process. We mustclearly articulate where transportation funds come fromand how they are allocated.

1 2 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 12

1 3

Impact of Performance Measures on Internal and External Relationships

Robert Johns, Moderator, University of MinnesotaMark C. Larson, Minnesota Department of TransportationLisa Klein, Metropolitan Transportation CommissionSarath Joshua, Maricopa CountyJeffrey Lindley, Federal Highway AdministrationDavid Ekern, Idaho Department of Transportation

ORGANIZING FOR PERFORMANCE-BASEDMANAGEMENT

Mark C. Larson

I appreciate the opportunity to summarize the confer-ence resource paper that addresses organizing for per-formance-based management. Performance measureshave been used at many transportation agencies for thepast 15 to 20 years. The use of performance measureshas been driven by a variety of external and internal fac-tors. In talks with representatives from a number ofstate departments of transportation and metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs) in preparing theresource paper, some common elements emerged thatappear to influence successful programs.

External groups, including state legislatures, com-missions, and governors, helped promote the movementtoward performance-based management. Internal fac-tors include quality management programs, transporta-tion planning requirements, and changes in leadershipat many agencies. Performance-based management waswell established in the private sector before it was intro-duced into public agencies. Freight companies, rail-roads, airlines, and public transit agencies have beenusing performance measures for many years.

External groups, especially state legislatures and gov-ernors, have become involved when there is a perceivedlack of accountability at state transportation agencies.Our challenge is to move forward and set our own agen-das. If we do not, the likelihood of outside forces doingit increases greatly.

As other speakers have noted, a number of states havetied increases in transportation funding to specificaccountability measures. Examples include the 1980sgasoline tax increase in Florida, Vision 21 in Mississippi,the Nickel Tax in Washington, and the Cooper RiverBridge project in South Carolina. Other examples are the5-cent sales tax increase in Arizona, the dedication ofincreased bridge tolls for transit in the San Francisco BayArea, and the Jobs and Progress Plan in Ohio.

The Jobs and Progress Plan in Ohio included a 6-centincrease in the state gasoline tax. The increase will pro-vide an additional $5 billion over the next 10 years fortransportation projects in the state. The challenge to theOhio Department of Transportation is to deliver thepromised projects on time and on budget.

The resource paper outlines three stages of develop-ment in the application of performance measures at trans-portation agencies. The first stage focuses on establishingperformance measures and monitoring progress. Anannual report to the legislature represents a commonreporting method during this stage. There may be systemor process measures in this stage, but they are not usuallyconnected. Agencies may also focus too much on trying todevelop perfect performance measures during this initialstage.

The second stage focuses on a more real-time or futureorientation. Performance measures in this stage are usedin the planning process and in managing project delivery.This stage also includes setting targets, which can bringfocus to a department and promote change. More analy-sis is conducted by using the performance measures. Thethird stage has a strong future orientation. Rather than

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 13

single measures, this stage uses a package of measures tooptimize benefits.

The resource paper examines the current agendas ofmany transportation agencies. At least five commonitems seem to be prevalent at many transportation agen-cies. First, most states have project delivery reportingsystems. Second, many states are reducing the numberof performance measures in use and aligning key mea-sures with the priorities of the state plan and the stateadministration. Third, states are improving decisionsupport tools and models. Fourth, transportation agen-cies are focusing on more complex performance mea-sures addressing quality of life, economic development,mobility, and safety. Finally, some states are expandingtheir measurement framework to encompass modal andintermodal measures.

The resource paper highlights examples of elements ofsuccessful practices. First, leadership and the attitudes oftop management are keys to the successful use of perfor-mance measures. An ongoing commitment to improvingthe application of performance measures is part of thisleadership. Second, regular monitoring and reporting arecritical. Successful programs are based on a culture ofaccountability and regular monitoring and reporting.Third, policy-driven performance measures appear to beimportant factors at many agencies. The links betweenpolicy, programming, and monitoring establish the basisfor performance measures in many states. Figure 1 illus-trates the continuous cycle linking these elements at theFlorida Department of Transportation.

A fourth element of successful programs is buildingownership among staff and programs within the depart-ment. Fifth, the use of practical measures tied to com-pelling priorities can help build support. Sixth, ensuringthat there is support from the legislature and other pol-icy makers is important. Seventh, providing informationto customers on the benefits of performance measures isimportant. Finally, setting targets is critical. If we do notset our own targets, we risk other groups setting themfor us.

Successful practice requires integration and institu-tionalization within transportation agencies. This inte-gration encompasses legislative governance, executiveinitiatives, the budget process, and plans and programs.Incorporation of strategic plans, transportation plans,capital programs, and project selection and design intothe process is important.

Montana’s performance programming process pro-vides one example of an integrated approach. It pro-vides a method to develop an optimal funding allocationand investment plan based on strategic highway systemperformance goals and the continual measurement ofprogress toward meeting these goals.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation hasestablished 10 policies in the statewide plan. Each pol-icy has related performance measures and targets. Thedepartment is now working on establishing prioritiesamong these policies. Twenty-year targets have been setfor the various performance measures. The targets havebeen established on the basis of customer expectations,engineering, and other factors.

The Minnesota Department of Transportation’s dis-trict planning process focuses on a 2008 to 2030 hori-zon. Two scenarios are included. The first is theperformance-based plan, which includes the invest-ments needed to meet targets by 2023. The second is thefiscally constrained plan, which includes priorities basedon forecast revenues. System preservation is a top prior-ity at the district level. Another priority is to allocateresources in constrained plans to meet pavement targetsby 2014 and to make progress toward bridge targets by2023.

The integration of performance measures into proj-ect delivery, maintenance, operations, and informationtechnology projects and administrative support is alsooccurring at many transportation agencies. Examples ofthese approaches include Wisconsin’s maintenanceaccountability program and Minnesota’s operations andmaintenance performance snapshot.

The resource paper identifies a number of emergingactivities under way at transportation agencies. Theseactivities focus on more proactive applications of per-formance measures. Examples of these approachesinclude forecasting, modeling, scenario planning, life-cycle costing and optimization targets, and trade-offanalysis.

The future toolbox for performance measures willinclude a number of elements. First, we will see more useof geographic information systems to map performancegaps and other information. Second, dashboards andother measurement software will be enhanced. Third,auditing performance data will become more common-place. Measuring cost and competitiveness will be a pri-ority. Measures for performance-based contracting willalso be developed, along with benchmarking.

1 4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

Programming

and Project

Delivery

Develop

Financial

Policies

Monitor

Performance

Establish Policy

and Plans

FIGURE 1 Performance measurement cycle of theFlorida Department of Transportation.

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 14

A number of lessons can be identified from the expe-rience to date with the use of performance measures attransportation agencies. First, it is important to keep per-formance measures simple and understandable. Second,take small steps, establish your system, learn as you go,and keep improving. Do not wait for perfect measuresand data. Finally, policies must drive measures.

In closing, I would like to highlight a few of the chal-lenging issues facing transportation agencies. Workingto focus on a few critical strategic measures rather thanaccountability for everything we do continues to be achallenge. Linking agency performance measures toindividual performance accountability is being exploredat some agencies. Many agencies continue to strugglewith vision and innovation versus day-to-day manage-ment. Finally, cooperation among state, regional, andlocal partners continues to be a challenge in some areas.Thank you.

INTEGRATING PERFORMANCE MEASURESACROSS MULTIPLE JURISDICTIONS

Lisa Klein

I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this con-ference. I have been asked to talk about integrating per-formance measures across multiple jurisdictions. I willuse two examples to highlight some of the experienceswe have had at the Metropolitan Transportation Com-mission (MTC) in the San Francisco Bay Area with theuse of performance measures involving multiple juris-dictions: a local pavement management system and aferry boat fare box recovery measure.

The pavement management system in the San Fran-cisco Bay Area is a successful example of integratingperformance measures across multiple jurisdictions.MTC developed a pavement management software sys-tem in the 1980s to document aggregate funding needsfor local street repair in the area’s long-range planningprocess. The pavement management system provides anaverage score for pavement condition in each jurisdic-tion. It provides a numerical value from 0 to 100, with100 equating to brand new pavement. There are 101cities in the nine-county Bay Area. Most cities useMTC’s pavement management system software.

Starting in 2001, the average condition score was pub-lished in the Bay Area State of the Transportation Systemreport. The scores are reported by jurisdiction and rankedin order from highest to lowest. The local media report theresults of the annual pavement management system rank-ings, especially the communities with the best and theworst average pavement condition scores. We have foundthat the annual results are discussed at the communitylevel.

The city of Petaluma, which has had the lowest scorefor the past 2 years, provides one example of how thepavement condition index measure contributes to localdiscussions and actions. The city’s low rating has been atopic of discussion among the city council, local interestgroups, and other organizations. A year ago, the citycouncil placed a measure on the ballot to increase thecity utility fee to help fund pavement improvements.While the measure was not approved by voters, the citycouncil has allocated additional funding for pavementimprovements. City officials have been quoted in thelocal paper citing their new, improved pavement condi-tion score. The city of Santa Clara is at the other end ofthe rating scale, ranking first in 2002. The Santa Claracity council formally recognized the public worksdepartment for achieving the top pavement rating.

A number of elements appear to contribute to thesuccessful use of the pavement management system.First, the ability to contribute to the discussion of pave-ment needs is based on a substantial investment byMTC. A significant cost was involved in the initialdevelopment of the software. There is also a significantcost associated with its ongoing use and with providingtechnical assistance to communities. This support hasestablished confidence among MTC, the MPO, and thelocal jurisdictions in the quality of the data used in thesystem.

Second, a state law aids in the use of the pavementmanagement system. California law requires that MPOscertify that local jurisdictions have a pavement manage-ment system in order to receive federal and state fund-ing. This ensures that we have access to the data on aregular basis. Third, the pavement management systemmeasures a concept the customer understands. Althoughthe pavement condition index is abstract, it is under-stood by community staff and policy makers, interestgroups, and the public. There is some concern, however,that the focus on individual rankings may detract fromthe overall need to invest in pavements in the region.Fourth, the pavement management software andprocess provide a consistent measure that is accepted bytechnical staff. Timeliness is a problem, however,because there is a lag time between the reporting of databy communities, the time the data are available to MTC,and completion of the annual updates.

The second example of integrating performance mea-sures across jurisdictions is the ferry boat fare boxrecovery measure. Funding for ferry capital and operat-ing costs has traditionally come from bridge toll rev-enues, which are dedicated to transit. There has beenconcern recently about the cost-effectiveness of some ofthe ferry routes. In 2002 the commission established a40 percent fare box recovery standard for ferry opera-tors. A 3-year ramp-up period was provided. This fiscalyear will be the third year of the ramp-up period, and

1 5IMPACT ON INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL RELATIONSHIPS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 15

the next fiscal year will be the first when the fare boxrecovery ratio will be considered in allocating funding.In 2000 the fare box recovery ratio of the three ferryoperators ranged from 40.5 to 73.2 percent, and the 3-year average from 1998 to 2000 ranged from 34.5 to70.9 percent. There is also discussion of establishing afare box recovery ratio and other operational perfor-mance measures for new transit projects funded througha recent increase in tolls.

It is too soon to tell for certain how the ferry boatfare box recovery measure will work out. It will proba-bly not be as successful as the pavement managementscore in terms of integration across multiple jurisdic-tions. It appears that no service changes have been madein response to the measure. A number of factors maycontribute to some of the push back from the three oper-ators. First, there are unique elements or special circum-stances associated with the different ferry routes.Second, compared with the pavement managementexample, the ferry box recovery measure lacks an estab-lished foundation. The operators would say that MTCis on dangerous ground when it comes to measuringtransit operations. The stakes are also higher in terms ofinfluence on future funding levels. Third, the measuremay not be aligned with constituents’ interests. Reduc-ing ferry service that does not meet the fare box recov-ery ratio is certainly not in the best interests of residentswho use these routes. Finally, with only three operators,compared with the 101 cities with pavement manage-ment systems, it is easy to make the case that each hassomewhat special circumstances to be considered.

INVOLVEMENT OF CUSTOMERS INPERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT

Sarath Joshua

I appreciate the opportunity to talk about the experi-ence with involving customers in performance-basedmanagement at the Maricopa Association of Govern-ments (MAG). The Phoenix area is experiencing rapidpopulation growth and development. While improve-ments are being made to the freeway system, they arenot keeping up with development. I will first describethe customers of an MPO. I will highlight what MPOsmanage and discuss ways MPOs can measure perfor-mance. Finally, I will provide some examples of howMPOs can involve customers in developing and usingperformance measures.

It is first important to define the customers of an MPO.An MPO is primarily a regional collaboration of localgovernments. As a result, an MPO’s primary customersare local jurisdictions and agencies. MPOs are in turncustomers of the state and federal governments. MPOs

work with customers to develop regional solutions to crit-ical problems. Examples of MAG plans addressingimportant issues include the regional long-range trans-portation plan, the 911 system plan, the air quality plan,the intelligent transportation system strategic plan, andthe concept for a transportation operations plan.

While MPOs are typically not operating agencies,they are responsible for transportation planning andprogramming activities. MPOs are responsible for thedevelopment of a region’s transportation plan identify-ing how state and federal transportation funds will bespent. MPOs are responsible for developing plans tomeet air quality conformity requirements. MPOs alsodevelop future growth scenarios for the region throughextensive modeling to assist in decision making.

MPOs can use performance measures both internallyand externally. Examples of internal performance mea-sures include regional funds obligated on time and proj-ects completed on time and on budget. Outcomemeasures can be established and program activity canbe monitored. Measures from an external customerviewpoint might include maintaining pace with chang-ing conditions, maintaining or improving the quality oflife, improving safety, reducing traffic congestion, andmaintaining or reducing travel times.

MPOs can involve their customers in developing andmonitoring performance measures in a number of ways.First, decisions at MPOs are made in an open environ-ment with direct involvement of customers. MPOs haveformal committee structures involving all stakeholdergroups. All MPO plans and decisions are subject toextensive public review.

The development of the regional concept plan for trans-portation operations at MAG provides a recent exampleof involving customers in developing performance mea-sures. The plan focuses on improving transportation oper-ations in the region. We asked representatives from thecities, counties, transit agencies, and other organizationsto identify the current operation of the regional,local/regional, and local transportation systems. Partici-pants were then asked their expectations of operations in3 years and in 5 years if different improvements weremade. The results of this assessment were used to helpidentify the goals of the operations plan.

The regional transportation plan includes perfor-mance measures for a number of areas. Maintenanceand safety performance measures address cost and thenumber of crashes. Access and mobility performancemeasures focus on the level of service and delay. Thereare also performance measures related to sustaining theenvironment, accountability, and planning. The regionalconcept plan for transportation operations includes per-formance measures of freeway mobility, arterial mobil-ity, incident duration, and integrated operations. Forexample, the 3-year goal is to reduce the duration of

1 6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS

99395mvp9_38 12/13/05 12:24 PM Page 16

incidents by 10 percent. The 5-year goal is to reduce theduration of incidents by 70 percent.

LINKING NATIONAL PERFORMANCE MEASURESTO EXTERNAL CUSTOMERS

Jeffrey Lindley

It is a pleasure to have the opportunity to share withyou the Federal Highway Administration’s (FHWA’s) 3years of experience in developing and tracking conges-tion performance measures at the national level. FHWAstarted an effort in late 2000 to develop metrics for itsinternal planning process. We were also interested inbetter understanding the causes of traffic congestion,being able to track congestion trends, and presentingthis information to external audiences.

We now have a fairly extensive ongoing program ofcongestion monitoring, management, and research.The FHWA Office of Operations provides consider-able information on congestion monitoring on itswebpage, ops.fhwa.dot.gov. Congestion and reliabil-ity performance measures will be discussed in moredetail at the Tuesday morning session. There is also abreakout session on congestion and reliability.

My comments focus on four general topics. First, Iwill discuss the number and the type of measures thatwere selected. Second, I will describe how the best mea-sures were identified. Third, I will address the process ofsetting targets for the selection of performance mea-sures. Finally, I will highlight the importance of com-municating the results of performance monitoring tokey external audiences, especially the public, the media,and policy makers.

FHWA uses congestion measures focusing on the aver-age duration of congested travel, the travel time index,and the buffer index. There are two measures addressingthe average duration of congested travel. The first is thatfor any 5-minute interval a trip is congested if its durationexceeds 130 percent of free-flow or uncongested duration.The second measure is that if more than 20 percent of alltrips in the network are congested in any 5-minute inter-val, the entire network is congested for that time interval.The travel time index is defined as the ratio of congestedand uncongested travel times averaged over all congestedtrips. The buffer index is defined as the ratio of total travelbudget required for 95 percent on-time reliability over theuncongested travel time averaged over all congested trips.The