Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

162 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND AGENCY OPERATIONS• Performance standards for police, fire, and parkservices; sanitary facilities; and water and flood control.Table 2 outlines how these standards are applied.Flexible Versus Fixed StandardsMeasure C sets fixed standards only for local, nonregionalroutes. These standards, which are tied toadjoining land uses, are listed below• Rural LOS low C [V/C (volume-to-capacity) ratioof 70–74];• Semirural LOS high C (V/C ratio of 75–79);• Suburban LOS low D (V/C ratio of 80–84);• Urban LOS high D (V/C ratio of 85–89); and• Central business district LOS low E (V/C ratioof 90–94).Through their general plans, local jurisdictions decidewhich of these standards to apply to whichroads. The performance standards for public facilitiesare set by each local jurisdiction as part of their generalplan. The only criterion is that they be measurable.The TSOs for regional routes reflect the intent ofthe regional committees that set them. Although eachTABLE 2MeasuresDefinitionStandardIncluded inUsed inMonitoringComplianceReviewConsequences ofNoncomplianceContra Costa Performance Measures in the Measure C Growth Management ProgramTSO = traffic service objective.Routes of RegionalSignificance Nonregional Routes Other Public FacilitiesRoutes connect regions ofthe county or thecounty to other regionsTSOs, established by regionalcommittees, arequantitative measuresof effectiveness, such asvehicle occupancy orhours of congestionAction plans for routes ofregional significanceare prepared jointly byjurisdictions within thesubareas of ContraCostaReview general planamendments (ensurethat amendmentswould not hinderachievement of TSOs)Authority monitors aspart of periodic updateof countywide comprehensivetransportationplanRegional committee reviewof general planamendmentsLoss of jurisdiction’sshare of local streetsand roadways fundsgenerated byMeasure CAny local roadway is notdesignated as route of regionalsignificanceTraditional level-of-servicestandard is tied to adjoiningland usesGrowth management elementof local general planLocal jurisdiction review ofdevelopmentsLocal jurisdiction monitorsas part of biennial compliancereportingAuthority reviews throughannual compliancechecklistLoss of jurisdiction’s share oflocal streets and roadwaysfunds generated byMeasure CFire, police, parks, sanitaryfacilities, water and floodcontrolSet by local jurisdictionsGrowth management elementof local general planLocal jurisdiction review ofdevelopmentsNoneNoneLoss of jurisdiction’s share oflocal streets and roadwaysfunds generated byMeasure C
SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 163TSO must be measurable, it is not tied to any specificmeasure of effectiveness. Regional committees haveused LOS, delay index, transit ridership, and averagevehicle occupancy as TSOs to answer the followingquestions: should performance measures be consistentthroughout the county? Or is it more importantthat the standards fit the unique circumstances ofeach area?Setting StandardsLocal jurisdictions define and are responsible forstandards for public facilities; they choose whichLOS to apply to local, nonregional routes. Regionalcommittees, made up of local jurisdictions withineach part of Contra Costa, define the TSOs; the theoryis that regional routes should not be the responsibilityof a single jurisdiction. Should regional committeesset local facility standards? Should theauthority set TSOs?Standards as Only LowestCommon DenominatorFailure by local jurisdictions to meet adopted standards—whetherTSO, LOS, or facility standards—could result in their loss of some Measure C funds.This potential loss may encourage local jurisdictionsto choose only standards that are easily achieved butthat do not reflect their local goals. Should the authorityset minimum standards for public facilities?Upstream Projects and Downstream ImpactsThe growth management program assumes that localjurisdictions should be responsible for local streetsbut not regional routes. Traffic from other jurisdictions,however, does not use only regional routes.Should a local jurisdiction be responsible for trafficimpacts on their streets that result from developmentin another jurisdiction?WISCONSIN DEPARTMENT OFTRANSPORTATIONContactMark Wolfgram, Chief, Program Development andAnalysis, Bureau of State Highway Programs, WisconsinDepartment of Transportation, 4802 SheboyganAvenue, Room 933, P.O. Box 7913, Madison,WI 53707-7913608-266-5791, 608-267-1856 (fax)mark.wolfgram@dot.state.wi.usPoster Session SummaryPlanning and Programming Goal forHighway PerformanceIn the mid-1990s, Wisconsin Department of Transportation(DOT) set out to create a unified, datadrivenprocess for the management of the state trunkhighway system (roads the state maintains includingInterstates, U.S. highways, and state routes). Initiallyconcentrating on traditional planning and programmingissues, the process was designed to support thefollowing functions:• Development of policies and financially constrained,performance-oriented, long-range systemplans;• Development of performance goals and prioritiesfor the highway improvement program, which isconsistent with those of the long-range system plan;• Development of projects for inclusion in the 6-year highway improvement program;• Development and justification of biennial budgetrequests; and• Monitoring of the performance achieved by theimprovement program.Work is currently under way relating to highwaymaintenance operations and may be incorporatedinto the process in the future.ProcessThe fundamental concept of the process is to integratedata and information from the Intermodal SurfaceTransportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA)management systems into what is referred to as the‘‘meta-management system.’’ Data integration is accomplishedwith the geographic information system(GIS). In the early stages of the effort, a great deal oftime was spent to ensure consistent linear referencingamong many departmental databases, including thefollowing:• Highway inventory,• Traffic counts and forecasts,• Pavement management,
Page 5 and 6:
National Academy of SciencesNationa
Page 7 and 8:
Workshop Summary ..................
Page 9:
General OverviewIntroductionExecuti
Page 12 and 13:
4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 14 and 15:
6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 18 and 19:
10 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 20 and 21:
Page 23:
Linking Performance Measures withDe
Page 26 and 27:
Page 28 and 29:
Page 30 and 31:
Page 32 and 33:
Page 34 and 35:
Page 36 and 37:
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Panel DiscussionJohn Poorman, Capit
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Workshop SummaryJohn Basilica, Loui
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 55 and 56:
RESOURCE PAPERImplementing Performa
Page 57 and 58:
IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMEN
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Panel DiscussionJennifer Finch, Col
Page 69 and 70:
FIGURE 2Level of measures and align
Page 71 and 72:
PANEL DISCUSSION: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 79 and 80:
WORKSHOP SUMMARY: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 81:
Selecting Measures, Data Needs, and
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Panel Discussion, Part 1Anita Vande
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
Page 102 and 103:
Panel Discussion, Part 2Douglas Zim
Page 104 and 105:
FIGURE 11 Example data
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Workshop SummaryBrenda Berg, Trans
Page 110 and 111:
Page 113 and 114:
RESOURCE PAPERMeasuring That Which
Page 115 and 116:
MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 117 and 118:
TABLE 1Sustainability MeasuresNewma
Page 119 and 120: MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 135 and 136: PANEL DISCUSSION: CONNECTING SYSTEM
Page 143 and 144: Workshop SummaryScott Bassett, Oreg
Page 145: Freight Performance MeasuresCurrent
Page 148 and 149: 140 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 163 and 164: APPENDIX ASummaries of 20 Poster Se
Page 165 and 166: SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 157
Page 167 and 168: TABLE 1(continued) WSDOT Outcomes,
Page 169: SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 161
Page 177 and 178: FIGURE 2 Sacramento Regional Transi
Page 179 and 180: FIGURE 3Goal evaluation table: Chit
Page 187 and 188: TABLE 6Mobility Performance Measure
Page 195 and 196: FIGURE 13 MPAH lane-miles by roadwa
Page 207 and 208: SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FO
Page 221 and 222:
SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FO
Page 223 and 224:
APPENDIX C: RESEARCH STATEMENTS DEV
Page 225 and 226:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 217University,
Page 227:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 219Darwin Stua
show all

Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?