Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

176 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND AGENCY OPERATIONSFIGURE 5Geographic area for selection of peers.Florida systems for each of the three peer groups. Apeer received one point for each measure for whichit was within 1 standard deviation (SD) of the Floridasystems’ mean. One-half point was given for eachmeasure that fell between 1 and 2 SDs from the Floridasystems’ mean.Three of the measures (service area populationdensity, revenue miles, and average speed) are consideredprimary measures of comparison. To giveweight to systems that are close to Florida’s averagesfor these three variables, 1 /2 point was awarded topeers falling within 1 or 2 SDs of the Florida systems’means (for density, revenue miles, and speed) in eachof the motorbus vehicle categories.After the total scores were determined, the potentialpeers were ranked in descending order. For the 1to 9 and 50 to 200 groups, the top six scorers wererecommended as peers for Florida systems. In the 10to 49 group, the top eight peers were selected. Notethat some of the recommended peers elected not toparticipate in the peer review analysis or were unableto provide their NTD reports in a timely manner. Inthese cases, several of the next-highest scoring systemschosen in each category to serve as backup peerswere used instead.Comparison of peers using standard deviations isdifferent from the past methodology, which selectedsystems based on whether they were 10 or 15 percentwithin the Florida averages. Note that the results ofthis analysis were not radically different from the resultsderived from the previous approach. However,the use of SDs is a widely used, statistically validtechnique that proved to produce expected, commonsenseresults.Unfortunately, since only one Florida system is includedin the greater-than-200 motorbus group (i.e.,Miami–Dade Transit Agency in Miami), it was notpossible to use the SD methodology used for theother peer groups. Potential peers for Miami werescored according to whether they were within 10 or15 percent of Miami’s values for the eight indicators.In addition, due to the size of the system and numberof modes (directly operated and purchased motorbus,heavy rail, and automated guideway) operated in Miami,the search for peers was not restricted to the 12states displayed in Figure 5. For the most recent review,seven peers were chosen to comprise thegreater-than-200 group.Statewide FindingsPassenger Trips Ridership on Florida’s public transitsystems has increased by 45 percent since 1984.Between 1998 and 1999, ridership increased by 4.6percent from 176 million trips to approximately 184million trips. In addition, total ridership has increasedby 22.5 percent since 1992.Service Miles Since 1984, the amount of serviceprovided (i.e., service miles) by Florida’s fixed-routebus and rail systems has increased by 67 percent. Between1998 and 1999, service miles increased by approximately2 percent from 92.7 million mi to 94.8million mi. In addition, the number of service mileshas increased by 28 percent since 1992.Operating Cost per Service Mile Operating cost perservice mile has increased by 60 percent for all modessince 1984; the cost per service mile for bus serviceincreased by nearly 55 percent. Overall, increases inoperating costs per service mile were lower than the
SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 177rate of inflation (64 percent) during the period of1984–1999.Other Study ComponentsThe original performance evaluation project has beenenhanced over the past 12 years. Initially, CUTR onlyexamined fixed-route data. The demand-responsecategory was added in FY 1995. These four performanceevaluation documents are currently availableon CD-ROM and the Internet. In addition, the performanceevaluation project includes a performancereporting investigation, NTD data-collection and -reportingtraining workshops, and an executive summaryreport. Finally, the most recent addition is aFlorida transit handbook.FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIONContactAnita Vandervalk, Florida Department of <strong>Transportation</strong>,605 Suwannee Street, MS 27, Tallahassee, FL32399-0450850-414-4848, 850-488-4752 (fax)anita.vandervalk@dot.state.fl.usPoster Session SummaryFlorida’s Mobility PerformanceMeasures ProgramFlorida’s Need for Performance Measures Citizens,elected officials, policy makers, and transportationprofessionals in Florida are seeking new ways ofmeasuring the performance of the transportation systemto answer the following questions:• How do we improve transportation to serve peopleand commerce in Florida?• What are we getting from our investment intransportation?• Are we investing in transportation as efficientlyas possible?Mobility performance measures are needed to answerthese questions and to track performance over time.They also provide accountability and link strategicplanning to resource allocation. By defining specificmeasures, the Florida Department of <strong>Transportation</strong>(FDOT) is able to measure the effectiveness of programsin meeting department objectives.Principles of Florida’s Mobility Performance MeasuresProgram Florida’s mobility performance measuresare tied to the goals and objectives establishedin the Florida transportation plan. The plan emphasizesfour key areas: safety, mobility, economic prosperity,and preservation.Following a review of national research, Florida’sMobility Performance Measures Program is based onthe following principles:• Program builds on national research,• Process is policy driven and supported by data,• Measures reflect users’ experience on system,• Measures address multimodal considerations,• Results are understandable to the general public,and• Results can be forecast into the future.Florida’s Mobility Performance Measures Mobility,as FDOT defines it, is ‘‘the ease with which peopleand goods move throughout their community, state,and world.’’ This definition emphasizes mobility fromthe user perspective. Florida’s mobility performancemeasures describe the following dimensions of mobility:• Quantity of travel—reflects the magnitude ofthe use of a facility or service;• Quality of travel—describes travel conditionsand the effects of congestion;• Accessibility—describes the ease with whichpeople can connect to the multimodal transportationsystem; and• Utilization—indicates whether a transportationsystem is properly sized and has the ability to accommodategrowth.Table 5 provides a summary of FDOT’s mobility performancemeasures for highways, and Table 6 providesa summary of mobility performance measuresfor transit.Results of Mobility Performance Measures Figures6 through 9 provide examples of the mobility performancemeasure results for quantity of travel, qualityof travel, accessibility, and utilization, respectively.
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:
Page 121 and 122:
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134: 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 177 and 178: FIGURE 2 Sacramento Regional Transi
Page 179 and 180: FIGURE 3Goal evaluation table: Chit
Page 183: SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 175
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 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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?