Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES 203ridors. It was agreed that Rob Bostrom, Mark Larson,and Ron Tweedie would bring the issues beforethe TRB Freight Data Committee.Intelligent Transportation SystemData from intelligent transportation system (ITS)sources were discussed. There was agreement on theneed for a consensus on the types of planning datathat are needed from ITS. Questions were asked regardinghow to use the data and what ITS can do.Issues such as data capture, formats, software forprocessing, dictionaries, reliability of data, and integrationwith planning data all need to be explored.It was agreed that Bill Walsek and Jonette Kreideweiswould prepare a research proposal.Use of Performance Measures inState GovernmentsIt is not clear where or how performance measuresare being used in state governments. The followingquestions need to be answered: Have performancemeasures had an impact on policy decisions? Whatis the payoff for policy-level measurement versus engineering-levelmeasurement? Jonette Kreideweis wastasked with preparing a research statement.Safety MeasuresIt was agreed that another level of measures beyondfatality and crash rates is necessary. The example ofhigh-accident locations was discussed. A researchstatement should outline how safety measures areused in the states and what the data issues are. RogerPetzold was tasked with preparing this statement. Hewould also work with the TRB Safety Task Force,and Tremain Downey would assist.Sustainability MeasuresMeasures of environmental justice, equity, and growthmanagement were determined important. Questionssuch as these were asked: What are the data implications?What new measures do we need to support theprograms? Ed Christopher and Tremain Downey weretasked with bringing this topic to the TRB Urban DataCommittee.Summary of States’ Goals, Objectives, andPerformance MeasuresThe group discussed state goals and how they relateto federal goals and measures. The question of aligninggoals from 50 states, approximately 350 metropolitanplanning organizations (MPOs), and the federallevel was raised. In discussing the need forcommon indicators, it was decided that we shouldlearn from other states rather than attempt to standardizegoals and measures. Ed Christopher, RogerPetzold, and Tony Esteve were tasked with investigatingthis question from the federal perspective andreporting back to the TRB Urban Data Committee.Quality Assurance of DataThe discussion began with a focus on data qualityissues and quickly evolved into several other importantdata issues, such as integration, standardization,and privatization of data collection. The followingquestions were raised: How do you set up a relationshipfor data collection? How do you relate the data?Who is the data owner? Who coordinates integrationof the data? How are partnerships with MPOs, localities,and the private sector formed? What are theeffects of data integration on data quality and integrity?The discussion centered on the changing role ofstate DOTs regarding data quality, due to new performancemeasures and the need to compare methodsof quality assurance. It was agreed that Anita Vandervalkand Ron Tweedie would prepare a researchstatement on this topic.SECTION 3: SUMMARY OFSTATES’ ACTIVITIESMinnesota’s Performance MeasurementDirections and IssuesMark Larson of the Minnesota Department of Transportation(MnDOT) described the direction that performancemeasurement has taken at MnDOT andsome of the key issues the agency has been requiredto address. As an early leader in the field of performancemeasurement in general and customer-basedmeasures in particular, MnDOT’s experience is relevantand useful even to those agencies that have alreadymade considerable progress in performancemeasurement.