Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES 211index (IRI) or ISO 14001 environmental criteria],and targets. A distinction is made as to whether agoal supports external customer needs or internalneeds (e.g., department support).PennDOT has developed an electronic version ofthis scorecard of measures, providing a significantamount of structured, detailed performance data.This CD-based program stores and provides links toinformation on a wide variety of performance fronts.The user can zero in on a specific measure (e.g., IRI),observe performance by engineering district andcounty, or find out which particular pavement typeor traffic routes are contributing to a problem.Data IssuesTraffic volume and other highway statistics are availableon the Internet and draw from the same databaseas does the state highway performance measuring system.PennDOT resolved the data currency versus reportingcycle issue. All users draw from the same database,which is updated quarterly. Actual data in thedatabase are updated continuously, but only ownerscan access the latest data that have not yet been summarizedfor the most recent quarter. Nonowners haveaccess only to the latest quarter. The result is eliminatingor minimizing the problem of different usersciting data from disparate time periods.Maryland Department of Transportation,State Highway Administration:System Performance ReportWilliam Walsek, division chief of the Highway InformationServices Division at the Maryland State HighwayAdministration (SHA), presented the state ofMaryland’s Highway System Performance MeasurementsProgram and SHA’s 4-year business plan. Thebusiness plan identifies eight key performance areasfor department focus: mobility, highway safety, systempreservation, economic development, communityenhancement, environmental responsibility, customerservice, and managing resources.Business PlanWithin the mobility performance area, several goalsand corresponding measures have been identified. Althoughsome measures are similar to those used inseveral other states, there are notable innovations.Among them are the following:• Reduce the time required to restore normal trafficflow after an incident, and• Provide timely and reliable mobility informationto the traveling public.These goals suggest an unusual degree of emphasison incident management and real-time informationcollection and distribution.As at PennDOT, each goal is assigned one or twosenior managers, whose job it is to establish measuresand monitor progress. The performance measures aretied to specific numeric targets that quantify the desiredlevel of service or improvement and identify aspecific target date.The SHA objectives (targets) are a blend of externalmeasures of outcome (results), such as ‘‘improveaverage clearing time of incidents by 5% by June2001’’ and internal measures of agency output, suchas ‘‘provide more real-time information on the Webby FY 2002.’’Highway System PerformanceMeasurements ProgramA work currently under development, the MarylandHighway System Performance Measurements Programwill provide an annual report on system performance.The report will include data on systemcoverage, utilization, capital investment, demand,condition, and community enhancement. The systemperformance measures and indicators are generallytime based; that is, system condition or performanceis expressed as trends over time. Among the currentmeasures in use are track capital investment, lanemiles, and vehicle miles traveled; and relevant contextualinformation, such as population, number oflicensed drivers, size of labor force, and others. Thesecontext measures provide a quick way to assess howtransportation system trends (e.g., vehicle miles traveled)relate to general state trends (e.g., populationor labor force participation). Most of the data arederived from existing sources, and to date, the reportfocuses largely on historical trends rather than projectedfuture trends.Maryland DOT ProgramBecause it is a work in progress, to date the annualperformance report has not experienced a great dealof external exposure or review. The agency is concernedabout consistency with other data distributedto the public by SHA. Participants discussed the prosand cons of delivering a single annual report coveringall of the topics, as opposed to, for example, quarterlyreports covering a percentage of the topic areas.