Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

212 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS AND AGENCY OPERATIONSThere is a concern about the need to manage informationflow and prevent data overload, particularlyat the level of senior management and elected officials.Furthermore, there are related benefits to amore distributed approach to dissemination, such asmanaging peak workload at the staff level and improvingcurrency of the reported data.Texas Department of TransportationKim Hajek, director of data management in theTransportation Planning and Programming Division,presented information on performance measurementat the Texas Department of Transportation(TxDOT).Performance Measures: Who Is the Audience andHow Is Reporting Done?The performance measurement program serves theGovernor’s Office of Budget and Planning and theLegislative Budget Office. Reporting is relatively formaland structured as a result and is fed directly intothe budgeting process. TxDOT reports regularly tolegislative finance committees on financial performance.Overall, the performance measurement processin Texas has a strong financial component, relativeto the process in other states. The financial staffand committees are among the main target audiencefor the data and measures. A balanced scorecard approachis used, including internal and external measuresalike, process, and results. Measures attempt tobe explanatory and to gauge the efficiency of the system.Department output is measured as well as outcomesor results ‘‘on the street.’’Strategic PlanTxDOT’s strategic plan incorporates performancemeasurement to determine whether specific goals aremet. The plan has a 5-year horizon but is updatedevery 2 years. The new plan defines 4 goals, 16 strategies,and approximately 120 measures. Each performancemeasure reported has corresponding fiscalanalysis, describing what resources will be required todeliver the targeted level of performance. This is animportant component of the plan that other DOTsmay wish to review. Also of interest are objectives andmeasures on the fringe of TxDOT’s ability to influenceoutcome—reduction in auto theft, for example.DiscussionThere was a spirited discussion over whether it is appropriateto measure rates (e.g., number of fatalitiesper million vehicle miles) or absolute values (e.g., totalnumber of fatalities). Proponents of absolute valuesargue that indexed rates mask poor performance.For example, even though a state’s population andvehicle miles traveled are growing, a modest reductionin fatality rate will still result in more absolutefatalities per year, which would be considered pooror unacceptable performance by some. The correspondingcounterargument is that measures shouldfocus on aspects that the department can more directlyinfluence, such as the accident rate, not totalaccidents, because they cannot really influence to alarge extent population growth or even the growthof vehicle miles traveled. Proponents of the rate approachwould point to an improved (reduced) fatalityrate. People say that measures should be attainableand that it is not likely that absolute fatalities canreasonably be expected to hold or drop in a highgrowthstate such as Texas. The opposing argumentis that the rate hides the truth, which is that morepeople are killed per year, and that is what the publicand elected officials concentrate on.This was an interesting debate because it calledinto question the notion that you should not measurewhat you cannot influence but instead measure whatcustomers think is relevant or important. The compromiseand consensus opinion is that you need morethan one measure for the most important items. Italso helps to have diagnostic measures and indicators(e.g., causes and particulars behind fatalities, not justtotals and rates).New York State DOT Performance MeasuresRon Tweedie of the New York State Department ofTransportation (NYSDOT) described the state’s useof performance measures in its capital programmingefforts. Performance measures are used in developmentand monitoring of the Capital Program. Theyare used for project selection and monitoring and togauge the customer satisfaction with the results of theprogram. Performance measures are applied in fourtraditional areas of system programming: pavement,bridge, mobility, and safety.Pavement measures include pavement condition,with priority given to the national highway systemand major truck routes, paving cycle (how long ittakes to return to a specific segment), treatment life,and percentage of single course overlays. The mea-
SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FOR PERFORMANCE MEASURES 213sures also compute the ratio of treatment life to pavingcycle.As for bridges, according to Ron Tweedie, NewYork ‘‘has lots of old ones.’’ A bridge condition indexis used to track the 7,600 state highway systembridges. Primary concerns are safety, preservation,and serviceability. Safety measures include vulnerabilityto erosion and structural condition.Mobility, as NYSDOT defines it, is the ability tomove people and goods conveniently, reliably, safely,and at a reasonable cost. Measures used includethose related to congestion. NYSDOT is interested indeveloping measures based on the value of time inaddition to travel time itself. The department is alsointerested in ton-miles of delay due to the importanceof shipping time but acknowledges the difficulty inobtaining good data about shipment travel times.Safety issues revolve around reducing the numberof high-accident locations (HALs), the number ofhighway safety inspections conducted, and inclusionof HALs in the annual work program.A discussion ensued regarding the use of mobilityindices, that is, aggregated measures that consider severaldifferent components of mobility rolled up into asingle measure or index. Opinions were divided, witha slight majority of the group seeming to agree thatsingle indices are inappropriate for describing mobilityand perhaps other system focus areas. Mobility maybe particularly resistant to meaningful indexing becauseit is a complex concept and measured in such awide variety of ways in different states. More statesseem to have pursued the development of indices inother system areas, such as safety, system condition,and maintenance, than in mobility.
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:
Page 135 and 136:
PANEL DISCUSSION: CONNECTING SYSTEM
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Workshop SummaryScott Bassett, Oreg
Page 145:
Freight Performance MeasuresCurrent
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
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 and 170: 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 219: 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?