Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT IN TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES 55them recoil at the idea that national performancestandards could be imposed that might not be relevantto their unique situations but that could be perceivedby some as reflecting unfavorably on them.They argue that decisions on performance objectivesto adopt, investments to make, and projects to pursueare the responsibility of state and local governmentsin response to circumstances that the federal governmentis incapable of dealing with and that are neitherconsistent nor comparable from location to location.They point out that local differences are so greatacross the country that any attempt to measure performanceon a national scale is inappropriate. Theycite the largely discredited Hartgen report as evidenceof the difficulty in drawing legitimate comparisonsamong transportation agencies with divergent characteristicsand goals.The dilemma has not yet been resolved. In theory,a compromise might involve dividing performanceobjectives and measures into national, regional, andlocal categories. National standards could apply touniversally accepted measures (such as federally mandatedbridge criteria, or adherence to uniform trafficcontrol standards). Regional criteria might applywhere sufficient consistency exists among such factorsas climate, terrain, traffic characteristics, materials,and subsurface conditions. Regional comparisonscould be valid for pavement and bridgeperformance, for example. However, it would clearlydepend on eliminating the underlying variation infactors that are beyond the control of the agency buthave a significant impact on condition. Some measures,such as level of congestion considered acceptableand levels of transit service provided, might berelevant strictly in relation to individual state and localarea policies and objectives. Whether such a hybridapproach can be developed to the general satisfactionof federal, state, and local officials remainsto be seen.State DOT ExperiencesMost of the state DOTs have initiated or experimentedwith performance measures to some degree.A few states, including Florida, Minnesota, andOregon, have been at it for some time. In no twocases have state DOTs undertaken performance measuresfor identical reasons and implemented them inthe same way.FloridaFlorida represents a particularly good long-standingexample of the power of performance measurement.In 1984, after a revenue increase, the legislaturemade its policy direction to the Florida Departmentof Transportation (FDOT) unmistakably clear: it wasnot satisfied with the level of maintenance statewideand wanted system preservation to take priority oversystem expansion. For the first time, FDOT definedperformance standards for bridges, pavements, andoverall quality of maintenance. The measurementsystems were easily understood by practitioners andpoliticians alike, and they turned out to be effective.Annually, using clear and comprehensible charts,FDOT graphically displays these adopted performanceobjectives and its progress for the year and forpreceding years in relation to that standard. Therefore,it is possible to ascertain at a glance what theobjective is, whether it is being achieved, and whatthe year-to-year trends are. It also is possible for thelegislature, the governor, the Commission on GovernmentAccountability to the People (the so-calledGAP Commission), the Florida Transportation Commission,MPOs throughout the state, and FDOT stafffrom senior levels to the front lines to confirm thatthe legislature’s mandate is being heeded, with performancestandards set and steady progress beingmade. The value of such an approach to an agency’scredibility is incalculable, particularly when continuousimprovement can be easily demonstrated.MinnesotaMinnesota’s initiative, known in its early days as the‘‘Family of Measures,’’ has received a lot of nationalattention. In contrast to that of Florida, its roots liewithin the state DOT itself, although later on, thelegislature began requiring it. It also was a broader,cross-cutting approach, embracing about 40 measuresin three general categories: system performance,organizational performance, and societal values (e.g.,social and economic factors, the environment).More recently, the focus in Minnesota was movedto an emphasis on business planning, using measuresto assess performance with respect to strategic objectivesdrawn from the agency’s strategic plan. Manyof the original measures remain in use, so it seemsfair to say that the Minnesota DOT performance initiativecontinues to refine and adjust based on a solidfoundation. The four key categories of strategic objectivesare• Level of service in interregional corridors (i.e.,specified percent of miles achieving a threshold averagetravel speed),• Multimodal options,• Program delivery, and