Click for next page ( R2


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL NCHRP REPORT 551 COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management

OCR for page R1
TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE 2005 (Membership as of November 2005) OFFICERS Chair: John R. Njord, Executive Director, Utah DOT Vice Chair: Michael D. Meyer, Professor, School of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology Executive Director: Robert E. Skinner, Jr., Transportation Research Board MEMBERS MICHAEL W. BEHRENS, Executive Director, Texas DOT ALLEN D. BIEHLER, Secretary, Pennsylvania DOT LARRY L. BROWN, SR., Executive Director, Mississippi DOT DEBORAH H. BUTLER, Vice President, Customer Service, Norfolk Southern Corporation and Subsidiaries, Atlanta, GA ANNE P. CANBY, President, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, DC JOHN L. CRAIG, Director, Nebraska Department of Roads DOUGLAS G. DUNCAN, President and CEO, FedEx Freight, Memphis, TN NICHOLAS J. GARBER, Professor of Civil Engineering, University of Virginia ANGELA GITTENS, Vice President, Airport Business Services, HNTB Corporation, Miami, FL GENEVIEVE GIULIANO, Director, Metrans Transportation Center, and Professor, School of Policy, Planning, and Development, USC, Los Angeles BERNARD S. GROSECLOSE, JR., President and CEO, South Carolina State Ports Authority SUSAN HANSON, Landry University Professor of Geography, Graduate School of Geography, Clark University JAMES R. HERTWIG, President, CSX Intermodal, Jacksonville, FL GLORIA JEAN JEFF, Director, Michigan DOT ADIB K. KANAFANI, Cahill Professor of Civil Engineering, University of California, Berkeley HERBERT S. LEVINSON, Principal, Herbert S. Levinson Transportation Consultant, New Haven, CT SUE MCNEIL, Professor, Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, University of Delaware MICHAEL R. MORRIS, Director of Transportation, North Central Texas Council of Governments CAROL A. MURRAY, Commissioner, New Hampshire DOT MICHAEL S. TOWNES, President and CEO, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA C. MICHAEL WALTON, Ernest H. Cockrell Centennial Chair in Engineering, University of Texas, Austin LINDA S. WATSON, Executive Director, LYNX--Central Florida Regional Transportation Authority MARION C. BLAKEY, Federal Aviation Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOSEPH H. BOARDMAN, Federal Railroad Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) REBECCA M. BREWSTER, President and COO, American Transportation Research Institute, Smyrna, GA (ex officio) GEORGE BUGLIARELLO, Chancellor, Polytechnic University, and Foreign Secretary, National Academy of Engineering (ex officio) J. RICHARD CAPKA, Acting Administrator, Federal Highway Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) THOMAS H. COLLINS (Adm., U.S. Coast Guard), Commandant, U.S. Coast Guard (ex officio) JAMES J. EBERHARDT, Chief Scientist, Office of FreedomCAR and Vehicle Technologies, U.S. Department of Energy (ex officio) JACQUELINE GLASSMAN, Deputy Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD R. HAMBERGER, President and CEO, Association of American Railroads (ex officio) DAVID B. HORNER, Acting Deputy Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JOHN C. HORSLEY, Executive Director, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (ex officio) JOHN E. JAMIAN, Acting Administrator, Maritime Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) EDWARD JOHNSON, Director, Applied Science Directorate, National Aeronautics and Space Administration (ex officio) ASHOK G. KAVEESHWAR, Research and Innovative Technology Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) BRIGHAM MCCOWN, Deputy Administrator, Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration, U.S.DOT (ex officio) WILLIAM W. MILLAR, President, American Public Transportation Association (ex officio) SUZANNE RUDZINSKI, Director, Transportation and Regional Programs, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (ex officio) ANNETTE M. SANDBERG, Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administrator, U.S.DOT (ex officio) JEFFREY N. SHANE, Under Secretary for Policy, U.S.DOT (ex officio) CARL A. STROCK (Maj. Gen., U.S. Army), Chief of Engineers and Commanding General, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ex officio) NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM Transportation Research Board Executive Committee Subcommittee for NCHRP JOHN R. NJORD, Utah DOT (Chair) MICHAEL D. MEYER, Georgia Institute of Technology J. RICHARD CAPKA, Federal Highway Administration ROBERT E. SKINNER, JR., Transportation Research Board JOHN C. HORSLEY, American Association of State Highway MICHAEL S. TOWNES, Hampton Roads Transit, Hampton, VA and Transportation Officials C. MICHAEL WALTON, University of Texas, Austin

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 551 Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS, INC. Chevy Chase, MD WITH PB CONSULT, INC. New York, NY TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE College Station, TX S UBJECT A REAS Planning and Administration Pavement Design, Management, and Performance Maintenance Research Sponsored by the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials in Cooperation with the Federal Highway Administration TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH BOARD WASHINGTON, D.C. 2006 www.TRB.org

OCR for page R1
NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM NCHRP REPORT 551 Systematic, well-designed research provides the most effective Price $42.00 approach to the solution of many problems facing highway Project 20-60 administrators and engineers. Often, highway problems are of local ISSN 0077-5614 interest and can best be studied by highway departments individually or in cooperation with their state universities and ISBN 0-309-09847-5 others. However, the accelerating growth of highway transportation Library of Congress Control Number 2006922152 develops increasingly complex problems of wide interest to 2006 Transportation Research Board highway authorities. These problems are best studied through a coordinated program of cooperative research. In recognition of these needs, the highway administrators of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation COPYRIGHT PERMISSION Officials initiated in 1962 an objective national highway research Authors herein are responsible for the authenticity of their materials and for obtaining program employing modern scientific techniques. This program is written permissions from publishers or persons who own the copyright to any previously published or copyrighted material used herein. supported on a continuing basis by funds from participating member states of the Association and it receives the full cooperation Cooperative Research Programs (CRP) grants permission to reproduce material in this publication for classroom and not-for-profit purposes. Permission is given with the and support of the Federal Highway Administration, United States understanding that none of the material will be used to imply TRB, AASHTO, FAA, Department of Transportation. FHWA, FMCSA, FTA, or Transit Development Corporation endorsement of a The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies particular product, method, or practice. It is expected that those reproducing the was requested by the Association to administer the research material in this document for educational and not-for-profit uses will give appropriate program because of the Board's recognized objectivity and acknowledgment of the source of any reprinted or reproduced material. For other uses of the material, request permission from CRP. understanding of modern research practices. The Board is uniquely suited for this purpose as it maintains an extensive committee structure from which authorities on any highway transportation subject may be drawn; it possesses avenues of communications and NOTICE cooperation with federal, state and local governmental agencies, The project that is the subject of this report was a part of the National Cooperative universities, and industry; its relationship to the National Research Highway Research Program conducted by the Transportation Research Board with the Council is an insurance of objectivity; it maintains a full-time approval of the Governing Board of the National Research Council. Such approval research correlation staff of specialists in highway transportation reflects the Governing Board's judgment that the program concerned is of national importance and appropriate with respect to both the purposes and resources of the matters to bring the findings of research directly to those who are in National Research Council. a position to use them. The members of the technical committee selected to monitor this project and to review The program is developed on the basis of research needs this report were chosen for recognized scholarly competence and with due identified by chief administrators of the highway and transportation consideration for the balance of disciplines appropriate to the project. The opinions and departments and by committees of AASHTO. Each year, specific conclusions expressed or implied are those of the research agency that performed the areas of research needs to be included in the program are proposed research, and, while they have been accepted as appropriate by the technical committee, to the National Research Council and the Board by the American they are not necessarily those of the Transportation Research Board, the National Research Council, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. Officials, or the Federal Highway Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation. Research projects to fulfill these needs are defined by the Board, and Each report is reviewed and accepted for publication by the technical committee qualified research agencies are selected from those that have according to procedures established and monitored by the Transportation Research submitted proposals. Administration and surveillance of research Board Executive Committee and the Governing Board of the National Research contracts are the responsibilities of the National Research Council Council. and the Transportation Research Board. The needs for highway research are many, and the National Cooperative Highway Research Program can make significant contributions to the solution of highway transportation problems of mutual concern to many responsible groups. The program, however, is intended to complement rather than to substitute for or duplicate other highway research programs. Published reports of the NATIONAL COOPERATIVE HIGHWAY RESEARCH PROGRAM are available from: Transportation Research Board Business Office NOTE: The Transportation Research Board of the National Academies, the 500 Fifth Street, NW National Research Council, the Federal Highway Administration, the American Washington, DC 20001 Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, and the individual and can be ordered through the Internet at: states participating in the National Cooperative Highway Research Program do http://www.national-academies.org/trb/bookstore not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturers' names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the object of this report. Printed in the United States of America

OCR for page R1
The National Academy of Sciences is a private, nonprofit, self-perpetuating society of distinguished schol- ars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare. On the authority of the charter granted to it by the Congress in 1863, the Academy has a mandate that requires it to advise the federal government on scientific and techni- cal matters. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone is president of the National Academy of Sciences. The National Academy of Engineering was established in 1964, under the charter of the National Acad- emy of Sciences, as a parallel organization of outstanding engineers. It is autonomous in its administration and in the selection of its members, sharing with the National Academy of Sciences the responsibility for advising the federal government. The National Academy of Engineering also sponsors engineering programs aimed at meeting national needs, encourages education and research, and recognizes the superior achieve- ments of engineers. Dr. William A. Wulf is president of the National Academy of Engineering. The Institute of Medicine was established in 1970 by the National Academy of Sciences to secure the services of eminent members of appropriate professions in the examination of policy matters pertaining to the health of the public. The Institute acts under the responsibility given to the National Academy of Sciences by its congressional charter to be an adviser to the federal government and, on its own initiative, to identify issues of medical care, research, and education. Dr. Harvey V. Fineberg is president of the Institute of Medicine. The National Research Council was organized by the National Academy of Sciences in 1916 to associate the broad community of science and technology with the Academy's purposes of furthering knowledge and advising the federal government. Functioning in accordance with general policies determined by the Acad- emy, the Council has become the principal operating agency of both the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering in providing services to the government, the public, and the scientific and engineering communities. The Council is administered jointly by both the Academies and the Institute of Medicine. Dr. Ralph J. Cicerone and Dr. William A. Wulf are chair and vice chair, respectively, of the National Research Council. The Transportation Research Board is a division of the National Research Council, which serves the National Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineering. The Board's mission is to promote innovation and progress in transportation through research. In an objective and interdisciplinary setting, the Board facilitates the sharing of information on transportation practice and policy by researchers and practitioners; stimulates research and offers research management services that promote technical excellence; provides expert advice on transportation policy and programs; and disseminates research results broadly and encourages their implementation. The Board's varied activities annually engage more than 5,000 engineers, scientists, and other transportation researchers and practitioners from the public and private sectors and academia, all of whom contribute their expertise in the public interest. The program is supported by state transportation departments, federal agencies including the component administrations of the U.S. Department of Transportation, and other organizations and individuals interested in the development of transportation. www.TRB.org www.national-academies.org

OCR for page R1
COOPERATIVE RESEARCH PROGRAMS STAFF FOR NCHRP REPORT 551 ROBERT J. REILLY, Director, Cooperative Research Programs CRAWFORD F. JENCKS, Manager, NCHRP EILEEN P. DELANEY, Director of Publications BETH HATCH, Assistant Editor NCHRP PROJECT 20-60 Field of Special Projects SANDRA STRAEHL, Montana DOT (Chair) CARL CHASE, JR., South Carolina DOT DAVID S. EKERN, Idaho Transportation Department MICHAEL J. GOODALE, Ontario Ministry of Transportation HAROLD C. ROGERS, JR., Pennsylvania DOT PETER STEPHANOS, Maryland State Highway Administration MARSHALL L. STIVERS, Infrastructure Corporation of America, Tallahassee, FL SCOTT A. YOUNG, Colorado DOT VICKI MILLER, FHWA Liaison JAMES T. MCDONNELL, AASHTO Liaison THOMAS PALMERLEE, TRB Liaison AUTHOR ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors wish to thank the following individuals, who pro- Montana DOT--Sandra Straehl, Administrator, Rail, Transit, vided much valuable information on their current practices in per- and Planning Division; Dick Turner, Chief, Multimodal Planning formance measurement and their perspectives on asset manage- Bureau; Bill Cloud, Chief, Data and Statistics Bureau; Gary Lar- ment, as part of the agency interviews conducted for this study. son, Chief, Project Analysis Bureau; and Mary Gayle Padmos, Civil Engineering Specialist, Project Analysis Bureau. Colorado DOT--Scott Young, Investment Analysis Unit Man- New York State DOT--Tim Gilchrist, Director, Policy and Strat- ager; and David Busby, Investment Analysis Unit. egy Group; John Shufon, Director, Data Analysis and Forecasting Florida DOT--Bob Romig, Director, Office of Policy Planning; Bureau; Jerry Cioffi, Director, Corridor Management Bureau; Dave Lee, Office of Policy Planning; and Brian Watts, Office of Steve Wilcox, Associate Director, Transportation Maintenance Policy Planning. Division; Lou Adams, Technical Manager, Modeling and Fore- Idaho Transportation Department--Dave Ekern, Director; casting Section; and Joy Chiu, Management Systems Analyst. Jim Ross, Chief Engineer and Administrator, Division of High- Ohio DOT--Leonard Evans, Administrator of the Office of Sys- ways; Charlie Rountree, Administrator, Division of Transporta- tems Analysis Planning; Cash Misel, Chief Engineer; and Matt tion Planning; and Julie Pipal, Manager, Office of Budget Policy Selhorst, Deputy Director for Planning. and Intergovernmental Relations. Ontario Ministry of Transport--Mike Goodale, Director of Program Management; Alison Bradbury, Head of Investment Iowa DOT--Stuart Anderson, Systems Planning; Ronald Beane, Planning and Programming; Noris Bot, Manager of Investment Office of Maintenance; Jon Ranney, Program Management; and Planning and Programming; Jamie Carr, Asset Management. Will Zitterich, Office of Maintenance. Pennsylvania DOT--Gary Hoffman; Hal Rogers; Scott Christie; Maryland DOT--Marsha Kaiser, Director of Planning and Craig Reed; Danny Dahlwood; Mary Gilardi; Steve Grimme; and Capital Programming; and Ed Strocko, Office of Planning and Dennis Lebo. Capital Programming. South Carolina DOT--Jim Feda, Director of Maintenance; Carl Maryland State Highway Agency (SHA)--Neil Pedersen, Chase Jr., Transportation Assets Manager; Terecia Wilson, Administrator; Jock Freedman, Bridge Development; Tom Hicks, Director, Safety; William Bloom, Data Analyst; Lee Floyd, Traffic and Safety; Joe Miller, Bridge Development; Doug Rose, Bridge Maintenance Engineer; William Beck, Chief Data Ser- Deputy Administrator/Chief Engineer; John Scally, Maintenance; vices; and Tom Shea, Pavement Manager. Douglas Simmons, Deputy Administrator/Finance, IT and Tennessee DOT--Neil Ham, Finance Director; and Gerald Gre- Administration; Dennis Simpson, Planning and Preliminary gory, Maintenance Director. Engineering; Peter Stephanos, Materials and Technology; Raja Virginia DOT--George Gardner; Charles Miller; Quinton Elliot; Veeramachaneni, Planning and Preliminary Engineering; Carl Mina Lockwood; Chad Tucker; Larry Caldwell; Steve Carey; and Vogel, Operations; Mike Wetzel, Highway Design; and Russell Steve Brich. Yurek, Maintenance. Washington State DOT--Enrico Baroga, Maintenance Program Michigan DOT--Susan Mortel, Deputy Director of Planning; Delivery Manager; Daniella Bremmer, Director of Strategic William Tansil; Ron Vibbert; John Friend; Polly Kent; Rick Assessment; Aaron Butters, Systems Analysis and Program Devel- Lilly; Susan Gorski; and Craig Newell. opment Manager; John Conrad, Engineering and Regional Opera- Minnesota DOT--Randy Halvorson, Division Director, Pro- tions; Greg Hilstad; Roger Horton, General Manager, Transporta- gram Management; and Mark Larson, Director, Performance tion Data Office; DeWayne Wilson, Bridge Office; Marcy Yates, Planning and Measurement. Accounting Chief.

OCR for page R1
The two volumes of this report--Volume I, Research Report, and Volume II, FOREWORD Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting--will help trans- By Crawford F. Jencks portation agencies apply the concepts of performance management to their asset man- Staff Officer agement efforts. Volume I describes the research effort and provides the current state Transportation Research of practice on the use of performance measures, principally in the context of transporta- Board tion asset management. Volume II introduces a framework for identifying performance measures and setting target values, and its appendixes contain examples of performance measures and targets. Performance measures and target values are critical to the prin- ciples of asset management to analyze tradeoffs, make investment decisions, and mon- itor intended effects. The report will be of interest throughout transportation agencies as an aid to effective decision making and the optimization of resources. Many transportation agencies have developed system-level performance measures to help track the impacts of program investments, maintenance, and operations improvements. These performance measures are usually technical in nature, capturing an engineering or operational attribute of the transportation system. A review of these measures was needed to assess their usefulness for asset management (e.g., their appli- cation in tradeoff analyses and investment decisions). Development of measures for nontraditional (e.g., security, social, environmental, and economic) issues affecting transportation decisions was also needed. Some DOTs define targets with which current conditions can be objectively com- pared to determine whether the transportation system is performing acceptably. The basis on which these targets are set varies, and there is no generally accepted method- ology for their establishment and use in asset management. Guidance for a methodol- ogy to establish targets for use by transportation agencies was also needed. Therefore, the objectives of this research were to (1) investigate performance mea- sures suitable to asset management and (2) develop a framework for establishing per- formance measures and setting targets for use in asset management. The emphasis was on highway infrastructure assets. This research project specifically complements two other NCHRP projects. NCHRP Project 20-24(11), "Asset Management Guidance for Transportation Agen- cies," produced a first-generation asset management guide that has been adopted by AASHTO and is available at http://assetmanagement.transportation.org/tam/aashto. nsf/home. NCHRP Project 20-57, "Analytic Tools to Support Transportation Asset Management," produced two software tools, one for analyzing investments across infrastructure categories and another for demonstrating the impacts of investment choices on short-term programs of projects. Both of these software tools will be further developed and maintained as AASHTOWare products. Results were published as NCHRP Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management, which contains a CD with the software products and user guides.

OCR for page R1
Along with the FHWA, the NCHRP (under Project 20-36) sponsored an interna- tional scan on transportation asset management to Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand. Scan results have been published by the FHWA in report FHWA-PL-05-019. At the time of this publication, plans were being made for a domestic scan of transporta- tion asset management practices in the United States as part of NCHRP Project 20-68. Efforts such as these will continue to support transportation agencies by providing the concepts, methods, and tools to address the changing demands of the public, legis- latures, and government leaders. Because needs are great and resources are limited, the consequences of various scenarios can be determined and compared to optimize invest- ments for the intended outcome.

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. i 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Study Context ....................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Study Objectives and Scope................................................................................................ 1 1.3 Contents of Report ............................................................................................................... 3 2.0 Background ................................................................................................................................... 5 2.1 Transportation Asset Management ................................................................................... 5 2.2 Performance Measurement................................................................................................. 10 3.0 Current Practice Review ............................................................................................................. 15 3.1 Objectives of the Current Practice Review ....................................................................... 15 3.2 Summary of Current Practice............................................................................................. 16 3.3 Organizational Contexts ..................................................................................................... 22 3.4 Approaches to Selecting and Organizing Measures....................................................... 25 3.5 Current Performance Measures ......................................................................................... 29 3.6 Approaches to Aligning Measures within the Organization ........................................ 32 3.7 Use of Performance Measures............................................................................................ 35 3.8 Setting Performance Targets............................................................................................... 37 4.0 Performance Measures for Asset Management: Criteria and Guidelines ........................ 41 4.1 How Performance Measures Support Asset Management............................................ 41 4.2 Criteria and Guidelines for Selecting Performance Measures ...................................... 44 5.0 Performance Measures for Asset Management: Design Considerations ......................... 59 5.1 Addressing Federal Transportation Planning Regulations ........................................... 59 5.2 Linking Resource Allocation to Policy Objectives .......................................................... 61 5.3 Aligning Performance Measures Across the Organization (and Beyond) .................. 63 5.4 Tailoring Measures to Decisions--Ensuring Appropriate Sensitivity ......................... 67 5.5 Analytic Constructions of Performance Measures to Understand Overall Health, Critical Deficiencies, and Trends ....................................................................................... 73 5.6 Providing Solid Foundation Data...................................................................................... 80 5.7 Structuring Performance Tradeoffs ................................................................................... 81 5.8 Predicting Performance and Setting Targets Based on Funding .................................. 81 5.9 Setting Long-Term Performance Goals............................................................................. 86 5.10 Obtaining Internal and External Buy-In ........................................................................... 87

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 6.0 Recommended Framework for Transportation Agencies.................................................... 91 6.1 Introduction .......................................................................................................................... 91 6.2 Framework Overview ......................................................................................................... 92 6.3 Identify Performance Measures ......................................................................................... 92 6.4 Integrate Performance Measures into the Organization ................................................ 94 6.5 Establish Performance Targets........................................................................................... 95 Sources.................................................................................................................................................... 96 Cited References ................................................................................................................................... 96 Bibliography.......................................................................................................................................... 98

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 14. Kassoff, Hal, "Implementing Performance Measurement in Transportation Agencies," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 15. Maryland DOT, 2003 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance (Janu- ary 2003). 16. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Performance Measures Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (August 2001). 17. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Asset Management Business Framework: Technical Guide, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada (December 2003). 18. Montana DOT, Performance Programming Process: A Tool for Making Transportation Investment Decisions (November 2000). 19. Norwood, Janet, and Jamie Casey (Eds.), Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a Workshop, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council (2002). 20. Neumann, Lance A., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection, Transportation Research Board (1997). 21. New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia, International Infrastructure Management Manual (April 2000). 22. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Performance Indicators for the Road Sector: Summary of Field Tests (2001). 23. Pickrell, Steven, and Lance Neumann, "Use of Performance Measures in Transportation Deci- sion Making," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 24. Pickrell, Steven, "MoveAZ Plan Strategic Directions: Initial Performance Measures," memo- randum to John Pein, Arizona DOT Planning (June 2002). 25. Poister, Theodore H., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 238: Performance Measurement in State Departments of Transportation, Transportation Research Board (1997). 26. Reed, M. F., et al., NCHRP Report 357: Measuring State Transportation Program Performance, Transportation Research Board (1993). 27. Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc., in conjunction with AASHTO, the FHWA, and the National Highway Institute, Maintenance Management for the 21st Century: A Report on Forum Results and Procedures (June 1999). 28. Shaw, Terrel, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 311: Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems, Transportation Research Board (2003). 29. Shepard, Richard W., and Michael B. Johnson, "California Bridge Health Index," 8th Interna- tional Bridge Management Conference, Preprints, Vol. II, Transportation Research Board (1999). 30. Stantec and the University of Waterloo, Measuring and Reporting Highway Asset Value Condition and Performance, Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, Canada (October 2000). 97

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 31. Stuart, Darwin, "Role of Customer Input in Implementing and Using Performance Measures," Panel Discussion of "Agency Implementation of System Performance Measures," TRB Confer- ence Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Opera- tions, Transportation Research Board (2001). 32. Texas Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Mobility Monitoring Program Outline, FHWA Operations Core Business Unit, draft (April 2000). 33. TransTech Management, Inc., and AASHTO, Strategic Performance Measures for State Depart- ments of Transportation--A Handbook for CEOs and Executives, AASHTO monograph prepared for NCHRP Project 20-24(20) (June 2003). 34. MacDonald, Douglas, et al., Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. FHWA report FHWA-PL-05-001 (December 2004). 35. Vandervalk, Anita, "TRB and Florida Examples," Panel Discussion: Part 1 of "Selecting Mea- sures, Data Needs, and Analytical Issues," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 36. Vandervalk-Ostrander, Anita, Rich Margiotta, and Jacob Meunier, Performance Measures for Small Communities--Final Report to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA report FHWA- OP-03-080 (May 1, 2003). 37. Wye, Chris, Performance Management: A "Start Where You Are, Use What You Have" Guide, Cen- ter for Improving Government Performance, National Academy of Public Administration (October 2002). 38. Meyer, Michael D., Alternative Performance Measures for Transportation Planning: Evolution Toward Multimodal Planning, FTA report FTA-GA-26-7000 (December 1995). Bibliography 1. AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Maintenance, Resolution to Define and Adopt Common Maintenance Performance Measures, Resolution 01-07 (July 19, 2001). 2. AASHTO, Transportation Asset Management Guide, Washington, D.C. (November 2002). 3. AASHTO Customer Satisfaction and Performance Measures Focus Group, Survey on Perfor- mance Measures, AASHTO Highway Subcommittee on Maintenance (July 7, 2003). 4. Adams, Louis H., Frances D. Harrison, and Anita Vandervalk, "Issues and Challenges in Using Existing Data and Tools for Performance Measurement," TRB Conference Proceedings 36: Per- formance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems. Transportation Research Board (2005). 5. Basilica, J., et al., Workshop Summary of "Linking Performance Measures with Decision- Making," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations. Transportation Research Board (2001). 98

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 6. Bertini, Robert L., Monica Leal, and David J. Lovell, "Generating Performance Measures from Portland's Archived Traffic Management System Data," 81st Annual Meeting of the Transporta- tion Research Board: Preprint CD-ROM, Transportation Research Board (November 2001). 7. Booz Allen Hamilton and Compass USA, "National Workshop on Commonly Recognized Measures for Maintenance, Scottsdale AZ, June 57, 2000," prepared for the AASHTO High- way Subcommittee on Maintenance (July 2000). 8. Booz Allen Hamilton, Applicability of System Performance Measurement to the State Highway Oper- ation and Protection Program, California DOT (December 2001). 9. Busby, David, et al., Workshop Summary of "Agency Implementation of Transportation Sys- tem Performance Measures," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 10. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Performance Measures Overview for Michigan DOT (May 1994). 11. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Suggested Performance Measures for Texas Transportation Plan (Aug 1994). 12. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., National Transportation System Performance Measures, final report for the Office of the Secretary, U.S. DOT Report DOT-T-97-04 (April 1996). 13. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Multimodal Transportation Planning--Development of a Performance- Based Planning Process, unpublished Phase I final report for NCHRP Project 8-32(2) (August 1996). 14. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Texas Transportation Plan: Objectives and Outcome Measures," PowerPoint presentation by Arlee Reno (April 1999). 15. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Twin Cities Performance Audit: Overview of Performance Mea- sures," PowerPoint presentation by Arlee Reno (April 1999). 16. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., The Colorado DOT Investment Strategy: A Framework for Making Transportation Investment Decisions (October 1999). 17. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Performance-Based Planning Manual, unpublished interim docu- ment for NCHRP Project 8-32(2) (November 1999). 18. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transporta- tion Planning, Transportation Research Board (2000). 19. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., and David Evans and Associates, ODOT Operations Program Per- formance Measures, draft final report for Oregon DOT (June 2001). 20. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Development of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Statewide Transportation Planning," Unpublished Final Report for NCHRP Project 8-36 (7) (November 2001). 21. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., "Operations and Asset Management," discussion paper pre- pared for the FHWA Office of Operations Technology Services (December 16, 2002). 99

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 22. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Refined Classification System and Minimum Performance Goals, Ver- mont Agency of Transportation (AOT), draft (March 2003). 23. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, and System Metrics Group, Inc., NCHRP Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management, Transportation Research Board (2005). 24. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Countywide Deficiency Plan--Performance Measures for Santa Clara County, California. 25. Central Transportation Planning Staff, Program for Mass Transportation, Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (May 2003). 26. Citizens' Network Benchmarking Initiative, Results of the Common Indicators: Statistical Indica- tors on Local and Regional Passenger Transport in 40 European Cities and Regions, European Com- mission DG Energy and Transport (February 2002). 27. City of Bellevue Transportation Department, "City of Bellevue 2001 Performance Measures." PowerPoint presentation (April 2002). 28. City of Calgary, Community and Corporate Performance Measures (2002). 29. Dalton, Doug, et al., "Transportation Data and Performance Measurement," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 30. Delcan Corporation, BearingPoint, Inc., KPMG LLP, PB Consult, and Cambridge Systematics Inc., Asset Management Business Framework User Guide and Technical Guide, Ontario Ministry of Transportation (July 2003). 31. Delaware DOT, Statewide Long-Range Transportation Plan (September 2002). 32. Department of Geography, New Mexico State University, The Use of Intermodal Performance Measures by State Departments of Transportation, U.S. DOT report DOT-T-96-18 (June 1996). 33. Federal Highway Administration, Monitoring Urban Roadways in 2001: Examining Reliability and Mobility with Archived Data, FHWA report FHWA-OP-03-141 (June 2003). 34. Florida DOT, Measures for Performance-Based Program Budgeting as Stated in the General Appro- priations Act for FY 19971998 (October 1997). 35. Florida Transportation Commission, Performance and Production Review of the Department of Transportation: Fiscal Year 20012002 (2002). 36. Georgia DOT, Statewide Transportation Plan 20012025 (December 2001). 37. Gore, Albert, Serving the American Public: Best Practices in Performance Measurement, National Per- formance Review (June 1997). 38. Idaho Transportation Department, 2004 Strategic Plan (2003). 100

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 39. Kassoff, Hal, "Implementing Performance Measurement in Transportation Agencies," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 40. Lomax, Tim, David Schrank, Shawn Turner, and Richard Margiotta, "Selecting Travel Relia- bility Measures," Texas Transportation Institute monograph (May 2003). 41. MacDonald, Douglas, et al., Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan and New Zealand. FHWA report FHWA-PL-05-001 (December 2004). 42. Maine DOT, State of the System Report (2002). 43. Marbek Resource Consultants, Ltd., How Jurisdictions Are Measuring Performance of Transporta- tion Policy and Planning, Ministry of Transportation (Canada) (October 2001). 44. Maryland DOT, "Driven to Excel," Four-Year Business Plan 20002004, FY 2002 update. 45. Maryland DOT, 2003 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance (January 2003). 46. Metropolitan Transportation Commission, Performance Measures Report for the 2001 Regional Transportation Plan for the San Francisco Bay Area (August 2001). 47. Meyer, Michael D., Alternative Performance Measures for Transportation Planning: Evolution Toward Multimodal Planning, FTA report FTA-GA-26-7000 (December 1995). 48. Meyer, Michael, "Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured--At Least According to Con- ventional Wisdom," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Trans- portation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 49. Michigan DOT, Five-Year Road and Bridge Program 20022006 (May 2002). 50. Michigan DOT, State Long-Range Plan 20002025--Mobility Is Security (2002). 51. Ministry of Transportation of British Columbia, 2003/20042005/2006 Service Plan (2003). 52. Ministry of Transportation of Ontario, Asset Management Business Framework: Technical Guide, St. Catharines, Ontario, Canada (December 2003). 53. Minnesota DOT, Performance Measures Summary (January 1999). 54. Minnesota DOT, Moving Minnesota 2003 (July 2002). 55. Montana DOT, TRANPLAN 21--2001 Annual Report (2001). 56. Montana DOT, Performance Programming Process: A Tool for Making Transportation Investment Decisions (November 2000). 57. Norwood, Janet, and Jamie Casey (Eds.), Key Transportation Indicators: Summary of a Work- shop, Committee on National Statistics, National Research Council (2002). 101

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 58. Neumann, Lance A., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection, Transportation Research Board (1997). 59. New Jersey DOT, Transportation Choices 2025 (2001). 60. New Zealand National Asset Management Steering Group and the Institute of Public Works Engineering of Australia, International Infrastructure Management Manual (April 2000). 61. Oregon DOT, Final Statewide Transportation Improvement Program 20022005 (May 2002). 62. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Asset Management for the Roads Sector, draft (September 2000). 63. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Performance Indicators for the Road Sector: Summary of Field Tests (2001). 64. Pennsylvania DOT, PennPlan Moves! Report of Achievements (2000). 65. Pickrell, Steven, and Lance Neumann, "Use of Performance Measures in Transportation Deci- sion Making," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 66. Pickrell, Steven, "MoveAZ Plan Strategic Directions: Initial Performance Measures," memo- randum to John Pein, Arizona DOT Planning (June 2002). 67. Poister, Theodore H., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 238: Performance Measurement in State Departments of Transportation, Transportation Research Board (1997). 68. Reed, M. F., et al., NCHRP Report 357: Measuring State Transportation Program Performance, Transportation Research Board (1993). 69. Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc., in conjunction with AASHTO, the FHWA, and the National Highway Institute, Maintenance Management for the 21st Century: A Report on Forum Results and Procedures (June 1999). 70. Sabol, Scott A., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 300: Performance Measures for Research, Development, and Technology Programs, Transportation Research Board (2001). 71. Schrank, David, and Tim Lomax, The 2002 Urban Mobility Report, Texas Transportation Insti- tute (June 2002). 72. Shaw, Terrel, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 311: Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems, Transportation Research Board (2003). 73. Shepard, Richard W., and Michael B. Johnson, "California Bridge Health Index," 8th Interna- tional Bridge Management Conference, Preprints, Vol. II, Transportation Research Board (1999). 74. Stantec and the University of Waterloo, Measuring and Reporting Highway Asset Value Condition and Performance, Council of Deputy Ministers Responsible for Transportation and Highway Safety, Canada (October 2000). 75. Stivers, M. L., K. L. Smith, T. E. Hoerner, and A. R. Romine, NCHRP Report 422: Maintenance QA Program Implementation Manual, Transportation Research Board (1999). 102

OCR for page R1
Volume I: Research Report 76. Stuart, Darwin, "Role of Customer Input in Implementing and Using Performance Measures," Panel Discussion of "Agency Implementation of System Performance Measures," TRB Confer- ence Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Opera- tions, Transportation Research Board (2001). 77. Tennessee DOT, 2002 Strategic Plan (2002). 78. Texas DOT, Texas Department of Transportation Established Transportation System Performance Measures (undated). 79. Texas DOT, Texas Metropolitan Mobility Plan: Breaking the Gridlock (undated). 80. Texas Transportation Institute and Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Mobility Monitoring Program Outline, FHWA Operations Core Business Unit, draft (April 2000). 81. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Congestion Index Measurement Concept (July 14, 2003). 82. Texas Transportation Institute, Texas Congestion Index: Measurement Concept and Phase 1 Esti- mates (August 15, 2003). 83. Transfund New Zealand, Statement of Service Performance for the Year Ended 30 June 2001 (undated). 84. TransTech Management, Inc., and AASHTO, Strategic Performance Measures for State Depart- ments of Transportation--A Handbook for CEOs and Executives, AASHTO monograph prepared for NCHRP Project 20-24(20) (June 2003). 85. Turner, Shawn M., Matthew E. Best, and David L. Schrank, Measures of Effectiveness for Major Investment Studies, Texas Transportation Institute monograph (November 1996). 86. U.K. Highways Agency, Business Plan 20032004 (undated). 87. U.K. Highways Agency, Road User's Charter 20022003 (undated). 88. Vandervalk, Anita, "TRB and Florida Examples," Panel Discussion: Part 1 of "Selecting Mea- sures, Data Needs, and Analytical Issues," TRB Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, Transportation Research Board (2001). 89. Vandervalk-Ostrander, Anita, Rich Margiotta, and Jacob Meunier, Performance Measures for Small Communities--Final Report to the Federal Highway Administration, FHWA report FHWA- OP-03-080 (May 1, 2003). 90. Washington State DOT, Measures, Markers and Mileposts: The Grey Notebook for the Quarter End- ing December 2002 (February 2003). [Issued quarterly.] 91. Washington State DOT, Transportation Benchmarks Implementation Report (2003). 92. The World Bank Group, Road Sector Performance Indicators for African Countries (March 2000). 93. Wye, Chris, Performance Management: A "Start Where You Are, Use What You Have" Guide, Cen- ter for Improving Government Performance, National Academy of Public Administration (October 2002). 103

OCR for page R1
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting

OCR for page R1
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Contents Executive Summary.............................................................................................................................. i 1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Background............................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Using This Document.............................................................................................. 1 1.3 Document Overview ............................................................................................... 2 2.0 Using Performance Measures for Asset Management ......................................................... 3 2.1 Definitions................................................................................................................. 3 2.2 The Benefits of Asset Management ....................................................................... 3 2.3 The Role of Performance Measures in Asset Management ............................... 4 2.4 Characteristics of Performance Measures to Support Asset Management ..... 5 2.5 Designing a Performance Measurement Approach in Support of Asset Management: Key Considerations ........................................................................ 7 3.0 Framework for Performance Measure Selection and Use.................................................... 11 3.1 Overview ................................................................................................................... 11 3.2 Identifying Performance Measures ....................................................................... 11 3.3 Integrating Performance Measures Into the Organization ................................ 20 3.4 Establishing Performance Targets ......................................................................... 29 Sources.................................................................................................................................................... 37 Appendix A: Performance Measures for Asset Management..................................................... A-1 Appendix B: Example State DOT Performance Targets .............................................................. B-1

OCR for page R1
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Executive Summary The objective of NCHRP Project 20-60 was to identify performance measures suitable for asset man- agement and to develop a framework that decision-makers can use for selecting performance mea- sures and setting performance targets. This volume provides a guide for using the performance measure selection and target-setting framework that was developed. This volume begins with an overview of transportation asset management principles and a discus- sion of the implications of these principles for identification and use of performance measures. From an asset management perspective, performance measures should address key agency goal areas; cover asset condition, service/function, and delivery; and provide a balanced set of perspectives. Implementation of performance measures should consider alignment and integration at different levels of the agency for different purposes, support for resource allocation decisions, and support for making choices among available options using an objective and unbiased approach. Based on the analysis of key implications of asset management best practice for performance mea- surement, a framework for performance measure selection and use is presented. This framework consists of step-by-step procedures for three basic activities: (1) identifying performance measures suitable for asset management, (2) integrating performance measures into the organization, and (3) establishing performance targets. The intent is that guidance for each of these activities can be used independently. Guidance for all three activities is designed to be flexible enough for adaptation to varying agency circumstances. Guidance for identifying performance measures involves the following steps: 1. Inventory existing measures, 2. Identify gaps to be addressed based on coverage of agency goals and objectives and support for the asset management best practices, 3. Define criteria for selecting new measures (the guidance suggests a set of criteria but presumes that agencies will tailor criteria based on their needs and priorities), 4. Identify additional candidate measures, and 5. Select a set of measures from the list of candidates for further design and implementation. Guidance for integrating performance measures into an organization involves the following steps: 1. Engage internal and external stakeholders to achieve buy-in; 2. Identify the different decision contexts where performance measures are to be used (project, cor- i

OCR for page R1
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting ridor, and network levels for short- and long-range decisions) and refine measures so that they are at the appropriate level of sensitivity; 3. Identify opportunities for using measures that are consistent across different organizational units responsible for various asset classes, modes, or work types; 4. Identify needs for additional data collection, data management, and analytical tools to support the selected measures; 5. Design communication devices with formats appropriate to the target audiences; and 6. Document measure definitions and procedures. The guidance for establishing performance targets involves the following steps: 1. Define the context for target setting and establish time horizons, 2. Determine which measures should have targets, 3. Develop long-term goals based on consideration of technical and economic factors, 4. Consider current and future funding availability, 5. Analyze resource allocation scenarios and tradeoffs, 6. Consider policy and public input implications for target setting, and 7. Establish targets and track progress. The volume ends with a list of performance measures that may be considered for transportation asset management (Appendix A) and examples of performance targets established by a wide range of departments of transportation (DOTs) (Appendix B). ii