Click for next page ( 63

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 62
62 A.3 Performance Management Managing Congestion. Annual hours of delay per traveler on freeways and principal arterials. Guidance Documents Managing Project Delivery. Average actual project letting Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation and completion versus scheduled letting and completion; Asset Management (30). This report provides a comprehen- and annual ratio of actual construction cost versus bid sive review of current practices in transportation performance amount. measurement, drawing upon an extensive literature review and Safer Travel. Three-year moving average annual number of in-depth interviews of 15 state transportation agencies. Its fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; and three- review was used as the starting point for the current study. The year moving average annual number of fatalities per 100,000 report provides an assessment of performance measures for population. facility preservation, operation, improvement, and expansion, Effective Organization of Performance Measurement though the primary focus of the report is on preservation (33). As part of NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 47, this AASHTO measures. It describes different approaches for classifying per- Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) study assesses how formance measures, and presents a set of criteria and guide- transportation agencies, particularly state DOTs, incorporate lines for selecting performance measures. Volume II of the performance measurement functions within their overall orga- report is a guide for selecting performance measures, with an nizational frameworks. The report provides useful "lessons approach to classifying measures and examples of the measures learned," based on case study research, for transportation in use in different state DOTs. organizations that are setting up new programs or adjusting and reorganizing existing programs. It identifies the most Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement effective organizational attributes that contribute to a success- (31). This guidebook was developed through NCHRP Pro- ful program. ject 3-68. It provides comprehensive treatment of the topic of freeway performance measurement, particularly regarding Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance congestion and mobility measures. The guide recommends a (34). This report prepared by the National Research Coun- set of core measures that agencies should collect for all free- cil's Committee on Measuring and Improving Infrastructure ways, as well as supplemental measures. Measures are classified Performance provides guidance on developing a framework according to whether they are measures of quality of service or for performance measurement, and on using performance agency activity, by the extent of the measure (e.g., measured measures in decision making on infrastructure. The report section-by-section, over an area, or across an entire state). The focuses on implementing performance-based infrastructure guidebook also details possible applications of the performance management in urban regions and on four broad categories of measures, including real-time, operations planning, short- infrastructure: transportation, water, wastewater, and munic- term planning, and long-term planning applications. ipal waste. This study is notable in several respects. It was con- ducted in the wake of a series of early studies that identified Measuring Performance Among State DOTs (32). This the need for increased investment in infrastructure, but prior report recommends the use of comparative performance to the more recent wave of studies of performance-based plan- measurements for enabling different agencies to compare their ning, asset management, and performance measures repre- performance in order to improve customers' satisfaction and sented by the other documents described previously. Further, communication between agencies. The report reviews litera- it provides an unusually comprehensive treatment of the ture related to this topic and details a series of workshops held underlying concepts of performance measurement as they for the study. It presents principles for comparative perfor- relate to publicly owned infrastructure. Finally, it reflects upon mance measurement and includes a detailed framework for a number of topics that, even over a decade later, still seem developing a comparative performance measurement initia- quite timely for managing IHS assets, including handling of tive. Further it recommends the use of seven core measures for multiple objectives in decision making and factoring in uncer- comparing performance between DOTs in the following four tainty and risk. strategic focus areas: State-of-the-Practice Examples Preserving the Physical Condition of the Transportation System. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled on state's NHS A number of state-of-the-practice examples have been com- pavement that meets or exceeds an "acceptable" perform- piled and are summarized in the guidance documents detailed ance standard, based on IRI; and percentage of state's bridge earlier. To supplement this information, the research team deck area on the NHS that meets structural condition tar- reviewed two additional examples of national-level summaries gets (measured using element-level inspection data). of the condition of the IHS and/or the nation's highways.

OCR for page 62
63 Status of the Nation's Highways, Bridges, and Transit: For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, per- Conditions and Performance Report (C&P Report) (35). centage that meet cost estimates established in project or The United States Department of Transportation prepares contract agreements, or miss them by less than 10 percent. the C&P Report for the U.S. Congress on a biennial basis. It is intended to provide an objective appraisal of the nation's high- International Resources ways, bridges, and transit systems. The report uses data from FARS, the HPMS, the NBI, and the National Transit Database Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, (NTD) to evaluate the physical conditions and operational England, and New Zealand (37). This is a compilation performance of the nations' surface transportation system. It report of an international scan of asset management tech- includes a section specifically on conditions of the IHS. Mea- niques and processes from four countries. The report addresses sures for which predicted changes in conditions are reported leadership and organizational challenges, asset management's include IRI, percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on roads role in decision making, data use, and technical approaches, with IRI < 95, percent of VMT on roads with IRI 170, total lessons in effective program delivery, and human resource delay, total user costs, travel time costs and bridge investment requirements. The scan team synthesized the data from the backlog. scan into a list of lessons which could be applied to infrastruc- ture resource allocation in the United States, including: U.S. DOT Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Account- ability Report (36). This document measures the agency's Common asset management performance measures can be progress towards achieving a set of targets for the nation's categorized into condition, function, and capacity indica- transportation system in support of six strategic goals, identi- tors. In some instances, these categories serve as the basis for fying performance measures and targets for each. Highway- cross-asset evaluation and prioritization methods. related measures in the report are summarized below, All transportation authorities interviewed use the concept of organized by strategic goal: risk in their prioritization process. Whereas, the application of risk is absent from most U.S. agencies' asset management Safety: frameworks. Fatalities per 100 million VMT; and The integration of asset management into public-private Fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million VMT. ventures is instrumental in ensuring assets are returned to Mobility: the public entity in good condition and good service is deliv- Percentage of travel on the NHS meeting pavement per- ered to the users during the life of the contract. formance standards for "good" ride; and Data itself should be treated as an asset; data collection Percentage of total annual urban-area travel that occurs should have a clear purpose and be directly tied to a per- in congested conditions. formance measure used in the decision-making process. Global Connectivity: Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct con- Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, tracts that are awarded to women-owned businesses; Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (38). This international Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct con- scan was conducted to help provide U.S. agencies with a back- tracts that are awarded to small disadvantaged businesses. ground on the issue of performance measures in transporta- Environmental Stewardship: tion decision-making. The scan team identified a number of Ratio of wetlands replaced for every acre affected by common themes and lessons applicable to U.S. agencies. These Federal-aid highway projects; include: Percent of DOT facilities characterized as No Further Remedial Action Planned under the Superfund Amend- The international transportation officials in the scan clearly ments and Reauthorization Act; and distinguished between outcome (i.e., the ultimate character- 12-month moving average number of area transporta- istic of the performance of the system) and output (i.e., tion emissions conformity lapses. products and services leading to outcomes) measures. Security: Identifying a small set of key performance measures, as the Transportation Capability Assessment for Readiness National Ministry in Japan has, encourages the use of the Index Score. measures in decision making; localities can establish addi- Organizational Excellence: tional measures specific to their circumstance as appropriate. For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, per- The most commonly used categories of measures were road centage that meet schedule milestones established in network congestion, accessibility and mobility, road safety, project or contract agreements, or miss them by less than travel time, and trip reliability; transportation system secu- 10 percent; and rity was absent from all survey countries' measures.