Click for next page ( 70


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 69
69 Bibliography General Use of Performance Measures updated July 13, 2007. Available at http://knowledge.fhwa.dot.gov/ by Transportation Agencies cops/p.m..nsf/home. Referenced on July 13, 2007. Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Bremmer, D., Cotton, K.C., and Hamilton, B. Emerging Performance Operations. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, October 29- Measurement Responses to Changing Political Pressures at State Depart- November 1, 2000. Performance Measures to Improve Transportation ments of Transportation: Practitioners' Perspective. Transportation Systems and Agency Operations (2001), 227 pages. Available at Research Board, 2005. http://www.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf. Brown, Mark. Keeping Score: Using the Right Metrics to Drive World- Pickrell, S., and Neumann, L. Use of Performance Measures in Trans- Class Performance. Quality Resources, New York, New York, 1996. portation Decision-Making. Report of a Conference, Irvine, Cali- Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Report 551: Performance Measures fornia, October 29-November 1, 2000. Performance Measures to and Targets for Transportation Asset Management. Transportation Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations: Summary of Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. the Second National Conference (2001), pages 17-33. Available at Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Per- http://gulliver.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf. formance-Based Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Poister, T.H., Margolis, D.L., and Zimmerman, D.E. Strategic Manage- Board; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., 2000. ment at the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation: A Results- Government Performance Project. Survey Results 2005: Categories, The Driven Approach (2004). Transportation Research Record (1885), Agencies. Government Performance Project, Washington, D.C., Last pages 56-64. updated 2007. Available at http://www.gpponline.org. Referenced Poister, T.H. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 238: Performance on July 13, 2007. Measurement in State Departments of Transportation. Transporta- Hendren, P.G., Neumann, L.A., and Pickrell, S.M. Linking Perfor- tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 1997. mance-Based Program Development and Delivery. Report of a Poister, T.H. NCHRP Synthesis 326: Strategic Planning and Decision- Conference, Irvine, California, August 22-24, 2004. Second National Making in State Departments of Transportation. Transportation Conference on Performance Measures (36) (2005), pages 121-130. Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP36.pdf. Poister, T.H. Performance Measurement in Transportation: State of the Kassoff, H. (2001). Implementing Performance Measurement in Trans- portation Agencies. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, Practice. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, August 22-24, October 29-November 1, 2000. Performance Measures to Improve 2004. Second National Conference on Performance Measures (36) Transportation Systems and Agency Operations (2001), pages 47-58. (2005), pages 81-98. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/online- Available at http://www.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/cp_26.pdf. pubs/conf/CP36.pdf. Larson, M.C. Organizing for Performance Management. Report of a Poister, T.H., and Van Slyke, D.M. NCHRP Web Document 39: Managing Conference, Irvine, California, August 22-24, 2004. Second National Change in State Departments of Transportation. Scan 1 of 8: Innovations Conference on Performance Measures (36) (2005), pages 99-120. in Strategic Leadership and Measurement for State DOTS. National Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/conf/CP36.pdf. Cooperative Highway Research Program, Georgia State Univer- Meyer, M. Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured At Least sity, 2001. According to Conventional Wisdom. Report of a Conference, Irvine, Shaw, T. NCHRP Synthesis 311: Performance Measures of Operational California, October 9-November 1, 2000. Performance Measures to Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems. Transportation Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations (2001), pages Research Board, 2003. 105-125. Available at http://www.trb.org/publications/conf/reports/ TCRP Report 88: A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance- cp_26.pdf. Measurement System. Transportation Research Board; Kittelson and Padgett, R. NCHRP 8-36, Task 47: Effective Organization of Performance Associates, Inc., 2003. Measurement. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., TransTech Management, Inc. Strategic Performance Measures for State 2006. Departments of Transportation: A Handbook for CEOs and Execu- Performance Measurement Exchange. Performance Measurement tives. TransTech Management, Inc.; American Association of State Exchange. Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C. Last Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2003.

OCR for page 69
70 TransTech Management, Inc. Measuring Performance Among State Levinson, D.M., and Krizek, K.J. Access to Destinations. Elsevier, 2005. DOTs. American Association of State Highway and Transportation MacDonald, D., Yew, C.P., Arnold, R., Baxter, J., Halvorson, R.K., Kas- Officials; Federal Highway Administration; Washington, D.C., soff, H. et al. Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, 2006. Canada, Japan, and New Zealand. American Trade Initiatives; Fed- eral Highway Administration; American Association of State High- way and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2004. Transportation System Monitoring Meyer, M. Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured At Least and Enhancement According to Conventional Wisdom. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, October 29-November 1, 2000. Performance Measures Adams, L.H., Harrison, F.D., and Vandervalk, A. Issues and Challenges to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations (2001). in Using Existing Data and Tools for Performance Measurement. Pages 105-125. Available at http://www.trb.org/publications/conf/ Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, August 22-24, 2004. Sec- reports/cp_26.pdf. ond National Conference on Performance Measures (36) (2005), Muller, B., Johnson, L.E., Wyckoff, J.W., Nuszdorfer, F., and Beckham, B. pages 131-140. Available at http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/ Areawide Cumulative Effects Analysis Using GIS. Transportation conf/CP36.pdf. Research Board 86th Annual Meeting. 18 pages. Transportation American Planning Association. Land-Based Classification Standards: Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007. www.planning.org/lbcs/. National Biological Information Infrastructure. www.nbii.gov/portal/ Bahar, G., Masliah, M., Mollett, C., and Persaud, B. NCHRP Report 501: server.pt. Integrated Safety Management Process. Transportation Research National Information Exchange Model. www.neim.gov/index.php. Board; iTRANS Consulting, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2003. Randall, J.E. (Forthcoming, 2007). NCHRP 03-81: Strategies for Inte- Bhat, C.R., Bricka, S., La Mondia, J., Kapur, A., Guo, J.Y., and Sen, S. grated Operation of Freeway and Arterial Corridors. Transportation Metropolitan Area Transit Accessibility Analysis Tool. Report No. Research Board, Washington, D.C. 0-5178-P3). Texas University; Texas Department of Transportation, Shaw, T. NCHRP Synthesis 311: Performance Measures of Operational Austin, Texas, 2006. Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems. Transportation Brydia, R.E., Schneider IV, W.H., Mattingly, S.P., Sattler, M.L., and Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2003. Upayokin, A. Operations-Oriented Performance Measures for Freeway Management Systems: Year 1 Report No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5292-1). Texas Transportation Institute; Texas Department of Transporta- Environmental Stewardship tion; Federal Highway Administration, Austin, Texas, 2007. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Per- (AASHTO). AASHTO Center for Environmental Excellence (2007). formance-Based Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Available at http://environment.transportation.org/. Last accessed Board; Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2000. on August 3, 2007. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP 7-15, Task 1.3: Cost-Effective Mea- Amekudzi, A., and Meyer, M.D. NCHRP Report 541: Consideration of sures and Planning Procedures for Travel Time, Delay, and Reliabil- Environmental Factors in Transportation Systems Planning. Trans- ity. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. portation Research Board, 2005. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Research Results Digest 312: Guide Bracaglia, F. NCHRP Web Document 79: Monitoring, Analyzing, and to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement. Transportation Reporting on the Environmental Streamlining Pilot Projects. Trans- Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2007. portation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. Chen, C., Li, W., and Kwan, M. Point-Based Accessibility and Individual- Brown, J.W. Eco-Logical: An Ecosystem Approach to Developing Infra- Based Accessibility. Transportation Research Board 86th Annual structure Projects. Volpe National Transportation Systems Center, Meeting. 18 pages. Transportation Research Board, Washington, Federal Highway Administration, 2006. D.C., 2007. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (forthcoming). NCHRP Project 25-25, Donaldson, B.M., and Weber, J.T. Use of a GIS-Based Model of Habitat Task 23: Guidelines for Environmental Performance Measurements. Cores and Landscape Corridors for the Virginia Department of Trans- Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. portation's Project Planning and Environmental Scoping. Virginia Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff, and Venner Con- Transportation Research Council; Virginia Department of Trans- sulting, Inc. NCHRP Web Only Document 103: Final Report for portation; Federal Highway Administration, 2006. NCHRP Research Results Digest 317: Prototype Software for an Envi- El-Geneidy, A.M., and Levinson, D.M. Access to Destinations: Devel- ronmental Information Management and Decision Support System. opment of Accessibility Measures. University of Minnesota, Min- Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. neapolis; Minnesota Department of Transportation, Minneapolis, Center for Sustainable Transportation (CST). Sustainable Transporta- Minnesota, 2006. tion Performance Indicators Project. University of Winnipeg, Win- Federal Geographic Data Committee: www.fgdc.gov/metadata/ nipeg, Manitoba, 2001. geospatial-metadata-standards. DOT-Funded Positions and Other Support to Resource and Regulatory Harrison, R., Schofield, M., Loftus-Otway, L., Middleton, D., and West, J. Agencies, Tribes, and Non-Governmental Organizations for Environ- Developing Freight Highway Corridor Performance Measure Strate- mental Stewardship and Streamlining Initiatives. (2005). Retrieved gies in Texas No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5410-1). Texas University, Austin; July 12, 2007. Available at http://environment.transportation.org/ Texas Department of Transportation; Federal Highway Administra- center/products_programs/dot_funded.aspx. tion, Austin, Texas, 2006. Environmental plan: improving environmental sustainability and public Hendren and Meyers. NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 53 (02): Peer Exchange health in New Zealand (2004). Transit New Zealand. Wellington, Series on State and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Issues. New Zealand. Meeting 2: Non-Traditional Performance Measures. Transportation Environmental Stewardship and Transportation Infrastructure Project Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. Reviews: Executive Order Implementation. U.S. Department of

OCR for page 69
71 Transportation, Washington, D.C. Last updated December 2006. Community Enhancement Available at http://www.dot.gov/execorder/13274/index.htm. Refer- enced on July 12, 2007. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials Environmental Research Needs in Transportation: Report of a Confer- (AASHTO). A Guide for Achieving Flexibility in Highway Design. ence, Washington, D.C., March 21-23, 2002. (2002). Washington, Washington, D.C., 2004. D.C. Page 268. Available At http://trb.org/publications/conf/reports/ Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP 08-36, Task 11: Technical Methods cp_28.pdf. to Support Analysis of Environmental-Justice Issues. Transportation Evink, G.L. NCHRP Synthesis 305: Interaction Between Roadways and Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002. Wildlife Ecology. Transportation Research Board, 2002. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP 08-36, Task 12A: Analysis of the FHWA (1999), The Environmental Guidebook, Federal Highway Admin- Factors Affecting Future Transportation Environment and their Impli- istration, FHWA-99-005. Last updated 2007. Available at www. cations for State DOTs. Transportation Research Board, Washing- fhwa.dot.gov/environment/guidebook/index.htm. Referenced on ton, D.C., 2002. July 12, 2007. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP 08-36, Task 22: Demonstrating the FHWA Office of Planning, Environment, & Realty (2007). Environmen- Positive Impacts of Transportation Investments on Economic, Social, tal Review Toolkit, Streamlining and Stewardship. Last updated July Environmental, Community, and Quality of Life Issues. Transporta- 2007. Available at http://environment.fhwa.dot.gov/strmlng/index. tion Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002. asp. Referenced on July 12, 2007. Washington, D.C. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Transportation Impacts of Smart Growth The Gallup Organization. Implementing Performance Measurement in and Comprehensive Planning Initiatives. Prepared for American Environmental Streamlining, prepared for U.S. Federal Highway Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and Fed- Administration, Washington, D.C., 2004. eral Highway Administration through National Cooperative High- The Green Highways Initiative: http://www.greenhighways.org. way Research Program Project 25-25(02), 2004. Litman, T. Well Measured Developing Indicators for Comprehensive Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y.H., Arrington, and Sustainable Transport Planning. Victoria, BC: Victoria Trans- G.B. et al. TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development in the port Policy Institute, Canada, 2005. United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Transportation The Louis Berger Group, Inc. NCHRP Report 466: Desk Reference for Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2004. Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. Edwards, M.R., Peer, R.L., Lindner, E., and Klein, T.H. NCHRP Report Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002. 542: Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementation Tools. Measures, Markers, and Mileposts: The Gray Notebook for the Quarter Transportation Research Board, URS Group, Inc., Washington, Ending March 31, 2007. Washington State Department of Trans- D.C., 2005. portation, Olympia, Washington, 2007. Flexibility in Highway Design. Washington, D.C.: Federal Highway Paving the Way to Cleaner, Greener Highways, the Mid-Atlantic Green Administration, 1997. Highways Initiative, January 2006. Forkenbrock, D.J., and Sheeley, J. NCHRP Report 532: Effective Meth- Schwartz, M. Technologies to Improve Consideration of Environmen- ods for Environmental Justice Assessment. Transportation Research tal Concerns in Transportation Decisions. NCHRP Research Results Board, University of Iowa, Iowa City; Washington, D.C., 2004. Digest (304), page 37, 2006. Forkenbrock, D.J., and Weisbrod, G.E. NCHRP Report 456: Guidebook State DOT Environmental Programs: Evaluation and Performance Mea- for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transportation Projects. sures. Wisconsin Department of Transportation, Research, Devel- Transportation Research Board; University of Iowa, Iowa City, 2001. opment, and Technology Transfer, Madison, Wisconsin, 2007. ICF Consulting. Handbook on Integrating Land Use Considerations into Sustainable Development Strategy, 2007-2009 (2006). No. TP 13123. Transportation Projects to Address Induced Growth No. NCHRP 25- Ottawa, Ontario: Transport Canada. Available at http://www.tc. 25/Task 03). Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. gc.ca/programs/environment/SD/sds0709/menu.htm. Accessed on NCHRP Report 423A: Land Use Impacts of Transportation: A Guidebook. July 12, 2007. Transportation Research Board; Parsons, Brinckerhoff, Quade and TERM 2001: Indicators Tracking Transport and Environment Integration Douglas, Inc., Washington, D.C., 1999. in the European Union: Summary. European Environment Agency, Neuman, T.R., Schwartz, M., Clark, L., Bednar, J., Forbes, D., Vomacka, Copenhagen, Denmark, 2001. D. et al., (2002). NCHRP Report 480: A Guide to Best Practices for Thieman, S. Strategic Transportation, Environmental Planning Process Achieving Context Sensitive Solutions. Transportation Research Board; for Urbanizing Places (STEP UP). 10th National Conference on Trans- EDAW, Inc., Washington, D.C., 2002. portation Planning for Small- and Medium-Sized Communities. The Louis Berger Group, Inc. NCHRP Report 466: Desk Reference for Page 11, Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2006. Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. Venner, M. Managing Environmental Performance at State Transporta- Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2002. tion Agencies. Transportation Research Record (1859), pages 9-18, Thinking Beyond the Pavement. AASHTO Quarterly Magazine, 77(3). 2003. Pages 7-34, 1998. Venner, M. NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 10: Early Mitigation for Net Envi- TransTech Management, Inc. NCHRP Web Document 69: Performance ronmental Benefit: Meaningful Off-Setting Measures for Unavoidable Measures for Context Sensitive Solutions A Guidebook for State Impacts. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., 2005. DOTs (2004). Washington, D.C.: National Cooperative Highway Virginia Geographic Information Network (VGIN) (2007). Virginia Research Program. July 15, 2007, Available at http://trb.org/ Geographic Information Network. Last accessed on August 13, publications/nchrp/nchrp_w69.pdf. 2007. Accessible at http://www.vgin.state.va.us/. Ward, B.G. Measuring the Effectiveness of Community Impact Assessment: Wisconsin Land Information Clearinghouse (WiscLINC) (2007). Wis- Recommended Core Measures No. FDOT BC353-28). University of consin Land Information Clearinghouse. Last accessed on August South Florida, Tampa; Florida Department of Transportation; Fed- 13, 2007. Accessible at http://www.sco.wisc.edu/wisclinc/. eral Highway Administration, Tallahassee, Florida, 2005.

OCR for page 69
72 Economic Impact and Development Lewis, D. NCHRP Report 342: Primer on Transportation, Productivity and Economic Development. Transportation Research Board, Washington, Babcock, M.W. Approximation of the Economic Impacts of the Kansas Com- D.C., 1991. prehensive Transportation Program. Kansas State University, Manhat- A Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus-Transit Improve- tan; Kansas Department of Transportation, Topeka, Kansas, 2004. ments, 1977. American Association of State Highway and Trans- Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP 08-36, Task 12A: Analysis of the portation Officials, Washington, D.C., 1978. Factors Affecting Future Transportation Environment and their Impli- Pickton, T., Clements, J., and Felsburg, R.W. Statewide Economic Benefits cations for State DOTs. Transportation Research Board, Washing- of Transportation Investment. BBC Research & Consulting; Felsburg ton, D.C., 2002. Holt & Ullevig; Colorado Department of Transportation; Federal Cox, W. Maximizing Urban Transport Economic Benefits: Urban Per- Highway Administration, Denver, Colorado, 2007. formance Indicators. Competition and Ownership in Land Passenger Rose, D.C., Gluck, J., Williams, K., and Kramer, J. NCHRP Report Transport. 9th International Conference (Thredbo 9). Pages 231-246, 548: A Guidebook for Including Access Management in Transporta- 2007. tion Planning. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C., Economic Analysis Primer. Federal Highway Administration. Washing- 2005. ton, D.C., 2003. Roskin, M. (2003). Transportation and Economic Development Economic Development Research Group, Inc. Monetary Valuation per 2002. Transportation and Economic Development 2002 Confe- Dollar of Investment in Different Performance Measures. Prepared for rence, Portland Oregon. 104 pages. Available at http://gulliver.trb. National Cooperative Highway Research Program and AASHTO org/publications/circulars/ec050.pdf. Transportation Research Standing Committee on Planning. Transportation Research Board, Board. Washington, D.C., 2007. Weisbrod, G., Vary, D., and Treyz, G. NCHRP Report 463: Economic Highway and Transit Investments: Options for Improving Information on Implications of Congestion. Transportation Research Board; Cam- Projects' Benefits and Costs and Increasing Accountability for Results. bridge Systematics, Inc., 2001. No. GAO-05-172. U.S. Government Accountability Office, Wash- Weisbrod, G., and Weisbrod, B. (1997). Assessing the Economic Impact ington, D.C., 2005. of Transportation Projects: How to Choose the Appropriate Tech- Lakshmanan, T.R., and Chatterjee, L.R. Economic Consequences of nique for Your Project. Transportation Research Circular (477). Transport Improvements. Access (26). Pages 28-33, 2005. Page 28, 1997.