Click for next page ( 76

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 75
75 APPENDIX C References Ackoff, R. L. (1974). Redesigning the Future: A Systems Approach to Soci- Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials and Fed- etal Problems. John Wiley & Sons, New York. eral Highway Administration through National Cooperative High- Adams, L. H., Harrison, F. D., and Vandervalk, A. (2005). Issues and way Research Program Project 25-25(02). Challenges in Using Existing Data and Tools for Performance Mea- Cambridge Systematics. (2005). NCHRP 7-15, Task 1.3: Cost-Effective surement. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, August 2224, Measures and Planning Procedures for Travel Time, Delay, and Relia- 2004. Second National Conference on Performance Measures (36), bility. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. pp. 131140. Available at Cambridge Systematics. (2007). NCHRP Research Results Digest 312: conf/CP36.pdf. Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement. Transportation AASHTO. (1977). Manual on User Benefit Analysis of Highway and Bus- Research Board, Washington, D.C. Transit Improvements. Washington, D.C. Cambridge Systematics. (2009). SHRP 2 Report S2-C02-RR: Performance AASHTO. (2007). State DOT Performance Measurement Programs: Measurement Framework for Highway Capacity Decision-making. Select Examples. Available at Accessed Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. July 25, 2008. Cervero, R., Murphy, S., Ferrell, C., Goguts, N., Tsai, Y. H., Arrington, Batty, D. (2001). NCHRP Report 450: Transportation Research Thesaurus G. B., et al. (2004). TCRP Report 102: Transit-Oriented Development and User's Guide. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. in the United States: Experiences, Challenges, and Prospects. Trans- Bracaglia, F. (2005). NCHRP Web Document 79: Monitoring, Analyzing, portation Research Board, Washington, D.C. and Reporting on the Environmental Streamlining Pilot Projects. Edwards, M. R., Peer, R. L., Lindner, E., and Klein, T. H. (2005). NCHRP Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Report 542: Evaluating Cultural Resource Significance: Implementa- Bremmer, D., Cotton, K. C., and Hamilton, B. (2005). Emerging Perfor- tion Tools. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. mance Measurement Responses to Changing Political Pressures at State FHWA. (2003). Economic Analysis Primer. Office of Asset Manage- Departments of Transportation: Practitioners' Perspective. Transporta- ment, FHWA-IF-03-032. Washington, D.C. tion Research Board, Washington, D.C. FHWA. (2008). Statewide Opportunities for Linking Planning and Opera- Brydia, R. E., Schneider IV, W. H., Mattingly, S. P., Sattler, M. L., and tions: A Primer. Washington, D.C. Upayokin, A. (2007). Operations-Oriented Performance Measures for Forkenbrock, D. J., and Weisbrod, G. E. (2001). NCHRP Report 456: Freeway Management Systems: Year 1 Report (No. FHWA/TX-07/ Guidebook for Assessing the Social and Economic Effects of Transporta- 0-5292-1). Texas Transportation Institute; Texas Department of tion Projects. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C.; Transportation, Austin, Texas; Federal Highway Administration. University of Iowa, Iowa City. Cambridge Systematics. (1999). Multimodal Transportation: Develop- Halfawy, M. R. (2008). Integration of Municipal Infrastructure Asset ment of a Performance-Based Planning Process. National Cooper- Management Processes: Challenges and Solutions. Journal of Com- ative Highway Research Program Project 8-32(2). Transportation puting in Civil Engineering, 22(3), pp. 216229. Research Board, Washington, D.C. Harrison, R., Schofield, M., Loftus-Otway, L., Middleton, D., and West, Cambridge Systematics. (2000). NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook J. (2006). Developing Freight Highway Corridor Performance Measure for Performance-Based Transportation Planning. Transportation Strategies in Texas (No. FHWA/TX-07/0-5410-1). Texas University, Research Board, Washington, D.C. Austin; Texas Department of Transportation, Austin, Texas; Federal Cambridge Systematics. (2001). NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 07: Devel- Highway Administration. opment of a Multimodal Tradeoffs Methodology for Use in Hendren and Meyers. (2006). NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 53 (02): Peer Statewide Transportation Planning. Transportation Research Exchange Series on State and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Board, Washington, D.C. Issues. Meeting 2: Nontraditional Performance Measures. Trans- Cambridge Systematics. (2002). NCHRP Project 08-36, Task 11: Techni- portation Research Board, Washington, D.C. cal Methods to Support Analysis of Environmental-Justice Issues. ICF Consulting. (2005). Handbook on Integrating Land Use Consider- Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. ations into Transportation Projects to Address Induced Growth Cambridge Systematics. (2004). Transportation Impacts of Smart Growth (No. NCHRP 25-25/Task 03). Transportation Research Board, and Comprehensive Planning Initiatives. Prepared for American Washington, D.C.

OCR for page 75
76 Kittelson & Associates, Urbitran, Inc., LKC Consulting Services, Inc., Poister, T., and D. Van Slyke. (2001). Managing Change in State Depart- Morpace International, Inc., Queensland University of Technology, ments of Transportation. National Cooperative Highway Research and Nakanishi, Y. (2003). A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Program Report SP20-24. Transportation Research Board, Wash- Performance-Measurement System. Transit Cooperative Research Pro- ington, D.C. gram Report 88. Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Pratt and Lomax. (1996). Performance Measures for Multimodal Trans- Larson, M. C. (2005). Organizing for Performance Management. Report portation Systems. of a Conference, Irvine, California, August 2224, 2004. Second Randall, J. E. (2007). NCHRP 03-81: Strategies for Integrated Operation National Conference on Performance Measures (36) pp. 99120. of Freeway and Arterial Corridors. Transportation Research Board, Available at Washington, D.C. Lewis, D. (1991). NCHRP Report 342: Primer on Transportation, Produc- Rose, D. C., Gluck, J., Williams, K., and Kramer, J. (2005). NCHRP tivity, and Economic Development. Transportation Research Board, Report 548: A Guidebook for Including Access Management in Trans- Washington, D.C. portation Planning. Transportation Research Board, Washington, The Louis Berger Group, Inc. (2002). NCHRP Report 466: Desk Reference D.C. for Estimating the Indirect Effects of Proposed Transportation Projects. Shaw, T. (2003). Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Transportation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Highway Segments and Systems. National Cooperative Highway Meyer, M. D. (1995). Alternative Performance Measures for Transporta- Research Program Synthesis 311. Transportation Research Board, tion Planning: Evolution Toward Multimodal Planning. Georgia Insti- Washington, D.C. tute of Technology, prepared for the U.S. DOT, Report Number TransTech Management, Inc. (2004). NCHRP Web Document 69: Per- FTA-GA-26-7000. formance Measures for Context-Sensitive Solutions--A Guidebook for Meyer, M. (2001). Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured--At State DOTs. National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Least According to Conventional Wisdom. Report of a Conference, Washington, D.C. Accessed July 15, 2008. Available at http://trb. Irvine, California, October 29November 1, 2000. Performance Mea- org/publications/nchrp/nchrp_w69.pdf. sures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB. (2005). Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems: pp. 105125. Available at Summary of the Second National Conference. August 2224, 2004, reports/cp_26.pdf. Irvine, California, Conference Proceedings 36. Transportation Pickrell, S., and Neumann, L. (2001). Use of Performance Measures in Research Board, Washington, D.C. Transportation Decision-Making. Report of a Conference, Irvine, TRB. (2007). Information Assets to Support Transportation Decision- California, October 29-November 1, 2000. Performance Measures Making: Report of a Peer Exchange of State Transportation Organi- to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations: Sum- zations. April 1718, 2007, Kansas City, Kansas. Transportation mary of the Second National Conference, pp. 1733. Available at Research Circular E-C121. Transportation Research Board, Wash- ington, D.C. Poister, T. H. (1997). NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 238: Perfor- Venner, M. (2005). NCHRP Project 25-25, Task 10: Early Mitigation for mance Measurement in State Departments of Transportation. Trans- Net Environmental Benefit: Meaningful Off-Setting Measures for portation Research Board, Washington, D.C. Unavoidable Impacts. Transportation Research Board, Washing- Poister, T. H. (2005). Performance Measurement in Transportation: ton, D.C. State of the Practice. Report of a Conference, Irvine, California, Ward, B. G. (2005). Measuring the Effectiveness of Community Impact August 2224, 2004. Second National Conference on Performance Assessment: Recommended Core Measures (No. FDOT BC353-28). Measures (36), pp. 8198. Available at University of South Florida, Tampa; Florida Department of Trans- onlinepubs/conf/CP36.pdf. portation, Tallahassee; Federal Highway Administration.