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 44
44 majority of respondents did not report a specific use for such State Perspectives measures, beyond approximately 30 respondents who said they would use such data for budgeting and planning purposes. Surveys were distributed to all 50 state DOTs. Targeted In an open-ended comment section related to the uses were officials within the state freight offices, of which of freight performance measures, no dominant consensus approximately 22 exist. In state transportation agencies of opinion was evident, either. No two comments were the that do not have freight offices, the surveys were sent to the same, although it was clear that issues of on-time delivery and DOT's planning officials. The state DOTs generally expressed transport costs were of overall importance, as would be pre- a keen desire for freight performance measures, with some dictable in the highly competitive logistics industry. "We pass strong exceptions. State officials overall expressed greatest many of these requirements off to our freight carriers but it's interest in measures that captured information regarding very important for us to be knowledgeable about these issues the performance of local and regional freight networks, when we're negotiating our annual contracts and fees. These such as highway, railway, and port systems, with lesser issues are critical for us to be able to leverage our shipments," interest expressed in aviation and inland waterway systems said one respondent. (Figure 5.7). This probably is attributable to their lack of responsibility for those systems, and their lack of eligible funds to invest in them. Public-Sector Perspectives The states generally indicated that they would use the Public-sector perspectives tend to fall into three categories: performance measures as one input for a wide array of pur- Network condition, network performance, and transporta- poses, including project selection, funds allocation, legis- tion impacts. As will be shown later, public-sector transpor- lative communication, system monitoring, and long-range tation respondents generally rated as most important those planning. For the most part, the states indicated a higher measures that capture performance on the network for interest in performance measures at the regional and local which they are responsible. Public-sector policy groups were levels, and on an annual or quarterly basis. Performance most interested in measures related to their policy purviews, measures regarding the national freight network and daily be they environmental, safety, military, regulatory, or trans- freight system performance generally were not ranked portation related. as highly by the states. The exception was for travel-time Figure 5.7. Public-sector ranking of measures.