articulo 3 municipal

8/14/2019 Articulo 3 Municipal

1/24

Intl Journal of Public Administration, 31: 616638, 2008

Copyright Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online

DOI: 10.1080/01900690701640960

LPAD0190-06921532-4265Intl Journal of Public Administration, Vol. 31, No. 6, March 2007: pp. 142Intl Journal of Public Administration

State DOT Performance Programs:

From Program Development to

Strategic Planning

StateDOT Performance ProgramsCompin

Nicholas S. Compin

Mineta Transportation Institute (MTI), San Jose State University (SJSU),San Jose, California, USA

Abstract: This article presents evidence from selected state transportation depart-ments across the United States that indicates that although many states have estab-

lished performance measures programs, very few have acted to integrate across the

board results into transportation decision-making processes. Transportation-related

performance programs across the nation have reached a critical juncture between

performance program creation and integration of results into decision-making pro-

cesses. Only time will tell if the fundamental strength of performance programs, that of

enhancing strategic planning, will be unleashed, thereby strengthening the manage-

ment of transportation programs and the relationship with decision-makers and the

public that government transportation providers desperately need.

Keywords: performance measurement, performance management, strategic planning,

state DOT performance programs, transportation

INTRODUCTION

Transportation system performance is an issue that affects the public nearly

every day in a direct way. In every locale, no matter the mode, the transporta-

tion system is an interconnected mobility web, each part connected to and

affecting another. Whether a person is walking to a nearby store or flying

across the continent, transportation system performance is affecting their jour-

ney. Performance is the process or manner of functioning or operating; in this

case, the something is the transportation system. The way we gauge themanner of operating in transportation is through performance measurement.


2/24

State DOT Performance Programs 617

Performance measurement here is defined as the use of observed evidence to

determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives. In most

cases state departments of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for insuringthat transportation systems within a given state meet the traveling publics

transportation needs. Each department establishes goals and measurable

objectives. Performance measures that gauge each departments progress

towards meeting objectives and goals are then selected.

State DOTs are not only responsible for insuring positive impacts of their

activities, but must also insure that the transportation systems they oversee do

not have any overwhelmingly negative impacts. With this in mind, an impor-

tant question arises: how does the public know what kind of impact decision

makers are having with respect to the multitude of transportation services,demands and impacts? One option is to use performance measures. Other

concerns, such as safety and delays, arise when considering the transportation

system such as a bus or train trip substitute for an auto trip. The effect of trans-

portation on the environment is another concern. Performance measurement is

an important step in beginning to address these issues and more. Results of per-

formance measurement can supply information to decision makers and the

traveling public alike, showingboth over time and in comparison with similar

systemsthe impact on the transportation system of decisions made by deci-

sion makers and of activities taken by departments in their pursuit of goals.Over the past decade, state departments of transportation around the US

have begun the process of creating performance measurement programs. This,

in and of itself, is a positive step, but how can we determine if DOT perfor-

mance measurement systems provide the information necessary to inform

strategic planning and decision making? The first step is to analyze state DOT

performance programs, paying specific attention to the performance

measures, and determine both their primary focus and whether they are

addressing multiple facets of the transportation system in such a way that

informs strategic planning and decision making.This article includes an analysis of transportation system performance

measures programs from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and

from five state DOTs: Florida, Washington, Minnesota, California, and

Maryland. Presented in the second section are the theories and policies that

are driving many current performance measurement efforts in government

in the United States. Presented in section three is an analysis of performance

measures contained in the performance programs of the five previously

identified states. Results are presented in tables divided into the following

categories:

G l / F A Th f l t f id tifi d b


3/24

618 Compin

System MeasuresMeasures that determine the impact of departmental

activities on the transportation system.

Organizational MeasuresMeasures that determine the alignment ofdepartmental activities with internal departmental objectives. These mea-

sures are often not directly related to the transportation system, but rather to

an organizations internal business operations.

Data OnlyMeasures that are not performance measures or interpretable as

performance measures.

Unclear Linkage With PMIdentified performance measure is not related to

specified goal or focus area and possibly not specifically transportation related.

Following each table is an analysis of the overall focus of performancemeasures programs in each state, including general comments about each

program. The conclusion section includes suggestions for improving the

specification of performance measures and the impact of performance

programs on strategic planning, strategic management and decision making

and thus the impact on the transportation system of decisions and activities for

which state DOTs and others are responsible.

BACKGROUND

Performance Management: A Transition from Private Sector Business

to Government

Although the concept of using strategic planning strategies to guide organizations

has its origins in private sector business management, it became apparent in

the 1970s that business strategies might be applicable in government; albeit in

a different manner than theretofore applied in the private sector. The broadening

of the application of strategic business management to government programsbegan in the mid 1970s in the field of transportation and, more specifically,

the mass transportation sector.

Results of research aimed at determining the applicability of strategic

business management practices to assist in determining the operating effi-

ciency and effectiveness of government-sponsored transportation programs

first began appearing in academic journals in the latter part of the 1970s.

Research efforts focused on determining first if and then how performance

management systems and specific performance measures could be created to

gauge the impact of public investments in government sponsored transportationsystems. The seminal works by Gordon J. (Pete) Fielding and Roy E. Glauthier

(1977)[1] d l t Fi ldi Gl thi d Ch l A L (1977 1978)[2 3]


4/24


performance measurement slowly increased. Research not only revealed the

complex and elaborate relationships that exist among the activities governmental

entities carry out and the results, or outcomes, of those activities on the custom-ers; the traveling public, but also how performance management and individual

measures could be included in transportation-related decision-making processes.

Integrating Performance Management into Government

Transportation Programs

According to Edward Weiner in his comprehensive September 1997 report

Urban Transportation Planning in the United States: An Historical Overview:

By the early 1990s, there were major changes underway that would have

significant effects on urban transportation and urban transportation

planning. The era of major new highway construction was over in most

urban areas . . . Many transportation agencies entered into strategic

management and planning processes to identify the scope and nature of

these changes, to develop strategies to address these issues, and to

better orient their organization to function in this new environment.[4]

The changing environment of transportation planning required changes in

how transportation professionals thought about planning, and particularly the

scope of planning. Accordingly one influential project titled, Strategic

Planning and Management Guidelines for Transportation Agencies,

reviewed the status of strategic planning in transportation agencies and devel-

oped guidelines for successfully institutionalizing it. The following definition

was provided by the project report:

Strategic management is an interactive and ongoing process consistingminimally of the following fundamental components: mission statement

(including goals and objectives), environmental scan, strategy develop-

ment, action plan development, resource allocation, and performance

measurement.[5]

Thus began the institutionalization of strategic planning and its connection

with performance measurement.

The Federal Government Connects Funding and Performance

E l ti


5/24

620 Compin

shifted the focus of transportation program efforts from the construction of the

Interstate Highway System to the preservation of the existing transportation

system; requiring a related shift in responsibilities for transportation decision-making from the federal level to the state and local levels. ISTEA directed the

adoption of a multi-modal approach to transportation planning and decision-

making, requiring more integrated planning with an emphasis on the inclusion of

a broader range of stakeholders than were involved in past planning processes.

The metropolitan planning process must explicitly consider and ana-

lyze, as appropriate, 15 factors that reflect sound planning principles. It

may be helpful to think about them in three general groupings which

reflect major themes of the ISTEA: Mobility and Access for People andGoods; System Performance and Preservation; and Environment and

Quality of Life.[6]

For the purposes of this article it is important to note that ISTEA signaled a

national interest in using business management practices to focus on and improve

the management and operation of transportation programs and systems across the

US by requiring the creation of six transportation management systems and asso-

ciated performance monitoring. ISTEA allowed states to use National Highway

System (NHS), State Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation andAir Quality (CMAQ), apportioned bridge, and planning funds to finance the new

management systems, but provided no new sources of funding.[7]

Under ISTEA, states were required to certify that they had established the

six transportation management systems by January 1, 1995, with the under-

standing that failing to establish the systems could result in a 10 percent

reduction in federal funds apportioned to the state.

Performance Management Broadens to Include All Federal Programs

Without high-level guidance and support, public agencies have no real impe-

tus to embark upon strategies to include performance management in their

decision-making processes. One rather obvious and extremely important moti-

vator for action in government is the passage of legislation. In 1993, passage

of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),[8] Public Law 103

62, signaled the wholesale Federal commitment to performance measurement.

The GPRA was enacted To provide for the establishment of strategic plan-

ning and performance measurement in the Federal Government, and for otherpurposes. The stated purposes of the Act were to:


6/24


2. initiate program performance reform with a series of pilot projects in

setting program goals, measuring program performance against those

goals, and reporting publicly on their progress;3. improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by pro-

moting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction;

4. help federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they

plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with informa-

tion about program results and service quality;

5. improve congressional decision making by providing more objective

information on achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative effec-

tiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending; and

6. improve internal management of the federal government.

According to a 1997 report conducted by the National Performance Review,

GPRA aims to improve the management of federal programs through

the use of strategic planning and performance measurement systems.

Under GPRA, all federal agencies will, beginning with the fiscal year

1999 budget cycle, be required to draft and submit five-year strategic

plans with clearly stated strategic goals, annual performance plans

describing how they will carry out these strategic plans and meet theirgoals, and annual reports on their progress.[9]

The GPRA provided the initial guidance and support necessary for federal

officials to begin the lengthy process of improving program management and

increasingly tie stated goals with actual outcomes through performance mea-

surement; a process that continued throughout the 90s and continues today.

Their (the business community) experience has shown that balancing a

family of performance measures works. This means that in each phase of performance planning, management, and measurement, the customer,

stakeholder, and employee are considered in balance with the need to

achieve a specific mission or result. This approach has worked in the pri-

vate sector and is beginning to take firm root in government as well.[10]

A Softened Federal Stance

With respect to government transportation programs, requirements forimproved management and accountability were short lived as passage of the

N ti l Hi h S t D i ti A t f 1995 [11] th i t


7/24

622 Compin

their own discretion and under their own standards. Further softening require-

ments for improved management and accountability was the Transportation

Equity Act of 1997 (TEA-21). TEA-21 limited the number of transportationplanning factors to be considered, thereby allowing for inclusion of perfor-

mance monitoring at a future date.

The key change in the new legislation is the consolidation of 16 metro-

politan and 23 statewide planning factors into seven broad areas

to be considered in the planning process, both at the metropolitan and

statewide level. A new section exempts plans, transportation improve-

ment plans, project or strategy, and certification actions from legal

review for failure to consider any one of the areas. The growingimportance of operating and managing the transportation system is

recognized as a focal point for transportation planning.[12]

Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the United States, the states, and metro-

politan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity

and efficiency;

2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorizedand non-motorized users;

3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for

freight;

4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and

improve quality of life;

5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,

across and between modes throughout the state, for people and freight;

6. Promote efficient system management and operation; and

7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Summing Up the Incorporation of Performance Management in

Transportation

The combination of ISTEA, TEA-21 and GPRA legislation highlights the

diffusion of strategic planning and performance management practices

throughout all levels of government, from federal to local, all with one stated

goal: to not only improve the processes by which governmental decisions aremade, but the decisions themselves and thus the impact of decisions in terms

f i d l t th bli With ISTEA d TEA 21 idi ddi


8/24


planning. Although the prior definition basically remained unchanged with the

passage of TEA-21, the concept was captured using what is now commonly

known as the 3 Cs of transportation planning:

The process for developing the plans and programs shall provide for

consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing,

cooperative, and comprehensive . . .[13]

Again, strategic planning continues to require that results be monitored to

determine if actions taken lead towards outlined goals, thus requiring the devel-

opment of performance management programs within which performance

measures are developed and progress toward goal attainment is tracked.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN

GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN

THE UNITED STATES

A large majority of states have chosen to require performance measure pro-

grams through legislation. States such as Florida, Maryland, and Washington

have enacted legislation that requires state departments, including statedepartments of transportation, to develop performance programs. In Minnesota

the creation of their performance program began with the DOT, but was later

required by the state legislature. In California, it was the Secretary of the Business,

Transportation and Housing Agency who initiated the state DOTs perfor-

mance program efforts. Regardless of the sponsor or sponsors, the message is

clear: state departments of transportation must do a better job of aligning

stated goals outlined in planning documents and results of their activities.

How can this be accomplished? One compelling idea is that transportation

performance measurement systems must include simultaneous considerationand evaluation of multiple program facets relating to the planning and deliv-

ery of transportation infrastructure and services.

A system of performance measurement can be used for any of the

decision-making contexts in isolation. Indeed, many states and MPOs

apply the concept in one context but not in others or not across the

board. However, much of the value of the concept lies in the ability to tie

these different but related elements of the overall transportation planning

and delivery process together in a consistent framework of planning,monitoring, evaluation, and feedback.[14]


9/24


10/24


and Natural Environment), confusion in the specification of several measures

is apparent.

Observations

The results presented in this section make it apparent that progress toward

meeting targets in certain goal areas is more readily measured than in others.

Performance measures in the Safety area seemed to be the most accurately

specified, followed by those forMobility and Productivity, while those relat-

ing to the Human and Natural Environmenttarget area obviously require

further consideration. The lack of focus indicated by these results can createquite a challenge for state DOTs that may look to the FHWA for guidance in

selecting performance measures for their own systems.

State DOTs and their Performance Programs

In the following sections performance measures programs from five state

DOTs (California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington) are ana-

lyzed. These programs were chosen because efforts involving performancemeasurement are fairly advanced and information for each is readily available.

The programs chosen are not meant to be inclusive or necessarily representa-

tive of current efforts within all state DOTs, but the information and analysis

presented in the following sections does provide general insight into the state

of the practice with respect to ongoing performance measurement initiatives at

state DOTs across the United States.

One objective of the analysis presented in the following sections is to

categorize the general types of goals state DOTs have set and how they are

determining their advancement towards those goals. A second and morerevealing objective is to begin to determine whether state DOTs are using

performance evaluation as a tool to refine and focus their efforts on the

outcomes of departmental activities and decision making. If the focus of

performance measurement programs is to improve strategic planning and

decision making, then performance measures selected for monitoring

should be focused on transportation system outcomes and performance

programs should include performance evaluation in multiple outcome

areas.

The following sections contain brief descriptions of each of five statesperformance measurement programs and the impetus for establishing each

N t i li ti f th l f hi h f


11/24

626 Compin

are associated with organizational activities (internal to the program) or

system impacts (focused on the transportation system).

Florida

The Florida State Department of Transportation is required to submit a perfor-

mance report pursuant to s. 339.155, Florida Statutes.[16] The purpose of the report

is to evaluate the Departments progress toward achieving the goals and objectives

included in the Short Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan.

In accordance with the prescribed implementation schedule of the State of

Floridas Government Accountability and Performance Act of 1994, theFlorida Department of Transportation began operating under the performance

based program budgeting system during FY 19971998. For each program,

the Departments legislative budget request must include the following perfor-

mance related information:

legislatively approved output and outcome performance measures and any

proposed revisions to measures,

proposed performance standards for each performance measure and justifi-

cation for the standards and the sources of data to be used for measurement, prior-year performance data on approved performance measures and an

explanation of deviation from expected performance, and

proposed performance incentives and disincentives.[17]

Prior to the submission of measures and standards to the Executive Office of

the Governor, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) must assess the reliability

and validity of the information provided by the Department and make any

necessary recommendations for improvement.[18]

The following is an excerpt from the OIGs reliability and validity evalu-ation of the Florida Department of Transportations 62 proposed performance

measures for fiscal year (FY) 2004/2005.[19]

Ninety-five percent of the assessed measures (56 out of 59) appear to be

reliable. In cases where the data was found to be unreliable, we will

work with the responsible offices to attempt to correct data integrity

problems before the next reporting cycle. Ninety-eight percent of the

assessed measures (58 out of 59) appear to be valid, in terms of measur-

ing what they purport to measure. Sixty-four percent of the assessedmeasures (38 out of 59) are not meaningful indicators of the results

hi d b h D S i ddi i l i f i b


12/24


Because of the requirement for unit cost measurements, it is difficult to

provide suggestions for alternative measures. For the 22 priority mea-

sures, we compared the FY 20022003 results against the standardswhen sufficient information was available. No deviations were identi-

fied in the 10 measures that we were able to evaluate. Additional data

integrity work will be conducted on the remaining measures as neces-

sary information becomes available.[20]

This evaluation makes it obvious that the Department must make changes to

their list of proposed measures if they are to be used to determine progress

towards achieving performance goals.

Observations

As shown in Table 2, there is an apparent lack of focus of the performance

measures selected by the Florida Department of Transportation. Many of the

performance measures identified are not actually performance measures at all,

Table 2. Analysis of the Short Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan

Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome

System

Measures

Organizational

Measures

Data

Only

Unclear

Linkage

With PM

#1 Preserve and Manage a Safe, Efficient Transportation System

System

Preservation

System Efficiency

#2 Enhance Floridas Economic Competitiveness, Quality of Life andTransportation Safety

Mobility/

Economic

Competitiveness

Quality of Life

Safety*

#3 Organizational Excellence

Customers

Work Program

Organizational

Performance


13/24

628 Compin

but rather merely data that do not reflect directly upon performance. Other

identified measures are focused on outcomes, outputs, the transportation sys-

tem and organizational activities with seemingly little consideration of a logi-cal framework. Given that the stated purpose of this report is to evaluate the

Departments progress toward achieving the goals and objectives included in

the Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan,[21] it is

unlikely that reporting the measures as put forth will accomplish this goal. As

mentioned earlier, the Floridas Office of the Inspector General analyzed the

proposed measures and found that Sixty-four percent of the assessed mea-

sures (38 out of 59) are not meaningful indicators of the results achieved by

the Department.[22]

Although there seems to be a general lack of focus when all measures areconsidered, performance measures in the following areas are generally valid,

reliable and meaningful: System Preservation, Mobility, Safety, and Organi-

zational Excellence. Focusing on a smaller, core set of measures would seem

appropriate in this instance and could potentially result in a greater impact on

strategic planning and thus transportation-related decision making.

Washington

The Washington State Department of Transportations (WSDOTs) quarterly

performance measures report to the Washington State Transportation Com-

mission on transportation programs and department management is called

Measures, Markers and Mileposts. Its goal is to keep WSDOT accountable to

the Transportation Commission and the public. Also referred to as the Gray

Notebook because of its gray cover, Measures, Markers and Mileposts was

first made available for the quarter ending March 31, 2001. As of June 2004,

there have been fourteen Quarterly Reports.[23]

Information concerning all measures, or in many cases data, is not con-tained in every report. Seventeen transportation subject areas containing nearly

two-hundred and fifty different measures of performance were included in those

reports, including the following subject areas: Aviation, Benchmarks, Bridge

Conditions, Commute Trip Reduction, Congestion, Construction Program,

Design, Environmental, Ferries, Highway Maintenance, Pavement Conditions,

Rail: Freight, Rail: Amtrak Cascades, Safety, Traffic Operations, Truck Freight,

Workforce, Special Features, and Traveler Information.

Observations


14/24


for the uninitiated, and frequently the initiated, to link departmental goals to

performance outcomes in a systematic manner. The fact that reports are

specifically designed for the Washington State Transportation Commissionmay account for the high level of specificity and the large number of issues

covered over the years in the reports. Even so, many of the items contained in

the reports are simply data that do not reflect directly upon performance.

Many issues have been addressed in only one report and many items contain

very specific information about individual projects. All of these factors com-

bined may hamper strategic planning and decision making by providing a

larger volume of information with a multitude of subjects than is useful,

thereby creating confusion rather than removing it. This is especially true if

the public is to be a customer for the report.

Minnesota

Three statewide planning documents inform and guide transportation invest-

ments in the State of Minnesota:

1. Mn/DOTs Strategic Plan outlines the Departments vision, mission and

strategic directions;2. the Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan provides the 20-year policy-

based transportation plan called for by state and federal law.

Finally there is the Mn/DOTs Business Plan, which incorporates performance

measures from the Statewide Transportation Plan and sets achievable two-year

targets for reducing the gap on selected measures.

Mn/DOTs Statewide Transportation Plan

The Statewide Transportation Plan has been prepared by the Minnesota

Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to comply with federal

planning requirements[24]that require a long range transportation plan

of each state as well as state planning requirements[25], which require

Mn/DOTs commissioner to develop, adopt, revise, and monitor a

statewide transportation plan.[26]

An analysis of MNDOTs 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan is presented in

Table 3.

M /DOT B i Pl


15/24

630 Compin

In the 20042005 state budget cycle, resources will be allocated through

Activity Based Budgeting and guided through a business plan. The

business plan is tied to performance targets for every major product and

service. Business units within Mn/DOT are encouraged to prioritize

available resources to begin to close the gap toward short- and long-termperformance targets. In some cases, where targeted performance levels

are exceeded resources can be redirected to areas in greater need This

Table 3. Analysis of Minnesota DOTs 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan


System

Measures

Organizational

Measures

Data

Only

Unclear

Linkage

With PM

#1 Preserve Essential Elements of Existing Transportation Systems

#2 Support Land Use Decisions that Preserve Mobility and Enhance the Safety of

Transportation Systems

Represents more of an institutional focus or intent rather than actual performance

measurement.

#3 Effectively Manage the Operation of Existing Transportation Systems toProvide Maximum Service to Customers

#4 Provide Cost-Effective Transportation Options for People and Freight

#5 Enhance Mobility in Interregional Transportation Corridors Linking Regional

Trade Centers (RTCs)

#6 Enhance Mobility Within Major Regional Trade Centers

#7 Increase the Safety and Security of Transportation Systems and Their Users

#8 Continually Improve Mn/DOTs Internal Management and Program Delivery

#9 Inform, Involve and Educate All Potentially Affected Stakeholders in

Transportation Plans and Investment Decision Processes

No measures specified.

#10 Protect the Environment and Respect Community Values


16/24


Mn/DOTs 200405 Business Plan incorporates performance measures

from the Statewide Transportation Plan. The Business Plan sets achievable

two-year targets for reducing the gap on selected measures. Performance goals

and measures contained in the Business Plan are presented above.

Observations

Generally speaking, Mn/DOT has identified many system-related outcome

measures, particularly in the areas of System Preservation, Traffic Operations

(Mobility, Reliability, Accessibility), and certain portions of the Safety and

Environmental area. Although the Mn/DOT has incorporated many types of

measures into their report (e.g., output, outcome, system, and organization),

which may result in some confusion, the State has in place a well-organized

process for identifying a relatively small number of highly focused measures

in multiple performance areas, which should bode well for its strategic

planning and ultimate decision-making efforts.

California

Prior Efforts from California

Californias Performance Measurement initiative was begun in 1998 by the

Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BT&H) and led by the

California Department of Transportation to achieve two broad goals:

develop indicators/measures to assess the performance of Californias

Table 4. Analysis of Minnesota DOTs 200405 Business Plan


System

Measures

Organizational

Measures

Data

Only

Unclear

Linkage

With PM

#1 Safeguard What Exists

#2 Make the Transportation Network Operate Better

#3 Make Mn/DOT Work Better


17/24

632 Compin

establish a coordinated and cooperative process for consistent performance

measurement in California.[28]

The Current Effort

Following a period of several years of general neglect and a lack of manage-

ment support, efforts at implementing a performance measures program at the

California Department of Transportation were recently rekindled. According

to Brian J. Smith, the Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs for the

California Department of Transportation, the current effort, which began in

May 2004, was made in response to recommendations made by an expert

review panel as part of the Performance Improvement Initiative (PII)[29]

spon-sored by Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak of the California Business, Trans-

portation and Housing Agency (BT&H).[30] The team assembled to address

the issue includes public sector stakeholders from state, regional and local

agencies and private sector stakeholders and was established by the BT&H to

renew and build on previous efforts by the Department, The California Trans-

portation Commission, various metropolitan planning organizations, local

operators and private sector interest aimed at creating outcome-related trans-

portation system performance measures.[31]

Although the performance measures team has identified key indicatorsfor the first six outcome areas listed below, the measures are not yet available.

Currently participants are in the process of identifying specific data sources

and reporting and presentation guidelines.

1. Mobility/Accessibility/Reliability - Minimize time and cost and maximize

choice and dependability. Reach desired destinations within reasonable

time, cost, choice, dependability and ease.

2. Productivity - Maximize throughput or efficiency (system wide).

3. System Preservation - Preserve the publicly owned transportation system

at a specified state of repair or condition. Physical condition of the system.

4. Safety - Reduce fatalities, injury, and property loss of system users and

workers. Facilitate perception of personal safety.

5. Environmental Quality - Maintain and enhance the quality of the natural

and human environment.

6. Coordinated Transportation and Land Use - Ensure transportation deci-

sions promote and support job/housing proximity.

7. Economic Development - Contribute to Californias economic growth.

8. Return on Investment - Benefit cost analysis or best return on investment

(includes life cycling costing).


18/24


financial assistance. No disproportionate impact based on income and eth-

nic groups. Ensure equitable sharing of benefits. Ensure accessibility for

people with disabilities.

Observations

As with any performance measures program, the success of the new program in

improving strategic planning and informing decision making in California

largely hinges on the careful identification of appropriate performance

measures, their linkages to departmental vision, mission, goals, and objectives

and on the manner in which the program is incorporated into existing processes.

Maryland

The legislative requirements for the monitoring and reporting of perfor-

mance measures were established by the 2000 Joint Chairmens Report

and the 2000 Transportation Performance Act (Senate Bill 731).[32],[33]

Senate Bill 731 revised the requirements for the Maryland Transportation

Plan, created a requirement for an Annual Attainment Report on Trans- portation System Performance, and created a Governor's Advisory

Committee to guide the development of the Annual Attainment Report.

While the bill provides the legal mandate for reporting on performance

measures, the Attainment Report should also be viewed in relationship

to other MDOT documents and programs: the Consolidated Transpor-

tation Program, the Maryland Transportation Plan, and the Managing

for Results Initiative.[34]

The third Annual Attainment Report (2004) presents the performance mea-

sures used by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the five

modal administrations (the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA), the

Maryland Port Administration (MPA), the Maryland Transit Administration

(MTA), the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), and the State Highway

Administration (SHA)) and the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA)

to evaluate its progress towards attaining the goals and objectives laid out in

the recently revised and updated Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP). The

current Attainment Report is substantially different than the two previous

versions in that the number of goals in the new MTP has been reduced from

ten to four, and the new Attainment Report contains approximately 30 perfor-


19/24

634 Compin

These changes reflect a desire by the new Administration to focus on

MDOTs core mission to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of

people and goods across all transportation modes.[35]

Observations

Maryland recently began the process of narrowing its performance measures

program to include a small, yet highly focused set of performance measures.

In general the selected measures are system-related outcome measures that

can be applied to determine a great deal about the performance of the States

transportation system in a clear and concise manner. The states approach is

multi-faceted and comprehensive without being exhaustive at the risk of con-

fusion. The potential is high for the program to be effective in strengthening

strategic planning and informing decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has examined the role of performance measures programs in link-

ing organizational goals with system outcomes using performance measures.

This process, if conducted carefully and concisely, should have a positive

impact on strategic planning and ultimate decision making. The overarching

motivation for writing this paper is that by carefully analyzing performance

programs and their associated performance measures, practitioners can learnfrom others and create or modify performance programs to improve the ways

Table 5. Analysis of Maryland DOTs 2004 Annual Attainment Report


System

Measures

Organizational

Measures

Data

Only

Unclear

Linkage

With PM

#1 Efficiency

#2 Mobility

#3 Safety and Security

#4 Productivity and Quality


20/24


can potentially provide insight and understanding to align departmental

visions, missions, and goals with measurable objectives (performance targets).

Following the selection of measurable objectives, performance measures arecrafted and data sources identified. This part of the process, although time

consuming, should be relatively straightforward as it follows a comparatively

well-worn path. The next step in any performance program presents the greatest

challenge and it is at this point where many governmental performance pro-

grams stall and involves the development of a framework for implementing

the program and integrating results into decision-making processes. Whether

programs are large or small, across-the-board integration is the step that few,

if any, state transportation agencies in the United States have taken.

State DOTs are generally reporting on activities for which data is readilyaccessible, but which may have limited impact on system performance, or

they are reporting results from an entire suite of measures that tend to lack

cohesionorganizational outcomes and outputs, monitoring of general trends

in service provision and consumption, outcomes over which the departments

have little or no control and little possibility for impact, etc. This shotgun

approach is, from a distance, often impressive, especially to those who are less

familiar with performance evaluation, but under moderate scrutiny it is clear

that the potential to positively impact strategic planning and decision-making

in such instances is doubtful. Thus several states that are in the early stages ofcreating their performance management programs, identified hundreds, and in

some instances thousands, of measures and data sources are currently striving

to pare down the number of measures included in their programs. Indications

are that in states such as Maryland and California, performance management

specialists are working to identify critical outcome areas and their correspond-

ing performance measures, focusing in on the most important issues in order

to improve strategic planning and decision making.

Many state DOTs are currently falling short of the goals put forth in

mission statements outlined when their performance programs were ini-tially begun; especially those related to the inclusion of results in decision-

making processes. Why? Analysis included in this paper indicates that

performance measures are most valid, reliable and meaningful in areas

where results from the type of monitoring systems required by ISTEA are

available. This is not to say that selected performance measures in other

areas are, on the whole, invalid, unreliable or meaningless. The insight

provided here is that long-established monitoring programs have been

shaped to hone in on the most important aspects of the areas for which

they were created. Results from monitoring programs are almost univer-sally included in decision-making processes. If results from performance

it i t b i l d d i d i i ki ff t th


21/24

636 Compin

transportation-related performance areas that can be used to improve stra-

tegic planning in transportation.

Great effort, in terms of thought, time, and money, is necessary to createand implement performance management programs. Inaccurate or poorly

specified performance measures provide little insight into improved strategic

planning or decision making. Consideration of results gained from analysis of

multiple facets of the transportation system is also necessary to improve stra-

tegic planning and decision making. Focus throughout the process, from goal

setting to measure specification to process integration is essential if the way

transportation systems are planned for, constructed and operated are to meet

future challenges.

REFERENCES

1. Fielding, G. J., & Glauthier, R. E. Obstacles to Comparative Evaluation

of Transit Performance, Institute of Transportation Studies ITS Staff

papers. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, 1977, SP-77-1.

2. Fielding, G. J., & Glauthier, R. E., & Lave, C. A.Applying Performance

Indicators in Transit Management. Proceedings of the National Confer-

ence on Transit Performance, Norfolk, Virginia; 1977, pp. 115121.3. Fielding, G. J., Glauthier, R. E., & Lave, C. A. Performance Indicators for

Transit Management. Journal of Transportation 1978, 7, 4, 365379.

4. Weiner, E. Urban transportation planning in the United States: An his-

torical overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation;

1997, p. 125.

5. Tyndall, G. R.; Cameron, J.; & Taggart, C. Strategic Planning and

Management Guidelines for Transportation Agencies, National Coopera-

tive Highway Research Program Report 331. Washington, D.C: Trans-

portation Research Board, 1990, p. 140.6. A guide to metropolitan transportation planning under ISTEA How the

pieces fit together. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,

1995.

7. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), 1991, Public

Law 102240, Section 1034.

8. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Public Law 10362.

Washington, D. C: Executive Office of the President of the United States,

Office of Budget and Management: 1993.

9. National Performance Review. Serving the American public: Best prac-tices in performance measurement, Benchmarking Study Report. June

1997


22/24


12. Summary of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, moving

Americans into the 21st century. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of

Transportation, 1998.13. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 1998, Public

Law 105178, Title 23, Sec. 134.

14. Pickrell, S., & Neumann, L. Use of Performance Measures in Transportation

Decision Making, Conference Proceedings 26, Irvine, CA, Oct. 29Nov. 1,

2000. Committee for the Conference on Performance Measures to

Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations. Washington,

D.C: National Academy Press, 2001, p. 22.

15. FHWA FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report, 2003.

16. Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan: s. 339.155,Florida Statutes.

17. Florida Government Accountability and Performance Act, 1994: Section

216.023(4), Florida Statutes.

18. Florida Government Accountability and Performance Act, 1994: Section

20.055(2)(b), Florida Statutes.

19. Three measures could not be assessed due to insufficient information.

(see OIG Report)

20. Florida Department of Transportation Advisory Memorandum, Office

of the Inspector General, Assignment #04p-0002, September 10,2003.

21. Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan: s. 339.155,

Florida Statutes.

22. Florida Department of Transportation Advisory Memorandum, Office of

the Inspector General, Assignment #04p-0002, September 10, 2003.

23. WSDOT Measures, Markers and Mileposts. Washington State Department

of Transportation, 2004.

24. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 1998, Public

Law 105178, Title 23, Sec. 134.25. Minnesota Public Transit Participation Program, Rules Chapter 8835;

Statutes Section 174, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of

Transit, 1984.

26. State of Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan, Minnesota Department

of Transportation, Office of Investment Management, 2003.

27. Mn/DOT Measures: Guiding dcisions from planning to program

development. Minncapolis: Minnesota Department of Transportation,

Office of Statewide Planning and Analysis, Office of Investment

Management, 2003.28. Transportation System Performance Measures: Status and Prototype

R t C lif i D t t f T t ti O t b 2000


23/24

638 Compin

30. Brian J. Smith, Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs for the

California Department of Transportation: excerpt from comments made

at the Transportation Research Boards Second National Conference onPerformance Measures, August 23rd, 2004, Irvine, CA.

31. Ibid.

32. State of Marylands Joint Chairmens Report, Report on the State Operat-

ing Budget and State Capital Budget by the chairmen of the Senate Budget

Taxation Committee and the House Committee on Appropriations, 2000.

33. State of Maryland, Transportation Performance Act, Chapter 303, 2000.

34. State of Marylands Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System

Performance, Executive Summary: Maryland Department of Transportation,

2004.35. Ibid.


24/24

articulo 3 municipal

Documents