Pew Transportation Report State by State

Measuring Transportation Investments:
The Road to Results

EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. E.T. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011
Alabama is one of 19 states

trailing behind in having the essential $1.81 The state spent an estimated
$1.81 billion on transportation
tools—goals, performance measures and BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
data—needed to help decision makers choose
more cost-effective transportation funding and
policy options. HOW IS THE STATE
Like many other states, Alabama does well in
DOING?
tracking its transportation system’s performance Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
toward the goals of safety and infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation. For instance, an inventory of spending and
accident statistics—such as the number of policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
crashes by the time of day—helps officials six key goals? ACCESS
explain declines in traffic fatality and injury
rates. The state also uses several performance ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
measures to track data on the condition of
INFRASTRUCTURE
roads and bridges, with specific targets for Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
benchmarking progress. But the information is OVERALL
Trailing Behind
less comprehensive in other critical areas linked
to transportation, such as jobs and commerce,
*National Association of State Budget Officers State Expenditure Report 2010.
mobility, access and environmental stewardship.
Methodology: States were given one of three ratings—leading the way,
Alabama does not, for example, set targets showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
to track performance or measure customer the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
ensure their surface transportation systems are advancing six key goals. The
satisfaction in these areas. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
each of the six goal areas and given an overall rating.
SOURCES: Alabama Department of Transportation, “Crash Facts,” http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/mcrweb/frm/2008%20Alabama%20Crash%20

Facts.pdf (accessed February 16, 2011); Alabama Department of Finance, Executive Planning Office, “Results Alabama” Web site, http://www.
smart.alabama.gov/Default.aspx (accessed April 4, 2011).
With Support from:
This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

by the Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation.
For more information, please see the full report online at
www.pewcenteronthestates.org www.rockefellerfoundation.org www.pewcenteronthestates.org/transportation.
The Road to Results
Alaska is one of 19 states

The state’s geography requires roads, rail,
DOING?
harbors and airports to serve the public and Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
support economic growth. Mobility is one transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
of Alaska’s strong points when it comes to spending and
measuring the results of its transportation policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
system. For example, the state sets a goal for six key goals? ACCESS
on-time ferry departures, tracks the percentage
that meets the goal and compares its progress ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
to the previous three-year average and the
INFRASTRUCTURE
industry standard. But in other areas, Alaska Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
has room for improvement. The state lacks OVERALL
Trailing Behind
performance measures for environmental
stewardship, for instance. And although
Alaska’s budget office maintains a Web site
with key performance measures for each of showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
the state’s departments, with the exception of the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
safety, infrastructure preservation and mobility, ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
many of the transportation-related measures
focus more on process than on outcomes.
SOURCES: Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, “Let’s Get Moving 2030: Alaska Statewide Long-range Transportation
Policy Plan,” February 2008, http://www.dot.state.ak.us/stwdplng/areaplans/lrtpp/documents/SWLRTPPfinal022908-v2.pdf; Alaska Office of
Management and Budget, “Performance Details – Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,” November 2010, http://omb.alaska.gov/
html/performance/details.html?p=157#sd100548. Sources accessed February 28, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Arizona is one of 19 states

tools—goals, performance measures and data— BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
needed to help decision makers choose more cost-
effective transportation funding and policy options.
HOW IS THE STATE
Arizona lacks comprehensive information showing
whether its transportation system is advancing
DOING?
policy goals such as jobs and commerce. Although Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
the state aims to increase “economic opportunities,” transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
it presents no significant data for gauging its spending and
success. In the areas of mobility and environmental policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
stewardship, Arizona lacks timely data, targets to six key goals? ACCESS
show progress and comparisons to performance
in past years or of other states. But Arizona fares ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
better in tracking transportation’s progress toward
INFRASTRUCTURE
safety, infrastructure preservation and access. In Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
infrastructure preservation, for instance, the state OVERALL
Trailing Behind
has set a goal for the condition of its bridges. It
reports annually on its success toward achieving
the measure; the state exceeded the target each year
between 2005 and 2009. And Arizona tracks several showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
performance measures on access, including public the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
transit for rural communities, small towns, the ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
elderly and persons with disabilities.
SOURCES: Cambridge Systematics, “MoveAZ Plan,” prepared for Arizona Department of Transportation, September 2004, http://azmemory.
lib.az.us/cgi-bin/showfile.exe?CISOROOT=/statepubs&CISOPTR=2460&filename=2532.pdf; Arizona Department of Transportation, “FY 2009
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report,” 59, http://www.azdot.gov/inside_adot/fms/PDF/CAFR09.pdf; “2010 Statewide Transportation Planning
Framework,” March 2010, http://www.bqaz.gov/StatewideTransportationPlanningFramework.asp. Sources accessed April 4, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Arkansas is one of 19 states

trailing behind in having the essential $970 The state spent an estimated
$970 million on transportation
tools—goals, performance measures and MILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
The state compiles detailed information related
DOING?
to safety, and it has used data about bridge Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
and pavement conditions to assess highway transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
needs. But Arkansas falls short in other areas. spending and
The state lacks performance measures to track policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
transportation’s progress toward the important six key goals? ACCESS
goals of access and mobility, and the information
it collects to measure the transportation system’s ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
contributions to jobs and commerce and
INFRASTRUCTURE
environmental stewardship is of limited use. Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
On environmental stewardship, the state tracks OVERALL
Trailing Behind
the amount of gasoline consumed annually
compared to other states, but little else.
showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Arkansas State Highway and Transportation, “Arkansas’ Strategic Highway Safety Plan,” July 2007, http://www.arkansashighways.
com/planning_research/traffic_safety/strategichighwaysafetyplan.pdf; “2010 Selected Facts and Figures,” 2010, http://www.arkansashighways.
com/planning_research/policy_analysis/publications/2010_selected_facts.pdf; “Arkansas Statewide Long-Range Intermodal Transportation Plan,”
2007, http://www.arkansashighways.com/stip/Final_2007_Statewide_LongRange_Plan.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
California is one of 13 states

leading the way in having the $11.66 The state spent an estimated
essential tools—goals, performance measures BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
and data—needed to help decision makers
choose more cost-effective transportation
funding and policy options. HOW IS THE STATE
The state is a national leader in measuring its
DOING?
transportation system’s progress in advancing Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
key policy goals including safety, infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation, access, mobility and environmental spending and
stewardship. California’s measures tracking the policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
performance of its transportation system toward six key goals? ACCESS
the goal of mobility are extensive, such as the
percentage of major incidents cleared in less ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
than 90 minutes. California also exemplifies
INFRASTRUCTURE
how a state can tie transportation policy and Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
planning to environmental goals; it prioritizes OVERALL
Trailing Behind
transportation funding based on regional
growth plans that show how reductions in
greenhouse gas emissions will be achieved.
But California has room to improve in tracking showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
transportation’s success in driving jobs and the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
commerce; for instance, it does not set targets ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
for benchmarking progress in this area.
SOURCES: California Department of Transportation, “Performance Measures for the Quarter and Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2010,” http://www.
dot.ca.gov/perf/docs/2010_Q2_Quarterly_Performance_Report_FINAL_linked.pdf; California Office of Traffic Safety, “Highway Safety Plan,”
Fiscal Year 2010 through September 30, 2010, http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/safeteaweb/FY10/HSPs/CAFY10HSP.pdf. Sources accessed
February 20, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Colorado is one of 19 states

with mixed results in having the $1.42 The state spent an estimated
funding and policy options. It just missed HOW IS THE STATE
earning the top distinction of “leading the way.” DOING?
Colorado is a leader in tracking information on Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
whether its transportation system is advancing transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
several key policy goals. For example, in the spending and
area of environmental stewardship, Colorado policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
reported on the first-year impacts of the state’s six key goals? ACCESS
Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Program
on transportation emissions and congestion ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
levels. The state compiled data from its
INFRASTRUCTURE
metropolitan planning organizations to show Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
the benefits transportation projects can have on OVERALL
Trailing Behind
the environment. But Colorado has room for
improvement in the area of access. The state
aims to create “an integrated transportation
system that focuses on moving people and goods showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
by offering convenient linkages among modal the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
choices.” But it does not track performance ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
measures to show progress.
SOURCES: Colorado Department of Transportation, “The Colorado Department of Transportation Congestion Mitigation & Air Quality Program
2007-2008 Report,” February 2010, 14, http://www.coloradodot.info/programs/commuterchoices/documents/CMAQ_2007_2008_AnnualReport.
pdf; “Transportation Facts,” 2010, 5, http://www.coloradodot.info/library/FactBook/FactBook10-2.pdf/view. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Connecticut is one of 13
states leading the way in having $1.8 The state spent an estimated
the essential tools—goals, performance BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
measures and data—needed to help
decision makers choose more cost-effective
transportation funding and policy options. HOW IS THE STATE
DOING?
tools to ensure
key policy goals such as safety, mobility and transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
environmental stewardship. For example, the spending and
state tracks the amount and types of recycled policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
material used in transportation projects; it six key goals? ACCESS
also monitors greenhouse gas emissions and
has targets for reductions by major sectors, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
including transportation. The transportation
INFRASTRUCTURE
department issues a quarterly report card on Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
its performance, from pavement conditions OVERALL
Trailing Behind
to jobs created. Connecticut’s General
Assembly, meanwhile, is working to establish
a “results-based accountability” approach for
decision making. Subcommittee budget books showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
include report cards from agencies on their the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
performance—information that can be used to ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
make smarter funding choices.
SOURCES: Connecticut Department of Transportation, “Summary of CTDOT Performance Measures 2010 Quarter 1 (January 1 to March
31),” August 2010, http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dperformancemeasures/pmeasures2010q1.pdf; Connecticut Department of
Transportation, “Transportation in Connecticut: The Planning Process-Federal and State Requirements,” November 2007, 100-105,
http://www.ct.gov/dot/lib/dot/documents/dpolicy/2007processcolor.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011. Pew Center on the States interview
with Representative Diana Urban, Connecticut General Assembly, January 12, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Delaware is one of 19 states

with mixed results in having the $750 The state spent an estimated
essential tools—goals, performance measures MILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
Delaware fares well in measuring transportation’s
DOING?
progress toward several key policy goals. In Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
2010, Delaware’s transportation department transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
produced a report assessing the state’s spending and
performance in measuring its progress toward policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
safety, infrastructure preservation, mobility and six key goals? ACCESS
environmental stewardship. The report included
trends over time, national comparisons and ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
explanations for changes in performance—all
INFRASTRUCTURE
good practices. Delaware also conducts extensive Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
citizen satisfaction surveys to inform decision OVERALL
Trailing Behind
making. But its results for tracking outcomes
toward the goal of access are mixed, with
performance measures largely limited to transit
ridership. showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
SOURCES: Delaware Department of Transportation, “System Performance Measures Report (How Are We Doing?),” August 2010; “2009 Customer
Satisfaction Survey Report,” October 2010, http://deldot.gov/information/pubs_forms/brochures/pdf/2009_CSS_ExecSum.pdf; “Highway Statistics,”
http://www.deldot.gov/information/projects/hpms/pdfs/2000-2009_Delaware_Transit_Ridership_Trend.pdf. Sources accessed April 5, 2011. Pew
Center on the States interviews with Mark Eastburn, planner, Delaware Department of Transportation, January 10, 2011 and February 18, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Washington, DC, along with 18

states, shows mixed results in $682 The District spent an estimated
having the essential tools—goals, performance MILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
measures and data—needed to help decision
makers choose more cost-effective transportation
The District has goals aimed at using its
DOING?
transportation system to promote jobs and Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
commerce and advance environmental transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
stewardship, but it does not have performance spending and
measures or data to monitor its progress toward policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
those goals. One of the District’s bright spots is six key goals? ACCESS
in the area of mobility, where the city publishes
detailed monthly information about the on-time ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
status of its transit vehicles; the data aid officials
INFRASTRUCTURE
in analyzing and improving performance Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
problems. The District also tracks access to OVERALL
Trailing Behind
jobs, a strong measure in the access area, and
it publishes performance measures of the
*Pew Center on the States calculation based on FY2010 District of Columbia
conditions of bridge and street infrastructure. Budget and Financial Plan; FY2010-FY2015 District of Columbia Highway
Trust Fund; FY2010-FY2015 Capital Improvement Plan.
showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
SOURCES: District of Columbia Department of Transportation, “FY09 Performance Accountability Report,” CapStat Web site, http://capstat.oca.
dc.gov/Pdf.aspx?pdf=http://capstat.oca.dc.gov/docs/fy09/DDOT_FY09PAR.PDF; “DC Circulator Dashboard” Web site, http://circulatordashboard.
dc.gov/; “DC’s Transit Future System Plan,” April 2010, http://www.scribd.com/doc/46679156/DC-s-Transit-Future-System-Plan-Final-Report.
Sources accessed April 5, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Florida is one of 13 states

DOING?
tools to ensure
key policy goals including safety, infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation, access, mobility and environmental spending and
stewardship. Florida’s success at tracking the policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
performance of its transportation system toward six key goals? ACCESS
safety, for instance, can be seen in its efforts to
reduce fatal crashes. In fiscal year 2010, the ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
number of crash-related deaths in the state fell to
INFRASTRUCTURE
2,563, a 17-year low. That was due in part to the Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
state’s safety goals tied to deadly alcohol-related OVERALL
Trailing Behind
crashes. In the area of environmental stewardship,
Florida has established a target for reducing
greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions to 2000 levels
by 2017, and it tracks transportation-related showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
GHG emissions by fuel source. Similar use of the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
targets in the area of jobs and commerce would ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
further improve the state’s ability to measure the
transportation system’s performance.
SOURCES: Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles, “2009-10 Annual Report,” August 2010, http://www.flhsmv.gov/
html/AgencyAnnualReport2010.pdf; Florida Department of Transportation, “Trends and Conditions Report–2009, Impact of Transportation:
Transportation and the Environment, August 2009,” 9-11, http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/trends/tc-report/environment.pdf. Sources accessed
April 2, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Georgia is one of 13 states

Georgia is a leader in measuring the
DOING?
performance of its transportation system in Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
driving safety, infrastructure preservation, transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
jobs and commerce, access and mobility. The spending and
state tracks essential information such as the policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
availability of public transportation modes, six key goals? ACCESS
the number of workers who can reach major
employment centers within 45 minutes and the ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
percentage of the population living within 20
INFRASTRUCTURE
miles of a four-lane highway. Georgia has used Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
measures like these as it implements a new OVERALL
Trailing Behind
strategic transportation plan in preparation for
a statewide vote in 2012 on increasing taxes to
fund transportation needs. The state has room
for improvement, however, in environmental showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
stewardship, where it lacks timely information the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
on core measures of how its transportation ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
system affects the environment.
SOURCES: Pew Center on the States interview with Todd Long, Georgia Department of Transportation (DOT), November 17, 2010; Governor
Sonny Perdue, “The Governor’s Budget Report, Fiscal Year 2011,” http://opb.georgia.gov/vgn/images/portal/cit_1210/12/27/162459032state_
of_georgia_budget_fy_2011.pdf; DOT, “Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan 2010–2030,” April 2010, http://www.it3.ga.gov/Documents/
Final-SSTP.pdf; DOT, “2010 Atlanta Regional Commuter Survey,” http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/programs/environment/airquality/
Documents/reports/2010_atlanta_regional_commuter_survey.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Hawaii is one of 19 states

Hawaii is limited in its ability to determine the
DOING?
return on its transportation investments partially Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
because the statewide long-range transportation transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
plan has not been updated since 2002, despite spending and
the state’s promise to do so every five years. The policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
state transportation budget does provide timely six key goals? ACCESS
data and targets for benchmarking performance
in safety, infrastructure preservation, access, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
mobility and jobs and commerce. The budget
INFRASTRUCTURE
lacks explanations for changes in performance, Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
however. Hawaii has particular room for OVERALL
Trailing Behind
improvement in the area of environmental
stewardship, where its measurement of the
transportation system’s performance is limited to
a question in its 2001 customer service survey. showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
SOURCES: Hawaii Department of Transportation, “Setting the Course: Hawaii Statewide Transportation Plan,” September 2002, http://hawaii.
gov/dot/administration/stp/completehstp.pdf; Hawaii Department of Budget and Finance, “Details of the Operating and Capital Budget,
Department of Transportation,” December 2010, http://hawaii.gov/budget/bienniumbudget/multiyear/details-of-the-operating-and-capital-bud-
get-by/27.%20Department%20of%20Transportation.pdf. Sources accessed February 28, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Idaho is one of 19 states with

mixed results in having the essential $1 The state spent an estimated
$1 billion on transportation
Idaho fares well in measuring transportation’s
DOING?
progress toward several key policy goals, but Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
it has room for improvement in the areas of transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
mobility and jobs and commerce. For example, spending and
in the area of jobs and commerce, Idaho policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
lacks core outcome measures and data on the six key goals? ACCESS
economic impact of transportation investments.
But the state is making progress elsewhere. After ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
a 2009 audit found the Idaho transportation
INFRASTRUCTURE
department lacked “a cohesive strategic vision Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
and coordinated long-term infrastructure OVERALL
Trailing Behind
management plan,” it set out to produce one, and
the legislature approved more than $8 million
for new pavement and maintenance management
systems, one of the audit’s recommendations. showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
Idaho is seeing positive results: A new the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
“preservation-first” approach has increased the ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
percentage of bridges in good condition.
SOURCES: Idaho Legislature, “Idaho Transportation Department Performance Audit,” January 2009; C.L. “Butch” Otter, “Requiring the Idaho
Transportation Department to Publish an Annual Accountability Report,” March 18, 2009; Idaho Transportation Department, “2011 Strategic
Plan,” http://itd.idaho.gov/accountability/2011_Strategic_Plan%20DFM%20Submittal%20Version%206%2021%2010.pdf; “2009 Annual
Accountability Report,” January 2010; “Annual Accountability Report,” December 1, 2010; Lisa E. Ballard, “Idaho 5311(f) Program Review
Final,” June 30, 2010, http://i-way.org/LiteratureRetrieve.aspx?ID=53844. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Illinois is one of 19 states with

mixed results in having the essential $5.7 The state spent an estimated
Illinois does well in tracking its transportation
DOING?
system’s results in the areas of access and Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
mobility; the state has performance measures, transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
timely data and targets for benchmarking spending and
progress toward both goals. Policy makers can policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
see, for example, that ridership on Amtrak—an six key goals? ACCESS
important transportation option for Illinoisans—
increased as the system’s on-time performance ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
improved between fiscal years 2008 and 2009,
INFRASTRUCTURE
and whether senior citizens use and are satisfied Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
with public transit. But Illinois has room for OVERALL
Trailing Behind
improvement when it comes to assessing
transportation’s success in driving jobs and
commerce and environmental stewardship. In
the area of jobs and commerce, for example, the showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
state does not provide explanations for changes the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
in its performance, so decision makers may not ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
understand what is working and what is not.
SOURCES: Illinois Department of Transportation, “A Tradition of Service: Annual Report 2009,” March 2010, http://dot.state.il.us/annualreport/2009/
FINAL2009AnnualReport_031710.pdf; State of Illinois Office of the Comptroller, “Public Accountability Report: Fiscal Year 2009,” May 2010, http://
www.apps.ioc.state.il.us/ioc-pdf/PAR2009.pdf; Illinois Center for Transportation, “Effectiveness of Transit Strategies Targeting Elderly People: Survey
Results and Preliminary Data Analysis,” February 2009, http://ict.illinois.edu/publications/report%20files/FHWA-ICT-09-033.pdf. Sources accessed
April 1, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Indiana is one of 19 states

Indiana presents goals, performance
DOING?
measures and useful, timely data in tracking Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
transportation’s progress in the areas of transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
safety and mobility, but it lacks this detailed spending and
information for other critical goals. In policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
infrastructure preservation, for example, six key goals? ACCESS
the state reports data on road and bridge
conditions, but it does not provide targets for ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
benchmarking its progress. When it comes to
INFRASTRUCTURE
jobs and commerce, the state’s 10-year Major Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
Moves program prioritizes projects based on the OVERALL
Trailing Behind
goals of efficiency, safety, economic development
and customer input, and performance measures
include congestion relief and jobs created. But
although the program is described in the state’s showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
long-range plan and it maintains a Web site the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
showing progress, it fails to provide examples of ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
how the data affect project prioritization.
SOURCES: Indiana State Budget Agency, “Budget Supplement with Performance Measures: Volume V Transportation,” 2009, V-1, http://www.
in.gov/sba/files/PM_2009_5_Transportation.pdf; Indiana Department of Transportation, “Major Moves,” http://www.in.gov/indot/7039.htm; “2030
Long Range Transportation Plan,” 2007, Chapter 120, 135-146, http://www.in.gov/indot/files/10_majormoves.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Iowa is one of 19 states with

Iowa is faring well in measuring transportation’s
DOING?
progress toward several key policy goals, Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
including safety, infrastructure preservation, transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
access and jobs and commerce. It maintains spending and
a wealth of information about transportation policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
fatalities and injuries to assess safety. And in six key goals? ACCESS
the area of jobs and commerce, Iowa tracks a
number of core performance measures related ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
to freight shipping—a valuable measure of the
INFRASTRUCTURE
transportation system’s capacity for moving Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
goods and supporting the economy. The OVERALL
Trailing Behind
state has room for improvement, however, in
measuring transportation’s progress toward the
goal of mobility; Iowa presents neither core
performance measures nor core outcome data, showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
such as information about traffic congestion or the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
on-time performance of transit systems. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Iowa Department of Transportation, “Performance Report: Performance Results Achieved for Fiscal Year 2009,” http://publications.
iowa.gov/9331/1/DOT_Performance_Report_FY2009_-_Final.pdf; “2009 Iowa Railroad System Plan,” http://www.iowadot.gov/iowainmotion/rail.
html; “Iowa in Motion: State Transportation Plan,” July 15, 1997, http://www.iowadot.gov/pdf_files/transplan.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
Pew Center on the States interview with Rebecca Law, program manager, Revitalize Iowa’s Sound Economy program, January 7, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Kansas is one of 19 states

Kansas fares well in measuring transportation’s
DOING?
progress toward several key policy goals. For Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
instance, the state has shown periodic attention transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
to the relationship between transportation and spending and
jobs and commerce; a 2007 report studied the policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
importance of rail access and mobility to the six key goals? ACCESS
state’s meat processing industry. Meanwhile, the
state sets targets for performance only in the ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
areas of safety and infrastructure preservation;
INFRASTRUCTURE
that step is not taken in four other critical Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
areas, including access and environmental OVERALL
Trailing Behind
stewardship. Nor does the state routinely track
customer feedback on the performance of the
transportation system. On the positive side, in
2010 Kansas enacted T-Works, an $8.2 billion, showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
10-year program that includes the selection the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
of preservation and new capital projects using ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
performance measures and economic impact
analysis; the first three projects were announced
in February 2011.
SOURCES: “Transportation Plan to Create Jobs, Boost Economy,” May 25, 2010, http://wibw.com; Kansas Department of Transportation,
“T-Works Workshop and Webinar, Summer 2010,” http://www.ksdot.org/t-works/. Sources accessed April 4, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Kentucky is one of 19 states

Kentucky has fared well in measuring its
DOING?
tools to ensure
safety; the state exceeded its target of reducing transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
annual transportation fatalities by 5 percent spending and
from 2006–2008 levels by 2010, and it is aiming policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
for another 10 percent reduction by 2012. But six key goals? ACCESS
Kentucky has room for improvement in tracking
transportation’s impact on other key policy ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
goals. For instance, its annual transportation
INFRASTRUCTURE
reports contain virtually no information on Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
the system’s performance in the key areas of OVERALL
Trailing Behind
jobs and commerce, access and environmental
stewardship. And safety is the only policy goal
of the six analyzed by the Pew-Rockefeller study
toward which Kentucky has timely data or sets showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
targets for benchmarking improvement. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
SOURCE: Kentucky Office of Highway Safety, “2010 Highway Safety Performance Plan,” 10, http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/safeteaweb/
FY10/HSPs/KYFY10HSP.pdf (accessed January 26, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Louisiana is one of 19 states

The state lacks important data to determine
DOING?
whether its transportation system is advancing Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
several critical goals, especially jobs and transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
commerce and environmental stewardship. For spending and
example, related to the environment, Louisiana policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
has committed to becoming a pedestrian- and six key goals? ACCESS
bicycle-friendly state, but it does not report
progress toward those objectives. Louisiana is ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
faring well in the area of tracking infrastructure
INFRASTRUCTURE
preservation; it provides timely data on Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
performance measures for pavement and bridge OVERALL
Trailing Behind
conditions, compares that information to prior
performance over time and sets targets for
improvement. The state also pays attention to
access, tracking the number of parishes with showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
low-cost transportation options and setting the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
related improvement goals. And it effectively ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
maintains much of its transportation performance
information in a single, easy-to-use Web site.
SOURCES: Burk-Kleinpeter and Toole Design Group for the Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, “Louisiana Statewide
Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan,” September 2009, http://www.dotd.la.gov/planning/highway_safety/bike_ped/documents/BikePed_
Final09282009.pdf; Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development, “Five Year Strategic Plan: July 1, 2011–June 30, 2016,” June
2010, http://www.dotd.la.gov/press/20100614_StrategicPlan.pdf. Sources accessed February 20, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Maine is one of 19 states with

mixed results in having the essential $640 The state spent an estimated
Maine fares well in measuring transportation’s
DOING?
progress toward the key policy goals of Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
safety and environmental stewardship. For transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
example, the state tracks emissions from fossil spending and
fuels by sector toward its goal of minimizing policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
transportation’s impact on climate change. Maine six key goals? ACCESS
falls somewhat short in tracking transportation’s
ability to advance four other critical goals. ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
In infrastructure preservation, for example,
INFRASTRUCTURE
the state has data on bridge and pavement Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
conditions, but the data are not timely and lack OVERALL
Trailing Behind
targets for improvement. In jobs and commerce,
the state estimates the impact of transportation
investments in highways, transit and freight on
jobs and gross state product, but the information showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
is dated and lacks comparisons to prior years, the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
diminishing its usefulness to policy makers. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Maine Department of Transportation, “Transportation in Maine: The State of the System: 2006,” 39, http://www.maine.gov/mdot/
technicalpubs/documents/pdf/sos2006/Highways%20chapter%20webb%20version.pdf; “Keeping Our Bridges Safe,” November 26, 2007,
13, http://www.maine.gov/mdot/pdf/Keeping%20Our%20Bridges%20Safe.1107.pdf; “Connecting Maine, Chapter 2, July 2010, 22-24, and
Appendix 3, May 2008, 200-207, http://www.maine.gov/mdot/connectingmaine/plan.htm. Sources accessed April 3, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Maryland is one of 13 states

leading the way in having the essential $3.37 The state spent an estimated
Maryland is one of just five states leading the
DOING?
way in tracking how its transportation system Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
is advancing all six policy goals identified transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
in the Pew-Rockefeller study. In particular, spending and
Maryland illustrates the solid tools states can policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
use to measure progress in the areas of mobility six key goals? ACCESS
and environmental stewardship. In mobility,
the state tracks the on-time performance of ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
all major modes of public transit, including
INFRASTRUCTURE
bus, subway, light rail, commuter rail and Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
paratransit. It measures outcomes and sets OVERALL
Trailing Behind
targets to reduce highway congestion. In the
area of environmental stewardship, Maryland
tracks performance in several ways, such as
transportation-related greenhouse gas emissions showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
by region and reduction in vehicle miles traveled the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
through park-and-ride use. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Maryland Department of Transportation, “2010 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System Performance,” 12, 31–36, http://
www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/CTP_10-15/Documents/2010_Attainment_Report.pdf; Maryland Transit Authority, “2009 Annual Report,” 21,
http://mta.maryland.gov/resources/MTA_09_AR.pdf; Maryland Department of Management and Budget, “Managing for Results: Annual Performance
Report,” March 2010, 43, http://dbm.maryland.gov/agencies/Documents/MFR_documents/MFR_Perf_Rpt.pdf. Sources accessed February 14, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Massachusetts is one of 19
states with mixed results in $3.46 The state spent an estimated
having the essential tools—goals, performance BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
Massachusetts is faring well when it comes to
DOING?
measuring its transportation system’s progress in Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
advancing safety, infrastructure preservation and transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
mobility, all key policy goals. The state has room spending and
for improvement in such areas as environmental policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
stewardship and jobs and commerce; for six key goals? ACCESS
example, it does not present timely data about
transportation’s outcomes toward those goals. ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
But there are signs of improvement. In 2009,
INFRASTRUCTURE
the state consolidated numerous offices and Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
agencies into a single transportation department, OVERALL
Trailing Behind
and this has begun to result in new performance
measurement efforts. The law creating the
department established a system to set goals and
assess departmental progress. Albert Shaw, the showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
state’s director of performance management and the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
innovation, sees that forthcoming data “as a way ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
of redirecting scarce dollars to focus on where
problems can be shown numerically.”
SOURCES: Massachusetts Department of Transportation, “Performance Management Report,” December 31, 2010, http://www.massdot.state.
ma.us/main/Documents/PerformanceManagementReport_122010.pdf; Massachusetts Bill S2087, “An Act Modernizing the Transportation
Systems of the Commonwealth,” June 26, 2009, http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/SessionLaws/Acts/2009/Chapter 25. Sources accessed
February 28, 2011; Pew Center on the States interview with Albert Shaw, October 19, 2010.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Michigan is one of 19 states

essential tools—goals, performance measures and BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
policy options. It just missed earning the top HOW IS THE STATE
distinction of “leading the way.” DOING?
Michigan fares well in measuring transportation’s Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
progress toward several key policy goals. For transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
instance, in the area of infrastructure preservation, spending and
the state collects myriad data to help stretch its policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
dollars and protect its aging roads and bridges from six key goals? ACCESS
further deterioration. Much of this information
is in its long-range transportation plan, which is ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
supplemented by 17 topical reports. In the area
INFRASTRUCTURE
of jobs and commerce, Michigan projects the Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
number of jobs likely to be created under different OVERALL
Trailing Behind
transportation funding scenarios. Michigan trails
behind only in measuring transportation’s progress
toward environmental stewardship; it tracks the
number of counties that fail to meet air quality showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
standards, but does not report how transportation the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
specifically contributes to pollution levels. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Michigan Department of Transportation, “MI Transportation Plan: Moving Michigan Forward,” 2006, 4, http://www.michigan.gov/
documents/mdot/MDOT_MI_Transportation_Plan_Final_200346_7.pdf; “Economic Benefits of the [MDOT’s] FY 2010-2014 Highway Program,”
Bureau of Transportation Planning, March 2010; “Driven by Excellence: A Report on Transportation Performance Measurement at MDOT,” May
2010, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_DrivenExcellenceReport_323894_7.pdf; “Performance Measures Report,” last updated
December 13, 2010, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT-Performance_Measures_Report_289930_7.pdf; “State Long Range
Transportation Plan 2005-2030: Environmental Technical Report,” 2006, http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_SLRP_techrept_
environmental_177956_7.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Minnesota is one of 13 states

Minnesota is one of just five states leading the
DOING?
tools to ensure
is advancing all six policy goals identified in transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
the Pew-Rockefeller study. For example, in spending and
the area of mobility, Minnesota tracks freeway policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
congestion during busy periods and has set a six key goals? ACCESS
goal of reducing congestion across the 9 percent
of the highway system that carries about half ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
of the state’s road travel. In access, Minnesota
INFRASTRUCTURE
monitors how many of its active commercial Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
centers offer scheduled intercity bus service. OVERALL
Trailing Behind
In all six goal areas, data are current and
connected to goals and performance measures.
Minnesota’s Statewide Transportation Policy Plan
uses performance measures and goals to drive showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
improvement in 10 different areas, such as Twin the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
Cities mobility and community development. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCE: Minnesota Department of Transportation, “Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan, 2009-2028,” August 2009, 7.6-1–7.7-7,
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/stateplan/download.html (accessed January 23, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Mississippi is one of 19 states

The state’s bright spot in tracking the outcomes
DOING?
of its transportation system is in the area of Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
safety: It has specific goals to reduce traffic- transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
and alcohol-related fatalities. Mississippi spending and
presents one or two core performance measures policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
each for infrastructure preservation, access and six key goals? ACCESS
mobility—such as the number of elderly and
disabled public transit riders—but it does not ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
set targets for benchmarking progress or provide
INFRASTRUCTURE
explanations for changes in performance. In the Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
areas of jobs and commerce and environmental OVERALL
Trailing Behind
stewardship, Mississippi aims to “provide a
transportation system that encourages and
supports Mississippi’s economic development”
and “ensure that transportation system showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
development is sensitive to human and natural the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
environmental concerns,” but it does not have ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
performance measures to gauge progress in
those areas.
SOURCES: State of Mississippi, “Fiscal year 2010 Highway Safety Plan and Performance Plan,” September 1, 2009, http://www.nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/
whatsup/safeteaweb/FY10/HSPs/MSFY10HSP.pdf; Mississippi Department of Transportation, “Multiplan The Future in Motion: Transit needs
assessment,” 2009, 6, http://www.multiplan2035.com/PDF/TM%208%20TRANSIT%20NEEDS%20ASSESSMENT.pdf, and “Annual Report FY
2009,” 2009, http://www.gomdot.com/Home/Reports/FiscalYear/FY2009AR/Annual%20Report%202009.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Missouri is one of 13 states

Missouri is one of five states leading the way
DOING?
in tracking how its transportation system is Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
advancing all six policy goals identified in the transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
Pew-Rockefeller study. The state has become a spending and
national model in using data to improve safety, policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
keying in on the leading causes of serious six key goals? ACCESS
crashes to reduce roadway fatalities from 1,257
in 2005 to 878 in 2009. Missouri has advanced ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
tools in the area of jobs and commerce: Since
INFRASTRUCTURE
2006, the departments of Transportation and Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
Economic Development have produced detailed OVERALL
Trailing Behind
economic studies of transportation initiatives,
and the state publishes a quarterly performance
tracker that includes extensive information to
help decision makers understand the effects of showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
its transportation system on economic growth. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
Missouri also monitors access through customer ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
satisfaction surveys about the availability of
public transportation options.
SOURCES: Pew Center on the States interview with Ben Reeser, Missouri Department of Transportation (DOT), January 10, 2011; National
Highway Traffic Safety Administration, “Traffic Safety Facts-Missouri: 2005-2009,” http://www-nrd.nhsta.dot.gov/departments/nrd-30/ncsa/
STSI/29_MO/2009/29_MO_2009.htm; DOT, “Tracker: Measures of Departmental Performance,” January 2010, 7c, 11a, 12d and 12j, and
October 2010, http://www.modot.mo.gov/about/general_info/Tracker.htm. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Montana is one of 13 states

leading the way in having the $700 The state spent an estimated
For instance, Montana exemplifies strong results
DOING?
in tracking whether its transportation system Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
is advancing the key policy goals of jobs and transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
commerce and access. The information the state spending and
provides about these areas can help policy makers policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
target specific problems. In the category of jobs six key goals? ACCESS
and commerce, the state surveys business leaders
about their satisfaction with the transportation ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
system and their priorities for improving it. In
INFRASTRUCTURE
access, detailed comparisons allow decision Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
makers to gauge progress and identify strengths OVERALL
Trailing Behind
and weaknesses. For example, Montana has
determined that stakeholder satisfaction with the
condition of walkways, bicycle paths, rest areas
and bus depots has improved steadily since 1997, showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
but public satisfaction with passenger rail service the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
has declined. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: State of Montana Department of Transportation and Bureau of Business and Economic Research, University of Montana-Missoula,
“TranPlan 21: 2009 Telephone Survey,” Volume 1, Statewide Public Involvement Survey, 2009, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/docs/
surveys/2009_telephone_survey.pdf; “TranPlan 21: 2009 Stakeholder Survey,” Statewide Public Involvement Survey, 2009, http://www.mdt.
mt.gov/publications/docs/surveys/2009_stakeholder_survey.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Nebraska is one of 19 states

trailing behind in having the essential $710 The state spent an estimated
Nebraska does not have the information
DOING?
needed to assess the effectiveness of its Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
transportation system in advancing the key transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
policy goals of jobs and commerce, access spending and
and environmental stewardship. In all three policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
areas, the state does not report core outcome six key goals? ACCESS
measures that would help track performance.
In environmental stewardship, for example, it ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
does not track transportation’s impact on air
INFRASTRUCTURE
quality. Nebraska does make a solid effort in Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
evaluating performance in mobility, however, OVERALL
Trailing Behind
tracking congestion on its interstate highway
and comparing results to past years and the
national average. This information could be
further improved with more detailed data and showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
information about public transit. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
SOURCE: Nebraska Department of Transportation, “Performance Measures: A Performance Based Transportation Agency,” November 2010,
http://www.dor.state.ne.us/performance/docs/2010-report.pdf (accessed February 28, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Nevada is one of 19 states

A 2007 state law required the transportation
DOING?
department to adopt performance metrics. Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
But this effort is still in its early stages; it has transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
generated few solid measures on which decision spending and
makers can rely. The state has set broad goals policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
for measuring progress toward a transportation six key goals? ACCESS
system that helps sustain its environment and
boosts its economy, but it has not tracked ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
any specific performance measures in those
INFRASTRUCTURE
areas. Nevada fares well, however, in tracking Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
transportation’s performance toward several OVERALL
Trailing Behind
goals. For example, in the area of infrastructure
preservation, the state has enough data to
understand the smoothness of its roads and the
structural soundness of its bridges. Mobility showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
is another strong point, as Nevada tracks the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
congestion levels on urban and rural roads. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Nevada Department of Transportation, “Performance Measures Plan,” December 2009, http://www.nevadadot.com/reports_pubs/pdfs/
PerformanceMeasuresPlan_123109.pdf; “2009 Performance and Major Projects Annual Report,” August 2009, http://www.nevadadot.com/plan-
ning/op_analysis/pdfs/ab_595_fy2009.pdf; “Statewide Transportation Plan – Connecting Nevada Through 2028,” September 2008, http://www.
nevadadot.com/planning/pdfs/NevPlan_StatewideTransPlan.pdf. Sources accessed February 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
New Hampshire is one of 19

states trailing behind in having the $510 The state spent an estimated
New Hampshire, like other states, fares well
DOING?
in tracking its transportation system’s progress Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
toward the key policy goal of safety. For transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
example, New Hampshire tracks fatalities spending and
related to speeding. But the state has room for policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
improvement in measuring transportation’s six key goals? ACCESS
performance toward other goals. In the areas
of mobility, environmental stewardship and ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
infrastructure preservation, New Hampshire has
INFRASTRUCTURE
developed goals and performance measures, but Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
it has not set specific targets for benchmarking OVERALL
Trailing Behind
progress. New Hampshire also does not have
measures of the public’s access to transportation,
and does not collect data about transportation’s
progress in advancing jobs and commerce. showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
SOURCES: New Hampshire Department of Transportation, “Ten Year Transportation Improvement Plan 2011-2020 Supplement,” June 28,
2010, http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/typ/documents/TYP_11-20_Supplement.pdf; “NH Long Range Transportation
Plan 2010-2030,” July 2010, http://www.nh.gov/dot/org/projectdevelopment/planning/documents/CompleteLRTP083110.pdf. Sources accessed
April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
New Jersey is one of 19 states

New Jersey fares well in measuring
DOING?
transportation’s progress toward several key Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
policy goals. When it comes to mobility, for transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
instance, the state tracks road congestion, spending and
incident clearance and on-time performance of policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
transit services. Similarly, for access, New Jersey six key goals? ACCESS
records use of transit options by disabled riders.
In other areas, there is room for improvement. ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
When it comes to jobs and commerce, the state
INFRASTRUCTURE
selects transportation projects in part based on Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
forecasts of economic output, but it does not OVERALL
Trailing Behind
compare its progress to other benchmarks, such
as past performance, that would assist decision
makers. And New Jersey has a transportation
goal to “respect the environment,” but it does showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
not have performance measures to track its the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
progress toward that goal. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: New Jersey Department of Transportation (DOT), “Centerline,” August 2010, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/about/asset/pdf/
centerline0810.pdf; “Hudson Bergen Light Rail Customer Impact and Retention Study,” March 2009, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
refdata/research/reports/FHWA-NJ-2009-004.pdf; “Transportation: Impact on the Economy,” September 2009, http://www.state.nj.us/transporta-
tion/refdata/research/reports/FHWA-NJ-2009-015.pdf. New Jersey Transit (NJT), “NJ Transit Annual Report 2009,” http://www.njtransit.com/
pdf/NJTRANSIT_2009_Annual_Report.pdf; DOT and NJT, “Transportation Choices 2030,” October 2008, http://www.state.nj.us/transportation/
works/njchoices/pdf/2030plan.pdf. Sources accessed April 4, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
New Mexico is one of 19

New Mexico fares well in measuring its
DOING?
transportation system’s progress toward Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
some key policy goals. For infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation, the state sets a goal for highway spending and
miles receiving pavement treatment in a given policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
year (although it has not met its targets in fiscal six key goals? ACCESS
years 2009 and 2010). For access, the state
estimates both the demand and unserved need ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
for public transit in rural areas, focusing on
INFRASTRUCTURE
elderly, disabled and low-income individuals. Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
New Mexico uses performance measures to OVERALL
Trailing Behind
help prioritize investments and serve rural
residents more efficiently. However, New
Mexico does not have specific measures in
the critical areas of jobs and commerce and showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
mobility, despite a 1999 state law that requires the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
the transportation department to report ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
performance measurements in key categories.
SOURCES: New Mexico legislature, “Legislating for Results,” http://www.nmlegis.gov/lcs/lfc/lfcperfbdg.aspx; Department of Finance and
Administration, memo to agencies, June 15, 2010, http://budget.nmdfa.state.nm.us/cms/kunde/rts/budgetnmdfastatenmus/docs/851144706-
06-15-2010-16-35-58.pdf; Department of Transportation, “Good to Great: Performance Measures Report,” first quarter report from July 1
– September 30, 2010, and “Statewide Public Transportation Plan,” November 2010, 48, http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/upload/images/Programs-
Transit%20and%20Rail-/NM%20Statewide%20Public%20Trans%20PlanFINAL.pdf. Sources accessed February 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
New York is one of 19 states

New York tracks the on-time performance of
DOING?
transit options, an important measure that Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
helps make the state a leader in assessing transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
transportation’s progress toward the key policy spending and
goal of mobility. The state also has strong data policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
about outcomes in the area of environmental six key goals? ACCESS
stewardship, including information about
greenhouse gas emissions from transportation ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
sources, which are tracked in the transportation
INFRASTRUCTURE
section of the state’s energy plan. However, Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
the state could improve its measurement OVERALL
Trailing Behind
of progress toward access by tracking core
performance measures, such as the availability
of transportation options for seniors or the
disabled, and progress toward jobs and showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
commerce, by reporting more timely data. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
SOURCES: New York State Department of Transportation, “New York State Rail Plan 2009: Strategies for a New Age,” February 2009, https://
www.nysdot.gov/divisions/policy-and-strategy/planning-bureau/state-rail-plan/repository/State%20Rail%20Plan%202009-02-10.pdf; State
Energy Planning Board, “Transportation Issue in Brief, New York State Energy Plan 2009,” December 2009, http://www.nysenergyplan.com/final/
Transportation_IB.pdf. Sources accessed April 5, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
North Carolina is one of 19

North Carolina fares well in measuring the
DOING?
progress of its transportation system toward Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
the key policy goals of safety, infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation, mobility and environmental spending and
stewardship. For example, for mobility, the policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
state collects data on congestion by county six key goals? ACCESS
so policy makers know where residents move
less efficiently. In environmental stewardship, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
the state—aiming to reduce greenhouse gas
INFRASTRUCTURE
emissions—tracks progress on legislation Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
directing the transportation department to slow OVERALL
Trailing Behind
growth in vehicle miles traveled (VMT). North
Carolina reduced VMT growth by nearly 25
percent between 2000 and 2008. The state could
strengthen how it evaluates performance in showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
access by adding measures beyond basic transit the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
ridership and a customer satisfaction index. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: North Carolina Department of Transportation, “Organizational Performance Dashboard,” https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/dash-

board/default.aspx; “A Vision Set in Motion: 2010 Annual Performance Report,” 2010, http://www.ncdot.gov/download/performance/10_
Annual_Report.pdf; Public Transportation Division, “Annual Report on Progress Toward SB 953 Goals,” 2008, http://www.ncdot.gov/nctransit/
download/2008Final.pdf. Sources accessed April 1, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
North Dakota is one of 19

states with mixed results in $490 The state spent an estimated
North Dakota fares well in tracking its
DOING?
transportation system’s progress toward the Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
key policy goal of safety. And it is making a transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
solid effort in measuring its performance on spending and
infrastructure preservation. But there is room policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
for improvement when it comes to other goals. six key goals? ACCESS
In the area of jobs and commerce, for example,
North Dakota tracks freight, organizing data ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
by commodity, destination and point of origin.
INFRASTRUCTURE
But it does not have targets for measuring Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
progress nor does it compare its performance OVERALL
Trailing Behind
with external benchmarks, such as a national
standard, that would benefit decision makers.
In the area of environmental stewardship, North
Dakota tracks transportation’s contribution to showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
fuel consumption, but it does not report on the the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
measure in a timely manner. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: North Dakota Department of Transportation, “TransAction II: North Dakota’s Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan,” February
2007, http://www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/planning/TrActII-07.pdf; “2007-2009 Biennial Report,” December 1, 2009, http://www.dot.nd.gov/divi-
sions/exec/docs/biennial09.pdf. Sources accessed April 6, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Ohio is one of 19 states with

The state’s transportation system tracks progress
DOING?
toward four key policy goals: safety, infrastructure Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
preservation, access and mobility. In the area of transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
mobility, for instance, Ohio has strong measures spending and
of Amtrak’s on-time performance, including policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
route-by-route information and explanations of six key goals? ACCESS
delays. But when it comes to other key goals, the
state has room for improvement. For example, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
in the area of environmental stewardship, Ohio
INFRASTRUCTURE
tracks fuel consumption, but does not set Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
performance targets to help decision makers OVERALL
Trailing Behind
gauge success. And the state does not have timely
data for core performance measures tracking
transportation’s progress on jobs and commerce.
But Ohio recently released a “Transportation showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
Futures Plan” to help prioritize projects with the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
the greatest expected returns and develop an ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
“economy-focused, data-driven approach” to its
transportation investments.
SOURCES: Ohio Department of Transportation, “2010-2011 Business Plan,” December 2009, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/policy/2010-2011Busi-
nessPlan/Documents/ODOT2010-2011BusinessPlan-WEB.pdf; “Ohio Statewide Rail Plan,” May 10, 2010, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/Divisions/Rail/
Programs/StatewideRailPlan/Documents/Ohio%20Statewide%20Rail%20Plan%20-%20Final%20Report%20Complete.pdf; “Go Ohio Transportation
Futures Plan Overview,” 2011, 1, http://www.dot.state.oh.us/groups/goohio/NewsandDocuments/Documents/GoOhio-2011Overview.pdf. Sources
accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Oklahoma is one of 19 states

Like all states, Oklahoma fares well in ensuring
DOING?
its transportation system is measuring its Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
progress in advancing safety, a key policy goal. transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
With other important goals, many of Oklahoma’s spending and
challenges are a matter of following through on policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
promising efforts. For example, when it comes six key goals? ACCESS
to access, the state tracks transit trips by rural
seniors and disabled individuals, an important ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
performance measure, but it does not set targets
INFRASTRUCTURE
to help gauge success. Similarly, in the area of Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
jobs and commerce, Oklahoma tracks freight OVERALL
Trailing Behind
movement, but the data are not timely. And the
state has established transportation-related goals
to protect and enhance the environment and
promote energy conservation, but it does not showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
present performance measures or information the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
about its progress. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Parsons Brinckerhoff/PB Consult, “Intermodal Element: 2005-2030 Oklahoma Statewide Intermodal Transportation Plan,” prepared
for Oklahoma Department of Transportation (DOT), April 2005, http://www.okladot.state.ok.us/hqdiv/p-r-div/25yearplan/pdfs2030/25yearplan.
pdf; Parsons Brinckerhoff, “2010-2035 Oklahoma Long Range Transportation Plan,” prepared for DOT, December 6, 2010, 2-7, http://www.
okladot.state.ok.us/p-r-div/lrp_2010-2035/lrp_2010-2035_with-maps.pdf. Sources accessed February 28, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Oregon is one of 13 states

Oregon is one of just five states leading the
DOING?
tools to ensure
COMMERCE
the Pew-Rockefeller study. In the area of jobs spending and
and commerce, for instance, the state tracks policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
job creation associated with transportation six key goals? ACCESS
construction spending and uses targets to assess
its performance. To track progress toward ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
mobility, the state compares the hours of travel
INFRASTRUCTURE
delay per capita in urban areas over time and Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
against other cities’ performance. Oregon also OVERALL
Trailing Behind
measures citizen satisfaction about congestion
in its communities, delays in work zones and
the amount of time needed to complete road
construction—information that is useful in showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
decision making. Oregon also publishes much the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
of its transportation information on its statewide ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
performance Web site.
SOURCES: Oregon Department of Transportation, “Annual Performance Progress Report (APPR) for Fiscal Year (2009-2010),” August 25,
2010, 47, 75, 34; Oregon Department of Transportation, “FY 2009 Oregon Transportation and Needs Survey,” December 2009, 10, 12. Sources
accessed April 7, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Pennsylvania is one of 19
funding and policy options. It just missed HOW IS THE STATE
earning the top distinction of “leading the way.” DOING?
Pennsylvania is a leader in ensuring its Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
transportation system is measuring progress in transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
advancing several key policy goals, including spending and
access and jobs and commerce. For example, policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
the governor’s budget tracks the number of six key goals? ACCESS
jobs created by improving the state’s rail freight
system. The budget also presents performance ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
measures with targets and comparisons to
INFRASTRUCTURE
previous data to benchmark progress. In the area Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
of access, the state tracks the number of projects OVERALL
Trailing Behind
that have improved conditions for bicyclists and
pedestrians and the number of trips provided to
Pennsylvania’s elderly. The state could improve
how it measures transportation’s impact on showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
environmental stewardship. Pennsylvania the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
has stated goals in this area, but only one ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
performance measure: fleet fuel consumption.
SOURCES: Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, “2009-10 Governor’s Report on State Performance,” April 2010, http://www.portal.state.
pa.us/portal/server.pt/community/performance_reports/4677/2008-09_governor%27s_report_on_state_performance_%28released_
april_2010%29/698405; Department of Transportation, “Biodiesel Fuel Feasibility Study,” 2010, ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/BPR_PDF_
FILES/Documents/Research/Complete%20Projects/Smart%20Transportation%20Solutions/Biodiesel%20Fuel%20Feasibility%20Study.pdf;
“Statewide Goals and Objectives,” 2000, ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/public/pdf/PennPlanMoves/statewidegoalsandobjectives.pdf. Sources accessed
April 1, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Rhode Island is one of 19

states with mixed results in $440 The state spent an estimated
Rhode Island is a leader in ensuring its
DOING?
transportation system measures progress Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
in advancing the key policy goals of safety, transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
mobility, access and environmental stewardship. spending and
In the area of environmental stewardship, policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
for instance, the state has collected data on six key goals? ACCESS
numerous goals and performance measures,
including those tracking whether adverse ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
impacts from transportation on air or water
INFRASTRUCTURE
quality disproportionately affect minorities, low- Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
income individuals or persons with disabilities. OVERALL
Trailing Behind
Rhode Island has room for improvement in
measuring transportation’s progress toward jobs
and commerce and infrastructure preservation.
For example, although the state aims to use showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
transportation to help support its economy, it the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
does not have measures or data to help assess ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
its performance.
SOURCE: Rhode Island Statewide Planning Program Department of Administration, “Transportation 2030,” August 2008, amended May 13,
2010, http://www.planning.ri.gov/transportation/trans2030.pdf (accessed April 1, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
South Carolina is one of 19

states trailing behind in having the $1.67 The state spent an estimated
South Carolina fares well in measuring its
DOING?
tools to ensure
safety and access, key policy goals. For instance, transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
fatality data show the number of deaths related spending and
to intoxicated drivers or motorcyclists without policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
helmets. In the area of access, the state’s transit six key goals? ACCESS
plan includes projections of service demand.
But the state has room for improvement in ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
measuring transportation’s performance in the
INFRASTRUCTURE
areas of mobility, environmental stewardship, Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
infrastructure preservation and jobs and OVERALL
Trailing Behind
commerce. For example, it does not present
timely data for outcomes on core performance
measures for mobility, environmental
stewardship and jobs and commerce. It presents showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
some of this information for infrastructure the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
preservation, offering timely data on road and ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
bridge conditions, for example, but not on
preservation of transit assets.
SOURCES: South Carolina Department of Transportation, “Engineering Dashboard” Web site, http://www.scdot.org/inside/dashboard.shtml,
and “South Carolina Statewide Transit Plan,” prepared by URS and Tran Systems, May 2008, http://www.scdot.org/inside/multimodal/pdfs/STP-
StatewideTransitPlan.pdf. Sources accessed April 1, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
South Dakota is one of 19

The state is a leader in measuring its
DOING?
tools to ensure
COMMERCE
preservation and access. For example, it sets spending and
specific goals such as, “decrease motorcyclist policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
fatalities 17 percent from the 2008 calendar base six key goals? ACCESS
year figure of 15 to 12 by December 31, 2010.”
In other areas, transportation goals are not tied ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
to relevant performance measures and data.
INFRASTRUCTURE
For instance, South Dakota seeks to promote Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
economic growth and tourism, but its related OVERALL
Trailing Behind
performance measures are limited primarily to
freight shipments. Similarly, its goal of using
transportation to protect the environment does
not have performance measures with specific showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
targets to benchmark progress. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
SOURCES: South Dakota Department of Transportation, Statewide Long Range Transportation Plan, September 2010, http://www.sddot.com/
docs/reports/FinalSDLRTP.pdf; “Fact Book 2009,” http://www.sddot.com/docs/DOTFactBook.pdf; and “Public and Specialized Transportation,”
fiscal year 2008, http://www.sddot.com/fpa/transit/docs/FY08StatReport.pdf; Department of Public Safety, “South Dakota 2010 Highway Safety
Plan,” 2010, 11, http://dps.sd.gov/enforcement/highway_safety/documents/SouthDakota2010HSPFinal.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Tennessee is one of 19 states

Tennessee fares well in measuring its
DOING?
tools to ensure
the key policy goals of safety and infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation. But with other goals, such as spending and
jobs and commerce, the state has room for policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
improvement. It aims to “make transportation six key goals? ACCESS
investments to support economic growth,
economic competitiveness and tourism,” but ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
does not track performance measures or collect
INFRASTRUCTURE
data to assess whether it is meeting that goal. Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
Tennessee has core performance measures in OVERALL
Trailing Behind
the areas of access, mobility and environmental
stewardship, but it does not present timely data
on their progress. The state has a long-range
transportation master plan, now six years old, showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
which contains specific performance measures, the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
but it does not have much data to track those ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
measures. The plan is being updated.
SOURCES: Tennessee Department of Transportation, “Tennessee Long-Range Transportation Plan: Goals, Objectives, and Policies,” December
2005, http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/plango/pdfs/plan/GoalsOb.pdf (accessed April 2011); Pew Center on the States interview with Luanne
Grandinetti, Tennessee DOT Web master, February 17, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Texas is one of 13 states

The state understands the importance of data in
DOING?
assessing the performance of its transportation Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
system toward key policy goals, including transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
safety, mobility, access and jobs and commerce. spending and
Its 2011-2015 strategic plan emphasizes, for policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
example, measurement of “industry access to six key goals? ACCESS
international markets and gateways via the
Texas transportation system.” And an online ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
dashboard, called TxDOT Tracker, presents and
INFRASTRUCTURE
explains data on a number of core performance Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
measures, including a statewide congestion OVERALL
Trailing Behind
index, pavement and bridge conditions, and
fatalities. Texas has room for improvement in
measuring transportation’s role in environmental
stewardship; for instance, the transportation showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
department’s strategic plan recognizes the the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
importance of measuring pollutants from ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
transportation, but it only reports greenhouse
gas emissions from TxDOT fleet vehicles, not all
cars statewide.
SOURCES: Texas Department of Transportation, “Agency Strategic Plan for the Fiscal Years 2011-2015 Period,” 2010, ftp://ftp.dot.state.tx.us/
pub/txdot-info/sppm/strategic_plan2011.pdf, and “TxDOT Tracker,” http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/txdot_tracker/. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Utah is one of 13 states

DOING?
tools to ensure
five key policy goals: safety, infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation, mobility, access and environmental spending and
stewardship. In the area of mobility, for policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
example, Utah tracks performance measures six key goals? ACCESS
such as the time it takes to clear accidents,
and it compares its performance to previous ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
years to gauge improvement. The state reports
INFRASTRUCTURE
road condition data by type of road to focus Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
more of its resources on maintaining the most OVERALL
Trailing Behind
heavily traveled routes, which deteriorate more
quickly and are more costly to repair. In the
area of environmental stewardship, Utah tracks
emissions from transit. The state has some room showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
for improvement in measuring transportation’s the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
progress in advancing jobs and commerce. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Pew Center on the States interview with Stan Burns and Austin Baysinger, Utah Department of Transportation (DOT), December 16,
2010; DOT, “2011 Strategic Direction and Performance Measures,” http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=4309713963076909, and
“UDOT Statewide Intercity Bus Study,” February 2010, http://www.udot.utah.gov/main/uconowner.gf?n=13066708739966547; Utah Transit
Authority, “2009 Sustainability Report,” 2009, http://www.rideuta.com/uploads/2009SustainabilityReport.pdf. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Vermont is one of 19 states

with mixed results in having the $460 The state spent an estimated
DOING?
tools to ensure
COMMERCE
preservation, access and jobs and commerce. spending and
For example, Vermont has strong performance policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
measures for public transit ridership—including six key goals? ACCESS
measures regarding rural and commuting
riders—that allow decision makers to gauge ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
the success of the state’s transit options. The
INFRASTRUCTURE
state also has several wide-ranging goals for Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
infrastructure preservation, including repairing OVERALL
Trailing Behind
all post-winter road damage by June and
repainting all highway center lines each year. But
Vermont has room to improve when it comes
to measuring transportation’s role in advancing showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
mobility and environmental stewardship; in the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
these areas, the state does not have timely ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
information about transportation-related
performance measures.
SOURCES: Vermont Agency of Transportation, “Performance Measures,” August 5, 2008, http://www.aot.state.vt.us/planning/Documents/

Planning/Performance-Report-Aug13-2008.pdf, and “Transit Route Performance Reviews,” January 22, 2010, http://www.aot.state.vt.us/ops/pub-
lictransit/documents/AOT-OPS-PT_2009_Transit_Route_Performance_Review.pdf. Sources accessed April 8, 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Virginia is one of 13 states

Virginia is one of just five states leading the
DOING?
tools to ensure
COMMERCE
the Pew-Rockefeller study. The state provides spending and
timely, detailed information to its citizens policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
about transportation outcomes; for example, it six key goals? ACCESS
offers not only data about roadway congestion,
but also explanations of what is causing it ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
and what solutions are being pursued. Much
INFRASTRUCTURE
of this information can be found on Virginia Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
Performs, the state’s performance Web site. OVERALL
Trailing Behind
The fiscal crisis has taken a toll, however. A
December 2010 legislative audit reported that
a performance-driven prioritization process for
new transportation projects, launched in the showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
middle of the last decade, has been undermined the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
by fiscal constraints. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCES: Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and Investment, “Transportation Performance Trend Report—2008,” 2008, http://www.
vatransperforms.virginia.gov/TransPerf08/PDF/All_Goals_2008.pdf; Council on Virginia’s Future, “Virginia Performs: Transportation, Traffic
Congestion,” last modified June 29, 2010, http://vaperforms.virginia.gov/indicators/transportation/trafficCongestion.php; Virginia Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Commission “Review of Virginia’s Transportation Planning and Programming,” December 2010. Sources accessed
April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Washington is one of 13
states leading the way in having $2.71 The state spent an estimated
the essential tools—goals, performance BILLION in fiscal year 2010.*
measures and data—needed to help
decision makers choose more cost-effective
transportation funding and policy options. HOW IS THE STATE
DOING?
tools to ensure
five key policy goals, including jobs and transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
commerce and mobility. For example, it spending and
produces meaningful data about congestion, policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
and this has shown results: Between 2007 six key goals? ACCESS
and 2009, Washington reduced the estimated
statewide cost of traffic delay by 21 percent. In ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
the early 2000s, the state began scoring potential
INFRASTRUCTURE
transportation projects according to projected Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
impact per dollar spent. This approach may OVERALL
Trailing Behind
have contributed to the legislature’s willingness
to allow the state to sell gas tax-backed bonds
in 2003 and 2005. Washington also tries to
assess its performance toward goals ranging showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
from mobility to safety in terms of return on the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
investment based on the social costs of accidents ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
and delay.
SOURCES: Pew Center on the States interview with Pat Morin, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), December 20,
2010; WSDOT, The Gray Notebook, GNB 39, November 16, 2010, 8–9, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/1A03E17D-697F-4FD9-
B612-BC4360DC721C/0/GrayNotebookSep10.pdf; Bremmer and Bryan, “Making the Case for Funding Using Performance Management,”
Transportation Research Record, No. 2079, 2008, 146-153; WSDOT GNB 38, August 25, 2010, 9–10, http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/
A70E957B-8230-4934-9600-758B88DC0719/0/GrayNotebookJun10.pdf; WSDOT, “Incident Response Strategic Initiatives,” November 17,
2007. Sources accessed April 2011.
With Support from:

The Road to Results
West Virginia is one of 19

states trailing behind in having the $1.44 The state spent an estimated
West Virginia fares well in measuring its
DOING?
tools to ensure
the key policy goals of safety and infrastructure transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
preservation. For instance, the state aims to spending and
resurface 8.3 percent of its paved highways policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
every year so that the entire system will be six key goals? ACCESS
revamped over a 12-year cycle. But with other
goals, such as jobs and commerce, the state ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
has room for improvement. For example, West
INFRASTRUCTURE
Virginia does not have performance measures Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
and data to assess transportation’s progress OVERALL
Trailing Behind
toward mobility and environmental stewardship.
It has only one performance measure for access,
transit ridership. The state has set a goal of
boosting rural transit ridership by 1.5 percent showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
each year, a target it met for a few years before the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
ridership fell in 2010. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCE: State of West Virginia, “Executive Budget Fiscal 2012: Volume II, Operating Detail,” January 12, 2011, http://www.budget.wv.gov/
executivebudget/Documents/VIIOD2012.pdf (accessed February 19, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Wisconsin is one of 19 states

The state has a detailed long-range
DOING?
strategic plan, which includes sections on Does it have the SAFETY
tools to ensure
transportation’s role in driving progress toward transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
the six key policy objectives, such as jobs, spending and
mobility and safety, examined in the Pew- policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
Rockefeller study. Wisconsin’s report includes six key goals? ACCESS
goals, policies and specific action items for each
policy during the short term (2008-2013) and ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
entire planning period (through 2030). For
INFRASTRUCTURE
example, in the area of safety, Wisconsin set a Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
goal to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities OVERALL
Trailing Behind
and presents data to show progress on its
performance. But in the area of access, it reports
only non-core measures, such as a count of
transit ridership. The usefulness of such data showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
could be improved by expanding it to include the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
the percentage of residents served by transit. ratings are based on 10 criteria. Each state was rated for its performance in
SOURCE: Wisconsin Department of Transportation, “Connections 2030,” 2009, http://www.dot.wisconsin.gov/projects/state/2030-background.

htm (accessed April 7, 2011).
With Support from:

The Road to Results
Wyoming is one of 19 states

DOING?
tools to ensure
safety and infrastructure preservation. But it transportation JOBS &
COMMERCE
lacks the capacity to assess transportation’s role spending and
in driving four other key policy goals, including policy decisions MOBILITY
are advancing
mobility, access, and jobs and commerce. six key goals? ACCESS
For example, Wyoming tracks data core to
mobility, including both car and truck traffic, ENVIRONMENTAL
STEWARDSHIP
but it does not compare that information
INFRASTRUCTURE
to other benchmarks, such as its own past Leading the Way PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
performance or that of other states, that could OVERALL
Trailing Behind
help decision makers gauge progress. In the
area of jobs and commerce, the state does not
have goals, performance measures or data to
track transportation’s efforts to advance that key showing mixed results or trailing behind—based on whether they have
policy objective. the goals, performance measures and data needed to help decision makers
SOURCES: Pew Center on the States interview with Martin Kidner, Wyoming Department of Transportation (DOT), October 27, 2010; DOT,
“Wyoming Connects: The Long Range Transportation Plan,” 2010, http://www.dot.state.wy.us/webdav/site/wydot/shared/Planning/Long%20
Range%20Transportation%20Plan%202010.pdf (accessed April 7, 2011).
With Support from:


Pew Transportation Report State by State

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Pew Transportation Report State by State

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Transportation Investments:

The Road to Results

Alabama is one of 19 states

SOURCES: Alabama Department of Transportation, “Crash Facts,” http://aldotapps.dot.state.al.us/mcrweb/frm/2008%20Alabama%20Crash%20

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Alaska is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Arizona is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Arkansas is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

California is one of 13 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Colorado is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Delaware is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Washington, DC, along with 18

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Florida is one of 13 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Georgia is one of 13 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Hawaii is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Idaho is one of 19 states with

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Illinois is one of 19 states with

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Indiana is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Iowa is one of 19 states with

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Kansas is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Kentucky is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Louisiana is one of 19 states

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Maine is one of 19 states with

With Support from:

This is part of a 50-state assessment of transportation systems

Maryland is one of 13 states

With Support from: