TRB PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT COMMITTEE (ABC30) NEWSLETTER

SEPTEMBER 2011 INSIDE THIS ISSUE:

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR . . . . . . . . . . . ABC30 COMMITTEE INFORMATION . . . . ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT CONFERENCE . . . . . SOUTH AFRICA GAUTRAIN: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION ON TRACK . . . . . . . . . 1

Volume 9, Issue 1

MESSAGE FROM THE CHAIR

BY DANIELA BREMMER BREMMED@WSDOT.WA.GOV - WSDOT

Greetings ABC30 committee friends and members,

2

I hope you had a good year thus far. I welcome all new and existing members as the committee rotated its membership for the next three years and thank those who have served the committee so diligently over the past years. Your support and work was invaluable. Our committee had a very busy year already. I hope many of you enjoyed our solid program at the annual meeting in DC, as well as the excellent information shared at our 4th International Performance Measurement Conference this May in Irvine, CA. Thank you all who made the 4th International Performance Measurement Conference such a big success. I have received strong, positive responses on how productive the conference has been. The interaction of our many private sector speakers with public sector participants was noted as especially dynamic and informative and we hope to share some of this at the next annual TRB meeting. I would also like to thank our many international attendees who traveled far to contribute and attend as I would like to thank our Japanese friends who attended despite their difficult situation back home. Special thanks also to our financial sponsors FHWA and FTA, my conference co-chair Sue McNeil, our TRB liaisons Martine Micozzi, and Matt Miller and all the members of the Conference Planning Committee who did an excellent job in organizing this conference (see page 3 for details). ABC30 committee meeting were also held at Irvine, CA right after the closing of the 4th International Performance Measurement Conference on Friday, May 20, 2011. The meeting (and conference call) served as our official summer meeting and was well attended and provided me with good directions for the coming year. One outcome was to deploy a survey to document the expertise and interests from friends and members to help me and the subcommittee chairs to better manage and achieve ABC30 committee goals including the paper review assignments. As you may have already heard, Ramkumar Venkatanarayana, ABC30 paper review chair for the past six years, has left transportation to pursue a personal passion. On behalf of the ABC30 committee, I want to thank him for his service to TRB and wish him all the best. He will be greatly missed by all. I would like to thank Tiffany Barkley, who has agreed to take on the paper review lead role with support from Sreenath Gangula. Both are brand new, young members and are commended for taking on this challenging task. Please welcome them and continue to provide your support to them in reviewing papers in the coming years. Another new member, and new Session Planning Subcommittee co-chair, Hugh Louch, also hit the ground running and collaborated with several of you in turning in a proposal for a one day workshop at the 2012 TRB ABC30 annual meeting on national performance measure for reauthorization. Other annual meeting session planning activities are also underway. As you can see, from our brand new members and friends to our more seasoned members and friends, all of you play a critical part in moving our committees work forward. In closing, I wish you a great fall. Please contact me if you have any questions. Best regards, Daniela Bremmer, ABC30 Committee Chair ###

MEASURING LIVABILITY . . . . . . .

FLORIDA: TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY . . VIRGINIA: LESSONS FROM TRYING A JOBS -HOUSING BALANCE . . INDIANA: PERFORMANCEBASED PLANNING

. .

10

WMATA: BRINGING PERFORMANCEBASED MANAGEMENT TO WMATA . . . . . . . . . . WASHINGTON STATE: A DECADE OF TRANSPARENCY AT WSDOT . . . . . . . . . WASHINGTON STATE: SPECIAL TWO-YEAR ARRA REPORT RESEARCH SUBCOMMITTEE UPDATE . RESEARCH MATRIX . .

12

14

15

17

24

2011 MEETING MINUTES . . . . . . . . .

27

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 2

Committee Information
Committee Chair: Daniela Bremmer Washington State DOT, bremmed@wsdot.wa.gov Secretary: Joe Zietsman Texas Transportation Institute, zietsman@tamu.edu

ABC30 Committee Newsletter Information

Editor: Connie Yew Federal Highway Administration, connie.yew@dot.gov Co-Editor: Michael Nesbitt Federal Highway Administration, michael.nesbitt@dot.gov

Subcommittees and Chairs/Co-Chairs:

Sub-committee on Communications: Connie Yew Sub-committee on Research: Jeff Price / Joe Crossett Sub-committee on International Activities: Paresh Tailor Sub-committee on Conference Planning : Mara Campbell / Hugh Louch Paper Reviews: Tiffany Barkley / Sreenath Gangula

Submissions:
All article submissions should be made in word-formatted e-documents, 500 words or less and electronically sent to: connie.yew@dot.gov. Disclaimer: The ABC30 Newsletter is sponsored by contributors submitting Performance Measurement related articles to the editor and do not reflect the views of the Performance Measurement Committee.

The Committee invites all members and friends to participate in subcommittee activities--please contact Sreenath Gangula at: Ganguls@wsdot.wa.gov or a committee chair/co-chair to indicate your interest. Visit the Committee website for more information and the FHWA Performance Measurement Exchange Special thanks to Chanel Harley at FHWA for laying out this newsletter and the ABC30 website.

Disclaimer
The opinions expressed in CheckPoint are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Transportation Research Board or the National Academies.

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 3

ANOTHER SUCCESSFUL PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT CONFERENCE! BY KATIE TURNBULL, TEXAS TRANSPORTATION INSTITUTE

The Transportation Research Boards 4th International Transportation Systems Performance Measurement Conference was held May 18-20, 2011 at the Beckman Center in Irvine, California. The conference was sponsored by the TRB Performance Measurement Committee, the Federal Highway Administration, and the Federal Transit Administration. The conference theme driving change and being driven by change reflected the changing environment for delivering transportation services and the role of performance measurement in delivering those services. Over 125 transportation professionals spent three days discussing the current state of performance measurement, future challenges and opportunities, and research needs. The conference format included general sessions, breakout sessions, and a poster session/reception. Participants heard updates from key national, state, and regional agency representatives. Speakers in the general sessions included Steve Heminger, Executive Director of the Metropolitan Transportation Commission; Deborah Miller, Secretary of the Kansas Department of Transportation; and Paula Hammond, Secretary of the Washington State Department of Transportation. Jeff Paniati, Executive Director of the Federal Highway Administration, discussed moving toward a performance-based federal aid highway program.

The conference theme driving change and being driven by change reflected the changing environment for delivering transportation services and the role of performance measurement in delivering those services. ..

Other speakers provided insights into the use of performance-based measures in the private sector and updates on university research activities. Cheryl Fulginiti from UPS gave a very interesting presentation on Driving Change at UPS. Speakers from Japan, Germany, The Netherlands, and South Africa provided an international perspective on the use of transportation performance measures. The breakout sessions provided the opportunity for additional presentations on emerging topics of interest and the discussion of research needs. Congratulations to the conference planning team and co-chairs Daniela Bremmer, Washington State Department of Transportation, and Sue McNeil, University of Delaware, for organizing a very successful conference. The level of interest and the quality of the discussions remained high throughout the three days! The conferences daily chronicles and PowerPoint presentations have been linked to the final program posted on the conference website. Please visit the site and select the presenters whose names are highlighted in royal blue. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 4

GAUTRAIN: SUSTAINABLE TRANSPORTATION ON TRACK BY CAREL VAN DER MERWE, BKS (PTY) LTD. SOUTH AFRICA

An integrated public transport system is currently under construction in South Africa. The $3.6 billion Gautrain Rapid Rail Link consists of a modern state-of-the-art rapid rail link of 50 miles, 10 stations and an extensive dedicated feeder and distribution system with routes covering about 290 miles. The project is part of an integrated strategy to address extensive transportation and socio-economic challenges within the economic engine of South Africa and links Johannesburg, Pretoria and the international airport. The provision of a high-quality rail transport alternative that would act as the impetus to attract more passengers to public transport is in line with government's stated policy to promote public transport, and also in line with its sustainable development objectives. The improvement of rail transport would have a positive impact on one of the three dimensions of sustainable transportation, namely environmental stewardship. The reduced impact can be ascribed to various benefits such as the reduced land take and a reduction in congestion on the transportation network. Congestion not only impacts on business productivity due to travel delays but it also impacts on emissions levels and fuel consumption. Furthermore, the Government uses infrastructure projects to address the other two dimensions of sustainable transportation namely social equity and economic developmentto address past inequalities and imbalances most notably in socio-economic development in South Africa. Specific sustainable development strategies were developed to ensure that the proposed investment would be utilised towards achieving environmental management and socio-economic developmental (SED) objectives. The Gautrain project adopted an innovative process not only to measure actual performance at a project level, but also to secure the commitment of the Concessionaire to specific political objectives. Over and above the normal technical, financial and legal perspectives that public-private partnerships generally focus on, the Gautrain project introduced a fourth cornerstone and contractual commitment, namely SED requirements. Specific SED objectives were defined that were translated into 21 SED elements or performance measures. Targets were determined for each of the SED elements. The procurement process was then used to solicit the commitment of the bidders to convert the SED targets into contractual SED obligations. A structured process was introduced to report on achievements and monitor compliance. A fair, robust and equitable penalty and reward mechanism was developed to ensure the continued commitment of the Concessionaire to the SED objectives.

Image of a public transportation system. The Gautrain project will

The Concessionaire has made significant efforts to ensure emulate the best public transportation that it significantly exceeded its SED obligations as shown, for example, in the figure on the right. The project is breaking new ground with an innovative approach to ensure that specific SED objectives are met that would enhance economic development, growth and job creation. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 5

MEASURING LIVABILITY BY ELIZABETH SANFORD WITH CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATICS INC

Developing a Livability Measures Livability is a multifaceted, dynamic, and flexible concept that is closely related to integrated planning. Many transportation agencies and associations at national, state, and regional levels have been thinking about how to measure this concept; this article presents some initial thoughts. Livability is a relatively new goal area for many agencies. When developing performance measures, agencies often focus on measures that can be easily quantified, such as impacts of transportation on the natural environment (e.g. emissions, land consumption), instead of impacts on livability and the human environment (e.g. accessibility). Incorporating livability into performance management frameworks may require rethinking the standard set of goals and performance measures, and will likely trigger a need to re-evaluate data collection and implementation of goals. The following table identifies a sample of potential performance measures that address the livability principles developed by the U.S. HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities.

U.S. HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities Sample of Potential Performance Measures that address the livability principles
Principle* Provide more transportation choices Safe, reliable, economical Goals Walkability Examples of Metrics** Sidewalk availability Street connectivity [Building setbacks] Pedestrian LOS Bikeability Transit access Accessibility to activities & services Bike lane & path-miles per capita Bicycle LOS % population within or mile walk of transit stop Transit LOS % of population within walking distance of a grocery store (other service/ retail uses) # of jobs, retail/service uses within xx minutes by transit Promote equitable, affordable housing housing close to transit Access to transit Housing affordability [% of units affordable by households making less than (60%, 80%) of median income] [Housing diversity, e.g., # of multifamily units by # of bedrooms] # of affordable units within or mile walk of transit

* Sub-bullets indicate specific aspects of this principle that have been mentioned in USDOT publications. ** Metrics in [brackets] are related to transportation only very indirectly or not at all
continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 6

MEASURING LIVABILITY

(CONTINUED) U.S. HUD-DOT-EPA Partnership for Sustainable Communities Sample of Potential Performance Measures that address the livability principles (continued)
Principle* Enhance economic competitiveness jobs education services business access to markets Goals Economically healthy communities Access to job opportunities for all residents Examples of Metrics** # of local businesses established in community for more than x years Commercial vacancy rate Accessibility - # of jobs within 30 minutes by auto, transit Jobs/housing balance Job-resident match indicators Percent of population with post-secondary education job training facilities within 45 minutes by auto, transit Motor vehicle-related accidents or fatalities per capita (auto, ped, bike) Walkability metrics (see above) % of population within (1/2, 1) mile of park or recreation area Miles of bike trail/shared use path per capita Air quality exceedances of standards, attainment status Noise - % residents exposed to greater than xx DB traffic noise Locally-defined/qualitative measures [e.g., resident satisfaction surveys]

Access to education opportunities Value communities and neighborhoods Community character & preservation Safety Health Environment Environment Safe communities

Opportunities for physical activity

Community character

* Sub-bullets indicate specific aspects of this principle that have been mentioned in USDOT publications. ** Metrics in [brackets] are related to transportation only very indirectly or not at all Applying the Principles in Practice The Partnerships concept of livability was elevated to federal transportation policy when the USDOT announced its TIGER II Discretionary Grant Program in 2010. This grant program was intended to not only deliver transportation benefits, but also have a positive impact on qualitative measures of community life. To apply the livability principles to this program, DOT provided a qualitative assessment of the extent to which a project would improve the quality of the living and working environment of a community: (1) Will significantly enhance or reduce the average cost of user mobility through the creation of more convenient transportation options for travelers; (2) will improve existing transportation choices by enhancing points of modal connectivity, increasing the number of modes accommodated on existing assets, or reducing congestion on existing modal assets; (3) will improve accessibility and transport services for economically disadvantaged populations, non-drivers, senior citizens, and persons with disabilities, or will make goods, commodities, and services more readily available to these groups; and/or (4) is the result of a planning process which coordinated transportation and land-use planning decisions and encouraged community participation in the process. Qualitative efforts to evaluate livability are important to help advance the state of the practice and better understand how qualitative measures related to performance management. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 7

TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY FOR SYSTEMS PLANNING, REPORTING AND PROJECT PROGRAMMING BY DOUGLAS MCLEOD, FLORIDA DOT
Travel time reliability is recognized as an important quality of service measure to travelers, motorists and freight haulers. For statewide reporting and system level prioritization of projects, application of an on-time arrival predictive model is the most appropriate way to address travel time reliability. A predictive model also can be used to conduct what if analyses and testing possible intelligent transportation system (ITS) strategies. FDOTs Travel Time Reliability Model FDOTs travel time reliability model consists of four major components: Recurring traffic congestion Calculated on an hourly basis Incidents Time of incident Lane-blocking incidents Non-lane blocking incidents Weather Clear weather Light rain Heavy rain Work zones With this information, FDOT calculates the travel time reliability for all freeway facilities of the states entire 1100-centerlinemile freeway system. Results can be reported by: Any given hour Any given time period A typical day Any given length A facility is the extension to logical breakpoints in the freeway system, consistent with the Highway Capacity Manuals concept of a freeway facility. FDOTs specific statewide criteria for segmentation of the freeway system into facilities follow: Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) freeway to SIS freeway interchanges Non-adjacent urbanized area boundaries SIS intersecting routes Other special considerations Length Reported Results The primary focus of Floridas system level mobility performance measures by FDOT senior management has been for reporting mobility trends of the highway system over time and to illustrate additional resource needs. Reporting travel time reliability at the systems level serves those purposes. Figure 1 provides statewide results from 2005 through 2009, using FDOTs recommended on-time arrival approach. For reporting purposes, FDOT felt the peak travel period approach (4:00-7:00 p.m. in urbanized areas and 2:00-5:00 p.m. in rural areas) was the best way to report results.

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 8

TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY FOR SYSTEMS PLANNING REPORTING AND PROJECT PROGRAMMING (CONTINUED)

Figure 1

Looking at the figure, at a statewide level no surprising results occur. There has been a slight positive trend in travel time reliability in Florida from 2005-2009. This primarily occurs because of less vehicle miles traveled in the state as a result of the national and state recession. Outside of Floridas seven largest counties (900,000 to 2,500,000 residents), travel time reliability is quite high, at approximately 99%. System Level Project Priority The Strategic Investment Tool (SIT) is an interactive tool used by FDOT in the project selection process. SIT allows users to calculate and report performance measures relating to the Strategic Intermodal System objectives. Given that each freeway facility now has a specific travel time reliability value associated with it, travel time reliability is a potential factor used in the prioritization process. The FDOT Systems Planning Office has begun the process of proposing methods for incorporating travel time reliability results into the SIT. The biggest concern has been the lack of data on non-freeway facilities. Improving travel time reliability on the states transportation system is an important and desirable goal of the department; the intent is for travel time reliability to eventually become one of the factors in project prioritization. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 9

LESSONS FROM TRYING A JOBS-HOUSING BALANCE INDICATOR FOR VIRGINIA REGIONAL PLANNING BY JOHN MILLER, VIRGINIA CENTER FOR TRANSPORTATION RESEARCH AND INNOVATION
In the second edition of the ITE Transportation Planning Handbook, Atkins stated: Livability is one of those terms that is nearly impossible to define, as the definition will vary greatly depending on the individual and their values. Since a universal definition of livability is elusive, this presentation examined a single dimension of livability, jobs-housing balance, defined as an equivalence in the number of jobs in an area and the number of area residents seeking those jobs. The initial motivation for this research was the enactment of a Virginia statute effectively mandating that jobs-housing balance be considered when projects are selected for the states transportation program. Because decision makers emphasized the importance of discerning the impact of such balance on traffic congestion, the relationship between commuting time and balance was the initial research focus. Balance showed a statistically significant impact on longitudinal change in commuting time but only if several factors, such as the manner in which the region is defined, were carefully controlled. Because this research was fundamentally an exercise in performance measure definition and application, the lessons learned from stakeholders reaction to this work may be relevant to other livability performance indicators. Three take-aways are: 1. Once the researcher provides a range of multiple performance metrics, practitioners indeed have the ability to select the right one. In response to an interim presentation of methods for measuring balance reported in the literature (e.g., Charron, 2007; Marion and Horner, 2008), a regional planner drew a circle on a piece of paper and noted that his metropolitan planning organization wanted a metric that showed how shifting locations of jobs and housing within the region affected balancepresuming no net change in regional totals. What the individual was highlighting was the linear dissimilarity index (Figure 1) without having seen the index in practice. This underscored the usefulness of the index.
Hanover Goochland 0.55 0.49 Regional Average is 0.60

Jurisdiction

Employment

Population

Ei E total

Pi Ptotal
0.004 0.011 0.002 0.015 0.019 0.106 0.028 0.084 0.269

Powhatan 0.27

Richmond

employment population

0.91 Henrico 0.65 Chesterfield 0.44

New Kent 0.24 Charles City 0.25

Linear Dissimilarity Index = Total / 2 = 0.269 /2 = 0.135

Charles City New Kent Goochland Powhatan Hanover Richmond Henrico Chesterfield Total

1,779 4,048 11,069 7,258 46,958 175,497 186,807 128,812 562,228

7,047 16,810 20,048 26,533 96,374 193,882 286,095 294,453 941,242

Figure 1: Computation of a Linear Dissimilarity Index for the Greater Richmond Region 2. Imperfections in computing the performance measures exist, but, in at least some instances, such imperfections may be tolerable. For example, returning to Figure 1, although computation of jobs-housing balance at a census tract, transportation analysis zone, or smaller geographic level is conceptually desirable, a couple of regional agencies have indicated an initial willingness to compute the metric at a jurisdiction level. 3. There are two distinct roles for these metrics. One role is to compute the numerical value of the performance measure, such as with the index (Figure 1). The other role is to determine the relative importance of the performance measure with regard to some societal goalsuch as quantifying the extent to which balance influences commuting times or distance. Both roles are necessary, but they need not necessarily be undertaken by the same entity. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 10

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING IN CENTRAL INDIANA BY JOE GUERRE WITH CAMBRIDGE SYSTEMATIC

The Indianapolis Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) represents a 9-county region around Indianapolis, with a population of over 1,800,000. The MPO recently completed a major update to its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). The 2035 LRTP reflects the national trend in performance-based planning. This article briefly summarizes the performance framework used to develop the plan. For further details refer to the 2035 LRTP, which is available on the Indianapolis MPOs web site. Goals, Objectives, and Performance Measures Before any analysis was conducted, the MPO reaffirmed the regions existing transportation goals and objectives. These goals and objectives provided a basis for subsequent performance evaluations. The MPO then identified a series of performance measures based on the following principles: The measures reflected the goals and objectives; The measures varied based on the needs of three levels of analysis: network analysis, corridor analysis, and project analysis; The measures were feasible with existing data and analytical tools; and The MPO focused on a vital few set of measures. Target Setting The target setting process enabled decision makers to address two basic questions: Over the planning horizon, what is the preferred spending level among the following program areas pavement preservation, bridge preservation, roadway expansion, bicycle and pedestrian facilities, transit, and operations/maintenance? What performance can be achieved with these spending levels? The target setting discussions were informed by the results of network-level analysis. This analysis provided a series of graphs that illustrated the relationship between funding and future performance. Examples are provided in Figures 1 and 2.

Figure 1: 2035 Pavement Performance versus Annual Budget

Using this information, the MPO developed a series of scenarios. Each scenario represented a different split of funds across the various program areas. Members of the MPOs Technical and Policy Committees discussed and eventually voted on a preferred split. For some program areas, such as pavement and bridge preservation, the resulting funding levels were incorporated directly into the plan as line item funding levels. For other programs, such as roadway and transit expansion, the funding levels were used to develop fiscally constrained lists of projects.
continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 11

PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING IN CENTRAL INDIANA (CONTINUED)

Figure 2: Delay Reduction versus Annual Budget

Project Prioritization The results of the target setting process indicated that a significant portion of available funding was needed to support system preservation activities. While funds were made available for roadway and transit expansion, they were not sufficient to address all needs. Therefore, the MPO evaluated the cost effectiveness of each potential project in terms of its ability to support the regions goals and objectives. The performance-based planning process and resulting LRTP have significantly enhanced the level of transportation discourse in the Indianapolis region. For the first time, those involved in the planning process had access to quantitative information that helped to inform the discussion of major policy decisions such as the tradeoffs between preservation and expansion, and between roadway and transit. It also ensured that the fiscally constrained list of expansion projects in the plan represents the most cost effective means of achieving regional priorities. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 12

BRINGING PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT TO WMATA BY PATRICIA HENDREN, WMATA

With the national focus on public agency accountability and transparency, transit agencies are looking for more effective ways to guide decision making, promote their agency and unify employees. The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is no different and has taken a number of steps towards creating a more accountable and sustainable future. In 2010, the Office of Performance was created to increase the usage of performance information throughout the agency. The Office helped design a performance-based management approach (see graphic below) that provides WMATAs employees, from the General Manager/Chief Executive Officer to the front line workers, with tools to connect their day-to-day work to performance outcomes. WMATAs performance products vary by audiences, including execution plans that link departmental actions to broader strategic goals, material for the General Manager/CEOs meeting with his executive staff, and public facing reports that describe progress on fundamental outcomes. One such report is the Vital Signs Report which monitors progress in the strategic areas of safety, security, service reliability and customer satisfaction through a set of key performance indicators (see call out box). Each month the Vital Signs Report is presented to WMATAs Board of Directors and posted online so the public can track WMATAs performance.

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 13

BRINGING PERFORMANCE-BASED MANAGEMENT TO WMATA (CONTINUED)

The Vital Signs Report does not simply present performance data and graphs, but also explains this information by answering two key questions: Why did performance change? And, what actions is WMATA taking to improve performance. Every month, WMATA assesses each performance indicator including why the measure is tracked (e.g. tracking adherence to bus schedules is important for customer satisfaction and willingness to travel by bus), why performance changed over the month (e.g., significant construction projects reduced bus on-time performance), monthly performance trends, the target WMATA would like to meet (e.g., 78%on-time performance for bus service), actions to improve performance (e.g., complete a corridor study to identify the causes and help alleviate heavy traffic on bus routes), and conclusions (e.g., WMATAs bus on-time performance has steadily improved since January despite the problems with congestion). When the report was first published, many expected a flood of public criticism and complaints about bad performance. The opposite happened. The Vital Signs Report has given WMATA the opportunity to tell our story and get the right facts correctly presented in the public. Historically, WMATA would release performance data to the public without context, creating opportunities for misinterpretation. Erroneous interpretation made for catchy headlines, but damaged WMATAs reputation and employee morale. Now, the media takes quotes directly from the Vital Signs Report and, even when the news is bad, the explanations as to why are accurate.

Key Performance Indicators (KPIs) Measured in Vital Signs: On-time Performance for Bus, Rail, and accessibility services Mean Distance Between Failures for Bus and Rail Crime Rate Arrests, Citations, and Summons Availability of Escalators and Elevators Employee and Customer Injury Rate Customer Comment Rates

In the year since Vital Signs was launched, WMATA has demonstrated the value of measuring performance. As the GM/CEO Richard Sarles stated, The report is an important part of WMATAs plan to improve safety, customer service, reliability and financial stability. We want to be as transparent as possible and invite the public to join us in following progress. The monthly report is intended to document performance, and to hold WMATAs management accountable for whats working, what not working and why. view the most recent Vital Signs Report. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 14

A DECADE OF TRANSPARENCY AT WSDOT BY LAURA CAMERON, DAN GENZ; WSDOT STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT OFFICE
WSDOT celebrates 10th anniversary of the Gray Notebook. In May 2001, the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) published the first edition of its quarterly performance management report: the Gray Notebook, then titled Measures, Markers and Mileposts. In 2011, as budgets get tighter, performance management and reporting is more important than ever. The Gray Notebook remains one of the agencys best tools for demonstrating that taxpayer dollars are being used for projects that provide real benefits. WSDOTs ability to make transportation investments in the future relies on continued credible, transparent, and accountable reporting. WSDOT could not always claim it communicated its activities clearly. The 1990s brought increasing interest in government transparency and accountability. In April, 2001, the newly appointed Transportation Secretary, Doug MacDonald, asked staff to produce and publish a report on agency activities that your family and neighbors could understand. The first, nine-page, edition was published within three weeks of his taking the helm. The report with the gray cover quickly became a detailed and comprehensive transportation performance report that is recognized internationally. The first edition presented some data on highway construction program delivery, a forerunner of the current Beige Pages covering all capital project delivery programs. The early graphs had not yet received the classic Gray Notebook, Performance Journalism treatment. But explaining the key message of the data helped the reader understand why WSDOT did not deliver its planned advertisement schedule, and what it intended to do to improve. This frank and consistent performance reporting in the Gray Notebook earned WSDOT kudos in the press and the confidence of Washingtons citizens. As a result, two legislative revenue packages in 2003 and 2005 funded a total of $16 billion in projects. After Paula Hammond was appointed Secretary in November 2007, the Gray Notebook was further enhanced and given a new look and structure. It connected results more closely to the state transportation policy goals of safety, mobility, preservation, environmental and fiscal stewardship, and economic vitality. The many years of detailed, quality-controlled, project delivery reporting meant that WSDOT was well prepared for the reporting demands imposed under the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act. The 10th anniversary edition of the Gray Notebook, published in May 2011 (Figures 1 ), hews to the original model with easy-to -read articles composed to the principles of Performance Journalism. By telling WSDOTs performance stories good news or bad honestly and clearly, WSDOTs Gray Notebook continues to deliver performance reporting worthy of a gold star. ###
Figure 1

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 15

WSDOT DOCUMENTS PERFORMANCE WITH A SPECIAL TWO YEAR RECOVERY ACT REPORT BY RACHEL KNUTSON, DAN GENZ, SREENATH GANGULA, TODD LAMPHERE, DANIELA BREMMER WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Washington State Department of Transportation recently published WSDOT and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/ accountability) ; a look at the results of transportation Recovery Act funding in Washington two years after the Recovery Act was signed into law. A look back To date Washington state and local governments have completed 185 projects and spent more than $400 million of the $490 million in Recovery Act highway funds distributed to Washington. In addition, the state has received $781 million in federal high-speed rail funds and $179 million in transit funds as part of the Recovery Act. This special analysis is part of WSDOTs ongoing effort to assess state and federal investments in transportation and comes at a transition point for Washingtons Recovery Act project delivery. Most of the highway, transit, and ferries projects are now complete, while construction is about to begin on the agencys Recovery Act-funded high-speed rail program.
Figure 1 Among the reports highlights: WSDOT used $12 million in Recovery Act funds to install 808 miles of new centerline rumble strips and 71 miles of new or upgraded cable median barrier on state highways. Before and after studies show a 48 percent reduction in fatal and serious injury collisions when centerline rumble strips or cable median barrier are installed.

All but three of the 47 WSDOT Recovery Act highway contracts were awarded below the engineers estimate, with the average contract awarded 25 percent lower than the project estimate. The successful bids totaled $393 million, 25 percent lower than the estimated $527 million. The $164.8 million of Recovery Act funds directed to WSDOT preservation projects paid for upgrades to 820 lane miles of state highways, including 447 miles of asphalt resurfacing, 250 miles of chip seal resurfacing, 74 miles of concrete dowel bar retrofit and panel replacement, and 49 miles of concrete reconstruction. In June 2010 WSDOT opened a new Recovery Act-funded auxiliary lane on northbound I-405 in Bothell. An analysis shows the project has improved the travel time for a larger 6.8-mile corridor by almost two minutes and helped reduce the duration of afternoon peak period congestion. Performance Management at WSDOT Taking performance management seriously, and integrating it into day-to-day work, has enabled WSDOT to deliver on its promises and build public confidence and trust. In February 2009, WSDOT committed itself to being a leader among state DOTs in meeting the requirements and the intent of the Recovery Act. The agency committed to developing dedicated Recovery Act websites, publishing a weekly Recovery Act newsletter (Stimulus News You Can Use), and helped drive the effort at the national level to clarify and streamline reporting requirements for state transportation departments. This report, as well as WSDOTs other accountability and performance reports can be viewed and printed from the WSDOT accountability website: www.wsdot.wa.gov/accountability. ###

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 16

Research Sub-committee Update (Begins Page 16)

PM Research Archive Matrix : (Begins page 23)

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 17

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (JULY 2011)

This section provides an introduction to National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) current research on performance measures and transportation asset management. The section also highlights other domestic and international on -going research initiatives or results. 8-36/Task 104, 20-24(78) Integrating Performance Measures into a Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process TBD Objective: To explore how state, regional, and local stakeholders can work together in transportation planning and programming to achieve regional and national performance-based objectives. Contract Amount, Dates: Status and Products: $220,000; TBD (jointly funded by NCHRP 08-36 and NCHRP 20-24 projects) In development (NCHRP Staff: Sundstrom, Lemer)

08-62 Transportation Performance Management Programs Insight from Practitioners Objective: To develop a guidebook that reflects current practice in designing, implementing, and sustaining transportation performance management programs in state DOTs, including effective performance management frameworks and related tools and how performance management programs are being integrated into decision making. Contract Amount, Dates $200,000; 04/05/2008 -- 6/30/2009 Status and Products Completed; report to be published as NCHRP Report 660 (NCHRP Staff: Sundstrom)

08-67 Integrating Individual Transportation System-Level Performance Programs to Determine Network Performance -Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Objective: To develop a handbook that can be used as a reference by transportation agencies when implementing network performance measures across modes or jurisdictions, including methods for integrating performance measures from individual modes and jurisdictions and developing new measures, if needed, for transportation network performance. Contract Amount, Dates Status and Products $300,000; 04/08/2008 -- 1/28/2010 Completed; report to be published as NCHRP Report 664 (NCHRP Staff: Sundstrom)

08-70 Target-Setting Methods and Data Management To Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Objective To (1) describe a comprehensive framework and set of methods (a) to analyze opportunities to improve the multiple-objective performance of transportation systems within the context of broader societal goals and (b) to set specific performance targets to guide agency policies, plans, and programs; (2) detail the factors that influence target setting and the success of performance-based resource allocation systems and explain how agencies may successfully design, implement, and use such systems; and (3) analyze the data and information needs, data acquisition and management systems, and institutional relationships required to support successful performance-based resource allocation systems. A second phase is focused on uses of risk management. Contract Amount, Dates: Status and Products: $700,000; 01/24/2008 -- 06/30/2011 Initial phase completed; report published as NCHRP Report 666; extension on risk management in progress. (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)
continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 18

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

08-74 Sustainability Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation and Other Transportation Agencies -Texas A&M Objective To develop a guide for state DOTs and other transportation agencies to use to measure the sustainability of their networks, systems, facilities, projects, and activities, at the appropriate scales, stages (long-range planning, programming, project development, design, construction, maintenance, operations), and time frames. Contract Amount, Dates: $500,000; 07/09/2009 07/08/2011 Status and Products: In progress (NCHRP Staff: Sundstrom)

08-75 Performance Measurement and Evaluation of Tolling and Congestion Pricing Project Benefits and System Impacts -PB Americas, Inc. Objective To create guidelines for evaluation and performance measurement of congestion pricing projects that are designed to optimize the use of available roadway capacity, to help agencies select or develop appropriate performance measures, collect the necessary data, track performance, and communicate the results to decision makers, users, and the general public.. Contract Amount, Dates: $200,000; 04/30/2009 03/01/2011 Status and Products: In progress (NCHRP Staff: Hedges)

20-05 Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems: Topic 42-06 NCHRP Synthesis 389 Performance-Based Contracting for Maintenance -- Michael Markow Objective To compile and summarize information from state DOTs on performance-based highway maintenance and operations management. Contract Amount, Dates: $35,000; 07/01/2010 -Status and Products: In progress (NCHRP Staff: Gause)

20-24(20) Transportation Outcomes and Other Strategic Performance Impact Measures: A Framework for State Departments of Transportation -- TransTech Management, Inc. Objective To develop a simple and practical guidebook aimed at CEOs of state Departments of Transportation outlining ways to implement best practices for incorporating the use of performance measures into management practices and strategic planning Contract Amount, Dates: $100,000; 04/16/2002 -- 07/31/2003 Status and Products: Completed printed by AASHTO and available on website of AASHTO Standing Committee on Quality

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 19

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

20-24(37) Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices

Project# 20-24(37)A1 Title A1. Repeat/Update Construction Schedule and Budget Performance C. Safety (crash statistics) Contractor High Street Partners Amount 75,000 Status In progress (NCHRP Staff: Lemer) Completed (NCHRP Staff: Niessner) In progress (NCHRP Staff: Derr) Completed (NCHRP Staff: Dekelbab) In progress (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(37)C

Spy Pond Partners

75,000

20-24(37)D

D. Operations Performance Using Incident Response E. Bridge Conditions

University of Maryland

75,000

20-24(37)E

Spy Pond Partners

75,000

20-24(37)F

F. Establishment of comparative performance measures program infrastructure to support national system performance data collection and analysis G. Technical Standards and Guidance for Deploying National Level Performance Measurements H. Workshop on transportation-system performance measures suitable for national use I. Congestion

Spy Pond Partners

50,000

20-24(37)G

Cambridge Systematics

175,000

In progress (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(37)H

Spy Pond Partners

75,000

In progress (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(37)I

TBD

100,000

In development (NCHRP staff: A. Lemer) In development (NCHRP staff: A. Lemer) In development (NCHRP staff: A. Lemer)

20-24(37)J

J. Pavement condition structural health index K. SafetySerious injuries

TBD

100,000

20-24(37)K

TBD

100,000

Objective To develop comparative performance measurement as a tool to help improve DOT and transportation system performance; each project in the series addresses a single important aspect of performance or adds to the framework for a consistent approach to DOT performance measurement and reporting.

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 20

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

20-24(58) Toward Developing Performance Based Federal-Aid Highway Programs -- Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Objective: To work with the AASHTO to (a) describe the current state of practice in performance-based management of federal-aid programs, (b) assess how apportionment formulas and the distribution of federal funding among programs can influence overall performance of federal assistance for which an agency is responsible, and (c) assess how federal-aid programs may be better organized to enable agencies to manage for higher performance. A National Forum on PerformanceBased Planning was held in Dallas in September 2010. Contract Amount; Dates $590,000; 03/04/2008 -- 06/30/2011 Status and Products In progress (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(61) Executive Summit on Performance Based Maintenance and Operations Practices -- PB Consult, Inc.. Objective: To hold an executive summit for senior DOT officials to share their views, assess their experiences with performance-based maintenance and operations contracting, and develop a strategy for further advancing agency management practices in this area. Contract Amount; Dates $150,000; 07/24/2008 -- 01/31/2010 Status and Products Completed; report available on NCHRP web site (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(67) State DOT CEO Leadership Forum- Spring/Summer 2009 Pilot Study of State Driven Performance Based Management Reporting -- Center for Transportation Studies, University of Minnesota Objective: To plan, organize, and hold a DOT CEO Management Forum in 2009, following the model represented by three forums held in previous years, to encourage discussion of performance-based program management. Contract Amount, Dates: $150,000; 11/26/2008 -- 05/25/2010 Status and Products: Completed; report published by CTS (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(75) Development of a Performance Management Roadmap -- TBD Objective: To develop a 10-year strategic plan for advancing transportation agency use of performance measurement and management in decision making and to demonstrate accountability to the public and elected officials. Contract Amount, Dates: $100,000; TBD Status and Products: In development (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

20-24(78) Integrating Performance Measures into a Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process-- TBD Objective: To examine how state DOTs can work with regional and local stakeholders in relating national transportation performance measures to the state and local decision making Contract Amount, Dates: $220,000; jointly funded with NCHRP 08-36; TBD Status and Products: In progress (Administered as NCHRP 08-36(104), Staff: Sundstrom)

20-24(82) Increasing Consistency in the Highway Performance Monitoring System for Pavement Reporting -- TBD Objective: To identify key issues that need to be addressed ensure consistency and increase usefulness of the HPMS as a national source for pavement performance management. Contract Amount, Dates: $100,000; TBD Status and Products: In development (NCHRP Staff: Lemer)

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 21

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

Updates on Other US and International Research Projects

NCFRP RELEASED A REPORT ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES FOR FREIGHT TRANSPORT TRBs National Cooperative Freight Research Program (NCFRP) released Report 10 on Performance Measures for Freight Transportation explores a set of measures to gauge the performance of the freight transportation system. The measures are presented in the form of a freight system report card, which reports information in three formats, each increasingly detailed, to serve the needs of a wide variety of users from decision makers at all levels to anyone interested in assessing the performance of the nations freight transportation system. The report is available.

AASHTO STANDING COMMITTEE ON PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT, NATIONAL FORUM ON PERFORMANCE BASED PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING PROCEEDINGS ARE AVAILABLE Meeting reports and presentations are available.

THE PEW CENTER ON THE STATES AND THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION RELEASED A REPORT ON MEASURING TRASPORTATION INVESTMENTS This report Measuring Transportation Investments: the Road to Results was published in May 2011. It is a joint project of the Pew Center on the States and The Rockefeller Foundation. This report identifies which states have the essential tools in place to make more cost-effective transportation funding and policy choices. It concludes that states generally have the goals, performance measures and data to help them measure progress on safety and infrastructure preservation. But in several other important areasincluding jobs and commerce and environmental stewardshippolicy makers and the public in many states need better and more information about the results they are getting for their money. The report is available.

TRANSPORT CANADA IS DEVELOPING A FRAMEWORK TO MEASURE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS Transport Canadas Economic Analysis and Research branch is engaged in developing a framework to measure the efficiency and reliability of the transportation system in moving freight through the Gateways and Corridors. The main goal of this initiative consists of developing tools and databases to monitor the performance of Canadian trade corridors in terms of fluidity in a supply chain management fashion. Background on the initiative is available.

A presentation on a proposed System Wide Approach to Transportation Measurements is available.

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 22

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

AUSTROADS RELEASED A NEW REPORT ON NETWORK PERFORMANCE INDICATORS Austroads, the association of Australian and New Zealand road transportation and traffic authorities, released the report Network performance Indicators The Next Generation in May 2011. The objective of this project was to define a relevant, feasible and comparable set of network performance indicators (NPIs) that can be used for benchmarking asset management performance across member authorities (MAs) based on a review of existing information. The tasks set for this project included definition and recommendation of a comprehensive set of NPIs for managing and monitoring the performance of the road assets at an operational level, an emphasis on the environmental impacts on the road network, introduction of new performance indicators (PIs) for reporting and monitoring maintenance delivery, prioritization of the NPIs according to their importance in terms of their social impact. The report is available. Austroads also provides dynamic internet access to Austroads National Performance Indicators (NPI) data. The data is available. The data is updated annually, covering: Road safety Registration and licensing Road construction and maintenance Environmental Program/project assessment Travel time Lane occupancy rate User cost distance User satisfaction index Consumption of road transport, freight and fuel indicators UK RAIL SAFETY AND STANDARD BOARD RESEARCH UPDATES The U.K. Rail Safety and Standards Board (RSSB) has released the latest issue of its monthly electronic newsletter that provides information on current projects as well as access to completed research. RSSB manages a program of research and development on behalf of government and the railway industry. The program is funded by the Department for Transport and is designed to assist the industry and its stakeholders in improving performance (in terms of health and safety, reliability, and punctuality), increasing capacity and availability, reducing cost, and delivering a sustainable future for the railway. The RSSB is launching a research to provide a detailed review of selected remote condition monitoring areas. This project is to review current condition monitoring areas and quantify the safety and performance benefits, and associated costs. It will also provide the industry with key information to construct secure business cases for improvements to or replacement of existing methods and systems and introduction of new technology and procedures. Details on this any other upcoming research projects are available.

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 23

RESEARCH SUB-COMMITTEE UPDATE (CONTINUED)

EUROPEAN COOPERATION IN SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY (COST) COMPLETED RESEARCH ON INDICATORS OF SUSTAINBALE TRANSPORT COST (European Cooperation in Science and Technology) is an inter-governmental framework supporting cooperation among scientists and researchers across Europe. COSTs recently completed Action 356 was a 4 year effort aimed at making environmentally sustainable transport more measurable with appropriate indicators. The work did not produce a general set of indicators but undertook an interdisciplinary discussion and development of a range of concepts and methods that can help to fulfill this need. A number of recommendation and research issues were defined. A presentation on the results of COST 365 introduces and discusses the aspects of defining indicators of environmentally sustainable transport based on the COST 356 report. The presentation, titled Indicators of Sustainable Transport Why, What and How to Measure is available. A full report of COST 356 Indicators of Environmental Sustainability in Transport is available. Further details on Action 356 is available.

THE WORLD BANK RELEASED SEVERAL REPORTS ON PERFORMANCE MEASURES IN TRANSPORTATION Road Asset Governance Filter: Case Study Of Kazakhstan And Armenia: building upon the Transport Governance Filter developed by the Europe and Central Asia (ECA) transport team, which identified several thematic principles and actionable indicators on the governance of the transport sector at large, this paper seeks to assess the overall governance performance of the road sector as well as the concrete issues that road administrations should address in order to improve sector governance. This report is available. Performance Based Contracts in the Road Sector: Towards Improved Efficiency in the Management of Maintenance and Rehabilitation. Brazils Experience: the paper investigates and details Brazils successful experience with performance based contracts for the management of the road infrastructure and explores approaches for future improvements in Brazils performance based program. This report is available. International Benchmarking Data and Performance Indicators are available in the following areas: Logistics Performance Index World Bank Railways Database and Private Concessions Database Private Participation in Transport Infrastructure Rural Access Index (RAI) World Development Indicators 2010

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 24

PM Research Archive Matrix

FY 1967 Project NCHRP 20-5 Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems FY 1986 Project NCHRP 02-15 Identifying, Measuring, and Evaluating the Benefits of Safety Roadside Rest Areas FY 1991 Project NCHRP 20-24 (06) A Performance Measures for State Highway and Transportation Agencies FY 1991 Project 2-17 Measuring the Relationship Between Freight Transportation Services and Industry Productivity

FY 1992 Project TCRP F-03 Total Quality Management in Public Transportation

FY 1994 Project 2-17(3) A Update and Enhancement of Dataset for Macroeconomic Analysis of Transportation Investments and Economic Performance FY 1995 Project 8-32 Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process FY 1999 Project 14-13 Customer-Driven Benchmarking for Highway Maintenance Activities FY 2000 Project NCHRP 8-32(2) A Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process FY 2001 Project TCRP 7 The Role of Performance Based Measures in Allocating Funding for Transit Operations FY 2003 Project NCHRP 311 Performance Measures of Operational Effectiveness for Highway Segments and Systems FY 2004 Project NCHRP 08-36 Task 32 Tools, Techniques, and Methods in Rural Transportation Planning FY 2006 Project ACRP 01-06 Guidebook for Developing an Airport Performance Measurement System FY 2006 Project NCHRP 20-24 (37) Measuring Performance among State DOTs: Sharing Good Practices

FY 1993 Project 2-17(3) Macroeconomic Analysis of the Linkages Between Transportation Investments and Economic Performance FY 1995 Project 1-33 Methodology to Improve Pavement-Investment Decisions

FY 1994 Project 8-32 (2) Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process FY 1995 Project 3-55 (4) Performance Measures and Levels of Service in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

FY 1994 Project 20-24 (10) Customer Based Quality in Transportation

FY 1995 Project 3-55 Performance Measures and Levels of Service in the Year 2000 Highway Capacity Manual

FY 1997 Project 2-19 Guidance on Using Existing Analytic Tools for Evaluating Transportation Investments FY 1999 Project NCHRP 09-19 Super pave Support and Performance Models Management FY 2001 Project NCHRP 300 Performance Measures for Research, Development and Technology Programs FY 2002 PROJECT TCRP G-06 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance Measurement System FY 2003 Project TCRP G-06 A Guidebook for Developing a Transit Performance-System

FY 1997 Project 2-22 Needs in Communicating the Economic Impacts of Transportation Investment FY 1999 Project NCHRP 09-19 Super pave Support and Performance Models Management FY 2001 Project TCRP 22 Monitoring Bus Maintenance Performance

FY 1998 Project TCRP B-11 Customer Defined Transit Service Quality

FY 2000 PROJECT NCHRP 20-04 Bridge Performance Measures FY 2001 Project TCRP 40 A Challenged Employment System: Hiring, Training, Performance Evaluation, and Retention of Bus Operators FY 2003 Project NCHRP 20-36 Highway Research and TechnologyInternational Information Sharing FY 2004 Project 3-79 Measuring and Predicting the Performance of Automobile Traffic on Urban Streets FY 2005 Project 6-17 Performance Measures for Snow and Ice Control Operations FY 2006 Project NCHRP 15-34 Performance-Based Analysis of Geometric Design of Highways and Streets FY 2006 Project TCRP 88 A Guidebook for PerformanceBased Transportation Planning

FY 2003 Project NCHRP 20-24(20) Transportation Outcomes and Other Strategic Performance Impact Measures: A Framework for State Departments of Transportation FY 2003 Project TCRP SG-10 Use of Performance-Based Measures in Allocating Transit Funding

FY 2004 Project NCHRP 20-24 (37) Task A Measuring Performance Among Departments of Transportation FY 2006 Project NCHRP 08-36(53) Non-traditional Performance Measures

FY 2005 Project NCHRP 20-24 (42) Comparison of State Departments of Transportation Quality Management Systems FY 2006 Project NCHRP 15-32 Context Sensitive Solutions: Qualification of the Benefits in Transportation FY 2006 Project TCRP E-03A Applications for Improved Inventory Management for Public Transit Systems

FY 2006 Project NCHRP 551 Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 25

PM Research Archive Matrix continued. . .

FY 2007 Project 8-36 Task 61 Monetary Valuation Per Dollar of Investment in Different Performance Measures FY 2007 Project NCHRPT 19-07 GASB 34 Methods for Condition Assessment and Preservation FY 2007 Project NCHRP 08-62 Transportation Performance Management ProgramsInsight from Practitioners FY 2008 Project NCHRP 08-67 Integrating Individual Transportation System-Level Performance Programs to Determine Network Performance FY 2009 Project TCRP J-03 Performance Measures and Outcomes FY 2007 Project NCHRP 20-24 (37) Task B Measuring Performance Among Departments of Transportation: Best Practices (IRI) FY 2008 Project NCHRP 08-70 Target-Setting Methods and Data Management to Support Performance-Based Resource Allocations by Transportation Agencies FY 2009 Project NCHRP 08-62 Transportation Performance Management Programs--Insight from Practitioners FY 2007 Project NCHRP 20-74 Developing an Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System FY 2008 Project NCHRP 20-74A Development of Service Levels for the Interstate Highway System

FY 2008 Project NCHRP, Virginia DOT, Access Management Performance Measures (Phase 1)

FY 2009 Project NCHRP 08-74 Sustainability Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation and Other Transportation Agencies

FY 2009 Project NCHRP 08-75 Performance Measurement and Evaluation of Tolling and Congestion Pricing Project

FY 2009 Project NCHRP 20-24 (37) Task C Measuring Performance Among State Departments of Transportation: Sharing Best Practices (Safety Statistics)

FY 2009 Project NCHRP 20-24(58) Toward Developing Performance Based Federal-Aid Highway Programs

FY 2009 Project NCHRP 2-17(3) Update and Enhancement of Dataset for Macroeconomics Analysis of Transportation Investments and Economic Performance FY 2010 Project NCHRP 20-24 (75) Development of a Performance Management Roadmap

FY 2010 Project NCHRP 3-79A Arterial Performance Measures

FY 2010 Project OTREC 2010-335 Fusion and Integration of Arterial Performance Data

FY 2010 Project NCHRP 20-05 Synthesis of Information Related to Highway Problems: Topic 42-06 NCHRP Synthesis 389 Performance-Based Contracting for Maintenance FY 2010 Project NCHRP 14-25 Guide for Selecting Level-of-Service Targets for Maintaining and Operating Highway Assets

FY 2010 Project NCHRP 08-67 Integrating Individual Transportation System-Level Performance Programs to Determine Network Performance FY 2010 Project NCHRP 20-24 (61) Project Executive Summit on Performance Based Maintenance and Operations Practices FY 2010 Project TRB Airport Performance Indicators

FY 2010 Project NCHRP TransNow, Multi-modal Measurement and Evaluation of Travel Time Reliability

FY 2010 Project NCHRP 20-24(61) Executive Summit on Performance Based Maintenance and Operations Practices

FY 2010 Project NCHRP 20-24(67) State DOT CEO Leadership ForumSpring/Summer 2009 Pilot Study of State Driven Performance Based Management Reporting FY 2011 Project ACRP 03-20 Defining and Measuring Aircraft Delay and Airport Capacity Thresholds

FY 2010 PROJECT NCHRP 20-63 Performance Measurement Tool Box and Reporting System for Research Programs and Projects

FY 2010 Project TCRP G-011 A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry FY 2011 Project NCHRP 20-24(58) Toward Developing Performance Based Federal-Aid Highway Programs

FY 2011 Project NCHRP 08-74 Sustainability Performance Measures for State Departments of Transportation and Other Transportation Agencies

FY 2011 Project NCHRP 08-75 Performance Measurement and Evaluation of Tolling and Congestion Pricing Project Benefits and System Impacts

FY 2011 Project NCHRP 08-70 Target-Setting Methods and Data Management To Support Performance-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies FY 2011 Project NCHRP, TTI, Developing Performance Measures for Sustainable Freight Movement

FY 2012 Project ACRP 01-13 Developing a Database-Driven Web Application for Benchmarking Airport Performance

continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 26

PM Research Archive Matrix continued. . .

Pending Project NCHRP 8-36/ Task 104, 20-24(78) Integrating Performance Measures into a PerformanceBased Planning and Programming Process

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 27

TRB COMMITTEE ABC30 MEETING MINUTES

TRB Committee ABC30 Performance Measurement Committee 2011 Annual Meeting Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 3:45-5:30pm Washington, D.C. MEETING MINUTES Attendance 16 members and 49 friends attended the meeting. Agenda (attached) Please note that the meeting time was considerably shorter than normal (only 90 minutes). (Committee refers to the Performance Measurement Committee; Chair refers to the Chair of the Performance Measurement Committee Daniela Bremmer) Introduction Chair commenced the committee meeting at 3:45 pm and welcomed all participants, followed by round-the-table introductions and routing of sign-in-sheet. Joe Zietsman tabled meeting minutes from summer meeting, Monday, July 12, 2010, Minneapolis, Minnesota. Minutes were approved without any changes. Reports and Updates Chair asked the session moderators to report on the sessions co-sponsored by the committee. They provided short details of the sessions and reported that they were well attended and generated good discussions. The sessions co-sponsored were: How Do We Measure Livability and Sustainability?- Joe Zietsman National Transportation Performance Measures: Whats on the Table? Whats in Store for the Future?- Mara Campbell ARRA" We There Yet? Lessons Learned from ARRA Reporting and Implications for Performance-Based Reauthorization Joe Crosset Paper Review Subcommittee Ramkumar Venkatanarayana reported on the paper review process. Twenty one papers were submitted. 18 were submitted for publication and presentation and 3 were submitted for presentation only. 11 were chosen for poster sessions and a few were presented as podium presentations. 96 reviews were performed in all. Ram thanked everyone for their help with the review process. The committee thanked Ram for all his hard work. Communication Subcommittee Connie Yew reported that the newsletter was released before the annual meeting. It was well received. Connie has compiled a matrix of completed research projects that has been very helpful and asked for any additions of completed projects. Communication Subcommittee Connie Yew reported that the newsletter was released before the annual meeting. It was well received. Connie has compiled a matrix of completed research projects that has been very helpful and asked for any additions of completed projects. Importance of international work. Creating liaisons with other committees.
continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 28

TRB COMMITTEE ABC30 MEETING MINUTES (CONTINUED)

Research Subcommittee Greg Marsden highlighted the following points: Importance of international work. Creating liaisons with other committees. Prioritizing projects. How to make things happen.

The Chair discussed the rotation of committee members. Some have completed their terms so new members will need to be appointed. Criteria of good members should include - active participation in committee activities, participation in paper reviews, and volunteer activities at least once a year. Policy and Organization Group (POG) Request The committee had a broad discussion about a request from the POG regarding the following issue: A common theme has emerged calling for a restructuring that incorporates incentives for performance and accountability for actual results of the investment of scarce federal resources For both formula funds and discretionary and earmarked funds, there is no accountability required and there are few well-defined performance measures, program evaluations, or systems for tracking the results of federal funding... The broad discussion highlighted that the committee can play a role in this debate. Many broad topics were brought up that can feed into future sessions. The Chair will have a further discussion with the POG to obtain more clarity on how the committee can be of assistance and how we can collaborate with other committees. State and Federal Initiatives Tony Kane reported and the following was highlighted: o o SCOP Meeting- September 2011, Dallas A transit task force established, performance based planning and programming efforts.

Mara Campbell provided an update on comparative efforts between states Lance Neumann reported back on key focus areas/national priorities. Pat Hu gave report on data analysis needs and recently released report. Discussion of Research Needs and Session Topics Winter operations through ITS. What performance measures would resonate with the public? How do we improve performance measures with data? Technology changes. Communication is important.
continued on next page

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 29

TRB COMMITTEE ABC30 MEETING MINUTES (CONTINUED)

Arterial systems and signal systems. What is being done by other committees? Adjusting performance measurements with funding shortfalls. How performance measures can influence decisions. TRB Staff Report Andy Lemer highlighted upcoming events: Data Needs Conference in December. May 18-20,2011- International PM Conference July 2011- Joint Summer Meeting Fourth International PM Conference The Chair discussed details of the conference. It is to be held May 17 to 20 in Irvine, California. There are 160 invitation only spots available. Members and friends were encouraged to register quickly because of the limited spots. The following 5 tracks will form part of the conference: Driving Forces for Change; Performance-Based Decision MakingThe Bucks Start Here; Data Collection and Analysis Technologies; Drivers and Applications; and Capturing System PerformanceNew Measures for Difficult-to-Measure Topics. Discussion was also brought up about when and where to have the committee summer meeting. It was decided to hold it concurrently with the 4th International Conference in Irvine, CA. Closing The meeting was adjourned at 5:30 pm.

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 30

TRB COMMITTEE ABC30 APPENDIX

TRB Committee ABC30 Performance Measurement Committee 2011 Annual Meeting Agenda Tuesday, January 25th, 2011 3:45 p.m. 5:30 p.m. Hilton Columbia Hall 11&12 , Washington, D.C. This is an abbreviated agenda due to the shorter than usual meeting time. Agenda items that can be postponed will be covered in a separate committee call /webinar (webinar agenda items list below). We have some deadlines and task to address which we have tried to prioritize for the meeting. Please feel free to provide feedback on additional agenda needs that should be covered now or during the webinar/call. Call to order Daniela Bremmer: (10min) Welcome and brief introductions Approval of committee meeting minutes from the 2010 mid-year meeting in Minneapolis, MN -Joe Zietsman Chairs report Daniela Bremmer (10 min): Chairs report and TRB announcements 70-80 min remaining: Action Items and Updates: (all) Requested by Policy and Organization Group (POG): A common theme has emerged calling for a restructuring that incorporates incentives for performance and accountability for actual results of the investment of scarce federal resources For both formula funds and discretionary and earmarked funds, there is no accountability required and there are few well-defined performance measures, program evaluations, or systems for tracking the results of federal funding... The next step is to consider whether and how the POG Committees can contribute to the restructuring discussions and issues. This could take many different forms, such as including restructuring as a topic on Committee agendas at the TRB 2011 Annual Meeting; identifying themes and sessions for the TRB 2011 joint midyear meeting in Boston; stimulating NCHRP, TCRP, and NCFRP research topics relevant to restructuring; developing research problem statements to include in the TRB Research Needs Database and seeking sponsors for the research, and sponsoring workshops, webinars, and conferences on restructuring topics. Most valuable would be collaborative efforts across committees, since most restructuring issues transcend particular committee areas, and since multiple committee perspectives can be enlightening. Next steps on AASHTO and FHWA work on national Performance Metrics - discuss related ABC30 Committees support needs-what is our role, what are the research needs at hand, how does it relate to the POG request above? (Gloria, Mara, Daniela, Tony, Lance , all ) Research Proposal Development Process (Jeff, Greg, All) Discuss suggestions received over the last year and review strategies for how to develop research proposals that have potential of getting funding. This includes, more liaison with other committees on research topics of mutual interest. In addition, discuss research that will provide a basis for national policy development in the current and changing political environment. What topics are the subject of current policy development in Washington and elsewhere, and what research should this committee promote to educate policy makers on those topics?
continued on next page

(5 min)

VOLUME 9, ISSUE 1

Page 31

TRB COMMITTEE ABC30 APPENDIX (CONTINUED)

Are there recently enacted or proposed new mandates that require or impact performance measurement that could be supported with research?

4th International Transportation Systems Performance Measurement Conference Irvine, California, May 18-20, 2011 (track leads who are present to provide brief synopsis of the respective tracks) Adjourn Agenda Items Moved to Possible Webinar at a later date Identify Synthesis topics: TRB is seeking potential synthesis study topics for the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP). The deadline for the upcoming submission cycle is February 18, 2011. All proposed new topics must be submitted online through the TRB Synthesis Topic Submittal website Research needs and research proposal (not synthesis) committee brainstorm and discussion for 2011 submittals ABC30 Strategic Plan- Are we still on track? Are any changes needed? Review prioritiesSub-Committee Reports (2010) and Planned Work Activities for 2011 Sub-committee on Communications: Connie Yew Sub-committee on Research: Jeff Price & Greg Marsden Sub-committee on International Activities: Randy Halvorson/Paresh Tailor Sub-committee on Conference Planning : Mara Campbell Paper Reviews: Ram Venkantanarayana Planning for the mid-year TRB meeting Reports from ABC30 members serving as liaisons with other TRB committees, AASHTO, U.S. Department of Transportation agencies etc Presentations TRB staff report Section Chair report Other work items