Intl Journal of Public Administration, 31: 616–638, 2008

Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN 0190-0692 print / 1532-4265 online
DOI: 10.1080/01900690701640960

State DOT Performance Programs:

1532-4265
0190-0692
LPAD
Intl Journal of Public Administration
Administration, Vol. 31, No. 6, March 2007: pp. 1–42

From Program Development to

Strategic Planning

Nicholas S. Compin
State DOT Performance Programs
Compin

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

San Jose, California, USA

Abstract: This article presents evidence from selected state transportation depart-
ments across the United States that indicates that although many states have estab-
lished performance measures programs, very few have acted to integrate across the
board results into transportation decision-making processes. Transportation-related
performance programs across the nation have reached a critical juncture between
performance program creation and integration of results into decision-making pro-
cesses. Only time will tell if the fundamental strength of performance programs, that of
enhancing strategic planning, will be unleashed, thereby strengthening the manage-
ment of transportation programs and the relationship with decision-makers and the
public that government transportation providers desperately need.

Keywords: performance measurement, performance management, strategic planning,

state DOT performance programs, transportation

INTRODUCTION

Transportation system performance is an issue that affects the public nearly

every day in a direct way. In every locale, no matter the mode, the transporta-
tion system is an interconnected mobility web, each part connected to and
affecting another. Whether a person is walking to a nearby store or flying
across the continent, transportation system performance is affecting their jour-
ney. Performance is the process or manner of functioning or operating; in this
case, the “something” is the transportation system. The way we gauge the
manner of operating in transportation is through performance measurement.

Address correspondence to Nicholas S. Compin, California Department of

Transportation, 1120 North Street (MS 36), Sacramento, CA 95814, USA; E-mail:
Nicholas_Compin@dot.ca.gov
State DOT Performance Programs 617

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

determine progress toward specific defined organizational objectives. In most
cases state departments of transportation (DOTs) are responsible for insuring
that transportation systems within a given state meet the traveling public’s
transportation needs. Each department establishes goals and measurable
objectives. Performance measures that gauge each department’s progress
towards meeting objectives and goals are then selected.
State DOTs are not only responsible for insuring positive impacts of their
activities, but must also insure that the transportation systems they oversee do
not have any overwhelmingly negative impacts. With this in mind, an impor-
tant question arises: how does the public know what kind of impact decision
makers are having with respect to the multitude of transportation services,
demands and impacts? One option is to use performance measures. Other
concerns, such as safety and delays, arise when considering the transportation
system such as a bus or train trip substitute for an auto trip. The effect of trans-
portation on the environment is another concern. Performance measurement is
an important step in beginning to address these issues and more. Results of per-
formance measurement can supply information to decision makers and the
traveling public alike, showing—both over time and in comparison with similar
systems—the impact on the transportation system of decisions made by deci-
sion makers and of activities taken by departments in their pursuit of goals.
Over the past decade, state departments of transportation around the US
have begun the process of creating performance measurement programs. This,
in and of itself, is a positive step, but how can we determine if DOT perfor-
mance measurement systems provide the information necessary to inform
strategic planning and decision making? The first step is to analyze state DOT
performance programs, paying specific attention to the performance
measures, and determine both their primary focus and whether they are
addressing multiple facets of the transportation system in such a way that
informs strategic planning and decision making.
This article includes an analysis of transportation system performance
measures programs from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and
from five state DOTs: Florida, Washington, Minnesota, California, and
Maryland. Presented in the second section are the theories and policies that
are driving many current performance measurement efforts in government
in the United States. Presented in section three is an analysis of performance
measures contained in the performance programs of the five previously
identified states. Results are presented in tables divided into the following
categories:

• Goal / Focus Area—The focal category for measures identified by an agency.

• Output—Measures that indicate production.
• Outcome—Measures that indicate consumption or impact on, for example,
the system, environment, or customer.
618 Compin

• System Measures—Measures that determine the impact of departmental

activities on the transportation system.
• Organizational Measures—Measures that determine the alignment of
departmental activities with internal departmental objectives. These mea-
sures are often not directly related to the transportation system, but rather to
an organization’s internal business operations.
• Data Only—Measures that are not performance measures or interpretable as
performance measures.
• Unclear Linkage With PM—Identified performance measure is not related to
specified goal or focus area and possibly not specifically transportation related.

Following each table is an analysis of the overall focus of performance

measures programs in each state, including general comments about each
program. The conclusion section includes suggestions for improving the
specification of performance measures and the impact of performance
programs on strategic planning, strategic management and decision making
and thus the impact on the transportation system of decisions and activities for
which state DOTs and others are responsible.

BACKGROUND

Performance Management: A Transition from Private Sector Business

to Government

Although the concept of using strategic planning strategies to guide organizations

has its origins in private sector business management, it became apparent in
the 1970s that business strategies might be applicable in government; albeit in
a different manner than theretofore applied in the private sector. The broadening
of the application of strategic business management to government programs
began in the mid 1970s in the field of transportation and, more specifically,
the mass transportation sector.
Results of research aimed at determining the applicability of strategic
business management practices to assist in determining the operating effi-
ciency and effectiveness of government-sponsored transportation programs
first began appearing in academic journals in the latter part of the 1970s.
Research efforts focused on determining first if and then how performance
management systems and specific performance measures could be created to
gauge the impact of public investments in government sponsored transportation
systems. The seminal works by Gordon J. (Pete) Fielding and Roy E. Glauthier
(1977)[1] and later Fielding, Glauthier, and Charles A. Lave (1977, 1978)[2,3]
outlined very specifically the creation and interpretation of transportation-
related performance measures to help determine the operating performance of
transit systems. Over the next decade, research on developing transportation
State DOT Performance Programs 619

performance measurement slowly increased. Research not only revealed the

complex and elaborate relationships that exist among the activities governmental
entities carry out and the results, or outcomes, of those activities on the custom-
ers; the traveling public, but also how performance management and individual
measures could be included in transportation-related decision-making processes.

Integrating Performance Management into Government

Transportation Programs

According to Edward Weiner in his comprehensive September 1997 report

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

By the early 1990s, there were major changes underway that would have
significant effects on urban transportation and urban transportation
planning. The era of major new highway construction was over in most
urban areas . . . Many transportation agencies entered into strategic
management and planning processes to identify the scope and nature of
these changes, to develop strategies to address these issues, and to
better orient their organization to function in this new environment.[4]

The changing environment of transportation planning required changes in

how transportation professionals thought about planning, and particularly the
scope of planning. Accordingly one influential project titled, “Strategic
Planning and Management Guidelines for Transportation Agencies,”
reviewed the status of strategic planning in transportation agencies and devel-
oped guidelines for successfully institutionalizing it. The following definition
was provided by the project report:

Strategic management is an interactive and ongoing process consisting

minimally of the following fundamental components: mission statement
(including goals and objectives), environmental scan, strategy develop-
ment, action plan development, resource allocation, and performance
measurement.[5]

Thus began the institutionalization of strategic planning and its connection

with performance measurement.

The Federal Government Connects Funding and Performance

Evaluation

Passage of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991

(ISTEA), the Federal authorization for highway and transit funding programs,
620 Compin

shifted the focus of transportation program efforts from the construction of the
Interstate Highway System to the preservation of the existing transportation
system; requiring a related shift in responsibilities for transportation decision-
making from the federal level to the state and local levels. ISTEA directed the
adoption of a multi-modal approach to transportation planning and decision-
making, requiring more integrated planning with an emphasis on the inclusion of
a broader range of stakeholders than were involved in past planning processes.

The metropolitan planning process must explicitly consider and ana-

lyze, as appropriate, 15 factors that reflect sound planning principles. It
may be helpful to think about them in three general groupings which
reflect major themes of the ISTEA: Mobility and Access for People and
Goods; System Performance and Preservation; and Environment and
Quality of Life.[6]

For the purposes of this article it is important to note that ISTEA signaled a
national interest in using business management practices to focus on and improve
the management and operation of transportation programs and systems across the
US by requiring the creation of six transportation management systems and asso-
ciated performance monitoring. ISTEA allowed states to use National Highway
System (NHS), State Transportation Program (STP), Congestion Mitigation and
Air Quality (CMAQ), apportioned bridge, and planning funds to finance the new
management systems, but provided no new sources of funding.[7]
Under ISTEA, states were required to certify that they had established the
six transportation management systems by January 1, 1995, with the under-
standing that failing to establish the systems could result in a 10 percent
reduction in federal funds apportioned to the state.

Performance Management Broadens to Include All Federal Programs

Without high-level guidance and support, public agencies have no real impe-
tus to embark upon strategies to include performance management in their
decision-making processes. One rather obvious and extremely important moti-
vator for action in government is the passage of legislation. In 1993, passage
of the Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA),[8] Public Law 103–
62, signaled the wholesale Federal commitment to performance measurement.
The GPRA was enacted “To provide for the establishment of strategic plan-
ning and performance measurement in the Federal Government, and for other
purposes.” The stated purposes of the Act were to:

1. improve the confidence of the American people in the capability of the

federal Government, by systematically holding federal agencies account-
able for achieving program results;
State DOT Performance Programs 621

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

setting program goals, measuring program performance against those
goals, and reporting publicly on their progress;
3. improve federal program effectiveness and public accountability by pro-
moting a new focus on results, service quality, and customer satisfaction;
4. help federal managers improve service delivery, by requiring that they
plan for meeting program objectives and by providing them with informa-
tion about program results and service quality;
5. improve congressional decision making by providing more objective
information on achieving statutory objectives, and on the relative effec-
tiveness and efficiency of federal programs and spending; and
6. improve internal management of the federal government.

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

GPRA aims to improve the management of federal programs through

the use of strategic planning and performance measurement systems.
Under GPRA, all federal agencies will, beginning with the fiscal year
1999 budget cycle, be required to draft and submit five-year strategic
plans with clearly stated strategic goals, annual performance plans
describing how they will carry out these strategic plans and meet their
goals, and annual reports on their progress.[9]

The GPRA provided the initial guidance and support necessary for federal
officials to begin the lengthy process of improving program management and
increasingly tie stated goals with actual outcomes through performance mea-
surement; a process that continued throughout the 90s and continues today.

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

family of performance measures works. This means that in each phase of
performance planning, management, and measurement, the customer,
stakeholder, and employee are considered in balance with the need to
achieve a specific mission or result. This approach has worked in the pri-
vate sector and is beginning to take firm root in government as well.[10]

A Softened Federal Stance

With respect to government transportation programs, requirements for

improved management and accountability were short lived as passage of the
National Highway System Designation Act of 1995,[11] among other impacts,
eliminated the Federal requirement for the six transportation management sys-
tems. Although many states and Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO)s
continued to develop and implement the six management systems, they did so at
622 Compin

their own discretion and under their own standards. Further softening require-
ments for improved management and accountability was the Transportation
Equity Act of 1997 (TEA-21). TEA-21 limited the number of transportation
planning “factors” to be considered, thereby allowing for inclusion of perfor-
mance monitoring at a future date.

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

politan and 23 statewide planning “factors” into seven broad “areas”
to be considered in the planning process, both at the metropolitan and
statewide level. A new section exempts plans, transportation improve-
ment plans, project or strategy, and certification actions from legal
review for failure to consider any one of the “areas.” The growing
importance of operating and managing the transportation system is
recognized as a focal point for transportation planning.[12]

Statewide and Metropolitan Transportation Planning Factors

1. Support the economic vitality of the United States, the states, and metro-
politan areas, especially by enabling global competitiveness, productivity
and efficiency;
2. Increase the safety and security of the transportation system for motorized
and non-motorized users;
3. Increase the accessibility and mobility options available to people and for
freight;
4. Protect and enhance the environment, promote energy conservation, and
improve quality of life;
5. Enhance the integration and connectivity of the transportation system,
across and between modes throughout the state, for people and freight;
6. Promote efficient system management and operation; and
7. Emphasize the preservation of the existing transportation system.

Summing Up the Incorporation of Performance Management in

Transportation

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

diffusion of strategic planning and performance management practices
throughout all levels of government, from federal to local, all with one stated
goal: to not only improve the processes by which governmental decisions are
made, but the decisions themselves and thus the impact of decisions in terms
of increased value to the public. With ISTEA and TEA-21 providing addi-
tional support and guidance, state departments of transportation across the
nation either began or increased efforts to improve their strategic planning.
Incorporated within ISTEA was the newly defined concept of strategic
State DOT Performance Programs 623

planning. Although the prior definition basically remained unchanged with the
passage of TEA-21, the concept was captured using what is now commonly
known as the “3 Cs” of transportation planning:

The process for developing the plans and programs shall provide for
consideration of all modes of transportation and shall be continuing,
cooperative, and comprehensive . . .[13]

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

determine if actions taken lead towards outlined goals, thus requiring the devel-
opment of performance management programs within which performance
measures are developed and progress toward goal attainment is tracked.

THE CURRENT STATUS OF PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT IN

GOVERNMENT-SPONSORED TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS IN
THE UNITED STATES

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

grams through legislation. States such as Florida, Maryland, and Washington
have enacted legislation that requires state departments, including state
departments of transportation, to develop performance programs. In Minnesota
the creation of their performance program began with the DOT, but was later
required by the state legislature. In California, it was the Secretary of the Business,
Transportation and Housing Agency who initiated the state DOT’s perfor-
mance program efforts. Regardless of the sponsor or sponsors, the message is
clear: state departments of transportation must do a better job of aligning
stated goals outlined in planning documents and results of their activities.
How can this be accomplished? One compelling idea is that transportation
performance measurement systems must include simultaneous consideration
and evaluation of multiple program facets relating to the planning and deliv-
ery of transportation infrastructure and services.

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

decision-making contexts in isolation. Indeed, many states and MPOs
apply the concept in one context but not in others or not across the
board. However, much of the value of the concept lies in the ability to tie
these different but related elements of the overall transportation planning
and delivery process together in a consistent framework of planning,
monitoring, evaluation, and feedback.[14]

If the value of the concept of performance measurement lies in monitoring

multiple facets of a transportation department’s impact on those who are
connected with the provision of transportation services, an important question
624 Compin

is raised: are state departments of transportation monitoring the impact that

they have in multiple contexts? Even more importantly, are state DOTs focus-
ing their performance evaluation efforts on multiple impact areas, or outcomes
resulting from their activities and decisions? These are the questions
addressed in the following sections.

Federal Perspective and Guidance

If federal reauthorization sets requirements for performance measures programs

through a general framework, resources such as the Federal Highway Admin-
istration, Office of Transportation Management – Performance Measurement
Fundamentals website provides the blueprints with which to build programs.
The FHWA has created what it calls a “performance measures toolbox” con-
taining general and specific performance measures information such as: the
purpose of performance measurement; suggestions for specific measures and
the fundamentals of successful systems. Also included are website links to
other information such as key steps in performance-based management; major
issues; current research, and other web resources. Such information is not only
a valuable resource, but in no small manner provides Federal guidance on the
creation and integration of performance measures and management into trans-
portation planning throughout the United States and abroad.
The FHWA’s Performance Measurement Fundamentals website con-
tains the toolbox and their FY 2003 Performance and Accountability
Report,[15] which serves as the report card. In the report, the FHWA tracks
their progress toward meeting key performance measures targets. Again,
although specific FHWA targets or goals may not be exactly the same as
those in all states, regions and localities, they reveal what is most important
at the federal level and thus provide guidance for other PM programs across
the United States.
Although the FHWA’s FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report
is focused on only three areas (Safety, Mobility and Productivity and Human

Table 1. Analysis of FHWA’s 2003 Performance and Accountability Report

Unclear
System Organizational Data Linkage
Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome Measures Measures Only With PM

#1 Safety ✔ ✔
#2 Mobility and ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Productivity
#3 Human and ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Natural
Environment
State DOT Performance Programs 625

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

is apparent.

Observations

The results presented in this section make it apparent that progress toward
meeting targets in certain goal areas is more readily measured than in others.
Performance measures in the Safety area seemed to be the most accurately
specified, followed by those for Mobility and Productivity, while those relat-
ing to the Human and Natural Environment target area obviously require
further consideration. The lack of focus indicated by these results can create
quite a challenge for state DOTs that may look to the FHWA for guidance in
selecting performance measures for their own systems.

State DOTs and their Performance Programs

In the following sections performance measures programs from five state

DOTs (California, Florida, Maryland, Minnesota, and Washington) are ana-
lyzed. These programs were chosen because efforts involving performance
measurement are fairly advanced and information for each is readily available.
The programs chosen are not meant to be inclusive or necessarily representa-
tive of current efforts within all state DOTs, but the information and analysis
presented in the following sections does provide general insight into the state
of the practice with respect to ongoing performance measurement initiatives at
state DOTs across the United States.
One objective of the analysis presented in the following sections is to
categorize the general types of goals state DOTs have set and how they are
determining their advancement towards those goals. A second and more
revealing objective is to begin to determine whether state DOTs are using
performance evaluation as a tool to refine and focus their efforts on the
outcomes of departmental activities and decision making. If the focus of
performance measurement programs is to improve strategic planning and
decision making, then performance measures selected for monitoring
should be focused on transportation system outcomes and performance
programs should include performance evaluation in multiple outcome
areas.
The following sections contain brief descriptions of each of five states’
performance measurement programs and the impetus for establishing each
program. Next is a listing of the goal areas for which performance measures
have been developed. Also included is a short analysis of the measures,
including a determination of whether the measures are outcome (impact or
consumption) or output (quantifying production) related and if the measures
626 Compin

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

system impacts (focused on the transportation system).

Florida

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

mance report pursuant to s. 339.155, Florida Statutes.[16] The purpose of the report
is to evaluate the Department’s progress toward achieving the goals and objectives
included in the Short Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan.
In accordance with the prescribed implementation schedule of the State of
Florida’s Government Accountability and Performance Act of 1994, the
Florida Department of Transportation began operating under the performance
based program budgeting system during FY 1997–1998. For each program,
the Department’s legislative budget request must include the following perfor-
mance related information:

• legislatively approved output and outcome performance measures and any

proposed revisions to measures,
• proposed performance standards for each performance measure and justifi-
cation for the standards and the sources of data to be used for measurement,
• prior-year performance data on approved performance measures and an
explanation of deviation from expected performance, and
• proposed performance incentives and disincentives.[17]

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

the Governor, the Office of Inspector General (OIG) must assess the reliability
and validity of the information provided by the Department and make any
necessary recommendations for improvement.[18]
The following is an excerpt from the OIG’s reliability and validity evalu-
ation of the Florida Department of Transportation’s 62 proposed performance
measures for fiscal year (FY) 2004/2005.[19]

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

reliable. In cases where the data was found to be unreliable, we will
work with the responsible offices to attempt to correct data integrity
problems before the next reporting cycle. Ninety-eight percent of the
assessed measures (58 out of 59) appear to be valid, in terms of measur-
ing what they purport to measure. Sixty-four percent of the assessed
measures (38 out of 59) are not meaningful indicators of the results
achieved by the Department. Some require additional information to be
of value in drawing performance conclusions; others apply to functions
over which the Department has no control; and some merely provide a
count of an activity, without consideration to complexity, size, or cost.
State DOT Performance Programs 627

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

provide suggestions for alternative measures. For the 22 priority mea-
sures, we compared the FY 2002–2003 results against the standards
when sufficient information was available. No deviations were identi-
fied in the 10 measures that we were able to evaluate. Additional data
integrity work will be conducted on the remaining measures as neces-
sary information becomes available.[20]

This evaluation makes it obvious that the Department must make changes to
their list of proposed measures if they are to be used to determine progress
towards achieving performance goals.

Observations

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

measures selected by the Florida Department of Transportation. Many of the
performance measures identified are not actually performance measures at all,

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

Unclear
System Organizational Data Linkage
Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome Measures Measures Only With PM

#1 Preserve and Manage a Safe, Efficient Transportation System

System ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Preservation
System Efficiency ✔ ✔
#2 Enhance Florida’s Economic Competitiveness, Quality of Life and
Transportation Safety
Mobility/ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Economic
Competitiveness
Quality of Life ✔ ✔ ✔
Safety* ✔ ✔
#3 Organizational Excellence
Customers ✔ ✔ ✔
Work Program ✔ ✔ ✔
Organizational ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
Performance

*Fatality and injury rates are behavioral rather than structural which is the primary
focus of nearly all state DOTs. Correct specification of safety-related PMs should
include a measure of volume or consumption to be accurate and useful.
628 Compin

but rather merely data that do not reflect directly upon performance. Other
identified measures are focused on outcomes, outputs, the transportation sys-
tem and organizational activities with seemingly little consideration of a logi-
cal framework. Given that the stated purpose of this report is to evaluate the
Department’s progress toward achieving the goals and objectives included in
the Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan,[21] it is
unlikely that reporting the measures as put forth will accomplish this goal. As
mentioned earlier, the Florida’s Office of the Inspector General analyzed the
proposed measures and found that “Sixty-four percent of the assessed mea-
sures (38 out of 59) are not meaningful indicators of the results achieved by
the Department.’[22]
Although there seems to be a general lack of focus when all measures are
considered, performance measures in the following areas are generally valid,
reliable and meaningful: System Preservation, Mobility, Safety, and Organi-
zational Excellence. Focusing on a smaller, core set of measures would seem
appropriate in this instance and could potentially result in a greater impact on
strategic planning and thus transportation-related decision making.

Washington

The Washington State Department of Transportation’s (WSDOT’s) quarterly

performance measures report to the Washington State Transportation Com-
mission on transportation programs and department management is called
Measures, Markers and Mileposts. Its goal is to keep WSDOT accountable to
the Transportation Commission and the public. Also referred to as the “Gray
Notebook” because of its gray cover, Measures, Markers and Mileposts was
first made available for the quarter ending March 31, 2001. As of June 2004,
there have been fourteen Quarterly Reports.[23]
Information concerning all measures, or in many cases data, is not con-
tained in every report. Seventeen transportation subject areas containing nearly
two-hundred and fifty different measures of performance were included in those
reports, including the following subject areas: Aviation, Benchmarks, Bridge
Conditions, Commute Trip Reduction, Congestion, Construction Program,
Design, Environmental, Ferries, Highway Maintenance, Pavement Conditions,
Rail: Freight, Rail: Amtrak Cascades, Safety, Traffic Operations, Truck Freight,
Workforce, Special Features, and Traveler Information.

Observations

Although WSDOT’s Gray Notebook frequently contains valuable performance-

related information, reports are organized in terms of transportation subject
areas rather than in terms of program goals. This structure makes it difficult
State DOT Performance Programs 629

for the uninitiated, and frequently the initiated, to link departmental goals to
performance outcomes in a systematic manner. The fact that reports are
specifically designed for the Washington State Transportation Commission
may account for the high level of specificity and the large number of issues
covered over the years in the reports. Even so, many of the items contained in
the reports are simply data that do not reflect directly upon performance.
Many issues have been addressed in only one report and many items contain
very specific information about individual projects. All of these factors com-
bined may hamper strategic planning and decision making by providing a
larger volume of information with a multitude of subjects than is useful,
thereby creating confusion rather than removing it. This is especially true if
the public is to be a customer for the report.

Minnesota

Three statewide planning documents inform and guide transportation invest-

ments in the State of Minnesota:

1. Mn/DOT’s Strategic Plan outlines the Department’s vision, mission and

strategic directions;
2. the Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan provides the 20-year policy-
based transportation plan called for by state and federal law.

Finally there is the Mn/DOT’s Business Plan, which incorporates performance

measures from the Statewide Transportation Plan and sets achievable two-year
targets for reducing the gap on selected measures.

Mn/DOT’s Statewide Transportation Plan

The Statewide Transportation Plan has been prepared by the Minnesota

Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) to comply with federal
planning requirements[24] that require a long range transportation plan
of each state as well as state planning requirements[25], which require
Mn/DOT’s commissioner to “develop, adopt, revise, and monitor a
statewide transportation plan.”[26]

An analysis of MNDOT’s 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan is presented in

Table 3.

Mn/DOT’s Business Plan

According to MnDOT’s “Mn/DOT Measures: Guiding Decisions from Plan-

ning to Program Development” website:
630 Compin

Table 3. Analysis of Minnesota DOT’s 2003 Statewide Transportation Plan

Unclear
System Organizational Data Linkage
Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome Measures Measures Only With PM

#1 Preserve Essential Elements of Existing Transportation Systems

✔ ✔
#2 Support Land Use Decisions that Preserve Mobility and Enhance the Safety of
Transportation Systems
Represents more of an institutional focus or intent rather than actual performance
measurement.
#3 Effectively Manage the Operation of Existing Transportation Systems to
Provide Maximum Service to Customers
✔ ✔ ✔
#4 Provide Cost-Effective Transportation Options for People and Freight
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
#5 Enhance Mobility in Interregional Transportation Corridors Linking Regional
Trade Centers (RTCs)
✔ ✔
#6 Enhance Mobility Within Major Regional Trade Centers
✔ ✔ ✔
#7 Increase the Safety and Security of Transportation Systems and Their Users
✔ ✔
#8 Continually Improve Mn/DOT’s Internal Management and Program Delivery
✔ ✔
#9 Inform, Involve and Educate All Potentially Affected Stakeholders in
Transportation Plans and Investment Decision Processes
No measures specified.
#10 Protect the Environment and Respect Community Values
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

In the 2004–2005 state budget cycle, resources will be allocated through

Activity Based Budgeting and guided through a business plan. The
business plan is tied to performance targets for every major product and
service. Business units within Mn/DOT are encouraged to prioritize
available resources to begin to close the gap toward short- and long-term
performance targets. In some cases, where targeted performance levels
are exceeded, resources can be redirected to areas in greater need. This
management system will be further advanced in the 2006–2007 biennium.
At the same time, work plans and dashboards are increasingly being used
throughout Mn/DOT for real-time performance management.[27]
State DOT Performance Programs 631

Table 4. Analysis of Minnesota DOT’s 2004–05 Business Plan

Unclear
System Organizational Data Linkage
Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome Measures Measures Only With PM

#1 Safeguard What Exists

✔ ✔ ✔
#2 Make the Transportation Network Operate Better
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔
#3 Make Mn/DOT Work Better
✔ ✔ ✔

Mn/DOT’s 2004–05 Business Plan incorporates performance measures

from the Statewide Transportation Plan. The Business Plan sets achievable
two-year targets for reducing the gap on selected measures. Performance goals
and measures contained in the Business Plan are presented above.

Observations

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

measures, particularly in the areas of System Preservation, Traffic Operations
(Mobility, Reliability, Accessibility), and certain portions of the Safety and
Environmental area. Although the Mn/DOT has incorporated many types of
measures into their report (e.g., output, outcome, system, and organization),
which may result in some confusion, the State has in place a well-organized
process for identifying a relatively small number of highly focused measures
in multiple performance areas, which should bode well for its strategic
planning and ultimate decision-making efforts.

California

Prior Efforts from California

California’s Performance Measurement initiative was begun in 1998 by the

Business, Transportation, and Housing Agency (BT&H) and led by the
California Department of Transportation to achieve two broad goals:

• develop indicators/measures to assess the performance of California’s

multi-modal transportation system and support informed transportation
decisions by transportation officials, operators, service providers, and
system users; and
632 Compin

• establish a coordinated and cooperative process for consistent performance

measurement in California.[28]

The Current Effort

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

ment support, efforts at implementing a performance measures program at the
California Department of Transportation were recently rekindled. According
to Brian J. Smith, the Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs for the
California Department of Transportation, the current effort, which began in
May 2004, was made in response to recommendations made by an expert
review panel as part of the Performance Improvement Initiative (PII)[29] spon-
sored by Secretary Sunne Wright McPeak of the California Business, Trans-
portation and Housing Agency (BT&H).[30] The team assembled to address
the issue includes public sector stakeholders from state, regional and local
agencies and private sector stakeholders and was established by the BT&H to
renew and build on previous efforts by the Department, The California Trans-
portation Commission, various metropolitan planning organizations, local
operators and private sector interest aimed at creating outcome-related trans-
portation system performance measures.[31]
Although the performance measures team has identified key indicators
for the first six outcome areas listed below, the measures are not yet available.
Currently participants are in the process of identifying specific data sources
and reporting and presentation guidelines.

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

choice and dependability. Reach desired destinations within reasonable
time, cost, choice, dependability and ease.
2. Productivity - Maximize throughput or efficiency (system wide).
3. System Preservation - Preserve the publicly owned transportation system
at a specified state of repair or condition. Physical condition of the system.
4. Safety - Reduce fatalities, injury, and property loss of system users and
workers. Facilitate perception of personal safety.
5. Environmental Quality - Maintain and enhance the quality of the natural
and human environment.
6. Coordinated Transportation and Land Use - Ensure transportation deci-
sions promote and support job/housing proximity.
7. Economic Development - Contribute to California’s economic growth.
8. Return on Investment - Benefit cost analysis or best return on investment
(includes life cycling costing).
9. Equity - No person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin,
be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be
subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal
State DOT Performance Programs 633

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

nic groups. Ensure equitable sharing of benefits. Ensure accessibility for
people with disabilities.

Observations

As with any performance measures program, the success of the new program in
improving strategic planning and informing decision making in California
largely hinges on the careful identification of appropriate performance
measures, their linkages to departmental vision, mission, goals, and objectives
and on the manner in which the program is incorporated into existing processes.

Maryland

The legislative requirements for the monitoring and reporting of perfor-

mance measures were established by the 2000 Joint Chairmen’s Report
and the 2000 Transportation Performance Act (Senate Bill 731).[32],[33]
Senate Bill 731 revised the requirements for the Maryland Transportation
Plan, created a requirement for an Annual Attainment Report on Trans-
portation System Performance, and created a Governor's Advisory
Committee to guide the development of the Annual Attainment Report.
While the bill provides the legal mandate for reporting on performance
measures, the Attainment Report should also be viewed in relationship
to other MDOT documents and programs: the Consolidated Transpor-
tation Program, the Maryland Transportation Plan, and the Managing
for Results Initiative.[34]

The third Annual Attainment Report (2004) presents the performance mea-
sures used by the Maryland Department of Transportation (MDOT), the five
modal administrations (the Maryland Aviation Administration (MAA), the
Maryland Port Administration (MPA), the Maryland Transit Administration
(MTA), the Motor Vehicle Administration (MVA), and the State Highway
Administration (SHA)) and the Maryland Transportation Authority (MdTA)
to evaluate its progress towards attaining the goals and objectives laid out in
the recently revised and updated Maryland Transportation Plan (MTP). The
current Attainment Report is substantially different than the two previous
versions in that the number of goals in the new MTP has been reduced from
ten to four, and the new Attainment Report contains approximately 30 perfor-
mance measures, down from more than 60 in previous years. According to the
Executive Summary of the 2004 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation
System Performance:
634 Compin

Table 5. Analysis of Maryland DOT’s 2004 Annual Attainment Report

Unclear
System Organizational Data Linkage
Goal / Focus Area Output Outcome Measures Measures Only With PM

#1 Efficiency
✔ ✔ ✔
#2 Mobility
✔ ✔ ✔
#3 Safety and Security
✔ ✔ ✔
#4 Productivity and Quality
✔ ✔ ✔ ✔ ✔

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

MDOT’s core mission — to facilitate the safe and efficient movement of
people and goods across all transportation modes.[35]

Observations

Maryland recently began the process of narrowing its performance measures

program to include a small, yet highly focused set of performance measures.
In general the selected measures are system-related outcome measures that
can be applied to determine a great deal about the performance of the State’s
transportation system in a clear and concise manner. The state’s approach is
multi-faceted and comprehensive without being exhaustive at the risk of con-
fusion. The potential is high for the program to be effective in strengthening
strategic planning and informing decision-making.

CONCLUSIONS

This article has examined the role of performance measures programs in link-
ing organizational goals with system outcomes using performance measures.
This process, if conducted carefully and concisely, should have a positive
impact on strategic planning and ultimate decision making. The overarching
motivation for writing this paper is that by carefully analyzing performance
programs and their associated performance measures, practitioners can learn
from others and create or modify performance programs to improve the ways
in which transportation systems are planned for, constructed, and operated.
The main intentions of any public sector performance measures program
are to improve management, accountability and transparency thereby improv-
ing decisions made and thus transportation systems. Performance measures
State DOT Performance Programs 635

can potentially provide insight and understanding to align departmental

visions, missions, and goals with measurable objectives (performance targets).
Following the selection of measurable objectives, performance measures are
crafted and data sources identified. This part of the process, although time
consuming, should be relatively straightforward as it follows a comparatively
well-worn path. The next step in any performance program presents the greatest
challenge and it is at this point where many governmental performance pro-
grams stall and involves the development of a framework for implementing
the program and integrating results into decision-making processes. Whether
programs are large or small, across-the-board integration is the step that few,
if any, state transportation agencies in the United States have taken.
State DOTs are generally reporting on activities for which data is readily
accessible, but which may have limited impact on system performance, or
they are reporting results from an entire suite of measures that tend to lack
cohesion—organizational outcomes and outputs, monitoring of general trends
in service provision and consumption, outcomes over which the departments
have little or no control and little possibility for impact, etc. This “shotgun”
approach is, from a distance, often impressive, especially to those who are less
familiar with performance evaluation, but under moderate scrutiny it is clear
that the potential to positively impact strategic planning and decision-making
in such instances is doubtful. Thus several states that are in the early stages of
creating their performance management programs, identified hundreds, and in
some instances thousands, of measures and data sources are currently striving
to pare down the number of measures included in their programs. Indications
are that in states such as Maryland and California, performance management
specialists are working to identify critical outcome areas and their correspond-
ing performance measures, focusing in on the most important issues in order
to improve strategic planning and decision making.
Many state DOTs are currently falling short of the goals put forth in
mission statements outlined when their performance programs were ini-
tially begun; especially those related to the inclusion of results in decision-
making processes. Why? Analysis included in this paper indicates that
performance measures are most valid, reliable and meaningful in areas
where results from the type of monitoring systems required by ISTEA are
available. This is not to say that selected performance measures in other
areas are, on the whole, invalid, unreliable or meaningless. The insight
provided here is that long-established monitoring programs have been
shaped to hone in on the most important aspects of the areas for which
they were created. Results from monitoring programs are almost univer-
sally included in decision-making processes. If results from performance
monitoring programs are to be included in decision-making efforts, they
too must hone in on the most important aspects of the system. This
involves not only careful selection and specification of individual
measures, but consideration of results from a small set of highly focused
636 Compin

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

tegic planning in transportation.
Great effort, in terms of thought, time, and money, is necessary to create
and implement performance management programs. Inaccurate or poorly
specified performance measures provide little insight into improved strategic
planning or decision making. Consideration of results gained from analysis of
multiple facets of the transportation system is also necessary to improve stra-
tegic planning and decision making. Focus throughout the process, from goal
setting to measure specification to process integration is essential if the way
transportation systems are planned for, constructed and operated are to meet
future challenges.

REFERENCES

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

of Transit Performance, Institute of Transportation Studies ITS Staff
papers. Irvine, CA: University of California, Irvine, 1977, SP-77-1.
2. Fielding, G. J., & Glauthier, R. E., & Lave, C. A. Applying Performance
Indicators in Transit Management. Proceedings of the National Confer-
ence on Transit Performance, Norfolk, Virginia; 1977, pp. 115–121.
3. Fielding, G. J., Glauthier, R. E., & Lave, C. A. Performance Indicators for
Transit Management. Journal of Transportation 1978, 7, 4, 365–379.
4. Weiner, E. Urban transportation planning in the United States: An his-
torical overview. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation;
1997, p. 125.
5. Tyndall, G. R.; Cameron, J.; & Taggart, C. Strategic Planning and
Management Guidelines for Transportation Agencies, National Coopera-
tive Highway Research Program Report 331. Washington, D.C: Trans-
portation Research Board, 1990, p. 140.
6. A guide to metropolitan transportation planning under ISTEA — How the
pieces fit together. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Transportation,
1995.
7. Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act (ISTEA), 1991, Public
Law 102–240, Section 1034.
8. Government Performance and Results Act (GPRA), Public Law 103–62.
Washington, D. C: Executive Office of the President of the United States,
Office of Budget and Management: 1993.
9. National Performance Review. Serving the American public: Best prac-
tices in performance measurement, Benchmarking Study Report. June
1997.
10. National Partnership for Reinventing Government. Balancing measures:
Best practices in performance management, August 1999.
11. National Highway System Designation Act, 1995, Public Law 104–59.
State DOT Performance Programs 637

12. Summary of the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st century, moving
Americans into the 21st century. Washington, D. C.: U.S. Department of
Transportation, 1998.
13. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 1998, Public
Law 105–178, Title 23, Sec. 134.
14. Pickrell, S., & Neumann, L. Use of Performance Measures in Transportation
Decision Making, Conference Proceedings 26, Irvine, CA, Oct. 29–Nov. 1,
2000. Committee for the Conference on Performance Measures to
Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations. Washington,
D.C: National Academy Press, 2001, p. 22.
15. FHWA FY 2003 Performance and Accountability Report, 2003.
16. Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan: s. 339.155,
Florida Statutes.
17. Florida Government Accountability and Performance Act, 1994: Section
216.023(4), Florida Statutes.
18. Florida Government Accountability and Performance Act, 1994: Section
20.055(2)(b), Florida Statutes.
19. Three measures could not be assessed due to insufficient information.
(see OIG Report)
20. Florida Department of Transportation Advisory Memorandum, Office
of the Inspector General, Assignment #04p-0002, September 10,
2003.
21. Short-Range Component of the Florida Transportation Plan: s. 339.155,
Florida Statutes.
22. Florida Department of Transportation Advisory Memorandum, Office of
the Inspector General, Assignment #04p-0002, September 10, 2003.
23. WSDOT Measures, Markers and Mileposts. Washington State Department
of Transportation, 2004.
24. Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century (TEA-21), 1998, Public
Law 105–178, Title 23, Sec. 134.
25. Minnesota Public Transit Participation Program, Rules Chapter 8835;
Statutes Section 174, Minnesota Department of Transportation, Office of
Transit, 1984.
26. State of Minnesota Statewide Transportation Plan, Minnesota Department
of Transportation, Office of Investment Management, 2003.
27. Mn/DOT Measures: Guiding dècisions from planning to program
development. Minncapolis: Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Office of Statewide Planning and Analysis, Office of Investment
Management, 2003.
28. Transportation System Performance Measures: Status and Prototype
Report. California Department of Transportation, October 2000.
29. The PII was in direct response to Governor Schwarzenegger’s California
Performance Review which developed recommendations for the broad
reorganization of government in California.
638 Compin

30. Brian J. Smith, Deputy Director, Planning and Modal Programs for the
California Department of Transportation: excerpt from comments made
at the Transportation Research Board’s Second National Conference on
Performance Measures, August 23rd, 2004, Irvine, CA.
31. Ibid.
32. State of Maryland’s Joint Chairmen’s Report, Report on the State Operat-
ing Budget and State Capital Budget by the chairmen of the Senate Budget
Taxation Committee and the House Committee on Appropriations, 2000.
33. State of Maryland, Transportation Performance Act, Chapter 303, 2000.
34. State of Maryland’s Annual Attainment Report on Transportation System
Performance, Executive Summary: Maryland Department of Transportation,
2004.
35. Ibid.