Measuring System Performance: Key to Establishing Operations as a Core Agency Mission

Abstract

Monitoring transportation system performance, especially the operations of the system, has become an important task for transportation agencies. The importance of monitoring system performance as a strategy for enhancing the operations function of transportation agencies is examined. The reasons for system monitoring are described, with special focus on the importance of system information for customer satisfaction. Examples are provided of state department of transportation and metropolitan planning organization use of performance measures to guide decisions on operations-oriented strategies. It is concluded that by collecting data on system operations and reporting them to decision makers, the importance of system performance compared with other concerns could be increased significantly. Simply defining such measures will not ensure that the institutional willingness exists to emphasize system management and operations as solution strategies. However, the measures can provide important ammunition for those supporting these concepts, and because of public interest in improving traffic flow conditions, as indicated by surveys, they could act as catalysts for developing a supportive public constituency.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

Meyer

Measuring That Which Cannot Be Measured—At Least According to Conventional Wisdom. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 105–125.

Pickrell

, and Neumann

. Use of Performance Measures in Transportation Decision Making. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 17–33.

Kassoff

Agency Implementating Performance Measurement in Transportation Agencies. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 47–58.

Morris

Success in Incorporating M&O Strategies into Regional Transportation Planning: Dallas—Ft. Worth. Presented at Annual Conference of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Atlanta, 2001.

Heminger

Success in Incorporating M&O Strategies into Regional Transportation Planning: The Bay Area. Presented at Annual Conference of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations, Atlanta, 2001.

Poorman

Implementing Performance Measures. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 34–35.

Ekern

D. S.

The Minnesota Experience. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 36–37.

Stuart

Role of Customer Input in Implementing and Using Performance Measures. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 65–66.

10.

Dalton

, Nestler

, Nordbo

, Clair

B. St.

, Wittwer

, and Wolfgram

. Transportation Data and Performance Measurement. In Conference Proceedings 26, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, p. 75–87.

11.

Larson

Direction for Freight Performance Measures. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 143–146.

12.

Hall

, Wakefield

, and Al-Kaisy

. Freeway Quality of Service: What Really Matters to Drivers and Passengers? In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1776, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 17–23.

13.

Small

K. A.

, Noland

, Chu

, and Lewis

. NCHRP Report 431: Valuation of Travel-Time Savings and Predictability in Congested Conditions for Highway User-Cost Estimation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1999.

14.

Cohen

, and Southworth

. On the Measurement and Valuation of Travel-Time Variability Due to Incidents on Freeways. Journal of Transportation and Statistics, Vol. 2, No. 2, 1999.

15.

Moving Ahead: The American Public Speaks on Roadways and Transportation in Communities. FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, 2001.

16.

Florida’s Mobility Performance Measures Program. Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2000.

17.

Wolf

Performance Measurement and Integrated Transportation Management Systems: A Traffic Operations Perspective. California Department of Transportation, Sacramento.

18.

Hatata

From Outputs to Incomes—No Perfect Indicators. In Conference Proceedings 26: Performance Measures to Improve Transportation Systems and Agency Operations, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, p. 126–129.

19.

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. NCHRP Report 446: A Guidebook for Performance-Based Transportation Planning. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001.

20.

Poorman

Performance Measures in Metropolitan Transportation Planning. In Conference Proceedings for Performance Measures for California Transportation System Users and Investors. UCLA Extension Public Policy Program, Los Angeles, 1997.