STRATEGIC GOAL: Safety Details on FHWA Measures of Safety

Highway Fatality Rates

Measure	Rate of highway-related fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT).
Scope	Number of fatalities comes from Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, a census of traffic crashes within the 50 States, D.C. and Puerto Rico. To be included in FARS, a crash must result in the death of an occupant of a vehicle or a non-motorist within 30 days of the crash. FARS data is a census of fatal crashes collected from police crash reports and other State data. FARS data cover all roadways open to the public using the National Highways System classification of roads. Pedestrian and bicycle fatalities that occur on public highways but do not involve a motor vehicle are not recorded in FARS; however, this is a small number of fatalities. VMT data is derived by FHWA from State-reported estimates of travel based on various levels of sampling, dependent on road type.
Source	NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) for fatality data. Information is transmitted to NHTSA and entered into the system after undergoing data review by NHTSA. VMT data is from FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 1.7.
Limitations	FARS data elements are modified slightly from year to year to respond to emphasis areas, vehicle fleet changes and other needs for improvement. VMT data is subject to estimating differences in the States, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences, and differing projections on growth, population, and economic conditions which impact driving behavior.
Verification and Validation	Quarterly improvements are needed to for location information in FARS that permits linkage to highway information for targeting problems and improvement strategies for the highway infrastructure. NHTSA is developing a global positioning system strategy to correct this shortcoming. Data is reviewed and analyzed by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Quality control procedures are built into annual data collection at 6 and 9 months and at the year's end. A 1993 study assessed the accuracy of FARS data reported for incidents occurring in 1989-90. VMT data is reviewed by FHWA for consistency and reasonableness.
Comment	Data has been around many years and is generally accepted for describing safety on the Nation's highways. Adjusting raw highway fatalities and injuries by VMT provides a means of portraying the changes in highway fatalities on a constant exposure basis, which facilitates year-to-year comparisons.

Highway Injury Rates

Measure	Rate of highway-related injuries per 100 million vehicle-miles-traveled (VMT)
Scope	Injury data is derived from NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES), a nationally representative probability sample that makes national estimates from State-supplied data on total non-fatal injury crashes, injured persons, and property-damage-only crashes. GES data cover all roadways open to the public using the National Highways System classification of roads. VMT data is derived by FHWA from State-reported estimates of travel based on various levels of sampling, dependent on road type.
Source	GES for injuries. VMT is from FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Baseline	1996 baseline is 141.
Limitations	GES uses data obtained from a nationally representative sample of 60 sites. The results provide only national data, not State-level data. VMT data is subject to estimating differences in the States, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences, and differing projections on growth, population, and economic conditions which impact driving behavior.
Verification and Validation	Data is reviewed and analyzed by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Quality control procedures are built into annual data collection at 6 and 9 months and at the year's end. VMT data is reviewed by FHWA for consistency and reasonableness.
Comment	Although various sources suggest that about half the motor vehicle crashes in the country are not reported to the police, the majority of these unreported crashes involve only minor property damage and no significant personal injury. By restricting data to police-reported crashes, the GES concentrates on those crashes of greatest concern to the highway safety community and the general public. Data has been around many years and is generally accepted for describing safety on the Nation's highways. GES records injury severity in four classes: incapacitating injury, evident injury but not incapacitating, possible but not visible injury, and injury of unknown severity. Adjusting raw highway injuries by VMT provides a means of portraying the changes in highway injuries on a constant exposure basis, which facilitates year-to-year comparisons.

Highway Safety within Federal Lands Management Areas

Measure	The number of Federal Land Management Agencies that are developing interagency highway safety agreements.*
Scope	The purpose of interagency highway safety agreements is to establish the general framework for cooperatively developing and implementing a highway safety program that will reduce the number of traffic accidents and fatalities, injuries and property damage on or near the Federally managed lands.
Source	The Federal Lands Highway Headquarters office receives executed agreements.
Baseline	Baseline is being developed.
Limitations	The Federal Lands Highway Headquarters office has no statute authority to require the agencies to sign the agreements.
Verification and Validation	None required.
Comment	* The highway safety agreements consist of Memoranda of Understanding (MOU) between FLH and Federal land management agencies (BIA, Park Service, Forest Service, and Fish & Wildlife) which stress the importance of safety in everything associated with transportation on or near Federal land. The MOU's outline the safety goals and objectives and pave the way for a smoother transition into safety management systems, which outline the "how to's" to achieve the safety goals.

Highway Safety within Federal Lands Management Areas

Measure	The number of Federal Land Management Agencies that are developing highway safety management systems (SMS).*
Scope	An SMS is a systematic process designed to assist decision makers in selecting cost effective strategies and actions to improve the efficiency and safety of, and protect the investment in, the nation's transportation infrastructure. It includes data collection and analysis, a determination of safety needs, and the implementation of safety strategies and actions to address the needs.
Source	Federal land management agencies will provide safety information to the Federal lands highway headquarters office.
Baseline	Baseline is being developed.
Limitations	Variations in sophistication of systems and quality of data input by the Federal land management agencies may affect results. The development of SMS is contingent on issuing regulations on SMS during FY 2000.
Verification and Validation	Quality assurance and quality control measures will be developed and implemented.
Comment	* The SMS is a comprehensive approach to safety which specifies actions to achieve safety goals and objectives. It will include recommendations to identify the number and location of traffic accidents and fatalities, injuries and property damage on or near the Federally managed lands. When this data becomes available, FLH will propose a new and better measure (with targets) to reduce each category and thereby increase safety.

Number and Rate of Fatalities in Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Large Trucks

Measure	Number and rate of fatalities per 100 million truck vehicle-miles-traveled (Truck VMT)
Scope	The measure includes all fatalities (passenger car, motorcycle, pedestrian, etc.) associated with crashes involving trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. Number of fatalities come from Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 states, D.C. and Puerto Rico. Truck VMT data are derived by FHWA from state-reported estimates of truck travel based on various levels of sampling dependent on road type.
Source	NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) provides fatality data. FHWA's Truck VMT data is provided by the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Baseline	Number baseline is 5,126 in 1996. Rate baseline is baseline is 2.8 per 100 million truck VMT.
Limitations	FARS data elements are modified from year to year to respond to emphasis areas, vehicle fleet changes, and other needs for improvement. Truck VMT data are subject to estimating differences in the states, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences. This measure is normalized to Truck VMT in order to assist program managers in assessing truck safety. It does not provide a measure of the risk exposure faced by passenger cars. It cannot be compared to the overall highway fatality rate, which is normalized to all highway VMT.
Verification and Validation	Data is reviewed and analyzed by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Quality control procedures are built into annual data collection at 6 and 9 months, and at the year's end. A study was completed in 1993, looking at samples of FARS cases in 1989-90 to assess the accuracy of data being reported. Truck VMT data is reviewed by FHWA for consistency and reasonableness.
Comment	Data has been around many years and is generally accepted for describing truck safety on the Nation's highways. Adjusting raw truck-related highway fatalities by Truck VMT provides a means of portraying the changes in highway fatalities on a constant exposure basis to facilitate comparisons year-to-year.

Number and Rate of Injuries in Motor Vehicle Crashes Involving Large Trucks

Measure	Number and rate of injuries per 100 million truck vehicle-miles-traveled (Truck VMT)
Scope	The measure includes all injuries (passenger car, motorcycle, pedestrian, etc.) associated with crashes involving trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating of 10,000 pounds or more. Injury data is derived from General Estimates System (GES). Truck VMT data is derived by FHWA from state reported estimates of truck travel based on various levels of sampling dependent on road type.
Source	NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) provides injury data. FHWA's Truck VMT data are provided by the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Baseline	Number baseline is 130,000 in 1996. Rate baseline is 71.2 per 100 million truck VMT.
Limitations	GES uses data obtained from a nationally representative sample of 60 sites. The results provide only national data, not state by state data. Truck VMT data are subject to estimating differences in the states, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences. This measure is normalized to Truck VMT in order to assist program managers in assessing truck safety. It does not provide a measure of the risk exposure faced by passenger cars. It can not be compared to the overall highway injury rate, which is normalized to all highway VMT.
Verification and Validation	Data reviewed and analyzed by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Quality control procedures are built into annual data collection at 6 and 9 months, and at the year's end. Truck VMT data is reviewed by FHWA for consistency and reasonableness.
Comment	Although various sources suggest that about half the motor vehicle crashes in the country are not reported to the police, the majority of these unreported crashes involve only minor property damage and no significant personal injury. By restricting data to police-reported crashes, the GES concentrates on those crashes of greatest concern to the highway safety community and the general public. Data has been around many years and is generally accepted for describing safety on the Nation's highways. GES records injury severity in four classes: incapacitating injury, evident injury but not incapacitating, possible but not visible injury, and injury of unknown severity. Adjusting raw highway injuries by VMT provides a means of portraying the changes in highway injuries on a constant exposure basis, which facilitates year-to-year comparisons.

Number and Rate of Injury Crashes Involving Large Trucks

Measure	The number and rate of injury crashes involving large trucks.
Scope	Injury data is derived from General Estimates System (GES). Truck VMT data is derived by FHWA from state reported estimates of truck travel based on various levels of sampling dependent on road type.
Source	NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES) provides injury data. FHWA's Truck VMT data are provided by the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Baseline	Number baseline is 89,000 in 1996. Rate baseline is 48.6 per 100 million VMT.
>Limitations	GES data is obtained from a nationally representative sample of 60 sites. The results provide only national data, not state by state data. Truck VMT data are subject to estimating differences in the states, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences. This measure is normalized to Truck VMT in order to assist program managers in assessing truck safety. It does not provide a measure of the risk exposure faced by passenger cars. It can not be compared to the overall highway injury rate, which is normalized to all highway VMT.
Verification and Validation	Data reviewed and analyzed by NHTSA's National Center for Statistics and Analysis. Quality control procedures are built into annual data collection at 6 and 9 months, and at the year's end. Truck VMT data is reviewed by FHWA for consistency and reasonableness.
Comment	Although various sources suggest that about half the motor vehicle crashes in the country are not reported to the police, the majority of these unreported crashes involve only minor property damage and no significant personal injury. By restricting data to police-reported crashes, the GES concentrates on those crashes of greatest concern to the highway safety community and the general public. Data has been around many years and is generally accepted for describing safety on the Nation's highways. GES records injury severity in four classes: incapacitating injury, evident injury but not incapacitating, possible but not visible injury, and injury of unknown severity. Adjusting raw highway injuries by VMT provides a means of portraying the changes in highway injuries on a constant exposure basis, which facilitates year-to-year comparisons.

STRATEGIC GOAL: Mobility Details on FHWA Measures of Mobility

NHS Pavement Condition

Measure	Percent of kilometers (miles) on the National Highway System (NHS) that meet pavement performance standards for acceptable ride quality (International Roughness Index less than or equal to 2.68 m/km (170 in/mi)).
Scope	IRI are collected on every section of the NHS in each State.
Source	Data collected by the State Highway Agencies and reported to FHWA for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). They are obtained from calibrated measurement devices that meet industry-set standards. Measurement procedures are included in the HPMS Field Manual.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 90.4%
Limitations	IRI data for the approved NHS exist from 1995 onward. Past data (1993 and 1994) contain some variation, as this data was on the proposed, rather than existing, NHS. No NHS IRI data are available prior to 1993. IRI is compiled annually for every section of the NHS, using data reported from the States.
Verification and Validation	FHWA validates the data based on consistency reviews. FHWA field offices perform annual reviews of the IRI process, including equipment and calibration checks.
Comment	None

NHS Bridge Condition

Measure	Percent deficient (structurally deficient or functionally obsolete) bridges on the National Highway System (NHS).
Scope	Measure includes the number of deficient (structurally deficient and functionally obsolete) bridges on the NHS functional system divided by the total number of NHS bridges in the inventory, expressed as a percent.
Source	Bridge information is collected by State DOTs and other bridge owners and provided to FHWA annually for inclusion in the FHWA-maintained National Bridge Inventory (NBI). NBI includes information on 582,750 bridges , including all 128,508 NHS bridges.
Baseline	The 1997 baseline is 23.4%
Limitations	Data is available from 1993 onward. The system contains 95 data items for each of the bridges, and 20 of these items relate to bridge condition and appraisal. There are specific instructions as to how to assess bridges based on these items, including a grading scale from 0 to 9 with specific definitions and specific criteria to follow. This serves to reduce assessment subjectivity to a negligible level.
Verification and Validation	FHWA evaluates accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI information through data checks and field reviews by both Headquarter and field office personnel. This is done as a part of FHWA's NBI, the National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS), and Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Evaluation of the State's compliance with the NBIS most often includes a sample of bridge inspection reports and a comparison of condition data with field visits to the bridge site. In addition, there is an edit update program that identifies potential data errors in the NBIS.
Comment	None.

Bridge Condition

Measure	Percent deficient (structurally deficient or functionally obsolete) bridges on all roads.
Scope	Measure includes the number of deficient (structurally deficient and functionally obsolete) bridges divided by the total number of bridges in the inventory, expressed as a percent.
Source	Bridge information is collected by State DOTs and other bridge owners and provided to FHWA annually for inclusion in the FHWA-maintained National Bridge Inventory (NBI). NBI includes information on 582,750 bridges , including all 128,508 NHS bridges.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 31.4 percent.
Limitations	Data is available from 1993 onward. The system contains 95 data items for each of the bridges, and 20 of these items relate to bridge condition and appraisal. There are specific instructions as to how to assess bridges based on these items, including a grading scale from 0 to 9 with specific definitions and specific criteria to follow. This serves to reduce assessment subjectivity to a negligible level.
Verification and Validation	FHWA evaluates accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI information through data checks and field reviews by both Headquarter and field office personnel. This is done as a part of FHWA's NBI, the National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS), and Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program. Evaluation of the State's compliance with the NBIS most often includes a sample of bridge inspection reports and a comparison of condition data with field visits to the bridge site. In addition, there is an edit update program that identifies potential data errors in the NBIS.
Comment	None.

User Satisfaction with the Nation's Highway System

Measure	Percent user satisfaction with the Nation's highway systems.
Scope	A national sample of households.
Source	National Personal Transportation Survey (NPTS).
Baseline	TBD
Limitations	Most current data is for 1995. Current plan is to field test next survey in 1999. Proposed as annual with continuous data reporting.
Verification and Validation	N/A
Comment	N/A

Highway Congestion

Measure	Hours of delay/1610 vehicle kilometers (1000 vehicle miles) traveled.
Scope	Delay is calculated as the difference between estimated actual travel speed and free flow travel speed that could be attained if there were no other traffic. Delay includes weekday and weekend travel combined. Weighted design speed is used to represent free flow speed; travel speed is estimated from equations that relate free flow speed, traffic volume, and capacity. On other than freeways, delay also includes the delay due to traffic control devices, traffic lights and stop signs. Delay in hours per 1000 VMT is calculated on an individual section basis using the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) data and summed to represent an annual average delay for all Federal-aid highways.
Source	Data collected and provided by the State departments of transportation from existing State or local government databases or transportation plans and programs, including those of Metropolitan Planning Organizations.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 9.2 hours of delay per 1610 VKT (1,000 VMT)
Limitations	The delay calculation is a modeled estimate based on traffic volume and capacity values such as number of through lanes, lane width, type of terrain, and at-grade intersections. Minor lengths of Federal-aid highways on the lowest functional systems are not included in this analysis. Although nearly all States' data are included in the trend estimates, they do not include all States for all years. The estimate understates delay since it does not include delay due to incidents, crashes, etc. The estimate includes delay caused by traffic control devices since they reduce operating speed below what would otherwise be the free flow speed.
Verification and Validation	State-reported HPMS data are reviewed by FHWA for completeness, consistency, and adherence to reporting guidelines. Where necessary, and with close State cooperation, data may be adjusted to improve completeness, consistency, and uniformity.
Comment	Nine hours of delay per 1,000 VMT could be equated to approximately 11 minutes of delay on 50 20-mile commuter trips in an urbanized area. In this example, the 11 minutes of delay easily could be the difference between the time it would take to travel the 20 miles at the posted speed with no stops and the time it would actually take during the height of the rush hour.

NHS Intermodal Connections

Measure	Measure and target are being developed. In 1998, FHWA initiated a major study to complete an inventory and evaluation of the condition of the NHS intermodal connections as part of a larger effort to prepare a report to Congress required by TEA-21.
Scope	N/A
Source	N/A
Baseline	N/A
Limitations	N/A
Verification and Validation	N/A
Comment	FHWA is deciding how best to establish targets and collect periodic data.

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of miles of Forest Highway (FH) roads (paved only) in Good, Fair, and Poor condition
Scope	This has not yet been determined for FH. However, it will probably result in a number based on IRI (International Roughness Index) and converted to G, F, and P. We anticipate that much of the data will be obtained from the States' databases, since the States are required to collect this data for their PMS. We should rely on each State to determine the G, F, and P splits, since each State's data collection system is different and the GFP designation seems to be ultimately subjective, but fairly repeatable. FH routes not on the State system could be collected by contract with the States or by the FS and/or FLH Divisions using their own chosen method.
Source	Combination of manual, visual, and electronic inspection devices such as GPS, GIS and electronic data inputs. The data is collected by the States, FLH, and/or U.S. Forest Service and compiled in the Forest Highway Road Inventory.
Baseline	1996 baselines are G=20%, F=60%, P=20%.
Limitations	Some States, such as California, have large off-State system mileages. It would require a large data collection effort by FLH, FS, or contract with the State DOT or private firm. Not all States have comparable databases.
Verification and Validation	Data is not validated by FLH Divisions. States' data is acceptable for HPMS. Each State has a test track which can be used by FLHD to test or calibrate its RIP vehicle.
Comment	While the designation of G, F, and P may be somewhat subjective, it is recommended that the data collection method not be restricted to any one method.

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of Forest Highway (FH) bridges not deficient
Scope	Measure includes the number of deficient (structurally deficient and functionally obsolete) bridges divided by the total number of bridges in the inventory, expressed as a percent.
Source	States collect their own data through biennial bridge inspections following NBI standards. Manual, visual and electronic devices such as GPS, GIS, and electronic data inputs are used during inspections.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 52 percent.
Limitations	Measure is of bridges with lengths greater than 20 feet (6.1 meters). Bridges less than 20 feet are not included in the inventory. In addition, not all bridges in the FH network have been identified.
Verification and Validation	FLHD does not verify. Relies on NBIS, which mandates reinspection every two years.
Comment	Bridges are generally not in a very high category for use of FH funds. The States usually take care of them through their bridge program.

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of miles of Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) in Good, Fair, and Poor condition
Scope	There are industry accepted methods used to measure the condition of the road which corresponds to a range of conditions from "Good" to "Poor." Data are collected to ascertain the condition of PRP roads for the purpose of distribution of funds based on relative need and to maximize the overall condition of the entire National Park Service roadway network.
Source	Data is collected continually by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions.
Baseline	1996 baselines are: G=38%, F=22%, P=40%
Limitations	Approximately 85% of the paved roads are condition surveyed and included in the database. No unpaved roads are included in the database.
Verification and Validation	Quality assurance and quality control measures have been developed and are in use by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions. The roadway analysis equipment is calibrated on a periodic basis.
Comment

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of Park Roads and Parkways (PRP) bridges not deficient
Scope	By law PRP bridges are inspected every 2 years, and the data are used as input to the NBI (National Bridge Inventory).
Source	Data is collected by the Federal Lands Highway Divisions.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 95 percent.
Limitations	Measure is of bridges with lengths greater than 20 feet (6.1 meters). Bridges less than 20 feet are not included in the inventory.
Verification and Validation	A bridge inspection team leader position was established in the Eastern Federal Lands Highway Division to perform process reviews and perform spot checking using quality assurance and quality control procedures. Bridge inspection personnel have been trained in the nationally accepted bridge inspector training course.
Comment	None.

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of miles of the Indian Reservation Roads under the jurisdiction of the Bureau of Indian Affairs (BIA) public roads (BIA paved roads only) in Good, Fair, and Poor condition
Scope	Data is collected to ascertain the condition of IRR and used to identify IRR needs for Federally recognized Tribes and Alaskan Native villages. There are nationally accepted methods (assigning values of 0--5) used to indicate the road condition which corresponds to a range of conditions from "Good" to "Poor." Data is collected to ascertain the condition of IRR roads for the purpose of distribution of funds based on relative need.
Source	Data is collected annually by the BIA/DOT Area offices and Indian tribal governments.
Baseline	None, until the inventory is validated.
Limitations	Since there is some subjective interpretation of the road conditions, there may be consistency issues among the area offices and tribes.
Verification and Validation	BIA/DOT performs quality and spot checks on inventory route data utilizing A/E contractor plus QA/QC with BIA/DOT personnel.
Comment	Under section 1115 of TEA-21 the Tribes are involved with the decision making process via negotiated rulemaking for a new fund allocation formula for the distribution of the IRR Program funds. This change could impact the current performance standard.

Quality and Condition of Federal Lands Management Agencies' Roads and Bridges

Measure	Percentage of BIA-owned IRR bridges not deficient.
Scope	By law BIA bridges are inspected every 2 years, and the data are used as input to the NBI (National Bridge Inventory).
Source	Bridge inspections are conducted by BIA and sent to NBI by April of each year.
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 87 percent.
Limitations	As specified bridges are being repaired (may take as long as 3 years), other bridges continue to deteriorate.
Verification and Validation	The Federal Lands Highway Office conducts periodic bridge process reviews to examine the BIA bridge inspection program. BIA/DOT area offices conduct QA/QC reviews of inspection data.
Comment	For the purposes of equitable fund allocation, there is a need to establish a separate category for non-BIA owned IRR bridges.

Condition of Unpaved Roads on Indian Reservations

Measure	Percentage of BIA unpaved roads constructed to a standard.
Scope	There are 24 adequacy standards defined in the BIA/DOT's roads inventory needs study handbook which defines how unpaved roads are evaluated.
Source	Data is collected by the BIA Area/Agency offices and Indian tribal governments.
Baseline	None, until the inventory is validated.
Limitations	Since there is some subjective interpretation of the road conditions, there may be consistency issues among the area offices and tribes.
Verification and Validation	Spot checks using QA/QC (quality assurance/quality control) procedures are performed by BIA and engineering firms.
Comment	Under section 1115 of TEA-21, the tribes are involved with the decision making process for a new formula/procedure for distribution of the IRR program funds. This could impact the performance standard.

STRATEGIC GOAL: Productivity Details on FHWA Measures of Productivity

Cost of Highway Freight

Measure	Cost of highway freight per ton-mile (ton-kilometer)
Scope	TBD
Source	TBD
Baseline	TBD
Limitations	Carriers are reluctant to provide data on freight transportation that might unintentionally assist competitors. Further development of this indicator will requirement significant research funding.
Verification and Validation	TBD
Comment	TBD

Hours of Delay at NHS Border Crossings

Measure	Hours of delay per 1,000 vehicles processed at National Highway System (NHS) border crossings.
Scope	To Be Determined.
B>Source	To Be Determined.
Baseline	To Be Determined.
Limitations	Insufficient infrastructure contributes to congestion at NHS border crossings, but it is not the sole factor. Inspection agencies require that many vehicles undergo lengthy, thorough examinations, while inadequate paperwork accompanying cross-border shipments contributes to congestion at many border stations. The Federal Highway Administration may reduce delay at border crossings through infrastructure improvements, but heavy congestion may not be eliminated without binational changes in cargo clearance and inspection procedures.
Verification and Validation	To Be Determined.
Comment

Life Cycle Costs

Measure	(1) Number of states with Superpave binder implementation plans and (2) Number of states with Superpave mix implementation plans.
Scope	Since 1996, the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) has developed an SHRP Lead States Program to reduce the technology learning curve for new construction materials and engineering techniques. One of seven "core technology" areas for the implementation of SHRP innovative products, Superpave involves improving the performance of flexible pavements through better understanding of the physical properties of asphalt binders and mixes. Lead states for Superpave technology, with New York as team leader, include Florida, Indiana, Maryland, Texas, and Utah. Each lead state provides technical assistance to up to eleven "partnering" states. Superpave and FHWA-supported research efforts have reduced the common causes of pavement failure: aging, low-temperature cracking, structural fatigue, moisture sensitivity, and adhesion failure.
Source	AASHTO Task Force on SHRP Implementation.
Baseline	The 1998 baseline for the number of states with Superpave binder implementation plans is 37. The 1998 baseline for the number of states with Superpave mix implementation plans is 47.
Limitations	None identified.
Verification and Validation	Data is reviewed by the Federal Highway Administration's Office of Engineering.
Comment	The AASHTO SHRP Lead States Program provides benchmarks for the national implementation of high-performance products. New materials and practices reduce the physical deterioration of the Federal-aid highway system. The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is working to quantify these improvements in economic terms by identifying lowered costs over the life of an infrastructure improvement. Until this research can be refined, participation in the Superpave national implementation program provides an appropriate indicator of progress in executing high-performance materials.

Highway Investments on Federal Lands

Measure	Percentage of funds obligated for construction.
Scope	TBD
Source	TBD
Baseline	The 1999 target/baseline is 66%.
Limitations	TBD
Verification and Validation	TBD
Comment

STRATEGIC GOAL: Human and Natural Environment Details on FHWA Measures on the Environment

Environmental Impact Statements

Measure	The percentage of Environmental Impact Statements (EIS's) with an Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) rating of Lack of Objection (LO)
Scope	EPA rates EISs according to the acceptability of the environmental impacts and the adequacy of the EIS document. Acceptability is denoted by a letter rating of LO (Lack of Objection), EC (Environmental Concern), EO (Environmental Objections), and EU (Environmentally Unacceptable).
Source	FHWA Database of EPA EIS Ratings. EPA's Office of Federal Activities compiles data from EPA regional office comment letters.
Baseline	1988 to 1998 average of 22 percent.
Limitations	N/A
Verification and Validation	N/A
Comment	Work on a direct survey of public satisfaction will begin soon.

On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

Measure	On-Road mobile source emissions in short tons.
Scope	Figure is the sum of on-road mobile source emissions of ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter (PM-10).
Source	National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report published annually by EPA. (EPA uses data from FHWA's Highway Performance Monitoring System – HPMS.)
Baseline	The 1996 baseline is 65.9 million short tons.
Limitations	Pollutant data is measured directly, but on-road mobile source component is modeled using vehicle data. Past data contains some variations due to changes in how the mobile source portion of pollutants are estimated. Emissions data are reported in a 2-year time lag. Indicator captures all major mobile source emissions from on-road vehicles. It does not capture off-road mobile sources, such as agriculture and construction machinery, lawn mowers, aircraft, trains, and boats.
Verification and Validation	EPA conducts verification and validation of data. FHWA field offices perform annual reviews of HPMS data that EPA uses as a part of its model.
Comment	Revised National Ambient Air Quality Standards will begin to phase in during FY 2000, so goal may need to be modified.

On-Road Mobile Source Emissions

Measure	Percent of non-attainment and maintenance areas meeting their on-road mobile source emissions budget goals by pollutant.
Scope	Each region/division is requested to report the number of nonattainment and maintenance areas that meet their mobile source emissions budget by pollutant
Source	Original data collection.
Baseline	The 1996 baselines by pollutant are: 96.7% for ozone, 92.6% for carbon monoxide, and 68.2% for particulate matter.
Limitations	Data is unavailable prior to 1996.
Verification and Validation	None.
Comment	The data collected reflect only a snapshot status of the nonattainment and maintenance area. When an area does not meet the air quality standard for one of the criteria pollutants, it may be subject to the formal rule-making process which designates it "non-attainment." The Clean Air Act Amendments (CAAA) of 1990 further classify ozone (O3), carbon monoxide (CO) and some particulate matter (PM-10) non-attainment areas based on the magnitude of the area's problem. Non-attainment classifications may be used to specify what air pollution reduction measures an area must adopt and when the area must reach attainment.

Wetland Replacement

Measure	Ratio of Wetland replacement resulting from Federal-aid highway projects
Scope	Measure includes wetlands associated with all Federal-aid highway projects each fiscal year. To be included, wetland replacement (or investment in a wetland bank) must have begun.
Source	State DOTs input Federal-aid related wetland degradation and replacement data into either a locally developed wetland mitigation databases or the FHWA Wetlands Management Database. FHWA compiles the final data.
Baseline	The goal is a performance standard and is not based on a specific, historical baseline year. For reference, the FY 1996 recovery ratio was 2.3:1.
Limitations	Data only exists on Federal-aid related wetland replacement. Also, uniformity of the data is not guaranteed, as it is subject to interpretation by the reporting State DOTs. In particular, there is no uniform understanding of what should be reported as mitigation acreage. The FHWA has provided guidance on mitigation activities to report and will soon issue the Wetlands Management Database that should reduce the current variations in data received from the States. Data on wetland replacement is available for the past three fiscal years.
Verification and Validation	Data is gathered from established mitigation amounts required by section 404 permits that states must acquire for their projects. In addition, FHWA provides guidance to help states consistently report mitigation data. This process will be further improved through a standard mitigation database under development for the states. At present, there is no external audit of state data.
Comment	All Federal agencies (including DOT, FHWA, and other modes) must comply with (National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Clean Water Act (specifically section 404(b)(1) of the CWA) regarding disruption of wetlands. These laws require agencies to identify project alternatives that would avoid or minimize impacts to wetlands as a first consideration. These alternatives are subjected to analysis under both NEPA and the Clean Water Act. Under the law, these alternatives must be chosen unless the project sponsors clearly demonstrate that they are not viable because they do not meet the project purpose and need or will lead to other more significant environmental impacts. If, in compliance with the law, wetland disruption is unavoidable, FHWA then works to achieve this goal of wetland replacement.

Federal Lands Wetland Replacement

Measure	Ratio of Wetland replacement resulting from Federal Lands highway projects
Scope	Measure includes wetlands associated with all Federal Lands highway projects each fiscal year. To be included, wetland replacement (or investment in a wetland bank) must have begun.
Source	TBD
Baseline	TBD
Limitations	Many of the Federal Land Highway Projects are in arid areas. The creation of new effective wetlands in these areas is a challenge to construct.
Verification and Validation	TBD
Comment	None.

STRATEGIC GOAL: National Security Details on FHWA Measures of National Security

Satisfaction of DOD Partners

Measure	Percent of Military Traffic Management Command Coordination Action Plan activities completed.
Scope	Progress made in implementing the MTMC Coordination Action Plan.
Source	Report prepared jointly by FHWA and the Military Traffic Management Command (MTMC).
Baseline	N/A
Limitations	N/A
Verification and Validation	N/A
Comment	Action Plan first developed in 1998. First report to be published in late 1999.

The Government Performance and Results Act requires agencies to develop a schedule of program evaluations for inclusion in their strategic plans. Program evaluation uses analytic techniques to assess the extent to which our programs are contributing to outcomes and trends. The FHWA schedule was included in our 1998 Strategic Plan. This appendix provides a more complete list of program evaluations and the estimated year of completion.

	Safety, Mobility, Productivity, Environment, National Security
Program Evaluation	S	M	P	E	N	Methodology	Scope	Estimated Completion Date
Pavement Condition Benefits		X	X			Combination	Evaluation of the impact of pavement condition on road user savings	2001
Border Crossing Efficiency		X	X			Longitudinal	Evaluation of the Border Crossing initiatives to assess their impact on crossing efficiency	2001
Intermodal Connector Improvements		X	X			Combination	Evaluation of the impact of selected intermodal connector improvements, such as the Alameda Corridor	2002
Life cycle Costs of Selected Technologies			X			Longitudinal	Evaluation of the impact on life-cycle cost of selected highway technologies	2001
Selected Safety Initiatives	X					Combination	Evaluation of highway safety improvement programs, including benefit-cost	2001
Innovative Finance			X			Longitudinal	Evaluation (and assessment) of leveraging effects and other benefits/impacts of selected innovative finance techniques, particularly TEA-21 loan programs	2001
Safety and Capacity Benefits of selected ITS Technologies	X					Combination	Series of evaluations of the impact and benefits of ITS operations on 1) Safety, and 2) Capacity	1999