Strategic Goal: Continuously improve the economic efficiency of the Nation's transportation system to enhance America's position in the global economy.

Strategic Objective: Improve the economic efficiency of highway transportation

Performance Goal: Slow the growth of travel time.

The timely movement of goods is a key driver in the U.S. economy, and a key element in the overall competitiveness of the United States in the global economy. As sites of manufacturing become globally mobile, and as national economies begin to merge into a world market, we recognized the need to focus on the adequacy of our system to meet these demands and the need to consciously examine how we could make using the highway system more productive for shippers and carriers in an ever more competitive market.

The Traveler Delay measure identifies the average number of hours drivers are hampered by traffic congestion per year. The hours of delay reflect congestion, incidents, and accidents. In 1999, the average urban traveler experienced 32 hours of delay. In 2001, without intervention, this would be expected to increase to 34 hours, assuming an additional one hour per year. The Department's goal is to limit the growth of delay by at least 30 minutes, resulting in the average hours of delay experienced by urban travelers being no more than 33.5 hours in 2001.

Understanding the Table:

The Travel Time Measure addresses the following question - "How much longer does it take me to travel during congested conditions?" The measure focuses on the additional travel time that is necessary for an individual to make a trip during the peak period(s) because of congestion. For instance, the 1996 figure of 23% indicates the average peak period trip took 23% longer than the same trip in uncongested conditions. Put simply, a 30-minute trip traveling at the posted speed limit(s) in uncongested conditions becomes 36.9 minutes due to congestion. The figures apply to peak period travel within approximately 400 urban areas. Our goal is to slow the growth of travel time by 0.4% each year.

Definitions:

1. Peak Periods: Monday through Friday morning and evening rush hours when slow speeds (below posted speed limit(s)) are more likely to occur. The length of peak periods varies, e.g., large urban areas are typically longer. The graph accounts for these variations.

2. Urban Areas: Developed area with a density of greater than 1000 persons per square mile.

Performance Goal: Reduce the cost of highway freight per ton-mile.

The FHWA Office of Policy Development convened a workshop of data experts, economists, and agency representatives to determine appropriate performance measurements for the "productivity" element of the FHWA Performance Plan. This indicator was ranked first by the workshop participants.

Performance Measure/Target
Cost of highway freight per ton-mile

The following interim steps will be taken in FY 2001 to develop the performance measure "Cost of highway freight per ton-mile" In October 2000, we will have an initial subset of motor carriers to report trends and changes in expenses on ton-mile movements over time. Results will be vetted with partners and customers by the 3rd quarter of FY 2001. Actual or surrogate measure and targets will be tested in FY 2001.

The Federal Highway Administration is still identifying appropriate measurements of the agency's contributions to economic efficiency. Data requirements are particularly problematic, since some data may not be readily available and there are confidentiality issues that might hinder FHWA's awareness of how congestion impacts business costs for firms. Carriers are reluctant to provide data on freight transportation that might unintentionally assist competitors.

Strategies: The three primary strategies underlying the 2001 budget proposal that form the framework for the associated performance initiatives to improve freight mobility and productivity are to:

• Conduct analyses necessary to develop a cohesive set of long term freight improvement strategies.

• Continue to nurture multi-state freight/trade institutional partnerships to leverage public and private investments in freight related infrastructure and intermodal operations improvements.

• Develop and test key elements of ITS technology to provide a long range foundation for interoperable information and communication infrastructure among private goods movement companies and the public agencies that provide the highway and intermodal infrastructure. Providing interoperable end-to-end traceability has the potential of cutting hours, even days, off transit time. This strategy also supports the performance goal of reducing highway-related delays on NHS border crossings.

Performance Goal: Reduce highway-related delays on NHS border crossings.

In FY 2000, FHWA initiated a study to develop, test, and collect border crossing data at 4 locations along the Canadian and Mexican borders. This project has been collecting bi- directional information on the transit times required for commercial vehicles to cross at these four facilities. Early in FY 2001, the data from these first four locations will serve as a surrogate measure regarding the efficiency of cross border operations. In FY 2001, we will begin collecting data from additional sites and may also begin automated data collection at some sites. Also in FY 2001, we will work in partnership with the Federal inspection services to test border simulation software that will estimate the results of potential changes in the physical design or operating practices at, and approaching, international ports of entry.

Performance Measure/Target
Hours of delay per 1000 commercial vehicles processed at 4 NHS border crossing pilot sites.

The following interim steps will be taken in FY 2001 to develop the performance measure "Hours of delay per 1000 vehicles processed at 4 NHS border crossing pilot sites." Identify surrogate measures by end of 1st quarter FY 2001. Vet measure(s) with partners and stakeholders in 2nd quarter of FY 2001. Finalize measure(s) and present to Management Council by December 2001.

Strategies: Invest in corridor and border improvements for direct improvements in productivity and reductions in delay at border crossings. FHWA will work closely with FY 1999 grant recipients and future applicants to ensure that prior investments in border improvements are leveraged, that Customs and other Federal Inspection Services are involved in the border improvement process, that ITS and related operational technologies are fully considered as instruments of border improvements, and that FHWA takes a leadership role with other Federal agencies to ensure that cross border initiatives are complementary and coordinated.

Strategic Objective: Improve the return on investment of the highway system.

Performance Goal: Improve the efficiency of highway infrastructure investments, by developing and promoting the use of engineering/economic analysis tools for decision making.

Engineering/economic analysis tools, including Life Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) and benefit- cost analysis (BCA), can be used to improve the efficiency of highway investment decisions, since they provide guidance for decision makers on the economic benefits and costs from alternative highway investment options. Such information is valuable because it reveals investments where the economic returns are greatest, and allows decision makers to achieve a performance goal at the lowest cost. This maximizes the efficiency of the taxpayers' highway investment dollars, and saves motorists money as a result of less vehicle wear and tear and reduced congestion-related costs. Although a considerable number of states currently use such tools as LCCA and BCA in some capacity, there is much diversity in application, and most states do not consider the full range of costs and benefits when conducting these analyses. For instance, only one-quarter of the states which use LCCA include user costs, even though user costs (e.g., travel delay, vehicle operating costs, and accidents) can be a significant portion of the total impacts associated with alternative highway project decisions.

Performance Measure/Target
Develop and promote use of engineering/economic analysis tools

Reasons for the lack of comprehensive use of engineering/economic investment tools such as LCCA and BCA by states include limited research budgets, a lack of in-house expertise, and a lack of data and tools designed specifically for comprehensive LCCA at the project and program levels.

Strategies: FHWA is providing assistance to states in two ways. First, a pilot program is being initiated to introduce states to the HERS Model, an investment analysis tool which provides state-level decision makers the ability to evaluate the effect of alternative investment programs and policies on the condition, performance, and user and agency cost levels associated with their highway systems. Additionally, FHWA plans to develop a model which specifically performs LCCA at the project level, and plans to test a prototype of this model with states in FY 2001.

---

FHWA Home | Feedback United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration