| |
| FY'03 Performance Plan > Attachment C |
| Measure: Highway-related fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled (VMT). |
Data Source: Fatality data is obtained from the NHTSA's Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS), while VMT data is obtained from the FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Scope of Data: The FARS data are a census of fatal 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 nonmotorist within 30 days of the crash. The FARS data are a count of fatal crashes collected from police crash reports and other sources. FARS data cover all roadways open to the public, using the National Highway 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. VMT data is derived by FHWA from State-reported estimates of travel based on various levels of sampling, which is dependent on road type.
Measurement Methodology: FARS data are collected in each State, translated into a standard format, and transmitted to the NHTSA. Data are collected from police crash reports, vehicle registration files, driver licensing files, highway agency records, vital statistics, death certificates, coroner and medical examiner reports, hospital medical reports, and emergency medical service reports. The HPMS is an integrated database that relies on the State highway agencies to annually report area wide data, universe data, standard sample data, donut area sample data, and linear reference geographic information system (GIS) data.
Data Issues: FARS data elements are modified slightly each year to respond to emphasis areas, vehicle fleet changes, and other needs for improvement. FARS is a census of all highway traffic fatalities, but does not include information on crashes that result in nonfatal injuries or only property damage.
| Measure: Highway-related injuries per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. |
Data Source: Injured persons data is obtained from the NHTSA's General Estimates System (GES), while VMT data is obtained from the FHWA Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Scope of Data: Injured persons data is derived from a representative sample that produces a national estimate of total nonfatal injury crashes, injured persons, and property damage only crashes. GES data cover all roadways open to the public, using the National Highway 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.
Measurement Methodology: General information about the location of crashes is reported in the GES sample. The HPMS is an integrated database that relies on the State highway agencies to report area wide data, universe data, standard sample data, donut area sample data, and linear reference GIS data. The area-wide data consist of five statewide summaries. The summaries include data on travel and fatal and nonfatal crashes. This summary will be dropped from future HPMS.
Data Issues: The GES sample plan only allows estimates of national totals, not detailed analyses by State. Only general information is collected on the type of crash and highway system involved. The GES sample is designed to analyze vehicle and occupant injury information, not the roadway elements. By restricting attention to police reported crashes, the GES concentrates on crashes of greatest concern to the highway safety community and the general public.
| Measure: Percent of travel under congested conditions, percent of additional travel time, and number of hours of driver delay. |
Data Source: Travel data obtained from the FHWA HPMS.
Scope of Data: HPMS data elements are reported from approximately 403 urbanized areas within the United States. Data is based upon daily travel on the freeways and on arterial streets.
Measurement Methodology: Methodology used to calculate performance measures was developed by the Texas Transportation Institute and is reported in the annual Mobility Study.
Data Issues: The percent of congested travel measure reflects recurring delay only, i.e., does not include accidents and incidents. Conversely, the percent of additional travel time and hours of driver delay measures include congested traffic volumes, crashes, and vehicle breakdowns.
Measure: Buffer index, or the percent of time that an individual traveler allows to arrive at a location on time, at least 95 percent of the time. (Measure currently under development)
Data Source: ITS data collected from at least 10 metropolitan sites throughout the United States.
Scope of Data: Data are collected primarily from major freeways in 10 metropolitan cities by Transportation Management Centers within the pilot city jurisdictions. The scope of roadways will expand to include both major freeways and side roads and additional cities will be added in FY 2003.
Measurement Methodology: The data are verified by FHWA and independent reviewers.
Data Issues: The sample is of a limited size.
| Measure: Number of ITS integrated deployments in metropolitan areas |
Data Source: The data are obtained for designated metropolitan areas identified in the Metropolitan ITS Deployment Tracking database.
Scope of Data: This indicator is meant to provide a basic, easy to understand, gauge of ITS integrated deployment. Before the final results are reported, the DOT Joint Program Office reviews the data and methodology, which is also distributed to FHWA staff and survey responders to confirm its accuracy and completeness. Independent experts review procedures for survey construction and data collection prior to each survey. A steering committee of government officials review and approve changes to methodology or indicators prior to their implementation.
Measurement Methodology: The level of integrated deployment is based on two factors: (1) How much ITS infrastructure is in place at each metropolitan area; and, (2) How much integration is going on at each area. The level of ITS component deployment in a metropolitan area is expressed as a ratio of actual deployment divided by the total possible, i.e., the number of freeway miles under electronic surveillance divided by the total freeway mileage. Components are considered deployed once the level of deployment attains a specified threshold level based on key indicators. Integration is defined as the sharing of data between agencies associated with the different jurisdictions responsible for ITS infrastructure. Jurisdictions include State DOTs responsible for management of freeways and incident management programs, city government agencies that manage most of the traffic signal systems, and public transit authorities that manage most bus and rail services. The level of integration is determined by the extent that these three organizations employ technology to share and use transportation data to increase system capacity. Metropolitan areas are rated as low, medium, or high separately for deployment and integration and then assigned an overall combined rating. An overall score of medium or high meets the goal for a metropolitan area.
Data Issues: This indicator does not reflect the full breadth of deployment or integration activities. For example, while it establishes the existence of basic integration of essential components, it does not confirm that all possible or desirable integration links exist in a metropolitan area. Similarly, the attainment of a deployment threshold only confirms a substantial commitment to the use of ITS technology but does not indicate that all needed deployment is complete.
| Measure: Percent of vehicle miles traveled on the National Highway System (NHS) that meet pavement performance standards for acceptable ride quality (based on an International Roughness Index measure of less than or equal to 170 in/mi.) |
Data Source: Data are obtained from the FHWA HPMS.
Scope of Data: Data include vehicle miles traveled on the HPMS reported NHS sections and pavement ride quality data reported using the International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is a quantitative measure of the accumulated response of a quarter-car vehicle suspension experienced while traveling over a pavement.
Measurement Methodology: Data are collected by the States and reported to FHWA. They are obtained from measurement devices that meet industry standards. Recommended measurement procedures are included in the HPMS Field Manual.
Data Issues: IRI data for the approved NHS was reported beginning in 1995. Past data (1993 and 1994) were collected on the proposed, rather than the approved NHS. No NHS IRI data are available prior to 1993. The HPMS requires States to report IRI data every two years. In the HPMS Field Manual, FHWA refers to AASHTO Provisional Standards for measurement of pavement profile as the preferred method for equipment and data collection.
| Measure: Percent of NHS and Non-NHS bridge deck area classified as deficient (e.g., structurally deficient or functionally obsolete) for all ADT. |
Data Source: Data are obtained from the FHWA National Bridge Inventory System (NBIS).
Scope of Data: The FHWA requires the inspection of all bridges located on public roads and the submission of the collected bridge inventory and inspection data for inclusion in the NBIS. Data for 590,066 highway bridges are maintained by the FHWA in the NBIS. The information in the NBIS contains 95 data items for each of the bridges as required by theRecording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation's Bridges. Using the data provided, the FHWA monitors bridge condition, in order to identify bridges that are either functionally obsolete or structurally deficient.
Measurement Methodology: Bridge information is collected by the State DOTs and other bridge owners and is provided to the FHWA at least annually. As part of the FHWA's monitoring responsibilities in the management of the NBIS and Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP), the accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI information is constantly evaluated through data checks and field reviews by FHWA personnel.
Data Issues: The NBIS is a comprehensive database of bridge information.
| Measure: Ratio of wetland replacement resulting from Federal-aid Highway projects. |
Data Source: State DOT wetland mitigation databases.
Scope of Data: Annual data is available for FY 1996 through FY 2001. The summary data reflects the total acres of wetlands impacted versus total acres of mitigation that are provided.
Measurement Methodology: Data are compiled by the DOTs using local sources. A FHWA-sponsored national wetlands management database is under development.
Data Issues: The uniformity of the data is not guaranteed, since it is subject to interpretation by the state DOT. In particular, there is no uniform definition of what should be reported as acres mitigated. The FHWA has provided guidance to the States as to which mitigation activities are to be reported.
| Measure: On-road mobile source emissions in short tons. |
Data Source: Data are obtained from the EPA National Air Quality and Emissions Trends Report and the FHWA HPMS.
Scope of Data: Total mobile source emissions are the sum of on-road mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide, hydro-carbons, nitrogen oxides, and particulate matter less than 10 microns in diameter.
Measurement Methodology: The annual emissions level is the estimated total annual tonnage of on-road mobile source emissions of carbon monoxide, hydrocarbons, nitrogen oxides, and PM-10 as reported in the latest EPA Trends Report.
Data Issues: The Trends Report is available in October of each year. There is a one-year time lag for the emissions data. For example, the March 2000 report contains 1998 data. The EPA's use of a mathematical model raises questions about the validity of the model. The annual variation in the estimates, as measured by the regression standard error, is 2.57. The HPMS data used as input to the model are subject to sampling and non-sampling errors.
| Measure: Percent of nonattainment and maintenance areas meeting their mobile source emissions budget goals. |
Data Source: The data are obtained from the FHWA division offices.
Scope of Data: Data are collected each year on July 1 in order to generate the trend data.
Measurement Methodology: Each FHWA office is requested to report the number of nonattainment and maintenance areas that meet their mobile source emissions budget by pollutant.
Data Issues: The makeup and severity of nonattainment areas will vary year to year. The data collected reflect only a 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 that designates it as a non-attainment area.
| Measure: The average number and duration of area transportation conformity lapses. |
Data Source: The data are obtained from the FHWA division offices.
Scope of Data: The FHWA and the FTA jointly make conformity determinations within air quality nonattainment and maintenance areas to ensure that Federal actions conform to the purpose of State Implementation Plans (SIP). The transportation conformity process is intended to ensure that transportation plans, programs, and projects will not create new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS violations, or delay the attainment of the NAAQS in designated nonattainment (or maintenance) areas.
Measurement Methodology: The data is collected on a monthly basis. The average number of lapses monthly is calculated as a 12-month moving average.
Data Issues: If conformity cannot be determined within certain time frames after amending the SIP, or if 3 years has passed since the last conformity determination, a conformity lapse is deemed to exist. New non-exempt projects, both transit and highway, may not advance until a new determination for the plan and TIP is made.
Performance measures are currently under development.
| Measure: The average number of months from Notice of Intent to approval of the Record of Decision for Environmental Impact Statements. |
Data Source: Data is collected at Division level and aggregated at the national level by our Environmental office.
Scope of Data:Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) A written assessment of the anticipated significant effects, both positive and negative, which a prospective Federal agency decision may have upon the quality of the human and natural environment.
Notice of Intent (NOI) An official announcement in the Federal Register advising interested parties that an environmental impact statement will be prepared and circulated for a given agency action.
Record of Decision (ROD) A final Federal decision-making document, relative to EISs, that presents the basis for selecting and approving a specific course of action, including identification of the alternatives considered, measures to minimize harm and an itemized list of commitments and mitigation measures.
Measurement Methodology: Information on development time from the Notice of Intent to: a) Draft EIS; b) Final EIS; c) Record of Decision; d) EIS with 4(f); and e) EIS without 4(f) will be tracked.
Data Issues: This is a new measure. Data collection procedures are still being refined.
| Measure: The average number of months from the start of the Environmental Assessment process to FHWA's issuance of the Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). |
Data Source: Data is collected at Division level and aggregated at the national level by our Environmental office.
Scope of Data:Environmental Assessment (EA) An exploratory report which is prepared when the potential for significant impacts, relative to Federal actions, is unclear.
Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI) An administrative determination by a Federal agency detailing that the finding of no significant impact relative to the Federal agency's action.
Measurement Methodology: Information on development time from the start of the EA to FHWA's issuance of the FONSI.
Data Issues: States vary in their definition of the start of the EA process. It can be: a) the date the applicant notified FHWA and other agencies that they have started the EA process; b) the date the authorization was issued if Federal funds were requested for the preparation of the EA; c) the date of the notice to proceed; or d) the date a project number was established. As long as a State remains consistent in its definition of the start time, FHWA can collect meaningful data.
| Measure: Customer and partner rating of the timeliness of our decisions, usefulness of our information, and competency of our personnel |
Data Source: Customer and partner feedback thru American Customer Satisfaction Index (ACSI) survey instrument.
Scope of data: Timeliness of our decisions. The timeliness of receiving decisions from FHWA for program level activities such as issuance of regulations, reviews and authorizations for the State Transportation Improvement Program and safety plans, and for project delivery activities for individual highway improvements (as defined in 2001 survey).
Usefulness of our information - The usefulness of our - "technical assistance" information in terms of being current, helpful, and relevant (as defined in 2001 survey).
Competency of our personnel - In terms of being knowledgeable and experienced, how capable are FHWA personnel in providing direct technical assistance (as defined in 2001 survey).
Measurement methodology: ACSI is a 0-to-100 scale, and is used by the private and public sectors to rate how customers perceive companies and organizations.
Data issues: Since this is a survey of perceptions, ratings are subjective.
| Measure: Percent employee job satisfaction (percent positive responses). |
Data Source: Employee feedback using the all employee survey instrument.
Scope of Data: Job satisfaction was determined to be the overarching measure for this category. Percent positive responses means either strongly agree or somewhat agree with the statement, I am satisfied with my job.
Measurement Methodology: The all-employee Survey administered in FY 2001 is a biennial survey. An Interim Survey comprised of ten core item statements was administered in FY 2000. The current strategy is to administer the full survey biennially and the interim survey in between years.
Data Issues: Since this is a survey of perceptions, ratings are subjective.
| Measure: Percent of payroll for training and development. |
Data Source: Departmental Accounting and Financial Information System (DAFIS).
Scope of Data: Percent of Payroll (salary plus benefits) - Percentages represent total investment in training including tuition, contract cost, participants travel and per diem and instructor travel for all training and career development courses and programs for FHWA employees.
Measurement Methodology: Amount of dollars spent on training and development divided by salary and benefits.
| Measure: Percent of the selections are made within 90 days of the position becoming vacant. |
Data Source: Human Resource Staffing Database.
Scope of Data: Start of 90 Days - is defined as the effective date on the departing employee's SF-50 personnel action.
End of 90 Days - is defined as the date on the selection certificate once a selection is made.
Exceptions to the 90-Day Selection - Positions in several programs will be excluded from the 90-day requirement due to their unique processes. These positions include the SES, the Professional Development Program, and vacancies that fall under the Technical Career Track program. In addition, on a case-by-case basis, special consideration will be given when positions have unusual requirements or results, such as recruitment advertisements in professional journals.
Measurement Methodology: The date on the selection certificate minus the effective date on the departing employee's SF-50 personnel action.
| Measure: Percent of obligations expended on open (active) projects |
Data Source: Fiscal Management Information System (FMIS).
Scope of Data: The percentage is based on the total amount obligated on all Federal-aid and Federal Lands Highway projects (regardless of year authorized) that have not been final vouchered (FMIS report M79) as of September 30 each year.
Measurement Methodology: The amount described above is compared to the unpaid obligations (FMIS report M80) as of the same day. This provides the amount expended on all open (active) projects.
Data Issues: This measure does not reflect activity for a single fiscal year.
