Six critical trends (competition between government programs; increasing state and local competition for federal money; performance targets and partnerships; irrelevance of traditional needs studies; core component of existing goals and objectives; and fragmentation of interest groups and stakeholders) that suggest explicit measurement of outcomes in transportation planning and management activities are identified and discussed. Outcome measures reflect an agency’s success in meeting its stated goals and objectives; they typically relate the effect of agency activities and programs on people and the environment, as well as customer satisfaction. This broad, qualitative information is not provided by traditional output measures, which reflect the quantity of resources used, activities performed by an organization, and efficiency in converting resources to products. Output measures are very important for many management and planning activities, and can be used for assessing program outcomes. However, outcome measures are the best tool for assessing the effectiveness of transportation programs and funding decisions in meeting the broad goals frequently found in transportation plans. Examples are provided of how both transportation and nontransportation organizations are using outcome measures to directly address the six trends. Strategies used by the public and private sector to transition to outcome measurement are also highlighted.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Task 1: Review and Synthesis of Current Practice, NCHRP Project 8-32(2), Multimodal Transportation: Development of Performance-Based Planning Process. Draft Technical Memorandum. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Oakland, Calif., Oct.1995, pp. A-1–A-43.
2.
Multimodal Transportation Planning—Development of a Performance-Based Planning Process. Preliminary Draft Final Report. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Oakland, Calif., March1996, pp. 2–35.
3.
McDowellB. D.The Potential for Outcome-Oriented Performance Management to Improve Intergovernmental Delivery of Public Works Programs. Report SR-21. U.S. Advisory Commission on Intergovernmental Relations, May1996, pp. 9–13.
4.
FinchJ. C., and HoenigC.. Managing for Results, Critical Actions for Measuring Performance. Report GAO/T-GGD/AIMD-95-187. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., June20, 1995.
5.
BrownR. E., and PyersJ. B.. Putting Teeth into the Efficiency and Effectiveness of Public Services. Public Administration Review, Vol. 48, No. 3, May/June1988, pp. 735–742.
6.
MeyerM. D.Planning: The Challenge of Being the Glue. In Special Report 23: Moving Urban America. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 91–113.
7.
EwingR.Transportation Service Standards—As if People Matter. In Transportation Research Record 1400, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1993, pp. 10–17.
8.
RutherfordS. G.NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 201: Multi-modal Evaluation of Passenger Transportation. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1994, pp. 1–8.
9.
CurroM. J., and ClarkF. P.. Management Reforms: Examples of Public and Private Innovations To Improve Service Delivery. Report GAO/AIMD/GGD-94-90BR. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., Feb.1994.
10.
MihmC. J.Managing for Results—Experiences Abroad Suggest Insights for Federal Management Reforms. Report GAO/GGD-95-120. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., May1995, pp. 1–7.
11.
Washington Happenings. In ISTEA Year Four, Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C., 1995.
12.
Federal Transportation User Receipts and Outlays. In National Transportation Statistics—1996. Report DOT-BTS-VNTSC-95-4. Bureau of Transportation Statistics, U.S. Department of Transportation, Nov.1995.
13.
NormanM. R., and HoustonR. W.. Transportation Appropriations Process. ITE Journal, Vol. 66, No. 7, July1996.
National Economic Crossroads Transportation Efficiency Act. U.S. Department of Transportation, March1997.
16.
Tax Rates on Motor Fuel—December 1, 1996. Table MF-121T. Office of Highway Information Management, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, Jan.1997.
17.
MeyerM. D.Transportation Research Circular 471: Statewide Transportation Planning. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., May1997.
18.
ElizerM.Testimony of the Institute of Transportation Engineers before the Subcommittee on Transportation and Related Agencies. Feb.26, 1996.
19.
WolfF.Is the Federal Highway Program Relevant to the Future?AASHTO Quarterly, Vol. 74, No. 4, Fall1995, pp. 38–39.
20.
MacLaffertyR. L.Welfare to Work: Measuring Outcomes for JOBS Participants. Report GAO/HERS-95-86. U.S. General Accounting Office, Washington, D.C., April1995.
21.
CorlessJ. U.S.DOT Kicks Off ISTEA Forums in Philadelphia. STPP’s Transfer, The Weekly Washington, Update. Surface Transportation Policy Project, Washington, D.C., May17, 1996.
22.
ISTEA Reauthorization Policy Statement and Principles. Federal Register, Vol. 61, No. 116, June14, 1996, pp. 30276–30279.
IvesR.City of Redmond. Best Practices of City Governments, Volume II, U.S. Conference of Mayors, 1996.
29.
Crisis Ahead: America’s Aging Highways and Airways. American Automobile Association, Washington, D.C., 1996.
30.
Recommendations for ISTEA 2. ITE Journal, Vol. 66, No. 5, May1996, pp. 44–50.
31.
CoddN., and WaltonC. M.. Performance Measures and a Framework for Decision-Making Under the National Transportation System. Report RR-465600-1. Center for Transportation Research, University of Texas, Austin, Sept.1995.
32.
SchulzeK. K.The Minnesota Department of Transportation, Family of Measures. Presented at Conference on Infrastructure Performance Measurement Tools for Improved Decision Making, Minnesota Department of Transportation, June 1996.
33.
Board of Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment. Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995.
34.
U.S. Department of Transportation. 1995 Status of the Nation’s Surface Transportation System: Condition and Performance. Report to the Congress, Oct.1995.
35.
State Long Range Plan, 1995–2015, Summary. Michigan Department of Transportation, Lansing, April1995.
36.
Connections—Bringing Florida Together, 2020 Florida Transportation Plan. Florida Department of Transportation, March1995, pp. 39–41.
37.
The Texas Transportation Plan Partnerships into the 21st Century. Discussion Draft, Dye Management Group, Inc., Nov.1994.
38.
TurnbullK. F.Transportation Research Circular 450: Institutional Aspects of Metropolitan Transportation Planning. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., Dec.1995.
39.
Oregon Benchmark—Standards for Measuring Statewide Progress and Institutional Performance. Report to the 1995 Legislature, Oregon Progress Board, Salem, Dec.1994, pp. 1–18.
40.
CollierD. A.The Service/Quality Solution: Using Service Management to Gain Competitive Advantage. ASQC Quality Press and Irwin Publishing, 1994.
41.
PfefferJ.Managing With Power: Politics and Influences in Organizations. Harvard Business School Press, Boston, Mass., 1994.
