Measuring Transportation Investments: The Road To Results

EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. E.T.
WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011
Measuring
Transportation
Investments
The Road to Results
PEW CENTER ON THE STATES THe Rockefeller Foundation

EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. E.T. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011
May 2011
This report is a joint project of the Pew Center on the States and The Rockefeller
Foundation.
The Pew Center on the States is a division of The Pew Charitable Trusts that identifies
and advances effective solutions to critical issues facing states. Pew is a nonprofit
organization that applies a rigorous, analytical approach to improve public policy,
inform the public and stimulate civic life.
For additional information about the Pew and the Center on the States,
please visit www.pewcenteronthestates.org.
This report is intended for educational and informational purposes. References to specific policy makers
or companies have been included solely to advance these purposes and do not constitute an endorsement,
sponsorship or recommendation by The Pew Charitable Trusts.
901 E Street NW, 10th Floor 2005 Market Street, Suite 1700
Washington, DC 20004 Philadelphia, PA 19103
The Rockefeller Foundation fosters innovative solutions to many of the world’s most pressing
challenges, affirming its mission, since 1913, to “promote the well-being” of humanity. Today,
the Foundation works to ensure that more people can tap into the benefits of globalization while
strengthening resilience to its risks. Foundation initiatives include efforts to mobilize an agricultural
revolution in Sub-Saharan Africa, bolster economic security for American workers, inform equitable,
sustainable transportation policies in the United States, ensure access to affordable and high-quality
health systems in developing countries, accelerate the impact investing industry’s evolution, and
develop strategies and services that help vulnerable communities cope with the impacts of climate
change. For more information, please visit www.rockefellerfoundation.org.
The Rockefeller Foundation

420 Fifth Avenue
New York, NY 10018
©2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts and The Rockefeller Foundation.

All Rights Reserved.
Dear Reader:
Most states are entering their fourth year of the ongoing budget crisis, and policy
makers around the country are making tough choices about where to devote limited
resources. With states spending an estimated $131 billion in 2010 alone on their
transportation systems, it matters more than ever that every dollar delivers a strong
return on taxpayers’ investment.
This report by the Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation
identifies which states have the essential tools in place to make more cost-effective
transportation funding and policy choices. We conclude that states generally have
the goals, performance measures and data to help them measure progress on safety
and infrastructure preservation. But in several other important areas—including jobs
and commerce and environmental stewardship—policy makers and the public in
many states need better and more information about the results they are getting for
their money.
Growing interest at both the federal and state levels in measuring performance and
outcomes is a sign of progress. And solutions exist: Across the country, state leaders
have developed proven approaches to using results-based data to drive transportation
spending and policies and to ensure their decisions advance economic growth and
other important goals. This report profiles many of these approaches. Even states that
are “leading the way” in our assessment, performing relatively better than other states,
have room for improvement.
This study builds on the interest and experience of both Pew and the Rockefeller
Foundation in providing federal and state leaders with the vital information they need
to weather today’s fiscal challenges. We hope this report will help guide their efforts to
develop a transportation system that reliably serves citizens every day and advances
states’ prosperity well into the future.
Sincerely,
Susan Urahn Nicholas Turner

Managing Director Managing Director
Pew Center on the States The Rockefeller Foundation
Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

Susan K. Urahn, managing director
Project Team Publications and Web Research Consultants
Rosa Maria Castañeda Lynette Clemetson Rebecca Adams, freelance writer
David Draine Julia Hoppock Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene,
Nicole Dueffert Lauren Orsini Pew Center on the States’ senior advisors
Alan Ehrenhalt Jennifer Peltak Harry P. Hatry, Katherine J. Hess, Elaine
Lori Grange Evan Potler Morley, Chris Narducci, Joseph Parilla,
Michele Mariani Vaughn Fred Schecker Mary Kopczynski Winkler, Urban Institute
Denise Wilson Carla Uriona Jonathan Walters, freelance writer
Will Wilson
Robert Zahradnik
THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

Nicholas Turner, managing director
Project Team
Amanda Sevareid
Laura Gordon
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
The Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation jointly funded this report. Pew’s
researchers and journalists, working with consultants, conducted the analysis and wrote the study.
The methodology and research design benefited greatly from an advisory panel of experts. Neither the
panel members nor their organizations necessarily endorse the report’s findings or conclusions: Geoffrey
Anderson, president and CEO, Smart Growth America; Linda Bailey, federal programs advisor, New
York City Department of Transportation; Emil Frankel, director of transportation policy, Bipartisan
Policy Center; Astrid Glynn, former commissioner, New York State Department of Transportation; Jacky
Grimshaw, vice president of policy, Center for Neighborhood Technology; Robert Puentes, senior fellow,
Brookings Institution; and Gary Toth, senior director, transportation initiatives, Project for Public Spaces.
This report also benefited tremendously from the insights and expertise of two external reviewers: Phillip
R. Herr, director, physical infrastructure issues, U.S. Government Accountability Office, and Robert
Puentes. These experts provided feedback and guidance at critical stages in the project. While they have
screened the report for accuracy, neither they nor their organizations necessarily endorse its findings or
conclusions.
We also thank the following Pew staff members for their assistance: Emily Askew, David Beard, Kil Huh,
Victoria Kleger, Emily Lando, John McKenzie, Kathy Patterson, Kylie Patterson, Andrew Snyder, Chris
Swope, Christine Vestal, Liz Voyles, Albert Wat and Gaye Williams. We also thank Julie Beer, Michelle
Harris and Kathleen Litzenberg for external editorial assistance. Finally, we thank the many state officials
and other experts in the field who were so generous with their time, knowledge and expertise.
Contents
Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Tight Dollars and Economic Growth. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Growing Momentum for Change . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
At the Federal Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
At the State Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
At the Local Level . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
How Are States Doing?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Overall Results. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Goal 1: Safety . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
Goal 2: Jobs and Commerce. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
Goal 3: Mobility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Goal 4: Access. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
Goal 5: Environmental Stewardship . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
Goal 6: Infrastructure Preservation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Policy Options. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63
Conclusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Endnotes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Appendix A: State-by-State Ratings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 84
Appendix B: Methodology. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86
Appendix C: Advisory Panel and Expert Reviewers. . . . . . . . . . . . 92
Appendix D: Assessment Criteria. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93
Appendix E: Core Performance Measures by Goal . . . . . . . . . . . . 97
Appendix F: State Documents Reviewed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 98
Appendices Notes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99
Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results v

this page intentionally left blank
Executive Summary
In fiscal year 2010, states spent an and interviews with scores of state and
estimated $131 billion in taxpayer federal officials and experts in the field.
dollars on transportation.1 Yet many
policy makers cannot answer critical State policy makers want to demonstrate
questions about what results this they are delivering the most cost-effective
investment is generating. Just 13 services possible for the public. Today, it
states—California, Connecticut, is more important than ever that every tax
Florida, Georgia, Maryland, Minnesota, dollar spent on transportation generates
Missouri, Montana, Oregon, Texas, the best results and advances states’ short-
Utah, Virginia and Washington—have and long-term economic interests. Most
goals, performance measures and data states are entering their fourth year of
needed to help decision makers ensure the ongoing budget crisis, with revenues
their surface transportation systems are far below pre-recession levels and
advancing economic growth, mobility, expenditures rising—and policy makers
access and other key policy outcomes. around the country are making tough
Nineteen states trail behind, lacking a choices about where to spend limited
full array of tools needed to account resources. Meanwhile, some members
for the return on investment in their of Congress are proposing that the next
roads, highways, bridges and bus and surface transportation reauthorization act,
rail systems. The remaining 18 states the law that governs the largest federal
and Washington, DC, fall someplace funding streams for states’ transportation
in between, with mixed results. Three systems, move from a compliance-based to
of those—Colorado, Michigan and a performance-based approach and more
Pennsylvania—just missed earning the closely tie dollars to outcomes.
top distinction. (See Exhibit 1.)
The goal of this assessment of the 50
These are the key findings of a study states and Washington, DC, is to identify
by the Pew Center on the States and which are doing the best in terms of
the Rockefeller Foundation, based on a having essential tools in place to make
review of publicly available documents cost-effective transportation funding and
Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 1

Executive Summary
Exhibit 1
Not Measuring Up
Many states lack essential information to identify what they are getting for their transportation
dollars in key areas such as environmental stewardship and jobs and commerce. The 13 states
leading the way have goals, performance measures and data that put their lawmakers in a
better position to make cost-effective policy and spending choices.
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID SD WI NY
WY MI
IA PA
NE VT
NV OH
UT IL IN NH
CA CO WV MA
KS MO VA
KY RI
NC CT
TN
AZ OK
AR SC NJ
NM
DE
MS AL GA
MD
TX LA DC
AK
FL
Leading the Way
Mixed Results
HI Trailing Behind
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation, 2011.
policy choices—and to help lawmakers policy and spending choices based on

understand how to use these tools to solid information about what works and
do a better job with limited dollars. The what does not. But unless states have clear
research examines six policy areas affected goals, performance measures and good
by those choices that are particularly data in place to generate that information,
important to states’ economic well- it is very difficult for policy makers to
being and taxpayers’ quality of life: prioritize transportation investments
safety, jobs and commerce, mobility, effectively, target scarce resources and help
access, environmental stewardship and foster economic growth.2
infrastructure preservation.
The Pew-Rockefeller assessment reveals
To advance these broader objectives, state considerable differences among the 50
lawmakers must make transportation states in linking their transportation
2 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Executive Summary
Six Goals for States’ Transportation Systems

The Pew-Rockefeller research focused on six important and widely accepted goals
for states’ transportation policies and investments:
1. Safety. The ability of the transportation system to allow people and goods to
move freely without harm. Performance measures include fatalities and injuries from
transportation-related incidents across all modes of transportation.
2. Jobs and commerce. How well the transportation system facilitates or supports
business development and employment. Performance measures include job creation,
the movement of freight and estimates of the economic return from policies and
investments.
3. Mobility. The efficient movement of people between destinations by automobile,
pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes. Performance measures include congestion
levels, travel times, travel speed and volume, time lost to traffic delays and on-time
transit performance.
4. Access. The ability of the transportation system to connect people to desired
goods, services, activities and destinations for both work and leisure, and to meet
the transportation needs of different populations. Performance measures include
availability and use of multimodal transportation options—including public and private
transit and pedestrian and bicycle access—for the general public and populations with
specific needs, such as elderly, disabled and low-income individuals.
5. Environmental stewardship. The effect of the transportation system on energy use
and the natural environment. Performance measures include fuel usage, transportation-
related emissions, climate change indicators, and preservation of and impact on
ecological systems.
6. Infrastructure preservation. The condition of the transportation system’s assets.
Performance measures include the physical condition of roads, bridges, pavements,
signs, culverts and rail systems.
systems to and measuring their ongoing across the six goals. The 13 states leading
performance toward these important the way overall publicly report useful
policy goals. data on their transportation systems
that policy makers can use to advance
States were rated according to three economic competitiveness, improve
levels—leading the way, having mixed citizens’ access to jobs, help residents and
results or trailing behind—for each of the tourists move about more efficiently and
six goals. Each state also was given an mitigate the effects transportation can
overall rating based on how it performed have on the environment, among other

Executive Summary
outcomes. This information puts their earned the top distinction in the areas of
lawmakers in a better position to make jobs and commerce and environmental
wise investments over the short and stewardship because they do not
long terms, choose cost-effective policy measure their progress and return on
options and ensure the likelihood of a investment in a comprehensive and
strong return for taxpayers. effective way.
Most of the remaining states performed Safety: All 50 states and Washington, DC,
best in the areas of safety and earned the top distinction.
infrastructure preservation, where both Jobs and commerce: 16 states are leading
the federal and state governments have the way, 22 have mixed results and 12
a long history of setting goals, using states and Washington, DC, trail behind.
performance measures and collecting
data (see Exhibit 2). Roughly half the Mobility: 28 states and Washington, DC,
states fared well in the areas of mobility are leading the way, 18 states have mixed
and access—but only about a quarter results and four states trail behind.
Exhibit 2
How States Stack Up

Most states and Washington, DC, have the tools in place to understand the impact of
transportation investments on safety and infrastructure preservation. But many lack
these tools in the areas of environmental stewardship and jobs and commerce.
4 4
11 13 Leading the Way
17
INFRASTRUCTURE PRESERVATION
Mixed Results
ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
18 Trailing Behind
21
JOBS AND COMMERCE
22
51 18
40
29
26
MOBILITY
ACCESS
SAFETY
16 16

Executive Summary
Access: 25 states and Washington, DC, Methodology for further description of

are leading the way, 21 states have mixed the rating system and criteria.)
results and four states trail behind.
Growing Momentum
Environmental stewardship: 16 states for Change
are leading the way, 18 states have mixed
results and 16 states and Washington, DC, Historically, states have not made
trail behind. transportation policy or spending
decisions based principally on data
Infrastructure preservation: 39 states analysis or cost-benefit comparisons
and Washington, DC, are leading the way, of different options. A December
11 states have mixed results and no states 2010 report by the U.S. Government
trail behind. Accountability Office (GAO) found
that “only a select few states have
(See the “How Are States Doing?” made significant attempts to integrate
section, Appendix A: State-by-State performance measurement into their
Ratings and individual state fact sheets statewide planning process to inform
for detailed results; see Appendix B: investment decisions.”3
Caveats of the study

The study does not evaluate states based Readers should be cautious in
on whether or to what degree they interpreting the results; for example,
actually have achieved these goals. We states that are “leading the way” in our
were not able to assess how individual assessment are performing relatively
policy decisions are actually made at the better than other states, but in many
state level, including whether decisions cases still have room for progress.
are grounded in evidence, whether Given the fledgling state of the field
interagency cooperation is part of the in developing goals, performance
decision-making process or whether measures and data, particularly in
policies are targeted at meeting agreed- areas such as jobs and commerce
upon goals. Instead, states are evaluated and environmental stewardship, we
based on whether they have the essential assessed whether states could meet
tools in place to help them understand if a baseline threshold in each of the
they are making progress. This approach six areas we examined. We did not
acknowledges that states are still in the comprehensively assess the quality or
process of learning how best to use quantity of information in each area.
performance measurement information in (See Appendix B: Methodology for a
making policy decisions. complete explanation.)

Executive Summary
Thirty states reported that political support Second, policy makers increasingly
was of great or very great importance in are recognizing the essential role
selecting projects; just 11 states said that transportation plays in driving their states’
economic analysis—the cost effectiveness economies—and the consequences if
or projected economic impact of a it fails that role. “Job creation will not
proposal, for example—was of great or be sustainable without a transportation
very great importance, according to the system that is reliable,” Virginia Governor
GAO’s survey of state transportation Bob McDonnell (R) said in his state of the
planning officials.4 commonwealth address in January 2011.
“Transportation helps drive economic
But states’ careful setting of priorities— growth.”8 In Maryland, Governor Martin
with return on investment in mind—is O’Malley (D) has expressed similar
growing increasingly important, for three sentiments. “Our transportation network
main reasons. and infrastructure is the lifeline of our
economy,” O’Malley says. “And it’s also our
First, taxpayer dollars are in short connection to the broader global economy.
supply.5 The key funding sources for …Transportation is what allows the flow
states’ transportation systems are federal of economic oxygen.”9
and state excise taxes on gasoline, but
improved fuel efficiency has reduced Taxpayers also seem to understand the
gas use and thus lowered revenues. connection: 80 percent of voters agree that
The federal excise tax on gasoline— federal funding to improve the nation’s
currently 18.4 cents per gallon—is the transportation system will boost local
same as it was in 1994, even as prices economies and create jobs, according to a
at the pump have risen dramatically. February 2011 survey by the Rockefeller
From 1994 to 2009, the federal gas tax Foundation.10
declined 38 percent in real purchasing
power.6 And while states’ general funds Third, states increasingly are gathering
contribute a very small portion toward information on outcomes across a
transportation, the Great Recession has range of issues. While more lawmakers
constrained that source from helping need to use data in making policy and
make up the difference in gas tax spending decisions, a growing number are
revenue. Some 15 states experienced acknowledging the importance of greater
midyear budget cuts in transportation planning, accountability, evaluation and
in fiscal year 2010, and federal funding consideration of return on investment.
from the American Recovery and Pew’s Government Performance Project
Reinvestment Act will continue to tracked a significant improvement in
dwindle over the coming years.7 statewide and agency strategic planning:

Executive Summary
In 1999, relatively few states had agencies information by mode, including port,
or departments specifically tasked with motor carrier, aviation and rail.13
looking into the success or failure of
programs. As of 2008, four out of five Georgia has initiated a performance-
states did.11 oriented strategic planning and project
prioritization process as part of the lead up
States are showing momentum toward to a statewide vote in 2012 on increasing
improving transportation results by taxes to fund specific transportation needs.
tracking their progress through goals, That vote will allow each of 12 special
performance measurements and better transportation districts in the state to decide
data. Among the examples identified by on a list of projects and a 1 percent sales
the Pew-Rockefeller study: tax increase to fund them. Georgia adopted
a business-case approach, assessing
In Washington State, following a potential projects according to performance
significant reduction in funding in 2000 measures that relate to mobility and
and a voter referendum in 2002 that economic development, in an attempt to
rejected allocating additional monies, determine what types of projects provide
the state’s Department of Transportation the best return on investment. For example,
(WSDOT) began scoring potential the state is using projections of the impact
projects according to performance that various funding levels and projects
change per dollar spent, ranking the would have on the number of workers in
most cost-effective approaches to the the state who could reach their jobs within
state’s transportation safety, congestion, 45 minutes by car or public transit.14
environmental and economic goals. This
performance-oriented practice contributed Minnesota is using performance measures
to the legislature’s willingness to allow for 10 policy areas identified in its 2009–
the state to sell bond issues by increasing 2028 Statewide Transportation Policy Plan.
the gas tax by 5 cents in 2003 and by 9.5 These measures include adjusting to the
cents in 2005 (phased in over four years), transportation needs of a growing and
and ultimately increased public confidence aging population and enhancing mobility
in WSDOT.12 by reducing congestion across the 9
percent of the highway system that carries
Missouri has advanced tools in the area of about 50 percent of the state’s roadway
jobs and commerce to develop state and travel.15
regional estimates of employment, income
and the economic return on transportation New Mexico estimates the unserved need
investments. Missouri also tracks trends for public transit in rural areas, focusing
in freight tonnage and includes detailed on elderly, disabled and low-income

Executive Summary
individuals. The results help state officials information—moving toward a heightened

understand which parts of the state offer the focus on results, improving the usefulness
least access to populations that most need of performance measures and making
it, and prioritize expanding or adding new sure those measures link to concrete
transit routes to particular regions. New goals that reflect a state’s larger priorities,
Mexico’s Statewide Public Transportation such as jobs and commerce. The federal
Plan of January 2010 used this approach government, states and localities can help
to identify rural communities in need and each other by publicizing new approaches
rank proposed transportation projects by to measurement, establishing consistent
estimated new ridership, cost per additional measures for common benchmarking,
rider and improvements to accessibility.16 and continuing to work on such areas as
commerce and access, in which there is
Oregon measures the number and rate of disagreement or uncertainty about the best
crashes in which large trucks were at fault. measures to use.
It focuses on commercial drivers because
data show that of the 671 truck at-fault Enact or improve performance
crashes that occurred in 2008, only 35 measurement legislation. Laws at both
resulted from mechanical problems. Oregon the federal and state levels can make a
has instituted more frequent inspections, significant difference. While the details
safety compliance reviews and removal vary, such legislation generally prescribes
of drivers from service in the event of a consistent use of measurement,
violations. 2008 data show mixed progress: benchmarking against goals and evaluation;
The rate of large truck at-fault crashes it also seeks to spur states to go beyond
increased slightly from .37 to .38 per collecting information by mandating that
million vehicle miles traveled (VMT).On they actually use the information when
the positive side, truck crashes resulted in making important transportation policy
4.4 percent fewer injuries and 34.6 percent and funding choices. For instance, in
fewer deaths.17 some cases, budget requests are tied to
submission of performance data.
Policy Options At the federal level, congressional

What can lawmakers do to improve deliberations about a new, multiyear
taxpayers’ return on investment in states’ highway and transit bill—likely to be
transportation systems, even in difficult considered in 2011—are expected to focus
fiscal times? Several policy options emerged at least in part on transportation’s ability to
from the research: help advance America’s economic growth,
mobility, environmental stewardship and
Improve the information. The most other key goals. There is momentum from
obvious step is to push for better both the executive and legislative branches

Executive Summary
to include in the legislation an increased accomplishments before they make

emphasis on states’ use of performance new funding choices.20
measures and data collection to make
transportation decisions. Increase the use of cost-benefit and
other types of economic analysis in
Although 39 states have passed some making transportation decisions. As
form of legislation prescribing some noted above, only about 20 percent
sort of performance-based budgeting of states reported to the GAO that
process, the act of making use of such economic analysis of projects was
information is incremental and usually of great or very great importance in
lengthy.18 Some experts say the new deciding what to include in their
version of the Government Performance statewide transportation plans.21 States
and Results Act passed by Congress in such as Washington, however, show
late 2010 includes models for making that these efforts can save money and
greater use of goals and measures at even lives. For example, Washington’s
the state level. For example, the law research indicates that center-line
requires that states focus on how rumble strips prevent serious crashes.
agencies collaborate to achieve goals Based on the cost of the strips and
and on what happens when goals or an assessment of the cost of crashes
targets are not met.19 prevented, the state has determined
that these infrastructure improvements
Develop an appropriations process provide a return on investment of
that makes better use of data. States approximately 25 to one.22
need to develop more comprehensive
systems that ensure that policy Better connect goals, measures and
makers are asking for and using solid plans. States benefit from a holistic
information in their deliberations about approach that combines setting goals,
transportation spending. For example, measuring performance and progress,
the Appropriations Committee of and planning.23 In Georgia, for instance,
the Connecticut General Assembly is a recently released long-term strategic
working to establish a “Results-Based plan contains performance metrics
Accountability” approach that might linked to goals and a discussion of
become a model. Report cards from previous performance and investment.
agencies on past performance are Several sections discuss performance
embedded in subcommittee budget metrics in direct relation to allocated
books, along with a set of questions funds and estimate the performance that
that encourage legislators to delve into could be achieved given different levels
the quality of work and demonstrated of funding.24

Executive Summary
Track citizen feedback on Conclusion

transportation. The Pew-Rockefeller
Some Americans may think of the nation’s
research found that most states do not
roads, bridges and transit systems as
measure citizen satisfaction with their
ends unto themselves. In fact, they are
surface transportation systems across
instruments that can influence broader
the spectrum of the six goals studied.
societal goals—from strengthening our
Yet Delaware and a few other states have
economies and giving citizens better access
found that citizen perceptions can yield
to jobs to creating a cleaner environment.
important information for policy makers,
informing decisions on such issues as
road safety, transit service availability and Slowly but surely, federal and state policy
project prioritization.25 makers are beginning to realize this. Still, in
many states, this process is in its early stages,
Improve intergovernmental and states vary enormously in how well
and interagency coordination. they are tracking transportation’s impact on
Transportation is a complex, joint key policy goals. As this study has found, a
partnership among the federal, state majority of states now have comprehensive
and local governments. Coordination measures for transportation in the areas
between the federal government and of safety and infrastructure preservation.
states is crucial, given that Congress Far fewer measure performance
provides funding for more than comprehensively or effectively in the critical
30 percent of state spending on areas of mobility, access, environmental
transportation.26 Equally important, stewardship, and jobs and commerce—all
federal coordination of state efforts has vital for states’ economic well-being.
helped accelerate progress dramatically
in areas such as safety. Meanwhile, Our research demonstrates that when
greater collaboration among state, county it comes to transportation policy and
and local officials can help improve spending, even states most thoroughly
outcomes—such as creating more guided by results-based decision making still
consistent road condition information— have a distance to go before they can declare
and give policy makers better tools victory. But the growing appreciation among
to make decisions based on need and policy makers of the value of such efforts is a
effectiveness.27 reason for cautious optimism.

Tight Dollars and Economic Growth

In fiscal year 2010, states spent an choices on the best possible data about
estimated $131 billion in taxpayer dollars what delivers the strongest return on
on transportation.28 But it was not nearly investment.
enough to meet the nation’s needs.
The National Surface Transportation Many, however, are not doing so. This
Infrastructure Financing Commission in study, a joint project of the Pew Center on
2009 cited a long-term average annual the States and the Rockefeller Foundation,
shortfall of $46 billion nationally just to finds just 13 states leading the way in
keep surface transportation at status quo, having goals, performance measures
let alone improve the system.29 And no and data that tie surface transportation
sudden influx of additional cash will be policy and investment choices—for
forthcoming from any level of government roads, highways, bridges, and bus and
anytime soon. Meanwhile, states are rail systems—to economic growth and
entering their fourth year of the ongoing other key policy areas. Nineteen states trail
budget crisis. They have closed more than behind, with no comprehensive capacity to
$400 billion in budget gaps since 2008, but account for return on investment in their
now face projected shortfalls of $82 billion transportation systems. The remainder—18
in fiscal year 2012 and $66 billion in fiscal states and Washington, DC—have mixed
year 2013.30 results, falling someplace in between.
At the same time, federal and state The research found that all states now
policy makers and experts across the do a fairly good job of tracking the safety
country are acknowledging that states’ of their roads and physical condition,
transportation systems are essential or preservation, of their transportation
to helping advance economic growth, infrastructure. But many states still cannot
mobility, access and other central policy answer critical questions about the return
goals. For both of these reasons, state on taxpayers’ investment in transportation
decision makers should be basing in terms of mobility, access, environmental
transportation policies and spending stewardship and jobs and commerce.

TIGHT DOLLARS AND ECONOMIC GROWTH
Historically, states have not prioritized or recognize, acknowledge and act on the fact
funded transportation projects based on that transportation infrastructure investment
solid data analysis or by comparing the costs is a growth leader. And we want policy
and benefits of various options. The U.S. makers to create more effective, targeted
Government Accountability Office (GAO) policies and programs.”33
reported in December 2010 that states
assign greater importance to factors such Last December, Virginia Governor
as “political and public support” than to an McDonnell (R) proposed that the state
economic analysis of project benefits and spend $400 million on roads and bridges
costs.31 immediately and borrow $2.9 billion for
further maintenance and improvement
Specifically, 30 states indicated that during the next three years. “Job
political support was of great or very great creation will not be sustainable without
importance in the decision to include a transportation system that is reliable,”
projects in their statewide transportation Governor McDonnell said in his 2011
improvement programs (STIP)—the list of state of the commonwealth address. The
projects prioritized by the state to receive Virginia Department of Transportation
federal funding over a four-year period— “manages the nation’s third largest road
while only 11 states cited an “economic network with 57,867 miles of roads, and
analysis of projects” as being either of great nearly two million Virginia jobs in leading
or very great importance, according to industries are fully dependent on the state’s
the GAO’s survey of state transportation transportation network.”34
planning officials.32
When Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels
Yet a growing number of policy makers, (R) travels, he typically shows a map with
business leaders and experts cite the need to concentric circles that illustrates three-
ensure that dollars spent on transportation quarters of America’s population can be
generate a strong return on investment and reached in a one-day truck drive from
broad economic benefit to taxpayers. Indiana. He tells audiences that “trucking
companies know exactly what 15 minutes
“We want to shift the public debate and on the road cost when you’ve got a truck
discussion from shovel ready, scattershot full of valuable raw materials or finished
approaches … to a focus on investing for goods.”35
performance that will add to long-term
economic growth,” Thomas J. Donohue, Some states have learned the importance
president and CEO of the U.S. Chamber of of transportation policy to their
Commerce, said in a speech in September economies in the form of a rude
2010. “We want elected officials to awakening. Michigan was forced to

The Funding Gap

State transportation funding comes from Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory
a diverse range of revenue sources (see Committee concluded in 2010 that the
Exhibit 3). On average about 57 percent commonwealth faced an annual shortfall
of the funds come from dedicated state in surface transportation funding of some
monies including state excise taxes and $3.5 billion, which includes additional
tolls, 9 percent come from bond proceeds construction and which will need to grow
and 4 percent come from general revenues. with inflation.39
The remaining 31 percent of state
transportation spending in 2009 came from Not only have funding sources continued
federal funds.36 to fall short, they are shrinking further in
many states (see Exhibit 4). Some 15 states
Yet huge funding needs remain, driven by confronted budget cuts in transportation in
aging infrastructure, neglected maintenance fiscal year 2010, according to the National
and a 13 percent increase in vehicle miles Association of State Budget Officers
traveled between 1998 and 2008.37 And (NASBO), and federal funding provided
revenues from federal and state excise gas through the American Recovery and
taxes have not kept pace with needs.38 Reinvestment Act will continue to dwindle
over the coming years.40 Arizona, for
States such as Pennsylvania highlight instance, cut a quarter of its transportation
the magnitude of the problem. The budget in 2009 and 2010.41
Exhibit 3 Exhibit 4
Driven by Dollars Transportation’s Piece of the Pie

Dedicated state monies, including toll revenues, In 2009, transportation followed education and
comprise more than half of the dollars spent on Medicaid as a major area of total state spending.
transportation. A variety of state and federal
sources supply the remaining funds. All other Transportation
Elementary and
Bonds General fund 7.8% secondary
3.7% education
8.8%
33.9%
21.7%
30.6%
Public
assistance
1.7% 21.1% Medicaid
56.8% 10.4%
Higher
Other state Federal Corrections 3.4% education
funds funds
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation, 2011, based on data from the National Association of
State Budget Officers’ “State Expenditure Report,” Fall 2010.

confront the consequences of reduced Department of the Treasury and the Council
transportation investments when huge of Economic Advisers.45
budget shortfalls put the state in jeopardy
of losing $500 million in federal money But not all transportation funds are well
if it could not offer its share of matching spent. “While transportation investment
grants. Ultimately, the state came up always ‘creates jobs,’ its net effect on
with the necessary funds. The Michigan workers and the economy as a whole will be
Department of Transportation reported positive only if government transportation
that if the state had not obtained the investments are rigorously selected,” noted a
federal money, the cumulative hit to the January 2011 report by the Bipartisan Policy
gross state product from 2010–2014 Center, a Washington, DC-based nonprofit
would have been $1.7 billion.42 established by two Republican and two
Democratic former U.S. Senate majority
A large body of research has shown that leaders. “Poorly targeted transportation
transportation investments generate dollars represent a wasted opportunity that
economic returns. One economic analysis the country can ill afford given its current
commissioned by the Federal Highway fiscal predicament.” 46
Administration in 1998 looked at 35
diverse industry sectors and found that in Growing pressure from the public to
32, an increase in highway spending would demonstrate what they are getting for their
lead to an estimated decrease in costs and tax dollars also is a factor. A 2010 study
thus to an increase in economic output. by the Pew Center on the States and the
Other research has shown similar results.43 Public Policy Institute of California tracked
“The overall benefits of transportation public opinion in five fiscally stressed states:
investments to the broader economy Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois and
are estimated to be five times the $240 New York. It found that when asked which
billion spent by governments each year on of their state’s biggest expenses they would
highway, transit and other transportation least protect from budget cuts, a far bigger
infrastructure,” Susan Martinovich, director portion of respondents in each state—from
of the Nevada transportation department 46 percent in New York to 55 percent in
and president of the American Association Illinois—favored cuts to transportation over
of State Highway and Transportation reductions in funding for higher education,
Officials (AASHTO), told a U.S. Senate Medicaid and K-12 education.47
committee in January 2011, citing federal
statistics.44 Additionally, economic growth A February 2011 survey commissioned
created by transportation spending is by the Rockefeller Foundation provides
well suited to creating middle-class jobs, another perspective—a closer look at the
according to a 2010 report from the public’s opinion of federal transportation

spending. The poll found that 80 percent owner or citizen to see the fruits of such
of voters think federal funding to improve investment,” says Maryland Governor
and modernize transportation will boost Martin O’Malley (D). “Our transportation
local economies and create jobs. But network and infrastructure is the lifeline of
nearly two-thirds see current federal our economy. Transportation is what allows
investments as “inefficient and unwise,” the flow of economic oxygen.…so we have
with nine in 10 respondents supporting to measure performance and squeeze every
greater accountability for transportation penny we can out of our transportation
spending—indicating a desire to ensure that investments.”49
every dollar delivers a strong return. The
poll showed little support for raising the “Transportation [is] a means to an end,
gas tax to support necessary transportation an enabler,” says Emil Frankel, director
improvements, but majorities said they are of transportation policy at the Bipartisan
open to innovative funding sources, such as Policy Center. “We should be using
public-private partnerships and a proposed transportation funding to achieve these
National Infrastructure Bank.48 broad goals of energy, economic growth,
public safety and so on.”50
“It’s sometimes hard to convince citizens
or even businesses of the need to invest There are signs that such attitudes about
[in transportation], because it can take transportation are gaining traction around
a long time for your average business the country.

Growing Momentum for Change

Broadening recognition among policy and states can work together effectively in
makers, business leaders and researchers other areas as well.52
about the essential role transportation
plays in states’ economies is helping spur Aiming to reduce traffic fatalities,
a movement toward results-informed the National Highway Traffic Safety
decision making that has been gaining Administration has worked for several
traction at the federal level and in a decades with state and local officials to
number of states. “The expectation around share information about transportation
the country is that the government can safety and the factors that facilitate that
no longer use the public’s money without goal. The approach has differed from the
knowing what benefits and results we’re more common federal focus on regulation
getting with the investment of those and compliance, concentrating instead on
dollars,” says Paula Hammond, secretary of creating a collaborative relationship with
transportation in Washington State.51 The the states that starts with data analysis and
persistence of high unemployment and the goes on to encourage policies that have
long-term impact of the recession on state been proven to work.
revenues underscore the importance of
measuring the impact of every dollar spent The federal government’s focus on safety
on transportation. received a major boost when the most
recent version of the federal highway
authorization act, in 2005, required a
At the Federal Level “statewide-coordinated strategic highway
The relationship between the federal safety plan” in every state to reduce
government and the states—and the highway fatalities and injuries on all public
impetus it has provided for change—has roads.53 In 2008, the Governors Highway
been particularly strong in the area of Safety Association agreed on a minimum
safety. Successes there have been cited set of performance measures that would
not only as models within the field track progress in establishing highway
of transportation, but also as broader safety plans and programs on driver
examples of how the federal government behavior. An expert panel involving federal

GROWING MOMENTUM FOR CHANGE
and state officials, research organizations While transportation performance

and other groups worked together to measures have been expanding at the
develop the measures that the states agreed federal level since the passage of the
to track.54 Government Performance and Results Act
(GPRA) in 1993, a shortcoming of that
While using data to help improve safety legislation has been its failure to ensure
has proven to be successful, similar that measures would be widely used to
efforts in other areas of policy reform drive decision making. The GAO notes
have varied. In collaboration with that federal oversight of transportation
the federal government, for example, programs “has no relationship to the
states have gathered a great deal of performance of either the transportation
information about road conditions, but system or of the grantees receiving
in other areas, such as environmental federal funds.”58 Federal funding of
stewardship and economic state transportation programs has been
development, the federal government formulaic, and the federal government
has been criticized for not providing has no mechanism to see whether the
the leadership states may need to reach planning it mandates for STIPs achieves
important transportation-related goals.55 results.59
Generally, the information that the federal Change may be coming on these
government requires from states about fronts, though. For example, the GPRA
the nation’s transportation systems is Modernization Act of 2010, passed in
assembled in the Highway Performance December, encourages both the executive
Monitoring System, a database the branch and Congress to use performance
Federal Highway Administration has been information to drive budget and policy
compiling since 1978. It includes a wide decisions.60
variety of data including information
about traffic volumes, roadway, pavement In addition, there is ongoing discussion
and bridge design factors, and the in Congress about moving from a
percentage of volume in peak hours compliance-based to a performance-
and in rush-hour directions.56 One based approach in the next surface
shortcoming: The presentation of this transportation reauthorization act,
data can be difficult to understand, due to be considered in 2011.61 In
particularly when it comes to roads that 2009, the U.S. House Committee on
stretch across multiple state borders. Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired
Meanwhile, the National Transit Database by Representative James L. Oberstar (D)
includes detailed information on the of Minnesota, suggested a performance-
nation’s mass transit systems.57 based approach for the legislation, now

two years overdue.62 The proposed act Joel Szabat, the deputy assistant secretary
had a much greater focus than in the for transportation policy in the U.S.
past on environmental stewardship, Department of Transportation. “Most
elevated the importance of transit and money will still go out by formula. But we
included requirements for state and local hope that the reauthorization language
governments to measure their annual will incorporate performance measures
progress against performance standards.63 in some projects. You want to have merit
However, it was not debated on the floor project selection. You want to know what
in either the House or Senate. the benefits will be and then track to see if
the benefits were there.”66
Representative John Mica (R) of Florida,
the new chair of the House Transportation
At the State Level
and Infrastructure Committee, has
resolved to make passage of a multiyear Performance measurement has been
authorization a top priority, strengthening around longer than most people in
the chances that a transportation bill government realize. There have been
will be brought to the House floor and efforts in the states to examine goals and
approved during the first session of the measurements since the early 1900s,
112th Congress—and there are signs that most of them initiated by academics.
the next version will continue to move in a Despite a variety of experiments, for
results-oriented direction.64 decades little progress was made toward
using performance data either to drive
“There is consensus that performance or record progress.67
measures and goals should be
incorporated into the next highway bill in That began to change for states in the
some fashion, but they must come with 1980s, as governments in such places
maximum flexibility for the states to meet as Missouri, Oregon, Texas, Utah and
those goals,” says Representative John Virginia started gathering performance
J. Duncan of Tennessee (R), a member data for policy making. Initially, the vast
of the Committee on Transportation majority of that information focused
and Infrastructure and chair of the either on the dollar amounts spent on
Subcommittee on Highway and Transit. “It individual programs or projects (inputs)
is important we make sure the states are or on the amount of services or products
performing well and making good use of provided (outputs). The information
the money we are giving them.”65 gathering placed minimal emphasis
on the quality of the work or on the
“We do want performance measurements actual results it provided for taxpayers
as part of this [reauthorization],” says (outcomes).68

TIGER Grants
There are obstacles to using federal the preservation and creation of jobs,
legislation to spur greater performance promotion of economic recovery,
measurement and better outcomes investment in infrastructure to provide
among states, including political long-term economic benefits and
difficulties in agreeing on goals and assistance for those affected by the
the complexities of a transportation economic downturn.71
system that involves the federal
government, 50 states and The eligibility of all government entities
thousands of local entities, was a major change from the past,
among other challenges. as federal transportation dollars are
usually funneled through states, transit
The American Recovery authorities and port authorities. That
and Reinvestment Act meant that cities and regional planning
of 2009—also known as authorities could receive direct grants,
the federal stimulus— as could projects involving several
included significant funds for jurisdictions. In addition, the TIGER funds
transportation infrastructure. provided particularly flexible funding
The largest pot of monies was $27.5 that could be used across a variety of
billion allocated to states for highway transportation modes. This meant, for
restoration, repair and construction.69 example, that funding could go to a
Funds also were provided for public multimodal center, which allowed transit
transit, high-speed rail and Amtrak. buses, light rail and heavy rail to come
These dollars were intended to meet together in one location—a project that
the dual purpose of improving the normally might have been difficult to
nation’s infrastructure and preserving fund. Similarly, a port project in Rhode
and creating jobs, although there is Island was able to provide funding to
continuing debate about how many jobs road and rail lines, with the object of
resulted from these investments.70 creating a more efficient transport of
goods to and from the port.72
One attempt within the federal stimulus
to achieve a more performance-oriented Some 51 projects were chosen,
approach has been a $1.5 billion and at the end of 2010, the federal
discretionary grant program called Department of Transportation
Transportation Investment Generating (DOT) was working on establishing
Economic Recovery, or TIGER. These performance measures for each of the
grants offered government entities grant agreements. Progress will be
money for transportation projects with tracked quarterly or yearly, depending
clear objectives attached, including on the project. Of course, given the

TIGER Grants (continued)

nature of transportation, many of the in terms of economic development.
meaningful results may not arrive for “Since that project was announced,
half a decade or more—a factor that up to $200 million has been invested
makes it challenging to assess impact in the downtown area by businesses
and validate the methodology for coming into town,” says Joe Shacter,
projecting benefits. director of public and intermodal
transportation at the Illinois Department
Congress followed with an additional of Transportation. “This included new
$600 million in funding in the regular hotels constructed right next to the
budget, and that was awarded in TIGER II intermodal facility.”74
grants in October 2010.73
But TIGER has had its share of critics—
In the realm of transportation, $2.1 Democrats and Republicans alike—who
billion is not a great deal of money. The questioned how it was implemented
real significance of TIGER, according and how projects were selected.
to some experts, is that it is a test After Connecticut failed to receive
case for a new approach to allocating any TIGER grants in the first round of
federal dollars in transportation. TIGER awards, for example, the state’s entire
requires state and local governments congressional delegation met with
to demonstrate that their proposals fit Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood
general criteria set forth by the federal to raise questions.75 Similarly, when
government—including relatively new Florida did not receive a grant in the
ones such as environmental stewardship first round, Representative Mica, the
and the capacity to promote economic new chair of the House Transportation
development. What is more, state and and Infrastructure Committee, in early
local governments are required to 2010 criticized the DOT for making
carefully measure the benefits of these its own “executive earmarks,” using a
expenditures to ensure they are meeting closed selection process that was not
expectations. transparent enough for him and some
others in Congress and for ignoring the
One typical TIGER grant awarded law’s instructions to aim those grants
$22 million toward a new station in partly at economically distressed areas.
downtown Normal, Illinois, a city along Both Connecticut and Florida received
the Chicago-St. Louis Amtrak Line, which TIGER grants in the second round
will serve Amtrak, city and long-distance of funding. Representative Mica has
buses and taxis. State officials say the pledged that his committee will review
project shows a potent multiplier effect the program.76

During the past 15 years or so, a steadily of necessity,” he says. “All have done it
growing number of states have begun to through a gut-wrenching process. They’re
gather information on outcomes. Many engineers and they’d love to go back to the
states still do not use this information day where the idea was, ‘You just give us
consistently to allocate funding the money and let us build.’ It’s what they
dollars—but lawmakers increasingly love and are good at. But that’s not the
have acknowledged the need for greater DOT of tomorrow.”78
planning, accountability, evaluation and
consideration of return on investment In 2008, AASHTO, a nonprofit,
across policy areas. Although budget nonpartisan organization representing
constraints have slowed some of the work highway and transportation departments
in this field, progress has been significant. in the 50 states, the District of
Pew’s Government Performance Project, Columbia and Puerto Rico, set up a new
which explored many aspects of state performance management committee,
management, observed a significant which has been working to help states
improvement in statewide and agency improve and expand on performance
strategic planning from its first report measures. The committee was established
in 1999 to its most recent one in 2008. with nine different technical task forces
Similarly, a dozen years ago, relatively few assigned to come up with different specific
states had agencies or departments with measures that states could use—including
the specific responsibility of looking into traditional asset management issues such
the success or failure of programs. As of as bridge condition, and novel topics such
2008, four out of five states did.77 as “livability.”79
State transportation departments fit neatly AASHTO has opposed federal laws,
into that general theme, with growing regulations or funding formulas imposing
momentum among the states toward performance measures and targets on
improving transportation results coupled states, recommending instead that national
with increased efforts to guide and track goals be set that allow states to define their
progress through goals, performance own targets.80 It has held forums on the
measurements and better data. Jim Ray, ways that states, the federal government
former acting administrator of the Federal and other partner organizations could
Highway Administration, explains that better incorporate performance measures
during the past 10 years, state highway into the planning and programming
departments have begun transforming process. “Performance measures are not a
themselves into entities more willing new concept for DOTs. Lots of states have
to consider return on investment for dashboards to measure congestion levels
the projects they undertake. “It’s out or whether projects are delivered on time

and on budget. And they are using this want to make million-dollar decisions
information as part of the decision-making based on anecdotes. “I have hard facts
process,” says Matthew Hardy, program on exactly what we’ve produced in our
director for planning and policy for history,” he says. “I can grab factual
AASHTO. “What is new is a heightened information that comes along with a huge
collaboration in which AASHTO, local history and articulately speak to what
planning organizations and transit agencies we’ve been doing, to how that activity
are working with the federal government compares to the past.”84
to come up with a small set of national
goals that everyone shares.”81 In 1999, a citizen initiative eliminated a
motor vehicle excise tax that provided
Some have expressed concern about how about a third of the state’s transportation
the federal government might use the data. revenue.85 As part of its reaction to the loss
Some state officials worry that if they do of revenue, the Washington Department
not show progress, then Congress will “do of Transportation (WSDOT) in 2001
something onerous and restrictive,” says began making significant improvements
Rich Margiotta, a principal at Cambridge in performance measurement. A number
Systematics, a transportation services and of officials believe that improved public
products firm. Others wonder how the
82
understanding of what residents were
information would be used in making getting for the investment in transportation
funding decisions. “Would they give more contributed to legislative willingness to
money to the states that are performing allow the state to sell bond issues and pay
well or more money to the states that are for them by increasing the gas tax by 5
performing poorly?” asks Steve Lockwood, cents in 2003 and by 9.5 cents (phased
former associate administrator for policy in over four years) in 2005. Those bond
for the Federal Highway Administration issues were tied to specific lists of projects,
and current senior vice president at selected based on their impact on the
PB Consult, the strategic and financial state’s economy, environment, congestion
consulting arm of Parsons Brinckerhoff.83 relief and safety. WSDOT went as far as
monetizing the benefits of these projects
Several states, including Washington, and prioritizing them based on benefits
have taken to performance measurement relative to costs.86
enthusiastically. Captain Jason Berry, head
of government and media relations for
the Washington State Patrol, says solid At the Local Level
performance measures allow him to show Metropolitan planning organizations
the legislature what is received for the (MPOs) have been one of the forces
money spent. He says legislators do not driving momentum in intergovernmental

coordination and performance tracking at 1998. Among other things, the legislation
the local and regional level. outlined seven criteria to be evaluated in
planning highway projects: accessibility,
MPOs are policy-making and planning economic development, efficiency,
bodies that trace their roots to a 1962 environment, mobility, safety and system
federal requirement that transportation preservation.90
projects in urban areas with populations
greater than 50,000 be based on a A 2009 GAO report found that many
“continuing, comprehensive and MPOs do not focus on outcomes in
cooperative” planning process.87 In 1991, evaluating their performance, but rather,
the Intermodal Surface Transportation on measuring process and compliance
Efficiency Act required state transportation with regulations. One proposed solution
departments to coordinate more closely has been for the federal government to
with MPOs. Under current federal law, play a larger role in helping MPOs develop
every MPO is required to develop and pass the technical expertise to better analyze
an annual Transportation Improvement and model transportation outcomes.91
Plan.88
Still, some MPOs are starting to use
The San Francisco Bay Area Metropolitan stronger metrics to assess the current
Transportation Commission (MTC), for efficiency of transportation networks. For
instance, coordinates with CalTrans, the example, the Denver Regional Council
California transportation department, of Governments (DRCOG), which is the
on a wide variety of projects, says MTC MPO for that region, has been working
spokesman John Goodwin, including, on its own analysis of distinct population
most recently, major alterations to preserve zones and the number of accessible jobs—
the area’s bridges in case of an earthquake. for instance, potentially measuring how
The multiyear, $750 million initiative is on many zones in the region have access to at
time and within budget in no small part least 100,000 jobs by way of a 55-minute
because of the high level of cooperation trip on public transportation.92 Right
with CalTrans, says Goodwin. “We can’t do now the exercise in the Denver region is
this on our own because we don’t own the measuring the present and not projecting
state highway system.”89 into the future. But, according to Steve
Rudy, DRCOG’s director of transportation
Another significant legislative change planning and operations, there is a strong
affecting MPOs was the Transportation inclination to start using the information
Equity Act for the 21st Century, enacted in as a planning device.93

How Are States Doing?

Do policy makers have the goals, 2. Jobs and commerce. How well the
performance measures and data needed transportation system facilitates or
to prioritize transportation investments, supports business development and
target scarce resources and ensure a strong employment. Performance measures
return on investment for taxpayers? include job creation, the movement of
freight and estimates of the economic
To try to answer this question, Pew return from policies or investments.
researchers reviewed more than 800
documents from states on transportation 3. Mobility. The efficient movement
performance, planning and budgets. The of people between destinations by
purpose was to identify whether states automobile, pedestrian, bicycle and
have goals, performance measures and data transit modes. Performance measures
that explicitly connect their transportation include congestion levels, travel times,
systems to economic growth—specifically, travel speed and volume, time lost
to six policy areas in which the outcomes to traffic delays and on-time transit
generally are accepted by academics performance.
and practitioners as being particularly
4. Access. The ability of the
crucial to states’ economic well-being and
transportation system to connect people
residents’ quality of life. These areas reflect
to desired goods, services, activities and
a general consensus among experts and
destinations for both work and leisure,
organizations in the field.94
and to meet the transportation needs
of different populations. Performance
The six policy goals are:
measures include availability and use of
1. Safety. The ability of the transportation multimodal transportation options—
system to allow people and goods to including public and private transit and
move freely without harm. Performance pedestrian and bicycle access—for the
measures include fatalities and injuries general public and populations with
from transportation-related incidents specific needs, such as elderly, disabled
across all modes of transportation. and low-income individuals.

HOW ARE STATES DOING?
5. Environmental stewardship. The traffic—is not necessarily good if the roads

effect of the transportation system on do not provide access to key destinations,
energy use and the natural environment. such as jobs and hospitals, for the state’s
Performance measures include fuel usage, population needs.
transportation-related emissions, climate
change indicators, and preservation of andThis study evaluated states in each goal
impact on ecological systems. area according to three rating levels—
leading the way, having mixed results,
6. Infrastructure preservation. The and trailing behind—assessing their
condition of the transportation system’s capacity to measure the progress of their
assets. Performance measures include transportation systems toward the goal.
the physical condition of roads, bridges, The top distinction, leading the way,
pavements, signs, culverts and rail means that a state has in place a carefully
systems. considered array of goals, performance
measures and data to tie transportation
These goals interact in important ways. policy and spending choices to those
For example, better mobility—free-flowing important areas. The lowest rating, trailing
Caveats of the study

The study does not evaluate states based Readers should be cautious in
on whether or to what degree they interpreting the results; for example,
actually have achieved these goals. We states that are “leading the way” in our
were not able to assess how individual assessment are performing relatively
policy decisions are actually made at the better than other states, but in many
state level, including whether decisions cases still have room for progress.
are grounded in evidence, whether Given the fledgling state of the field
interagency cooperation is part of the in developing goals, performance
decision-making process or whether measures and data, particularly in
policies are targeted at meeting agreed- areas such as jobs and commerce
upon goals. Instead, states are evaluated and environmental stewardship, we
based on whether they have the essential assessed whether states could meet
tools in place to help them understand if a baseline threshold in each of the
they are making progress. This approach six areas we examined. We did not
acknowledges that states are still in the comprehensively assess the quality or
process of learning how best to use quantity of information in each area.
performance measurement information in (See Appendix B: Methodology for a
making policy decisions. complete explanation.)

behind, means that a state lacks the full comprehensive list of ratings by state and
array of those tools. And mixed results also see individual state fact sheets for
means just that—a state has some of the additional details.)
tools in place, but lacks others.
States Leading the Way Overall
States also were evaluated across all six
The 13 states earning the top distinction
goal areas and given an overall rating using
represent a diverse mix of large and
the same three rating levels (see Exhibit 5).
small populations, rural and urban
concentrations, political leadership,
Overall Results geographic locations and economies. All
The Pew-Rockefeller study identified 13 present useful data policy makers can
states as leading the way overall. Five— use to boost economic competitiveness,
Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Oregon improve travelers’ access to work and
and Virginia—earned the top distinction leisure activities, help citizens move
in all six goal areas. Eight other states— about more efficiently and mitigate the
California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, impact transportation can have on the
Montana, Texas, Utah and Washington— environment. The goals, performance
are leading the way in five of the six measures and data these states have in
areas. Nineteen states trail behind, with
limited capacity to account for return on Leading The Way Overall
investment in their transportation systems California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,

across the spectrum of six goals. The Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Montana,
remaining 18 states and Washington, DC, Oregon, Texas, Utah, Virginia, Washington
had mixed results. (See Appendix A for a
Rating Levels
Rating Overall Assessment
Leading the way Leading the way in at least five goal areas; not trailing behind in
any area
Mixed results Leading the way in four goal areas OR leading the way in three or
fewer goal areas and showing mixed results in the remaining areas;
OR leading the way in five goal areas and trailing behind in one
goal area
Trailing behind Leading the way in three or fewer goal areas; trailing behind in at
least one area

place for their transportation systems (special public transportation options for
put lawmakers in a better position to senior citizens and people with disabilities)
choose among spending choices, capital ridership as part of its overall reporting on
investments and other transportation transit—which also includes breakouts for
policy options. But even these states that rural, fixed route and commuter express
are performing relatively better than others ridership.95 Connecticut also reports
have room to make progress. customer satisfaction for its commuter
rail service including the public’s
Among the examples: preferences for future improvements.96
Connecticut is strong relative to many In environmental stewardship, the state
other states in measuring progress toward has a measure and trend data on the
access and environmental stewardship. amount of recycled material used in
The state tracks trend data on paratransit projects including details on the types of
Exhibit 5
Not Measuring Up
Many states lack essential information to identify what they are getting for their transportation
dollars in key areas such as environmental stewardship and jobs and commerce. The 13 states
leading the way have goals, performance measures and data that put their lawmakers in a
better position to make cost-effective policy and spending choices.
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID SD WI NY
WY MI
IA PA
NE VT
NV OH
UT IL IN NH
CA CO WV MA
KS MO VA
KY RI
NC CT
TN
AZ OK
AR SC NJ
NM
DE
MS AL GA
MD
TX LA DC
AK
FL
Leading the Way
Mixed Results
HI Trailing Behind

materials—demolition debris, wood and motor carrier, aviation and rail. And it
steel. Connecticut also tracks the trend tracks access by surveying customers
in overall greenhouse gas emissions and about their satisfaction with the availability
has targets for reductions by major sector of transportation options other than their
including transportation.97 own vehicle.100
Florida, too, is exceedingly strong in Montana also exemplifies strong results in

the area of access. For example, the state the area of jobs and commerce. The state
tracks the transportation provided for its provides outcome data with breakouts
“transportation disadvantaged” citizens, and comparisons that can help policy
and sets targets for serving those members makers target specific problems for
of the population in future years. It also improvement. It also collects sophisticated
assesses the percentage of citizens using information about citizen satisfaction in
public transportation, including breakouts all six goal areas. For example, the state
for the elderly.98 surveys customers about priorities for
transportation system improvements,
Georgia shows an especially sharp asking them the degree to which a number
focus on jobs and commerce, access and of issues are perceived as problems
mobility. The state provides performance including environmental concerns such
information on the availability of as carbon monoxide emissions and the
alternative transportation modes, the air quality impacts of roadway use. It
average number of workers who can also inquires about satisfaction with
reach major employment centers within public transportation service availability.
45 minutes, and the percentage of the In the area of jobs and commerce, the
population living within 20 miles of a state surveys economic development
four-lane highway. Georgia has used stakeholders representing business
measures like these as it initiates a new organizations and local development
statewide strategic plan with a business- associations.101
case approach for assessing potential
transportation projects based on the best Oregon illustrates the solid tools states can
return on investment.99 put in place to measure progress in the
areas of jobs and commerce and mobility.
Missouri has advanced tools in the area of The state tracks jobs associated with
jobs and commerce to develop state and transportation construction expenditures
regional estimates of employment, income and compares performance with past
and the economic return on transportation targets to assess progress. To understand
investments. Missouri also tracks trends and track mobility, the state measures the
in freight tonnage and includes detailed hours of travel delay per capita per year in
information by mode, including port, urban areas and compares those data both

over time and with data from other cities. of these states—Colorado, Michigan and
Oregon also measures citizen satisfaction Pennsylvania—just missed earning the top
about congestion in its communities, distinction overall because they are trailing
time delay in work zones and the behind in one area.
amount of time needed to complete road
construction.102 States Trailing Behind Overall
Nineteen states trail behind in having
States with Mixed Results Overall adequate goals, performance measures
Eighteen states and Washington, DC, and data. Many of these states do well
fall in the middle, with mixed results. in one or two goals—typically safety
The majority are leading the way in at and infrastructure preservation—but
least three areas—most commonly safety, they lack the capacity they need to track
infrastructure preservation and mobility— progress in at least half of the other
but have mixed results in the others. Three categories.
Mixed Results Overall Trailing Behind Overall
Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana,
Michigan, New Jersey, New York, Mississippi, Nebraska, Nevada,
North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, New Hampshire, New Mexico,
Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Oklahoma, South Carolina, South Dakota,
Washington, DC, Wisconsin Tennessee, West Virginia, Wyoming

Assessment Criteria
For each goal, states were assessed on stewardship (31 states). (See Appendix E:
10 criteria. The criteria reflect both key Core Performance Measures by Goal.)
elements of best practice in performance
measurement and components of a good Providing data. Actual performance data for
transportation management system, goals and performance measures are essential
based on a review of the literature and for tracking and understanding results that
interviews with experts. For a more detailed should drive funding and policy decisions. In
explanation of the criteria, see Appendix B: the majority of cases across the six goal areas,
Methodology. states that have core measures also present
associated data for at least one of those
Setting goals. States—governors, legislatures measures. In safety, infrastructure preservation
and transportation agencies—are doing fairly and jobs and commerce, all states present
well at establishing statements linking their data for at least one core indicator. In the
transportation systems to jobs and commerce other areas, no more than three states fail to
and other important goals. Forty-seven states present data for at least one core indicator.
and Washington, DC, have such statements
about all six policy areas examined. (This Providing timely data. Given the nature of
study does not attempt to assess the quality transportation projects, many of the most
or usefulness of the goal statements, but, meaningful results may not arrive for half
as described below, does examine whether a decade or more—making it challenging
those statements are supplemented by to assess impact. Still, data are most useful
performance measures and data.) for decision makers when they are as up-to-
date as possible. In the area of infrastructure
Presenting performance measures. preservation, 42 states and Washington, DC,
Performance outcome measures, also have recent (2009 or 2010) data for a core
called indicators, are necessary for showing indicator; 38 states and Washington, DC,
the progress the state is achieving toward have recent core data for safety; and 28 states
its goals. Our analysis distinguished and Washington, DC, have recent core data
between core measures—those that are for mobility. Only 19 states and Washington,
critical to measuring and understanding DC, have timely data for a core indicator in
a goal area—and non-core measures— the area of access. Just 14 and 13 states have
those that are more peripheral to the recent core data for jobs and commerce and
goal area or that measure only a small environmental stewardship, respectively.
slice. Core measures are most commonly
presented in the areas of safety and Breaking down the numbers.
infrastructure preservation (all states and Disaggregating data can be extremely
Washington, DC) and mobility (46 states helpful in making decisions about where to
and Washington, DC). About two-thirds of allot funding and in analyzing the causes of
states present core measures in jobs and and solutions to problems. All states and
commerce (39 states), access (33 states Washington, DC, provide “breakouts” in the
and Washington, DC) and environmental area of safety and about two-thirds do so

Assessment Criteria
for access (40 states and Washington, DC), exceeded, decision makers can benefit from
infrastructure preservation (39 states and narrative explanations of what happened.
Washington, DC), mobility (38 states and Explanations on what factors affected
Washington, DC), and jobs and commerce performance are most common for safety
(34 states). Such detailed information is (39 states). Roughly equal numbers provide
less common in the area of environmental explanations for access (33 states and
stewardship (25 states). Washington, DC), infrastructure preservation
(30 states and Washington, DC), jobs
Drawing comparisons. Comparisons over and commerce (29 states), environmental
time or with other states offer valuable stewardship (27 states) and mobility (25
benchmarks and context. Researchers states).
looked for three types of performance
comparisons: (1) to another year; (2) to other Incorporating citizen and customer
states or some other external benchmark, feedback. Collecting and analyzing citizen
or (3) to performance on past targets. In feedback about transportation systems
any single goal area, the largest number of can generate valuable ideas, inform
states offering all three types of comparative policy and spending choices and help
analysis is five in safety, followed by four a state government stay in touch with
in infrastructure preservation, three each its constituents. Thirty-four states and
in mobility and environmental stewardship Washington, DC, measure citizen satisfaction
and two in jobs and commerce. No states with their surface transportation systems in
provide all three types of analysis in the area at least one of the six goal areas. Montana
of access. and South Dakota were the only states to get
a score for each goal area by asking citizens
Setting performance targets. By setting about priorities covering all six areas.
targets for their performance indicators,
states can monitor how quickly and Considering performance for all
effectively they are moving toward their goals transportation modes. Residents usually
and whether they are meeting expectations. use several modes of transportation on a
Targets are very common in the areas of regular basis, and it is important to consider
safety and infrastructure preservation. Thirty- transportation performance comprehensively.
two states and Washington, DC, set targets States are most likely to present transit
to gauge their progress on mobility, 27 information in the areas of access and
states and Washington, DC, set them for mobility, but not in the other categories.
access, 20 states set them for environmental Forty-seven states and Washington, DC,
stewardship and 11 states set them for jobs report transit information related to access,
and commerce. and 20 states and Washington, DC, have
transit measures related to mobility. In no
Explaining results. When performance other goal area do more than 11 states
changes over time or targets are missed or include transit information.

As described earlier, federal-state

GOAL 1: SAFETY coordination—and federal mandates and
incentives for states—have played a key
The ability of the transportation system
role in driving states’ progress in the area of
to allow people and goods to move freely
transportation safety. It began nearly a half
without harm.
century ago, when the Highway Safety Act
of 1966 created Section 402 grants, which
established the foundation for states and
Safe roads are fundamental. The numbers the federal government to work together on
tell the tale: The Centers for Disease safety planning.104 The most recent version
Control and Prevention reports that motor- of the federal highway authorization act,
vehicle-related injuries are the leading in 2005, required a “statewide-coordinated
cause of death for people ages one to 44, strategic highway safety plan” in every state
and automobile accidents sent more than to reduce highway fatalities and injuries
two million people to emergency rooms in on all public roads.105 State officials were
2009.103 Transportation-related accidents asked to consult with federal, state and
also generate high economic costs in lost local governments and the private sector
wages, medical bills and traffic delays (see to formulate the plans and develop an
Exhibit 6). evaluation process to analyze and assess
Exhibit 6
America’s Safer Highways

Federal and state emphasis on safety has led to a sharp decline in highway fatalities. The number
of roadway deaths hit a 16-year low in 2009.
FATALITIES PER 100 MILLION VEHICLE MILES TRAVELED NATIONAL HIGHWAY FATALITIES
2.0 50
1.73 43,510
40,716 33,808
1.6 40
1.2 30
1.13
0.8 20
0.4 10
0 0
1994 2000 2005 2009 1994 2000 2005 2009
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller Foundation, 2011, based on data from the National Highway Traffic
Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System, accessed on February 2, 2011.

risks. States are required to include to 47 percent in 1997 after the Florida
goals and performance measures in their helmet law was passed. Bicycle deaths fell
applications for federal highway safety from five to one, and injuries from 325 to
funds.106 105 [over the same period],” according to
the Institute.109
The benefits of this kind of coordinated
national approach can be seen in the During the past couple of years, states
spread of so-called “click it or ticket laws” and the federal government have focused
that permit public safety officers to hand on the safety issue of so-called distracted
out tickets to drivers for a primary offense drivers. Data correlating accidents to
of not wearing seatbelts in a moving the use of cell phones and other texting
vehicle. North Carolina was one of the devices have led states to pass legislation
first states to pass such legislation, and restricting their use by drivers.110 Currently
when the National Highway Traffic Safety eight states and Washington, DC, prohibit
Administration (NHTSA) regional director all drivers from using handheld cell
saw how the law successfully increased phones. Some 28 states and Washington,
seatbelt use and reduced fatalities, he DC, do not allow cell phone use by newly
pushed for expansion to nearby states.107 licensed drivers. And text messaging while
“Click it or ticket” eventually became a driving has been banned in 30 states and
nationwide program, with every state Washington, DC; 11 of these laws were
except New Hampshire passing some enacted in 2010 alone.111
version of this legislation.108
There still are significant challenges to be
Bicycle helmet laws have spread addressed. For example, some observers
similarly—if not as widely. Some 21 states complain that an emphasis on fatalities
and Washington, DC, have laws that misses some important data, such as
require bicyclists to wear head protection, serious injuries—but fatalities have been
according to the Bicycle Helmet Safety the focus because it is far more difficult to
Institute. These laws have been driven by collect good comparative data on property
data that demonstrate dramatic declines damage or even injuries. In addition, all of
in injuries and fatalities when bicyclists the NHTSA performance measures created
wear helmets. Duval County, Florida, for in collaboration with the Governors
example, “reported an increase in helmet Highway Safety Association focus on
use by all ages from 19 percent in 1996 driver behavior, not on infrastructure.112

Where the States Stand on: target of lowering annual transportation

Safety fatalities by 5 percent from 2006–2008
levels by 2010, with an additional 10
ll 50 states and Washington, DC,
A
percent reduction by 2012.113
earn the top distinction.
The following are examples from

By almost any measure, safety is the area
the research of states’ practice and
in which states are doing the best job of
performance:
measuring performance and responding
to results (see Exhibit 7). Every state and n Illinois has seen a fairly consistent
Washington, DC, has goals and compiles decline in fatalities and in 2009
data on core performance measures such recorded fewer than 1,000 fatalities
as fatalities and crashes. In addition, they for the first time since 1921.114 The
all have established and publicly report fatality rate has dropped from 2.2 per
targets. For example, Kentucky has set a 100 million vehicle miles traveled
Exhibit 7
Where States Stand: Safety
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA
NE
OH VT
NV
UT IL IN
NH
CA CO WV
VA MA
KS MO
KY
RI
NC
TN CT
AZ OK AR
NM
SC NJ
GA
AL DE
MS
TX LA MD
AK DC
FL
Leading the Way

HI Mixed Results
Trailing Behind
Safety. The ability of the transportation system to allow people and goods to move freely
without harm.

(VMT) in 1985 to .99 in 2008—a rate fatalities. Missouri established a goal

far lower than the national average of 1,000 or fewer fatalities by 2008.
of 1.27 per 100 million VMT.115 The The collection and tracking of data
state attributes the drop to a number have helped the state target solutions
of factors, including marketing to the specific causes of the majority
campaigns designed to encourage of fatalities—cars either leaving the
seatbelt use, reduce distracted driving road or crossing highway medians.
and eliminate driving under the Setting goals, breaking the data out by
influence. The department tracks 10 state regions, reporting monthly
public awareness of these campaigns, figures and comparing the data to past
which not only helps target where time periods have helped Missouri
additional coverage is needed, but meet its goal and reduce fatalities
also increases awareness by asking from 1,130 to 960 between 2004 and
citizens about the campaigns.116 2008.118
n Iowa has a wealth of measures on n Oregon measures the number and
transportation fatalities and injuries. rate of crashes in which large trucks
The state also tracks data on highway- were at fault. It focuses on commercial
rail crossing incidents, including the drivers because data show that of
total number and those involving the 671 truck at-fault crashes that
fatalities and injuries. The data show
occurred in 2008, only 35 resulted
that the number of incidents declined
from mechanical problems. Oregon
between 2004 and 2008 from 81
has instituted more frequent
to 72 per year, but the number
inspections, safety compliance reviews
of fatalities and injuries remained
and removal of drivers from service
constant at 5 and 25, respectively.
in the event of violations. 2008 data
Crossings with active warning devices
show mixed progress: The rate of
generally have a lower percentage of
large truck at-fault crashes increased
the total incidents—42 percent of the
slightly from .37 to .38 per million
total in 2008.117
vehicle miles traveled (VMT). On the
n In 2003 Missouri worked with positive side, truck crashes resulted
AASHTO as part of a national effort in 4.4 percent fewer injuries and 34.6
to reduce preventable highway percent fewer deaths.119

behind the doubling of its oil production

Goal 2: Jobs from 230,000 barrels of oil per day in
2007 to nearly 460,000 barrels in 2010.
and Commerce “This obviously is a critical element in
How well the transportation system expanding the job opportunities in the
facilitates or supports business energy industry,” he said in his state of
development and employment. the state address.122
The goal of being able to move goods and

A growing number of policy makers people more efficiently led the Minnesota
acknowledge the critical role that Chamber of Commerce to support an
transportation systems play in increase in the gas tax several years ago.
furthering—or constraining—a state’s “One of the primary reasons the chamber
economy. They are not alone. Business got involved is our members said we can’t
leaders also see the link between move our stuff. We’re spending more
transportation investments and commerce. time stuck in traffic,” says David Olson,
the chamber’s president. The decision to
In a 2009 survey of site selection support a tax increase “surprised a lot of
consultants conducted by Area people,” he says, but “to us, it made more
Development magazine, which covers sense to improve the infrastructure and
corporate site selection and relocation, pay a little more.”123
the number-one factor for corporate
location decisions was highway access, With all this in mind, it might seem
beating out labor costs.120 According to a good idea for states to measure the
an analysis by Cambridge Systematics, results of transportation spending on
transportation costs account for 3 to 9 jobs and commerce. But that is still a
cents of each dollar of output in a number relative rarity—and not a simple task.
of key industries including agriculture, B. Starr McMullen is an Oregon State
construction, motor vehicles and University economics professor who
wholesale trade.121 conducted a state-by-state assessment
of transportation performance
Businesses and individuals can trade measurements for the Oregon
with each other more easily if the Department of Transportation, with a
roads and railways linking them are particular focus on freight. “I didn’t see
well developed. Just a few months ago, a lot on performance measures that were
North Dakota Governor Jack Dalrymple aimed at economic development,” she
(R) pointed to expansion of the state’s says. “They talked about the issue broadly
rail transportation as a primary factor as a goal but when it comes to actually

selecting projects a lot of the things they for the economy is not a sound basis
measure are not really relevant.”124 for investment,” the Bipartisan Policy
Center noted in a recent report. “We
Part of the difficulty is that while need to do a better job of systematically
there is a long history of federal-state evaluating alternative investments
coordination in the area of safety— … to better distinguish among their
helping drive better performance different outcomes and … improve the
measurement and results—that is returns to public investment in an era
not the case in the area of jobs and of unprecedented budget pressures and
commerce. Another challenge is increasingly constrained government
the complex relationship between a resources.”126
state’s transportation system and its
economic growth. “Economic impact Still, working with outside experts, a
is assessed mainly by [construction] number of states are beginning to develop
job creation as there are no good more sophisticated measures in tracking
tools for measuring economic results how transportation policy influences
from transportation projects and commerce. State development decisions
an environmental impact standard around station stops for Maryland’s
measure is just being developed,” says light rail, for instance, have been made
Connecticut State Representative Diana in part based on measures related to
Urban (D).125 commerce (see “Spotlight on Maryland”),
and Missouri has conducted economic
“Simply assuming that any transportation modeling that would allow it to predict
investment will have positive stimulative the benefits transportation spending may
effects and will produce long-term gains have on commerce.

Where the States Stand: outcomes, but many are struggling to make
Jobs and Commerce those linkages.
16 states are leading the way
States more commonly focus on measures
22 states have mixed results connected to freight shipping by truck
2 states and Washington, DC,
1 or rail, with some disaggregation of the
trail behind data into the type of goods, mode of
transportation, point of destination and
Jobs and commerce is one of the two areas point of origin. The states with mixed
in which the largest number of states and results in this area have performance
Washington, DC, are trailing behind (see measures but do not provide timely data,
Exhibit 8; the other area is environmental do not have targets or explain performance
stewardship). Some states have begun to issues, and do not put information in
develop methods to connect transportation context through comparisons with other
dollars more closely with economic states or across time. Of those states trailing
Exhibit 8
Where States Stand: Jobs and Commerce
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA
NE
OH VT
NV
UT IL IN
NH
CA CO WV
VA MA
KS MO
KY
RI
NC
TN CT
AZ OK AR
NM
SC NJ
GA
AL DE
MS
TX LA MD
AK DC
FL
Trailing Behind
HI Mixed Results
Leading the way
Jobs and commerce. How well the transportation system facilitates or supports business
development and employment.

behind, nine states and Washington, DC, infrastructure improvements as well as an

had goals but no performance indicators estimated return on investment. The state
or data to measure progress. also uses a separate model, developed by
the BEA, to estimate job creation from
The following are examples from transportation investment by specific
the research of states’ practice and industry. Combined with more traditional
performance: measures of transportation outcomes in
the area of commerce, such as freight
Michigan ( leading the way) uses an
tonnage, this set of analytical tools gives
analytical tool to compare estimates of
Missouri a broad base of data with which
the economic benefits of transportation
to inform decisions about transportation
spending over time, including jobs created
investments.128
by industry, gross state product, personal
income and personal travel time savings.127 In North Dakota ( mixed results),
In 2007, Michigan’s transportation to ensure that the state’s transportation
department used the tool to compare the system “supports economic diversity,
economic impact of four different strategies growth, and competitiveness,”
for transportation investments. The state’s transportation officials track freight
existing funding approach focused on movements within the state. Given the
preservation and limited new capacity importance freight plays in North Dakota,
projects, while the alternative investment especially in moving agricultural products,
strategies targeted reducing congestion the fact that transportation officials have
and delay. Officials found that three of the data on freight broken out by commodity,
four alternatives generated larger estimated destination and origination can help
economic impacts compared to the existing guide decision making, including setting
investment strategy. priorities for rail projects. However,
the state does not set targets, compare
In Missouri ( leading the way), the
performance against external benchmarks
transportation department uses tools
or present timely information.129
developed by the state’s Department of
Economic Development and the U.S. A quarter of states and Washington,
Department of Commerce’s Bureau of DC, ( trailing behind), link
Economic Analysis (BEA) to develop transportation to jobs and commerce
detailed estimates on the economic return but show limited evidence that they
the state can expect from transportation can track progress. For example, Idaho
investments. This model helps Missouri lists “supporting the economy” as one
project the number of jobs that may be of the state transportation department’s
generated by its proposed transportation three goals but has no performance

MN EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. E.T. WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011
WI NY
SpoTlight on Maryland
MI
In Maryland, the state’s inter-city
and commuter rail systems offer an
example of the complexity of linking
IA transportation planning to economic PA
development. The original decision
OH
to build the Baltimore light rail system VT
was not guided by economic impact
IN MD
IL
analyses.130 But since opening and
expanding, the light rail line has become NH
a development and redevelopment WV
magnet. Projects sponsored by the
VA MA
MO Maryland Department of Transportation
KY
(MDOT) along the line are now chosen
with the help of studies of both potential
economic development impact and Originally real estate development RI
return on investment to the state. NC
was not considered a “transportation
TN
purpose” under MDOT’s authorizing
The basic formula for deciding which statute. In 2008, however, Governor CT
AR projects to pursue is straightforward
enough: First and foremost, projects
O’Malley asked for and got legislation
explicitly stating that transit-
have to be within a half-mile of a SC
oriented development represents a NJ
transit or rail station. After that, priority “transportation purpose.”
GA
AL
goes to projects where the state owns
MS
developable property and the local
government is supportive. For example,
MDOT has two other advantages when
it comes to pursuing its own economic
DE
a major redevelopment project in south development and transit-oriented
LA
Baltimore, called “Westport,” rose to
the top of MDOT’s development list for
development projects. First, the state has
strong eminent domain powers when it
MD
three reasons, according to Chris Patusky, comes to acquiring property for roads.
who heads MDOT’s Office of Real Estate.
“It was a big Baltimore city priority, it
Maryland has acquired a significant
amount of property over the years, and
DC
had great transit-oriented development its leftover excess parcels can now be
potential, as well as the potential to
have big economic impacts,” he says.131
FL
used for transit-oriented development.133
Second, MDOT has what its staff consider
Based on an analysis by the Baltimore substantial resources, particularly given
Trailing Behind
City Department of Transportation,
the initial phase of redevelopment
states’ tight budgets: a $9 billion, five-
year capital budget funded by the state
would create 4,000 permanent jobs gas tax, car title fees and a portion of
Mixed Results
and 1,700 temporary construction jobs,
and generate $1.8 billion in economic
the state’s corporate income tax to use
for projects across all transportation
Leading the way

activity.132 modes.134
system facilitates or supports business Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 41
measures or outcome data tracking within Rhode Island and the northeast
whether the state is making progress region.”136 But the goal is not linked to
toward this goal.135 Rhode Island any performance indicators or outcome
has a similar stated goal for using data, or to the kind of data breakouts,
transportation investments to support performance targets or comparative
economic activity: “Support a vigorous information that has Rhode Island
economy by facilitating the multi-modal leading the way in areas such as access
movement of freight and passengers and environmental stewardship.

greater portion of the population. Some

Goal 3: Mobility areas have turned to rail and transit as a
way of reducing congestion. The federal
The efficient movement of people
government requires that all metropolitan
between destinations by automobile,
regions with more than 200,000 people
pedestrian, bicycle and transit modes.
identify the causes of congestion, measure
multimodal transportation system
performance, assess alternatives and
When traffic slows—sometimes to a
evaluate the effectiveness of actions taken
complete halt—taxpayers pay the bill in
to implement plans.138
a variety of ways. Every hour stuck in a
traffic jam is one hour less most drivers But investments in transit systems are
can spend on more productive efforts. sometimes contested by supporters
Extra travel time spent by commercial of other kinds of expenditures, such
vehicles, especially trucks, translates into as highways. What is more, the twin
higher prices for goods and services. questions of access and mobility can make
Communities known for heavy traffic take mass transit especially challenging in
a blow to economic development efforts. areas that are sparsely populated or whose
And when highways turn into parking residents are geographically dispersed.
lots, greenhouse gases and other pollutants So some states must find other ways to
continue to pour into the air. increase mobility.
There has been a tripling in the amount One of the most prominent comparative
of congested travel in the United States in measures of congestion was developed
a little more than 20 years, according to by the Texas Transportation Institute,
a 2008 Brookings Institution paper. “The which started using data from the
average American in metropolitan areas Highway Performance Monitoring
wastes 26 gallons of fuel each year due to System to estimate congestion in cities
congestion. This may not seem like much, back in the late 1980s. For many years,
but aggregated it means nearly 2.9 billion the institute has used computer models
gallons each year is wasted—nearly one- to develop travel time information
fifth of the total equivalent of oil imported for large cities, although these
from the Persian Gulf [in 2007],” the estimates often have been criticized
paper noted, citing 2008 data from the for inadequately measuring urban
Energy Information Administration.137 congestion problems.139 The December
2010 version of the report makes more
One strategy to increase mobility is to offer use of “real time data,” actual recordings
viable alternatives to automobiles for a of travel speed collected by a private

company, combined with data on traffic to use this kind of information. For
volume that states produce.140 example, the Research and Innovative
Technology Administration of the
Starting in the 1990s on urban freeways, U.S. DOT is exploring the potential
fixed-place sensors began to provide of wireless communications that
real-time travel information, but would give drivers better real-time
generally only for major roads. Since briefings about problems they may
then, a number of private companies encounter further down the road.
have begun assembling traffic This information lets travelers know
information from geographic positioning when it might be beneficial to switch
systems in vehicles. They then sell or to transit or choose another route.142
trade the data back to state governments As such technology becomes more
(as well as to individual citizens).141 prevalent, it is likely to spread
from major thoroughfares to less-
Both federal and state governments traveled roads. (See “Spotlight on
are working to develop new ways Washington.”)

Where States Stan
SpoTlight on Washington
Washington State has made a specialty
WA
of using performance data to track
accidents and accident response, not
only as a means of improving safety but
also to cut down on the time wasted and
the mobility lost when an accident clogs
the highway system.
In the past, because of a lack of

communication between the State Patrol
and the Washington State Department OR
of Transportation (WSDOT), a state saved; it also demonstrates the state’s
trooper would arrive at an accident
scene, confirm the need for a tow truck,
attempt to measure performance in
terms that are meaningful to citizens ID
and then wait for the truck to arrive. as well as businesses, such as freight
Realizing crucial time was being lost, shippers.
Washington implemented the Instant
Tow program to dispatch a tow truck Washington tries to get as much mobility
immediately when citizen reporting or as possible out of existing roads with
WSDOT’s closed circuit cameras identify approaches that are less costly than
a traffic incident, saving an average of rebuilding existing or creating new
15 minutes in dispatch time. According infrastructure. For example, a recent
to Vince Fairhurst, WSDOT’s incident
response manager, the program is used
NV
active traffic management initiative
UT
conveys real-time traffic speed, accident
in three of eight State Patrol districts, and lane closure information to drivers.
deployed by the WSDOT in high traffic- That, in turn, helps drivers avoid
volume areas. “It works because it allows
and establishes an extremely organized
CAcollisions and keeps traffic moving
steadily, safely and efficiently.145 But even
cooperative effort between the patrol with savvy traffic management, new
and the [WS]DOT,” explains Fairhurst. infrastructure sometimes is necessary,
In the four years since its inception, which is why Washington included
the program has been used in more mobility projects among those funded
than 1,600 incidents, saving the state by gas tax increases in 2003 and 2005.
hundreds of hours of traffic congestion.143 The state has completed 70 of those
congestion relief projects, and has been
AZ
According to WSDOT estimates, measuring their mobility impact to
each instant tow deployment has evaluate its investment. For example,
saved taxpayers thousands of dollars, one widening project improved morning
varying with location, time and traffic rush hour travel times by 16 minutes
conditions.144 That is not only big money between 2007 and 2009.146

Where the States Stand: during peak and off-peak periods, and
Mobility travel delays on highways and transit.
States also collect data on how well
2
they manage accidents and other travel
are leading the way
incidents that affect traffic flow.
18 states have mixed results
Four states trail behind About half the states have reported on
transit mobility indicators, and the majority
In general states use an array of of these measures focus on timeliness
performance measures to assess the of transit vehicles. Some top states in
ease in which travelers move between mobility, including Florida, Minnesota,
destinations (see Exhibit 9). Mobility Missouri, Texas, Virginia and Washington,
measures include travel times on key stand out for having a good range of
roads, travel speeds, time spent in traffic measures. The states deemed as having
Exhibit 9
Where States Stand: Mobility
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA
NE
OH VT
NV
UT IL IN
NH
CA CO WV
VA MA
KS MO
KY
RI
NC
TN CT
AZ OK
NM AR
SC NJ
GA
AL DE
MS
TX LA MD
AK DC
FL
Leading the Way

HI Mixed Results
Trailing Behind
Mobility. The efficient movement of people between destinations by automobile, pedestrian,

bicycle and transit modes.

mixed results or trailing behind typically state. Minnesota hopes to optimize the
lack timely data or specific targets, fail to existing transportation system, improving
divide the data geographically or by mode coordination among jurisdictions and
to better pinpoint problem areas, and lack modes and making strategic choices
explanations to clarify or put data into between spending on highways and
context. Understanding the most congested transit. Minnesota also provides current
areas allows states to better pinpoint data and clear explanations of the
investments in improvements to existing indicators, such as the duration and extent
infrastructure or new construction. of congestion and incident clearing times.
The data are contextualized by comparing
The following are examples from them to past time periods.147
performance: In Texas ( leading the way), an online
Minnesota ( leading the way) dashboard, called TxDOT Tracker,
measures performance on a number presents and explains data on a number
of mobility indicators that can track of core mobility measures, including a
progress toward two state policy goals statewide congestion index, large and
identified in its 2009–2028 Statewide small urban area travel delays and costs of
Transportation Policy Plan. The first goal congestion delays. In a separate document,
is to accommodate changing travel needs the state presents indicators on Amtrak
and use patterns based on demographic delays and on-time performance.148
and economic shifts. The second goal is to
reduce congestion and enhance mobility, Iowa ( trailing behind) identifies core
especially in the Twin Cities, because 9 performance measures, but fails to present
percent of the highways in this area carry data for them. Arkansas, New Mexico and
about 50 percent of roadway travel in the West Virginia have no measures.149

says Robert Puentes, a senior fellow with

Goal 4: Access Brookings’ Metropolitan Policy Program.152
Easier access to distant locations through
The ability of the transportation
well-designed transportation networks can
system to connect people to desired
lead to better employment outcomes for
goods, services, activities and
the working poor when it enables them to
destinations for both work and leisure,
travel to places where job growth is stronger.
and to meet the transportation needs
Access also allows employers in emerging
of different populations.
economic regions to attract a wider number
of qualified applicants, the Eddington report
Access in transportation systems is critical found.153
not only to Americans’ daily lives, but also to
Although the most urgent transportation
the nation’s economy. For businesses, better
problem for the poor is getting them
access can mean a larger customer base,
from inner cities to outlying areas, this
broader reach to new markets and more
phenomenon creates a double whammy
efficient transactions with other providers
and places greater pressure on state
as the 2006 Eddington Transportation Study,
transportation systems when there is a need
Britain’s seminal analysis of that country’s
to help the spread-out poor get access to
transportation system, pointed out.150
jobs and economic activities in metropolitan
areas, says Puentes.154
Employers have access to a much smaller
pool of labor and customers when Even when workers are able to get to their
individuals have limited or no ability to jobs, the costs of long commutes add up. A
reach them. Still, few states have developed Brookings analysis found that the working
measures that focus on how transportation poor spend more than 6 percent of income
options affect the ability of workers to get on commuting costs, compared with workers
to jobs. An exception has been Georgia. as a whole who spend almost 4 percent (see
The state’s 2010 Statewide Strategic Exhibit 10).155
Transportation Plan cites the share of workers
who reach their place of work by car or The working poor are joined by the aged and
transit in 45 minutes or less as an outcome disabled to form a troika of groups who have
measure to be considered in determining particularly intractable problems with access.
transportation investment priorities.151 There is broad recognition embodied in the
Americans with Disabilities Act that people
The gap between where people live and with disabilities need to have transportation
where available jobs are is a particularly access to live complete lives. Still, the
high barrier for low-income individuals, disabled who have limited access to cars can

Exhibit 10
Transportation Costs Affect Access

In 2009, transportation ranked All other Housing
as the second-largest
household expenditure, Apparel and services 10.4%
trailing only housing and 3.5%
ahead of food and insurance. 34.4%
Entertainment
5.5% 6.4%
Out-of-pocket 11.2%
health care
SOURCE: Pew Center on the States
and the Rockefeller Foundation, 13.0% 15.6%
2011, based on the Bureau of Labor
Transportation
Statistics’ “Consumer Expenditure Personal insurance
Survey,” October 5, 2010. and pensions Food
easily find themselves with no good way to Among other things, the database provides
get their medical and social needs served. the cost per boarding for fixed route transit
The aged face similar issues; many lose their service. But “it tends not to be mined very
capacity to drive as declining eyesight or effectively into larger policy discussions.
other physical infirmities pull them out from It could be and should be,” according to
behind the wheel. Douglas MacDonald, former secretary of
transportation for the State of Washington.158
Traditional mass transit systems—such as
subways or trains—are a solution for some, What stops states from putting more weight
but do not work well for people who cannot on this piece of the transportation puzzle?
get from their homes to central locations The biggest obstacle right now may be that
or from central locations to their final making policy decisions based on access
destinations. Solving such access problems data requires a deeper understanding of
is invariably expensive and has proven to be the way to best gather and analyze good
very difficult for transit agencies across the information. What is more, the issue
country.156 is riddled with political questions. For
example, advocates of “smart growth” argue
Although most state officials have little that some transportation problems can be
direct control over mass transit, whether solved by emphasizing the utility of densely
and to what degree these systems work are populated urban areas where work, home
of great consequence to them. The mother and leisure activities are close together. This
lode of information about mass transit is the leaves states with the knotty problem of
National Transit Database, maintained by determining the benefits of building roads
the Federal Transit Administration.157 It is a that make it easier to reach distant areas for
rich repository of data at the national level. jobs or social activities.

Where the States Stand: Access hours required to meet transit needs,
the number of counties with countywide
2
public transit service and the percentage
are leading the way
of regional trade centers with scheduled
21 states have mixed results intercity bus service.159 Other leading
Four states trail behind the way states, such as Oregon, focus
on public transportation for the elderly
The Pew-Rockefeller study identified 25 and disabled.160 But even among
states and the District of Columbia as these top-performing states, better
leading the way in access (see Exhibit measures are needed; as noted, most
11). One of these is Minnesota, which states lack measures that focus on how
has four core performance measures, transportation options affect workers’
including the number of bus service ability to reach jobs.
Exhibit 11
Where States Stand: Access
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA
NE VT
NV OH
UT IL IN
NH
CA CO WV
VA MA
KS MO
KY
RI
NC
TN CT
AZ OK AR
NM
SC NJ
GA
AL DE
MS
TX LA MD
AK DC
FL
Leading the Way

HI Mixed Results
Trailing Behind
Access. The ability of the transportation system to connect people to desired goods, services,
activities and destinations for both work and leisure, and to meet the transportation needs of
different populations.

Most of the remaining states show mixed commercial areas; the state has set a
results. They tend to rely on a single target of 100 percent coverage.
indicator—transit ridership—to measure
New Mexico ( leading the way)
progress in connecting people to places
estimates both demand (amount of travel
they want to go. But simple measures
expected given the services available)
of transit ridership did not get states
and the unserved need (nondiscretionary
full credit in this study because they do
trips) for public transit in rural areas in
not give states enough information to
the state, focusing on elderly, disabled
make fully informed decisions about
and low-income individuals. The state
access. States needed to go above and
then uses performance measures to help
beyond that with more outcome-focused
prioritize investments and serve residents
indicators to get a top rating. Although
more efficiently in rural areas.163
they lack core performance measures,
some states provide baseline data, often Louisiana ( mixed results) uses
with supplementary information such a measure aimed at helping ensure
as disaggregated information, trend all citizens have the ability to use
analysis and explanations for changes in public transportation: the number of
performance. participating parishes with low-cost
transportation options. The state has
The following are examples from established the goal of increasing the
the research of states’ practice and number of participating parishes from
performance: 37 as of December 1, 2009, to 50 (out
of a total of 64) by 2016. But Louisiana
Minnesota ( leading the way)
does not present additional performance
recognizes the importance of an efficient,
indicators, nor does it set short-range
multimodal transportation system
targets or compare performance over time
that “connects people with jobs and
or against other states.164
services; distributors with manufacturers,
producers, and exporters; shoppers with Arkansas, Colorado and New
retailers; and tourists with recreational Hampshire ( trailing behind) do
opportunities.”161 The state wants to not have any measures in this area.
enhance the movement of people and Kentucky ( trailing behind) has a
freight between regional trade centers.162 goal to “enhance rail transportation
Minnesota tracks data on the percentage safety and convenience to ensure
of the most commercially active regional mobility and access,” but presents data
trade centers with scheduled intercity only on the number of public transit
bus service. In 2009, such service was passengers, without other accompanying
available in just 70 percent of these information.165

not an easy task. With some lawmakers

Goal 5: motivated by a desire to curtail
greenhouse-gas emissions and improve
Environmental
air quality and others interested mostly
Stewardship in creating jobs or lowering energy
The effect of the transportation costs, such efforts often involve bringing
system on energy use and the together coalitions of parties motivated by
natural environment. substantially different objectives.168
Regardless, states are moving toward

In early 2010, Indiana Governor Mitch a fuller exploration of transportation
Daniels (R) got a major boost to his policies and practices that can advance
goal of turning Indiana into “the electric economic development and help protect
vehicle state.” THINK, a Norwegian-based the environment, such as improving
manufacturer of electric cars, announced fuel efficiency, reducing congestion and
that Elkhart, Indiana, would become vehicle miles traveled, lowering the
the new U.S. production center for the
company’s two-seat, battery-electric- Exhibit 12
powered vehicle.166 Then, at a mid-
December press conference, Governor Transportation’s Effect
Daniels took delivery of 15 THINK on the Environment
cars, all built at the Elkhart facility to Transportation is the second-largest contributor
to greenhouse gas emissions among major
be used in the state government’s fleet. economic sectors. Transportation-related
“Nearly four years ago we set the goal of emissions grew 22 percent between 1990 and
establishing our state as the ‘Silicon Valley’ 2008, the second-fastest rate.
for advanced vehicle manufacturing and U.S. Territories 1% Electric Power
… now we’re seeing the fruits of this Residential
5%
Industry
Commercial
initiative,” Governor Daniels said at the Agriculture
6%
event. “We are committed to lead in state 7%

35%
fleet electrification and call upon other
states to join in and help get this vitally 19%
important industry off the ground to make
electric cars available for everyone.”167 27%
Industry Transportation
The story illustrates the efforts that a
growing number of states are making to SOURCE: Pew Center on the States and the Rockefeller
Foundation, 2011, based on data from the Environmental
link transportation to economic growth Protection Agency, Inventory of Greenhouse Gas Emissions
and environmental stewardship. It is and Sinks: 1990-2008, 2009.

carbon content of the fuel burned and are no firm guidelines dealing with how
increasing the availability of mass transit they meet those requirements, says Lori
(see Exhibit 12). Sundstrom, former chief of staff for the
Oregon Department of Transportation
But often there is an ad-hoc quality to the (ODOT) and now a senior program officer
effort. Despite Governor Daniels’ pride at the National Academy of Sciences.170
in luring the THINK project, the Pew-
Rockefeller study shows that Indiana trails In contrast, California exemplifies how
behind other states in having systematic a state can tie transportation policy and
goals, performance measures and data to planning to environmental goals. In
assess how its transportation system affects 2008, California passed the Sustainable
environmental stewardship. Communities and Climate Protection Act,
a law requiring the state environmental
Indiana is far from alone. In the recent protection agency to set regional
GAO survey, only nine states indicated greenhouse gas emission reduction targets
they were making “great or very great” use for passenger vehicles, and then for
of environmental measures—specifically, metropolitan planning organizations in the
transportation-related emissions or state to develop strategies to meet those
energy consumption—in their statewide targets. California prioritizes transportation
planning.169 Federal law requires all states funding based on regional growth plans
to assess the potential environmental that show how reductions will be achieved.
harm of proposed transportation projects The targets were finalized in September
that involve federal monies, but there 2010.171 (See “Spotlight on Oregon.”)

Where the States Stand: planning effectively to environmental

Environmental Stewardship goals, but those efforts have not yet
shown up in the form of documented
16 states are leading the way
performance measures (see Exhibit 13).
1 Most of the states have goals and
trail behind core performance measures but
only 30 present data for them, and
About two-thirds of the states have only 13 of those states have timely
mixed results or trail behind in the data from 2009 or 2010. Twenty-
environmental stewardship area, three states and Washington, DC, do
according to the Pew-Rockefeller not offer explanations for changes
research. But this is a fast-moving field. in performance, and 17 states and
A number of states are taking substantial Washington, DC, do not compare their
steps to tie transportation policy and performance with other states or their
Exhibit 13
Where States Stand: Environmental Stewardship
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA VT
NE
NV OH
UT IL IN NH
CA CO WV MA
VA
KS MO
KY RI
NC CT
TN
AZ OK AR
NM NJ
SC
GA DE
AL
MS
MD
TX LA
AK DC
FL
HI Leading the Way

HI
Mixed Results
Trailing Behind
Environmental stewardship. The effect of the transportation system on energy use and the
natural environment.

own past performance to see if targets on New York highways and per capita
were achieved. motor fuel consumption. For some of
this information, New York compares its
The following are examples from figures with other states and with prior
the research of states’ practice and year data.173
performance:
Tennessee ( mixed results) considers
Maryland ( leading the way) stands transportation’s impact on the environment.
out for its use of data to understand and It tracks data on greenhouse gas emissions
measure the impact of transportation by sector, including transportation, though
decisions on the environment. For the data are from 2005.174 The state also
example, the state presents information tracks a more narrow measure on the
on its success in reducing vehicle number of publicly accessible biofuel
miles traveled through park-and-ride refueling pumps in its Biofuel Green Island
usage, measures reductions in energy Corridor System, a network of refueling
consumption by tracking the use of stations along Tennessee’s interstate system
“green” transit vehicles (hybrid or and major highways.175
alternative fuel), and presents annual
data on acres of wetlands or wildlife Seven states—Alaska, Louisiana,
habitat created, restored or improved. Mississippi, Nevada, New Jersey,
Maryland also tracks reductions in Oklahoma and West Virginia—and
transportation-related emissions overall, Washington, DC, ( trailing behind)
including greenhouse gas emissions, have goals in this area. For example,
some broken down by region and by Mississippi has a goal to “ensure that
type of emission, and sets short- and transportation system development
long-term targets.172 is sensitive to human and natural
environment concerns” and the District
New York ( leading the way) of Columbia plans to “[i]ncrease non-
emphasizes the need to reduce its reliance vehicular transportation mode share
on petroleum and significantly reduce to meet the mobility and economic
greenhouse gas emissions by 2050. New development needs of the District, as
York tracks a range of related indicators, well as reduce the use of fossil fuel and
including vehicle miles traveled daily, related climate change effects.”176 But these
organized by purpose of trip and per states lack performance measures and
capita by urbanized areas, as well as information about their progress toward
changes in the type of vehicles that travel their goals.

Where States Stand: En
SpoTlight on Oregon
WA
Four years ago, Oregon state lawmakers
set a clear environmental goal: Reduce
greenhouse gas emissions to 10 percent MT
below 1990 levels by 2020.177 But they
did not have a good way to analyze how OR
transportation policy and investment
decisions would impact emissions. A ID
2008 meeting of ODOT and the leaders
of a newly created statewide commission WY
to combat global warming led to a
solution.178 ODOT created software that
can analyze interactions among various
policy choices. The federal government NV
Under the law’s mandate, Oregon’s
recently asked ODOT to make the tool
largest metropolitan areas were
UT
available to all states as a model, and
Florida officials have begun testing it to requiredCA to reduce vehicle miles CO
see if it will meet their state’s needs.179 traveled by 10 percent over the 20
years after the adoption of a regional
Oregon has a long history of using plan. As a result, policies particularly in
data to reduce air emissions, mitigate Portland encouraged the construction
environmental damage from new of new buildings near transit stops,
construction and road maintenance, limited parking spaces and led toAZ NM
and limit urban sprawl.180 In 1973, the the redevelopment of land within
state legislature enacted Senate Bill 100, urban growth boundaries rather than
which led to rules that require every local fostering sprawl. The number of miles
and regional government to meet 19 that Portland residents drive each year
development planning goals, including is almost 20 percent lower than the
improving the economy and preserving U.S. national average (although that
and conserving natural resources.181 AK
comparison is not restricted solely to
cities of similar size).183
The law requires that every local and
regional government create a so-called The state is in the midst of another
urban growth boundary, which limits exercise, also mandated by the
development. Part of the rationale is that legislature, which requires transportation HI
if the population is densely concentrated, planners to use so-called “least-cost” HI
people will not have to drive long planning. Officials must weigh all of the
distances routinely, and reductions in implications of a proposed transportation
miles driven will reduce greenhouse gas project, not just short-term capital costs.
emissions.182 The environmental damage that would
Environmental stewardship. The e

natural environment.
56 SOURCE: Pew Center on the States and the
Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation
SpoTlight on Oregon (continued)

result also must be considered, not the fact that in most areas of the state,
only when it can be easily monetized transportation planners are required to
or quantified but also when it would compare the potential cumulative costs
cause serious consequences such as the with the potential benefits, says Marjorie
extinction of a species or a major increase Lifsey Bradway, the ODOT sustainability
in greenhouse gas emissions. program manager. Bradway’s position,
created in 2004, is the first state
Oregon is not the only state to use this transportation post in the nation devoted
type of analysis. But it is distinguished by solely to sustainability.184

found that half the states were far behind

GOAL 6: in funding their maintenance of roads and
bridges. The deferred maintenance for
INFRASTRUCTURE
New Jersey’s transportation system was
PRESERVATION $13 billion, for example. Massachusetts
The condition of the transportation estimated that it would need $15 billion to
system’s assets. $19 billion over the next 20 years just to
maintain its transportation system (transit
as well as roads and bridges) without any
There is good news and bad news when it enhancements or expansions.187
comes to the preservation of transportation
infrastructure in the United States. The good news? Along with safety,
infrastructure preservation is the area that
The majority of public roads nationwide states know the most about and for which
are in very good, good or fair condition. they have the most developed information
But nearly a quarter of the nation’s to make smart decisions. This widespread
major metropolitan roads—interstates, availability and use of condition measures
freeways and other principal arterial is due in large part to the requirement that
routes—“have pavements that are in states report condition information about
substandard condition and provide an roads and bridges to the Federal Highway
unacceptably tough ride to motorists,” Administration.
according to a September 2010 study by
the nonprofit group TRIP. Not only is this Some state officials say that the
a consideration in terms of safety, TRIP information they collect has helped
says, but the average U.S. urban driver attract funding. A bridge health index in
spends more than $400 per year in vehicle Kansas has spurred bridge preservation
operating costs as a result of driving on work by clearly establishing targets for
roads that are in poor condition—above the state’s bridges—at least 85 percent
and beyond expenses he or she would need to be in good condition and no
ordinarily accumulate. Driving on
185
more than 5 percent in deteriorated
deteriorated roads boosts drivers’ costs condition. Explains Calvin Reed, a
by increasing the frequency of needed Kansas bridge performance, evaluation
maintenance and requiring additional fuel. and program engineer: “In 2008, we
developed an in-house program to
From states’ fiscal point of view, delaying project the performance of our system
necessary maintenance winds up costing with different levels of funding. We were
more in the long run.186 And yet, Pew’s able to determine that we would need
2008 Government Performance Project approximately $100 million in annual

funding for the bridge preservation all the necessary information in a single
program to maintain the performance electronic location. Data that required
targets we established.” Seeing this kind a phone call and someone else running
of information, the legislature funded a report in the past will now be “at our
the program with an annual $85 million fingertips,” says Martin Kidner, the state
investment—not 100 percent of the planning engineer. The system shows
request, but a significant share given the areas or sections of roadways and the
state’s budget crunch.188 costs to maintain or reconstruct them.189
Kidner acknowledges there always will
In Wyoming, a statewide computer be political pressures on decision makers,
system has begun helping with asset but says, “I am not out there to tell you
management and eventually may aid which projects to build, but I will tell you
decision makers in targeting funds to the what the implications are. We can give
items and areas of greatest need. The main you the information ahead of time.”190
benefit of the system is that it will gather (See “Spotlight on Idaho.”)

Where the States Stand: lack explanations of performance issues,

Infrastructure Preservation were missing information about customer
satisfaction, preservation of transit assets
3
or other key topics, or did not compare
are leading the way
their performance with that of other states.
The following are examples from
No states trail behind
performance:
While there is variation in how states
measure pavement and bridge conditions, Louisiana ( leading the way) provides
all states and Washington, DC, have good timely data on performance indicators for
and timely outcome data related to these pavement and bridge conditions, offers
two facets of infrastructure preservation comparative information on its own prior
(see Exhibit 14). States that fell short in performance over time, and sets targets
the Pew-Rockefeller assessment tended to for improvement. For road conditions,
Exhibit 14
Where States Stand: Infrastructure Preservation
WA
ME
MT ND
OR MN
ID WI NY
SD
WY MI
IA PA
NE VT
NV OH
UT IL IN NH
CA CO WV
VA MA
KS MO
KY
RI
NC
TN CT
AZ OK AR
NM
SC NJ
GA
AL DE
MS
MD
TX LA
AK DC
FL
HI Leading the Way

HI
Mixed Results
Trailing Behind
Infrastructure preservation. The condition of the transportation system’s assets.

Louisiana includes detailed breakouts assessments. The state also sets clear
on the type of road including national targets in the area of infrastructure
interstate, national highway, state highways preservation—it aims to have at least 82
and regional highways.191 percent of its primary roads be in fair or
better condition.192
Not only does Virginia ( leading
the way) provide timely data on core Mississippi ( mixed results) provides
indicators of its roads and bridges, it also data on performance indicators for
includes comparative information so that pavement and bridge conditions, but
managers, decision makers and citizens does not offer comparisons to other
can understand where Virginia’s results states or its own performance over time.
stand in a broader context. For example, It also does not include explanations for
in areas related to road and bridge its performance that might help decision
conditions, Virginia provides comparisons makers14
Exhibit better understand what is affecting
to past performance targets and condition the results.193
Where States Stand: Infrastructu
SpoTlight on Idaho WA
In 2008, the Idaho Transportation
MT ND
Department (ITD) was facing an annual
budget shortfall in excess of $200 OR
million, out of a total state general
fund of less than $3 billion.194 The costs ID SD
of basic preservation and restoration WY
of the state’s highway system were
far outpacing departmental funding. NE
Governor C.L. “Butch” Otter (R) and NV
the legislature could not agree on how UT
to solve the challenge. The governor CA CO
wanted an increase in the state gasoline more comfort that the transportation KS
tax; the legislature would not approve department was spending our dollars as
it. Deadlocked, the legislature
195
efficiently as possible.”196
commissioned its Office of Performance OK
AZ NM
Evaluation to conduct a thorough review The review found that the department
of ITD revenues and expenses. “We was seriously underfunded—but also
weren’t looking for a smoking gun,” found that the state’s transportation
says Senator John McGee, chair of the system was “lacking a cohesive strategic
Senate Transportation Committee. “I think vision and coordinated long-term TX
the legislature and the public wanted AK
infrastructure management plan.”197
HI
HI
SpoTlight on Idaho (continued)

The report lit a fire under state leaders. number climbed to 71 percent.201 Scott
Governor Otter issued an executive Stokes, ITD’s deputy director, describes
order requiring the ITD to implement the transformation as the difference
the report’s recommendations within between knowing what was invested in
three years, including establishing a transportation and knowing the results
statewide strategic transportation plan of those investments.202
with goals and performance measures
and publishing an annual accountability A Transportation Funding Modernization
report.198 Task Force—also formed in the wake of
the audit—recommended in December
Although these efforts are in the early 2010 that the state find an additional
stages, Idaho already is seeing positive $543 million annually for transportation,
movement. The report recommended with more than half of that going to
that the state drop its “worst-first” operations, preservation and restoration
approach to pavement and bridge needs. The 15-member task force, which
preservation and instead adopt a included members of the House and
“preservation-first” approach that Senate, provided a ranked list of two
would save the state six to 10 times dozen possible revenue enhancements,
the amount spent on maintenance topped by fuel tax increases and fuel tax
within 10 years.199 The legislature inflation indexing.203
approved more than $8 million for ITD
that provided for new pavement and Given the state’s funding constraints,
maintenance management systems, a new resources may remain on hold.
key finding of the audit.200 In addition, Still, Stokes thinks the public, legislators
bridge conditions have been improving. and other decision makers now have
In 2008, only 67 percent of bridges confidence that greater investments in
in the state had been declared by transportation are increasingly linked to
the transportation department to be “things they care about, whether it be
in “good” condition. In 2010, that safety or the condition of bridges.”204

Policy Options
How can states develop more effective The federal government, states and
goals, performance measures and data and localities can help each other by
use that information more consistently to developing communities of practice,
make cost-effective transportation policy publicizing new approaches to
and spending choices? Research and measurement, establishing consistent
interviews with experts in the field have measures for common benchmarking,
identified some options that appear to and continuing to work on such areas as
have potential. commerce and access, in which there is
disagreement or uncertainty about the best
Improve the information. The measures to use. AASHTO has developed a
most obvious step is to push for number of reports on different approaches
better performance measurement to transportation measurement and its
information—improving the usefulness website offers examples of what states and
of indicators, moving toward a localities are doing, as do the websites
heightened focus on results and ensuring of several other organizations, such as
that measures link to concrete goals that the Public Performance and Reporting
reflect a state’s larger priorities, such as Network at the Rutgers University School
economic growth. To measure access, for of Public Affairs and Administration.205
example, transit ridership only goes so
far; policy decisions also might require Enact or improve performance
breakdowns of trends in ridership for measurement legislation. The federal
populations with different needs. A government can motivate—or require—
more comprehensive understanding states to strengthen their policies and
of the link between transportation and practices. Congressional deliberations
commerce may be aided by surveys or about a new, multiyear highway and
focus groups to get input from business transit bill—likely to be considered in
leaders on transportation needs. 2011—are expected to focus at least in
Better tools are particularly needed in part on transportation’s ability to drive
the areas of jobs and commerce and America’s economic growth, mobility,
environmental stewardship. environmental stewardship and other

Policy Options
key goals. There is momentum from both just having information but putting it to
the executive and legislative branches to use, and was partly inspired by successful
include in the legislation an increased efforts in Maryland and Washington.208
emphasis on states’ use of performance
measurement and data collection to make Kamensky and others believe the new law
transportation decisions. can serve as a model for states in which
executive and legislative branch leaders
A federal law passed in 2010 also could wish to connect transportation spending
help. In 1993, when Congress enacted the with larger societal goals and track the
Government Performance and Results Act results achieved. Specifically, the new law
(GPRA), it created a variety of requirements emphasizes the value of more frequent
for federal agencies. Those included the updates of measures; better alignment of
mandate to establish multiyear strategic strategic planning requirements and the
plans and annual performance plans and presidential term of office; more attention
reports. By 2009, some 39 states—many of to how agencies will work together on goals
which were inspired by the federal action— and objectives; the introduction of forums
had passed performance measurement designed to discuss and react to issues
legislation of their own. While the
206
raised by collected data; and follow-up on
details vary, such legislation generally whether the targets have been achieved.
prescribes a consistent use of measurement,
benchmarking against goals and evaluation Develop an appropriations process
in the states’ budget process. that makes better use of data. States
need to develop more comprehensive
But there is a significant gap between the systems that ensure that policy makers are
passage of legislation and the actual use asking for and using solid information in
of the data gathered for decision making. their deliberations about transportation
“We thought that when performance spending.
measurement information was available it
would be used, but that wasn’t necessarily Only a handful of states have taken
so,” says John Kamensky, senior fellow steps to develop mechanisms within
at the IBM Center for the Business of the appropriations process to consider
Government and member of a small performance measures along with budget
group that drafted the original GPRA requests. While transportation departments
legislation.207
are responsible for selecting potential
projects for the states, legislators generally
This realization inspired the creation of the must approve funding requests and
GPRA Modernization Act of 2010, passed operating and capital plans, and in some
in December. The new act is targeted at not states governors also have a strong say

Policy Options
in these matters. In addition, lawmakers transportation decisions. “There’s a rich

are responsible for a number of other opportunity to help all states, including our
transportation-related decisions, including state, best identify and compare costs and
policies for safety improvement such as the quality when we and others are asked to
requirement of seatbelt laws. do a cost-benefit analysis,” says Wisconsin’s
auditor, Janice Mueller.211
In Connecticut, Representative Urban
has championed an effort to guide all In countries such as France, cost-benefit
appropriations—including those for analysis is used to support decision making
transportation—with timely, relevant data, related to transportation infrastructure,
through the state’s Results Based Analysis according to World Transit Research.212 But
approach. Report cards from agencies the use of such data in decision making
on past performance are embedded in is uncommon in the United States. As
subcommittee budget books, along with a noted, the GAO reported in 2010 that
set of results-oriented questions (e.g., how only 11 states cited economic analysis as
much did you do? How well did you do it? being of great or very great importance in
Is anybody better off?). As Urban says, “It their decisions to include projects in their
is a constant reminder to legislators to ask statewide transportation plans. The kinds
those questions and to focus on results.”209 of tools discussed by the GAO include
not only cost-benefit analysis and cost-
Such efforts are works in progress. Urban effectiveness analysis, in which the different
complains that many measures are costs and benefits of different options
still process-oriented, and much of the are compared, but also economic impact
transportation information legislators want analysis, in which states derive the impact
is not yet available, especially in areas such of alternative approaches on the local,
as environmental stewardship and economic regional or national economy.213
development. Still, the very fact that some
legislators want more information is a sign Some states are trying to employ these tools
of success, and lawmakers are increasingly more often. Washington State transportation
referring to the quality of life statement that leaders, for example, wanted to consider
the “transportation system is maintained whether it was worthwhile investing
in a state of good repair and allows for money in center-line rumble strips to help
safe efficient movement of people and prevent center crossover collisions on the
goods, livable communities and sustainable roads. Such crashes tend to be particularly
growth,” she says.210 dangerous and expensive. The state had
been using these devices but wanted to
Increase the use of cost-benefit and other ensure they were worthwhile. It assessed
types of economic analysis in making the cost of installing those strips against

Policy Options
the societal cost of the crashes prevented transportation plans would enable state
and determined that centerline rumble departments of transportation to show the
strips provide a return on investment of impact of funding decisions on achieving
approximately 25 to one.214 goals.216 It highlights states such as
Pennsylvania, which includes strategies
But even states that require such analysis by for achieving goals and a timeline for
statute may not be optimizing its use. “We action within its long-range plan.217 In
have some statutes that purport to require addition, Pennsylvania has emphasized the
economic analysis but the requirements are importance of its measures in its Governor’s
vague and unenforced and to the extent Performance Report by explaining why
that economic analysis is undertaken, it’s those indicators are being tracked in the
done when there’s a lot of political pressure first place. For each indicator, there is
and then it becomes highly politicized,” an explanation of “Why this objective
says Loren Kaye, president of the California is important” and descriptions of how
Foundation for Commerce and Education. funding allocations affect performance.218
“A routine academic, high-quality, useful (Pennsylvania was deemed as having mixed
economic analysis, whether cost-benefit results overall in the Pew-Rockefeller
or cost-effectiveness or least-cost analysis, assessment, just missing earning the top
is done rarely and is not part of the public distinction; the state is leading in every area
policy culture.”215 except environmental stewardship, where
it does not present core outcome measures
Better connect goals, measures and showing the effects of transportation on the
plans. Most states understand the utility environment.)
of goal setting and are reasonably active
in establishing goals. But figuring out Track citizen feedback on transportation
how to measure progress is more difficult. experience. Researchers who examine
For example, the Pew-Rockefeller citizen input on government decision
research found that while 48 states and making note that transportation yields
Washington, DC, have goals relating to particularly rich opportunities because the
jobs and commerce, only 39 have any core public interacts with transportation services
performance measures. This is akin to a on a frequent basis and has strong feelings
student planning to get a college degree, about what they need and what they do
but never looking at his grades to see if not like—for example, a lane that is closed
he is actually going to get a diploma on for repairs for a long period without any
commencement day. apparent repairs taking place.
The GAO suggests that using performance The Trailblazer program, which is run
targets in long-range statewide through the Center on Government

Policy Options
Performance at the National Center for of stakeholders are involved in

Civic Innovation, works with 70 cities transportation decision making, and
and counties on developing ways to tap they are found both inside and outside
citizen input in transportation and other states’ borders. For example, the federal-
services. “People need information about state relationship is of critical concern,
transportation and they need to be able particularly given the fact that the
to tell decision makers what’s important federal government provides funding for
to them. That kind of communication is more than 30 percent of state spending
key to making good decisions. But that’s on transportation. And, as discussed
often not the way decisions are made,” previously, federal coordination of state
says Barbara Cohn Berman, director of efforts has helped accelerate progress
the center.219 dramatically in areas such as safety.
Still, a few states demonstrate the value Within the states themselves, various
of this particular tool. Delaware, for agencies must work together carefully
example, conducts an annual written to achieve the best outcomes. A 2008
survey of a number of different user AASHTO study noted “an increasing
groups including transit riders, as well as number of transportation and conservation
a statewide telephone survey of residents. professionals are finding that integrated
Results from this survey are linked to five planning is helping both sectors achieve
of the six broad goals on which this report their missions more effectively.”221 Similarly,
focuses (the exception is environmental the success of a comprehensive economic
stewardship). development strategy depends on a well-
wrought transportation system.
Policy makers have paid attention. For
example, according to Mark Eastburn, a Finally, there is the critical relationship
planner in the Delaware Department of between the states and their localities.
Transportation, the state survey showed The distribution of transportation
that the two highest priorities for transit responsibilities among states and localities
riders were having shelter from the rain varies widely. North Carolina, for
when waiting for transit and receiving example, is in charge of more than three-
better information about delays. The result: quarters of the roads within its borders.222
The state installed more covered shelters Michigan controls just 8 percent.223Among
and implemented a real-time GPS digital the questions joint control raises: When
sign system at the larger transit stops.220 funding and responsibility is shared,
how much do the goals of one level of
Improve intergovernmental and government dictate practices on another
interagency coordination. A multitude level? Are local governments collecting the

Policy Options
kind of data that enable state legislators management coordinator. “Everybody

to make road funding allocations based had their own silo and didn’t look beyond
on actual road conditions, rather than that. . . . Now, in the past nine years, there
on politics? Are local governments has been a lot of trust gained and a lot
sufficiently funded or staffed to collect of information collected.” For example,
such data? to make better use of the funds that are
available, state legislators began pushing
Beyond metropolitan planning road commissions and villages to adopt
organizations, states also have to work asset management tools, which have
with other local entities involved in been used by Michigan’s transportation
transportation decisions. Difficult fiscal department for about two decades.
times in Michigan, for example, have State, regional and local officials also
led to an evolution in the relationships began working together on rating road
between county road commissions and the conditions and assessing maintenance
Michigan Department of Transportation. projects to provide consistent information
“Prior to 2002, there was some distrust,” from which legislators could make
says Brian Sanada, the department’s asset decisions about relative levels of need.224

Conclusion
With limited resources available, state outcome-oriented performance measures
policy makers are being forced to make and solid data. The states vary a great deal
difficult choices about transportation in the degree to which they accomplish
policies and spending. But the need for this, as this study by the Pew Center on
more strategic and data-driven deliberation the States and the Rockefeller Foundation
goes beyond the immediate budget has determined.
crisis. Transportation plays a vital role
in every state’s ability to bolster jobs and Our research shows that even the states
commerce, improve mobility and access, in which transportation investments and
help ensure public safety and protect the policy choices may be most thoroughly
environment. guided by results-based decision making
still have a distance to go before they can
The desire for these results has spawned declare victory. But a growing number
a growing realization that states need to of policy makers understand the value
drive their transportation policies and of such efforts—and that is reason for
spending decisions with explicit goals, cautious optimism.

Endnotes
1 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009 5 National Surface Transportation Infrastructure
State Expenditure Report, Fall 2010, 66, http://nasbo. Commission, “Paving Our Way: A New Framework
org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=%2bPqnI4oZw2I%3d&ta for Transportation Finance,” February 26, 2009, 24,
bid=38 (accessed February 3, 2011). http://financecommission.dot.gov/Documents/NSTIF_
Commission_Final_Report_Advance%20Copy_Feb09.
2 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S. DOT pdf (accessed February 11, 2011).
Strategic Plan, FY2010-FY2015,” draft for public
comment, April 2010, http://www.dot.gov/stratplan/ 6 Information about the federal gas tax is available
dot_strategic_plan_10-15.pdf (accessed February 11, from Pamela J. Jackson, “The Federal Excise Tax
2011); National Transportation Policy Project of the on Gasoline and the Highway Trust Fund: A Short
Bipartisan Policy Center, “Performance Driven: A New History,” Congressional Research Service, April 4,
Vision for US Transportation Policy,” June 2009, http:// 2006, http://www.cnie.org/nle/crsreports/06may/
www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NTPP%20 rl30304.pdf (accessed January 24, 2011). The excise
Report.pdf (accessed February 11, 2011); Cambridge tax dropped briefly to 18.3 cents between January 1,
Systematics, “Performance Based Management: State 1996, and September 30, 1997. The decline in the
of the Practice White Paper,” May 12, 2009, http:// purchasing power of the federal gas tax is calculated
www.transportation.org/sites/scopm/docs/White%20 relative to the Engineering-News Record Construction
Paper%20for%202009%20CEO%20Leadership%20 Cost index, accessed through National Resources
Forum.pdf (accessed February 11, 2011); American Conservation Service, “Quick Spreadsheet of the
Association of State Highway and Transportation Most Common Indexes and Discount Rates,” U.S.
Officials, AASHTO Authorization Policy: Performance Department of Agriculture, January 24, 2011, ftp://
Management Recommendations, 2009, http://www. ftp-fc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/priceindexes/Data/
transportation.org/sites/policy_docs/docs/i.pdf PPPI_CPI_CCI.xls (accessed January 24, 2011).
(accessed February 11, 2011).
7 National Governors Association and National
3 U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Statewide Association of State Budget Officers, The Fiscal Survey of
Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to States, Fall 2010, 11, http://www.nasbo.org/LinkClick.
Transition to Performance-Based Planning and Federal aspx?fileticket=C6q1M3kxaEY%3d&tabid=38
Oversight,” GAO-11-77, December 15, 2010, http:// (accessed February 4, 2011).
www.gao.gov/new.items/d1177.pdf (accessed February 8 Bob McDonnell, “McDonnell’s State of the
11, 2011); Pew Center on the States interview with Commonwealth [of Virginia] Address 2011,” prepared
Phillip Herr, director, infrastructure issues, U.S. text, January 12, 2011, http://stateline.org/live/details/
Government Accountability Office, September 23, speech?contentId=540509 (accessed January 23,
2010. 2011).
4 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,” 9 Pew Center on the States interview with Maryland
40–41; 20–22. Governor Martin O’Malley, December 8, 2010.

Endnotes
10 Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies, 16 New Mexico Department of Transportation,

“The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey,” “New Mexico Statewide Public Transportation Plan,”
February 14, 2011, http://www.rockefellerfoundation. January 2010, 47–62, http://nmshtd.state.nm.us/
org/news/publications/rockefeller-foundation- upload/images/Transit_Rail_File_Transfer/NM%20
infrastructure-2 (accessed February 16, 2011). Statewide%20Public%20Trans%20Plan_January%20
2010%20ks%20rev.pdf (accessed January 26, 2011).
11 Katherine Barrett and Richard Greene, “Grading the
States: The Mandate to Measure,” Governing, March 17 Oregon Department of Transportation, “Annual
2008, 27–28, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ Performance Progress Report for Fiscal Year (2008-
uploadedFiles/Grading-the-States-2008.pdf (accessed 2009),” 22–24, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/
January 23, 2011). PERFORMANCE/docs/2009ODOTAPPRs.pdf (accessed
March 28, 2011).
12 Pew Center on the States interview with Pat
Morin, systems analyst manager, Washington State 18 Yi Lu, Katherine Willoughby and Sarah Arnett,
Department of Transportation, December 20, 2010; “Legislating Results: Examining the Legal Foundations
Daniela Bremmer and James H. Bryan, Jr., “Making of PBB Systems in the States,” Public Performance
the Case for Funding Using Performance Management: & Management Review, December 2009, 266–287.
Experience of the Washington State Department of Performance measurement legislation may vary
Transportation,” Transportation Research Record: substantially from one state to another, but generally
Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. requires agencies to develop indicators to track
2079, 2008, 146–153. progress toward goals. In some cases, submission of
measures is tied to budget requests; in others, there
13 Missouri Department of Transportation, “Tracker:
may be a requirement for year-end reports. The 11
Measures of Departmental Performance,” January 2010,
states without performance measurement legislation
7c, 11a, 12d and 12j, http://www.modot.mo.gov/
are Arkansas, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New
about/general_info/documents/Tracker_Jan2010/
Hampshire, New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
Jan2010Tracker.pdf (accessed February 14, 2011).
Pennsylvania, South Dakota and West Virginia.
14 Georgia Department of Transportation, “Statewide
19 John M. Kamensky, “GPRA Modernization Act of
Strategic Transportation Plan 2010–2030,” April
2010 Explained: Part 1,” The Business of Government
2010, http://www.it3.ga.gov/Documents/Final-SSTP.
Blog, IBM Center for the Business of Government, Parts
pdf (accessed January 27, 2011); Pew Center on the
1–8, January 7–8, 2010, January 10–14, 2010 and
States interview with Kirk Fjelstul, chief counsel,
January 17, 2010, http://www.businessofgovernment.
Georgia Regional Transportation Authority, December
org/blog/business-government/gpra-modernization-act-
1, 2010; Pew Center on the States interview with Todd
2010-explained-part-1 (accessed January 22, 2011).
Long, director of planning, Georgia Department of
Transportation, November 17, 2010. 20 Pew Center on the States interview with
Representative Diana Urban, Connecticut General
15 Minnesota Department of Transportation,
Assembly, January 12, 2011.
“Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan,
2009–2028,” August 2009, 7.6-1–7.7-7, http:// 21 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,” 18.
www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/stateplan/download.
html (accessed January 23, 2011); Minnesota 22 Washington State Department of Transportation,
Department of Transportation, “2009 Annual The Gray Notebook, GNB 38 for quarter ending June
Minnesota Transportation Performance Report,” May 30, 2010, August 25, 2010, 9–10, http://www.wsdot.
2010, 37, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/measures/pdf/ wa.gov/NR/rdonlyres/A70E957B-8230-4934-9600-
PerformanceReportLowRes.pdf (accessed February 11, 758B88DC0719/0/GrayNotebookJun10.pdf (accessed
2011). February 11, 2011).

Endnotes
23 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,” 48. Trends,” U.S. Department of Transportation,
November 2010, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/tvtw/
24 Georgia Department of Transportation, “Statewide tvtpage.cfm (accessed January 23, 2011).
Strategic Transportation Plan 2010–2030,” April 2010,
http://www.it3.ga.gov/Documents/Final-SSTP.pdf 38 NGA and NASBO, The Fiscal Survey of States, 2010.
(accessed January 27, 2011).
39 Pennsylvania State Transportation Advisory
25 Pew Center on the States interview with Mark Committee, “Transportation Funding Study Committee
Eastburn, planner, Delaware Department of Final Report,” May 2010, 98, ftp://ftp.dot.state.pa.us/
Transportation, January 10, 2011. public/bureaus/Press/TACFullReport.pdf (accessed
February 11, 2011).
26 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009
40 NGA and NASBO, The Fiscal Survey of States, 5–6.
State Expenditure Report, December 2010, 64.
41 John Halikowski, “Arizona Department of
27 Pew Center on the States interview with Brian
Transportation Roadmap for Operating Reductions in
Sanada, asset management coordinator, Michigan
2010,” http://www.arizonatrucking.com/documents/
Department of Transportation, December 17, 2010;
ADOT_FY10_Road_Map.pdf (accessed February 11,
Pew Center on the States interview with John Niemela,
2011).
director, County Road Association of Michigan,
December 9, 2010. 42 Michigan Department of Transportation,
“Economic Benefits of the Michigan Department of
28 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009 Transportation’s FY 2010-2014 Highway Program,”
State Expenditure Report, 66. Statewide and Urban Travel Analysis Section, Bureau
29 National Surface Transportation Infrastructure of Transportation Planning, March 2010, http://
Commission, “Paving Our Way,” 24. www.michigan.gov/documents/mdot/MDOT_
economicbenefitreport_202828_7.pdf (accessed
30 National Conference of State Legislatures, State January 22, 2011).
Budget Update: November 2010, December 2010, 9,
43 M. Ishaq Nadiri and Theofanis Mamuneas,
http://www.ncsl.org/LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=AqSB
“Contribution of Highway Capital to Output and
WjZkwK8%3D&tabid=21829 (accessed February 11,
Productivity Growth in the U.S. Economy and
2011).
Industries,” Federal Highway Administration, August
31 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,” 18. 2008, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/policy/gro98cvr.htm
32 Ibid.
44 Testimony of Susan Martinovich, director, Nevada
33 U.S. Chamber of Commerce, “The Business Plan for Department of Transportation and president, American
Transportation Infrastructure,” Remarks by Thomas J. Association of State Highway and Transportation
Donohue, Washington, DC, September 23, 2010. Officials (AASHTO), before the Committee on
Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, January
34 McDonnell, “McDonnell’s State of the
26, 2011, 6-7, http://downloads.transportation.org/
Commonwealth [of Virginia] Address 2011.”4
Martinovich_EPW_Testimony_Final_012611.pdf
35 Pew Center on the States interview with Indiana (accessed February 13, 2011).
Governor Mitch Daniels, December 17, 2010.
45 The Department of the Treasury with the Council
36 National Association of State Budget Officers, 2009 of Economic Advisers, “An Economic Analysis of
State Expenditure Report, 64. Infrastructure Investment,” October 11, 2010, http://
www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/infrastructure_
37 Federal Highway Administration, “Traffic Volume investment_report.pdf.

Endnotes
46 Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs, Institute, December 7, 2010; Highway Performance
“Strengthening Connections Between Transportation Monitoring System website, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
Investments and Economic Growth,” Bipartisan Policy policy/ohpi/hpms/index.cfm.
Center, January 21, 2011, http://www.bipartisanpolicy.
57 Pew Center on the States interview with Douglas
org/sites/default/files/NTPP%20Strengthening%20
MacDonald, former secretary of transportation,
Connections%20Paper.pdf.
Washington State Department of Transportation,
47 Pew Center on the States and the Public Policy November 9, 2010; National Transit Database, http://
Institute of California, Facing Facts: Public Attitudes and www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/index.htm (accessed
Fiscal Realities in Five Stressed States, October 2010, January 27, 2011).
14–15, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/report_
58 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,” 10.
detail.aspx?id=60803 (accessed February 11, 2011).
59 Ibid, 38; Interview with Herr, September 23, 2010.
48 Hart Research Associates/Public Opinion Strategies,
“The Rockefeller Foundation Infrastructure Survey.” 60 Pew Center on the States interview with John
Kamensky, senior fellow at the IBM Center for the
49 Interview with O’Malley, December 8, 2010.
Business of government, January 11, 2011.
50 Pew Center on the States interview with Emil
61 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning.”
Frankel, director of transportation policy, Bipartisan
Policy Center, October 13, 2010. 62 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning.”
Representative Oberstar is no longer in Congress.
51 Pew Center on the States interview with Paula
Hammond, secretary of transportation, Washington 63 On June 24, 2009, the Surface Transportation
State Department of Transportation, October 18, 2010. Authorization Act of 2009 was approved by the
Highway and Transit subcommittee of the House
52 Jonathan Walters, “Skewed Results,” Governing,
Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.
December 2004, http://www.governing.com/topics/
A markup of the bill, which was never heard by
politics/Skewed-Results.html (accessed February 3,
the full House and Senate, can be found at http://
2011).
transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.
53 Pew Center on the States interview with Roger aspx?NewsID=633 (accessed January 23, 2011); a
Wentz, president and CEO of the American Traffic summary, “A Blueprint for Investment and Reform,”
Safety Services Association, October 22, 2010. can be found on the Transportation for America
website, http://t4america.org/docs/061809_STAA_
54 National Traffic Highway Safety Administration, summary.pdf (accessed January 23, 2011).
U.S. Department of Transportation, “Traffic Safety
Performance Measures for States and Federal 64 Ken Orski, “What Lies Ahead for Transportation
Agencies,” August 2008, i, http://www.nhtsa.gov/ in the 112th Congress?” Innovation NewsBriefs e-mail
DOT/NHTSA/Traffic%20Injury%20Control/Articles/ newsletter, January 19, 2011.
Associated%20Files/811025.pdf (accessed February 4,
65 Tennessee Representative John J. Duncan, Jr.,
2011).
prepared statement for the Pew Center on the States,
55 Pew Center on the States interview with Joshua January 24, 2011.
Schank, director of transportation research, Bipartisan
66 Pew Center on the States interview with Joel Szabat,
Policy Center, October 13, 2010.
deputy assistant secretary for transportation policy,
56 Pew Center on the States interview with Tim U.S. Department of Transportation, November 18,
Lomax, research engineer, Texas Transportation 2010.

Endnotes
67 E-mail from James R. Fountain, consultant 77 Barrett and Greene, “Grading the States,” 27–28.
in financial and performance management for
78 Pew Center on the States interview with Jim Ray,
government, retired assistant director of research
former acting administrator (under President George
for the Governmental Accounting Standards Board
W. Bush), Federal Highway Administration, November
(GASB), January 22, 2011.
2, 2010.
68 Ibid.
79 Pew Center on the States interview with
69 “American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of Matthew Hardy, program director for planning and
2009.” Title XII. http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/ policy, American Association of State Highway and
z?d111:h.r.00001. Transportation Officials, December 9, 2010.
70 Brooks Jackson, “Stimulus Jobs: The Fine Print,” 80 “AASHTO Authorization Policy Topic I,
FactCheck.org Web site, April 14, 2010, http://www. Performance Management,” 28-36, http://www.
factcheck.org/2010/04/stimulus-jobs-the-fine-print/. transportation.org/sites/policy_docs/docs/i.pdf;
“Policy Resolution PR-7-09, American Association of
71 Interview with Szabat, November 18, 2010. State Highway and Transportation Officials, Position
Statement on Federal Surface Transportation Program
72 Pew Center on the States interview with Lori Irving,
Authorization,” October 26, 2009, http://www.
public affairs specialist, U.S. DOT, February 4, 2011.
aashtojournal.org/Documents/October2009/PR-7-09.
73 U.S. Department of Transportation, “Secretary pdf (accessed February 13, 2011).
LaHood Announces More Than 70 Innovative 81 Interview with Hardy, December 9, 2010.
Transportation Projects Competitively Funded Under
TIGER II,” press release, October 20, 2010, http:// 82 Pew Center on the States interview with Richard
www.dot.gov/affairs/2010/dot18810.html (accessed Margiotta, principal, Cambridge Systematics,
January 27, 2011). November 2, 2010.
74 Pew Center on the States interview with Joe Shacter, 83 Pew Center on the States interview with Steve
director of public and intermodal transportation, Lockwood, former associate administrator for policy
Illinois Department of Transportation, December 14, (under President George H.W. Bush), Federal Highway
2010. Administration, now senior vice president, PB Consult,
October 25, 2010.
75 “Connecticut Delegation Presses Transportation
Secretary on Grants,” press release, U.S. Representative 84 Pew Center on the States interview with Jason
Joe Courtney (D), February 23, 2010, http://courtney. Berry, captain, Washington State Patrol, October 11,
house.gov/index.cfm?sectionid=167&parentid=11&se 2010.
ctiontree=4,11,167&itemid=723 (accessed February 3,
85 The initiative was overturned by the courts, but the
2011).
legislature abided by the original results and cut the
76 “MICA Declares War on Executive Earmarks,” funding.
press release from Representative John L. Mica (R-FL), 86 Interview with Morin, December 20, 2010.
February 23, 2010, http://republicans.transportation.
house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=780 (accessed 87 The Association of Metropolitan Planning
January 26, 2011); John D. Boyd, “MICA Wrestles Organizations, About MPOs. http://www.ampo.org/
TIGER,” The Journal of Commerce, January 14, 2011, content/index.php?pid=15 (accessed February 15,
http://www.joc.com/mublog/20110114 (accessed 2011); Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962, Public Law
January 27, 2011). 87-866.

Endnotes
88 Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 2015-2016,” http://floridafiscalportal.state.fl.us/

of 1991, Public Law 102-240, http://thomas.loc.gov/ PDFDoc.aspx?ID=3473 (accessed March 30, 2011);
cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d102:HR02950: (accessed February Florida Department of Transportation, “Combined
16, 2011). Customer Satisfaction Survey for All Groups 2007
Statewide,” http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/
89 Pew Center on the States interview with John customers/2007all.pdf (accessed March 30, 2011);
Goodwin, Public Information Officer (San Francisco Florida Department of Transportation, “2007 Florida
Bay Area), Metropolitan Transportation Commission Resident Customer Survey: Statewide Detailed Results
and the Bay Area Toll Authority, January 14, 2011. All Response Categories,” http://www.dot.state.fl.us/
90 Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century, planning/customers/2000-2007resident.pdf (accessed
Public Law 105-178, http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tea21/ March 30, 2011).
pl105178.pdf (accessed February 16, 2011). 99 Georgia Department of Transportation, “Statewide
91 U.S. Government Accountability Office, Strategic Transportation Plan 2010-2030,” April 2010,
“Metropolitan Planning Organizations: Options Exist http://www.it3.ga.gov/Documents/Final-SSTP.pdf
to Enhance Transportation Planning Capacity and (accessed January 27, 2011); Georgia Department of
Federal Oversight,” GAO-09-868, September 2009, Transportation, “2010 Atlanta Regional Commuter
http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d09868.pdf (accessed Survey,” http://www.dot.state.ga.us/informationcenter/
February 4, 2011). programs/environment/airquality/Documents/
reports/2010_atlanta_regional_commuter_survey.pdf
92 Pew Center on the States interview with Steven (accessed March 30, 2010).
Rudy, director, Transportation Planning and
Operations, Denver Regional Council of Governments, 100 Missouri Department of Transportation, “Tracker:
November 22 and December 2, 2010. Measures of Departmental Performance,” January 2010,
7c, 11a, 12d and 12j, http://www.modot.mo.gov/
93 Ibid. about/general_info/documents/Tracker_Jan2010/
Jan2010Tracker.pdf (accessed February 14, 2011).
94 See, e.g., U.S. Department of Transportation,
“U.S. DOT Strategic Plan, FY2010-FY2015,” draft 101 State of Montana Department of Transportation
for public comment, April 2010; Bipartisan Policy and Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
Center, “Performance Driven”; Cambridge Systematics, University of Montana-Missoula, “TranPlan 21: 2009
“Performance Based Management”; AASHTO, Telephone Survey,” Volume 1, Statewide Public
“AASHTO Authorization Policy: Performance Involvement Survey, 2009, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/
Management Recommendations,” 2009. publications/docs/surveys/2009_telephone_survey.
pdf; State of Montana Department of Transportation
95 Connecticut Department of Transportation,
and Bureau of Business and Economic Research,
“Summary of CTDOT Performance Measures, 2010
University of Montana-Missoula, “TranPlan 21: 2009
Quarter 1,” Revised August 6, 2010, EE-8.
Stakeholder Survey,” Statewide Public Involvement
96 Connecticut Department of Transportation, Survey, 2009, http://www.mdt.mt.gov/publications/
“Connecticut State Rail Plan 2010-2014,” August 2010. docs/surveys/2009_stakeholder_survey.pdf (accessed
February 13, 2011).
97 “Summary of CTDOT Performance Measures, 2010
Quarter 1,” Connecticut Department of Transportation, 102 Oregon Department of Transportation, “Annual
Revised August 6, 2010, E-1. Performance Progress Report for Fiscal Year (2008-
2009),” 22–24, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/
98 Florida Department of Transportation, “Long Range PERFORMANCE/docs/2009ODOTAPPRs.pdf (accessed
Program Plan for Fiscal Years 2011-2012 Through March 28, 2011).

Endnotes
103 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Michael A. Regan, “Analysis of the Literature: The Use
National Center for Injury Prevention and Control, of Mobile Phones while Driving,” Monash University
“WISQARS Leading Cause of Death Reports: 1999- Accident Research Center, April 17, 2007.
2007,” http://webappa.cdc.gov/sasweb/ncipc/
111 Governors Highway Safety Association, “Cell
leadcaus10.html (accessed February 5, 2011);
Phone and Texting Laws,” February 2011, http://
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, “Vital
www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/cellphone_laws.html
Signs: Nonfatal, Motor Vehicle—Occupant Injuries
(2009) and Seat Belt Use (2008) Among Adults—
United States,” January 7, 2011, http://www.cdc. 112 Interview with Wentz, October 22, 2010.
gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5951a3.htm?s_
cid=mm5951a3_w (accessed February 5, 2011). 113 Kentucky Office of Highway Safety, “2010
Highway Safety Performance Plan,” 10, http://www.
104 Pew Center on the States interview with David nhtsa.gov/nhtsa/whatsup/safeteaweb/FY10/HSPs/
Strickland, administrator, National Highway Traffic KYFY10HSP.pdf (accessed January 26, 2010).
Safety Administration, November 3, 2010.
114 Illinois Department of Transportation,
105 Interview with Wentz, October 22, 2010. 2010, “A Tradition of Service, Annual Report
2009,” 4, http://dot.state.il.us/annualreport/2009/
106 U.S. Government Printing Office, Title 23,
FINAL2009AnnualReport_031710.pdf (accessed
Chapter II, Part 1200, Uniform Procedures for State
February 9, 2011).
Highway Safety Programs of the Code of Federal
Regulations, http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/ 115 Illinois Department of Transportation, 2010,
waisidx_10/23cfr1200_10.html (accessed January 23, “Highway Safety Performance Plan,” 2, http://dot.
2011). state.il.us/trafficsafety/Executive%20Summary_10.pdf
107 Interview with Strickland, November 3, 2010.
116 Illinois Department of Transportation, 2009,
108 Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia
“Highway Safety Program Annual Evaluation Report,”
allow police to stop drivers exclusively because they
http://dot.state.il.us/trafficsafety/AER09-web.pdf
are not wearing seatbelts; another 18 states permit
ticketing for seatbelt violations only if the vehicle is
stopped for other reasons, according to the Governors 117 Iowa Department of Transportation, “2009 Iowa
Highway Safety Association, http://www.ghsa.org/html/ Railroad System Plan,” 94–95, http://www.iowadot.
stateinfo/laws/seatbelt_laws.html (accessed January 23, gov/iowainmotion/rail.html (accessed February 14,
2011). 2011).
109 Bicycle Helmet Safety Institute, “Helmet Laws for 118 Missouri Department of Transportation, Highway
Bicycle Riders,” January 5, 2011, http://www.bhsi.org/ Safety Division, “State of Missouri – 2010 Highway
mandator.htm (accessed January 23, 2011). Safety Plan and Performance Plan,” 9, http://www.
modot.org/safety/documents/2010%20HSP.pdf
110 Examples of meta-analysis studies examining the
(accessed March 30, 2011).
link between cell phone usage and accidents include
Jeffrey K. Caird, Charles T. Scialfa, Geoffrey Ho, and 119 Oregon Department of Transportation, “Annual
Alison Smiley, “Effects of Cellular Telephones on Performance Progress Report for Fiscal Year (2008-
Driving Behaviour and Crash Risk: Results of Meta- 2009),” 22–24, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/CS/
analysis,” CAA Foundation for Traffic Safety, October PERFORMANCE/docs/2009ODOTAPPRs.pdf (accessed
25, 2004; Charlotte L. Brace, Kristie L. Young, and March 28, 2011).

Endnotes
120 Geraldine Gambale, “The 24th Annual Corporate 130 Pew Center on the States interview with Henry
Survey and 6th Annual Consultants Survey,” Area Kay, deputy administrator, Planning and Engineering,
Development Magazine, 2009, 36, http://www. Maryland Department of Transportation, October
areadevelopment-digital.com/CorporateConsultsSurvey/ 21, 2010; see also Maryland Transit Administration,
24thAnnualCorporateSurvey#pg1 (accessed January 23, “Light Rail’s History,” http://mta.maryland.gov/about/
2011). transitprofiles/History%20of%20the%20Light%20
Rail-Corrected%20No%201.pdf (accessed January 27,
121 Cambridge Systematics, “Economic Benefits of 2011).
Transportation Investment,” January 2002, http://www.
transportation.org/sites/planning/docs/nchrp22_1.pdf 131 Pew Center on the States interviews with Chris
(accessed January 22, 2011). Patusky, director, Office of Real Estate, Maryland
Department of Transportation, November 15 and 19,
122 Jack Dalrymple, “2011 State of the State Address,” 2010, and January 19, 2011.
North Dakota, January 4, 2011, http://governor.nd.gov/
events/2011-state-state-address (accessed January 23, 132 Baltimore City Department of Transportation,
2011). “Westport Waterfront TOD Cost Benefit Analysis,”
August 23, 2010, http://www.baltimorecity.gov/
123 Pew Center on the States interview with David LinkClick.aspx?fileticket=5D1qreH5I38%3d&tabid=110
Olson, president, Minnesota Chamber of Commerce, 3&mid=2824 (accessed January 25, 2011).
January 7, 2011.
133 Interview with Patusky, November 15, 2010.
124 Pew Center on the States interview with B. Starr
McMullen, professor of economics, Oregon State 134 Ibid.
University, November 2, 2010.
135 Idaho Transportation Department, “Annual
125 Interview with Urban, January 12, 2011. Accountability Report,” December 2010, http://itd.
idaho.gov/accountability/FY10_ITD_Annual_Report_
126 Douglas Holtz-Eakin and Martin Wachs, Lowest_Resolution.pdf (accessed March 30, 2011).
“Strengthening Connections,” 1, 10.
136 Rhode Island Department of Administration,
127 Michigan Department of Transportation, “Economic “Transportation 2030,” August 2008, http://www.
Impact Analysis of the Michigan Transportation planning.ri.gov/transportation/trans2030.pdf (accessed
Investment Packages,” 2007, http://www.michigan.gov/ March 30, 2011).
documents/mdot/MDOT_SLRP_Economic_Impact_
Analysis_200445_7.pdf (accessed February 14, 2011). 137 Robert Puentes, “A Bridge to Somewhere:
Rethinking American Transportation for the 21st
128 Missouri Department of Transportation, “MoDOT Century,” The Brookings Institution, Metropolitan
Tracker: Advance Economic Development,” 4–6, Policy Program at Brookings Institution, 2008,
accessed January 23, 2011, http://www.modot. 20, http://www.brookings.edu/~/media/Files/
mo.gov/about/general_info/documents/Tracker_Oct10/ rc/reports/2008/06_transportation_puentes/06_
Chapter%207.pdf. transportation_puentes_report.pdf (accessed January
22, 2011).
129 North Dakota Department of Transportation,
“North Dakota State Rail Plan,” 2007, http://www.dot. 138 Federal Highway Administration, “Congestion
nd.gov/divisions/planning/docs/railplan.pdf (accessed Management Process,” http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/
February 2, 2011); North Dakota Department of resourcecenter/teams/planning/cms.cfm (accessed
Transportation, “TransAction II North Dakota’s January 23, 2011).
Statewide Strategic Transportation Plan,” 2007, 2, http://
www.dot.nd.gov/manuals/planning/TrActII-07.pdf. 139 Interview with Lomax, December 7, 2010.

Endnotes
140 Texas Transportation Institute, “Economic (accessed January 24, 2011). Texas Department of
Recovery Brings Renewed Congestion Growth,” press Transportation, “Texas Rail Plan,” 2010, http://www.
release, January 20, 2011, http://mobility.tamu.edu/ txdot.gov/public_involvement/rail_plan/trp.htm
ums/media_information/press_release.stm (accessed (accessed January 24, 2011).
January 26, 2011).
149 Iowa Department of Transportation, “Iowa
141 Interview with Margiotta, November 2, 2010. Department of Transportation Strategic Plan 2008
through 2012,” June 2008, 6, http://publications.iowa.
142 Pew Center on the States interview with Brian
gov/9195/1/DOTStrategicPlan2008-2012FINAL.pdf
Cronin, team leader, Intelligent Transportation Systems
Research, Research and Innovative Technology
Administration, U.S. Department of Transportation, 150 Sir Rod Eddington, The Eddington Transport Study,
November 24, 2010; Pew Center on the States interview U.K. Department for Transportation, Her Majesty’s
with Bruce McDowell, president, Intergovernmental Stationary Office, December 2006.
Management Associates, October 15, 2010.
151 Georgia Department of Transportation, “Statewide
143 Pew Center on the States interview with Vince Strategic Transportation Plan 2010-2030,” April 2010,
Fairhurst, state incident response program manager, http://www.it3.ga.gov/Documents/Final-SSTP.pdf
Washington State Department of Transportation, (accessed January 27, 2011).
October 28, 2010.
152 Puentes, “A Bridge to Somewhere,” 20.
144 Washington State Department of Transportation,
“Incident Response Strategic Initiatives,” November 17, 153 Eddington, The Eddington Transport Study.
2007.
154 Puentes, “A Bridge to Somewhere,” 20.
145 Russell Nichols, “Smart Highways, Smarter
Drivers,” Government Technology, January 4, 2011; Pew 155 Robert Puentes and Elizabeth Roberto,
Center on the States interview with Annie Johnson, “Commuting to Opportunity: The Working Poor and
spokesperson, Washington State Department of Commuting in the United States,” The Brookings
Transportation, October 25, 2010. Institution, Metropolitan Policy Program at Brookings
Institution, 2008, 7, http://www.brookings.edu/~/
146 Washington State Department of Transportation,
media/Files/rc/reports/2008/0314_transportation_
The Gray Notebook, GNB 39 for quarter ending
puentes/0314_transportation_puentes.pdf (accessed
September 30, 2010, November 16, 2010, 8.
February 2, 2011).
147 Minnesota Department of Transportation, August
156 Interview with MacDonald, November 9, 2010.
2009, “Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy
Plan, 2009–2028,” August 2009, 7.6-1—7.7-7, http:// 157 Federal Transit Administration, “National Transit
www.dot.state.mn.us/planning/stateplan/download. Database,” http://www.ntdprogram.gov/ntdprogram/
html (accessed January 23, 2011); Minnesota index.htm (accessed February 14, 2011).
Department of Transportation, “2009 Annual
Minnesota Transportation Performance Report,” May 158 Interview with MacDonald, November 9, 2010.
2010, 37, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/measures/pdf/
PerformanceReportLowRes.pdf (accessed February 11, 159 Minnesota Department of Transportation, August
2011). 2009, “Minnesota Statewide Transportation Policy Plan,
2009-2028,” 7.5-1 – 7.5-8, http://www.dot.state.mn.us/
148 Texas Department of Transportation, “TxDOT planning/stateplan/download.html (accessed January
Tracker,” http://apps.dot.state.tx.us/txdot_tracker/ 23, 2011).

Endnotes
160 Oregon Department of Transportation, 2009, 168 The Clean Air Act originally required the
“Annual Performance Progress Report for Fiscal Year Environmental Protection Agency to set national
(2008-2009) Proposed KPM’s for Biennium (2009- air quality standards for six pollutants: ground-
2011),” 34 – 35, http://www.oregon.gov/ODOT/ level ozone, lead, carbon monoxide, sulfur oxides,
CS/PERFORMANCE/docs/2009ODOTAPPRs.pdf nitrous oxides and particulate matter. In 1990
(accessed January 23, 2011). states were required to pass tight tailpipe emission
standards for a variety of pollutants. Any state that
161 Minnesota Department of Transportation, did not comply risked losing its federal highway
August 2009, “Minnesota Statewide Transportation funding. From 1990 to 2008, emissions of those six
Policy Plan, 2009-2028,” 7.5-1 – 7.5-8, http://www. pollutants fell by 41 percent while the gross domestic
dot.state.mn.us/planning/stateplan/download.html product grew by 64 percent. On the other hand,
(accessed January 23, 2011). transportation greenhouse gas emissions (GHG)
162 The RTC concept was established in the early increased 27 percent between 1990 and 2006,
1960s by University of Minnesota professors as a way which accounts for half of the increase in total U.S.
to describe and rank communities based on levels GHG emissions for the period. U.S. Department of
of activity and business. The hierarchy ranges from Transportation, “Transportation’s Role in Reducing
metropolitan areas with the highest level of economic U.S. Greenhouse Gas Emissions Volume 1: Synthesis
activity to hamlets having the lowest level. Report,” April 2010, ES-3, http://ntl.bts.gov/
lib/32000/32700/32779/DOT_Climate_Change_
163 New Mexico Department of Transportation, Report-_-_April_2010-_-_Volume_1_and_2.pdf
“New Mexico Statewide Public Transportation (accessed January 23, 2011).
Plan,” November, 2010, 48, http://nmshtd.state.
nm.us/upload/images/Programs-Transit%20and%20 169 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,”
Rail-/NM%20Statewide%20Public%20Trans%20 41.
PlanFINAL.pdf (accessed February 4, 2011).
170 Pew Center on the States interview with
164 Louisiana Department of Transportation Lori Sundstrom, senior program officer, National
and Development, June 30, 2010, “Five-year Academy of Sciences, October 28, 2010.
Strategic Plan,” 76–78. http://www.dotd.la.gov/
171 Neha Bhatt, Colin Peppard and Stephanie
press/20100614_StrategicPlan.pdf (accessed January
Potts, “Getting Back on Track: Aligning State
24, 2011).
Transportation Policy with Climate Change Goals,”
165 Kentucky Transportation Cabinet, “Long-Range Smart Growth America and Natural Resources
Statewide Transportation Plan 2006,” 2007, http:// Defense Council, December 2010, http://www.
www.planning.kytc.ky.gov/stp/2006/Statewide%20 smartgrowthamerica.org/documents/getting-back-on-
Plan.pdf (accessed January 24, 2011). track.pdf (accessed January 22, 2011).
166 Indiana Economic Development Corporation, 172 Maryland Department of Transportation,

“Indiana Attracts Global Electric Car Maker,” press “2010 Annual Attainment Report on Transportation
release, January 5, 2010, http://www.in.gov/portal/ System Performance,” October 2010, 31–36, http://
news_events/49630.htm (accessed January 25, www.mdot.maryland.gov/Planning/CTP_10-15/
2010). Documents/2010_Attainment_Report.pdf (accessed
January 23, 2010).
167 “Think Delivers First USA-Assembled Electric
Car,” EV World Newswire, December 17, 2010, http:// 173 New York State Department of Environmental
evworld.com/news.cfm?newsid=24654 (accessed Conservation, “Transportation Issue Brief: New York
January 25, 2011). State Energy Plan 2009,” December 2009, 22, http://

Endnotes
www.nysenergyplan.com/final/Transportation_IB.pdf Planning Rule—What’s Been Accomplished and How,”

(accessed January 23, 2011). Center for Urban Studies, College of Urban and Public
Affairs, Portland State University, November 1998,
174 E..H Pechen and Associates and Cambridge http://www.upa.pdx.edu/CUS/publications/docs/DP98-
Systematics, “Global Climate Change, Greenhouse Gas 8.pdf (accessed January 23, 2011).
Emissions, and Transportation in Tennessee.” Prepared
for the Tennessee Department of Transportation, June 182 More information about the urban growth
2008, 52. boundary in Portland can be found at http://www.
metro-region.org/index.cfm/go/by.web/id=277
175 State of Tennessee, FY 2010-2011Budget, B-359. (accessed January 23, 2011). To meet that goal, the
Portland Metro government focused on redeveloping
176 Mississippi Department of Transportation, “Annual
areas to limit sprawl, says Andy Cotugno, Metro’s
Report FY 2009,” 27, http://www.gomdot.com/Home/
transportation director. The Portland metropolitan area
Reports/FiscalYear/FY2009AR/Annual%20Report%20
also invests in conservation by buying some sensitive
2009.pdf (accessed March 30, 2011); Government of
land that is at risk of development. The result is that
the District of Columbia, “FY2011 Proposed Budget
between 1990 and 2000, 88 percent of the Portland
and Financial Plan: Maximizing Efficiency Volume 3:
region’s population growth occurred in high-density
Agency Budget Chapters–Part II,” 2009, F-25, http://
urban areas. Pew Center on the States interview with
cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/budget/
Andy Cotugno, director, Metro, October 22, 2010.
fy2011/council/volume_3_agency_chapters_part_ii_
web.pdf (accessed January 25, 2011). 183 Transportation Research Board, Driving and the
Built Environment, Special Report 298, 2009, http://
177 Oregon Global Warming Commission, “Goals
onlinepubs.trb.org/Onlinepubs/sr/sr298.pdf (accessed
and Getting There,” http://www.keeporegoncool.
January 23, 2011).
org/content/goals-getting-there (accessed January 23,
2011). 184 Interview with Bradway, October 19, 2010.
178 Pew Center on the States interview with Angus 185 TRIP, “Hold the Wheel Steady: America’s
Duncan, chairman, Oregon Global Warming Roughest Rides and Strategies to Make our Roads
Commission, October 29, 2010; Pew Center on the Smoother,” September 2010, 2, http://www.tripnet.org/
States interview with Brian Gregor, planner, Oregon urban_roads_report_Sep_2010.pdf (accessed January
Department of Transportation, October 22, 2010. 23, 2011).
179 Interview with Gregor, October 29, 2010; Pew 186 Larry Galehouse, James S. Moulthrop, and R.
Center on the States interview with Doug Hecox, Gary Hicks, “Principles of Pavement Preservation:
spokesman, Federal Highway Administration, October Definitions, Benefits, Issues, and Barriers,” Federal
29, 2010. Highway Administration Pavement Preservation
Compendium II, updated March 22, 2007, http://
180 Pew Center on the States interview with Marjorie www.fhwa.dot.gov/pavement/preservation/ppc0621.
Lifsey Bradway, sustainability program manager, cfm (accessed February 13, 2011).
Oregon Department of Transportation, October 19,
2010. 187 Massachusetts Transportation Finance
Commission, “Transportation Finance in
181 Oregon Legislative Assembly, “Senate Bill 100, Massachusetts: An Unsustainable System,” Findings
1973 Regular Session, http://www.oregon.gov/LCD/ of the Massachusetts Transportation Finance
docs/bills/sb100.pdf (accessed January 23, 2011); Commission, March 28, 2007, http://www.eot.
Martha J. Bianco and Sy Adler, “The Politics of state.ma.us/downloads/tfc/tfc_findings.pdf; Barrett
Implementation: Oregon’s Statewide Transportation and Greene, “Measuring Performance,” 32. The

Endnotes
Government Performance Project (GPP) included Analysis, “Idaho Fiscal Facts: A Legislator’s Handbook
information about buildings as well as transportation of Facts,” Figures, & Trends, October 2010, 10.
in its infrastructure grades. Half the states were judged
to be weak in maintenance. GPP infrastructure grade 195 Alan Ehrenhalt, “Butch’s Battle,” Governing, June
summary, http://www.pewcenteronthestates.org/ 2009.
uploadedFiles/Infrastructure%20Performance.pdf
196 Pew Center on the States interview with John
McGee, Idaho state senator, November 18, 2010.
188 Email from Calvin Reed, bridge performance,
197 Idaho Legislature, “Idaho Transportation
evaluation and program engineer, Kansas Department
Department Performance Audit,” 1.
of Transportation, November 30, 2010.
198 C.L. “Butch” Otter, “Executive Order No. 2009-
189 Pew Center on the States interview with Martin
08: Requiring the Idaho Transportation Department to
Kidner, state planning engineer, Wyoming, October
Publish an Annual Accountability Report,” March 18,
27, 2010.
2009.
190 Ibid. Wyoming developed its own customized
199 Idaho Legislature, “Idaho Transportation
financial and asset management system. Other states
Department Performance Audit,” 70.
could develop similar models.
200 Idaho Transportation Department, “2009 Annual
191 State of Louisiana, “Governor’s Executive Budget
Accountability Report,” January 2010.
Fiscal Year 2010-2011,” 2010, 109, http://www.doa.
louisiana.gov/opb/pub/FY11/FY11ExecutiveBudget.pdf; 201 Idaho Transportation Department, “Annual
Louisiana Performance Accountability System, http:// Accountability Report,” December 1, 2010, 5, http://
wwwprd.doa.louisiana.gov/lapas/public/index.cfm?acti itd.idaho.gov/accountability/FY10_ITD_Annual_
on=browse&fy=2010&dept=07&agy=276&pgm=A&o Report_Lowest_Resolution.pdf (accessed January 23,
bj=1&pi=3 (accessed March 30, 2011). 2011).
192 Virginia Office of Intermodal Planning and 202 Pew Center on the States interview with Scott
Investment, “Transportation Performance Trend Stokes, deputy director, Idaho Transportation
Report—2008,” 2008, http://www.vatransperforms. Department, November 4, 2010.
virginia.gov/TransPerf08/PDF/All_Goals_2008.pdf
(accessed January 23, 2011); Virginia Department of 203 C.L. “Butch” Otter, “Executive Order No.
Transportation, “State of the Structures and Bridges 2009-11: Establishing a Gubernatorial Task
Report,” January 2010, http://www.virginiadot.org/info/ Force on Modernizing Transportation Funding in
resources/State_of_Structures_Report-January-2010.pdf Idaho,” June 23, 2009; Governor’s Task Force on
(accessed January 26, 2011). Modernizing Transportation Funding in Idaho, “Final
Recommendations,” December 1, 2010, http://itd.
193 Mississippi Unified Long Range Transportation
idaho.gov/taskforce/TaskForceFinalRecommendations.
Infrastructure Plan: 2008 to 2035, Mississippi Highway
pdf (accessed January 22, 2011).
and Bridge Needs. http://www.multiplan2035.
com/PDF/TM%206%20HIGHWAY%20AND%20 204Interview with Stokes, December 1, 2010.
BRIDGE%20NEEDS.pdf (accessed March 30, 2011.
205 Standing Committee on Performance Management,
194 Idaho Legislature, Office of Performance American Association of State Highway and
Evaluations, “Idaho Transportation Department Transportation Officials, http://www.transportation.
Performance Audit,” January 2009, 139; Idaho org/?siteid=97&pageid=2955 (accessed February 1,
Legislative Services Office of Budget and Policy 2011); National Forum on Performance Based Planning

Endnotes
and Programming, September 13–15, 2010, http:// 215 Pew Center on the States interview with
www.transportation.org/?siteid=97&pageid=2955 Loren Kaye, president, California Foundation for
(accessed February 1, 2011); Public Performance Commerce and Education, January 10, 2011.
and Reporting Network, http://www.ppmrn.net/.
216 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,”
206 Lu, Willoughby and Arnett, “Legislating 48.
Results,” 266–287. The 11 states without
217 Ibid, 15.218 Pennsylvania Governor’s Budget
performance measurement legislation are Arkansas,
Office, “2009–10 Report on State Performance”
Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire,
(transportation is listed under economic
New York, North Carolina, North Dakota,
development), http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/
Pennsylvania, South Dakota and West Virginia.
server.pt/community/performance_reports/4677
207 Interview with Kamensky, January 11, 2011. (accessed January 22, 2011).
219 Pew Center on the States interview with Barbara

208 Kamensky, “GPRA Modernization Act,” Parts
Cohn Berman, director, Center on Government
1–8.
Performance, National Center for Civic Innovation,
209 Interview with Urban, January 12, 2011. February 3, 2011.
220 Interview with Eastburn, January 10, 2011.

210 Ibid.
221 Linking Environmental Resource and
211 Pew Center on the States interview with Janice
Transportation Planning,” prepared by Cambridge
Mueller, state auditor, Wisconsin Legislative Audit
Systematics with NatureServe, December, 2008,
Bureau, November 3, 2009.
ES-1, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/archive/
212 Sebastian Damart and Bernard Roy, “The Uses NotesDocs/25-25%2832%29_FR.pdf (accessed
of Cost Benefit Analysis in Public Transportation February 14, 2011)
Decision-making in France,” Transport Policy 16, 222 Pew Center on the States interview with Mark
Issue 4, (2009): 200–212. Foster, commissioner, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, November 20, 2010.
213 U.S. GAO, “Statewide Transportation Planning,”
18, 20. 223 Pew Center on the States interview with
Polly Kent, analyst, Michigan Department of
214 Washington State Department of
Transportation, November 3, 2010.
Transportation, The Gray Notebook, GNB 38 for
quarter ending June 30, 2010, August 25, 2010, 224 Interview with Sanada, December 17, 2010;
9–10. interview with Niemela, December 9, 2010.

Appendix A: State-By-State Ratings
Infrastructure
Environmental
Preservation
Stewardship
Commerce
Jobs and
Mobility
Overall
Access
Safety
Leading the Leading the
ALABAMA Trailing behind way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind way
Leading the Leading the Leading the
ALASKA Trailing behind way Mixed results way Mixed results Trailing behind way
ARIZONA Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results way Mixed results way
ARKANSAS Trailing behind way Mixed results Trailing behind Trailing behind Mixed results way
Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the
CALIFORNIA way way Mixed results way way way way
Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the
COLORADO Mixed results way way way Trailing behind way way
CONNECTICUT way way Mixed results way way way way
Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the
DELAWARE Mixed results way way way Mixed results Mixed results way
DIST. OF COLUMBIA Mixed results way Trailing behind way way Trailing behind way
FLORIDA way way Mixed results way way way way
GEORGIA way way way way way Mixed results way
Leading the
HAWAII Trailing behind way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results
IDAHO Mixed results way Trailing behind Mixed results way way way
ILLINOIS Mixed results way Mixed results way way Mixed results way
INDIANA Trailing behind way Mixed results way Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results
IOWA Mixed results way way Trailing behind way Mixed results way
KANSAS Mixed results way way way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results
Leading the
KENTUCKY Trailing behind way Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind Trailing behind Mixed results
LOUISIANA Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind way
MAINE Mixed results way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results way Mixed results
Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the Leading the
MARYLAND way way way way way way way
MASSACHUSETTS Mixed results way Mixed results way Mixed results Mixed results way
MICHIGAN Mixed results way way way way Trailing behind way
MINNESOTA way way way way way way way
Leading the
MISSISSIPPI Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results
MISSOURI way way way way way way way
(continued)

Appendix A: State-By-State Ratings
Infrastructure
Environmental
Preservation
Stewardship
Commerce
Jobs and
Mobility
Overall
Access
Safety
(continued)
MONTANA way way way way way Mixed results way
NEBRASKA Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results way
NEVADA Trailing behind way Trailing behind way Mixed results Trailing behind way
Leading the
NEW HAMPSHIRE Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results
NEW JERSEY Mixed results way Mixed results way way Trailing behind way
NEW MEXICO Trailing behind way Trailing behind Trailing behind way Mixed results way
NEW YORK Mixed results way Mixed results way Mixed results way way
NORTH CAROLINA Mixed results way Mixed results way Mixed results way way
Leading the
NORTH DAKOTA Mixed results way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results
OHIO Mixed results way Mixed results way way Mixed results way
Leading the
OKLAHOMA Trailing behind way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results
OREGON way way way way way way way
PENNSYLVANIA Mixed results way way way way Trailing behind way
RHODE ISLAND Mixed results way Trailing behind way way way Mixed results
SOUTH CAROLINA Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results way Trailing behind Mixed results
SOUTH DAKOTA Trailing behind way Mixed results Mixed results way Trailing behind way
TENNESSEE Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results way
TEXAS way way way way way Mixed results way
UTAH way way Mixed results way way way way
VERMONT Mixed results way way Mixed results way Mixed results way
VIRGINIA way way way way way way way
WASHINGTON way way way way Mixed results way way
WEST VIRGINIA Trailing behind way Mixed results Trailing behind Mixed results Trailing behind way
WISCONSIN Mixed results way Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results Mixed results way
WYOMING Trailing behind way Trailing behind Mixed results Mixed results Trailing behind way

Appendix B: Methodology
Overview six broader policy areas: safety, jobs and
commerce, mobility, access, environmental
In fiscal year 2010, states spent an
stewardship and infrastructure preservation.
estimated $131 billion in taxpayer dollars
The study does not evaluate whether states
on transportation. Yet most policy makers
actually have achieved these results, but
cannot answer critical questions about
rather, whether they have the essential tools
what those dollars are buying. How do
in place to help them understand if and to
states track and measure the return on
what degree they are making progress. For
their substantial investments? And how
this reason, the primary units of analysis are
do they set priorities for transportation
the measures that states use to assess their
projects that shape other policy goals—
performance. We use the terms “measure”
from economic development and public
and “indicator” interchangeably.
safety to environmental sustainability—that
lawmakers and taxpayers have identified as
We sought to design an assessment
priorities?
framework that could be applied as
objectively and systematically as possible
This study focuses on the statewide surface
to all states across the six goal areas. We
transportation system operated across all
reviewed more than 800 performance,
modes of transportation: roads, highways,
planning and budget documents—on
bridges and bus and rail. We focus on
average, 17 documents per state—and
states because they play a significant role
identified more than 1,950 performance
in developing, financing and operating the
measures. Given the fledgling state of the
transportation system and are often best
field in developing goals, performance
positioned to track outcomes of the system.
measures and data in areas such as access,
In some cases, such as Amtrak, local transit
jobs and commerce and environmental
or freight rail, the state government may
stewardship, we assessed whether states
not be the direct operator of the system,
could meet a baseline threshold in each
but it has an interest in coordinating policy
of the six areas examined. Specifically, a
and investments across these and other
state with a goal and one performance
transportation modes.
measure, with additional supporting
Our research analyzes whether states have information such as timely data, targets,
goals, performance measures and data breakouts, comparisons and explanations
in place to track and evaluate the results about changes in performance, may
they are getting from their transportation have received the same rating as a state
systems, particularly those that advance with multiple measures and supporting
information. Readers should be cautious

in interpreting the results; for example, there generally is a dearth of outcome data
states that are “leading the way” in our with which to assess how states are doing,
assessment are performing relatively better and methods of tracking and measuring
than other states, but in many cases still performance in transportation are still
have room for progress. evolving, particularly in areas such as jobs
and commerce, access and environmental
Researchers and journalists at the Pew stewardship. Second, unlike in other areas
Center on the States conducted the analysis such as financial reporting, there are few
and wrote the report. We contracted with clear standards or consistent practices in the
Harry Hatry, an expert on performance area of performance measurement. Third,
management at the Urban Institute, and the information we sought to assess—states’
several of his colleagues at Urban to assist goals, performance measures and data for
with data collection and ratings of states. their transportation systems—is not housed
The project team also interviewed a range of in one agency or database; rather, it can be
transportation experts, state policy makers found in myriad documents across both the
and agency officials, and researchers in the executive and legislative branches in each
field. Pew convened an advisory panel of state, and in myriad forms. So while every
seven experts with deep research, policy and effort was made to be comprehensive, the
government experience to help develop our lack of data or standard reporting protocols
assessment framework. This panel provided in some goal areas (e.g., jobs and commerce)
exceptionally valuable guidance and and the wide range and locations of
feedback on our methodology and research potentially relevant documents across the
approach at the outset of this effort, but was 50 states and Washington, DC, likely means
not involved in conducting the analysis or that some information was missed.
rating the states. Two experts—including
one member of the advisory panel—
Literature Review
reviewed drafts of the report to help us
ensure accuracy. Neither they nor members Project researchers undertook a targeted
of the advisory panel necessarily endorse and systematic review of the performance
the report’s findings or conclusions. (See measurement literature relevant to
Appendix C for a list of the panel members transportation to inform the methodology.
and expert reviewers.) All of this work was We consulted a wide variety of sources,
principally conducted between September including research and analysis from
2010 and February 2011. academic literature, federal and state
government agencies, nonprofit and for-
This research presented a number of profit research groups and think tanks,
challenges. First, despite the importance advocacy organizations and foundations.
of transportation to the six key goals, We studied both empirical and normative

research on transportation performance indicators measuring state transportation

systems, including information on state systems’ budget levels or adequacy, or at
strategic planning processes, performance other internal management indicators states
accountability in transportation decision may have reported, such as time required
making, and federal, state and local use of to fill vacant positions.
performance metrics. We also looked at
performance management research outside Document Search
of the transportation sector. Drawing on this
wide body of information, we identified the
and Review
six key policy goals for states’ transportation For all states and the District of Columbia,
systems, selected the criteria with which we conducted an extensive Internet search
to assess states, identified performance to identify publicly available, high-level,
measures within each of the six goal areas statewide planning and performance
and developed a scoring system. documents that reflected states’
transportation goals, performance measures
Development of the Six Policy and data. We conducted a comprehensive
scan of all states’ department of
Goals and Classification of transportation websites and reviewed
Performance Measures governors’ recent budget proposals (mostly
The six goals identified as linked to states’ the annual budgets for fiscal year 2011
transportation systems—safety, jobs and and biennial budgets for fiscal years 2010-
commerce, mobility, access, environmental 2011). We searched for documents focused
stewardship and infrastructure on tracking agency performance on a
preservation—are generally accepted regular basis (for example, quarterly or
by policy makers, practitioners and annually), including information on state
researchers as being particularly crucial to websites focused on reporting performance.
states’ economic well-being and taxpayers’ We did not include draft documents or
quality of life. documents released after December 31,
2010, in our review.
The six goals provided the framework for
grouping and comparing the more than Finally, we contacted officials in the
1,950 performance measures we identified. transportation departments and budget
Not all transportation measures identified offices in all 50 states and the District of
in the states’ documents we reviewed were Columbia to confirm that our document
included. For example, quality-of-life search had yielded all relevant materials.
measures not connected to one of the six Specifically, these offices were asked
key goals were excluded from our analysis; to confirm that we had identified the
similarly, we did not look at performance appropriate universe of publicly available

documents related to transportation planning when personnel we contacted directed

and performance management in that state. us to those materials—those documents
In each case, officials were provided with an were included in our review. Additionally,
overview of the study and a list of documents we did not search the websites of local
we already had identified. State transportation transit authorities or local governments
department personnel contacted included for documents showing performance
officials in the areas of planning, policy, management of assets under their control. If
performance management, budget and the the state documents we reviewed included
secretary’s office. State budget office personnel performance measures and outcomes
contacted included analysts, managers and from local transit authorities and local
public information officers. governments, though, those were included
in our assessment. Finally, we were unable to
A full list of all documents reviewed is review any document that was not available
in Appendix F and available at www. online or provided to us by state officials.
pewcenteronthestates.org/transportation.
In every instance, we reviewed the most
We did not affirmatively search for documents recent version of relevant documents. Any
produced by other non-transportation or materials that were released before 2007
budget agencies (e.g., environmental or were not included in our review unless
economic development agencies). Given they were long-range planning documents.
the breadth of the six goals we identified, Exceptions were made for long-range
relevant documents potentially existed across planning documents because the expectation
an enormous spectrum of agencies in each is that they will be produced infrequently
state, including those dealing with finance, and information in these may be used to set
transportation, economic development, policy over a longer time frame.
workforce development, environment,
energy, human services and health. This Because multiple researchers collected and
methodology focused on the three areas of reviewed the information, the project team
state government where transportation goals developed a written protocol so that all
and performance measures converge most researchers would review documents in a
frequently, are most likely to appear and can consistent manner. The protocol included
be linked to resource allocation decisions: guidelines on how to search, interpret,
state transportation departments, state record and reference information from these
budget offices and statewide performance documents. Pew’s researchers met internally
tracking documents or web tools. However, and with the contractors at the Urban
when documents from state transportation Institute on a frequent basis to ensure
departments or budget offices referenced we used the most consistent and valid
materials produced by other agencies—or approach possible.

Assessment and Scoring description of advisory panel and external

reviewers above and in Appendix C).
After categorizing appropriate performance Each state was independently scored by
measures collected from state documents at least three researchers, and scores were
in one of the six goal areas, we established subsequently discussed and compared to
10 criteria for scoring states: (1) presence make sure subjectivity was minimized. The
of goals; (2) presence of performance scoring rules reflect three important and
measures; (3) presence of data; (4) consequential decisions for the assessment:
availability of timely data; (5) setting
of targets; (6) reporting of breakout Performance measures considered
information organized by sub-categories; core—those which most directly reflect
(7) presence of comparative information; outcomes—received more credit than
(8) inclusion of explanations about change non-core outcome measures. For example,
in performance; (9) presence of citizen congestion is a core performance measure
satisfaction measures; and (10) inclusion of mobility; the number of calls to roadside
of transit-related outcomes. The criteria assistance is not. A state with a core
reflect key elements of good practice in performance measure could receive up to
performance measurement. The full list of five additional points on a 20-point scale
criteria is included in Appendix D. compared to a state with only non-core
measures. Core measures were those cited
The criteria are limited to key performance
most frequently in the literature as being
elements that can be captured from a
critical to measuring and understanding
document review. This meant that we
progress in each goal area.1 A list of core
were not able to evaluate how individual
performance measures organized by goal
policy decisions are actually made at the
area is included in Appendix E.
state level, including whether decisions are
grounded in evidence, whether inter-agency
States do not uniformly or consistently
cooperation was part of the decision-making
align their performance measures
process or whether policies were targeted at
according to the six goals we identified. To
meeting agreed-upon goals. The approach
conduct a consistent and fair assessment,
we used acknowledges that states are still
we assigned performance measures to each
in the process of learning how best to use
of the six goals to which it is most directly
performance measurement information in
linked. In some cases this was consistent
making policy decisions.
with the state’s own practice. For example,
Each criterion can be applied in a all states classify fatalities under the goal
reasonably objective manner and our of safety. On the other hand, some states
assessment approach was vetted by classify measures such as bridge and road
a number of experts in the field (see conditions under economic development,

rather than infrastructure preservation.

Rating Category Score Range
While road and bridge conditions can in Goal Area
contribute to economic development, they
Leading the way 14–20
are not direct measures of that goal.
Mixed results 7–13
States were given credit for each
Trailing behind 0–6
performance measure in one goal area only,
so no measures were “double-counted.” It is
common practice for states to classify certain having mixed results. States with zero to six
measures under multiple categories (or points were deemed as trailing behind.
none at all). States were neither credited nor
penalized for using the same performance States also were given an overall rating—
measure multiple times. For example, states that is, how they rated across all six goals
may count congestion as a measure under combined. Thirteen states earned the top
access, mobility and jobs and commerce, distinction in at least five goal areas and
but for the purposes of our assessment, were not trailing behind in any area, earning
congestion is classified only under mobility an assessment of leading the way overall.
because it is most relevant to that goal. Meanwhile, a number of states earned the
top distinction in three or fewer areas and
States could receive a maximum of 20 points the lowest distinction in at least one area,
in each goal area. Based on point totals, we earning an overall assessment of trailing
rated states according to three categories: behind. States leading the way in four goals
leading the way, having mixed results or OR leading the way in three or fewer goals
trailing behind. We set the point thresholds in without trailing behind in any goal OR
thirds. A score of 14 or higher put a state in leading the way in five goals but trailing
the leading the way category, while states with behind in one goal earned an assessment of
between seven and 13 points were classified as having mixed results overall.
Rating Overall Assessment
Leading the way Leading the way in at least five goal areas; not trailing behind in any
area
Mixed results Leading the way in four goal areas OR leading the way in three or
fewer goal areas and mixed results in the remaining areas; OR leading
the way in five goal areas and trailing behind in one goal area
Trailing behind Leading the way in three or fewer areas; trailing behind in at least one
area

Appendix C: Advisory Panel And Expert Reviewers

The initial exploration of the study and development of the methodology benefited
greatly from the following members of an advisory panel convened by Pew. Neither they
nor their organizations necessarily endorse the report’s findings or conclusions.
Organizations listed for affiliation purposes only.
Geoffrey Anderson President and CEO, Smart Growth America
Linda Bailey Federal programs advisor, New York City Department

of Transportation and National Association of City
Transportation Officials
Emil Frankel Director of Transportation Policy, Bipartisan Policy Center
Astrid Glynn Former commissioner, New York State Department

of Transportation
Jacky Grimshaw Vice president of Policy, Center for Neighborhood Technology
Robert Puentes Senior fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program, Brookings Institution
Gary Toth Senior director, Transportation Initiatives, Project for Public

Spaces; formerly director of Project Planning and
Development, New Jersey Department of Transportation
Expert Reviewers
This report benefited tremendously from the insights and expertise of two external
reviewers: Phil Herr, director, Physical Infrastructure Issues, U.S. Government
Accountability Office, and Robert Puentes, senior fellow, Metropolitan Policy Program,
Brookings Institution. These experts provided feedback and guidance at critical stages
of the project. While they have screened the report for accuracy, neither they nor their
organizations necessarily endorse its findings or conclusions.

Appendix D: Assessment Criteria

Our assessment criteria draw on best practices principle-based framework for public sector
in the field of performance measurement. Two performance measurement and management.2
key sources were instrumental in developing The framework draws on the expertise of
the criteria: the participating organizations and provides
1) Governmental Accounting Standards a practical and authoritative guide for
Board, Suggested Guidelines for Voluntary performance measurement.
Reporting SEA Performance Information
(Norwalk, CT: 2010). The following describes each of the 10 criteria
on which the Pew-Rockefeller ratings were
The Governmental Accounting Standards based, the scoring rules and the rationale for
Board (GASB) is an independent inclusion.
organization that establishes and
improves standards of accounting and Setting goals
financial reporting for U.S. state and local
1. Does the state set goals in each area?
governments. The GASB is the source for
generally accepted accounting principles Scoring: States receive two points for having
used by state and local governments. In goals, zero points for no goal.
addition to financial reporting, the GASB
recognizes the importance of performance Rationale: Goals are critical because they
measures and reporting, and in 2010, communicate to citizens and policy makers
after two decades of extensive research, what the transportation system is trying to
monitoring and constituent outreach, accomplish. Goals both articulate priorities
it released suggested guidelines for and provide the basis for determining the
performance reporting. appropriate measures for tracking progress.3
2) National Performance Management Presenting performance measures

Advisory Commission, A Performance 2. Does the state have performance
Management Framework for State and measures or outcome indicators that
Local Government: From Measurement and track progress?
Reporting to Management and Improving
Scoring: States receive two points if they
(Chicago, IL: 2010).
present one or more core performance
The National Performance Management measures in the goal area; one point
Advisory Commission is a collection of if the performance measures are not
11 leading state and local public interest considered core; zero points if there are no
organizations that joined together to create a performance measures.

Appendix D: ASSESSMENT CRITERIA
Rationale: Goals are intended to convey Providing timely data

the long-term achievements that a program
4. Are the latest available data on core
is striving for and objectives are short-term
performance measures timely?
statements of what the program expects
to achieve.4 Core performance measures Scoring: States receive two points if
are necessary for showing the level of they present data for at least one core
achievement of goals and objectives. performance measure from 2010 or 2009;
In our methodology, core performance one point for data for a core performance
measures reflect the indicators cited measure from 2008; zero points if the
most frequently in the literature as being data are from prior years.
critical to measuring and understanding
outcomes in each goal area. From a Rationale: Decisions and processes
resource perspective there is shift of should be driven by timely, accurate and
emphasis from inputs—dollars, people meaningful data.8 Timely performance
and other resources—to the outcomes data is considered an essential component
that result from those inputs.5 Outcome of an effective performance management
indicators are essential for linking program system.9 Because providing timely data
performance to resources. may be challenging for some performance
measures, our methodology only
Providing data requires timely data for at least one core
performance measure—not all of them—in
3. Does the state present data for
each area.
outcome indictors?
Scoring: States receive two points if Breaking down the numbers
they present data for one or more core
5. Does the state report breakouts for
performance measures in the goal area; one
its core performance measures?
point for presenting any data; zero points
for no data. Scoring: States receive two points if
they present breakouts and data for at
Rationale: Performance data are least one core performance measure; one
essential for tracking and understanding point for breakouts and data for non-core
results.6 According to the GASB, performance measures or for breakouts
objectives should be quantifiable and without data for core performance
measurable for purposes of comparison measures; zero points if there are no
to what the program expects to achieve. breakouts.
Data allow an organization to know what
caused a particular result for replication Rationale: Breakouts are the
and improvement purposes. 7
disaggregation of data by region,

geographic area, neighborhood or targets for at least one performance

economic or demographic characteristics, measure and explain the extent to
among others. Breakouts allow for which those targets were met?
comparisons across these characteristics. Scoring: States receive one point if they
The GASB states that to effectively provide comparisons for at least one
assess performance, key measures performance measure to at least one past
need to be supported by comparisons. year of their own performance; one point
Disaggregating the data also can improve for providing any external comparison,
the relevance of the material to the user.10 such as to other states, the national average
or an industry standard; one point for
Setting performance targets providing at least one past target and data
6. Does the state present out-year showing the extent to which it was met;
targets for its core performance zero points for no comparisons. Points
indicators? are additive so states can receive up to
Scoring: States receive two points if three points—one point for each type of
they present one or more targets for the comparison.12
current budget year and one or more
Rationale: Comparisons are a form of
targets for the years ahead; one point for
benchmarking. “Benchmarking is one of
either one or more budget-year targets or
the ways to understand organizational
one or more out-year targets; zero points
performance. It works by comparing
if there are no targets.
an organization’s performance to that of
organizations having similar missions,
Rationale: Targets are a way to
scope, and responsibilities,” according to
meaningfully show whether a program is
the National Performance Management
achieving the level of results anticipated.
Advisory Commission.13 Comparisons can
Specifically in the area of transportation,
be made internally over time or against
the U.S. Government Accountability
established targets or externally against
Office notes that targets “could provide a
other entities providing similar services
performance standard by which the state
(e.g., other states). Care should be taken
DOT can demonstrate to the public what
when comparing externally to ensure the
effect decisions are having on achieving
information is comparable, the entities
the goals established in the plan.”11
operate in a similar environment and
the information is collected reliably.14
Drawing comparisons Comparisons made over time and with
7. Does the state provide targets are the main types used for external
comparisons? Does it identify past reporting. While time series reports

show whether performance is improving, present information on citizen satisfaction

targets indicate whether the results are at connected to the goal area; zero points if
acceptable levels. It is important to note there are no measures that capture citizen
that targets can be set too high or too low, satisfaction.16
so comparing to prior results assists in
assessing the reasonableness of the target. Rationale: Citizen and customer
perceptions of the quality and satisfaction
Explaining results with the results of service add perspective
on the extent to which the program is
8. Does the state provide explanations
meeting its goals and whether the results are
for its performance over time?
relevant to their ultimate users. They also
Scoring: States receive two points if they can be collected to dovetail with the other
provide an explanation of the current data performance measures.17
for at least one performance measure; one
point for any explanation for at least one Considering performance of all
performance measure; zero points if no transportation modes
explanation is provided.
10. Do the state’s outcome indicators
incorporate passenger transit
Rationale: Objective explanations for
performance?
changes in performance over time explain
why actual results differ from expected or Scoring: States receive two points if their
intended results. The explanations should performance measures and data incorporate
include positive and negative aspects of the public transit passenger performance; zero
government’s performance as well as known points if they do not.
facts and circumstances that could affect
results in the future.15 Rationale: A multimodal approach to
performance measurement is preferable
Incorporating citizen and to a one-mode approach and allows for
customer feedback the analysis of tradeoffs between different
modes of transportation. This gives credit
9. Does the state present performance to states that have incorporated passenger
indicators on citizen satisfaction? transit performance indicators, including
Scoring: Within each of the six goal transit-related breakouts by subcategory, in
areas, states receive one point if they their performance measurement system.

Appendix E: Core Performance Measures by Goal
Safety n Fatalities
n Injuries
n Crashes
n Infrastructure related (e.g., hazard index, high crash areas)
n Response to weather emergencies
Jobs and Commerce n Jobs created

n Freight tonnage or ton-miles or by value
n Freight travel times/speeds
n Infrastructure support for freight movement
n Business access to freight services
Mobility n Congestion/density
n Delay
n Travel times/speed
n Travel time reliability
n Accident response
n Transit on-time performance
Access n Access for elderly, disabled and low-income populations

n Access to multimodal facilities and services
(e.g., highway, transit, intermodal including freight)
n Access to jobs and labor
n Access to non-work activities
Environmental n Emissions
Stewardship n Fuel consumption/alternative fuels20
(if specifically tied to a goal in this area)
n Air quality
n Water quality
n Recycling
Infrastructure n Road condition

Preservation n Bridge condition (including all passenger and freight rail)
n Remaining life of roads and bridges
n Rail system condition (including all passenger and freight rail)
n Transit vehicle condition

Appendix F: State Documents Reviewed for This Report

States’ goals, performance measures, data and other information about their
transportation systems can be found in myriad documents across both the executive
and legislative branches. For this report, we conducted an extensive Internet search to
identify publicly available, high-level, statewide planning and performance documents
that reflected transportation goals, performance measures and data for all states and the
District of Columbia. We then contacted officials in the transportation departments and
budget offices in all 50 states and Washington, DC, to confirm that our document search
had yielded all relevant materials. Ultimately, we reviewed more than 800 performance,
planning and budget documents. Not all of the information from the documents on this
list is necessarily reflected in a state’s scores as some of the documents did not meet our
criteria for inclusion. (See Appendix B for detailed information.)
The full list of documents reviewed for each state can be found at
www.pewcenteronthestates.org/transportation.

Appendices Notes
1 U.S. Department of Transportation, “U.S. DOT 4 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s, Suggested
Strategic Plan, FY2010-FY2015,” draft for public Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting SEA Performance
comment, April 2010, http://www.dot.gov/stratplan/ Information (Norwalk, CT: 2010).
dot_strategic_plan_10-15.pdf (accessed February 11,
2011); National Transportation Policy Project of the 5 National Performance Management Advisory
Bipartisan Policy Center, “Performance Driven: A New Commission, A Performance Management Framework,
Vision for US Transportation Policy,” June 2009, http:// 25-26.
www.bipartisanpolicy.org/sites/default/files/NTPP%20 6 Ibid, 10.
Report.pdf (accessed February 11, 2011); Cambridge
Systematics, “Performance Based Management: State of 7 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Suggested
the Practice White Paper,” May 12, 2009, http://www. Guidelines for Voluntary Reporting SEA.
transportation.org/sites/scopm/docs/White%20Paper%20
8 National Performance Management Advisory
for%202009%20CEO%20Leadership%20Forum.pdf
Commission. A Performance Management Framework, 10.
(accessed February 11, 2011); American Association of
State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO 9 Ibid, 39.
Authorization Policy: Performance Management
Recommendations, 2009, http://www.transportation. 10 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Suggested
org/sites/policy_docs/docs/i.pdf (accessed February 11, Guidelines.
2011); Cambridge Systematics, “Performance Measures
11 Government Accountability Office, Statewide
and Targets for Transportation Asset Management,”
Transportation Planning: Opportunities Exist to Transition
National Cooperative Highway Research Program Report
to Performance-Based Planning and Federal Oversight,
551, 2006, http://onlinepubs.trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/
December 2010, 15.
nchrp_rpt_551.pdf (accessed February 11, 2011);
Cambridge Systematics, “A Guidebook for Performance- 12 This criteria totals three points, more than any other
Based Transportation Planning,” National Cooperative criteria, because the points are additive and having all
Highway Research Program Report 446, 2000. three types of comparisons represents a high-level of
analytical information for use in policy making.
2 Participating organizations: Association of School
Business Officials International, National Association of
Commission. A Performance Management Framework, 29.
State Budget Officers, the Council of State Governments,
Government Finance Officers Association, International 14 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Suggested
City/County Management Association, National Guidelines; National Performance Management Advisory
Association of Counties, National Association of State Commission. A Performance Management Framework.
Auditors, Comptrollers, and Treasurers, National Center
for State Courts, National Conference of State Legislatures, 15 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Suggested
National League of Cities, and the United States Guidelines.
Conference of Mayors.
16 While important to give states credit for customer
satisfaction, one point was given because states also
receive relevant credit on other criteria for using citizen
Commission, A Performance Management Framework
satisfaction as a performance indicator.
for State and Local Government: From Measurement and
Reporting to Management and Improving. (Chicago, IL: 17 Governmental Accounting Standards Board’s Suggested
2010). Guidelines.

9 0 1 e S treet , N W , 1 0 th f l o o r • W a s h i n g t o n , D C 2 0 0 0 4
www . pewcenteronthestates . org
420 Fifth Avenue • New York, NY 10018
www . rockefellerfoundation . org

Measuring Transportation Investments: The Road To Results

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Measuring Transportation Investments: The Road To Results

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EMBARGOED UNTIL 12:01 A.M. E.T.

WEDNESDAY, MAY 11, 2011

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES THe Rockefeller Foundation

The Rockefeller Foundation

©2011 The Pew Charitable Trusts and The Rockefeller Foundation.

Susan Urahn Nicholas Turner

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results

PEW CENTER ON THE STATES

THE ROCKEFELLER FOUNDATION

How Are States Doing?. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results v

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 1

policy choices—and to help lawmakers policy and spending choices based on

2 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Six Goals for States’ Transportation Systems

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 3

How States Stack Up

4 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Access: 25 states and Washington, DC, Methodology for further description of

Caveats of the study

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 5

6 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 7

individuals. The results help state officials information—moving toward a heightened

Policy Options At the federal level, congressional

8 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

to include in the legislation an increased accomplishments before they make

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 9

Track citizen feedback on Conclusion

10 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Tight Dollars and Economic Growth

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 11

12 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

The Funding Gap

Driven by Dollars Transportation’s Piece of the Pie

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 13

14 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 15

Growing Momentum for Change

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 17

and state officials, research organizations While transportation performance

18 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 19

20 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

TIGER Grants (continued)

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 21

22 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 23

24 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

How Are States Doing?

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 25

5. Environmental stewardship. The traffic—is not necessarily good if the roads

Caveats of the study

26 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

investment in their transportation systems California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia,

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 27

28 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Florida, too, is exceedingly strong in Montana also exemplifies strong results in

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 29

Mixed Results Overall Trailing Behind Overall

Colorado, Delaware, Idaho, Illinois, Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas,

30 Pew Center on the States | THe Rockefeller Foundation

Measuring Transportation investments: The road to results 31