The Department of Transportation’s overarching mission is:
The National objectives of general welfare, economic growth and stability, and the security of the United States require the development of transportation policies and programs that contribute to providing fast, efficient, and convenient transportation at the lowest cost consistent with those and other National objectives, including the efficient use and conservation of the resources of the United States.
Everything we do at DOT is aimed toward meeting this mission statement and making measurable improvements in our transportation system, the security of our Nation, and the quality of American life. In the Performance and Accountability Report we hold ourselves accountable to the public for effectively bringing to bear the Department’s energy and resources in improving the Nation’s transportation system. We use these results to improve our strategies and resource decisions.
DOT’s performance framework is as follows:
Performance accountability for DOT organizations, executives, and employees embed the philosophy of managing for performance into the Department’s culture and daily practices. Performance accountability within the Department is accomplished through the following mechanisms:
The following graphic describes how DOT plans, measures, manages, and reports on performance:
How DOT Works to Achieve Its Strategic and Performance Goals
The Department achieves its goals through its leadership role in U.S. transportation policy, operations, investment, and research. To influence results, DOT programs rely on a number of common interventions and actions. These include:
Some of these interventions and actions reside entirely within the Federal Government, but most involve significant partnering with State and local authorities and with the transportation industry. These are the broad areas of action that DOT—and State and local governments— commonly use to bring about desired results.
Our FY 2006 Results: A Reader’s Guide
The performance section of this report is composed of chapters for each strategic goal identified in the DOT Strategic Plan. The Organizational Excellence section of the report focuses on overall DOT efforts to achieve our part of the President’s Management Agenda, ensuring that we are a citizen-centered, results-oriented Cabinet agency, depending on market-based transportation solutions.
For each strategic goal, we present four increasingly detailed levels of information, which together help the reader understand the breadth of the Department’s activities.
TERMINOLOGY We use the following terminology throughout the Report: Strategic Goal—statement from the DOT Strategic Plan, outlining the desired long-term end-state. Strategic Outcome—statement from the DOT Strategic Plan, outlining nearer-term objectives. Performance Goal—a performance objective, connecting effects created by Departmental activities and programs, and the resulting influence on strategic outcomes. Performance Measure—a measurable indicator of progress toward a performance goal, with annual targets. |
This graphic shows the different levels of information and how they are presented.
The relationship between DOT’s activities and observed results—The relationship between resources and results can be complex, and a mix of current and prior-year resources and activity almost always influences any performance result. For example, direct service program results such as FAA air traffic control operations are influenced both by external forces and prior-year acquisition activities. Other results, such as highway congestion or transit ridership, are predominately influenced by prior-year funding.
Data completeness—An exhaustive assessment of the completeness and reliability of our performance data and detailed information on the source, scope, and limitations for the performance data in this report are provided at: http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical policy and research/source and accuracy compendium/index.html. In that Web site, we also provide information to resolve the inadequacies that exist in our performance data.
Preliminary vs. final results—Reporting FY 2006 results by November 2006 has been challenging where we rely on third party reporting. Often we have only preliminary or estimated results based on partial-year data and must wait for final data to properly verify and validate our results. In some cases where data is provided solely as an annual value and is not available in time for this report, we rely on historical trend information and program expertise to generate a projected result. We have been careful to point out where we have assessed our performance on a preliminary or projected basis. Preliminary estimates or projected results will be adjusted after final compilation or verification and validation. In all cases where results have changed from last year’s report, we indicate that by placing an (r) with the number, indicating a revision.
DOT contributions to common governmental outcomes—DOT’s performance is aligned with its legislative mandates, but in some cases there are no “bright lines” separating DOT from other agencies. For instance, in DOT’s Security Strategic Goal, we make very important contributions in accordance with our mandates and appropriations, but we do so alongside the Departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, Justice, Commerce, and Energy. Similarly, other agencies make significant contributions to the Nation’s transportation system.
Management challenges—The DOT Inspector General and the Government Accountability Office publish reports describing a number of problems and challenges facing the Department. We take these issues seriously, and have folded our approach to meeting these challenges into our general efforts to achieve good performance outcomes. We have placed a description of each management challenge and the Department’s response in Management’s Discussion and Analysis near the front of this report.
Summary performance table—One of the ways that DOT interprets its progress towards achieving its strategic goals is to compare single year results to historical trends. We have provided a tabular summary of long-term performance for each of the Strategic Goals to provide context for the FY 2006 achievements.
Overall DOT Performance Summary
Safety Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) | 1.53 | 1.51 | 1.51 | 1.48 | 1.45 (r) | 1.47 (r) * | 1.44 # | 1.38 | not met |
Fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million truck VMT | 2.57 | 2.45 | 2.30 | 2.31 (r) | 2.29 (r) | 2.31 (r) | 2.32 * | 1.85 | not met |
U.S. commercial fatal aviation accidents per 100,000 departures (last 3-years’ average) | 0.037 | 0.037 | 0.026 | 0.024 | 0.021 | 0.017 * | .020 * | .018 | not met |
Number of fatal general aviation accidents | 341 | 359 | 348 | 366 (r) | 340 | 354 (r) * | 297 * | 337 | met |
Rail-related accidents and incidents per million train-miles | 22.84 | 23.44 | 20.04 | 19.40 (r) | 18.95 (r) | 17.62 (r) | 16.14 * | 16.80 | met |
Transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled | 0.499 | 0.482 | 0.473 | 0.461 | 0.467 (r) | 0.428 (r) | 0.344 * | 0.477 | met |
Number of natural gas pipeline incidents and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents | 380 | 341 | 330 | 370 (r) | 440 (r) | 490 (r) | 407 * | 365 | not met |
Number of serious hazardous materials transportation incidents | 564 (r) | 588 (r) | 465 (r) | 472 (r) | 490 (r) | 482 (r) * | 432 * | 460 | met |
(r) Revised; * Preliminary estimate; # Projection
Met; Not Met
Mobility Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual * | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percent of travel on the National Highway System (NHS) meeting pavement performance standards for “good” rated ride 1 | 48.0 | 49.0 | 49.3 (r) | 50.0 (r) | 52.0 (r) | 51.8 (r) | 54.2 | 55.5 | not met |
Percent of total annual urban-area travel occurring in congested conditions | 29.6 | 30.6 | 30.7 | 31.0 | 31.6 | 31.8 (r) | 32.1 # | 33.7 | met |
Average percent change in transit boardings per transit market (150 largest transit agencies), adjusted for changes in employment levels | 5.0 | 4.3 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 1.9 (r) | 2.1 * | 1.0 | met |
Percent bus fleets compliant with the ADA | 80 | 85 | 90 | 93 | 95 | 97 | 97 * | 97 | met |
Percent of key rail stations compliant with the ADA | 52 | 67 | 77 | 82 | 82 | 91 | 92 * | 91 | met |
Number of employment sites (in thousands) that are made accessible by Job Access and Reverse Commute transportation services 2 | 17 | 28.4 | 52.1 | 73.7 | 82.8 | 95.4 (r)* | 71.5 * | 50 | met |
Percent of all flights arriving within 15 minutes of schedule at the 35 Operational Evolution Plan airports due to NAS-related delays | 74.9 | 76.5 | 82.2 | 82.3 | 79.07 | 88.4 (r) | 88.36 | 87.40 | met |
(r) Revised; * Preliminary estimate; # Projection
ADA — Americans with Disabilities Act; Met; Not Met
1 Starting in FY 2005, measure was redefined to measure “good” rated pavement versus “acceptable” rated pavement. Results for FY 2000 through FY 2004 have been adjusted accordingly.
2 Starting in FY 2006, the administration of FTA’s JARC program changed from a separate nationally-administered competitive program into a state-administered formula program as enacted in SAFETEA-LU.
Global Connectivity Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct contracts that are awarded to women-owned businesses | 4.5 | 3.7 | 3.8 | 4.2 | 3.8 (r) | 6.6 (r) | 6.7 * | 5.1 | met |
Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct contracts that are awarded to small disadvantaged businesses | 17.7 | 17.4 | 16.2 | 15.8 | 15.6 (r) | 12.7 (r) | 11.8 * | 14.5 | not met |
Percent of days in shipping season that the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway is available | 99.2 | 98.1 | 98.7 | 98.9 | 99.1 | 99.7 | 99.0 | 99.0 | met |
Number of new or expanded bilateral aviation safety agreements implemented | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 3 | 2 | 4 | 2 | met |
Number of potential air transportation consumers (in billions) in international markets traveling between the U. S. and countries with Open Skies and open transborder aviation agreements (measure revised in FY 2005) | N/A | N/A | N/A | 1.48 | 1.72 | 2.97 | 3.01 * | 2.99 (r) | met |
Number of international negotiations conducted annually to remove market-distorting barriers to trade in air transportation (new measure in FY 2005) | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | N/A | 10 (r) | 10 | 10 | met |
(r) Revised; * Preliminary estimate; Met; Not Met
Environmental Stewardship Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ratio of wetlands replaced for every acre affected by Federal-aid highway projects | 3.8 | 2.1 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 3.3 (r) | 2.6 # | 1.5 | met |
Percent DOT facilities characterized as No Further Remedial Action Planned under the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act | 90 | 91 | 91 | 94 | 93 | 92 | 92 | 93 | not met |
12-month moving average number of area transportation emissions conformity lapses | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.0 | 6.3 (r) | 5.8 (r) | 1.3 * | 6.0 | met |
Tons of hazardous liquid materials spilled per million ton-miles shipped by pipelines | 0.0083 | 0.0026 | 0.0057 | 0.0071 | 0.0102 | 0.0090 (r) | 0.0059 * | 0.0060 | met |
Percent reduction in the number of people in the U. S. who are exposed to significant aircraft noise levels | N/A | N/A | N/A | -15 | -28 (r) | -29 (r) | -27 # | -4 | met |
(r) Revised; * Preliminary estimate; # Projection from trends; Met; Not Met
Security Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Percent of DoD-required shipping capacity complete witd crews available witdin mobilization timelines | 92 | 97 | 94 | 96 | 94 | 95 | 93 | 94 | not met |
Percent of DoD-designated commercial ports available for military use within DoD established readiness timelines | 93 | 92 | 92 | 86 | 93 | 87 | 100 | 93 | met |
Transportation Capability Assessment for Readiness Index Score (New Measure in FY 2005) | N/A | N/A | N/A | 59 | 67 | 65 | 72 | 72 | met |
Met; Not Met
Organizational Excellence Performance Summary
Performance Measure | 2000 | 2001 | 2002 | 2003 | 2004 | 2005 | 2006 Actual | 2006 Target | Met / Not Met |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
For major DOT aviation systems , percentage of cost goals established in the acquisition project baselines tdat are met 1 | N/A | N/A | 89.5 | 88 | 100 | 97 | 100 | 85 | met |
For major DOT aviation systems, percentage of scheduled milestones established in acquisition project baselines tdat are met 2 | N/A | N/A | 74 | 77 (r) | 91.5 (r) | 92 | 97.4 | 85 | met |
For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, percentage tdat meet schedule milestones established in project or contract agreements, or miss them by less than 10 percent | N/A | N/A | 85 | 88 | 95 | 95 | 91 | 95 | not met |
For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, percentage tdat meet cost estimates established in project or contract agreements, or miss them by less tdan 10 percent | N/A | N/A | 85 | 88 | 74 | 79 | 82 | 95 | not met |
Percentage of transit grants obligated witdin 60 days after submission of a completed application | 21 | 51 | 67 | 83 | 91 | 91 | 94 | 80 | met |
(r) Revised; Met; Not Met
1 & 2 These measures were combined in FY 2004 to include both cost goals and schedule milestones