OTHER ACCOMPANYING INFORMATION

PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY DETAILS

Each table includes a description of a performance measure and associated data provided by the agencies in charge of the measure. The Scope statement gives an overview of the data collection strategy for the underlying data behind the performance measure. The Source statement identifies the data system(s) from which the data for each measure was taken. The Statistical Issues statement has comments, provided by the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS) and the agency in charge of the measure, which discuss variability of the measure and other points. The Completeness statement indicates limitations due to missing data or availability of current measures, methods used to develop projections are also provided, as appropriate. The Reliability statement gives the reader a feel for how the performance data are used in program management decision making inside DOT.

For further information about the source and accuracy (S&A) of these data, and DOT’s data quality guidelines in accordance with Section 515 of the Treasury and General Government Appropriations Act for Fiscal Year 2001 (P.L. 106-554), please refer to the BTS S&A compendium available at http://www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/source_and_accuracy_compendium/index.html.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Passenger Vehicle Occupant Highway Fatality Rate (NHTSA / FHWA / FMSCA)

Measure: Passenger Vehicle Occupant Highway fatalities per 100 million vehicle-miles traveled (VMT). Calendar Year (CY) 2008
An occupant is any person who is in or upon a motor vehicle in transport. This includes the driver, passengers, and persons riding on the exterior of a motor vehicle. VMT includes all vehicle miles traveled by all types of vehicles including passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, other 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles), single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks, and combination trucks.
Scope: The number of fatalities is a count of passenger occupant deaths which occur within 30 days of a crash involving motor vehicle traffic traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public within the 50 States and Washington, D.C.
VMT represent the total number of vehicle miles traveled by all motor vehicles on public roadways within the 50 States and Washington, D.C.
Sources: Motor vehicle traffic fatality data are obtained from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on police crash reports and other State data.
Estimated 2008 VMT data is preliminary and comes from FHWA’s Traffic Volume Trends (TVT); a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Statistical Issues: While based on historical data, the 2008 fatality rate projection is dependent on the continuation of both individual and market behavior regarding vehicle miles traveled, seat belt use and motorcycle rider and alcohol related fatalities. The assumptions inherent in these projections, together with the normal levels of uncertainty inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the accuracy of the projection.
Completeness: FARS has been in use since 1975 and is generally accepted as a complete measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Total annual fatalities are available through CY 2007. The fatality projection used to calculate the 2008 rate shown in this report was estimated by modifying the 2007 fatality total for the subsequent phase-in of safety features in the on-road fleet, the scrapping of vehicles with existing safety features, a projected change in safety belt usage, a projected trend in motorcycle fatalities, and other safety-related considerations.
Reliability: The measure informs and guides NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA regarding highway safety policy, safety program planning, regulatory development, resource allocation, and operational mission performance, and tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives by preventing highway crashes.
VMT estimates from the early months of CY 2008 are lower than for the comparable period of CY 2007. Contributing factors include, but are not limited to: high price of fuel, which my continue into the future; economic downturn; change in the mix of vehicles towards smaller and lighter cars; increased use of walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding, as well as a greater use of mass transit. All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2008 and beyond.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Large Truck and Bus Fatality Rate (NHTSA / FMCSA)

Measure: Fatalities involving large trucks and buses per 100 million total VMT (CY).
Large Trucks are trucks over 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR), including single unit trucks and truck tractors. A Bus is a large motor vehicle used to carry more than ten (10) passengers, including school buses, inter-city buses, and transit buses. VMT includes all vehicle miles traveled by all types of vehicles including passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, other 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles), single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks, and combination trucks.
Scope: The measure includes all fatalities associated with crashes involving trucks with a gross vehicle weight rating (GVWR) of 10,000 pounds or more. Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) represents the total number of vehicle miles traveled by all motor vehicles (including vehicles other than Large Trucks and Buses) on public roadways within the 50 States and the District of Columbia.
Sources: The number of fatalities comes from NHTSA’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data, a census of fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States and the District of Columbia. Estimated 2008 VMT data is preliminary and comes from FHWA’s Traffic Volume Trends (TVT); a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Statistical Issues: The fatality counts in FARS are generally quite accurate. The major sources of error are under reporting by some precincts and inconsistent use of the definition of a truck.
Because the TVMT data provided to FHWA from each State are estimates based on a sample of road segments, the numbers have associated sampling errors. The methodology used by each of the States to estimate TVMT varies and may introduce additional non-sampling error. Although States provide TVMT estimates on an annual basis, they are only required to update their traffic counts at all sampling sites once every three years. Thus, a portion of each States’ sample sites will report estimated traffic rather then actual traffic counts.
Completeness: The FARS has been in use since 1975 and is generally accepted as a complete measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Large truck and bus-related fatality data are complete through 2007. For 2008, the FARS data for crashes involving large trucks and buses are not available until October 2009. The value used for the 2008 rate is projected from recent trend data. The TVMT is complete through 2006. For 2007 and 2008, it is projected as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final TVMT estimate for 2007 will be available in December 2008, and the final TVMT estimate for 2008 will be available in December 2009.
Reliability: The measure informs and guides FMCSA, NHTSA, and FHWA highway safety policy, safety program planning, regulatory development, resource allocation, and operational mission performance, and tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives by preventing large truck crashes.
VMT estimates from the early months of CY 2008 are lower than for the comparable period of CY 2007. Contributing factors include, but are not limited to: high price of fuel, which my continue into the future; economic downturn; change in the mix of vehicles towards smaller and lighter cars; increased use of walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding, as well as a greater use of mass transit. All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2008 and beyond.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Motorcycle Rider Fatalities (NHTSA / FHWA)

Measure

Motorcycle rider fatality rate per 100,000 motorcycle registrations A motor cycle is a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle designed to transport one or two people, including motorscooters, minibikes, and mopeds.

Scope

The number of motorcycle rider fatalities is a count of motorcycle rider (driver and passenger) deaths which occur within 30 days of a crash involving motorcycle traffic traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public within the 50 States and Washington, D.C.

Sources

Motor vehicle traffic fatality data are obtained from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on police crash reports and other State data.

The States collect motor vehicle registration data and provide the data to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which then provides the data to the public.

Statistical Issues

While based on historical data, the 2008 fatality rate projection is dependent on the continuation of both individual and market behavior regarding vehicle miles traveled, seat belt use and motorcycle rider and alcohol related fatalities. The assumptions inherent in these projections, together with the normal levels of uncertainty inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the accuracy of the projection.

The FHWA estimates of registered motorcycles may underestimate the number of motorcycles that are used on the roads each year. Data collected by the Motorcycle Industry Council (MIC) corroborate this possibility and have noted that not all motorcyclists register their bikes. (National Transportation Safety Board -- Safety Recommendation Date: Oct 3, 2007)

Completeness

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is generally accepted as a complete measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Total annual fatalities are available through CY 2007. The fatality projection used to calculate the 2008 rate shown in this report was estimated by modifying the 2007 fatality total for the subsequent phase-in of safety features in the on-road fleet, the scrapping of vehicles with existing safety features, a projected change in safety belt usage, a projected trend in motorcycle fatalities, and other safety-related considerations.

The vehicle registration date varies among the States. Although many States continue to register specific vehicle types on a calendar year basis, all States use some form of the “staggered” system to register motor vehicles. The “staggered” system permits a distribution of the renewal workload throughout all months. Most States allow pre-registration or permit “grace periods” to better distribute the annual registration workload.

In order to present vehicle registration data uniformly for all States, the information is shown as nearly as possible on a calendar-year basis. Insofar as possible, the registrations reported exclude transfers and re-registrations and any other factors that could otherwise result in duplication in the vehicle counts. Motor vehicle registrations are reported by major vehicle classes: automobiles, buses, trucks, and motorcycles.

Reliability

The measure informs and guides NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA regarding highway safety policy, safety program planning, regulatory development, resource allocation, and operational mission performance, and tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives by preventing highway crashes.

All State reported data are analyzed by FHWA for completeness, reasonableness, consistency, and compliance with data reporting instructions contained in A Guide to Reporting Highway Statistics. State reported data is adjusted if necessary to eliminate mistakes and to improve data uniformity among the States. The analysis and adjustment process is accomplished in cooperation with the States supplying the data. In some instances, corrections or revisions have been made in previously published data.

The FHWA data includes all vehicles that have been registered at any time throughout the calendar year. Data includes vehicles that were retired during the year and vehicles that were registered in more than one State. In some States, it is also possible that contrary to the FHWA reporting instructions, vehicles that have been registered twice in the same State may be reported as two vehicles. The NHTSA data includes only those vehicles that are registered as of July 1 of the given year. Therefore, they do not include vehicles registered in the last half of the calendar year or vehicles that may only be registered for a part of a year such as those for farm use.

Motorcycle registration projections into future years are problematic. Contributing factors include, but are not limited to: high price of fuel, which my continue into the future; economic downturn; change in the mix of vehicles towards smaller and lighter cars; increased use of walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding, as well as a greater use of mass transit. All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2008 and beyond.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Non-occupant Fatality Rate (NHTSA / FHWA / FMCSA)

Measure: Non-occupant fatality rate per 100 million VMT. A non-occupant is any person who is not an occupant of a motor vehicle in transport and includes: pedestrians. pedalcyclists, occupants of parked motor vehicles, others such as joggers, skateboard riders, people riding on animals, and persons riding in animal-drawn conveyances. VMT includes all vehicle miles traveled by all types of vehicles including passenger cars, motorcycles, buses, other 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles), single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks, and combination trucks.
Scope: The number of fatalities is a count of occupant and non-motorist deaths which occur within 30 days of a crash involving motor vehicle traffic traveling on a trafficway customarily open to the public within the 50 States and Washington, D.C.
VMT represent the total number of vehicle miles traveled by motor vehicles on public roadways within the 50 States and Washington, D.C.
Sources: Motor vehicle traffic fatality data are obtained from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS). The FARS database is based on police crash reports and other State data.
VMT data for 2008 are estimated based on preliminary 2008 VMT data from FHWA’s Traffic Volume Trends (TVT); a monthly report based on hourly traffic count data in the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS).
Statistical Issues: While based on historical data, the 2008 fatality rate projection is dependent on the continuation of both individual and market behavior regarding vehicle miles traveled, seat belt use and motorcycle rider and alcohol related fatalities. The assumptions inherent in these projections, together with the normal levels of uncertainty inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the accuracy of the projection.
Completeness: FARS has been in use since 1975 and is generally accepted as a complete measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Total annual fatalities are available through CY 2007. The fatality projection used to calculate the 2008 rate shown in this report was estimated by modifying the 2007 fatality total for the subsequent phase-in of safety features in the on-road fleet, the scrapping of vehicles with existing safety features, a projected change in safety belt usage, a projected trend in motorcycle fatalities, and other safety-related considerations.
Reliability: The measure informs and guides NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA regarding highway safety policy, safety program planning, regulatory development, resource allocation, and operational mission performance, and tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives by preventing highway crashes.
VMT estimates from the early months of CY 2008 are lower than for the comparable period of CY 2007. Contributing factors include, but are not limited to: high price of fuel, which my continue into the future; economic downturn; change in the mix of vehicles towards smaller and lighter cars; increased use of walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding, as well as a greater use of mass transit. All of these factors are indications of fundamental changes in our mode of transportation that will adversely impact our ability to accurately estimate fatality and VMT projections for 2008 and beyond.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Commercial Air Carrier Fatal Accident Rate (FAA)

Measure

Number of commercial air carrier fatalities per 100 million persons onboard (FY)

Scope

This measure includes both scheduled and nonscheduled flights of large U.S. air carriers (14 CFR Part 121) and scheduled flights of regional operators (14 CFR Part 135). It excludes on -demand (i.e., air taxi) service and general aviation. Accidents involving passengers, crew, ground personnel, and the uninvolved public are all included.

Sources

The data on commercial fatalities come from the National Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB’s) Aviation Accident Database. Aviation accident investigators under the auspices of the NTSB develop the data. Air carriers submit data for all passengers on board to the Office of Airline Information (OAI) within the Bureau of Transportation Statistics. FAA will estimate crew on board based on the distribution of aircraft departures by make and model, plus an average of 3.5 persons on board per Part 121 cargo flight.

Statistical Issues

Both accidents and passengers on board are censuses, having no sampling error. However, crew on board will be an estimate, but crew staffing in fact varies only within a very small range for any given make-model. Departure data and enplanements for Part 121 are from the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). The crew estimate is based on fleet makeup and crew requirements per number of seats. For the current fleet, the number of crew is equal to about seven percent of all Part 121 enplanements. The average number of cargo crew on board is 3.5 per departure, based on data from subscription services such as Air Claims, a proprietary database used by insurers to obtain information such as fleet mix, accidents and claims. Cargo crews typically include two flight crew members, and occasionally another pilot or company rep, or two deadheading passengers. Part 135 data also comes from BTS and Air Claims databases, but is not as complete. AEP calls the operators where BTS data have gaps. Based on previous accident and incident reports, the average Part 135 enplanement is five per departure. Crew estimates for Part 135 are based on previous accident and incident data. Any error that might be introduced by estimating crew will be very small and will be overwhelmed by the passenger census. Also note that the fatality rate is small and could significantly fluctuate from year to year due to a single accident.

Completeness

The FAA does comparison checking of the departure data collected by BTS. This data is needed for crew estimates. However, FAA has no independent data sources against which to validate the numbers submitted to BTS. FAA compares its list of carriers to the DOT list to validate completeness and places the carriers in the appropriate category (i.e., Part 121 or Part 135).

The number of actual persons on board data for any given period of time is considered preliminary for up to 12 months after the close of the reporting period. This is due to amended reports subsequently filed by the air carriers. Preliminary estimates are based on projections of the growth in departures developed by the Office of Policy, Planning and Environment. However, changes to the number of persons on board should rarely have an effect on the annual fatality rate. NTSB and FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation meet regularly to validate the accident and fatality count.

To overcome reporting delays of 60 to 90 days, FAA must rely on historical data, partial internal data sources, and Official Airline Guide (OAG) scheduling information to project at least part of the fiscal year activity data. FAA uses OAG data until official BTS data are available.

Reliability

Results are considered preliminary based on projected activity data. FAA uses performance data extensively for program management, personnel evaluation, and accountability. Most accident investigations are a joint undertaking. NTSB has the statutory responsibility to determine probable cause, while FAA has separate statutory authority to investigate accidents and incidents in order to ensure that FAA meets its broader responsibilities.. FAA’s own accident investigators and other FAA employees participate in all accident investigations led by NTSB investigators.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
General Aviation Fatal Accidents (FAA)

Measure

Total number of fatal general aviation accidents. (FY)

Scope

The measure includes on-demand (non-scheduled FAR Part 135) and general aviation flights. General aviation comprises a diverse range of aviation activities from single-seat homebuilt aircraft, helicopters, balloons, single and multiple engine land and seaplanes to highly sophisticated extended range turbojets.

The FAA would prefer to use a fatal accident rate rather than fatal accidents as the performance measure because the use of a rate measure would take into account variation in activity levels from year to year. However, unlike commercial aviation activity that is reported regularly to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics by the carriers, general aviation flight hours are based on an annual voluntary survey conducted by the FAA. Due to the voluntary nature of the survey, the accuracy of the flight hours collected is suspect and there is no readily available way to verify the data. For these reasons, the general aviation community is unwilling to use a rate measure until the validity and reliability of the survey data can be assured.

The general aviation community and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee of the Safer Skies initiative recommend development of a data collection program that will yield more accurate and relevant data on general aviation demographics and utilization. Improved survey and data collection methodologies have been developed.

As a result of these efforts, the FAA, working with the General Aviation Manufacturers Association, has made several improvements to the survey. First, the sample size has been significantly increased. Second, a reporting sheet has been created to make it much easier for organizations with large fleets to report. Third, the agency worked with the Aircraft Registry to improve the accuracy of contact information. As a result, a survey was completed in FY 2004 that, for the first time, creates a statistically valid report of general aviation activity that the GA community agrees on. The next step is to create the baseline and work with the GA community on a reasonable target for the rate.

Sources

The data on general aviation fatalities come from the National Transportation Safety Board’s Aviation Accident Database (NTSB). Aviation accident investigators under the auspices of the NTSB develop the data.

Statistical Issues

There is no major error in the accident counts. Random variation in air crashes results in a significant variation in the number of fatal accidents over time.

Completeness

NTSB and FAA’s Office of Accident Investigations meet regularly to validate information on the number of accidents. Initial results are considered preliminary. NTSB continues to review accident results from FY 2006 and 2007.

Numbers are final when the NTSB releases its report each March. NTSB continues to review accident results from FY 2007. So in March 2009, FY 2007 accident numbers will be finalized. However, the number is not likely to significantly change from the end of each fiscal year to when the rate is finalized.

Reliability

FAA uses performance data extensively for program management and personnel evaluation and accountability. Most accident investigations are a joint undertaking between FAA and NTSB. NTSB has the statutory responsibility, but, in fact, most of the accident investigations related to general aviation are conducted by FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors without NTSB direct involvement. FAA’s own accident investigators and other FAA employees participate in all accident investigations led by NTSB investigators.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Train Accidents Rate (FRA)

Measure

Train accidents per million train-miles (FY)

Scope

The Railroad Safety Information System (RSIS) is the principal monitoring strategy used by the FRA for the management, processing, and reporting on railroad-reported accidents/incidents; railroad inspections; highway-rail grade crossing data; and related railroad safety activities. The Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting Subsystem (RAIRS) is the repository of all FRA-mandated reports of railroad accidents, incidents, casualties, highway-rail grade crossing collisions, and operating information.

A train accident is any collision, derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving the operation of railroad on-track equipment (standing and moving), which results in damages greater than the current reporting threshold to railroad on-track equipment, signals, track, track structures, and roadbed. Train accidents are reported on form FRA F6180.54, Rail Equipment Accident/Incident Report. The reporting threshold for 2008 is $8,500.

A train incident is any event involving the movement of on-track equipment that results in a reportable casualty but does not cause reportable damage above the current threshold established for train accidents. Operational data, including train-miles, are reported on the form FRA F6180.55, Railroad Injury and Illness Summary.

Sources

FRA’s Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting Subsystem.

Statistical Issues

None

Completeness

Railroads are required by regulation (49 CFR Part 225) to file monthly reports to the FRA of all train accidents that meet a dollar threshold (currently $8,500). They are also required to file monthly operations reports of train-miles, employee-hours, and passenger train-miles.

Reports must be filed within 30 days after the close of the month. Data must be updated when the costs associated with an accident vary by more than 10 percent (higher or lower) from that initially reported.

Railroad systems that do not connect with the general rail system are excluded from reporting to FRA. Examples include subway systems (e.g., Washington, D.C. Metro, New York City subway, San Francisco Bay Area Rapid Transit District), track existing inside an industrial compound, and insular rail (e.g., rail that is not connected to the general system and does not have a public highway rail crossing or go over a navigable waterway).

Reliability

FRA uses the data in prioritizing its inspections and safety reviews, and for more long-term strategic management of its rail safety program.

FRA has inspectors who review the railroads’ reporting records, and who have the authority to write violations if railroads are not reporting accurately. Violations may result in monetary fines.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Transit Fatality Rate (FTA)

Measure

Transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled. (CY)

Scope

Transit fatality data includes passengers, revenue facility occupants, trespassers, employees, other transit workers (contractors), and others. A transit fatality is a death within 30 days after the incident, which occurs under the categories of collision, derailment, personal casualty (not otherwise classified), fire, or bus going off the road in the National Transit Database (NTD) reporting systems. Previous to 2002, transit involved parties that were defined as patrons, employees, and others (the safety data was collected on a fiscal year, as opposed calendar year basis). Fatalities for the performance measurement only use transit agency Directly Operated (DO) mode data. Purchased Transportation (PT) data are not part of this measure. Certain fatalities are excluded, as they are not considered to be directly related to the operation of transit vehicles. Those include suicides and fatalities occurring in parking facilities and stations, as well as fires in right-of-ways and stations. Also, the measure includes only the major transit modes (motor/trolleybus, light rail, heavy rail, commuter rail with vanpool, automated guideway, and demand response) and excludes ferryboat, monorail, inclined plane, cable car, and jitney.

The passenger-miles traveled on public transit vehicles (e.g., buses, heavy and light railcars, commuter railcars, ferries, paratransit vans, and vanpools) only refer to miles while in actual revenue service to the general public.

These data are reported annually by operators to the FTA National Transit Database (NTD) and to the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) Rail Accident and Incident Reporting System (RAIRS). FRA RAIRS data are used exclusively for commuter rail (CR) safety data. NTD and RAIRS data are an input to FTA’s Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis program (formerly known as Safety Management Information Statistics [SAMIS]).

Sources

The Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis Annual Report, formerly SAMIS, is a compilation and analysis of transit accident, casualty, and crime statistics reported under the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) NTD Reporting System by transit systems that are beneficiaries of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds. (Section 5307 grantees). Starting in 2002, commuter rail safety data are being collected from the FRA Rail Accident Reporting System (RAIRS) in order to avoid redundant reporting to NTD. Transit fatalities: Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis Annual Report. Transit passenger miles: Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis Annual Report.

Statistical Issues

The fatality counts in FTA’s Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis are a census. The major source of uncertainty in the measure relates to passenger-miles traveled. Passenger-miles are an estimate derived from reported passenger trips and average trip length. Passenger-miles are the cumulative sum of the distances ridden on passenger trips.

Transit authorities have accurate counts of unlinked passenger trips and fares. An unlinked trip is recorded each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle, even though the rider may be on the same journey. Transit authorities do not routinely record trip length. To calculate passenger-miles, total unlinked trips are multiplied by average trip length. To obtain an average trip length for their bus routes, transit authorities use Automatic Passenger Counters (APCs) with GPS Technology or a FTA-approved sampling technique. To obtain passenger mile data on rail systems, ferry boats, and paratransit, transit authorities often use Smart Card or other computerized tracking systems. Passenger-miles are the only data element that is sampled in the NTD. Validation based on annual trend analysis is performed on the passenger mile inputs from the transit industry. The validation is performed by statistical analysts at the NTD contractor (Technology Solution Providers/General Dynamics Corporation).

Completeness

The information for this measure comes from the FTA’s Transit Safety and Security Statistics and Analysis program, formerly FTA’s Safety Management Information System (SAMIS), which uses data reported by transit operators to the NTD. Many categories and definitions were added or changed in the new NTD in 2002, and have allowed for improvements and more timely analysis of trends and contributing factors. The 20072008 measure is an extrapolation of partial-year data, particularly of passenger-miles traveled.

Reliability

An independent auditor and the transit agency’s CEO certify that data reported to the NTD are accurate. Using data from the NTD to compile the Transit Safety & Security Statistics & Analysis program (formerly SAMIS) data, the USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center compares current safety statistics with previous years, identifies any questionable trends, and seeks explanation from operators.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Natural Gas and Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Incidents (PHMSA)

Measure

Number of serious incidents for natural gas pipeline incidents and hazardous liquid pipeline accidents (CY)

Scope

Gas pipeline incidents are reportable under 49 CFR 191.15 if they involve:

a release of gas from a pipeline or of liquefied natural gas or gas from an LNG facility; and a death or personal injury requiring in-patient hospitalization, or estimated property damage, including cost of gas lost, of $50,000 or more;
an event that results in an emergency shutdown of an LNG facility; and,
an event that is significant in the judgment of the operator, even if it does not meet any other reporting criteria.

Liquid pipeline accidents are reportable under 49 CFR 195.50 if there is a release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide and any one of the following:

unintentional explosion or fire;
release of five gallons or more (except certain maintenance activities);
death or injury requiring hospitalization; and,
estimated property damage, including cots of cleanup and recovery, value of lost product, and other property damage exceeding $50,000.

Gas incidents include both gas transmission and gas distribution pipeline systems. Data are adjusted/normalized for time series comparisons to account for changes in reporting criteria over time. This includes screening out hazardous liquid spills of less than 50 barrels (or five barrels for highly-volatile liquids) unless the accident meets one of the other reporting criteria.

Sources

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Incident Data - derived from Pipeline Operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7100.1 and F-7000.1.

Statistical Issues

A response percentage cannot be calculated as the actual population of reportable incidents cannot be precisely determined. Results in any single year need to be interpreted with some caution. Targets could be missed or met as a result of normal annual variation in the number of reported incidents.

Completeness

Compliance in reporting is very high and most incidents that meet reporting requirements are submitted. Operators must submit reports within 30 days of an incident or face penalties for non-compliance. The reported estimates are based upon incident data reported in January through June 2008. There may be a 60-day lag in reporting and compiling information in the database for analysis. Traditionally, there are more incidents in the summer than the winter. Preliminary estimates are based on data available as of middle of August, with six months of data through the end of June. The CY 2008 estimate is a projection using both a seasonal adjustment (using a 10-year baseline) and a separate adjustment to account for the historical filing of late reports (92.5 percent of reports for January - June were filed by this time last year).

Reliability

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident/accident reports against other sources of data, such as the telephonic reporting system for incidents requiring immediate notification provided to the National Response Center (NRC). PHMSA is developing a Best Management Practice to ensure quality of the incident data. Data are not normalized to account for inflation. A fixed reporting threshold ($50,000) for property damage results in an increasing level of reporting over time. This threshold was set for gas pipeline incidents in 1985 and for hazardous liquid accidents in 1994.

Data are not normalized to account for the subjective judgment of the operator in filing reports for incidents that do no meet any of the quantitative reporting criteria. This may result in variations over time due to changes in industry reporting practices. The performance measure is not normalized for changes in exposure-external factors like changes in pipeline mileage that could affect the number of incidents without affecting the risk per mile of pipeline.

PHMSA uses these data in prioritizing its inspections and safety reviews, and for more long-term strategic management of its pipeline safety program.

Details on DOT Safety Measures
Serious Hazardous Materials Incidents (PHMSA)

Measure

Number of serious hazardous materials transportation incidents. (CY)

Scope

Hazardous materials transportation incidents are reportable under 49 CFR Parts 100-185. Serious hazardous materials incidents include those incidents resulting in:

a fatality or major injury;
the evacuation of 25 or more employees or responders or any number of the general public;
the closure of a major transportation artery, the alteration of an aircraft flight plan or operation caused by the release of a hazardous material;
the exposure of hazardous material to fire; or,
any release of radioactive materials from Type B packaging, Risk Group 3 or 4 infectious substances, over 11.9 gallons or 88.2 pounds of a severe marine pollutant, or a bulk quantity (over 119 gallons or 882 pounds) of a hazardous material.

This measure tracks only transportation-related releases of hazardous materials that are in commerce. It includes incidents in all modes of transportation (air, truck, rail, and water) except pipelines.

Sources

Hazardous Material Information System (HMIS) maintained by DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration-derived from reports submitted on Form DOT F 5800.1.

Statistical Issues

Completeness

Each person in physical possession of a hazardous material at the time that any of the incidents occurs (loading, unloading, and temporary storage) during transportation must submit a Hazardous Materials Incident Report on DOT Form F 5800.1 (01-2004) within 30 days of discovery of the incident. Incident reports are received continuously by PHMSA.

Carriers are required to submit incident reports to PHMSA within 30 days of an incident. Once received by PHMSA, it takes approximately one month for incident reports to be processed and verified. The data are then made available in the HMIS database during the next monthly update.

PHMSA continues to receive reports from calendar year 2008. By the end of September 2008 actual incident data was received through August 31, 2008. PHMSA is projecting the remainder of the calendar year using the actual number of incidents that occurred during September, October, November, and December of 2007-the previous calendar year. This methodology for projecting the CY 2008 estimate is expected to be within 2-4 percent of the final estimate, which becomes available during the second quarter of CY 2008.

Reliability

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident data against other sources of data, including the use of a news clipping service to provide information on significant hazmat incidents that might not be reported. The performance measure is not normalized for changes in exposure - external factors like changes in the amount of hazmat shipped that could affect the number of incidents without affecting the risk per ton shipped.

Annual hazmat incident data are used to track program performance, plan regulatory and outreach initiatives, and provide a statistical basis for research and analysis. The data is also used on a daily basis to target entities for enforcement efforts, and review of applications for exemption renewals.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Highway Infrastructure Condition (FHWA)

Measure: Percent of travel on the National Highway System (NHS) meeting pavement performance standards for “good” rated ride. (CY)
Scope: Data include vehicle-miles traveled on the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) reported NHS sections and pavement ride quality data reported using the International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is a quantitative measure of the accumulated response of a quarter-car vehicle suspension experienced while traveling over a pavement. An IRI of 95 inches per mile or less is necessary for a good rated ride. Vehicle-Miles of Travel (VMT) represents the total number of vehicle-miles traveled by motor vehicles on public roadways within the 50 States, Washington, D.C., and Puerto Rico.
Sources: Data for this measure are collected by the State Highway Agencies using calibrated measurement devices that meet industry set standards and reported to FHWA. Measurement procedures are included in the FHWA HPMS Field Manual. The VMT data are derived from the HPMS.
Statistical Issues: The major source of error in the percentages is the differences in data collection methodologies between the States and the differences in data collection intervals. FHWA is working on revisions to the HPMS data collection guidelines to minimize these potential errors. VMT data are also subject to sampling errors. The magnitude of error depends on how well the sites of the continuous counting stations represent nationwide traffic rates. HPMS is also subject to estimation differences between the States, even though FHWA works to minimize such differences and differing projections on growth, population, and economic conditions that impact driving behavior.
Completeness: The 2008 actual results for this measure are reported based on 2007 data, which may be incomplete as late as October 2008. Prior to 2007, actual results were reported in the prior year and a projection for the current year was made based on the prior year data.
Reliability: The HPMS data are collected by the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in cooperation with local governments. While many of the geometric data items, such as type of median, rarely change; other items, such as traffic volume, change yearly. Typically, the States maintain data inventories that are the repositories of a wide variety of data. The HPMS data items are simply extracted from these inventories, although some data are collected just to meet Agency requirements.
The FHWA provides guidelines for data collection in the HPMS Field Manual. Adherence to these guidelines varies by State, depending on issues such as staff, resources, internal policies, and uses of the data at the data provider level. An annual review of reported data is conducted by the FHWA, both at the headquarters level and in the Division Offices in each State. The reported data are subjected to intense editing and comparison with previously reported data and reasonability checks. A written annual evaluation is provided to each State to document potential problems and to encourage corrective actions. Data re-submittal is requested in cases where major problems are identified.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Highway Bridge Condition (FHWA)

Measures: Percent of deck area on National Highway System Bridges classified as deficient
Scope: The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) requires the inspection of all highway bridges located on public roads and the submission of the collected bridge inventory and inspection data to the FHWA for inclusion in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The FHWA maintains the NBI, which contains data on nearly 600,000 highway bridges. The information in the NBI contains 95 data items for each of the bridges as required by the Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. From the data provided, the FHWA monitors the condition of the Nation’s bridges, which includes identifying those bridges that are either Functionally Obsolete or Structurally Deficient.
Sources: The bridge information is collected by the State DOTs and other bridge owners and is provided to the FHWA at least annually. As part of the FHWA NBI, NBIS, and Highway Bridge Program monitoring and oversight responsibilities, the accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI information is constantly evaluated through data checks and field reviews by both Headquarters and field office personnel.
Statistical Issues: As with any very large dynamic database, there is always the potential for data quality issues. However, procedures are in-place to identify and correct data issues as part of the annual submittal process. Because the performance measure relies on data associated with nearly 116,000 NHS bridges, the impact of any localized data quality problem is minimized in the overall national analysis.
Completeness: The NBI is the world’s most comprehensive database of bridge information. The 2008 actual results for this measure are reported based on 2007 data, which may be incomplete as late as October 2008.
Reliability: The bridge information is collected by the State DOTs and other bridge owners and is provided to the FHWA at least annually (Note: Some States provide data quarterly). As part of the FHWA’s NBI, NBIS, and Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program monitoring and oversight responsibilities, the accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI information is constantly evaluated through data checks and field reviews by both Headquarters and field office personnel.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Highway Congestion (FHWA)

Measure: Percent of total annual urban-area travel occurring in congested conditions. (CY)
Scope: Data are derived from approximately 400 urban areas. The data reflects travel conditions on freeway and principal arterial street networks. An urban area is a developed area with a density of greater than 1,000 persons per square mile. Congested conditions exist when travel occurs below the posted speed limit(s).
Sources: Data collected and provided by the State Departments of Transportation from existing State or local government databases, including those of Metropolitan Planning Organizations. FHWA’s Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) serves as the repository of the data. The Texas Transportation Institute utilizes HPMS data to derive the above measures.
Statistical Issues: The methodology used to calculate performance measures has been developed by the Texas Transportation Institute (TTI) and reported in their annual Mobility Study. With sponsorship from the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research Board, the methodology was significantly revised in 2007 and 2008 to take advantage of new studies and detailed data sources that have not been available in previous studies.
Completeness: The 2006 and prior measures are final. The 2007 measure is preliminary, as partial 2007 HPMS data were used to construct the estimates. HPMS data is compiled from the States and verified approximately 10 months from the base year, e.g., 2008 actual numbers will not be available from HPMS until October 2009. The 2008 measure is a projection based on recent year trends.
Reliability: The HPMS data are collected by the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico in cooperation with local governments. While many of the geometric data items, such as type of median, rarely change; other items, such as traffic volume, change yearly. Typically, the States maintain data inventories that are the repositories of a wide variety of data. The HPMS data items are simply extracted from these inventories, although some data are collected just to meet Agency requirements. The FHWA provides guidelines for data collection in the HPMS Field Manual. Adherence to these guidelines varies by State, depending on issues such as staff, resources, internal policies, and uses of the data at the data provider level. An annual review of reported data is conducted by the FHWA, both at the headquarters level and in the Division Offices in each State. The reported data are subjected to intense editing and comparison with previously-reported data and reasonability checks. A written annual evaluation is provided to each State to document potential problems and to encourage corrective actions. Data re-submittal is requested in cases where major problems are identified.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Transit Ridership (FTA)

Measure

Average percent change in transit boardings per transit market (150 largest transit agencies). (CY)

Scope

The metric is the average percent change in transit boardings. The component is transit passenger boardings within a transit market. The modes covered are: Motor Bus (MB), Heavy Rail (HR), Light Rail (LR), Commuter Rail (CR), Demand Response (DR), Vanpool (VP), and Automated Guideway (AG).

Sources

Transit Passengers: Data derived from counts made on bus and rail routes by transit agencies that are beneficiaries of FTA Urbanized Area Formula funds, as part of their monthly National Transit Database (NTD) Reporting System submissions. Data are collected from the 150 largest transit systems

Statistical Issues

The sources of uncertainty include coverage errors and auditing issues. These data are validated by the FTA Office of Budget and Policy, contractor staff.

By statute, every FTA formula grant recipient in an urbanized area (defined by the Census as having a population of 50,000 or more) must report to the National Transit Database (NTD). In cities of this size, virtually every transit authority receives FTA funding, and there are only a few cities with over 50,000 persons that do not provide public transit service. Publicly-funded transit service can be directly-operated or purchased transportation.

Transit authorities have accurate counts of unlinked passenger trips and fares. An unlinked trip is recorded each time a passenger boards a transit vehicle, even though the rider may be on the same journey. As a check, trips are routinely reconciled against fare revenues. The sources of uncertainty include coverage errors and auditing issues. Until 2002, reports were required only on an annual basis.

Completeness

DOT has revised this measure to better account for the impact of ridership by counting actual monthly boardings.

Reliability

For 20072008, the indicator compares transit ridership for the urbanized areas containing the 150 largest transit agencies, aggregated by mode, with the year ending June 30, 20072008. An independent auditor and the transit agency’s CEO certify that annual data reported to the NTD are accurate. FTA also compares data to key indicators such as vehicle revenue-miles, number of buses in service during peak periods, etc.

FTA has undertaken a major initiative to increase ridership nationwide with the planned results being a reduction in congestion. This measure is built into all FTA senior executive performance standards.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Transportation Accessibility (FTA)

Measures

1. Percentage of bus fleets compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (CY)

2. Percent of key rail stations compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). (CY)

Scope

Accessibility for bus fleet means that vehicles are equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps.

Transit buses are buses used in urbanized areas to provide public transit service to the general public. Transit buses do not include private intercity buses (e.g., Greyhound), private shuttle buses, charter buses, or school buses.

The percentage of bus fleets that are equipped with lifts or ramps is only a partial measure of overall accessibility under the ADA as it measures only the availability of transit buses in our National fleet that can accommodate wheelchairs through the use of mechanical lifts or ramps. Accessibility for transit vehicles under the ADA includes other equipment and operational practices that are not reflected in this indicator.

Accessibility for key rail facilities is determined by standards for ADA compliance. Transit systems were required to identify key stations. A key station is one designated as such by public entities that operate existing commuter, light, or rapid rail systems. Each public entity has determined which stations on its system have been designated as key stations through its planning and public participation process using criteria established by DOT regulations.

All new rail stations are required to be ADA compliant upon completion and must meet standards for new rail stations, not key stations. All altered stations are required to be ADA compliant upon completion and must meet standards for alterations of transportation facilities by public entities.

Sources

Compliant bus fleets: National Transit Database (NTD).

Compliant rail stations: Rail Station status reports to the FTA.

Statistical Issues

Data are obtained from a census of publicly-funded transit buses in urbanized areas. Information on the ADA key rail stations is reported to FTA by transit authorities. These data are not based on a sample.

Completeness

At a transit authority, vehicle purchases are significant capital expenditures. Vehicles purchased with FTA funds must have a useful life of 12 years. Whether a bus is purchased or leased, the equipment on the bus is recorded, including lifts and ramps. For the last 20 years, transit agencies have reported on the equipment in their bus fleets to the FTA in their annual NTD submissions. There is a census of publicly-funded transit buses in urbanized areas. It is not a sample. Urbanized areas have more than 50,000 persons, and are defined by the Census Department. By statute, every FTA formula grant recipient in an urbanized area must report to the NTD. In cities of this size, virtually every transit authority receives FTA funding. There are only a few cities of over 50,000 persons that do not provide public transit service. Publicly funded transit service can be directly operated or purchased transportation.

Data reported for key station accessibility have historically excluded those stations for which time extensions had been granted under 49 CFR 37.47(c) (2) or 37.51(c) (2). There are a total of 138 such stations for which time extensions of various lengths were granted, some of them through 2020, the maximum permitted. These deadlines are now beginning to pass, and these stations can no longer be excluded from the total key station accessibility figures; the total number of time extensions from 20072008 through 2020 stands at 19. The total number of key stations will therefore increase, and the percentage of compliant stations may decrease as they are added to the total key station count. Beginning in 20072008, the key station accessibility figures began reporting the total number of key stations, the total number that are accessible, and the number with outstanding time extensions.

Reliability

All data in the NTD are self-reported by the transit industry. The transit agency’s Chief Executive Officer and an independent auditor for the transit agency certify the accuracy of this self-reported data. The data are also compared with fleet data reported in previous years and crosschecked with other related operating and financial data in the report. Fleet inventory is also reviewed as part of FTA’s Triennial Review, and a visual inspection is made at that time.

Information on ADA key rail stations is reported to FTA by transit authorities. The FTA’s Office of Civil Rights conducts oversight assessments to verify the information on key rail station accessibility. Quarterly rail station status reports and key rail station assessments have significantly increased the number of key rail stations that have come into compliance over the last several years.

FTA will primarily influence the goal through Federal transit infrastructure investment, which speeds the rate at which transit operators can transition to ADA-compliant facilities and equipment, oversight, and technical assistance.

Details on DOT Mobility Measures
Aviation Delay (FAA)

Measure: Percentage of flights arriving no more than 15 minutes late.
Scope: A flight is considered on-time if it arrives no later than 15 minutes after its published, scheduled arrival time. This definition is used in both the DOT Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP), and Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) reporting systems. Air carriers, however, also file up-to-date flight plans for their services with the FAA that may differ from their published flight schedules. This metric measures on-time performance against the carriers filed flight plan, rather than what may be a dated published schedule.
The time of arrival of completed passenger flights to and from the 35 OEP airports is compared to their flight plan scheduled time of arrival. For delayed flights, delay minutes attributable to extreme weather, carrier caused delay, security delay, and a prorated share of delay minutes due to a late arriving flight at the departure airport are subtracted from the total minutes of delay. If the flight is still delayed, it is counted as a delayed flight attributed to the National Aviation System (NAS) and the FAA.
Sources: The Aviation System Performance Metrics (ASPM) database, maintained by the FAA’s Office of Aviation Policy and Plans, supplemented by DOT’s Airline Service Quality Performance (ASQP) causation database, provides the data for this measure. By agreement with the FAA, ASPM flight data are filed by certain major air carriers for all flights to and from most large and medium hubs, and is supplemented by flight records contained in the Enhanced Traffic Management System (ETMS) and flight movement times provided by Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (AIRINC).
Statistical Issues: Data are not reported for all carriers, only 19 carriers report monthly into the ASQP reporting system.
Completeness: Fiscal year data are finalized approximately 90 days after the close of the fiscal year.
Reliability: The reliability of ASPM is verified on a daily basis by the execution of a number of audit checks, comparison to other published data metrics, and through the use of ASPM by over 1500 registered users. ASQP data is filed monthly with DOT under 14 CFR 234, Airline Service Quality Performance Reports, which separately requires reporting by major air carriers on flights to and from all large hubs.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Disadvantaged and Women-Owned Small Businesses (OST S-40)

Measure: 1. Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct contracts that are awarded to women-owned businesses. (FY)
2. Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct contracts that are awarded to small disadvantaged businesses. (FY)
Scope: Includes contracts awarded by DOT Operating Administrations through direct procurement. It does not include FAA contracts exempt from the Small Business Act.
Sources: Prior to October 1, 2003, these data were derived from the USDOT Contract Information System (CIS, which fed the old Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS). The CIS included all USDOT contracting activities that reported to the Federal Procurement Data Center (FPDC). Migration to the new Federal Procurement Data System on October 1, 2003 enabled the removal of agency FPDS feeder systems government-wide (including CIS).
New data reports will come directly from FPDS. Data are compiled by USDOT Contracting staff from Department contract documents. Selected information is either transmitted from the operating administration contract writing systems, or manually data-keyed via the FPDS web site, into the FPDS database, which can be queried to compute needed statistics. All USDOT contracts are enumerated.
Statistical Issues: Until recently the reliability of the Federal Procurement Data System/Next Generation (FPDS/NG) was an issue with DOT and other federal agencies including the Government Accountability Office (GAO). The FPDS is designed to be an accurate and reliable system, as required by the Small Business Act, Section 644(g). However, it is recognized that at least through the transitional periods of FY 2003 through FY 2007, there may be issues of synchronization and data reliability between federal agencies and the FPDS/NG.
DOT currently is required to scrub FPDS/NG data and resubmit it for validation. After re-verifying these data against internal sources, there are no known major errors present in the data. Business types are as identified in the Central Contractor Registration (CCR) database. However, random variation in the number of DOT contracts as well as the number of women-owned and small disadvantaged businesses each year results in some random variation in these measures from year to year.
Completeness: The Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS) is prescribed by regulations as the official data collection mechanism for DOT acquisitions.
Reliability: There is extensive regulatory coverage to ensure data reliability. The system is used to prepare many reports to Congress, the Small Business Administration, and others. Performance goals actual data, as finalized by the Small Business Administration is the only reliable basis for program evaluations as mandated by the Small Business Act, Section 644(g).

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
St. Lawrence Seaway System Availability (SLSDC)

Measure: Percent of days in the shipping season that the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway is available. (FY)
Scope: The availability and reliability of the U.S. sectors of the St. Lawrence Seaway, including the two U.S. Seaway locks in Massena, N.Y., are critical to continuous commercial shipping during the navigation season (late March to late December). System downtime due to any condition (weather, vessel incidents, malfunctioning equipment) causes delays to shipping, affecting international trade to and from the Great Lakes region of North America. Downtime is measured in hours/minutes of delay for weather (visibility, fog, snow, ice); vessel incidents (human error, electrical and/or mechanical failure); water level and rate of flow regulation; and lock equipment malfunction.
Sources: Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) Office of Lock Operations and Marine Services.
Statistical Issues: None.
Completeness: As the agency responsible for the operation and maintenance of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway, SLSDC’s lock operations unit gathers primary data for all vessel transits through the U.S. Seaway sectors and locks, including any downtime in operations. Data is collected on site, at the U.S. locks, as vessels are transiting or as operations are suspended. This information measuring the System’s reliability is compiled and delivered to SLSDC senior staff and stakeholders each month. In addition, SLSDC compiles annual System availability data for comparison purposes. Since SLSDC gathers data directly from observation, there are no limitations. Historically, the SLSDC has reported this performance metric for its entire navigation season (late March/early April to late December). Unfortunately due to reporting timelines, system availability data is only reported through September in this report.
Reliability: SLSDC verifies and validates the accuracy of the data through review of 24-hour vessel traffic control computer records, radio communication between the two Seaway entities and vessel operators, and video and audiotapes of vessel incidents.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Bilateral Agreements (FAA)

Measure

Number of executive agreements signed and/or implementation procedures agreements concluded.

Scope

U.S. Bilateral Agreements related to aviation safety have two components: executive agreements and implementation procedures. The executive agreement is signed by the Department of State and the target country’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs. It lays the essential groundwork for cooperation between the two governments and their respective aviation authorities. The implementation procedures, the second component, provide detailed operational safety and certification arrangements between the FAA and the target country’s civil aviation authority. The implementation procedure is the operational portion of the bilateral agreement that allows for acceptance of aviation goods and services between the two countries.

The target is achieved when either a new Executive Agreement is signed or a new or expanded implementation procedure is signed, or all substantive issues relating to the content of the agreement are completed with the target country or regional authority. (Interim measures related to the progress of negotiations may also be tracked for internal purposes during a specific fiscal year.)

Sources

The executive agreements are negotiated and maintained by the Department of State. The implementation procedures are negotiated and concluded by FAA. The official, signed implementation procedure is maintained at FAA Headquarters.

Statistical Issues

None.

Completeness

There are no completeness data issues associated with this measure since it is a simple count of the final signed new executive agreement or implementation procedures agreement. This performance target is monitored monthly by tracking interim negotiation steps leading to completion of a BASA and tracking FAA internal coordination of the negotiated draft text.

The final signing of executive agreements is generally out of the control of the FAA. Many sovereign nations view these agreements as treaties that require legislative approval. The FAA and U.S. Government cannot control the timing of legislatures in other countries. Therefore, the FAA will count executive agreements only when signed. The negotiation of implementation procedures is more within FAA’s control.

The signed document of the executive agreement constitutes evidence of completion. For implementation procedures, evidence will be either a signed procedure or some form of agreement between both parties that material negotiations are concluded, but a formal signing ceremony is pending. This can take the form of an e-mail, meeting minutes, or other mutual agreement between the two parties that the implementation procedures activity has been concluded.

Reliability

No issues.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Reduced Barriers to Trade in Transportation (OST-X)

Measure: Number of potential air transportation consumers (in billions) in international markets.
Scope: The number of potential air transportation consumers is the total population of the U.S. and countries with open skies aviation agreements with the U.S. By the end of FY 2008, there were more than 90 open skies agreements. This measurement includes the annual increase in population for the countries where open skies have been achieved, as well as the additional populations for newly negotiated open skies agreements. The estimate for the additional population is based on the median population size of the countries without open skies agreements. The measurement thus reflects the extent to which the liberalization resulting from open skies agreements, negotiated by DOT, increases travel opportunities between the U.S. and countries with previously restricted aviation agreements.
Sources: Estimate of the population of the U.S. and countries with open skies agreements with the U.S., Midyear Population, International Data Base, and U.S. Bureau of the Census (per website).
Statistical Issues: The International Data Base of the U.S. Bureau of the Census is a reliable source of population estimates. The Bureau’s website and publications provide qualifying data notes that more fully describe technical and other issues. These qualifying notes do not significantly affect our analyses.
Completeness: The International Data Base of the U.S. Bureau of the Census is a reliable source of population estimates. The Bureau’s website and publications provide qualifying data notes that more fully describe technical and other issues. These qualifying notes do not significantly affect our analyses.
Reliability: The International Data Base of the U.S. Bureau of the Census is a reliable source of population estimates. The Bureau’s website and publications provide qualifying data notes that more fully describe technical and other issues. These qualifying notes do not significantly affect our analyses.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Enhanced International Competitiveness of U.S. Transportation Providers (OST-X)

Measure: Number of international negotiations conducted annually to remove market-distorting barriers to trade in air transportation.
Scope: The number of international negotiations conducted annually to remove market-distorting barriers to trade in transportation is the number (or rounds) of meetings and negotiations that are conducted in an effort to reach open skies agreements, other liberalized aviation agreements, or to resolve problems. By the end of FY 2008, there were more than 80 open skies agreements, and 19 liberalized (but not open skies) agreements. These numbers, however, do not represent, but understate, the number of negotiating sessions that have historically been held to complete these agreements. The measurement thus reflects an estimate of the extent of and manner by which the DOT might best apply the necessary resources to open the competitive environment and provide increased travel opportunities and economic benefits.
Sources: Estimate of the number of annual negotiating sessions that are required to achieve further international aviation liberalization. It is an internal estimate generated by the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Aviation and International Affairs based on a number of analytical, economic and geopolitical factors.
Statistical Issues: Due to geopolitical factors, the nature of international aviation negotiations can follow an unpredictable course. It is impossible to gauge or comment upon the data limitations, statistical issues, data completeness and data reliability.
Completeness: Due to geopolitical factors, the nature of international aviation negotiations can follow an unpredictable course. It is impossible to gauge or comment upon the data limitations, statistical issues, data completeness and data reliability.
Reliability: Due to geopolitical factors, the nature of international aviation negotiations can follow an unpredictable course. It is impossible to gauge or comment upon the data limitations, statistical issues, data completeness and data reliability.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Travel in Freight Significant Corridors (FHWA)

Measure: Number of freight corridors with an annual decrease in the average buffer index rating. (CY)
Scope: Travel time reliability is a key indicator of transportation system performance. The FHWA uses measured speed data to calculate a Buffer Index (BI) for each freight significant corridor. The BI is a measure of travel time reliability and variability that represents the extra time (or time cushion) that would have to be added to the average travel time to ensure on-time arrival 95 percent of the time.
Sources: Travel time data for freight significant corridors is derived using time and location data from satellite communications equipment on-board mobile commercial vehicles. A Global Positioning Satellite (GPS) device in the vehicle transmits a continuous or periodic signal to an earth orbit satellite. This technology allows commercial vehicles to serve as probes and enables direct measurement of commercial vehicle average operating speeds and travel rates and travel times. Selection of freight significant corridors and highway segments is largely based on the volume of freight moved on the segment.
Statistical Issues: The key issues are long term viability of data source, sampling size of the commercial vehicle probes, and frequency of the time and position sampling. In FY 2008, FHWA made progress in addressing the issues of a sample size frequency of sampling. By entering into arrangements with two additional technology partners, FHWA added more than 150,000 vehicles to the sample size and enabled more precise detection of a vehicle location, direction, and speed.
Completeness: FHWA is partnering with vendors that collect automatic vehicle location probe information from a customer base, primarily interstate long-haul carriers. The data provides nationwide coverage from approximately 400,000 vehicles (trucks and trailers) in the United States, Canada and Mexico. The largest majority of the data is from fleets that have signals sent to vehicles and readings taken as often as every 15 minutes. The interval between probe readings is dependent upon the subscription and services contracted for by each individual carrier. These intervals may range from every 15 minutes to every two hours. The data transmitted are: truck ID, latitude, longitude, date and time, and interstate route. In FY 2008, FHWA enhanced the completeness of the data set by adding two additional vendors that increases the percentage of local and less than truckload carriers, increases the coverage area, and provides access to the data that more accurately pinpoints a vehicle’s location, direction and speed. FHWA processes and manages the data provided by the vendors to derive the information for this measure.
Reliability: Probe vehicle performance systems are designed to provide travel time, speed and delay information without traditional fixed-location traffic monitoring and data collection systems. Probe-based systems enable coverage of much larger geographic areas (i.e., entire roadway networks) without the cost of building fixed-location traffic data collection systems throughout those networks. This technique takes advantage of the significant reductions in the cost of GPS devices that report current location and time information with a high degree of accuracy. When placed in vehicles and combined with electronic map information, GPS devices are the primary component of excellent vehicle location systems. Storage and analysis of the GPS location data allow for very accurate roadway performance measurement. To provide reliable roadway performance estimates, a large enough number of vehicles must be equipped with GPS to provide an unbiased measure of roadway performance, and to provide the temporal and geographic diversity desired by the performance measurement system. A significant drawback to probe vehicle-based performance monitoring is that it does not provide information about the level of roadway use (i.e., vehicle volume), but only provides information about the speeds and travel times being experienced.

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
Border Crossing Operation Reliability (FHWA)

Measure: Number of U.S. border crossings with an increase in operational reliability.
Scope: U.S. Border Crossings with an increase in operational reliability, calculated as the average annual hours of unexpected delay, compares high-delay crossing times to average delay crossing times. The reliability measure, or Buffer Index, uses the 95th percentile crossing times to represent border crossing times during periods with the heaviest volumes and/or most limited capacity and the average crossing time to represent the expected time for commercial vehicles to cross the border.
Sources: Data is being collected at five U.S.-Canada border crossings: 1) Blaine (Pacific Highway): Blaine, WA, 2) Pembina: Pembina, ND, 3) Ambassador Bridge: Detroit, MI, 4) Peace Bridge: Buffalo, NY and 5) Champlain: Champlain, NY. Data collection is best described as an automated, large-scale probe vehicle performance monitoring system using satellite-based automated vehicle location (AVL) data. Using the satellite-based method, the specific location of vehicles is determined at regular, predetermined time intervals using latitude and longitude positioning. The locations are stamped with a time, date, and vehicle identification number. The data collected is used to compute the average crossing time. The baseline crossing time (i.e., best crossing time under ideal operating conditions) and average crossing time are used to calculate average delay at the crossings under study.To support data collection, FHWA has established a partnership with the American Transportation Research Institute (ATRI). ATRI is partnering with technology vendors and commercial carriers to gain access to the data.
Statistical Issues: The key issues are long term viability of data source, sampling size of the commercial vehicle probes, and frequency of the time and position sampling. In FY 2008, FHWA made positive progress in addressing the issues of a sample size frequency of sampling. By entering into arrangements with two additional technology partners, FHWA added more than 150,000 vehicles to the sample size and enabled more précising detection of a vehicle location, direction and speed.
Completeness: Traffic travel time information is traditionally collected with fixed-location systems (e.g. loop detectors embedded in the roads and video cameras). While the border data collection methodology provides a non-intrusive way of measuring border delay, data are not collected on the universe of commercial trucks for a particular crossing. There is continuous sampling over time, but data are collected only for commercial vehicles equipped with the technology. Also, the data collection and analysis does not account for important information about the crossings that can significantly influence travel times, such as the number of inspection and processing booths, the traffic volume, or threat level. The addition of additional vendors postures FHWA to be able to collect data on the US-Mexico border in FY 2009.
Reliability: Probe vehicle performance systems are designed to provide border crossing time and delay information without traditional fixed-location traffic monitoring and data collection systems. Probe-based systems enable coverage of much larger geographic areas (e.g. the entire Northern border) without the cost of building fixed-location traffic data collection systems throughout those networks. Storage and analysis of the GPS location data allow for very accurate border performance measurement. To provide reliable border performance estimates, a large enough number of vehicles must be equipped with GPS to provide an unbiased measure of border transportation system

Details on DOT Global Connectivity Measures
International Technology/Information Agreements (FHWA)

Measure: Number of Technology/Information Agreements that promote the U.S. Highway Transportation Industry (FHWA). To date, four agreements have been signed.
Scope: Signed memorandums of cooperation between FHWA and a foreign entity (usually a foreign government). Section 506 of Title 23 U.S.C. provides that FHWA “[E]ngage in activities…to promote U.S. highway transportation expertise, goods, and services in foreign countries to increase transfers of U.S. highway transportation technology to foreign countries.”
Sources: Data are collected by the FHWA Office of International Programs.
Statistical Issues: None. Data reflect a census of administrative records.
Completeness: None.
Reliability: None.

Details on DOT Environmental Stewardship Measures
Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives (FHWA)

Measure: Number of Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives undertaken. (FY)
Scope: The FHWA seeks to recognize exemplary examples of transportation projects that either create or improve conditions for human activities. Projects are exemplary if they meet a specific documented need; are innovative; are significant; demonstrate results; offer the potential for transferability; demonstrate partnering and collaboration; provide specific benefits to human activity; are mainstreamed into transportation decision-making; and benefit more than one project category. Each year a number of Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives will be selected for nationwide recognition and promotion as models for other localities to consider for implementation.
Sources: State DOT and FHWA field offices submit a list and description of human environment initiatives for consideration to FHWA Headquarters.
Statistical Issues: The data may not represent all ecosystem and habitat conservation initiatives underway. Submittals are made at the discretion of the States and FHWA field offices.
Completeness: All identified initiatives are included. However, there may be other potential qualifying initiatives that have not been identified.
Reliability: The identification of Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives may not be consistent across all States and FHWA field offices. While the criteria are carefully defined and complete, they are still subject to interpretation.

Details on DOT Environmental Stewardship Measures
DOT Facility Cleanup (OST M-93)

Measure: Twelve-month moving average number of areas in conformity lapse. (FY)
Scope: The transportation conformity process is intended to ensure that transportation plans, programs, and projects will not create new violations of the National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS), increase the frequency or severity of existing NAAQS violations, or delay the attainment of the NAAQS in designated non-attainment (or maintenance) areas.
Sources: The FHWA and FTA jointly make conformity determinations within air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas to ensure that Federal actions conform to the purpose of State Implementation Plans (SIP). With DOT concurrence, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has issued regulations pertaining to the criteria and procedures for transportation conformity, which were revised based on stakeholder comment.
Statistical Issues: None.
Completeness: If conformity cannot be determined within 24 months after certain State Implementation Plan (SIP) actions (e.g., EPA’s approval of motor vehicle emissions budgets), or if four years have passed since the last conformity determination, a 12-month conformity lapse grace period will start before the consequences of a conformity lapse apply. During a conformity lapse, no new non-exempt projects may advance until a new determination for the plan and Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) can be made. This condition affects transit as well as highway projects. During a conformity lapse, FHWA and FTA can only make approvals or grants for projects that are exempt from the conformity process (pursuant to Sections 93.126 and 93.127 of the conformity rule) such as a safety project and transportation control measures that are included in an approved SIP. Only those project phases that have received approval of the project agreement, and transit projects that have received a full funding grant agreement, or equivalent approvals, prior to the conformity lapse may proceed. This measure is current and has no missing data.
Reliability: There are no reliability issues. FHWA and FTA jointly make conformity determinations within air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas to ensure that Federal actions conform to the purpose of the SIP.

Details on DOT Environmental Stewardship Measures
Hazardous Liquid Materials Spilled from Pipelines (PHMSA)

Measure

Number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills in high consequence areas. (CY)

Scope

Liquid pipeline accidents (spills) are reportable under 49 CFR 195.50 if there is a release of hazardous liquid or carbon dioxide and any one of the following:

1. unintentional explosion or fire;

2. release of five gallons or more (except certain maintenance activities);

3. death or injury requiring hospitalization; or,

4. estimated property damage, including costs of cleanup and recovery, value of lost product, and other property damage exceeding $50,000.

Data are adjusted/normalized for time series comparisons to account for changes in reporting criteria over time. This includes screening out hazardous liquid spills of less than 50 barrels (or five barrels for highly-volatile liquids) unless the accident meets one of the other reporting criteria. Highly-volatile liquid (HVL) spills are not included in this performance measure. HVLs evaporate on release and don’t impact the environment in the usual way that other liquid petroleum products do.

Sources

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) Incident Data-derived from Pipeline Operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7000.1. Ton-mile data are calculated using a base figure reported in a 1982 USDOT study entitled Liquid Pipeline Director and then combined with data from the Association of Oil Pipe Lines and the Oil Pipeline Research Institute.

Statistical Issues

The performance measure is a ratio of “Tons Net Loss” and “Ton-Miles Shipped.” Uncertainty in either the numerator or the denominator can have a large effect on the overall uncertainty. Some factors of possible variance in the numerator include: 1) a few large spills can make PHMSA miss this goal, and 2) even when the total number of spills fluctuates, the net volume lost may increase. The denominator may fluctuate with the overall economy, i.e., the volume shipped increases with economic boom and decreases when the economy slows down. The environmental metric tracks a highly variable trend and PHMSA has noted in the past that the variability of this metric warrants close study.

The past long term pattern for the trend was to generally meet or miss the goal every other year as the actual performance bounced above and below the trend line regularly. PHMSA continues to lessen the overall standard deviation of the metric over time (the performance of the trend is getting statistically more sound over time). This measure also has continued a general downward trend even though it bounces above and below the trend line over time.

Completeness

The reported estimates are based upon incident data reported in January through June 2008. There may be a 60-day lag in reporting and compiling information in the database for analysis. Traditionally, there are more incidents in the summer than the winter. Preliminary estimates are based on data available as of middle of August, with six months of data through the end of June. The CY 2008 estimate is a projection using both a seasonal adjustment (using a 10-year baseline) and a separate adjustment to account for the historical filing of late reports (92.5 percent of reports for January-June were filed by this time last year).

Reliability

Projection of the environmental measure is less precise due to the nature of pipeline spills. A single large spill (10,000 barrels or more) can easily dwarf the total for all other CY spills combined. These large spills cannot be factored into a projection model due to their magnitude and infrequent and unpredictable occurrences. Thus, projections for the remaining six months of this CY assume that the average spill volume in the past six months will remain the same in the next six months. However, any large spill of non-highly volatile hazardous liquid in the next six months can move the projection upwards.

PHMSA routinely cross-checks accident reports against other sources of data, such as the telephonic reporting system for incidents requiring immediate notification provided to the National Response Center (NRC). PHMSA is developing a Best Management Practice to ensure quality of the incident data.

Data are not normalized to account for inflation. A fixed reporting threshold ($50,000) for property damage results in an increasing level of reporting over time. This threshold was set for hazardous liquid accidents in 1994.

Data are not normalized to account for the subjective judgment of the operator in filing reports for accidents that do no meet any of the quantitative reporting criteria. This may result in variations over time due to changes in industry reporting practices.

Lack of additional information for ton-mile data raises definitional and methodological uncertainties about the data’s reliability. Moreover, the three different information sources introduce data discontinuities, making time comparisons unreliable. (National Transportation System (NTS) 2002).

PHMSA uses this data in conjunction with pipeline safety data in prioritizing compliance and enforcement plans. However, beginning in FY 2009, PHMSA will begin reporting on the number of spills in high consequence areas as a new performance measure to replace the current one. This will address many of the reliability issues with the current measure.

Details on DOT Environmental Stewardship Measures
Environmental Impact Statements (FHWA / FAA/ FTA)

Measure

Median elapsed time in months to complete environmental impact statements for DOT funded infrastructure projects

Scope

The purpose of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) is to provide full and open evaluation of environmental issues and alternatives, and to inform decision-makers and the public of reasonable alternatives that could avoid or minimize adverse impacts and enhance the quality of the environment. Environmental impact statement completion time covers the period from publication of the notice of intent to publication of the record of decision for DOT-funded infrastructure projects

This is a tool for measuring the agency’s performance in preparing and completing Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) for DOT funded infrastructure projects. Not only will it provide a measure of the time to complete an EIS and the intermediate steps, it will also help assess the success of environmental streamlining initiatives undertaken by the DOT operating administrations.

Sources

Data are derived from FHWA, FTA, and FAA statistical compilations. FHWA data is collected primarily through the FHWA’s Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). The EIS processing time is tracked from the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Record of Decision (ROD) and from the date of initiation to a FONSI for EA processing time. Frequent reports are an integral part of a national communication strategy for environmental streamlining and are absolutely essential in responding to Congressional inquiries, periodic hearings, and mandated Congressional reports. FHWA prepares more than 80 percent of environmental impact statements prepared during the fiscal year.

FAA has developed and initiated a database maintained by the FAA’s Office of Environment and Energy. The database collects information on all agency EISs, data heretofore not readily available. In addition the database provides information on agency Environmental Assessments, Endangered Species Expenditures, and EIS Cooperating Agency Information that are used to provide reports to DOT, Congress, and the White House. Start and completion dates of EISs are taken from published dates associated with the Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (start) through Draft EIS, Final EIS, and Record of Decision (completion). Source materials are contained in the project files. The project manager for the EIS maintains the files and records.

FHWA collects data for all projects primarily through the FHWA’s Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). The EIS processing time is tracked from the Notice of Intent (NOI) to the Record of Decision (ROD).

FTA collects its data from a regional survey performed annually. Survey information is compiled and inputted into the agency’s EIS excel tracking workbook.

Statistical Issues

For FAA data, the various lines-of-business are responsible for providing and updating the data on a regular basis. In most cases the data is recorded in the database by the EIS project manager. This is the sole source of the information for the database. The most likely external factor that could impact the measurement of results would be related to the project manager’s workload and the ability to record data in a timely fashion.

Note that this measure does not account for “down time” in the process—for example, inactivity due to vacillating support for a project or diminished funding sources, and time required to complete ancillary studies.

FHWA: None

FTA: A list of EISs is compiled annually for the Council on Environmental Quality. The list does not always include EISs that are developed in the regions by sponsor consultants.

Completeness

All Environmental Impact Statements (EISs) that have a Notice of Intent (NOI) are entered into the system. As the NEPA process progresses, the dates for the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the ROD are also entered. These data are relatively complete.

For FAA, completeness and reliability of the data is the responsibility of the reporting lines-of-business. The project manager’s workload can affect the timeliness of recording data and therefore the completeness of the database and accuracy of the reported performance measure. When the start and completion of each EIS is recorded then the total time to complete can be calculated and the mean time to complete can be computed for the total number of projects over the time period being considered.

Reliability

There are no reliability issues. The data is submitted by the states and Headquarters verifies those dates by the Federal Register Publication dates. This measure is reliable insofar as time to complete the “environmental process,” which contemplates satisfying all—in some cases, up to 20 or more—environmental laws and permitting requirements that apply to a DOT-funded infrastructure project after subtracting “down time”.

Details on DOT Security Measures
Shipping Capacity (MARAD)

Measure: Percent of DOD-required shipping capacity, complete with crews, available within mobilization timelines. (FY)
Scope: This measure is based on the material availability of 44 ships in the Maritime Administration’s Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and approximately 125 ships enrolled in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement (VISA) program, which includes 60 ships enrolled in the Maritime Security Program (MSP).
The performance measure represents the number of available ships (compared to the total number of ships in the RRF and VISA) that can be fully crewed within the established readiness timelines. Crewing of the RRF vessels is accomplished by commercial mariners employed by private sector companies under contract to the government. Currently there are more qualified mariners than jobs, even in the most under represented categories. However, due to the voluntary nature of this system, there is no guarantee that sufficient mariners will be available on time and as needed especially during a large, rapid activation.
Sources: Material availability of ships. Maritime Administration records (and information exchanged with DOD) on the readiness/availability status of each ship by the Office of Sealift Support (MSP/VISA ships) and the Office of Ship Operations (RRF ships). Typical reasons why a ship is not materially available include: the ship is in drydock, the ship is undergoing a scheduled major overhaul, or the ship is undergoing an unscheduled repair. The Maritime Administration and DOD also maintain records of the sealift ships enrolled in the MSP and VISA and their crew requirements.
Availability of mariners. The Maritime Administration, through their Mariner Outreach System, extracts the number of qualified mariners from the data recorded in the U.S. Coast Guard’s Merchant Mariner Licensing and Documentation (MMLD) system. The willingness and availability of these mariners to sail is then estimated using all available information including total U.S. requirements for deep sea mariners, recent sea service, and mariner surveys.
Statistical Issues: None.
Completeness: Data are complete.
Reliability: The data is reasonably reliable and useful in managing the reserve fleet readiness program.

Details on DOT Security Measures
DoD-Designated Port Facilities (MARAD)

Measure: Percent of DoD-designated commercial strategic ports for military use that are available for military use within DoD established readiness timelines.
Scope: The measure consists of the total number of DOD-designated commercial strategic ports for military use that forecast their ability to able to meet DOD-readiness requirements within 48-hours of written notice from the Maritime Administration, expressed as a percentage of the total number of DOD-designated commercial strategic ports. Presently, there are 15 DOD-designated commercial strategic ports. Port readiness is based on monthly forecasts submitted by the ports and semi-annual port readiness assessments by the Maritime Administration in cooperation with other National Port Readiness Network partners.
The semi-annual port assessments provide data or other information on a variety of factors, including the following: the capabilities of channels, anchorages, berths, and pilots/tugboats to handle larger ships; rail access, rail restrictions, rail ramp offloading areas, and rail storage capacities; the availability of trained labor gangs and bosses; number and capabilities of available cranes; long-term leases and contracts for the port facility; distances from ports to key military installations; intermodal capabilities for handling containers; highway and rail access; number of port entry gates; available lighting for night operations; and number and capacity of covered storage areas and marshalling areas off the port.
Sources: The Maritime Administration’s data are derived from monthly reports submitted by the commercial strategic ports and from MARAD/DOD semi-annual port assessments.
Statistical Issues: None.
Completeness: Data are complete.
Reliability: The data is reasonably reliable according to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics and useful in managing its port readiness program.

Details on Organizational Excellence Measures
DOT Major System Acquisition Performance (FAA)

Measure: 1. For major DOT aviation systems, percentage of cost goals established in the acquisition project baselines that are met.
2. For major DOT aviation systems, percentage of scheduled milestones established in acquisition project baselines that are met.
Scope: This performance measure encompasses acquisition management data for all of DOT’s major systems acquisition contracts, primarily in the FAA, but also from any office procuring a major system as defined in OMB Circular A-11, and DOT’s Capital Programming and Investment Control order.
Sources: The data for acquisition programs comes from each DOT organization procuring major systems. FAA tracks and reports status of all schedule and cost performance targets using an automated database, providing a monthly Red, Yellow, or Green assessment that indicates their confidence level in meeting their established milestones. Comments are provided monthly that detail problems, issues, and corrective actions, ensure milestones and cost are maintained within the established performance target. The performance status is reported monthly to the FAA Administrator through FAA Flight Plan meetings.
Statistical Issues: The programs that are selected each fiscal year represent a cross section of programs within the Air Traffic Organization. They include programs that have an Exhibit 300 as well as what is referred to as “buy-by-the-pound” programs. The latter are typically not required to undergo a standard acquisition life cycle process. There is no bias with the selection of milestones. The milestones selected represent the program office’s determination as to what effort they deem “critical” or important enough to warrant inclusion in the Acquisition Performance goal for the year. Typically there are anywhere from two to four milestones. Interim milestones are also tracked but not included in the final performance calculation.
Completeness: This measure is current with no missing data. Each DOT organization maintains its own quality control checks for cost, schedule, and technical performance data of each major systems acquisition in accordance with OMB Circulars A-11, A-109, and A-130, Federal Acquisition Regulations, and Departmental orders implementing those directives and regulations.
Reliability: Each DOT organization having major system acquisitions uses the data during periodic acquisition program reviews, for determining resource requests. It is also used during the annual budget preparation process, for reporting progress made in the President’s Budget and for making key program management decisions.

Details on DOT Organizational Excellence Measures
Major DOT Infrastructure Project Cost and Schedule Performance (FHWA / FTA / FAA)

Measure

1. Percentage of major federally funded transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2 percent annual growth for project completion milestones. (FY)

2. Percentage of finance plan cost estimates for major federally funded transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2 percent annual growth in project completion cost. (FY)

Scope

Active FTA New Starts projects with Full Funding Grant Agreements larger than $1 billion; FHWA projects with a total cost of $500 million or more, or projects approaching $500 million with a high level of interest by the public, Congress, or the Administration; and FAA runway projects with a total cost of $1 billion or more.

Sources

FTA - FTA uses independent reviews and third-party assessment providers such as the Corps of Engineers and other oversight contractors to validate the accuracy of project budgets and schedules before grantees are awarded Full Funding Grant Agreements. Project/Financial Management Oversight contractors review project budgets on a monthly basis and FTA assesses projected total project costs against baseline cost estimates and schedules.

FHWA - The percent cost estimates and scheduled milestones for a FHWA Major Project are measured from when the Initial Financial Plan (IFP) is prepared and approved to the required Annual Project Update or from the previous Annual Update. The update contains the latest information about the cost and schedule for each of the Major Projects. Project Oversight Managers in FHWA Division Offices provide monthly status reports as a supplement to the Annual Update.

FAA - Project cost performance for each major project is measured from cost estimates submitted by the airport sponsor to support its letter of intent (LOI) and actual expenditure data sources (for grants) and airport sponsor submissions (for overall project cost). Project schedule performance is measured from the Runway Template Action Plan (RTAP), as specified in the National Airspace System Operational Evolution Partnership.

Statistical Issues

FAA - Schedule completion performance is measured for two milestones-the project design and the project construction. A project milestone is considered to meet the performance target if actual annual rate of completion is not more than 2 percent behind scheduled cumulative rate of completion, using the RTAP schedule as a base.

Cost performance is measured by comparing cumulative actual costs incurred at the end of each fiscal year with cumulative costs shown in the scheduled of costs submitted with the LOI application. A project will be considered to meet the cost performance target if annual costs are no more than 2 percent higher than projected costs in the cost schedule.

FHWA - A scheduled milestone is defined as being achieved upon completion of the project. Major Projects generally require 6 to 10 years from an IFP to completion. Cost estimates are prepared by comparing the costs in the most recent Annual Update to the IFP estimate or the last Annual Update.

FTA - Scheduled milestone achievement is measured by the difference between the actual Revenue Operations Date and the date of the execution of the Full Funding Grant Agreement divided by the difference between the Revenue Operations Date in the Full Funding Grant Agreement and the date of execution of the Full Funding Grant Agreement. Cost estimate achievement is measured by the actual Total Project Cost divided by the Total Project Cost in the Full Funding Grant Agreement.

Completeness

FAA - Federal financial commitments to airport sponsors are tracked by two automated systems, the System of Airports Reporting (SOAR) and the Delphi financial system. These systems are updated immediately when a grant payment is made or a grant is amended or closed-out. The FAA relies on the airport sponsor to report actual project costs on a quarterly basis. Project design and construction milestones (scheduled and actual) are contained in the RTAP and developed by all involved FAA lines of business, the airport sponsor and airlines. The RTAP is comprised of tasks that must be considered when commissioning the runway and assigns accountability to the airport, airline, and FAA allowing early identification and resolution of issues that might impact the runway schedule.

FHWA - The FHWA Major Projects Team maintains the project schedules and cost estimate information in a spreadsheet, which is updated when a Project IFP is approved and/or the Annual Update is received and accepted. The data is available and reported on a semi-annual basis.

FTA - This measure is current with no missing data. The information is currently tracked with an in-house MS Excel database. A Web-based database, FASTTrak, is being developed to track this type of project information in the future. The measures are calculated monthly by an FTA Headquarters Engineer, checked by the Team Leader and reviewed by the Office Director.

Reliability

FAA - Reporting of Federal financial commitments to airport sponsors is done in accordance with FAA policy and guidance related to administering the Airport Improvement Program (AIP) and the authorizing statute. The FAA’s AIP Branch monitors FAA regional offices for compliance with policy and guidance, including input into SOAR and Delphi, and conducts periodic regional evaluations. Actual project costs reported by the airport sponsor are verified by an annual single audit required by OMB. Such audits cover the entire financial and compliance operation of the airport sponsor’s governing body. Status of the project design and construction schedule contained in the RTAP is updated quarterly, based on meetings held with the airport sponsor and airlines.

FHWA - Both the IFP and the Annual Update undergo a rigorous review by the Division Office and the Major Projects Team prior to approval and acceptance.

FTA - Calculations of schedule achievement are based on month of this report, and not on projected Revenue Operations Date. Re-calculations of schedule and cost baselines are made to reflect amendments to the Full Funding Grant Agreements. FTA uses independent reviews and third-party assessment providers such as the Corps of Engineers and other oversight contractors to validate the accuracy of project budgets and schedules before grantees’ are awarded Full Funding Grant Agreements. FTA continues to work to improve its rigorous oversight program and has made project cost and budget performance a core accountability of every senior manager in the agency.

Details on DOT Organizational Excellence Measures
Transit Grant Process Efficiency (FTA)

Measure: Average number of days to award a grant after submission of a completed application. (FY)
Scope: FTA grants obligated during a fiscal year period for major programs: Urbanized area, non-Urbanized area, and Elderly and Persons with Disabilities formula grants; Capital grants; Job Access and Reverse Commute grants; Over-The-Road Bus grants; and Planning grants.
Sources: FTA internal databases including the Transportation Electronic Award Management (TEAM) system.
Statistical Issues: Processing time is calculated from submission date to obligation date. Zero-dollar, non-funding grant amendments are excluded from analysis.
Completeness: Data are current with no missing data, since FTA uses internal databases, including the TEAM system. All grants obligated during the fiscal year for the selected programs (see Scope section) are included in the original data set. In rare cases where the submission date is omitted (which prevents processing time calculation), missing dates are researched and added to the database prior to reporting. The zero-dollar amendments are excluded because they are not representative of the grant processing action being tested.
Reliability: The files that contain raw data from TEAM have been tested to ensure that all fiscal-year-to-date obligated grants are included and that data is current. Report programs screen various date fields to identify any missing or out-of-sequence dates that would skew averages; dates are corrected prior to reporting. Reconciliation reports of TEAM data are produced monthly and anomalies are explored and resolved. Detailed monthly grant processing progress reports provide management tools to the Regional Administrators, who continue to make this goal a top priority.