ANNUAL Performance REPORT

FISCAL YEAR 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Foreword

Mission

Legislative Authorities

Performance Framework

Performance Highlights

Performance Summary Tables

Safety

Reduced Congestion

Global Connectivity

Environmental Stewardship

Security, Preparedness and Response

Organizational Excellence

Performance Data Completeness and Reliability

Other Accompanying Information

Office of Inspector General Top Management Challenges

American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009

Program Evaluations

Data Details

4

5

6

7

8

9

13

24

32

39

45

50

55

57

58

71

74

79
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

FOREWORD
The United States Department of Transportation’s (DOT 

or the Department) Annual Performance Report (APR) 

for fiscal year (FY) 2011 provides an overview of the 

Department’s performance and results to Congress, 

the President and the American people. 

The Annual performance report provides information 

about our performance as an organization, our achievements, 

initiatives and our challenges. 

This report is one in a series of reports required under the Administration’s Pilot Program for Alternative Approaches to Performance 

and Accountability Reporting. This is the second year that the 

Department has participated in this voluntary program in an effort 

to strengthen its annual reporting documents and to present more 

streamlined and timely information. It also clarifies the relationship 

between performance, budgetary resources and financial reporting. 

The Department’s FY 2011 annual reporting includes the following 

components:

Annual Performance Report (APR) 

[available February 2012]

The APR is produced in conjunction with the FY 2013 President’s 

Budget Request and provides detailed performance information and 

descriptions of results by each key performance measure.

Agency Financial Report (AFR) 

[published November 2011]

The AFR is organized into three major sections:

 The Management’s Discussion and Analysis section 

provides executive-level information on the Department’s 

history, mission, organization, key activities, analysis of 

financial statements, systems, controls and legal compliance, 

accomplishments for the fiscal year and management and 

performance challenges facing the Department.

 The Financial Details section provides a message from the 

Chief Financial Officer, consolidated and combined financial 

statements, the Department’s notes to the financial statements 

and the report of independent auditors.

 The Other Accompanying Information section provides 

Improper Payments Information Act reporting details and 

other statutory reporting requirements.

Both reports will be available on the Department’s Web site at: 

www.dot.gov/about.html#perfbudgplan

FOREWORD

4 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
FEDERAL AVIATION

ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL HIGHWAY

ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL MOTOR 

CARRIER SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL RAILROAD

ADMINISTRATION

FEDERAL TRANSIT 

ADMINISTRATION

MARITIME

ADMINISTRATION

NATIONAL HIGHWAY

TRAFFIC SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

OFFICE OF 

INSPECTOR 

GENERAL

PIPELINE AND

HAZARDOUS 

MATERIALS SAFETY

ADMINISTRATION

RESEARCH AND

INOVATIVE

TECHNOLOGY

ADMINSTRATION

SAINT LAWRENCE

SEAWAY

DEVELOPMENT 

CORPORATION

SURFACE

TRANSPORTATION

BOARD

Secretary/

deputy Secretary

UNDERSECRETARY

FOR POLICY

5 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

MISSION

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF

TRANSPORTATION MISSION AND VALUES

MISSION

The Department’s mission is to serve the United States by ensuring 

a fast, safe, efficient, accessible and convenient transportation 

system that underpins our economy, meets our vital National interests 

and enhances the quality of life of the American people, today 

and into the future. 

ORGANIZATION

HISTORY

Established in 1967, DOT sets Federal transportation policy and 

works with State, local, and private sector partners to promote a 

safe, secure, efficient, and interconnected National transportation 

system of roads, railways, pipelines, airways, and seaways. 

DOT’s overall objective of creating a safer, simpler, and smarter 

transportation program is the guiding principle as we move forward 

to achieve specific goals. 

HOW WE ARE ORGANIZED

DOT employs almost 60,000 people across the country, in the 

Office of the Secretary of Transportation (OST) and through twelve 

Operating Administrations (OAs) and bureaus, each with its own 

management and organizational structure. 

The Office of the Secretary of Transportation provides overall 

leadership and management direction, administers aviation economic 

and consumer protection programs, and provides administrative 

support. The Office of Inspector General (OIG) and the Surface 

Transportation Board (STB), while formally part of DOT, are 

independent by law. 

Organizational Chart
6 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITIES

The DOT strategic plan summarizes the legislative authorities of 

each Operating Administration (OA). To provide a context for the 

reader, highlights of the responsibilities of each OA are listed below. 

Office of the Secretary

The Office of the Secretary (OST) oversees the formulation of National 

transportation policy and promotes intermodal transportation. 

Other responsibilities range from negotiation and implementation 

of international transportation agreements, assuring the fitness of 

U.S. airlines, enforcing airline consumer protection regulations 

and issuance of regulations to prevent alcohol and illegal drug 

use in transportation systems. 

Federal Aviation Administration

The Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) mission is to 

promote aviation safety and mobility by building, maintaining, 

and operating the Nation’s air traffic control system; overseeing 

commercial and general aviation safety through regulation and 

inspection; and providing assistance to improve the capacity 

and safety of our airports. FAA is developing the Next Generation 

(NextGen) air traffic control system.

Federal Highway Administration

The mission of the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) is 

to improve mobility on our Nation’s highways through National 

leadership, innovation, and program delivery. 

Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration

The Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration’s (FMCSA) 

primary mission is to reduce crashes, injuries and fatalities involving 

large trucks and buses. 

Federal Railroad Administration

The Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) mission is to ensure 

the safety of the Nation’s passenger and freight rail operations and 

infrastructure by promoting safe, efficient, accessible and environmentally sound rail transportation. 

Federal Transit Administration

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) provides leadership, 

technical assistance, and financial resources for safe, technologically 

advanced public transportation that enhances mobility and accessibility, improves America’s communities, preserves the natural 

environment, advances economic growth, and ensures that transit 

systems are prepared to function during and after natural or 

unnatural disasters. 

Maritime Administration

The Maritime Administration’s (MARAD) mission is to promote the 

development and maintenance of an adequate, well-balanced U.S. 

merchant marine that is sufficient to carry the Nation’s domestic 

waterborne commerce and a substantial portion of its waterborne 

foreign commerce, and to serve as a naval and military auxiliary 

in time of war or National emergency. 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration’s (NHTSA) 

mission is to save lives, prevent injuries and reduce economic 

costs due to road traffic crashes through education, research, 

safety standards, and enforcement activity. 

Office of Inspector General

The Inspector General Act of 1978, as amended, established the 

Office of Inspector General (OIG) as an independent and objective 

organization within the DOT. The OIG’s mission is to promote 

economy, effectiveness, and efficiency and to prevent and detect 

fraud, waste, and abuse in DOT operations and programs by 

conducting and supervising independent and objective audits 

and investigations. 

Pipeline and Hazardous Materials

Safety Administration

PHMSA’s mission is to protect people and the environment from the 

risks inherent in transportation of hazardous materials—by pipeline 

and other modes of transportation. 

Research and Innovative Technology Administration

The Research and Innovative Technology Administration (RITA) 

works to advance DOT priorities for innovation and research in 

transportation technologies and concepts. 

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development CorporatioN

The U.S. Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation 

(SLSDC), a wholly owned government corporation, is responsible 

for the operations and maintenance of the U.S. portion of the 

St. Lawrence Seaway between Montreal and Lake Erie. 

Surface Transportation Board

The Surface Transportation Board (STB) is charged with promoting 

substantive and procedural regulatory reform in the economic regulation of surface transportation, and with providing an efficient and 

effective forum for the resolution of disputes and the facilitation of 

appropriate business transactions. 
7 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

PERFORMANCE FRAMEWORK

Everything we do at DOT is aimed toward making measurable 

improvements in our transportation system, the security of our 

Nation, and the quality of American life. In the Annual Performance 

Report we hold ourselves accountable to the public for effectively 

bringing to bear the Department’s resources in improving the

 Nation’s transportation system. We use these results to improve 

our strategies and resource decisions. 

DOT’s performance framework is as follows:

 The DOT Strategic Plan provides a comprehensive vision 

for improving the Nation’s complex and vital transportation 

system. DOT is drafting a new Strategic Plan covering FY 

2012–2016, which will be the framework for future reports. 

This year’s report, however, is framed by the FY 2006–2011 

Strategic Plan and provides a public accounting of our FY 

2011 performance results. The plan outlines five strategic 

objectives in the areas of safety, reduced congestion, global 

connectivity, security and environmental stewardship that 

articulate the longer term focus of the Department. In addition 

to the broad objectives, the plan targets specific outcomes 

we want to achieve, and identifies key challenges. 

 The DOT Performance Budget operationalizes the Strategic Plan, 

and provides direct linkages between DOT’s budget request and 

the results the public can expect for programs within each 

of our Operating Administrations. The performance budget 

defines the performance goals and measures used to manage 

progress toward our strategic objectives. It describes in detail 

one fiscal year’s resources and programmatic effort within a 

strategic context. The performance budget also aligns each 

dollar requested to one of our strategic objectives. 

 Performance accountability for DOT organizations, executives, 

and employees embed the philosophy of “managing

for performance” into the Department’s culture and daily 

practices. Performance accountability within the Department 

is accomplished through the following mechanisms:

DOT Organizational Assessments of

Performance: A review of each Operating Administration’s 

performance is done at the end of the fiscal year to assess 

the organization’s success in the following areas: meeting 

Department-wide performance targets; results of program 

assessments and efforts associated with addressing any 

management challenges or material weaknesses identified 

by DOT’s Office of Inspector General. The results of these 

assessments are then factored in to the personal performance 

evaluations of our senior executives and program managers. 

Employee Performance Plans: Prepared for each 

fiscal year, these plans document expected levels of employee 

performance that clearly link to our strategic objectives 

through the performance framework. 

HOW DOT WORKS TO ACHIEVE ITS STRATEGIC

OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE GOALS

The Department achieves its goals through its leadership role in 

U.S. transportation policy, operations, investment, and research. 

To influence results, DOT programs rely on a number of processes 

and tools. These include:

Direct operations and investment in DOT capital assets 

that provide capability, such as air traffic control and the St. 

Lawrence Seaway operations. 

Infrastructure investments and other grants, such as 

grants for investment in highway, rail, transit, marine highways 

and shipyards, airport, and Amtrak capital infrastructure, 

and grants for safety, job access, or other important transportation programs. 

Innovative financial tools and credit programs, such as 

those provided for by the Transportation Infrastructure Finance 

and Innovation Act, and the Railroad Rehabilitation and 

Improvement Financing Program. 

Rulemaking, in areas such as equipment, vehicle,

or operator standards; for improving safety; and providing 

aviation consumer protection, just to name a few. 

 State/local organizational capacity building, through 

training, best practices, peer-to-peer exchanges and other 

activities that strengthen the capability of State Departments of 

Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, and 

local governments to play their essential front-line role in planning, investing in, and operating highway and transit systems. 

Enforcement to ensure compliance, including inspections, 

investigations, and penalty actions. 

 Research and technology development and application, 

such as fostering new materials and technologies in transportation, and transportation-related research. 

Education and outreach, such as consumer awareness, and 

campaigns to influence personal behavior. 

Public Information, such as that provided by the 

Bureau of Transportation Statistics, and each DOT Operating 

Administration, so that States, localities, regions, and private 

sector entities can better plan their programs. 

Some of these interventions and actions reside entirely within the 

Federal Government, but most involve significant partnering with 

State and local authorities and with the transportation industry. 

These are the broad areas of action that DOT—and State and local 

governments—commonly use to bring about desired results. 
8 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

PERFORMANCE HIGHLIGHTS

This is the last year that the Department will report against 

“New Ideas for a Nation on the Move”, our Strategic Plan for 

Fiscal Years 2006–2011. The Department will continue to track 

many of the measures found in the following pages, but as the 

agency builds upon progress in improving transportation and 

develops new strategic priorities, some measures will be dropped 

and new ones developed. 

Preliminary results indicate that Department met nearly 80% of its 

performance targets for the year. Like every government agency, 

however, there are areas that we can improve upon. A brief 

discussion of our results by strategic objective follows. 

SAFETY

DOT tracks the safety of Americans on the highways, in the air, 

on transit systems, on railroads and near pipelines. In FY 2011, preliminary results show that we met 7 out of 10 safety goals. Fatalities 

in general aviation (GA) did not decline as quickly as anticipated. 

Most of the fatalities occurred in the area of experimental aircraft, 

which are predominately amateur-built. These aircraft accounted 

for approximately 26 percent of GA fatal accidents while only 

contributing 5 percent of GA flying hours. FAA continues to pursue 

multiple avenues for addressing this issue. 

REDUCED CONGESTION

One of DOT’s strategic objectives is to reduce the congestion 

across the modes of transportation. We do this in a variety of 

ways, from providing funds that keep our highways in a state 

of good repair, managing air traffic efficiently, and encouraging 

the use of mass transit in order to reduce traffic on roadways. 

While transit ridership did not reach the targeted level of growth, 

initial FY2011 data shows that transit providers have started to 

recover from the effects of the economic downturn.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY

DOT contributes to the economy and American businesses’ 

connection with markets across the world by moving products, 

goods, and vehicles with as little delay as possible. In FY 2011, 

the St. Lawrence Seaway, which is a vital waterway between 

the upper Midwest and global markets, was open 99% of the 

shipping season. On the roadways we continue to improve the 

flow of traffic in freight corridors, but results were mixed in 

limiting delays at border crossings. Three of the five monitored 

crossings saw a decrease in delays, while those in Buffalo, NY, 

and Blaine, WA, saw increases. An increase in North American 

trade and the resulting growth in commercial vehicle traffic likely 

contributed to the mixed results and additional unexpected delay. 

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP

The transportation system has a significant impact on the 

environment and DOT mitigates that impact whenever possible. 

For the fourth year in a row, there were no violations of air 

pollution standards in major metropolitan areas. Streamlining 

the process for completing environmental impact statements, 

however, continues to be a challenge. 

SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

While the Department of Homeland Security has primary 

responsibility for the security of the transportation system, 

DOT must ensure it is prepared to continue operating during

a crisis. To this end, DOT tracks the readiness of key staff and 

member agencies. DOT, through the Maritime Administration, 

has a role in supporting the Department of Defense during 

military mobilization. For the fourth year in a row we have 

exceeded the readiness requirements for shipping capacity 

and commercial ports. 

ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

Mindful of the need to wisely use taxpayer money, DOT tracks 

the cost and scheduling associated with major system purchases 

and major infrastructure projects. Although we did not make our 

cost and schedule targets for major infrastructure projects as a 

whole, we are seeing improvements within individual projects. 

DOT agencies will continue to review the finance plans, project 

management plans, and cost estimates that are required for each 

major project. 
9 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY TABLES

SAFETY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Passenger vehicle occupant highway fatality rate per 100 million 

passenger vehicle miles traveled 

(VMT)

1.15 1.11 1.08 .97 .89 0.87# 0.85 0.89-0.83# Potentially 

Met

Large truck and bus fatality rate 

per 100 million total VMT

0.185 0.177 0.169 0.155 0.123 0.131 0.121 0.119 Potentially 

Met

Motorcyclist fatality rate per 

100,000 motorcycle registrations

73.48 72.42 72.48 68.52 56.27 65# 63 56–58# Potentially 

Met

Non-occupant fatality rate per 100 

million VMT

0.20 0.19 0.18 0.18 0.17 0.17# 0.16 0.17–0.16# Potentially 

Met

Number of commercial air carrier 

fatalities per 100 million persons 

onboard

N/A N/A N/A 0.4 6.7(r) 0.3* 7.9 0.0* Met

Fatal Accidents per 100,000 Flight 

Hours in General Aviation

N/A N/A N/A N/A 1.16(r) 1.14# 1.08 1.16* Not Met

Rail-related accidents and 

incidents per million train miles

18.14 17.05 17.62 16.76 16.90 16.48* 16.40 15.17 Met

Transit fatalities per 100 million 

passenger-miles traveled.

0.46 0.44 0.47 0.41 0.43 0.40 0.453 0.33* Met

Number of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents with 

death or major injury

41 35 47 40 49 38 45 41# Met

Number of hazardous materials 

transportation incidents with death 

or major injury

48 32 36 24 29 24 36 27# Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends

REDUCED CONGESTION SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Percentage of travel on the 

National Highway System (NHS) 

meeting pavement performance 

standards for “good” rated ride

52 54 57 56 57 58 58% 58% Met

Percentage of deck area 

on National Highway System 

(NHS) bridges rated deficient

29.9 29.2 29.7 29.5 29.2 28.7 28.4 28.6 Not Met

Percentage of total annual urban 

area travel occurring in congested 

conditions

28.6 28.4 27.8 27.3(r) 26.0(r) 26.2(r) 27.1 26.3# Met

Average percent change in transit 

boardings per transit market 

(150 largest transit agencies)

1.9 2.1 2.5 4.3 2.2 -4.2 2.0 0.6 Not Met

Percent of transit bus fleets 

compliant with the Americans with 

Disabilities Act (ADA)

96 97 98 98 98 98 98 98 Met

Percent of key transit rail stations 

compliant with the ADA

91 92 93 95 95 95.2 94.5 95.2 Met

Percent of all flights arriving within 

15 minutes of schedule at the 35 

Operational Evolution Partnership 

airports due to National Airspace 

System related delays

88.44 88.36 86.96 87.29 88.98 90.55(r) 88.0 90.26* Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends
10 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Percent of days in the shipping 

season that the U.S.portion of the 

St.Lawrence Seaway system is 

available

99.7 99.0 99.4 98.8 99.4 99.8 99.0 99.0 Met

Number of freight corridors with 

an annual decrease in the average 

buffer index rating.

N/A 3 5 21 19 14 13 14 Met

Number of National Highway 

System border crossings with 

a decrease in unexpected delay.

N/A N/A 4 3 3 5 5 3 Not Met

Percent share of the total dollar 

value of DOT direct contracts that 

are awarded to women-owned 

businesses

6.29 8.04 10.4 6.57 10.94 7.85 6 11.24 Met

Percent share of the total dollar 

value of DOT direct contracts that 

are awarded to small 

disadvantaged businesses

15.60 16.13 19.29 16.15 13.36 14.49 15 19.54 Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Number of areas in 

conformity lapse

5.8 1.3 0.0 0.0 0.0 0 3 0 Met

Number of hazardous liquid 

pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences

127 106 97 128 112 92 103 110# Not Met

Number of Exemplary 

Human Environmental 

Initiatives undertaken

N/A N/A N/A 11 16 10 10 9 Not Met

Median time in months to

complete environmental 

impact statements for DOT funded 

infrastructure projects

56 57 67 64 79 63.9 48 70 Not Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends

SECURITY PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Percentage of DoD-required 

shipping capacity complete 

with crews available within 

mobilization timelines

95 93 97 97 96 96 94 97 Met

Percentage of DoD-designated 

commercial ports available 

for military use within DoD 

established readiness timelines

87 100 100 100 100 100 93 100 Met

Percent of DOT personnel with 

emergency management 

responsibilities who are prepared 

to respond to disasters and 

emergencies

N/A N/A N/A N/A 100 100 100 100 Met

Percent of DOT agencies meeting 

annual response requirements

N/A N/A N/A N/A 96 96 100 94 Not Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends
11 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE PERFORMANCE SUMMARY

Performance Measure 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

2011 

TARGET

2011 

ACTUAL

MET/NOT 

MET

Percent of major federally funded 

transportation infrastructure 

projects with less than 2 percent 

annual growth in the project 

completion milestone as reported 

in the finance plan.

89 89 89 79 78 84 90 66 Not Met

Percent of finance plan cost 

estimated for major federally funded 

transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2 percent annual 

growth in project completion cost.

81 84 83 82 84 84 90 82 Not Met

For major DOT aviation systems, 

percentage of cost goals established in the acquisitions project 

baselines that are met.

97.00 100 100 96.08 97.06(r) 97.29(r) 90 100 Met

For major DOT aviation systems, 

percentage of scheduled milestones 

established in acquisition project 

baselines that are met.

92.00 97.44 97.00 93.88 93.75 90.74 90 94 Met

(r) Revised; * preliminary estimate; # projection from trends
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

SAFETY
 Roadway Safety

Reduce the rate of roadway fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT)

In the first decade of the 21st century, the United States experienced 

more than 400,000 deaths and more than 25,000,000 injuries on the 

Nation’s roadways. Roadway crashes are the leading cause of death 

for Americans for every age, from 3 through 34. In FY 2010, the 

Department of Transportation designated reducing roadway fatalities 

as one of its high-priority performance goals. Three agencies, the 

National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA), the 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), and the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA), are working together 

to address multiple dimensions of roadway safety. The goal is to 

reduce roadway fatalities by the end of calendar year (CY) 2011

 to 1.10 per 100 million vehicle miles traveled. Although we are 

in CY 2012, final data for roadway fatalities will not be available 

until later in the year. In FY 2011, these Agencies dedicated 

$11.1 billion to address roadway safety.

Public BENEFIT

Safer roads save lives, reduce injuries and decrease damage to property, business and personal revenue. NHTSA, 

FHWA and FMCSA work to prevent motor vehicle crashes 

though the development of data-driven, workable and selfsustaining highway safety programs.

What are we measuring?

DOT tracks four broad categories of road user fatality rates: passenger 

vehicle occupants, motorcyclists, pedestrians and pedalcyclists (collectively referred to as non-occupants in this report), and fatalities 

from large trucks and buses. Dividing the overall roadway fatality 

rate into these sub-user rates allows the Department to pinpoint the 

SAFETY

Safety is the Department’s number one priority. Since 

2005 transportation-related fatalities have dropped from 

45,500 to 36,000. In FY 2011 DOT dedicated $19 billion 

to improving safety on the highways, in the air, on the 

railroads, and on subway systems.

FY 2011 Enacted Funding for Safety bY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

FRA $157 M

PHMSA $195 M

FTA $162 M

OST $131 M

NHTSA

$855 M

FAA

$7,729 M

FHWA

$9,785 M

OTHER

$646 M

FMCSA

$509 M

13 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
challenges associated with each area and develop targeted solutions 

to reduce roadway fatalities.

Description of Results

Since reaching a near-term high in 2005, there has been an unprecedented decline in roadway fatalities. In 2010, the latest year 

for which complete data is available, roadway fatalities reached 

the lowest level since 1949. The latest data show that the number 

of people who died on the Nation’s roads fell from 33,883 in 

2009 to 32,885 in 2010. This translates to a 2.9-percent decrease 

in fatalities from 2009 to 2010, even though the number of vehicle 

miles traveled (VMT) in 2010 is estimated to have increased by 

1.6-percent from 2009 VMT.

The following four performance measures are components 

of the Department’s overarching high-priority roadway 

fatality rate performance goal:

Measure #1

Rate of passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 million 

passenger vehicle miles traveled

2011 Results: Target potentially Met

Target: 0.85 passenger vehicle occupant fatalities per 100 million 

passenger vehicle VMT

Actual: Projected Range: 0.89–0.83 passenger vehicle occupant 

fatalities per 100 million passenger vehicle VMT

1.1: Passenger vehicle occupant highway fatality rate per

100 million passenger vehicle miles traveled

1.2

1.0

0.8

0.6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Passenger vehicle occupant fatalities are projected to decline in 2011.

States significantly increased their spending of the $1.6 billion 

Highway Safety Improvement program funds available in 2011. 

Highway safety obligations rose from 72 % in 2010 to 76% in 2011. 

This increase in safety spending translates into many additional 

safety infrastructure projects, like safety edges, roundabouts, and 

road safety audits, that will support continued reductions in highway fatalities and serious injuries nationwide.

NHTSA continued to vigorously promote the successful “Click It 

or Ticket” high visibility enforcement (HVE) campaign in 2011. 

Largely as a result of these efforts, which involved more than 

10,000 police agencies nationwide, National seat belt use stands at 

84 percent. Distracted driving also continues to be a major focus 

and a priority of Secretary LaHood.

Measure #2

Rate of large-truck and bus fatalities per 100 million total vehicle 

miles traveled

2011 Results: Target Potentially Met

Target: 0.121 large-truck and bus fatalities per 100 million total VMT

Actual: Projected Rate: 0.119 large-truck and bus fatalities per 

100 million total VMT

1.2: Large truck and bus fatality rate per

100 million total vmt

0.18

0.16

0.14

0.12

0.10

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Initial data indicates that FMCSA will meet the target for 

reducing large truck and bus fatalities.

In FY 2011 FMCSA implemented its “Rule of Three” Strategic 

framework which is designed to: (1) Raise the bar to enter the 

commercial motor vehicle industry; (2) Ensure commercial motor 

vehicle operators maintain high standards to remain in the industry; 

and (3) Remove high-risk carriers, vehicles, drivers, and service 

providers from operating. The agency expects to see the fatality 

rate decline as the principles of the strategic framework are fully 

implemented.

Early estimates of the number of fatalities involving CMVs through 

the first three quarters of CY 2011 is slightly better than the 

number of fatalities reported in the same period during the record 

setting year of CY 2009. The Agency attributes some portion of 

this improvement over CY 2010 to the steady implementation of 

its Compliance, Safety, Accountability (CSA) enforcement model 

which is modernizing the effectiveness and efficiency of enforcement activities though early contact with a greater number of motor 

carriers. 

14 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

SAFETY
Measure #3

Rate of motorcyclist fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations

2011 Results: Target potentially Met

Target: 63 motorcyclist fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations

Actual: Projected Range: 56-58 motorcyclist fatalities per 100,000 

motorcycle registrations

1.3: Motorcycle fatality rate per

100,000 motorcycle registrations

90

80

70

60

50

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

NHTSA prioritized the National Agenda for Motorcycle Safety 

to help stakeholders employ effective countermeasures to reduce 

motorcycle fatalities, and published a final rule that upgraded the 

“DOT” certification labeling requirements to make it more difficult 

to mislabel novelty motorcycle helmets. The agency developed 

the “Model National Standards for Entry-Level Motorcycle Rider 

Training,” and also focused on strengthening enforcement efforts. 

NHTSA estimates that helmets saved the lives of 1,483 motorcyclists 

in 2009. An additional 732 lives could have been saved if all riders 

had worn helmets during the year. Only 20 States, the District of 

Columbia and Puerto Rico require helmet use by all motorcyclists. 

Research shows that motorcycle helmet use rates drop significantly 

after a State repeals mandatory helmet law while fatalities rise. 

Currently there is pending legislation in nine States to repeal the 

mandatory helmet use law for all motorcyclists. 

Measure #4

Rate of non-occupant fatalities per 100 million total vehicle 

miles traveled

2011 Results: Target potentially Met

Target: 0.16 non-occupant fatalities per 100 million VMT

Actual: Projected Range: 0.17–0.16 non-occupant fatalities 

per 100 million VMT

1.4: Non-occupant fatality rate per 100 million vmt

0.20

0.18

0.16

0.14

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

The non-occupant fatality rate is projected to remain constant in 2010.

FHWA conducted four Designing for Pedestrian Safety courses 

for Federal, State and local practitioners that focus on engineering 

and design solutions to pedestrian safety needs. The agency published 

quarterly 2011 Pedestrian Forum Newsletters with noteworthy 

pedestrian safety practices and a technical journal article for transportation engineers on a Pedestrian Countermeasure Deployment project. 

FHWA also updated Technical Advisories on rumble strips to respond 

to safety concerns from bicycle advocacy groups.

As part of NHTSA’s efforts to address high-risk groups, the agency 

published, Walk and Bike Safely for Beginning English Language 

Learners, a curriculum designed specifically for use by teachers 

and volunteers working with adult immigrants who are new English 

language learners. Four major ongoing pedestrian demonstration 

projects also continued in 2011. These projects combine outreach 

and enforcement efforts, for both pedestrian and motor vehicle 

drivers, in areas with elevated pedestrian crashes.

Looking Forward

DOT is committed to an integrated approach to safety that combines 

infrastructure engineering, education, enforcement, and emergency 

medical services. As demonstrated by the successful reductions 

in fatalities after the initiation of multidisciplinary State Strategic 

Highway Safety Plans, it is clear that an integrated, collaborative

 approach provides the best safety results for the traveling public.

People—FHWA will increase offerings of training courses for 

Federal, State, and local practitioners that focus on engineering and 

design solutions to pedestrian safety needs. NHTSA will continue 

to work closely with States and Tribes to implement traffic safety 

programs in their jurisdictions. It will also conduct behavioral 

safety research, National high visibility enforcement campaigns, 

and pilot tests to develop new safety countermeasures. NHTSA 

will develop new program guidance, and develop sample program 

materials for State and local organizations to implement distracted 

driving safety initiatives. FMCSA will increase the use of online 

tools to improve the safety fitness knowledge of carriers; focus 

on driver training, performance, medical qualifications, and fatigue 

management; and will deploy a National drug and alcohol clearinghouse to allow companies access to critical safety-related 

information during the hiring of commercial drivers.

15 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

SAFETY
Infrastructure—FHWA will pursue a broad range of 

activities that will translate into safer roadways, including:

 Working with States to expand data collection, analysis, and 

evaluation to focus on improvements that address the highest 

risks and provide the greatest safety benefits;

 Engaging the full suite of resources—peer exchanges, safety 

summits, technical assistance, training courses and workshops 

—to advance deployment of the most effective tools and 

countermeasures; and,

 Using research technologies, physical improvements, safety analysis tools, data collection and management, and best practices.

Vehicles—NHTSA is at the forefront of efforts to advance 

vehicle safety in the U.S. Ongoing research of new technologies 

in FY 2012 may offer great potential for enhancing vehicle safety, 

such as vehicle-to-vehicle (V2V) and vehicle-to-infrastructure 

(V2I) communications. But since technology can also contribute to 

driver distraction, NHTSA will continue to implement a multi-year 

comprehensive research plan to address this growing challenge in 

FY 2012. This includes a survey of electronic device use by drivers. 

FMCSA will partner with other DOT agencies on safety standards 

for large trucks and buses. It also intends to implement new largetruck and bus-related safety measures under its “Rule of Three” 

strategic framework.

External Factors

The combined effects of fluctuating gas prices, the economic 

downturn, and the change in both the mix of vehicles (towards 

increased use of smaller cars and motorcycles) and the means of 

transportation (towards walking and bicycling, as well as mass 

transit) indicate fundamental changes in the Nation’s transportation 

system. Though improvements can be made to affect the number 

and rate of roadway fatalities, these statistics are also affected by 

the number of people using occupant and personal protection 

(e.g., seat belts, child safety seats, motorcycle helmets, air bags, 

etc.), the number of impaired drivers on the road, the number of 

drivers who are speeding, and the number of drivers who are 

distracted. These numbers are impacted by laws passed by States, 

which DOT can influence but not control.

Partners

DOT works closely with partners at the Federal, State, Tribal, 

and local levels to address every facet of transportation safety. 

The Department provides guidance and technical assistance to 

States, Tribal Nations, local governments, and Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations to help them develop and implement 

comprehensive safety programs and improve roadway safety. DOT 

also develops effective countermeasures and enforcement programs 

to promote safe driving behaviors for passenger and commercial 

vehicle drivers. Safety partner groups play an important role in 

disseminating and implementing training and educational efforts. 

DOT also works with partners in the private sector on the development of safer vehicles and roads, and on improved business 

practices for commercial operators.

Aviation Safety

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #1

Limit the rate of fatalities per 100 million persons onboard 

commercial air carriers to no more than 4.4 by 2025

This remains one of the safest periods in aviation history for both 

commercial and general aviation. Over the last five years, nearly 

four billion airline passengers reached their destinations safely. 

As the stewards of aviation safety in the U.S., the Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) and its industry partners have built a system 

that operates more than 30,000 scheduled commercial flights daily 

and has reduced the risks of flying to all-time lows. In FY 2011, 

FAA received $5.1 billion in appropriations to focus on commercial 

aviation safety.

Public BENEFIT

The number of air carrier accidents, as well as the number 

of fatalities resulting from each accident, have dropped 

significantly in the past 20 years. Even so, the FAA remains 

focused on making air travel even safer for travelers.

What are we measuring?

FAA chose this measure because it communicates the individual 

risk to the flying public in an understandable way. The measure 

helps FAA identify and mitigate risk factors that result in accidents 

or incidents.

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 7.9 fatalities per 100 million people onboard

Actual: 0.0 fatalities per 100 million people onboard 

1.5: NUMBER OF COMMERCIAL AIR CARRIER FATALITIES 

PER 100 MILLION PERSONS ONBOARD

10

8

6

4

2

0

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

There were no commercial aviation fatal accidents in FY 2011. 

With more than 10 million flights and 730 million passengers in

FY 2011, commercial aviation continues to be one of the safest 

forms of transportation. As the stewards of aviation safety, FAA and 

its partners have built a system that has reduced the risks of flying 

16 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

SAFETY
to all-time lows. Commercial aviation includes both scheduled 

and nonscheduled flights of U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers 

and scheduled passenger flights of regional operators. Accidents 

involving passengers, crew, ground personnel, and the public are 

all included in this fatality rate.

Certain initiatives helped the FAA focus on recently identified 

risks and maintain a higher level of safety throughout the National 

Airspace System (NAS). Achievements in these areas include:

 Continued implementation of Performance-Based Navigation 

(PBN) routes and procedures. FAA continues to develop standards, criteria, and policies for flight technologies and procedures supporting safe flight using advanced navigation systems.

 Development of draft Helicopter Localizer Performance 

with Vertical Navigation (LPV) instrument standards for 

helicopters. LPV are high-precision GPS aviation instrumentapproach procedures. These Helicopter LPV standards will 

serve as the instrument-approach basis for the helicopter 

infrastructure and will help reduce emergency medical service 

accidents. The helicopter infrastructure was developed as a 

result of the NTSB recommendation for the FAA to develop 

a low-altitude airspace infrastructure that can accommodate 

safe helicopter emergency medical services operations.

 Publication of the Initial Navigation Procedures Project 

Implementation Plan in June 2011. The project will implement 

recommendations to streamline the development and delivery 

of all instrument flight procedures.

Looking Forward

FAA’s commercial safety record indicates that the Agency has successfully addressed the majority of known system risks contributing 

to accidents or incidents. As FAA develops and deploys NextGen 

systems, the increased degree of complexity will require improved 

analytical methods and tools for evaluating the safety risks of 

proposed changes. To manage these complex changes, FAA is establishing a Safety Management System (SMS) while working with 

stakeholders to establish their own SMSs to identify potential risk 

areas. With the interoperable SMS in place, FAA and the aviation 

industry can work together to identify and manage systemic risks 

using a three-pronged strategy: (1) Continue to react to incidents 

and accidents; (2) Increase the ability to proactively respond 

to warnings and precursors; and (3) Develop systematic methodologies to anticipate hazards.

Additionally, FAA has undertaken several prominent rulemaking 

projects in areas including:

Pilot flight and duty limitations as well as rest requirements;

Crewmember and aircraft dispatcher training and qualification 

requirements;

Pilot mentoring as well as leadership and command training; and,

 Air ambulance operations.

External Factors

Approximately 80 percent of fatal accidents are directly related 

to some form or combination of human factors. To address some 

of these risks, FAA will continue to work with aviation industry 

stakeholders to establish a Safety Management System in their 

own organizations to identify potential risk areas.

Partners

FAA’s partners in this area include the Bureau of Transportation 

Statistics, Congress, National Transportation Safety Board, manufacturers, air carriers, unions, associations, International Civil Aviation 

Organization, Civil Airworthiness Authority.

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #2

Limit the general aviation fatal accident rate to no more than 1.10 

fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours

Although most people are familiar with FAA’s role in commercial 

aviation, they may not be aware that it also oversees the safety of 

approximately 300,000 general aviation (GA) aircraft in the United 

States. These aircraft include amateur-built aircraft, rotorcraft, 

balloons, and highly sophisticated turbojets. GA activities include 

student training, crop dusting, firefighting, law enforcement, news 

coverage, sightseeing, industrial work, on-demand air taxi service, 

corporate transportation, business use, and personal use. In FY 2011, 

FAA dedicated $2.5 billion toward general aviation safety.

Public BENEFIT

The FAA can more accurately pinpoint safety concerns 

or trends indicating potential safety concerns by tracking 

the rate of fatal accidents per flight hour.

What are we measuring?

The FAA shifted to a rate-based measure in FY 2009 because it 

tracks the fleet activity levels and their relationship to the number 

of fatal accidents. This performance measure is a true rate-based 

metric and tracks changes in the fatal accident rate for a fixed 

volume of flight hours (per 100,000).

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 1.08 fatal accidents

Actual: 1.11 fatal accidents (preliminary; actual available March 2012)

17 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

SAFETY
1.6: Fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours

in general aviation

1

1

1

1

0

0

2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Although commercial aviation makes more headlines, general 

aviation is just as important to our aviation system. GA 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. More 

people perish from GA accidents each year than in U.S. commercial 

air carriers. Therefore, reducing the rate of fatal GA accidents 

is a top priority for FAA.

FAA did not meet the target this year for reducing the general aviation fatal accident rate per 100,000 flight hours. The year ended 

with a rate of 1.16 fatal accidents per 100,000 flight hours. Most 

of the fatalities occurred in the area of experimental aircraft, many 

caused by human factors. An experimental aircraft is predominately 

amateur-built, meaning that it has been fabricated and assembled by 

persons who undertook the construction project solely for their own 

education or recreation. These aircraft accounted for approximately 

26 percent of GA fatal accidents in FY 2011 while contributing just 

5 percent of GA hours.

Looking Forward

FAA’s Flight Standards organization is spearheading several 

aggressive initiatives to address the troubling GA accident trends. 

One initiative has refocused the Agency’s Safety Team on general 

aviation in broad terms. Another initiative addresses issues with 

amateur-built aircraft.

FAA is working with industry to help reduce the GA accident rate. 

In FY 2011, the Agency re-energized the General Aviation Joint 

Steering Committee to take a more focused, data-driven approach 

to understanding fatal accident causes and contributing factors. 

This is a government-industry group that manages efforts to reduce 

fatal general aviation accidents. The steering committee meets to review GA accident trends, establish areas for special emphasis, and 

share information. In addition, FAA updated training guidance and 

is working with various members of the GA community, including 

aero-medical evacuation, charter services, and others, to promote 

education and training on night landings, weather, and other areas 

of concern.

Other activities FAA will pursue include:

 Continuing general aviation safety outreach and education 

through the FAA Safety Team (FAASTeam).

 Examining the root causes of loss of control accidents through 

review of policy and guidance, training, and testing. Develop 

recommendations to address root causes.

Providing aero-medical safety training to at least 2,200 GA pilots. 

Aero-medical safety training is medical training that is designed 

to give crew members a working knowledge of the most vital 

survival techniques for varying terrain and weather conditions.

 The FAA will provide recommendations for revisions 

to training and operating guidance for experimental 

amateur-built aircraft.

External Factors

Approximately 80 percent of GA fatal accidents are directly related 

to some form or combination of human factors. These human factor 

influences are occurring throughout this GA community from more 

highly regulated on-demand air taxi service in sophisticated aircraft 

to more loosely regulated recreational flying in homebuilt aircraft.

Partners

FAA’s partners in this effort include the National Transportation 

Safety Board and General Aviation Joint Steering Committee, 

Congress, manufacturers, training schools, associations, Civil 

Airworthiness Authority.

High Priority Performance Goal

Reduce the risk of accidents during aircraft 

departures and landings by reducing the number 

of runway incursions

A runway incursion is any unauthorized intrusion onto a 

runway, regardless of whether or not an aircraft presents 

a potential conflict. This includes the incorrect presence 

of an aircraft, vehicle, or person on the protected area of 

a surface designated for the landing and takeoff of aircraft. 

Such an event can create dangerous situations that can 

lead to serious accidents that potentially involve fatalities, 

injuries, and significant property damage. 

FY 2011 Target: no more than 959

FY 2011 Actual: 953

In FY 2011, FAA met the target of reducing the number of 

runway incursions to 959. The agency ended the year with 

953 runway incursions. 

SAFETY

18 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
Rail Safety

Rail-related accident and incident rate per million train-miles

In the past 10 years, the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) 

has successfully reduced the total number of rail-related accidents 

nationwide and the rate of accidents per million train-miles. From 

FY 2001 through FY 2011, total accidents declined by 32 percent, 

while the rate of total accidents per million train-miles has dropped 

by almost 30 percent. Significantly, these declines occurred while 

rail traffic rose more than 11 percent through FY 2007. In FY 2011, 

FRA’s budget included $157 million for rail safety.

Public BENEFIT

Increased awareness of train safety at grade crossings 

and through operator behavior results in fewer deaths and 

injuries, fewer hazmat releases into the environment, and 

lower hospital and insurance expenses.

What are we measuring?

This measure provides an overarching gauge of FRA’s six internal 

safety performance measures and reflects the vastness of America’s 

rail environment (e.g., train accidents, employee accidents/incidents, 

grade crossing incidents, trespasser incidents, etc.).

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 16.40 rail-related accidents and incidents per million 

train miles

Actual: 15.17 rail-related accidents and incidents per million

train miles

1.7: Rail-related accidents and incidents

per million train miles

20

18

16

14

12

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

In FY 2011, the rate of rail-related accidents and incidents was at 

its lowest level since FRA began collecting safety data in the 1970s. 

From 2001 to 2011, the number of reportable rail-related accidents 

and incidents declined from 16,699 to 11,417 (32 percent); train 

accidents fell from 3,093 to 1,914 (38 percent); grade crossing 

incidents decreased from 3,415 to 1,979 (42 percent); and the 

number of casualties dropped from 12,349 to 8,925 (28 percent). 

Preliminary data for FY 2011, along with analytical forecasting, 

indicate that this downward trend will continue for the next several 

years. The accompanying chart shows the decline in the rate during 

the past five years.

Looking Forward

FRA will continue to strengthen its inspector force and implement 

new approaches to reduce further rail-related accident and incident 

rates. In the next two years, FRA will:

 Develop and implement risk reduction programs on each 

Class I railroad, each railroad with an inadequate safety 

record, and each passenger railroad.

Expand the Confidential Close Call Reporting System from 

12 pilot projects on four railroads to a nationwide program. 

This initiative enhances railroad safety cultures by building 

trust and relying on the program’s core operating principles—

voluntary, confidential, non-punitive reporting and using the 

data to recommend corrective actions.

 Integrate automated methods into the track inspection 

program, increasing efficiency and cost-effectiveness.

 Issue a report to Congress on rail carriers’ progress 

implementing positive train control systems and hours 

of service pilot projects.

External Factors

Two categories of incidents—both with strong behavior influences—

accounted for almost 97 percent of FY 2011 rail-related deaths. 

Consequently, these incidents are difficult to address effectively. 

Many of the 216 people killed in grade-crossing incidents died 

because motor vehicle drivers illegally avoided protective devices 

at grade crossings. Additionally, 346 people died while trespassing 

on rail rights-of-way.

Partners

FRA’s partners in this effort include private rail operators; State 

and local governments; domestic and international associations 

and organizations as members of the Rail Safety Advisory 

Committee; Operation Lifesaver.

Transit Safety

Transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled

Transit is one of the safest modes of travel per passenger-mile traveled. 

However, DOT believes it must take serious, cost-effective steps 

now to make it even safer and ensure that it remains safe as systems 

age and ridership grows. The DOT-proposed rail transit safety 

legislation would correct the current patchwork safety system of 

27 State agencies with inconsistent rail safety standards, inadequate 

power, and insufficient staffing.

According to the National Safety Council, passengers on the Nation’s 

bus, rail, and commuter rail systems are 40 times less likely to be 

involved in a fatal accident than passengers in cars and trucks. The 

challenge is to further reduce the rate of fatalities and injuries even 

as the total number of people using transit increases. In FY 2011, 

SAFETY

19 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) received $162 million 

to address transit safety.

Public BENEFIT

Taking advantage of transit leads to a cleaner environment, 

reduced dependence on foreign oil, mobility and accessibility for underserved populations and a positive contribution to reducing travel costs and travel time through less 

congested roads.

What are we measuring?

This measure demonstrates the effectiveness of the FTA safety 

initiatives.

A fatality is reported for any death occurring within 30 days 

of a transit incident as a result of that incident. Although suicides 

are reported as transit incidents, they are not included in the data 

on transit fatalities. Fatalities may occur while traveling on transit 

or while boarding, alighting, or waiting for transit vehicles to arrive. 

An injury or fatality may also occur while not using transit, such 

as in the cases of being struck by a transit vehicle.

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 0.453 transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled

Actual: 0.33 transit fatalities per 100 million passenger-miles traveled

1.8: Transit fatalities per 100 million

passenger miles traveled

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

The transit fatality rate has dropped for the last three years, with the 

FY 2011 level reported below 0.4 transit fatalities per 100 million 

transit passenger-miles traveled. For each of the last three years, the 

difference between the target and actual rates has grown, such that 

the FY 2011 actual result is less than half the target amount.

Looking Forward

FTA relies on a data-driven analysis approach to identify, prioritize, 

and implement safety action items that are focused on reducing the 

risk of transit fatalities. Specific safety action items include creating an 

industry safety advisory committee tasked with providing guidance 

to FTA on transit safety culture and safety management systems 

and state safety oversight (SSO) best practices; developing a safety 

research road map; enhancing SSO audit and new starts readiness 

review activities; building professional capacity to increase skills 

and capabilities; and improving compliance with operating and 

maintenance rules.

External Factors

The age and condition of the transportation infrastructure has an 

impact on the safety of the system. FTA does not currently have the 

statutory authority to address specific safety issues such as hours of 

service, vehicle and track safety standards, or providing additional 

enforcement authority and resources for safety oversight programs. 

In addition, the state of asset management at local transit agencies 

is inconsistent.

Partners

FTA’s partners in this effort include State and local transit agencies 

and decision makers.

High Priority Performance Goal

Improve rail transit industry focus on safety 

vulnerabilities

In support of this priority goal, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) completed 8 State Safety Oversight (SSO) 

audits by the end of Fiscal Year 2011. FTA offered an 

SSO Program Manager Training Workshop May 9-13, 2011, 

at the Transportation Technology Center, Inc. in Pueblo, 

Co. where SSO Program Managers received hands-on 

training in track inspection, power inspection, and vehicle 

maintenance practices.

The Transit Rail Advisory Committee for Safety (TRACS), 

which was established to provide information, advice, and 

recommendations to the DOT Secretary and the Federal 

Transit Administration on matters relating to the safety of 

public transportation systems, held its second meeting 

on April 27 and 28, 2011, in Washington DC.

Pipeline Safety

Number of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents 

involving death or major injury

While pipelines are by many measures the safest mode for transporting hazardous liquid and natural gas, the nature of their cargo 

is inherently dangerous. To address this hazard, the Pipeline and 

Hazardous Materials Safety Administration (PHMSA) has designed 

and implemented a strong, risk-based, systems approach to protect 

the safety, security, and reliability of the Nation’s pipeline infrastructure. This approach also helps provide secure and reliable 

transportation of the Nation’s energy resources.

SAFETY

20 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
PHMSA recognizes the importance of a strong continued focus on 

excavation or construction-related damage—the leading cause of 

serious pipeline incidents involving death or injury, especially in 

natural gas distribution systems where people work and live in closest 

proximity to pipelines. In FY 2011, PHMSA’s budget included 

$118 million to address pipeline safety.

Public BENEFIT

Reducing pipeline incidents that lead to major injuries or 

death directly impacts public and occupational safety 

and contributes toward DOT’s strategic goal for safety.

What are we measuring?

Deaths and injuries reflect the most important safety outcomes 

in transportation, and the number of incidents with death or major 

injury reflects the risk of these outcomes.

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 31–45 pipeline incidents involving death or major injury

Actual: 39 (preliminary) pipeline incidents involving death or 

major injury

1.9: Number of natural gas and hazardous liquid pipeline

incidents with death or major injury

60

50

40

30

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

CALENDAR YEAR

Description of Results

Pipeline operators reported 41 incidents with death or major injury 

in 2011—including 37 from gas distribution systems, 2 from gas 

transmission and 2 from hazardous liquid pipeline systems. These 

incidents resulted in 19 deaths and 62 injuries. The largest single 

cause was “other outside force damage” to gas distribution 

systems, including damage by vehicles or a separate fire or explosion 

that damaged the pipeline.

Looking Forward

In the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budgets, PHMSA has proposed to 

enhance the 811 “Call Before You Dig” program, expand geospatial 

data collection and analysis, implement integrity management 

requirements for gas distribution systems, provide technical review 

of the construction of major pipelines nationwide, and expand 

the risk-based inspection program.

In the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budgets, PHMSA has proposed a 

number of actions to improve safety, including workshops and detailed 

studies on safety valves, leak detection, as well as potentially 

expanding integrity management rules. PHMSA continues to raise 

the bar on damage prevention efforts by enhancing the 811 “Call 

Before You Dig” program and establishing new standards for State 

damage prevention programs to qualify for Federal grants, including 

effective enforcement by the States and participation by all underground facility operators and excavators. PHMSA is strengthening 

its oversight program by increasing geospatial data collection, 

analysis, accident reporting, expanding its risk-based inspection 

program, conducting in-depth technical review of major pipeline 

construction, and taking strong, effective enforcement action when 

violations are found, using the increased penalty authorities. 

External Factors

Excavation damage, damage from natural forces (e.g., storms and 

flooding), and other outside force damage are all significant causes 

of pipeline failure.

Partners

PHMSA’s partners in this effort include State pipeline safety 

agencies, who inspect approximately 80 percent of all pipelines.

Hazardous Materials Safety

Number of hazardous materials transportation incidents involving 

death or major injury

Energy products and hazardous materials underpin the U.S. 

economy and the American way of life. They also introduce some 

inherent risk to the public, the environment, and property. PHMSA 

is focused on protecting people and the environment from the risks 

inherent in transportation of hazardous materials. The Agency leads 

the National program to identify and evaluate safety risks, develop 

and enforce standards for transporting hazardous materials, educate 

shippers and carriers, investigate hazardous materials incidents, 

conduct research, and provide grants to improve emergency 

response to incidents. In FY 2011, DOT received nearly

 $95 million to address hazardous materials safety.

Public BENEFIT

Reducing hazardous material incidents that lead to major 

injuries or death directly impacts public and occupational 

safety and contributes toward DOT’s strategic goal for safety.

What are we measuring?

Deaths and injuries reflect the most important safety outcomes 

in transportation, and the number of incidents with death or major 

injury reflects the risk of these outcomes.

SAFETY

21 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 22–36 hazardous materials incidents involving death 

or majory injury

Actual: 27 (preliminary) hazardous materials incidents involving 

death or major injury

1.10: Number of natural materials transportation

incidents with death or major injury

35

30

25

20

15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

CALENDAR YEAR

Description of Results

Hazardous materials carriers reported 27 (projected) incidents 

with death or major injury in 2011. These incidents resulted 

in 9 deaths and 21 injuries. There were also 105 evacuations (more 

than 5,000 people) to help prevent injuries from hazardous 

materials incidents.

Looking Forward

In the FY 2012 and 2013 budgets, PHMSA has proposed to 

increase safety oversight of permits and approvals—including safety 

evaluations and fitness reviews, standards for training inspectors 

and investigators, expanded inspections, and improvements 

in data collection—and to implement best R&D practices for 

transportation of radioactive waste.

FMCSA will continue to seek to implement programs and regulations 

that “raise the bar” to entry into the motor carrier industry, including

revamping of the rules governing cargo tank manufacturing and 

repair facilities, more fully defining the hazardous materials motor 

carrier population for purposes related to the Compliance, Safety 

and Accountability Safety Measurement System (CSA SMS), 

expanding enforcement of and compliance with the Hazardous 

Materials Safety Permit requirements, and completing research 

into nurse tank integrity and testing procedures.

FRA will continue to improve its stewardship of rail safety programs, 

including the hazardous materials safety program. FRA is committed 

to reducing the non-accident hazardous materials release rate to 

1.22 per million train-miles by the end of FY 2013.

In FY 2012 and FY 2013, the FAA Hazardous Materials Safety 

Program aims to: (1) implement a Safety Management System 

program that integrates risk-based oversight of air carriers through 

surveillance activities in coordination with the FAA Office of Aviation 

Safety certificate management teams; (2) enhance regulatory oversight 

of air mode shippers through new risk-based tools developed for the 

Hazmat Intelligence Portal; and, (3) continue research efforts to measure the risks associated with lithium batteries and possible mitigation 

through packaging. FAA will also work with PHMSA to finalize 

rules related to lithium batteries and combustible liquids transported 

by aircraft.

External Factors

Since this measure is not normalized for changes in risk exposure, 

there are several factors that could affect the outcomes, including 

the volume shipped, total vehicle miles of travel, or changes in 

the mix of hazardous materials shipped. These external factors are 

driven largely by economic conditions.

Partners

FMCSA, FAA, FRA, and the U.S. Coast Guard all contribute 

to achieving this goal through prevention programs focused on 

their modes of transportation. U.S. Coast Guard and State and local 

emergency responders play an important role in mitigating the 

consequences of incidents that do occur.

SAFETY

22 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

reduced congestion
In 2010 congestion caused the average urban resident 

to spend an extra 34 hours of travel time and use 14 extra 

gallons of fuel per vehicle, which amounts to an average 

cost of $713 per commuter. DOT has three broad strategies 

for reducing congestion across the country: maintain infrastructure in all modes in a state of good repair, increase 

capacity where possible, and provide citizens with travel 

options. In FY 2011 the U.S. Department of Transportation 

dedicated $41 billion to reducing congestion.

Reduced Congestion

Highway Congestion

Percent of total annual urban area travel time occurring 

in congested conditions

Traffic congestion on the Nation’s highways now affects more trips, 

involves more hours of the day, and includes more of the transportation system than ever before. Congestion varies significantly day 

to day, because demand and capacity are constantly changing at any 

given location. In 2010, each commuter experienced 34 hours of delay 

on average, compared to 14 hours in 1982. Traffic congestion caused 

urban Americans to travel 4.8 billion hours more and to purchase an 

extra 1.9 billion gallons of fuel—an increase of more than 20 percent 

over the previous decade.

Public BENEFIT

Reducing congestion saves time, money, fuel, and reduces 

green house emissions. Tracking how much time is spent 

in congested conditions aids in determining the impact of 

public investments and transportation related policies.

What are we measuring?

This measure provides a picture of the state of congestion on the 

Nation’s roads, specifically in urban areas, and is the closest to a 

nationwide congestion measure that can be developed using existing 

Highway Performance Monitoring System data sets and mature 

performance measurement methodology.

FY 2011 Enacted Funding for REDUCED CONGESTION BY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

MARAD $21 M

RITA $5 M

FMCSA $3 M

FHWA

$23,815 M

FTA

$9,597 M

FAA

$6,091 M

FRA

$1,495 M

OST

$337 M

OTHER

$29 M

24 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
REDUCED CONGESTION

25 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 27.% of total annual urban area travel occuring in 

congested conditions.

Actual: 26.3% of total annual urban area travel occuring in 

congested conditions.

2.1: Percentage of total annual urban area travel

occuring in congested conditions

40

35

30

25

20

15

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

FISCAL YEAR

ACTUAL

TARGET

Description of Results

Traffic congestion nationwide increased to 26.3 percent (projected) 

in FY 2011, a slight increase from 26.2 percent in 2010. Traffic 

congestion is expected to increase slightly in FY 2012, but will likely 

increase at a slower rate than previously forecast since travel has 

slowed following the economic downturn that started in 2008. The 

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) expects to see an increase 

in travel nationwide with an improvement in the economy. This trend 

may create a further increase in traffic congestion levels nationwide.

Looking Forward

FHWA and its partner agencies will continue to focus on operating 

the highway transportation system more efficiently through strategies 

such as pricing travel demand management, adding capacity in 

critical locations, and providing more options to travelers in order 

to minimize congestion increases.

The following activities will positively affect future performance:

Implementing traffic incident management, traffic signal 

management, work zone management, and congestion pricing 

in the 40 largest metropolitan areas;

 Adopting construction options that mitigate or eliminate 

bottleneck traffic congestion and using comprehensive 

bottleneck reduction programs;

 Using Adaptive Signal Control Technology tools to guide 

programming and implementation of adaptive signal control 

strategies and systems; and,

Continuing to research and test promising active traffic management strategies including integrated corridor management, 

dynamic shoulder use, and speed harmonization.

Federal funds are obligated to the States to accelerate projects that 

will expand capacity and alleviate congestion in selected Interstate 

locations. American Recovery and Reinvestment Act funds are 

being used to advance the Dallas Fort Worth Connector, which 

will double the existing highway capacity on a State Highway 

corridor where traffic volume is projected to grow rapidly over the 

next 20 years. Federal funds are also helping to advance several 

projects to build congestion-priced High Occupancy Toll (HOT) lanes 

on Interstates in Los Angeles and San Diego, as well as adding to 

the capacity of existing Interstate roadways in Florida, Indiana, 

Nevada, Texas, and Wisconsin.

External Factors

There are a number of external factors such as the level of unemployment, the number of freight shipments, and the price of fuel 

that can affect the volume of travel and, consequently, the level 

of congestion.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in this effort include State and local Departments 

of Transportation and Metropolitan Planning Organizations are 

FHWA’s direct partners in trying to reduce congestion. Industry 

associations, the private sector, and academic researchers are partners 

in developing this performance measurement methodology.

High Priority Performance Goal

Establish High Speed Rail Capability

The focus of this priority goal is to measure the Department’s 

progress and effectiveness in implementing the initial 

investments for high-speed rail funded under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2009. These 

investments lay the foundation for achieving the President’s 

goal of providing 80 percent of Americans access to 

high-speed rail within 25 years.

The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) is on track 

to achieve the goal of obligating 100 percent of ARRA 

funds by September 30, 2012. As of September 30, 2011, 

FRA had obligated nearly $7.8 billion (97 percent) in 

cooperative agreements of the nearly $8 billion in ARRA 

High-Speed Intercity Passenger Rail program (HSIPR) 

funds. FRA is entering the next phase of HSIPR with a 

focus on managing the program and overseeing project 

implementation.

Transit Ridership

Average percent change in transit boardings per transit market

(in the 150 largest transit agencies)

According to a recent Texas Transportation Institute analysis, 

Americans wasted 4.8 billion hours and 1.9 billion gallons of fuel 

sitting in traffic in 2010. Traffic congestion now costs motorists in 
26 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

the Nation’s top urban areas about $101 billion a year in wasted 

time and fuel. Mass transit, however, offset $10.2 billion in wasted 

fuel and time. In FY 2011, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA) 

managed approximately $9.1 billion to support local transit service.

Public BENEFIT

An increase in transit ridership indicates that the public is 

choosing transit over more energy intensive and congested 

modes of travel. The public benefits include a cleaner environment, reduced dependence on foreign oil, mobility and 

accessibility for underserved populations. Transit ridership 

allows for less congested roads, contributing to a reduction 

in travel costs and time.

What are we measuring?

FTA tracks transit ridership in order to assess the impact of its 

programs. By tracking the average change in ridership across the 

urbanized areas which have the largest 150 transit agencies (by 

number of boardings per year), FTA develops a broad indicator 

of the health of the U.S. transit industry. Increases in this indicator, 

beyond population and travel growth, show that transit is capturing 

a larger share of the transportation market.

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 2.0% average change in transit boardings

Actual: 0.6% average change in transit boardings

2.2: average percent of change in transit boardings

per transit market (150 largest transit agencies)

6

4

2

0

-2

-4

-6

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

FY 2011 data shows that transit providers have started to recover 

from the effects of the economic downturn. FTA’s market basket 

of the largest 150 agencies by ridership (in 103 urbanized areas) 

showed a slight increase in ridership, most of which occurred in 

the last months of the measurement period (May and June). That 

this is occurring in spite of widespread service cuts and continued 

high unemployment is an indication of a healthy underlying 

demand for transit services.

Looking Forward

Reductions in State and local funding will continue to present 

a challenge to transit providers but, as the economy recovers, 

ridership is expected to experience growth above that of population 

in most markets.

External Factors

Transit ridership is affected by several factors, including:

Gasoline prices—Higher retail gasoline prices increase the cost 

of driving and lead to more consumers choosing transit, which 

boosts transit ridership.

 Economic growth—Approximately 50 percent of transit trips 

are taken to or from work, thus transit ridership is positively 

correlated with employment.

 State and local funding—Federal funding accounts for only 

about 18 percent of total funding for public transportation 

and only about 8 percent of operating expenditures. State and 

local government sources account for more than half of transit 

operating expenses, so cutbacks in State and local government 

support for transit will reduce overall transit service.

Partners

FTA’s partners in this effort include transit agency grant recipients, 

State Departments of Transportation, local governments, and 

Metropolitan Planning Organizations.

Improved Infrastructure

Improving the condition and performance of pavement and bridges 

is critical to the structural integrity and cost effectiveness of the 

transportation system. The condition of the National Highway 

System also affects traffic congestion, wear-and-tear on vehicles, 

comfort of travelers, and fuel consumption.

Public BENEFIT

States track pavement conditions so they can ensure drivers 

have a smoother ride on the National Highway System, 

which minimizes undue wear-and-tear on vehicles used for 

personal, commuter and freight movements. States end up 

spending less on pavement preservation and replacement 

by maintaining a sizeable percentage 

of pavements in good condition. Monitoring bridge 

conditions helps maintain the safety and traffic capacity 

of the National Highway System.

REDUCED CONGESTION
27 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

What are we measuring?

Preserving the health of pavement and bridges, particularly on the 

approximately 160,000 miles and 116,000 bridges of the NHS that 

includes the Interstate system, is critical to the structural integrity, 

functionality, and cost effectiveness of the Nation’s transportation 

system. This performance measure is used to assess the overall 

condition of pavements to determine if the highway infrastructure 

on the NHS is able to support system mobility needs, and to determine 

if investments made to maintain and improve infrastructure 

conditions are effective.

Performance Measure #1

Percent of travel on the National Highway System (NHS) meeting 

pavement performance standards for good ride

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 58% of travel meeting pavement performance standards 

for good ride.

Actual: 58% of travel meeting pavement performance standards 

for good ride.

2.3: PERCENTAGE OF deck area on National HIGHWAY SYSTEM 

MEETING PAVEMENT PERFORMANCE STANDARDS 

FOR “GOOD” RATED RIDE

60

50

40

30

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

An increase in federal highway capital investment resulting from 

American Recovery and Revinvestment Act funding should be fully 

reflected this year by some positive improvement in the physical condition of the NHS. However, the National results for NHS pavement 

condition in FY 2011 include all bridge surfaces, which are generally 

rougher than pavements. In addition, route segmenting procedures 

were revised to identify more highway segments, which could result 

in the identification of more isolated patches of rough pavement. 

These changes in the reporting requirements are likely to dampen any 

improvements in physical condition that might otherwise be observed.

In 2011, FHWA continued its increased focus on the evaluation of the 

performance of NHS pavements, holding discussions with high- and 

low-performing States and developing an internal assessment of best 

practices, challenges, and needs related to maintaining performance 

on NHS pavements. Report findings have been shared with the States 

and will be used to improve how the Agency processes and reviews 

Highway Performance Monitoring System data.

In partnership with the Federal Lands Management Agencies, 

the FHWA continued to administer the Federal Lands Highway 

Program (FLHP) to provide access to or within public lands, 

National parks, National forests, wildlife refuges, and Tribal lands. 

In FY 2011, FLHP funds were used to maintain and improve more 

than 3,300 lane-miles of roads in and around Federal lands.

Performance Measure #2

Percent of deck area on National Highway System (NHS) bridges 

rated deficient

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 28.4% of deck area on bridges rated defficient

Actual: 28.6% of deck area on bridges rated defficient

2.4: PERCENTAGE OF deck area on National HIGHWAY 

SYSTEM bridgEs rated as deficient, adjusted for

average daily traffic

35

30

25

20

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Between 2010 and 2011, more NHS bridges were rated deficient 

than had been anticipated. This could be related to the state of the 

economy or a steady state of condition of bridges on the NHS.

FHWA undertook a wide range of actions aimed at continually 

improving the management and performance of the highway 

system. The Agency developed a Bridge Management Systems 

(BMS) questionnaire in coordination with the States to assess current practices. Based on the questionnaire responses, the Agency 

determined that 40 States are using their BMS to store bridge 

information. Results of the questionnaire were assessed to develop 

targeted strategies to further advance bridge management principles 

and practices. In addition, FHWA initiated a process to include more 

detailed project information within bridge projects in the Fiscal 

Management Information System.

FHWA will continue to work with States, Tribal organizations, 

and local governments to help them more effectively use their 

pavement and bridge data to assess pavement conditions and to 

drive decisions that will improve level of service. During FY 2011, 

for example, 69 structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete 

bridges were repaired to a safe/good condition using FLHP funds. 

FHWA worked with 19 Federal agencies with public access 

REDUCED CONGESTION
28 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

bridges to encourage compliance with requirements for submitting 

bridge inventory and inspection data.

Looking Forward

DOT continues to face the dual challenges of developing improved 

tools and techniques to help States better allocate scarce resources, 

and providing effective oversight of Federal investments through 

better use of data, management tools, and performance measures. 

FHWA will continue to work with the American Association of 

State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and other 

partners to develop and deploy best practices for bridge management and preservation.

External Factors

There are several factors that affect FHWA’s ability to improve 

pavement quality and bridge conditions:

 The availability of transportation funding and available revenue 

from Federal, State, and local sources needed to support pavement condition improvements to the target levels is a critical 

factor. Also, State and local highway agencies select projects 

that may or may not address pavement quality.

 The costs of materials and construction services to deliver 

highway projects, which are highly dependent on worldwide 

demand, and the quality of the design and construction of highway projects. States select bridge projects for programming 

and have considerable flexibility in prioritizing how the funds 

are used (e.g., type of work performed).

 The increased costs of materials and construction services to 

deliver bridge projects, the availability of human and material 

resources, and the quality of the project design and construction.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in this effort include State and local transportation 

departments, universities, the Transportation Research Board, and 

the AASHTO.

Aviation Delay

Percent of all flights arriving within 15 minutes of schedule 

at core airports due to National Air Space related delays

Reducing delays is one of the biggest challenges facing the FAA. 

Commercial airline passenger delays in the U.S. amount to approximately $10 billion in delay costs each year. The problem is 

exacerbated by increased traffic and congestion concentrated at 

several major airports, particularly in the New York metropolitan 

area. Along with increased congestion, adverse weather conditions 

are a major contributing factor to airport delays. Approximately 70 

percent of flight delays are caused by weather. In FY 2011, FAA 

leveraged $6.0 billion to address aviation delays.

Public BENEFIT

Monitoring delays in air travel helps the FAA focus on areas 

for improvement within their control, thereby increasing the 

probability that the flying public will reach their destinations 

on time.

What are we measuring?

This metric measures on-time performance against the carriers’ filed 

flight plan, rather than published schedules. This metric allows FAA 

to measure delivery of service while taking into account causation 

of flight delay. In FY 2011, a new set of Core airports replaced the 

original 35 Operational Evolution Partnership airports.

2.5: percent of all flights arriving within 15 minutes

of schedule at core airports due to National airspace

system related delays

92

90

88

86

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

2011 Results: TARGET MET

Target: 88.0% of flights arriving within 15 minutes of schedule

Actual: 90.26% of flights arriving within 15 minutes of schedule

Description of Results

The on-time performance level is the highest it has been since inception 

of this metric in 2005. In support of this measure, the FAA’s Average 

Daily Airport Capacity measure contributed significantly to the success of the on-time target. Both measures are exceeding expectations.

Additional runways, improved arrival and departure accuracy, 

and better than expected weather in 2011 have all contributed to 

decreased congestion and improved on-time performance. Improved 

on-time performance may also be attributed to the drop in scheduled 

and unscheduled operations in many major markets. This drop in 

turn has led to less congestion in the National Airspace System 

(NAS) and less pressure on the Air Traffic Control System, resulting 

in shorter departure and arrival times. In addition, new technologies, 

such as the Traffic Management Advisor decision support tool, have 

contributed to more efficient arrival and departure performance at 

several large airports.

REDUCED CONGESTION
29 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

FAA anticipates that on-time performance will continue to improve, 

based on lower traffic levels and the movement toward NextGen 

technologies, such as time-based metering and ADS-B.

Looking Forward

In FY 2012, FAA plans to continue its focus on reducing 

congestion by:

Beginning to implement multi-center routes to create efficient 

routing structures where needed; continuing to support the 

commissioning of nine new runway/taxiway projects;

 Continuing implementation of the New York Area Program 

Integration Office delay reduction plan milestones;

 Continuing implementation of the road map for PerformanceBased Navigation;

 Demonstrating new applications that utilize Automatic 

Dependent Surveillance—Broadcast (ADS-B) capabilities; and,

 Upgrading the FAA automation systems to interface 

with ADS-B.

FAA expects operations to increase once the economy recovers. 

At that time, FAA will need to curtail the expected increase in 

congestion.

External Factors:

Weather, airline scheduling practices, runway construction and 

maintenance, and ramp and airport congestion all contributed 

to FAA’s ability to achieve this target.

Partners

FAA’s partners in this effort include the Air Line Pilots Association, 

Air Transport Association of America, Aircraft Owners and Pilots 

Association, ARINC Incorporated, Boeing Company, Department 

of Defense, GARMIN International, Rockwell International, Stanford 

University, Lockheed Martin, MIT Lincoln Laboratory, MITRE/

CAASD, Harris Corporation, NASA, National Business Aviation 

Association, Raytheon, National Business Aircraft Association, 

and airlines.

Transportation Accessibility

According to the U.S. Census Bureau’s report Americans with 

Disabilities: 2005, there are 54.4 million persons with disabilities 

in the United States, and this number is expected to increase as 

the population ages. The Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) 

requires that public transportation be accessible to and usable by 

persons with disabilities. This is vital to maintaining independence 

and mobility for people with disabilities and linking them to 

employment, health care and other important services in their 

community. In FY 2011, FTA managed approximately $515 million 

in funding to improve transportation accessibility.

Public BENEFIT

Accessible public transportation is vital to maintaining 

independence and mobility for individuals with disabilities, 

linking them to employment, health care and other important 

services in their community.

What are we measuring?

FTA measures the percentage of transit buses that are lift- or rampequipped to accommodate wheelchairs to indicate how accessible 

the transit bus fleet is for individuals with disabilities. FTA also 

measures the percentage of key transit rail stations that are accessible to individuals with disabilities. A key station is designated by 

public entities that operate existing commuter, light, or rapid rail 

systems. Each public entity determines which stations on its system 

are designated key stations through its planning and public participation process using criteria established by DOT regulations.

Performance Measure #1

Percent of transit bus fleets compliant with the Americans 

with Disabilities Act (ADA)

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 98% of bus fleets compliant with ADA

Actual: 98% of bus fleets compliant with ADA

2.6: Percent of bus fleets compliant with the americans

with disabilities act (ADA)

100

98

96

94

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results:

Transit providers have achieved full compliance with the ADA, 

with only a few exceptions as allowed by law.

REDUCED CONGESTION
Performance Measure #2

Percent of key transit rail stations that are compliant with the 

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 94.5% of key transit rail stations compliant with ADA

Actual: 95.2% of key transit rail stations compliant with ADA

2.7: Percent of key rail stations compliant with the ADA

96

94

92

90

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Transit providers have achieved a high level of compliance with the 

ADA. Only a few key stations with difficult structural challenges 

remain inaccessible to persons with disabilities.

Looking Forward

FTA will continue to pursue solutions to cases where existing 

facilities are not accessible due to the high cost of making them 

compliant.

External Factors

While the ADA requires that all new buses acquired by public 

operators of fixed-route systems be accessible, total fleet accessibility may never reach 100 percent due to provisions that permit 

the acquisition of inaccessible buses by public entities operating 

demand-responsive services, provided that equivalent service is 

available to persons with and without disabilities.

Only six of 33 rail systems affected by the ADA compliance requirements have key rail stations that are not accessible to individuals with disabilities. These stations would need expensive structural 

changes or replacement of existing facilities.

Partners

FTA’s partners in this effort include State and local governments, 

transit agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, transit 

industry trade organizations, members of the disability community, 

local decision makers, and the U.S. Architectural and Transportation Barriers Compliance Board (ATBCB or “Access Board”).

30 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

REDUCED CONGESTION
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

Global Connectivity
The American economy works, in large measure, because 

shippers, manufacturers, and service providers have 

a transportation system that provides many efficient ways 

to access labor and move raw materials and finished products. The U.S. Department of Transportation dedicated approximately $1.5 million in 2011 to promote competition and 

economic development within the U.S. and internationally.

Global connectivity

FY 2011 Enacted Funding for GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY bY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

OST $32 M

MARAD $1 M

FTA $1 M

FHWA

$1,307 M

OST

$138 M

OTHER

$34 M

FAA

$18 M

32 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

MORE EFFICENT MOVEMENT OF CARGO

Performance Measure #1

Percent of days in the shipping season that the U.S. portion 

of the St. Lawrence Seaway is available

The St. Lawrence Seaway is co-managed by the United States and 

Canada. It is the international shipping gateway to the Great Lakes, 

connecting the heartland of North America with the world. Commercial transportation on the Great Lakes St. Lawrence Seaway 

System serves as competition to other maritime trade routes as 

well as other transportation modes, which benefits the Nation in 

lower consumer prices of finished goods and raw materials and 

helps to reduce roadway and railway congestion. Each Seaway-size 

vessel carries roughly 25,000 metric tons of goods, which is the 

equivalent of 870 tractor trailers. In FY 2011, the Saint Lawrence 

Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) managed $32.3 million to keep the U.S. portion of the Seaway open and operating 

efficiently.

Public BENEFIT

Maritime commerce on the Great Lakes Seaway System 

impacts 128,000 U.S. jobs with associated benefits of 

$18.1 billion in annual business revenue from transportation firms and $9.7 billion in annual wages and salaries, 

and provides approximately $3.6 billion in annual transportation cost savings compared to the next least expensive 

mode of transportation.
33 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

What are we measuring?

Each year, the SLSDC works to attain a system availability rate of 

99.0 percent or better, thereby providing an efficient and reliable 

commercial waterborne transportation route for global users.

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 99.0% of days in the shipping season that the Seaway 

system is available.

Actual: 99.0% of days in the shipping season that the Seaway 

system is available.

3.1: PERCENT of days in the shipping season that the U.S. 

portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway system is available

100

99.5

99

98.5

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

In FY 2011, the SLSDC successfully met this goal with a system 

availability rate of 99.0 percent. The SLSDC continues to refine 

and improve its operations and maintenance programs to ensure 

continued success in providing near-perfect system availability 

to its global commercial users. To that end, the SLSDC began its 

Asset Renewal Program in FY 2009 to address the St. Lawrence 

Seaway’s long-term asset renewal needs, which include the two 

U.S. Seaway locks (Eisenhower and Snell), connecting channels, 

operational systems, and other infrastructure assets. These improvements are expected to help reduce the delay hours associated with 

lock equipment malfunctions. The SLSDC will continue to strive 

for improvement, building upon its current policies and practices.

Looking Forward

The SLSDC will work over the next two years to maintain and improve on its system availability performance by providing safe and 

efficient vessel traffic control and passage through the U.S. locks 

and waters. These efforts include maintaining and rehabilitating 

U.S. Seaway infrastructure, performing safety inspections and 

ballast water examinations of all foreign-flag vessels, continuing 

close coordination and involvement with the Canadian St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation in all aspects of Seaway 

operations, and utilizing and enhancing technology to more efficiently manage vessel traffic control and lock transits.

External Factors

Weather conditions and vessel incidents have historically been the 

two most common recorded causes of system unavailability on the 

St. Lawrence Seaway, both of which are external to SLSDC operations. Weather delays are caused by poor visibility, high winds, fog, 

and other Winter weather conditions that are significant enough to 

deem waterborne transportation unsafe. Vessel incidents involve 

ship operations, and are usually caused by human error on the part 

of a vessel’s crew. Incidents also include vessel breakdowns, which 

are caused by mechanical problems with a vessel.

Partners

The SLSDC operates the St. Lawrence Seaway with its Canadian 

counterpart, the St. Lawrence Seaway Management Corporation. 

In addition, the SLSDC coordinates closely with the U.S. Coast 

Guard on safety, security, and environmental programs.

Performance Measure #2

Number of freight corridors with an average buffer index rating 

greater than the National average

A doubling of international trade over the last decade placed a strain 

on many of the Nation’s intermodal ports and gateways and contributed to an increase in traffic congestion. A further increase in freight 

activity on the Nation’s highways is anticipated in this decade 

due to continued growth in international trade. Traffic congestion 

hinders freight movement and undermines business productivity 

and international trade.

Public BENEFIT

Facilitating the efficient movement of freight on key corridors is vital to the nation’s economic prosperity and quality 

of life. Congestion and insufficient investment on major 

freight corridors and other key infrastructure reduces the 

benefits of the National transportation system.

What are we measuring?

The buffer index is a measure of travel time reliability, which 

represents the extra time commercial freight carriers should add

to their average travel time in order to ensure on-time arrival, at 

least 95 percent of the time, for an end-to-end trip along a corridor. 

The extra time is added to account for any unexpected delay. 

The buffer index, which is expressed as a percentage, decreases 

as trip reliability improves.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY
34 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 13 freight corridors with an average buffer index rating 

greater than the National average.

Actual: 14 (projected) freight corridors with an average buffer 

index rating greater than the National average.

3.2: Number of freight corridors with anannual decrease

in the average buffer index rating

26

24

22

20

18

16

14

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

The FY 2011 results indicate a leveling-off trend in the number 

of corridors with an average buffer index rating greater than the 

National average. Between FY 2010 and FY 2011, the overall 

number of corridors above the average remained constant. This 

contrasts with earlier years, where there was a significant increase in 

corridors with an average buffer index rating greater than the National 

average. Although the number of corridors above the average 

remained constant, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) 

observed an improvement in travel time reliability in 56 percent of 

the monitored corridors. The most significant improvement in travel 

time reliability occurred on Interstate 95 extending from Maine to 

Florida, and on Interstate 76 extending from Ohio to New Jersey. 

In those corridors where travel time reliability decreased, it 

decreased most notably on Interstate 26 in the southeastern United 

States, on Interstate 40 extending east-west across the United States, 

on Interstate 45 in Texas, and on Interstate 87 in New York.

Looking Forward

DOT will continue to develop and disseminate tools and resources 

needed to improve the analytic capability and professional capacity 

of Federal, State, local, and private sector partners. These include 

data analysis tools, network performance metrics, improved freight 

modeling capability, and professional capacity building. These 

freight-focused resources, coupled with other congestion management initiatives, will result in further improvement in the reliability 

of freight movement. DOT will:

 Implement freight projects selected as part of the Department’s 

discretionary grant programs, such as the Transportation 

Investment Generating Economic Recovery (TIGER) 

program, National Infrastructure Investment program, 

and Truck Parking program;

Continue coalition building with industry;

 Focus professional development efforts on communities that can 

benefit from best practices that improve freight mobility; and,

 Deploy pilot projects to demonstrate operational improvements that increase freight travel reliability in urban areas.

External Factors

When the economy grows, freight volumes increase and place a strain 

on the available capacity. Private-industry carriers determine which 

transport modes and facilities to use for moving freight, taking into 

account the cost and performance. While FHWA provides funds for 

constructing highway facilities and promotes improved strategies for 

operating highways, States and Metropolitan Planning Organizations 

decide how funds are used for State and local highway improvements 

as well as operational improvements.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in these efforts include the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. 

DOT modal administrations including the Research & Innovative 

Technology Administration, the Maritime Administration, the Federal 

Motor Carrier Safety Administration, and the Federal Railroad 

Administration. Non-federal partners include State transportation 

agencies, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, urban jurisdictions, 

retail and trade associations, and shipper and carrier associations.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY
35 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Performance Measure #3

Number of National Highway System border crossings with 

a decrease in unexpected delay

In 2010, trade using surface transportation between the United 

States and its North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) 

partners Canada and Mexico increased by 24.3 percent, when compared with 2009, to $791 billion. Border delays and border crossing 

time reliability are important concerns for public agencies, commercial carriers, travelers, and others involved with international 

travel and trade.

FHWA currently collects travel time data for five U.S.-Canada land 

border crossings across Washington, North Dakota, Michigan, and 

New York. More than 50 percent of all U.S. inbound truck traffic 

entered at these five land crossings in 2007.

Public BENEFIT

Improving travel time reliability across border crossings 

with Canada and Mexico ensures that goods move efficiently 

with these important trade partners and contributes to the 

profitability and growth of U.S. industries.

What are we measuring?

Border crossing time and its variability are key indicators of 

transportation system performance. Low variability in crossing 

time allows goods to get to market with little unexpected delay. 

High variability in travel times generally causes unplanned delays, 

which adds costs and creates inefficiency in the movement of goods. 

Border delay and crossing time information, along with information 

such as freight and passenger volumes, can be used to target 

transportation funding where the greatest needs exist.

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 5 Border crossings

Actual: 3 Border crossings

3.3: Number of National highway system border

crossings with a decrease in unexpected delay

5

4

3

2

1

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

In FY 2011 FHWA saw increases in unexpected delay at two National 

Highway System land border crossings (Peace Bridge-Buffalo, NY, 

and Pacific Highway-Blaine, WA), while the remaining three monitored crossings (Ambassador Bridge-Detroit, MI; Pembina, ND; and 

Champlain, NY) showed continued decreases in unexpected delay. 

An increase in North American trade and the resulting growth in 

commercial vehicle traffic likely contributed to the mixed results and 

additional unexpected delay at several crossings. Trade using surface 

transportation between the United States and its North American 

neighbors, Canada and Mexico, was 18.1 percent higher in July 2011 

than in July 2010. Additionally, between July 2009 and July 2011 the 

value of U.S. surface transportation trade with Canada and Mexico, 

the United States’ NAFTA partners, rose 40.4 percent. In general, 

investments at the border through the FHWA Coordinated Border 

Infrastructure Program—which now total $1.4 billion from FY 2005 

through FY 2012—contributed to the continued decrease at the three 

crossings and a more limited increase in unexpected delay at the 

other two crossings.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY
36 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Looking Forward

FHWA will continue to work with partners to advance efforts 

to improve operations and infrastructure at land border crossings 

with the goal of reducing delays and increasing security. 

In particular, DOT will:

 Support the Beyond the Border: A Shared Vision for Perimeter 

Security and Economic Competitiveness initiative, by partnering with U.S. Customs and Border Protection and counterpart 

Canadian customs and transport agencies to reduce delay and 

congestion at high-priority Canada-U.S. border crossings;

 Lead research on applications related to variable toll 

pricing, advanced traveler information systems, electronic 

screening, and other technologies that improve safety and 

mobility, reduce emissions, and improve security at the 

Nation’s borders; and,

 Continue to work with the U.S.-Canada Transportation Border 

Working Group and U.S.-Mexico Joint Working Group to 

analyze, develop, and coordinate border transportation plans 

and programs and facilitate the safe, secure, efficient, and 

environmentally responsible movement of people and goods 

across the U.S. land borders.

External Factors

At the U.S. border, DOT is responsible for public safety, congestion 

management, coordination and facilitation, and stewardship and oversight of transportation-related projects. Other agencies that operate 

and manage the border, such as U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 

implement policy, staffing, and capacity changes that may affect or 

influence border crossing times.

Partners

The DOT and FHWA coordinate these efforts with the Departments 

of State, Homeland Security, and Commerce, and with the General 

Services Administration.

Expanded Opportunities

Expanded opportunities for small businesses, especially womenowned and disadvantaged businesses, serve the economic interests 

of the United States, both nationally and globally. Small businesses 

routinely develop, manufacture, and distribute quality products to the 

private sector, but continue to face significant hurdles participating 

in procurement opportunities with the Federal Government. To give 

these entrepreneurs a fair opportunity to compete, Congress and the 

Administration have established procurement goals for the Federal 

Government. In turn, each DOT Operating Administration (OA) 

develops targets consistent with legislative mandates and anticipated 

contracting and subcontracting opportunities. In FY 2011, DOT 

received $5.45 million for this effort.

Public BENEFIT

Expanding opportunities for small disadvantaged businesses serves the economic interests of the United States both 

Nationally and globally. A Small Disadvantaged Business, 

as defined by the Small Business Administration pursuant to 

Section 8(a), is at least 51% owned and controlled by one or 

more socially and economically disadvantaged individuals.

What are we measuring?

DOT tracks the total value of contracts that small disadvantaged 

and women-owned businesses receive through its Operating Administrations (OAs). The Office of Small Disadvantaged Business 

Utilization works closely with the OAs to develop annual small 

business goals and maximize their outreach to the various segments 

of the small disadvantaged business community.

Performance Measure #1

Percent share of total dollar value of DOT-procurement dollars 

(direct contracts) that are awarded to small disadvantaged businesses

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 15% of procurement dollars awarded to small 

disadvantaged businesses.

Actual: 19.54% of procurement dollars awarded to small 

disadvantaged businesses.

3.4: Percent share of the total dollar value of

dot direct contracts that are awarded to small

disadvantaged businesses

25

20

15

10

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Of the total small business contracts, available for small business, 

DOT was able to exceed the 15-percent goal to award 19.54 percent 

to small disadvantaged businesses.

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY
Performance Measure #2

Percent share of total dollar value of DOT-procurement dollars 

(direct contracts) that are awarded to women-owned businesses

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 6% of procurement dollars awarded to women-owned 

businesses.

Actual: 11.24% of procurement dollars awarded to women-owned 

businesses.

3.5: Percent share of the total dollar value

of dot direct contracts that are awarded

to women-owned businesses

12

10

8

6

4

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Of the total small business contracts available for small business, 

DOT was able to exceed the 6-percent goal to award 11.24 percent 

to women-owned businesses. Attention from women’s business 

organizations, like the Woman Owned Small Business Council and 

Woman-Owned Small Business Centers across the country, have 

contributed to DOT’s success in surpassing the goal of 6 percent.

Looking Forward

On October 4, 2010, the U.S. Small Business Administration announced the issuance of a final rule to begin implementation of its 

women-owned small business (WOSB) contracting program, which 

is now available for WOSBs. The rule identifies 83 industries in 

which WOSBs are under-represented or substantially under-represented in the Federal contract marketplace. In addition to opening 

up more opportunities for WOSBs, the rule is another tool to help 

achieve DOT’s goals.

External Factors

The effectiveness of this effort is also dependent on the state of the 

economy as a whole and the availability of transportation projects. 

Until 2010, the Department did not have set-aside authority for 

women-owned small businesses to augment outreach efforts, internal training, and communication with the public to help such businesses compete for upcoming contracts. Attention from women’s 

business organizations, and their interaction with State, Federal, 

and other government officials on the Federal level, all contributed 

to DOT’s success in attaining the goal.

Partners

DOT works with the Small Business Administration on a number 

of programs at small disadvantaged business centers located across 

the country.

37 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

GLOBAL CONNECTIVITY
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

ENVIRONMENTAL 

STEWARDSHIP
At the current rate of growth, transportation’s share of the 

human-produced greenhouse gas emissions in the U.S. 

is projected to increase from 28 percent to 36 percent by 

2020. The Department of Transportation (DOT) is working 

to achieve a balance between environmental challenges 

and the need for a safe and efficient transportation network. 

DOT dedicated $7.5 billion to protect communities and their 

natural and built assets.

Environmental Stewardship

Reduction in Pollution

Performance Measure #1

Number of areas in conformity lapse

The National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS) target six 

major pollutants as among the most serious airborne threats to 

human health. Transportation is a major contributor to some of the 

pollutants—particularly ozone, carbon monoxide, and particulate 

matter. Over the past 20 years, contributions of emissions from 

on-road mobile sources to all emissions rapidly declined. The 

downward trend in on-road mobile source emissions is expected to 

continue as a result of the introduction of cleaner engines and fuels.

Public BENEFIT

Over the past 30 years, contributions from cars, buses, 

and trucks to all emissions have been rapidly declining. 

For example, emissions for volatile organic compounds, 

nitrogen oxides, particulate matter, and carbon monoxide, 

which may lead to serious health ailments, all declined 

significantly between 1980 and 2006.

What are we measuring?

Number of areas in conformity lapse measures the areas that exceed, 

or have previously exceeded, certain air quality standards respectively 

—and whether they meet the conformity requirements in the Clean 

Air Act. Failure to meet the conformity requirements places an area 

in a conformity lapse, which means only limited types of federally 

funded highway and transit projects can proceed.

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 3 areas in conformity lapse

Actual: 0 areas in conformity lapse

FY 2011 Enacted Funding for Environmental

Stewardship BY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

NHTSA $17 M

MARAD $21 M

FRA $3 M

OST $133 M

RITA $1 M

FHWA

$6,413 M

FTA

FAA $463 M

$472 M

OTHER

$175 M

39 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
40 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

4.1: Number of areas in conformity lapse

6

5

4

3

2

1

0

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

From FY 2007 through FY 2011, no nonattainment area has been 

in a conformity lapse. Over the years, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has worked closely with States, Metropolitan 

Planning Organizations, the Federal Transit Administration (FTA), 

and the Environmental Protection Agency to reduce on-road mobile 

source emissions. The transportation conformity process continues 

to play a significant role in facilitating transportation decisions 

that help reduce emissions from an area’s transportation system. 

This trend is expected to continue.

Looking Forward

FHWA expects continued success of State and local transportation 

agencies in meeting the Clean Air Act requirements in the future. In 

FY 2012, FHWA will continue to work with EPA and FTA to ensure 

smooth transitioning of EPA’s latest emissions model, through 

training and technical assistance to transportation agencies. FHWA 

will encourage State and local transportation agencies to fund emissions reduction transportation strategies through the CMAQ 

program. FHWA will continue to support and undertake research 

activities to develop a better understanding of the complex relationship between surface transportation and its related air quality and 

health impacts.

External Factors

The Clean Air Act requires the EPA to review air quality standards 

every five years and may result in newly designated nonattainment 

areas under the new or revised NAAQS.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in this effort include State Departments of Transportation, Metropolitan Planning Organizations, the Environmental 

Protection Agency, and the Federal Transit Administration.

Performance Measure #2

Number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) establishes safe land use standards for existing pipelines 

and new pipeline construction in proximity to populated areas 

using an enterprise approach working with local governments, real 

estate and development interests, insurers, pipeline operators, other 

Federal and State agencies, the Pipeline and Informed Planning 

Alliance (PIPA), and others. PIPA helps communities understand 

where pipelines are located, who owns and operates them, and what 

other information is available for community planning. As pipelines 

expand into communities it is vital to locate them where they pose 

the least potential hazard to people and the environment while also 

protecting pipelines from potential excavation damage, a leading 

cause of pipeline failures. In FY 2011, PHMSA’s budget included 

$18.9 million from the Oil Spill Liability Trust Fund to address this 

issue, which is also counted under the Pipeline Safety goal (safety 

is the primary purpose of the program).

Public BENEFIT

Reducing the number of spills with environmental 

consequences helps protect the natural environment and 

improve our overall quality of life.

What are we measuring?

DOT measures the risk pipelines pose to the environment by tracking 

hazardous liquid spills with reported impacts on water, soil, fish, 

birds, or other wildlife.

2011 Results: Target NOT Met

Target: 84–103 pipeline spills with environmental consequences.

Actual: 110 (projected) pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
41 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

4.2: number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills

with environmental consequences

140

120

100

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Pipeline operators reported 110 hazardous liquid spills with environmental consequences. Most of these releases (106) impacted 

the soil; 24 impacted the water; 3 impacted birds; 3 impacted 

fish; and 2 impacted other terrestrial wildlife. Total spilled in 

these releases: 25 million gallons of crude oil and refined 

petroleum products.

Looking Forward

In the FY 2012 and FY 2013 budgets, PHMSA has proposed to 

enhance the 811 “Call Before You Dig” program, expand geospatial 

data collection and analysis, provide technical review of the construction of major pipelines nationwide, and expand the risk-based 

inspection program.

External Factors

Excavation damage, damage from natural forces (e.g., storms and 

flooding), and other outside force damage are all significant causes 

of pipeline failure. Operating error by individuals is another 

significant cause of failure.

Partners

Some State pipeline safety agencies act as interstate agents for 

PHMSA, inspecting hazardous liquid pipelines on its behalf.

Streamlined Environmental Review

Median Time in Months to Complete Environmental Impact 

Statement (EIS) for DOT-funded Infrastructure Projects

The environmental review process not only ensures that infrastructure 

projects comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) 

guidelines, but it also allows citizens and local organizations an 

opportunity to voice their concerns and propose alternatives. DOT 

encourages public input on alternative ways to accomplish what it 

is proposing and offers an opportunity for comments on its analysis 

of the environmental effects of the proposed action.

Public BENEFIT

Streamlining the NEPA process helps DOT deliver major 

transportation projects more quickly, while exercising 

good stewardship of the environment.

What are we measuring?

DOT establishes and pursues rigorous time frames for all projects 

requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). By tracking 

time frames, DOT has developed a better understanding of the key 

impediments to the process, enabling it to address the concerns of 

Congress, the States, and others. DOT has established 48 months 

as the FY 2011 target for the median time frame for completing an 

EIS. DOT facilitates the achievement of the objective by promoting 

environmental stewardship practices and integrated planning efforts, 

and encouraging linkages between planning and NEPA requirements.

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 48 months to complete Environmental Impact Statements

Actual: 70 months to complete Environmental Impact Statements

4.3: Median time in months to complete

environmental impact statements for dot

funded infrastructure projects

84

72

60

48

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
42 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Description of Results

The median time for completion of environmental impact statements 

for DOT infrastructure projects was 70 months in 2011. Records 

of Decision were issued for a total of 30 projects: 23 for highway, 

2 for aviation, and 5 for transit projects. For this measure three 

modes’ results are combined for a Departmental average. 

Agency-specific results are described below.

FHWA—In FY 2011, FHWA leadership continued to work with its 

partners through the Every Day Counts (EDC) initiative to reduce 

project delivery time. While the overall median time for all FHWA 

EIS projects completed during FY 2011 was 79 months, the median for EIS projects initiated after the enactment of the environmental 

review process prescribed in SAFETEA-LU and the FHWA EDC 

initiative for accelerating project delivery was 44 months, as shown 

in the table below.

Number of

Highway 

Projects

Median Time from

Notice of Intent

to Record 

ofDecision

Projects completed that had a 

NOI issued before August 2005 

(Prior to SAFETEA-LU)

16 110 months

Projects completed that had 

a NOI issued after August 

2005 (Following passage of 

SAFETEA-LU)

7 44 months

Total number of EIS projects 

completed

23 79 months

FAA—For FY 2011, the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) completed two airport EIS projects, one for the Philadelphia International 

Airport (PHL) Capacity Enhancement Project; the other for runway 

development at Providence Theodore Francis Green (T.F. Green) 

Airport in Warwick, RI.

FTA—In FY 2011, the FTA completed five EIS projects: the 

Woodward Avenue Light Rail in Detroit, the Hatcher Pass facilities in Alaska, the South Corridor from Portland to Milwaukee 

in Oregon, the Honolulu High Capacity Transit Corridor, and 

the Denver North Metro Corridor to Thornton. Time to complete 

ranged from 13 to 56 months, with a mean time of 37 months.

Looking Forward

The FHWA will continue to engage its partners in shortening 

project delivery time frames using the EDC initiative as well as the 

streamlining provisions in SAFETEA-LU. By means of enhanced 

transportation planning and environmental review processes that 

require early agency involvement, as well as States’ issuance of 

statute of limitations notices, the FHWA expects that the median 

time frame for completing EIS projects will be reduced.

FAA has three EIS projects that have projected milestones leading 

to completion in FY 2012: the Palm Beach International EIS; the 

Hailey, Idaho EIS; and the Kodiak, Alaska EIS. Completion of 

these projects is dependent on multiple external variables that 

may affect these projections.

FTA has implemented a proactive approach to the NEPA process, 

taking early control instead of reacting to documents that are almost 

completed. FTA has hired additional regional environmental protection specialists and provided comprehensive training for all regional 

environmental protection specialists.

External Factors

State and local impediments such as lack of funding and staff, political 

considerations, differing resource agency missions, and community 

controversy can lead to delay. In addition, the complexity of the 

project as well as the number and significance of protected resources 

can delay projects.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in this effort include State Departments of 

Transportation, State and Federal resource agencies, interested 

parties and the public.

Other Environmental Activities

Number of Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives (EHEI)

The FHWA promotes environmental stewardship practices by 

recognizing Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives (EHEI) in 

transportation projects and activities that were particularly effective 

and innovative in how they enhanced the human environment and 

improve public benefit.

Public BENEFIT

The EHEI recognizes innovative and effective transportation projects and gives other project sponsors examples 

of new ways to adapt transportation projects to the human 

environment, thereby better meeting the needs of the communities they serve.

What are we measuring?

An EHEI project is recognized for innovation, improving the state 

of the practice for development of transportation projects and 

activities, offering the potential of transferability, demonstrating 

partnering and collaboration, and providing specific benefits to 

human activity.

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 10 Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives recognized.

Actual: 9 Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives recognized.

ENVIRONMENTAL STEWARDSHIP
4.4: Number of exemplary human environmental

initiatives undertaken

18

16

14

12

10

8

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

In 2011, FHWA recognized nine projects as EHEIs. Two projects 

selected in 2011 were Oregon’s Upper Perry Arch Bridge Rehabilitation Project—which restored a historically significant structure 

that showcases the architectural design and technique of early 20thcentury engineers—and a project in New Mexico to increase Tribal 

participation that involved a new streamlined consultation process 

to review transportation projects affecting Tribal lands.

Looking Forward

The EHEIs have been conducted for the past five years. To increase 

the number of annual submittals for the EHEI in future years, 

FHWA will undertake additional outreach through planning newsletters, meetings, and training activities to continue to raise awareness about the importance of this type of project as a contributor to 

community livability.

External Factors

This performance measure is not affected by external factors.

Partners

FHWA’s partners in this effort include State Departments of 

Transportation and Federal land management agencies.

43 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

Security, preparedness

and response
HEADLINE

Transportation systems are an element of the Nation’s 

critical infrastructure for response and recovery, yet they 

are vulnerable to damage from human-caused incidents or

the result of natural disasters. DOT dedicated $490 million 

to security, preparedness and response in FY 2011. 

Security, Preparedness and Response

INTELLIGENCE, PREPAREDNESS AND RESPONSE

DOT continues to ensure readiness to undertake its role as defined 

in the National Response Framework, issued in 2008. In this 

capacity, DOT provides support to the Department of Homeland 

Security by assisting Federal, State, Tribal, and local government 

entities, voluntary organizations, nongovernmental organizations, 

and the private sector in the management of transportation systems 

and infrastructure during domestic threats or in response to incidents. 

DOT also participates in prevention, preparedness, response, recovery, 

and mitigation activities, and carries out its statutory responsibilities—

including regulation of transportation, management of the Nation’s 

airspace, and ensuring the safety and security of the National transportation system. In FY 2011, the Office of the Secretary committed 

$13 million to address readiness issues. 

Public BENEFIT

DOT tracks this activity to ensure that its staff is able to 

make effective transportation decisions at all levels to 

sustain transportation services, mitigate adverse economic 

impacts and meet National needs following a disaster. 

What are we measuring? 

DOT is in its third year reporting on these performance measures. 

The first performance measure tracks staff participation in training 

courses and exercises that simulate disasters, in order to prepare 

them to conduct the Department’s activities during an emergency. 

Those required to take the training or participate in the exercises 

are the Secretary’s Emergency Response Team, emergency 

coordinators in the Operating Administrations (OA), and others who 

have been identified as having emergency management responsibiliFY 2010 Enacted Funding for Security bY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

OST $9 M

FMCSA $7 M

FRA $2 M

MARAD

$294 M

FAA

$135 M

FTA

$42 M

OTHER

$18 M

45 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
ties during a disaster. The second performance measure gauges 

the ability of the Department to effectively respond to emergencies 

affecting the transportation sector. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #1: 

Percent of DOT personnel with emergency management responsibilities who are prepared to respond to disasters or emergencies

2011 Results: Target met

Target: 100% of personnel prepared to respond

Actual: 100% of personnel prepared to respond

5.1: PERCENT OF DOT PERSONNEL WITH EMERGENCY 

MANAGEMENT RESPONSIBILITIES WHO ARE PREPARED 

TO RESPOND TO DISASTERS AND EMERGENCIES

100

90

80

70

2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

To ensure readiness for disasters, DOT tracks participation in 

exercises conducted under the National Exercise Program as well 

as completion of training required under the National Security 

Professional Development Program. The DOT Management Team 

is acutely aware of the value of this preparation and their support 

ensures maximized participation in National, regional, and local 

emergency preparedness and response exercises. In FY 2011, all 

DOT Operating Administrations and National security professionals throughout the Department met their training requirements and 

participated in the scheduled exercises. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #2

Percent of DOT agencies meeting annual response requirements

2011 Results: Target not met

Target: 100% of DOT agencies meeting annual requirements

Actual: 96% of DOT agencies meeting annual requirements

5.2: PERCENT OF dot agencies meeting annual

response requirements

100

95

90

85

2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

To determine readiness for response to disasters, DOT evaluates a 

variety of measures and whether each Operating Administration has 

met the criteria. These measures include whether agencies’ Continuity 

of Operation plans meet Department of Homeland Security requirements, the percent of mandatory communications tests each agency 

passed, and whether Operating Administrations provided required 

resources for the 24 hour DOT Crisis Management Center and the 

Regional Emergency Transportation Coordination Program. 

Looking Forward

This goal will no longer be reported externally after this year, 

but we will continue to evaluate performance. 

External Factors

The Department of Homeland Security operates and schedules 

the National Exercise Program. It is possible that not all senior 

DOT staff would be able to participate in preparedness exercises 

because of scheduling conflicts. 

Partners

All DOT Agencies participated in this effort. 

DEFENSE MOBILIZATION

The Department of Defense (DoD) relies on the U.S. commercial 

transportation industry as well as government-owned ships to 

deliver equipment and supplies throughout the world in order to 

maximize defense logistics capabilities and minimize cost. The 

DOT-owned Ready Reserve Force (RRF) is a very important 

component of the Department’s ability to provide sealift capacity in 

times of emergency to DoD. These ships serve as an important asset 

supporting the Department’s emergency preparedness and disaster 

response activities. The RRF is comprised of 48 ships with special 

SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE

46 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
capabilities that can carry or offload heavy and oversized military 

cargoes which regular U.S.-flag commercial cargo ships cannot 

carry. RRF ships meet approximately half of the U.S. Transportation 

Command’s surge (or initial) sealift requirement during a mobilization. In FY 2011, MARAD received approximately $295 million 

for activities in support of defense mobilization. 

Public BENEFIT

The Ready Reserve Force, the Maritime Security Program, 

and the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement program 

provide support to U.S. military operations worldwide. 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #1

Percentage of DoD-required shipping capacity (both commercial 

and government-owned), complete with crews and available 

within mobilization timelines

What are we measuring? 

MARAD tracks the number of cargo ships with full crews that are 

available to meet military requirements on short notice. This level 

of readiness ensures there is sufficient shipping capacity available to 

transport cargo in support of U.S. military actions around the world. 

2011 Results: target met

Target: 94% of shipping capacity available

Actual: 97% of shipping capacity available

5.3: Percent of dod-required shipping capacity

complete with crews available within

mobilization timelines

100

95

90

85

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

MARAD has exceeded the target of 94%. Each of the commercial 

vessels enrolled in the Maritime Security Program (MSP) and/or 

Voluntary Intermodal Sealift (VISA) programs are registered under 

the U.S. flag and are crewed with U.S.-citizen merchant marines. Both 

annual and long-term targets are ambitious and are based on historic 

performance levels. 

Looking Forward

The ability to sustain readiness of shipping capacity to transport cargo 

and meet future military requirements will depend on maintaining a 

sufficient number of active MSP and VISA vessels and crews operating in U.S. international trade and the ability to maintain the RRF 

in a ready status at all times. Targets should be achievable absent a 

reduction of funding, cargo availability or major casualties to vessels 

operating in these programs. 

External Factors

DoD requirements help determine the size of both the governmentowned and commercial fleets. 

Partners

MARAD’s partners in this effort include the Department of Defense, 

the U.S. Transportation Command, U.S. flag ship operators, Ready 

Reserve Force Ship Managers, and Maritime Labor Organizations 

(e.g., Marine Engineers’ Beneficial Association, American Maritime 

Officers, and Seafarers International Union). 

PERFORMANCE MEASURE #2

Percentage of DOD commercial ports available for military use 

within DoD-established readiness timelines

What are we measuring?

This measure helps MARAD assess the readiness of the commercial 

ports that will be used to transport military equipment and supplies. 

2011 Results: TARGET MET

Target: 93% of commercial ports available for military use

Actual: 100% of commercial ports available for military use

FISCAL YEAR

5.4: percentage of dod-designated commercial ports

available for military use within dod established

readiness timelines

100

95

90

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

Description of Results

Commercial ports have continued to exceed the target for timely 

availability of port facilities for military use in contingencies. 

This success is the result of close coordination among MARAD, 

military users, and strategic ports. 

SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE

47 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
Looking Forward

MARAD and its partners in the National Port Readiness Network 

(NPRN) continue to improve the processes for military use of 

strategic commercial ports. These efforts are currently focused 

on revising and updating the Memorandum of Understanding that 

is the founding document of the NPRN and which guides the 

activities of its members. 

External Factors

 The size and timeline of the deployment, available commercial port 

and intermodal capacity, readiness of the port, and weather conditions all affect this performance measure. Port readiness is dependent on training, exercises, deployment coordination and monthly 

and semi-annual readiness assessments. 

Partners

MARAD’s partners in this effort include commercial strategic 

ports and the National Port Readiness Network, which is comprised 

of the U.S. Transportation Command, Military Surface Deployment 

and Distribution Command, U.S. Coast Guard, Transportation Security Administration, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Northern 

Command, U.S. Army Forces Command, U.S. Army Installation 

Management Command, Military Sealift Command.

SECURITY, PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE

48 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

Organizational

Excellence
Organizatonal Excellence

The Department of Transportation (DOT) cannot achieve 

its strategic goals without leadership and continuous improvement in all the supporting functions of the Department. DOT 

actively pursues both externally driven and internally driven 

initiatives that improve the operations of the entire Department 

through each and every DOT agency. DOT leveraged $2.2 

billion in FY 2011 to provide leadership in human resources, 

commercial services, financial management, performance 

improvement, and electronic government.

2011 Federal Employee Viewpoint Survey

The 2011 Employee Viewpoint Survey (EVS) provides an opportunity 

for DOT employees to shape the Department’s culture and work environment. By gathering information about how employees regard their 

work experience at DOT, the Department hopes to design management best practices and work environments that better suit employee 

needs, while ensuring positive organizational outcomes.

After last year’s survey, DOT was recognized as one of the most 

improved agencies in the Federal Government, and the 2011 EVS 

results continued to reflect some modest increases in positive 

response rates. Generally, in areas where DOT has historically 

performed well it continued to do so, and the same can be said 

for survey items where the Department tends to perform more 

negatively.

Overall, Department-wide 2011 EVS results reveal a trend of 

incremental improvements since 2008. However, these results also 

illustrate that DOT still has considerable work to do to increase the 

favorability in employees’ perceptions of the workplace, particularly 

in the areas of Leadership and Performance Culture. As such, DOT 

will continue to engage in action planning that will concentrate on 

discovering the root causes of employees’ perceptions in the areas 

where DOT is lacking and develop strategies to increase favorable 

perceptions, while maintaining progress in areas of the survey where 

the Department has performed well historically.

FY 2011 Enacted Funding for ORGANIZATIONAL

EXCELLENCE BY OA

(Dollars in Millions)

Other Operating Administration

FTA $31 M

FMCSA $29 M

RITA $7 M

MARAD $23 M

FAA

$1,483 M

FHWA

$525 M

FRA

$37 M

OTHER

$91 M

OST

$109 M

50 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

51 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Strengths

The top five areas showing the highest positive responses include:

 “When needed I am willing to put in the extra effort to get 

the job done” (96 percent positive);

 “The work I do is important” (92 percent positive);

 “I am constantly looking for ways to do my job better” 

(88 percent positive);

 “I like the kind of work I do” (87 percent positive); and,

“In the last six months, my supervisor/team leader has talked 

with me about my performance” (83 percent positive).

Challenges

The areas with the five highest negative responses included:

 “Pay raises depend on how well employees perform 

their jobs” (61 percent negative);

 “In my work unit, steps are taken to deal with a poor performer

who cannot or will not improve” (48 percent negative);

 “Promotions in my work unit are based on merit” 

(44 percent negative);

 “In my work unit, differences in performance are recognized 

in a meaningful way” (42 percent negative); and,

 “Awards in my work unit depend on how well employees 

perform their jobs” (39 percent negative).

Positive response rates on these items remained virtually the same 

when compared to the 2010 EVS.

When comparing 2010 and 2011 Human Capital Assessment and 

Accountability Framework (HCAAF) rankings, DOT showed 

improvement in three of the four HCAAF indices. Out of the 37 

largest federal agencies, the Office of Personnel Management 

ranked DOT: 30th in Leadership & Knowledge Management (up 

from 33rd in 2010); 33rd in Results-Oriented Performance Culture 

(up from 34th in 2010); and 15th in Job Satisfaction (up from 20th

in 2010). DOT’s ranking in Talent Management was 27th (down 

from 25th in 2010). However, all indices have trended upward 

since the administration of the 2008 Federal Human Capital Survey.

Commercial Services Management

Lifecycle acquisition management is built around a logical sequence 

of phases and decision points to determine and prioritize needs, 

make sound investment decisions, implement solutions efficiently, 

and manage services and assets over their lifecycle. The overarching goal is continuous improvement in the delivery of safe, secure, 

and efficient services over time to ensure that taxpayer dollars 

spent through DOT’s acquisition programs achieve performance 

outcomes required by tracking cost and schedule milestones.

Public BENEFIT

FAA’s ability to keep acquisitions on schedule and within 

budget allows for a timely transition to NextGen programs. 

This transition involves acquiring numerous systems to 

support improved safety and capacity for the flying public.

What are we measuring?

Maintaining the 90-percent target reached over the past seven years 

ensures that FAA demonstrates its commitment to meet cost and 

schedule goals and benchmarks using a 90-percent target parameter 

that is well established across government agencies.

Performance Measure #1

For major DOT aviation systems, the percentage of cost goals 

established in the acquisition project baselines that are met

2011 Results: Target Met

Target: 90% of cost goals met

Actual: 100% of cost goals met

6.1: For Major dot aviation systems, percentage of cost

goals established in the acquisitions project baselines

that are met

100

95

90

85

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

In FY 2011, 34 of 34, or 100 percent, of programs remained within 

their established cost goals. It is important to note that performance 

against this target is measured based on a program’s estimated 

total capital acquisition costs at the end of the year, in relation to 

the estimated total cost at the beginning of the year. A program’s 

total budget increase is reflected in this measure in the year it is 

reported. Going forward, the program’s budget at completion also 

reflects that increase. Thus, for example, the En Route Automation 

Modernization (ERAM) program did not meet its cost goal in FY 2010 

because its estimated total capital acquisition cost increased $330 

million (15 percent) during FY 2010. The revised ERAM 

total cost estimate, including the $330-million increase, is the 

measurable benchmark included in this target for FY 2011.
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

52 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Looking Forward

FAA’s ability to keep acquisitions within budget will allow for a 

timely transition of NextGen programs. The transition involves 

acquiring numerous systems to support functions such as precision 

satellite navigation, digital networked communications, integrated 

weather information, and layered adaptive security.

This performance measure will continue each fiscal year through the 

acquisition of the selected programs. Through increased emphasis 

on management and oversight of the procurement process, FAA 

will ensure that contract planning, administration, and oversight 

efficiently and effectively support the transition to NextGen.

Performance Measure #2

For major DOT aviation systems, the percentage of scheduled 

milestones established in the acquisition project baselines 

that are met

2010 Results: Target Met

Target: 90% of schedule milestones met

Actual: 94% of schedule milestones met

6.2: For Major dot aviation systems, percentage of

schedule milestones established in the acquisition

project baselines that are met

100

95

90

85

80

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Like the Cost Goals measure, the Scheduled Milestones measure 

represents a progressive measure of the performance of critical FAA 

acquisition programs. Maintaining the 90-percent target demonstrates 

the FAA’s commitment to meet cost and schedule goals and benchmarks that are well established across government agencies.

In FY 2011, a total of 94 percent of the major system investments 

remained within the established yearly schedule targets. However, 

four of the original 54 milestones comprising this year’s target were 

approved to slip their planned September 2011 milestones into 

FY 2012 following the August furlough of approximately 4,000 

workers. The four programs would have completed their milestones 

originally scheduled for September 2011. Thus, the number of 

milestones included in this FY 2011 target was reduced from 

54 to 50. Of the 50 milestones included in the revised target, 47 

(94 percent) met their established targets.

Looking Forward

FAA’s ability to keep acquisitions on schedule will allow for a timely 

transition of NextGen programs. The transition involves acquiring 

numerous systems to support functions such as precision satellite 

navigation, digital networked communications, integrated weather 

information, and layered adaptive security. The performance measure 

will continue each fiscal year through the acquisition of the 

selected programs.

Financial Performance

Infrastructure projects are not static and at any point conditions may 

change in ways that impact the cost of the project or the delivery 

date. Monitoring cost, schedule, and performance of infrastructure 

projects is critical in order to identify problems and initiate actions 

to mitigate risk. Three DOT Operating Administrations oversee 

major infrastructure projects included in the following infrastructure 

project performance measures: FAA, FHWA, and FTA.

Public BENEFIT

Reaching established project milestones and staying within 

budget improves Federal stewardship of funding and 

reduces project delays.

.

What are we measuring?

These measures help to determine DOT’s effectiveness as a steward of 

Federal resources by tracking how closely projects adhere to original 

cost estimates and major milestones. Unexpected delays in major 

projects diminish public trust and hinder effective resource planning.

Performance Measure #1

Percent of major Federally funded transportation infrastructure 

projects with less than 2 percent annual growth in the project 

completion milestone.

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 90% of projects meeting schedule milestones

Actual: 66% of projects meeting schedule milestones
ORGANIZATIONAL EXCELLENCE

53 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

6.3: Percent of major federally funded transportation

infrastructure projects with less than 2 percent annual

growth in the project completion milestone

100

90

80

70

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

The 2011 result indicates a sizeable increase in the number of

major projects reporting schedule delays. Determining whether 

this signals a lasting trend or a temporary aberration will depend

 on subsequent experience.

The two most common reasons for project delays are overly ambitious 

scheduling and insufficient project management. By requiring State 

and local grantees to prepare and regularly update their project 

schedules, DOT maintains a focus on construction time frames.

Performance Measure #2

Percent of finance plan cost estimates for major federally funded 

transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2 percent 

annual growth

2011 Results: Target Not Met

Target: 90% of projects meeting cost estimates

Actual: 82% of projects meeting cost estimates

6.4: Percent of finance plan cost estimate for major

federally funded transportation infrastructure

projects with less than 2 percent annual growth

in project completion cost

90

80

70

60

2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

ACTUAL

TARGET

FISCAL YEAR

Description of Results

Although cost overruns are often correlated with schedule delay, 

the results are similar to previous years despite the increase in 

projects reporting delays in schedule. As in recent years, downward 

cost pressures remain. The FHWA Construction Costs Index 

(www.fhwa.dot.gov/ohim/nhcci/pt1.cfm) shows a continued 

decline in highway construction costs between 2009 and 2010, 

down from their peak in September 2006. In fact, more than 30 percent of the major projects actually reported decreases in total costs.

Looking Forward

The number of major projects under DOT purview continues to 

increase. It remains critically important that DOT and project sponsors maintain their awareness of ever-changing construction cost 

factors, so that future expectations can adapt to new circumstances. 

By reviewing major project finance plans, DOT seeks to improve the 

quality of schedules and cost estimates developed by its State and 

local grantees. This oversight task requires that DOT develop its own 

staff cadre skilled in major project review. As training opportunities 

for these staff members continue to be offered, the level of expertise 

throughout the Department increases.

External Factors

The Federal Government provides funding for airports, highways, 

and transit projects. In all three instances the government is only 

one of several sources of funding and its control over an entire 

project is limited.

Partners

DOT’s partners in this effort include State Departments of 

Transportation, local governments, State and local transit agencies, 

airport owners, airlines, cargo carriers, and other aviation users.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

PERFORMANCEDATA COMPLETENESS

ANDRELIABILITY
PERFORMANCE DATA COMPLETENESS AND RELIABILITY

Performance measurement is dependent on the availability

of useful data that will indicate level of performance and 

help progress toward achieving organizational goals. 

Because all data are imperfect in some fashion, pursuing 

perfect data may consume public resources without 

creating appreciable value. For this reason, there must 

be an approach that provides sufficient accuracy and 

timeliness but at a reasonable cost. This section of the 

report provides information on how DOT uses performance 

data, assesses limitations of the data, and plans to 

improve DOT’s data.

55 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

IN GENERAL

In an attempt to bring consistency and quality to its performance 

reporting, DOT has implemented some general rules regarding 

the data it uses and how it is evaluated.

Annual Data

Whenever available, the data in this document are reported on a 

Federal Government fiscal year basis. However, there are instances 

where fiscal year data are not available, so calendar year data are 

used instead. This often occurs when data are collected and reported 

to DOT by external sources and a calendar year reporting requirement 

is specified in the implementing regulation.

Completeness of Data for Annual Results

If available, the results for the most recent year in the report are listed 

as Actual for each performance measure. When an actual value is 

not available for the current year, either an estimate or a projection 

is provided instead. In general, estimates are based on partial-year 

data that are extrapolated to cover a full 12-month period. Historical

trend information, supplemented by program expertise, is then 

applied to estimate the remaining months of performance for which 

actual data is unavailable. The result is identified as a preliminary 

estimate in the report. If partial-year data are not available, then 

past trend information is analyzed and supplemented by program 

knowledge to develop a projected value for the annual performance 

measure. The result is identified as a projection in the report. As 

data are finalized, the projections and preliminary estimates are 

replaced by actual results, with resulting changes denoted by an 

(r). Results are also amended as errors and omissions are identified 

in the data verification process, as updated information is provided 

by the reporting sources, or because of legal or other action that 

changes a previously-reported value.

Reliability of Measurement Data

DOT performance data are generally reliable (useful to program 

managers and policy makers). But because performance results 

in a given year are influenced by multiple factors, some of which 

are beyond DOT’s control, and some of which are due to random 

chance, there may be considerable variation from year to year. 

A better “picture” of performance may be gained by looking at 

results over time to determine if there is a trend.

We have compiled Source and Accuracy Statements for each of 

the DOT data programs used in this report, which can be found at: 

www.bts.gov/programs/statistical_policy_and_research/

source_and_accuracy_compendium/index.html. The Source 

and Accuracy Statements give more detail on the methods used 

to collect the data, sources of variation and bias in the data, and 

methods used to verify and validate the data.

Assessing and, where possible, eliminating sources of error in DOT 

data collection programs has always been an important task for data 

program managers. As part of their ongoing work, managers of 

departmental data programs use quality control techniques to identify 

where errors can be introduced into the data collection system. 

Program managers also use computerized edit checks and range 

checks to minimize errors that may be introduced into the data of 

their respective programs. In addition, quality measurement techniques are employed to measure the effects of unanticipated errors. 
56 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

These include verification of data collection and coding, as well as 

coverage, response and non-response error studies to measure the 

extent of human error affecting the data. As sources of error are 

identified, data collection is improved.

The data used in measuring performance come from a wide 

variety of sources. Much of it originates from sources outside 

of the Department and, therefore, outside of the direct control of the 

Department. The data often come from administrative records or 

from sample surveys. While DOT may not have a strong voice 

in improving the quality of outside data, the Department takes 

all available information about the limitations and known biases

 in outside data into account when using the data. To help the 

Operating Administrations (OAs) address these issues, the Bureau 

of Transportation Statistics (BTS) is developing a statistical policy 

framework where the OAs will work together to identify and implement the current statistical best practices in all aspects of their data 

collection programs. This project is consistent with the data capacity 

discussions found in the DOT Strategic Plan.

DATA LIMITATIONS

DOT Data Source Limitations

Timeliness is the most significant limitation for DOT performance 

measurement data. Some DOT data are not collected annually; for 

example, the National Household Travel Survey and the Commodity

Flow Survey each collect data every five years. Data that are 

collected each year (or more frequently) require time to analyze, 

confirm and report results; for example, Highway Performance 

Monitoring System vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) data require 

several months of post-collection processing, making final results 

unavailable for this performance report. Other performance measurement data limitations are identified in the previously mentioned 

Source and Accuracy Statements for DOT data programs. These 

statements contain descriptions of data collection program design, 

estimates of sampling errors (if applicable), and discussions of 

non-sampling errors. Non-sampling errors include under coverage, 

item and unit non-response, interviewer and respondent response 

errors, processing errors, and errors made in data analysis.

Estimating and Projection Techniques Used

As discussed under completeness, most of the FY 2011 measures 

must be projected from either partial-year data or historical trends. 

The projections based on partial-year data from FY 2011 are more 

likely to reflect changes effected by current DOT policies and programs. The measures projected from FY 2010 and prior historical 

data reflect continuing trends from ongoing programs, but do not 

reflect the effects of changes implemented in FY 2011.

External Data Source Limitations

Data that originate from external or third-party sources are not directly 

controlled by DOT. These data often come from administrative 

records or from sample surveys. Timeliness is also a significant 

limitation. For example, many DOT internal data programs rely 

on data provided by State DOTs. DOT partners closely with the 

States, but does not have direct control over these programs.

SECURITY PREPAREDNESS & RESPONSE
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

OTHER ACCOMPANYING

INFORMATION
58 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Inspector General’s FY 2011 Top

Management Challenges

Department of Transportation Office of Inspector

General Approach

The Office of Inspector General (OIG) issues its annual report on 

the Department of Transportation’s top management challenges to 

provide a forward-looking assessment for the coming fiscal year. 

The purpose of the report is to aid Department of Transportation 

(DOT) agencies in focusing attention on and mapping work strategies for the most significant management and performance issues 

facing the Department. 

In selecting the challenges for each year’s list, the OIG continually 

focuses on the Department’s key strategic goals to improve transportation safety, capacity, and efficiency. In addition to the OIG’s 

vigilant oversight of DOT programs, budgetary issues, and progress 

milestones, it also draws from several dynamic factors to identify 

key challenges. These include new initiatives, cooperative goals 

with other Federal departments, recent changes in the Nation’s 

transportation environment and industry, as well as global issues 

that could have implications for the United States’ traveling public. 

As such, the challenges included on the OIG’s list vary each year 

to reflect the most relevant issues and provide the most useful and 

effective oversight to DOT agencies. 

As required by OMB Circular A-136, the OIG’s report briefly assesses DOT’s progress in addressing the challenges identified. To 

track management challenges identified from year to year, the OIG 

provides an exhibit to the report that compares the current list of 

management challenges with the list published the previous fiscal 

year. In addition, the OIG may refine the scope of the management 

challenge from year to year based on program developments, external factors, or other information that becomes available. 

The OIG has not reviewed all of the actions included in this summary. 

Management Challenge 1: Ensuring 

Transparency and Accountability in the 

Department’s Recovery Act Programs

Issue 1A: Overseeing American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act (ARRA) projects and expenditures

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Office of Inspector General’s (OIG) June 2011 Recovery Act 

Advisory reported that the Federal Highway Administration 

(FHWA) did not ensure that States conducted federally required 

value engineering studies on all highway and bridge projects prior 

to contract award. Further, the Government Accountability Office 

recently reported that staffing shortages may limit States’ ability to 

properly implement and manage Recovery Act programs. To ensure 

that these programs are effectively and properly implemented by the 

States, it is critical that the Department identify high-risk areas and 

target its resources accordingly. Additionally, the Office of Management and Budget directed agencies to use single audit reports to 

identify high-risk grantees, ensure resolution of audit findings, and 

consider additional monitoring and inspections of these grantees.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

FHWA met the aggressive goal to obligate all apportioned funds 

by March 1, 2010. In 2010 and 2011, FHWA pursued ongoing 

mitigation strategies including enhancing resources, conducting 

outreach, strengthening oversight, and measuring and monitoring 

success. Through the National Review Team (NRT) assessments 

of state ARRA management processes and compliance with Federal 

requirements, FHWA identified problems needing corrective action 

as well as National trends and potential new risks:

FHWA Division Offices provided a high level of oversight 

by conducting 5,033 project inspections on Recovery Act 

projects.

 Eighty-three percent of Recovery Act project funds were 

expended as of October 19, 2011.

 NRT completed a total of 226 State site visits, reviewing 

305 risk areas and 1,419 Recovery Act projects through 

September 30, 2011.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

According to the provisions of the Recovery Act, funds apportioned 

and allocated to the States and other grantees were available for 

obligation

until September 30, 2010. Obligated balances are available for 

expenses incurred until September 30, 2015, at which point any 

remaining balance will be canceled. FHWA will continue to review 

and monitor inactive obligations:

 September 2012—FHWA will implement National Review 

Team corrective actions (most are done within 90 to 120 days).

 June 2014—Incorporate lessons learned from the Recovery Act 

processes to improve standard business practices.

 September 2015—Highway infrastructure investment projects 

funded through the Recovery Act must be completed.

FHWA will continue to ensure the delivery of TIGER grants 

through technical assistance and proactive leadership. TIGER 1 

projects must be completed by September 2016.

Section IV: Results or expected results

A Recovery Act best practices summit was held to discuss how 

lessons learned can be incorporated into standard business practices 

for the federal-aid program. Of the 22 follow-up recommendations, 

16 were completed or are currently under way.

FHWA increased the level of attention on projects administered 

by local agencies. Among other things, the number of spot checks 

and payment reviews increased. The local agencies section of the 
59 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Agency’s stewardship and oversight guidance was strengthened; 

guidance for responsible charge, Buy America, and consultant 

services was issued.

Issue 1B: Executing OST’s TIGER discretionary 

grants program

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The public investment through the Recovery Act requires that the 

Department manage the TIGER discretionary grant program with 

unprecedented accountability and transparency. The Office of the 

Secretary (OST) has entered into a unique partnership with four 

relevant modal administrations (Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, Maritime Administration, 

and Federal Railroad Administration) to ensure that the TIGER 

discretionary grants program is managed properly. Pursuant to this 

partnership, the modal administrations are responsible for day-today management of the TIGER discretionary grants—relying on experience and expertise developed with other grant programs—while 

OST is responsible for oversight and monitoring of the TIGER discretionary grants and programmatic reporting and decision making.

Section II: Actions taken in 2011

OST made significant progress executing the TIGER discretionary 

grants program in 2011. Working closely with the modal administrations, OST ensured that TIGER discretionary grant funds for all 

projects were obligated by December 2010, in advance of the September 30, 2011, statutory deadline for obligating funds. In addition, 

certain funds that were obligated for particular TIGER projects, but 

which remained unused, needed to be reallocated to other projects. 

This too was completed by the September 30, 2011, deadline. By 

early 2011, all TIGER projects executed grant agreements, and by 

the end of the year, 47 out of 51 total projects completed performance measurement plans. Also, by the end of 2011, OST executed 

a plan to conduct limited onsite monitoring for TIGER projects, to 

supplement the more extensive project oversight activities conducted by the modal administrations.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Oversee and monitor all 51 TIGER discretionary grants through 

their full expenditure and project completion over 5 to 10 years.

Section IV: Results or expected results

By the end of FY 2012 the majority of TIGER projects will be 

under way and DOT will begin to see the impact of a few projects. 

Accordingly, OST will be able to implement lessons learned to 

improve the administration and oversight of the TIGER program. 

Moreover, the Department will be able to analyze data collected 

from performance measures. This data will be a useful tool as the 

Department looks for ways to improve current formula programs. 

Over time, each project will be audited for its performance and 

compared against its anticipated results. Over a 5-to-10-year 

period, this process will yield valuable data for analysis and recommendations for improving other surface transportation programs. 

Management Challenge 2: Maintaining 

Momentum in the Department’s Oversight

of Highway, Motor Vehicle, Hazardous

Materials, and Transit Safety

Issue 2A: Addressing motor vehicle safety defects

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Congress and the American public expect NHTSA to maintain a 

robust system for identifying potential vehicle safety defects and 

for taking corrective action if needed. Addressing this issue will 

strengthen the vehicle safety assurance process in the U.S., and 

build consumer trust and confidence in the vehicle defect 

identification and recall process.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

NHTSA has developed an Office of Defects Investigations (ODI) 

action plan to address the management recommendations of the 

OIG report. Several elements have already been implemented:

 The computer tracking system has been upgraded to ensure a 

more effective review and response to the 40,000+ consumer 

complaints received every year.

 NHTSA is developing a new computer program that increases 

the analytic power to synthesize safety complaints and 

information from the manufacturers to better identify 

emerging trends or concerns.

 Thee Agency has taken steps to ensure that all personal 

information of consumers who submit complaints is protected.

NHTSA also convened the first-ever meeting of vehicle safety 

enforcement agencies from other countries in June 2011 to 

support the development of an international network and 

working group on enforcement issues to better identity safety 

defects and exchange information on recalls.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

A number of other key elements of the plan that will be implemented 

in FY 2012 include:

 Better coordination and linkage of pre-investigation information 

from disparate sources, such as insurance company data;

 Development of a formal training program for ODI staff 

to ensure that investigators stay-up-to-date with the latest 

technology; and,

Implementation of a standard documentation and filing 

procedure to ensure more consistent and complete records.
60 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Section IV: Results or expected results

Numerous changes to the vehicle defect and recall system will 

be implemented to improve the timeliness of the process and the 

standardization of investigation documentation procedures. This 

along with additional staff training will result in a more efficient and 

effective system that will allow NHTSA to better identify, document, 

and address vehicle safety issues. For more detailed information on 

the OIG’s recommendations and NHTSA’s response and plans, see 

the OIG report page 47 at www.oig.dot.gov/library-item/5638.

Issue 2B: Strengthening motor carrier enforcement

programs and commercial driver’s license

(CDL) standards

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Despite the recent decrease in large-truck and bus fatalities, 

the OIG’s Top Management Challenges report for FY 2011 stated 

that the Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) 

must take additional actions to remove unsafe commercial drivers 

and motor carriers from the Nation’s highways. The OIG focused 

on FMCSA’s Commercial Driver’s License (CDL) program, new 

entrant carrier vetting initiative, implementation of the Compliance 

Safety Accountability (CSA), and census data reporting.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

In FY 2011, FMCSA closed or requested closure on the 11 remaining

open recommendations pertaining to the OIG’s Top Management 

Challenge dealing with the CDL program. The catalyst for closing 

the majority of the recommendations was a comprehensive rulemaking entitled “Commercial Driver’s License Testing and Commercial

Learner’s Permit Standards.” The rule amends the commercial driver’s

license knowledge and skills testing standards and establishes new 

minimum Federal standards for States to issue the commercial 

learner’s permit (CLP). The rule requires that a CLP holder meet 

virtually the same requirements as those for a CDL holder, meaning

that a driver holding a CLP will be subject to the same driver 

disqualification penalties that apply to a CDL holder.

Additionally, FMCSA continues to modify/strengthen the New Entrant 

Safety Assurance program to better identify start-up truck and bus 

companies deficient in key safety areas. The Agency continues 

to expand the impact of its New Applicant Screening tool, which 

detects unsafe carriers that are attempting to reincarnate as new 

entities in an attempt to avoid their previous safety records.

In FY 2011, the FMCSA completed a nine-state, 29-month CSA 

Operational Model Test. CSA is focused on initiating contact with 

more carriers and drivers, developing a new safety measurement 

system, applying a wider range of progressive interventions to 

correct high-risk behavior, and improving the efficient use of 

Agency resources. One such progressive intervention was a warning 

letter sent to underperforming carriers. The University of Michigan 

Transportation Research Institute performed an evaluation of CSA 

which concluded that the warning letter intervention is highly 

effective and found that a year after receiving a warning letter,

83 percent of the test carriers had resolved identified safety problems. 

The study also concluded that the expected number of carriers 

touched by CSA annually will be approximately 2.9 times greater 

than the current system based on compliance reviews alone.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

The Agency states in its 2012–2016 Strategic Plan that FMCSA 

is committed to removing high-risk carriers, drivers, and service 

providers from operation by creating and applying appropriate 

interventions and enforcement sanctions that bring about satisfactory 

behavior and improved safety performance.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The safety initiatives implemented in FY 2011 will improve safety, 

increase efficiency, and contribute to a reduction in highway fatalities, 

crashes, and injuries on the Nation’s roadways.

Issue 2C: Strengthening PHMSA’s Special Permits and

Approvals Program to achieve its safety mission

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) regulates up to 1 million movements of hazardous materials a day. Some of these materials are transported under special 

permits and approvals which under certain conditions allow relief 

from the Hazardous Materials regulations. In 2009–2010, audits 

from the U.S. Congress and the DOT Inspector General revealed 

programmatic deficiencies and shortcomings in PHMSA’s Special 

Permits and Approvals programs.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

PHMSA developed and implemented two comprehensive action 

plans to address the concerns identified by the OIG. Some of 

the initiatives include the development and implementation of 

standard operating procedures, renewed interoffice coordination 

policies, and increases in process transparency. These actions were 

completed in early FY 2011 and resulted in extensive increases in 

program accountability and consistency. PHMSA’s focused efforts 

to complete the action plans resulted in the closure of all 10 of the 

OIG recommendations by February 2011.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Although the 10 OIG recommendations are closed, PHMSA continues 

to work diligently to strengthen its oversight of the Special Permits 

and Approvals programs. Part of the action plans also included an IT 

modernization component to re-engineer and develop IT solutions 

to improve business efficiencies.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The efforts taken under the action plans have greatly increased the 

accountability, transparency, and consistency of the Special Permits 

and Approvals programs. PHMSA’s continuing efforts to implement 

IT solutions, including improved online access and system automation, 

will garner greater efficiency in its safety program.
61 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Management Challenge 3: Maintaining 

Momentum in Addressing Human Factors

and Improving Safety Oversight of the 

Aviation Industry

Issue 3A: Advancing industry and government efforts

to address pilot training and fatigue issues

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Fatigue threatens aviation safety because it increases the risk of 

pilot error that could lead to an accident. Several aviation-specific 

work schedule factors can affect sleep and subsequent alertness. 

These include early start times, extended work periods, insufficient 

time off between work periods, insufficient recovery time off between 

consecutive work periods, amount of work time within a shift or 

duty period, insufficient time off between work periods, number 

of consecutive work periods, night work through one’s window 

of circadian low, daytime sleep periods, and day-to-night or nightto-day transitions.

Section II: Actions Taken in FY 2011

The FAA took several actions to address pilot fatigue in 2011. 

These actions include: issuing guidance to Part 121 air carriers 

on the development and approval of fatigue risk management 

programs; contracting with the National Academy of Sciences 

(NAS) for a study on the effects of commuting on pilot fatigue; 

and issuing proposed new regulations for flight and duty limitations 

and rest requirements for Part 121 air carrier operations.

The Airline Safety and Federal Aviation Administration Extension 

Act of 2010 required all Part 121 air carriers to develop and submit 

a fatigue risk management plan (FRMP) by November 1, 2010. An 

FRMP is an air carrier’s management plan outlining policies and 

procedures for reducing the risks of flightcrew member fatigue and 

improving flightcrew member alertness. The plan can also serve

as the framework for an air carrier to develop a fatigue risk 

management system. To facilitate the development of an air carrier 

FRMP, the FAA issued an Information for Operators notice on August 19, 2010. All Part 121 air carriers have developed an FRMP. 

The FAA reviewed and approved all plans by August 15, 2011.

The FAA entered into an agreement with NAS to study the effects of 

commuting on pilot fatigue. In its report, NAS concluded that it had 

insufficient evidence to determine the extent to which commuting is a 

safety risk in commercial aviation. The FAA has reviewed the NAS 

report and determined that its current activities surrounding FRMP 

and rulemaking address the NAS recommendations.

Section III: Actions Remaining and Expected 

Completion Date

The FAA has developed its proposed final rule, which was 

published in 2012.

Section IV: Results or Expected Results

The FAA expects to see a reduction in pilot error resulting from 

fatigue. Individual air carriers will make revisions to their scheduling 

practices as a result of the fatigue reporting associated with the 

fatigue risk management programs. Air carrier pilots will know 

how to manage their personal contributors to fatigue as a result 

of improved education, which is also required by an FRMP. 

In the long term, FAA expects Part 121 air carriers to revise their 

scheduling practices to comply with the final rule.

Issue 3B: Enhancing risk-based oversight of Part 121 

air carriers and foreign and domestic repair stations

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Office of the Inspector General (OIG) considers FAA’s Nationallevel oversight of Air Transportation Oversight System (ATOS) 

inspections to be ineffective. The OIG also stated that FAA needs 

to do a better job identifying aircraft repair stations that perform 

safety-critical repairs and target its surveillance accordingly.

Section II: Actions Taken in FY 2011

To improve its oversight of ATOS inspections, FAA is tracking 

uncompleted ATOS inspections. This data is used to ensure that 

inspections are scheduled and staffing resources are assigned 

appropriately. 

To better target aircraft repair stations, FAA defined a new category 

of safety-critical maintenance as “essential maintenance” and 

requires its inspectors to perform an initial inspection of essential 

maintenance providers followed by triennial recurring inspections. 

The Agency clarified internal guidance to target resources for repair 

station inspections and published an advisory circular on contract 

maintenance best practices. 

Section III: Actions Remaining and Expected 

Completion Date

FAA will continue developing the Flight Standards Safety Assurance 

System, an improved system for oversight of air carriers and repair 

stations using system-safety principles. The Agency intends to 

complete system development by December 2013.

Section IV: Results or Expected Results

Beginning in FY 2010, FAA updated inspector guidance to clearly 

identify maintenance facilities that perform safety-critical maintenance and required an initial inspection of these facilities followed 

by triennial recurring inspections. These activities continued in 

FY 2011 and resulted in more rigorous oversight of foreign and 

domestic repair stations performing safety-critical maintenance.

Beginning in FY 2011, the Agency had the benefit of trending information regarding uncompleted ATOS inspections. This information 

is useful for ensuring compliance with National policy and identifying field office staffing disparities.
62 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Beginning in FY 2014, FAA will use its Safety Assurance System 

to provide enhanced oversight of air carriers and repair stations.

Management Challenge 4: Improving 

the Department’s Oversight of Highway, 

Transit, and Pipeline Infrastructure

Issue 4A: Tracking and monitoring States’ 

and localities’ use of Federal funds

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

OIG maintains that the FHWA Fiscal Management Information 

System (FMIS) lacks sufficient detail on States’ use of Highway 

Bridge Program (HBP) funds.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

The FHWA fulfilled the Federal-aid program requirements using 

existing legacy systems. Specifically, FHWA uses National Bridge 

Inventory (NBI) data to determine the States’ bridge needs and to 

apportion HBP funds. FHWA monitors and tracks the condition 

of the Nation’s bridges through information in the NBI. In response 

to the OIG’s January 2010 report, the FHWA initiated actions to 

explore possible enhancements to FMIS for collecting and analyzing

expenditures on the Nation’s bridges. Possible enhancements 

considered include more detailed project cost information. FHWA 

is currently evaluating the integration of existing standalone legacy 

systems and the collection of more detailed bridge project data.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Initial implementation of system enhancements to FMIS, which 

will include more detailed bridge project data, is targeted for 

September 2012. However, actual implementation is contingent 

upon funding and other factors.

Section IV: Results or expected results

FHWA aims to obtain additional data in a cost-effective way that 

will provide more detailed information to analyze and track activities 

undertaken by the States to improve the Nation’s bridges. FHWA will 

continue to take necessary steps to close OIG’s recommendation 

issued in its January 2010 report.

Issue 4B: Ensuring infrastructure safety and 

protecting federally funded highway and transit

projects from fraud

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The OIG maintains that FHWA must determine with greater 

consistency whether States complied with National Bridge Inspection

Standards (NBIS) and define procedural steps for enforcing 

compliance; and that the DOT and Operating Administrations 

must aggressively combat fraud, waste, and abuse.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

Enhancing bridge safety and improving oversight of the National 

Bridge Inspection Program is a long-standing objective of FHWA. 

In support of that goal, and in response to OIG’s recommendations, 

FHWA completed its effort to establish clearly defined levels of 

compliance and developed a uniform method for determining those 

levels of compliance. FHWA’s new oversight approach, launched in 

March 2011, includes 23 NBIS metrics (or quantified requirements) 

that can be independently assessed to determine compliance. A key 

difference from past practice is that FHWA moved from an overall 

compliance determination for a State to an individual compliance 

determination for each metric.

In an effort to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, FHWA established 

a dedicated team within the Office of Chief Counsel to work with 

FHWA’s Associate Administrator for Infrastructure, who serves 

as the Agency’s debarring official. This team is responsible for 

identification, review, and disposition of all pending suspension 

and matters within stated deadlines. The team immediately set 

about developing and implementing a revised set of detailed case 

processing protocols. Notably, FHWA’s revised protocols call for 

issuing suspension and proposed debarment orders within 45 days 

of notification to FHWA of an indictment from any source, or making 

a written justification as to why a suspension or debarment is not warranted under the circumstances. FHWA completed a comprehensive 

inventory of cases on hand and established a case tracking system 

that includes monthly status reports to management. Work is ongoing 

to reconcile FHWA tracking with the database managed by the 

Office of the Secretary.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Actions to address OIG’s recommendations issued in its January 2009 

report (“Develop and implement minimum requirements for datadriven, risk-based bridge oversight during bridge engineers’ annual 

NBIS compliance reviews” and “Develop a comprehensive plan 

to routinely conduct systematic, data-driven analysis to identify 

nationwide bridge safety risks, prioritize them, and target those 

higher priority risks for remediation in coordination with States”) 

are complete. OIG closed both recommendations in March 2011.

Action is ongoing to combat fraud, waste, and abuse. Specifically, 

subsequent to the OIG May 2009 Recovery Act Advisory on 

suspension and debarment, FHWA implemented a comprehensive 

review of suspension and debarment policies, processes, backlogs, 

and resources, and has actions completed and under way to substantially improve its handling of suspension and debarment referrals.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The Office of the Senior Procurement Executive (OSPE) concurred 

with OIG’s recommendation to “Improve the Office of the Senior 

Procurement Executive’s internal controls for the entry of accurate, 

complete, and timely suspension and debarment information to

Exclude Parties List System (EPLS), such as periodic reconciliations 

between SharePoint and EPLS.” Once OSPE’s revised SharePoint 

site is fully operational, DOT and the Operating Administrations 
63 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

will have the capability to continuously monitor and report on all 

suspension and debarment actions. FHWA continues to work with 

OSPE to ensure data accuracy in the SharePoint system that enables 

the Department to capture and document suspension and debarment 

actions in a more comprehensive manner than previously available.

Issue 4C: Ensuring pipeline operators identify 

and repair defects in oil and gas pipelines

in a timely manner

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

PHMSA and its State partners regulate more than 2.5 million miles 

of hazardous liquid and natural gas pipelines in the U.S. Many 

of these pipelines are more than 60 years old and may have been 

constructed from materials that would not be acceptable by today’s 

standards. Some may have been unknowingly damaged by outside 

forces, such as backhoes, and contain flaws that increase in severity 

with continued use of the pipeline. It is important that pipeline 

companies identify and repair these defects before they grow to 

critical size and put American lives at risk.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

August 2 marked the implementation date of new PHMSA regulations

for Distribution Integrity Management Plans (DIMP). This important 

rulemaking requires companies that supply natural gas to homes 

and businesses via distribution pipelines to apply risk management 

principles to their facilities. Companies must now identify threats to 

these pipelines and perform a risk assessment and integrity evaluation 

to ensure continued safe operation. The DIMP rule complements 

similar regulations already in place for natural gas transmission and 

hazardous liquid pipelines. PHMSA and its State partners continue 

to conduct focused integrity management inspections on all types 

of pipelines to ensure that pipeline risks are addressed.

PHMSA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking in 2011 

requesting comment on whether integrity management regulations 

for gas transmission pipelines should be extended beyond areas 

where a failure “could affect” high consequence areas or sensitive 

environmental areas. PHMSA also continues to increase public 

awareness of 811 “Call Before You Dig” programs and damage 

prevention programs to decrease outside force damage. PHMSA 

continues to urge all stakeholders to increase research and 

development funding for pipeline safety technology needs.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

PHMSA will evaluate comments on extending the integrity 

management regulations and develop rulemaking as appropriate 

during 2012–2013; complete rulemaking to enforce State damage 

prevention laws in 2012; and develop a National 811 public awareness campaign in 2012. In 2012, PHMSA will hold a research and 

development workshop to identify gaps in technology. PHMSA 

research funds will be allocated to address the highest value 

projects that will respond to the identified gaps.

Section IV: Results or expected results

Results of these activities will reduce the number of new damages 

to pipelines and remove defects currently existing in all types 

of pipelines across the country.

Management Challenge 5: Identifying 

Sufficient Funding Sources to Support

Future Federal Investment in Surface 

Transportation Infrastructure

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Revenues into the Highway Trust Fund are below authorized 

expenditures, creating funding shortfalls. Short-term authorizations 

make it impossible for States and local governments to develop 

necessary long-term plans for highway, bridge, and transit repair 

and construction.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

In February 2011, the Department submitted the Administration’s 

six-year Surface Transportation Plan, with funding levels. 

The Department continued stakeholder outreach and coordination, 

which will be ongoing until Congress passes a bill.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Relevant Congressional leaders are targeting March 2012 to pass a 

Reauthorization Bill at substantially the same levels as the last bill.

Section IV: Results or expected results

DOT anticipates a six-year solution to Highway Trust Fund 

solvency in or after March 2012.

Management Challenge 6: Transforming 

FRA to Address Significantly Expanded 

Oversight Responsibilities

Issue 6A: Providing sufficient oversight of the 

implementation and management of the High-Speed 

and Intercity Passenger Rail (HSIPR) Program

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Utilizing high-speed rail grant funds could be a significant challenge 

for States. The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) will not 

disburse funds until States finalize agreements with freight railroads 

that specify the improvements the projects are to achieve. Freight 

railroads have voiced concerns about certain requirements in these 

agreements. Specifically, the railroads claim that requiring the freight 

railroads to incur all expenses necessary to ensure that passenger rail 

service meets on-time metrics would be unduly burdensome.
64 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

FRA has made substantial progress in working with States and 

freight railroads on finalizing agreements to get funds obligated. 

As of September 30, 2011, FRA had obligated more than $8 Billion 

for high-speed and intercity passenger rail projects, including 

98 percent of Recovery Act funds. FRA has increased its efforts to 

further clarify for States and freight railroads the types of agreements 

and conditions that are required to obligate funds, and to date has 

entered into agreements with all but one of the Class I freight 

railroads that have an HSIPR project. Discussions with States and 

negotiations with the freight railroads have significantly resolved 

misconceptions and misunderstandings, and further guidance will 

allow for continued progress and more acceptable agreements.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

FRA is continuing to obligate funds as projects meet the obligation 

requirements. FRA anticipates obligating the remaining $1.7 billion 

of awards by September 30, 2012. FRA expects to:

Provide specific guidance to States and freight railroads 

on the types of agreements and conditions required to 

obligate funds; and,

 Continue working with the States and freight railroads 

to complete acceptable agreements.

Section IV: Results or expected results

Acceptable agreements will be in place for the program that will 

allow FRA to obligate HSIPR funds and projects to move forward.

Issue 6B: Addressing new Passenger Rail Improvement and Investment Act (PRIIA) requirements

to enhance passenger rail

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

FRA must balance such new PRIIA requirements as initiatives 

to improve or establish intercity passenger rail service; design a 

long-range National rail plan; and develop metrics for passenger 

rail service quality with FRA’s traditional grant and loan programs. 

The Rail Line Relocation discretionary grant, Railroad Rehabilitation 

and Improvement Financing loan, and Amtrak grant programs 

accounted for 37 percent of FRA’s $4.4-billion FY 2010 budget.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

FRA is realigning its organizational structure by establishing regional 

managers whose portfolios will include projects from all programs 

that the Office of Passenger and Freight Programs administers. 

Procedures for managing the portfolios are being developed, including 

status reports for management and other stakeholders. These procedures and performance targets and metrics will be included in the 

regional managers’ performance plans. Specific training requirements 

in the areas of grant management and project development, delivery, 

and oversight are being identified in the performance plans. FRA 

is also establishing working groups to define and develop internal 

business processes, technical guidance for grantees, and a long-term 

project monitoring program.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

In FY 2012, FRA expects to:

 Complete all administrative requirements for the new 

organizational structure and performance planning;

 Develop procedures for managing project portfolios, 

including reporting schedules and formats;

 Conduct training in the areas of grant management and 

project development, delivery, and oversight; and,

 Develop internal business processes, technical guidance 

for grantees, and a long-term project monitoring program.

Section IV: Results or expected results

FRA will have an organizational structure and processes in place 

that will provide for efficient and effective management and 

oversight of all programs through an integrated approach.

Issue 6C: Ensuring the safe and secure movement

of people and goods while undertaking increased 

passenger rail responsibilities

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Railroad Safety Improvement Act (RSIA) requires FRA 

to develop a long-term strategy for improving railroad safety, 

including annual plans to address six specified goals. RSIA further 

requires FRA to establish a discretionary grant program to support 

the development and deployment of positive train control 

(PTC) technologies.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

FRA uses the following tools to address this issue:

National Inspection Program;

Risk Reduction Program;

Rail Safety Technology and other grants;

Regulations and regulatory relief;

Rail Safety Advisory Committee; and,

 Stakeholder outreach and dialogue.

FRA will periodically revise its safety strategy and annual plans to 

reflect the most current data. FRA has awarded funds appropriated 

to date for Rail Safety Technology grants.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

FRA plans to continue these activities in FY 2012:

Rail Safety Technology grant oversight;

 Outreach to freight, passenger, and commuter railroads 

to identify and resolve development and installation issues 

associated with PTC; and,
65 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

 Outreach to new passenger railroads and host freight railroads 

to ensure safe operation.

FRA also plans to undertake these activities in FY 2012:

 Issue Notices of Proposed Rulemaking on risk reduction 

programs for freight and passenger railroads to provide 

PTC regulatory relief;

Issue a proposed rule on emergency notification systems 

for grade crossings;

Issue final rules on hours of service and crew fatigue for

passenger carriers, conductor certification, and safety 

and health requirements related to camp cars;

 Complete regulatory guidance for structural and occupant 

protection for high-speed equipment; and,

 Type approval of the Electronic Train Management System 

and Vital Electronic Train Management PTC systems.

Section IV: Results or expected results

In FY 2012 FRA expects to see: 

 Fewer train accidents and non-accident releases of hazardous 

materials; 

Significant progress toward resolution of PTC 

development and deployment issues; and, 

Significant progress toward PTC system deployment.

In the future FRA expects to see: 

Enhanced freight railroad capacity;

Expanded passenger service, including high-speed rail;

Successful implementation of PTC systems; and

 Improved ability to address emerging problems quickly

and effectively.

Issue 6D: Balancing an increased and diversified 

workload with the continuing need to oversee 

Amtrak operations

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The PRIIA requires FRA to produce quarterly reports on Amtrak’s 

cost recovery, ridership, on-time performance, minutes and causes 

of delay, on-board services, stations, facilities, and equipment. 

Also, FRA must oversee Amtrak compliance with requirements to 

ensure that its services and facilities are accessible to individuals 

with disabilities.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

FRA has produced the required quarterly reports on the performance 

and service quality of intercity passenger train operations. The reports 

are available at www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/passenger/2165.shtml.

FRA has interagency agreements in place with the Volpe Center to 

oversee Amtrak’s Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation 

Act projects. In addition, the Agency uses a database to track 

the status of projects. The Office of Civil Rights audits Amtrak 

compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Rehabilitation Act requirements.

FRA and Amtrak cooperatively developed the PRIIA-required cost 

accounting system. FRA’s report on the system is available at 

www.fra.dot.gov/rpd/ passenger/1240.shtml.

The Next Generation Equipment Committee has been established 

and published technical specifications for bi-level and single-level 

passenger cars and locomotives. Information on the Committee’s 

activities is available at www.highspeedrail.org/Pages/

Section305Committee.aspx.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

In FY 2012, FRA expects to continue using the Volpe Center 

to conduct oversight of Amtrak’s future-year capital programs. 

Using FY 2010 appropriated funds, FRA has a grant agreement 

with Amtrak to support the Next Generation Equipment Committee.

The Agency intends to amend the existing grant agreement with 

Amtrak to add FY 2011 appropriated funds.

Section IV: Results or expected results

FRA expects that Amtrak will continue making substantial progress 

toward complying with the Americans with Disabilities Act and 

Rehabilitation Act. The Next Generation Equipment Committee 

will also continue developing specifications for near-term 

equipment purchases.

Management Challenge 7: Advancing 

the Next Generation Air Transportation

System while Ensuring the Safe and 

Efficient Operation of the National

Airspace System

Issue 7A: Establishing realistic plans and 

setting expectations for NextGen

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Next Generation Air Transportation System (NextGen), 

a satellite-based air traffic control system intended to replace the 

current ground-based system, is vital to revolutionizing the U.S. 

aviation system and sustaining the Nation’s long-term economic 

growth. FAA has struggled to establish realistic plans and set 

expectations for NextGen in the near, mid, and long term. FAA 

has not yet established detailed milestones to complete initiatives 

at high-activity locations that affect delays Nationwide.
66 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

The NextGen Management Board, chaired by the FAA Deputy 

Administrator, and the NextGen Review Board developed a set 

of milestones to track key NextGen issues. These milestones 

are drawn from NextGen’s multiple programs and are parallel. 

These milestones and their results are as follows:

 Milestone 1—Approve Area Navigation (RNAV) and 

Required Navigation Performance (RNP) for closely spaced 

parallel runway approaches. In September 2011, the FAA 

updated Order 7110.65 to approve any combination of RNAV, 

RNP, Localizer Performance with Vertical Guidance and 

Instrument Landing System for simultaneous independent 

and dependent approaches to closely spaced parallel runways.

 Milestone 2—Metroplex Optimization of Airspace and 

Procedures. The study phase was completed for the Charlotte, 

Northern California, and Houston metroplexes in September 

2011. Additional studies in Atlanta and Southern California 

were under way in September 2011.

 Milestone 3—Continuous Low Energy, Emissions and 

Noise (CLEEN). By September 30, 2011, the FAA had 

completed a low-speed wind tunnel demonstration of a 

subscale B737 aircraft.

 Milestone 4—Automated Terminal Proximity Alert (ATPA). 

ATPA has been implemented at Minneapolis, St. Louis, 

Denver, and Chicago.

 Milestone 5—NavLean Implementation Plan. The NavLean 

Implementation Plan was approved in June 2011.

 Milestone 6—Recommendations from the ADS-B Aviation 

Rulemaking Committee (ARC). The ADS-B ARC completed 

its final recommendations as of September 30, 2011.

Milestone 7—System Wide Information Management 

(SWIM). SWIM-related work for the activities was completed 

and implemented on September 30, 2011, except for the

 portion that depends on a later ERAM release.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

An FAA internal group has been working closely with the NextGen 

Advisory Committee and will deliver a final set of FAA NextGen 

metrics to the NextGen Management Board for approval in 

December 2011.

Section IV: Results or expected results

These efforts will immediately improve efficiency and the operational 

availability of NAS resources. Establishing FAA NextGen metrics in 

FY 2012 will improve FAA’s long-term planning for NextGen.

Issue 7B: Addressing problems with ongoing

modernization projects that are essential

to NextGen’s success

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

FAA’s ERAM program missed critical baseline milestones in FY 2009 

and FY 2010. ERAM is considered a transformational program that 

is necessary for the agency to sustain current en route operations as 

well as facilitate usage of the planned NextGen capabilities.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

During FY 2011, the ERAM team received authorization to deploy 

the solution on March 29, 2011. Shortly after, due to continuing 

concerns with some core air traffic control functionality in ERAM, 

a TIGER team was established to determine improvements 

necessary to give the Agency confidence in moving through the 

complete deployment of ERAM. This TIGER team developed a list 

of 117 issues needing to be corrected prior to commencing the waterfall deployment. The 117 improvements have been developed 

in three software releases between April and September.

The Agency expects that ERAM will achieve initial operations 

(defined as IOC) on ERAM at four to six additional sites by the 

end of calendar year 2011. This will begin the transition from initial 

through extended and on to continuous operations at these sites 

following a site benchmarking process.

In June 2011, the FAA re-baselined the ERAM program based 

on the missed program baseline milestones. The acquisition cost 

baseline was increased by $330 million and the acquisition program 

baseline schedule was extended to a last site operational readiness 

date (ORD) of August 2014.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Continue with the waterfall deployment of ERAM in FY2012 

and FY2013. At each Air Route Traffic Control Centers (ARTCC) 

site these activities include: air traffic and technical operations 

system checkout, conducting air traffic and technical operations 

refresher training, setting up site-specific adaptation parameters, 

and delivering software releases with site-specific content. 

Expected results include:

 Achieve initial operation at four to six ARTCC sites by 

December 31, 2011;

Achieve initial operation at five to seven additional ARTCC 

sites by September 30, 2012; and,

 Achieve initial operation at remaining seven ARTCC sites 

by September 30, 2013.
67 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Section IV: Results or expected results

Accomplish the overall ERAM acquisition program baseline 

by achieving last site operations by August 2014.

Issue 7C: Maximizing the delivery and implementation 

of new performance-based navigation initiatives

that can enhance capacity and reduce delays

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

As air travel continues to be a way of life, increasing demands are 

made on airspace capacity. Although FAA is maximizing the efficiency and safety of the National Airspace System (NAS) through 

performance-based navigation (PBN) and airspace redesign, there 

is a need to streamline and expedite the implementation processes. 

Consistent implementation methodology and developing integrated 

benefit-focused projects are two key areas that will resolve the issue.

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

In FY 2011, FAA continued to refine the integrated airspace and 

procedures concept. The goal is to ensure that the system works 

for everyone, including air traffic controllers, pilots, airports, 

and the community.

In FY 2011, FAA completed the Draft FAA Order, “Process 

for Development and Implementation of Performance-Based 

Navigation (PBN) Procedures and Routes.” This order provides

a standardized process for the development and implementation 

of applications.

FAA’s PBN goals were aligned with the Administrator’s Destination 

2025 strategic vision. The new benefit-focused PBN goals were 

approved by the Administrator in February 2011. These include 

integrated PBN projects in metroplex areas, high-altitude area 

navigation routes, and promoting PBN concepts globally.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

 Review and approve the new Safety Management System-compliant PBN Order scheduled for completion by September 2012.

Release Interim Guidance documents for streamlined processing 

of Standard Instrument Departures/Standard Terminal Arrival 

Routes and Required Navigation Performance processes PBN 

Order in FY 2012.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The expected result, this year and in the future, is to have 

a streamlined process for design and implementation of benefitfocused integrated PBN projects.

Issue 7D: Ensuring a sufficient number of certified 

professional controllers at critical facilities

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The FAA estimates that it will need to hire and train nearly 

11,000 new air traffic controllers between FY 2011 and FY 2020. 

Some of these new hires will be assigned to complex facilities. 

Because of this, the FAA needs to minimize the risk that less 

experienced controllers impose on the most critical facilities 

to the National Airspace System (NAS). Key challenges will be 

ensuring adequate staffing, training resources, and other support 

to maintain continuity of facility operations.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

The FAA certified more than 1,000 controllers by the end of July 

2011, two months ahead of the fiscal-year goal. It published its 

annual Controller Workforce Plan update in March, detailing 

the latest staffing strategy, initiatives, and results. The Agency 

continues to closely monitor workforce attrition.

In order to staff NAS-critical facilities with experienced controllers, 

beginning in FY 2011 FAA restricted placement of inexperienced 

new hires into the busiest facilities. To attract internal certified 

professional controllers to the critical facilities, the FAA offered 

relocation funds and bonuses.

In addition, FAA is piloting the Operational Assessment Program 

(OAP), which screens applicants who want to transfer to TRACON 

facilities with more complex air traffic. The program includes a 

knowledge exam and skills assessment as part of the pre-selection 

criteria, which would provide the hiring manager with additional 

data to consider in making the hiring decisions. OAP could screen 

out applicants who lack skills to succeed at more complex and 

NAS-critical facilities.

The FAA required all new hires destined to the busiest TRACONs to 

attend the FAA Academy’s Terminal Skills Enhancement Workshop, 

which provides additional practice in simulators to prepare students 

for a more complex air traffic environment, many of which are 

NAS-critical facilities.

The FAA also deployed additional simulators and training equipment 

to the field to expand use of e-learning content delivery, enhance 

realism for training scenarios, and increase automation. The Agency 

installed the SimFast terminal radar simulator capability at more than 

50 locations that did not previously have access to a terminal radar 

simulator and deployed six additional Tower Simulator Systems to 

the field and the FAA Academy. By increasing use of simulators for 

refresher training, controllers have the opportunity to hone air traffic 

skills and increase technical proficiency.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Ensuring adequate staffing at NAS-critical facilities is an ongoing 

goal for the FAA. Upcoming milestones include:

 Expand OAP pilot to Atlanta and Southern California 

TRACONs in the first quarter of FY 2012;

 Use additional vacancy announcements in FY 2012 to transfer 

controllers with previous air traffic experience to NAS-critical 

facilities;

 Develop a refresher course for On-the-Job Training Instructors 

to improve their teaching competency and performance as 

instructors in FY 2012;
68 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

 Develop and implement a skill enhancement workshop at the 

FAA Academy for students assigned to the busiest control 

towers so students arrive at their assigned facilities better 

prepared for a more complex air traffic environment; and,

 Manage training content using a Learning Content Management 

System, which allows content developers to search, find, and 

reuse learning.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The FAA expects that controllers-in-training at NAS-critical facilities 

will benefit from recent enhancements to FAA training and will 

progress to earn facility ratings in line with FAA goals. By shifting 

more experienced controllers to more complex facilities instead of 

training inexperienced new hires at those sites, the FAA will see 

reduced attrition and quicker time to certification. As the Agency 

executes the comprehensive Controller Workforce Plan, it continues 

to modify curriculum and upgrade technology to improve how it 

teaches today’s workforce. FAA expects to more effectively provide 

training-related data on a regular basis. This allows stakeholders 

to identify trends and strategically target support to improve field

training delivery.

Management Challenge 8: Implementing 

Processes to Improve the Department’s

Acquisitions and Contract Management

Issue 8A: Strengthening processes to govern

the appropriate use of non-competitive or risky 

contracts and maximum use of competition

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Recent Administration contracting initiatives underscore governmentwide use of competition and fixed-price contracts and require 

agencies to perform effective price analysis to mitigate risks for 

noncompetitive contract awards. However, the Department annually awards over $1.8 billion using sole-source, cost-reimbursable, 

time-and-materials, and labor hours contracts, which represent 

the greatest risk to the Government because they are inefficient 

and subject to misuse. Most of these contracts are awarded by 

the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) and the Federal Motor 

Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA).

Section II: Actions taken in FY 2011

The agencies developed independent action plans for addressing 

their particular acquisition challenges.

In FY 2011 FMCSA:

 Developed 9 acquisition management standard 

operating procedures;

Established an Acquisition Review Panel; and,

 Formalized an acquisition quality assurance review 

program to ensure Federal acquisition regulations are 

followed throughout the contracting process.

FAA:

Continued training and education for Contracting Officers, 

Contracting Officer’s Technical Representatives and 

Program Managers;

 Reviewed 225 awards to measure compliance with applicable 

policy; and,

 Tracked trend data monthly on the value of procurements, 

competition and types of contracts awarded.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

Both agencies have completed all the action items associated 

with this issue.

Section IV: Results or expected results

Establishing new policies and procedures will help FMCSA 

improve pre-award, contract award, and contract administration. 

FAA has already seen improvement in its market analysis, acquisition 

planning and cost/price analysis as a result of the steps it took 

in FY 2011. The actions taken in both agencies will reduce the 

potential for loss and misuse due to risky contract awards.

Issue 8B: Strengthening the acquisition function 

and workforce to provide leadership for the 

Department’s acquisitions

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Within the next five years it is estimated that 46% of the contract 

specialist in the Department will be eligible to retire. The Department 

needs to ensure that it has an appropriately sized and skilled acquisition workforce to meet its needs. This becomes even more important 

during times of resource constraints. A highly skilled acquisition 

workforce will help ensure that the Department makes good business 

decisions and maximizes value for its contracting dollars.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

The Office of the Secretary successfully recruited and filled a 

number of long term vacancies among its senior leadership positions 

in the Office of the Senior Procurement Executive (OSPE). These 

positions include the Senior Procurement Executive; the Associate 

Director of Acquisition Policy, Oversight, and Business Strategies; 

the Associated Director of Information Systems, Management and 

Reporting; and the Associate Director of Acquisition Services.

Under the leadership of the OSPE, the Office of the Secretary 

executed a memorandum of understanding among all the operating administrations establishing a DOT Acquisition Rotational 

Exchange Program. The purpose of the program is to support the 

professional development of contracting staff through temporary 

rotational assignments between Operating Administrations.

In cooperation with the Office of Human Resources, the OSPE has 

developed a program guide for use by operating administrations to 

support the development of students in the contract specialist series.
69 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

FAA’s procurement function operates seperately from the Department’s, 

so FAA has pursued its own action plan for strengthening its 

acquisition workforce. In FY 2011 FAA:

Developed an Acquisition Workforce Plan;

 Developed recruiting strategies for identifying and hiring 

acquisition professionals;

 Created an acquisition workforce community of practice 

portal on the agency intranet; and,

 Enhanced existing acquisition courses.

FAA created an Acquisition Workforce Council which meets 

monthly to discuss the progress of its workforce initiatives.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

In FY 2012, the Department’s Office of the Senior Procurement 

Executive will develop a strategy to increase the percentage 

of contracting officers and contracting officer’s technical representatives who have Federal Acquisition Certification. FAA will 

continue pursuing its workforce initiatives.

Section IV: Results or expected results

All senior acquisition positions have been filled, laying the ground 

work for improved acquisition services, strengthened program stewardship, and organizational stability. The opportunities available 

through the DOT Acquisition Rotational Exchange Program will 

create a more highly skilled workforce. Through stable leadership 

and improved career development opportunities, the Department 

expects acquisition staff retention to improve.

Issue 8C: Maintaining programs to help ensure 

high ethical standards among the Department’s

contractors and employees

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

Maintaining programs to ensure high ethical standards among 

contractors and employees is important as those employees have 

oversight of billions of dollars annually.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

In 2011, the Office of the Chief Counsel, Acquisition and Commercial

Law Division, created three separate training modules focused 

on Contract Fraud and Abuse, Controlling Contract Waste and 

Suspension and Debarment. The modules were created to target 

Acquisition personnel. In conjunction with the Electronic Learning

Management Office (eLMS) the modules were placed into the 

training lists of all identifiable contracting officers, contracting 

specialists, contracting officer’s technical representatives and program 

managers. The training modules were made available to all targeted 

Agency personnel on August 5, 2011.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

The Office of the Chief Counsel continues to respond to questions 

regarding the training material. All questions from the material are 

used to tweak and re-define the modules for future training sessions.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The expected result is a more ethical and knowledgeable acquisition 

staff. With a clearer understanding of their ethical and legal responsibilities, over time, employees will be able to identify and prevent 

procurement fraud, waste and abuse.

Management Challenge 9: Improving 

the Department’s Cybersecurity

Issue 9A: Establishing a robust information

security program

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The DOT operates and oversees significant elements of the critical 

infrastructure of the United States. Much of the DOT framework 

relies upon, and is integrated with, computer networks, computer 

mediated communications, online databases, and a wide variety of 

other computer and computer network capabilities. Cybersecurity 

attacks against any piece of the infrastructure have the potential for 

serious consequences to critical operations, either in a direct failure 

of a system or in the compromise of information.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

Finalized Version 1 of the Cybersecurity Strategic Plan—

December 2010;

Deployed IT Vital Signs dashboard for performance management and monitoring across the department—April 2011;

 Compliance review of all operating administration 

cybersecurity programs—June 2011;

 Issuance of revised comprehensive Departmental 

Cybersecurity Policy—July 2011;

 Plan for pilot to require use of DOT Personal Identity 

Verification (PIV) card as primary authenticator for network 

login—September 2011;

Increased PIV card issuance and provisioning for a total

of 15,107 non-FAA cards. More than 90 percent of security 

configurations for DOT assets approved—October 2011;

 Hiring of cybersecurity specialist for forensic analysis, 

and compliance assessment—October 2011; and,

In response to an idea posted on IdeaHub, a TIGER team 

was formed to execute a Password Reduction project that 

will reduce the burden of excessive usernames and passwords 

on employees.
70 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

 Develop standardized Departmental cybersecurity procedures 

(phase 1)—February 2012.

 Implement secure DNS for third-level domains and below—

March 2012.

 Improve response to US-CERT security alerts 

to 100 percent—March 2012.

 Consolidate external network connections to DHS-approved 

Trusted Internet Connections (TICs)—April 2012.

 Complete hiring of cybersecurity vacancies—September 2012.

 Pilot and select technology to support continuous monitoring—

December 2012.

Complete issuance of PIV cards to all personnel— 

December 2012.

Section IV: Results or expected results

It is expected that the establishment of strong Departmental 

cybersecurity policy will serve as the foundation for office and 

Agency programs to manage risk across the Federal network. 

Key among the controls to be implemented will be increased use 

of the PIV card to access DOT networks and systems, increased use 

of Federally approved secure standard configurations for systems 

and technology assets, and enhancement of the DOT CIO’s cybersecurity workforce to provide improved expertise and coverage 

in development and operation of the Department’s program.

Issue 9B: Strengthening air traffic control

system protections

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

FAA’s NextGen system relies on a number of new technologies 

to achieve its goal. As FAA develops NextGen, it must continue 

to protect its current air traffic control (ATC) systems. The Office 

of the Inspector General has stated that FAA has not established 

adequate Intrusion Detection System (IDS) capabilities to monitor 

and detect potential cybersecurity incidents at key ATC facilities. 

Additionally, FAA has not developed or identified a timetable 

for deploying IDS beyond specified TRACON facilities.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

FAA is implementing a suite of cyber protection mechanisms for 

the National Airspace System that do not solely rely on static IDS 

signature-based detection mechanisms. The following is a summary 

of the protection mechanisms being implemented:

Modified ATO Notice 1370.44 to include policy that establishes 

formal security requirements derived from NIST 800-53, 

Recommended Security Controls for Federal Information 

Systems and Organizations (15 August 2011);

 Began the Project Initiation Phase for a centralized NAS 

monitoring capability (30 August 2011);

 Included policy statement for NAS Operational Contract 

Services to comply with defined security requirements. 

Vendor services that are contracted by the FAA to perform 

NAS functions must follow FAA security requirements 

(30 September 2011); and,

 Coordinated Agency NAS Cyber Event Response steps: 

Completed draft of NAS Incident Response SOP

(30 September 2011).

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

All planned actions to address this issue have been completed.

Section IV: Results or expected results

 2011 Impact: Formal NAS security requirements will be 

levied on contractor-provided NAS services. Centralized 

NAS cyber event monitoring and agency-level response 

will be initiated.

 Future Impact: NAS contract services will be secured at the 

same level as NAS-owned systems. NAS Cyber Operations 

will provide for fully centralized NAS cyber detection and 

response capability.

Issue 9C: Increasing protection of personally 

identifiable information (PII)

Section I: Why is this issue significant?

The Department’s safety mission relies significantly on the trust 

relationship between the Department and the American people. 

If the public cannot trust the Department to collect, use, store, share, 

and dispose of PII in ways that do not unnecessarily erode individual 

privacy, then it is less likely to trust other activities conducted 

by the Department. Additionally, failure to appropriately assess 

privacy risk and protect PII creates unnecessary exposure and 

increases the potential for information to be lost, stolen, or used in an 

unauthorized manner, causing physical, financial and/or reputational 

harm to individuals as well as embarrassment, increased oversight, 

and loss of funding for the Department.

Section II: Actions taken IN FY 2011

Hiring of Departmental Chief Privacy Officer (CPO) to establish 

program direction and operational oversight—February 2011.

 Establishment of CPO oversight of incident response management for those incidents with a nexus to privacy—June 2011.

Section III: Actions remaining and expected 

completion date

 Initiate review of existing privacy documentation in accordance 

with Privacy Act and E-Government Act—January 2012.

 Revamp compliance management program with focus 

on critical privacy risk analysis—January 2012.

 Develop and deploy dedicated role-based privacy training 

for general staff, privacy officers, project managers, and 

executives—June 2012.
71 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

 Rationalize and appropriately reduce use of sensitive PII, 

including but not limited to social security numbers, 

throughout Department—January 2013.

 Establish privacy program built on best practices endorsed

by the CIO Council—June 2012.

Section IV: Results or expected results

The Department currently faces significant risk of unauthorized 

collection, use, and exposure of PII. Implementing a robust privacy 

program allows for privacy controls to be injected into the business 

and system development lifecycles at the initial stages and increases 

staff awareness of their responsibility to protect PII and report 

unauthorized activity.

AMERICAN RECOVERY AND REINVESTMENT

ACT OF 2009

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (Recovery 

Act) was an extraordinary response to a crisis unlike any since the 

Great Depression. This landmark legislation was the most sweeping 

and ambitious domestic aid package the Federal Government has 

implemented in generations. It reflected an unprecedented effort 

to jumpstart our economy, create or save millions of jobs, and put 

a down payment on addressing long-neglected challenges. Since 

the President signed this hallmark legislation on February 17, 2009, 

the Department of Transportation has worked hard to ensure that 

the Recovery Act was implemented quickly, wisely, and with unprecedented transparency and accountability to finance transportation 

projects throughout America. 

Status at the Close of Fiscal Year 2011 Since the 

enactment of the Recovery Act, the Department of Transportation has:

Obligated $47. 6 billion (99%) of the $48. 1 billion 

in funds provided;

Disbursed over $-31. 8 billion from the U.S. Treasury 

to pay bills associated with Recovery Act activities; and,

Supported over 15,000 projects. 

TRANSIT — $8.8 billion

The Federal Transit Administration (FTA) obligated 100% of its $8.4 

billion in Recovery Act funds before September 30, 2010. In doing 

so, the FTA awarded 983 ARRA grants to over 600 recipients for 

capital projects to improve the condition of the nation’s transit assets. 

In addition, the FTA obligated $443 million in FHWA Recovery Act 

funds (covering 89 projects) where States and localities chose to 

“flex” highway resources to transit investments. More information 

is provided at: www.fta.dot.gov/about/12350_11887.html

HIGHWAYS — $26.6 billion

A major portion of DOT’s Recovery Act resources was at work 

improving our highways and bridges. Of the $27.5 billion appropriated specifically to the FHWA, the States obligated $26.6 billion 
72 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

or 100% of their funding to support work on more than 12,900 

projects as of September 30, 2010. $443 million of FHWA Recovery 

Act funding was ‘flexed’ to FTA for transit projects in some States 

while $500 million was obligated to the Department of the Interior 

for use on Federal lands. More information is provided at: 

www.fhwa.dot.gov/economicrecovery/index.htm

RAIL — $9. 3 billion

High-Speed Rail — $8 billion The Recovery Act provided 

$8 billion to the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) to develop 

and expand high speed rail capability in the United States. By 

the end of FY 2011, FRA had obligated more than $8 billion for 

high-speed rail initiatives. Most of this investment is in seven largescale service development programs. The remaining funds were to 

smaller corridor programs and individual construction projects 

that provided independent utility. 

AMTRAK — $1.3 billion The Recovery Act provided $1.3 billion

for Amtrak to improve and expand its fleet, track, bridges, 

tunnels, and signals, as well as improve the safety and security 

of its facilities. In FY 2009, FRA obligated 100% of the $450 million

that was specifically designated for capital security grants to 

Amtrak. As of September 30, 2011, FRA has outlayed 100% 

of the remaining funds to Amtrak. More information is provided at: 

www.fra.dot.gov/us/content/2153 

AVIATION — $1.3 billion

Airport Grants—$1.1 billion The Federal Aviation 

Administration (FAA) provided $1.1 billion in funding for upgrades 

and improvements on runways and airport facilities in Fiscal Year 

2009. These projects enhanced safety, capacity, and security at airports. They included construction or rehabilitation of new airports, 

runways, runway safety areas, taxiways, aprons, terminal buildings, 

and Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting buildings. Because many 

projects came in under budget, FAA was able to fund 372 projects, 

72 more than originally anticipated. By the end of FY 2011, virtually 

every project was completed. 

Airport Facilities and Equipment Upgrades— 

$200 million FAA’s Facilities and Equipment Upgrades program 

finances major capital investments related to modernizing and 

improving air traffic control and airway facilities, equipment, and 

systems. Of the $200 million provided for Facilities and Equipment 

Upgrades, $198.3 million was obligated at the end of FY 2010, 

supporting 398 infrastructure projects. By the end of FY 2011 

nearly all of the facilities and equipment projects that were 

underway have been physically completed nationwide and outlays 

totaled $160 million at the end of FY 2011. More information is 

provided at: www.faa.gov/recovery 

MARITIME—$100 million

The Recovery Act provided the Maritime Administration (MARAD) 

with $98 million in grant funding to make capital and infrastructure 

improvements at small shipyards. The grants provided to the shipyards 

will facilitate the efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and quality of 

domestic ship construction, conversion, or repair for commercial 

and government use. MARAD obligated 100% of the $100 million 

in Small Shipyard ARRA funding ($98 million in grant funding and 

$2 million in administrative funding) for 70 projects, of which all 

but one are underway or already completed. For more information, 

go to: www.marad.dot.gov/about_us_landing_page/marad_

recovery_act/recovery.htm

GRANTS FOR National SURFACE TRANSPORTATION

SYSTEMS—$1. 52 billion

Supplemental Discretionary Grants for National

Surface Transportation System—$1.5 billion

The Recovery Act provided the Office of the Secretary of 

Transportation $1.5 billion in grant funding for capital investments 

in surface transportation infrastructure projects that will have a 

significant impact on the Nation, a metropolitan area, or a region 

(including highway, bridge, public transportation, passenger rail, 

freight rail, and port infrastructure projects). On February 17, 2010, 

51 awards were announced. In FY 2010 19 TIGER project grant 

agreements were executed, 10 TIGER project grant agreements 

were pending final negotiation, and 9 TIGER projects were under 

way across the country. All 51 projects are expected to be obligated 

before the September 30, 2011, obligation deadline. 

Jobs & Projects

One of the primary goals of the Recovery Act was to preserve and 

create jobs. The money appropriated to DOT by the Recovery Act 

is doing exactly what Congress intended it to do: it is creating jobs 

and reinvigorating our economy. On average, DOT created or saved 

more than 46,000 FTE per quarter throughout the past 4 reporting 

periods and had more than 67,500 FTE in the peak of construction 

(July–September 2010). In total, DOT obligated 15,061 projects 

Nationwide and more than 10,000 projects were completed at the 

end of FY 2011. 

Throughout the course of the Recovery Act, the Department has 

carefully monitored job creation and retention and based on our 

analysis of the most recent 1201 (c) report to Congress determined 

that from the roughly 1,000 people DOTs programs directly employed 

in April 2009, jobs numbers grew to over 82,400 direct onsite or 

equipment manufacturing jobs in all of 2010. Also included in this 

1201(c) report are indirect job numbers, which include more than 

136,000 indirect jobs and nearly 279,000 total employment jobs 

(direct, indirect and induced) for 2010. 

Accountability

The Recovery Act has been implemented with an unprecedented 

level of transparency and accountability. A variety of reports on 

Recovery Act programs can be found at www.dot.gov/recovery.
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

PROGRAM

EVALUATIONS
HEProgr ADLINam E Evaluations

Performance measures show if intended outcomes are 

occurring and assess any trends. Program evaluation 

uses analytic techniques to assess the extent to which 

programs contribute to those outcomes and trends. As 

required by the Government Performance and Results Act 

of 1993, the Department’s FY 2006–2011 Strategic Plan 

includes a schedule of program evaluations by fiscal year. 

74 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Introduction

Types of Program Evaluations

Program evaluation is an assessment, through objective measurement 

and systematic analysis, of the manner and extent to which programs 

achieve intended outcomes. Evaluations are of the following types:

Impact Evaluations use empirical data to compare measurable 

program outcomes with what would have happened in the 

absence of the program. These represent the highest standard 

of program evaluations and are often the most difficult and 

expensive to construct and interpret. 

Outcome Evaluations assess the extent to which programs 

achieve outcome-oriented objectives. These use quantitative 

methods to assess program effectiveness, but fall short of the 

rigorous causal analysis of impact evaluations. 

Process Evaluations assess the extent to which a program operates 

as intended. While a true process evaluation will use objective 

measurement and analysis, it falls short of assessing the causal 

links between intervention and outcome. 

Cost-Benefit and Cost-Effectiveness Analyses compare a 

program’s outputs or outcomes with the costs to produce them. 

These analyses conform to program evaluation when applied 

systematically to existing programs and when measurable 

outputs and outcomes are monetized. 

Program Evaluation Management

The programs selected for scheduled evaluations are vetted 

through the Department’s strategic planning process. Each modal 

administration nominates programs that are then reviewed by a 

strategic planning executive committee to ensure: 1) adequate 

breadth of program evaluations across modal administrations and 

2) alignment to the strategic objectives. The Office of Inspector 

General and the Government Accountability Office pursue program 

evaluations independent of this schedule. 

Safety

FRA Research and Development Program

Purpose

The purpose of the Transportation Research Board’s (TRB) review 

of the Federal Railroad Administration’s (FRA) research, development, 

and demonstration program is to assess annually such topics 

as program management structure and approach, allocation of 

resources among program areas, and project selection criteria. 

Contribution to Goal Performance

The TRB review helps ensure that the major directions and content 

of FRA’s research and development program serve the needs of 

customers and stakeholders internal and external to FRA. 

Methodology

The TRB committee for this project conducts an annual review and 

evaluation of FRA’s research, development, and demonstration 

program. FRA has three program objectives: support of FRA’s safety 

regulatory mandate; technology development and demonstration; 

and implementation of high-speed rail transportation. The committee 

reviews and assesses the effectiveness of FRA processes for setting 

program priorities, selecting projects, directing projects, and maximizing and measuring the impact of its programs. The committee 

provides recommendations to FRA on how to improve its processes 

for selecting, executing, and delivering value from its research, 

development, and demonstration program. 

Status

TRB delivered its letter report to FRA on March 9, 2011
75 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Partners

FRA partners in this effort include TRB of the National Academies 

of Science

Listed in DOT Plan

Yes

Type

Process

Source

External, TRB

Findings

“FRA’s research, development, and demonstration program has 

grown over the past 2 years in scope and management strength. The 

committee is impressed with the management team and believes that 

the senior staff and leadership of this program can facilitate the 

transition of rail research into the mainstream of U.S. transportation 

infrastructure development and strategy. ”

Recommendations

“The committee believes that projects should be organized and 

presented to research partners and stakeholders in a dozen or so 

groupings that correspond to key research objectives. More effort 

to engage private interests in the earliest phases of individual 

efforts and assessments of commercialization potential may help 

FRA in winnowing the long list of projects planned and under way. 

Finally, the committee believes that stakeholder outreach initiatives 

by FRA’s research arm should feature enhanced opportunities for 

dialogue and feedback on both past efforts and future directions 

to sustain support and proper targeting of scarce RD&D resources. ”

Links

TRB Committee for Review of the FRA R&D Program: February 2011

www.fra.dot.gov/Pages/32.shtml

Direct Link

www.trb.org/main/blurbs/165018.aspx

Looking Forward

TRB’s next review is planned for January 11–13, 2012

Safety

PHMSA Pipeline Safety State Grants Program

Purpose

The evaluation examined the Federal program, program outcomes, 

its processes and procedures, and the extent to which the core 

grant program is set up to effectively support, monitor, and guide 

State programs. 

Contribution to Goal Performance

State pipeline safety programs provide most of the inspection 

oversight for regulated pipelines in the U.S., including nearly 

all local distribution systems for natural gas—where most of 

the safety risk has been concentrated. States provide about 80% 

of the pipeline inspection workforce. Their jurisdiction covers 

about 80% of pipeline mileage and about 80% of all pipeline 

incidents with death or major injury. 

Methodology

The evaluation traced program requirements and authorization 

(what’s required, what’s allowed) from legislation through the 

regulations and program guidance, to processes and procedures. 

It identified key assumptions. Then it looked at how these program 

elements worked in actual practice. Where there were differences, 

the evaluation explored why. The methodology included interviews 

with State program managers, agency management and staff; 

development of program logic models; examination of funding data 

over 15 years; review of annual reports, incident statistics, guidance, 

program documentation, grant applications, certifications, annual 

evaluations, and correspondence with States. 

Status

Completed report was delivered to the PHMSA Administrator and 

the Associate Administrator for Pipeline Safety on June 27, 2011. 

Partners

Pipeline Safety State Programs. 

Listed in DOT Plan

Yes (planned for 2009)

Type

Outcome and process

Source

Internal

Findings

The program works effectively overall. This evaluation found many 

strengths with the program—including particularly the achievement 

of good safety outcomes, generally good working relationships, and 

an approach to managing the program that emphasizes continuous 

improvement. But the report also identifies and discusses several 

challenges and interrelated risks, including:

 budget risks, particularly if States do not grow their programs 

more substantially;

program risks, particularly if states opt out of the program;

 management risks, as some processes are inconsistent with 

broader requirements;

 safety risks, with issues related to targeting funds 

and alignment of goals; and,

 data quality risks, given our approaches 

to data collection and use. 
76 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Recommendations

The evaluation did not include any recommendations. However, 

several actions have been taken as a result of the evaluation, and it has 

been shared with all State Pipeline Safety program managers through 

the National Association of State Pipeline Safety Representatives. 

Links

The report has not yet been posted, but will be available through 

www. phmsa. dot. gov. 

Looking Forward

The Office of Inspector General has planned a follow-on review 

of the program in response to a recommendation from the National 

Transportation Safety Board, in the aftermath of the pipeline accident 

at San Bruno, California in 2010. 

Safety

FHWA & FTA: Program Evaluation of FHWA Pedestrian & Bicycle 

Safety Activities

Purpose

FHWA initiated a program evaluation of the overall effectiveness 

of the Agency’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program. The evaluation is intended to guide FHWA in making future enhancements 

to program delivery and best meet the needs of safety stakeholders. 

Contribution to Goal Performance

The program develops guidance on processes to improve safety 

planning, develops and tests specific pedestrian and bicycle safety 

countermeasures and strategies, and provides training and technical 

assistance. FHWA may use the findings and recommendations from 

this evaluation to select a set of short- and long-term actions to improve the management of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program, 

specifically related to State and local government stakeholders. 

Methodology

An external consultant working with a cross-agency Evaluation 

Working Group (EWG) reviewed documents and data, and conducted 

35 interviews with internal and external partners and stakeholders. 

The consultant reviewed program documents, analyzed pedestrian 

and bicycle data, and conducted interviews with federal, state, and 

local transportation agency staff involved in pedestrian and bicycle 

safety activities as well as pedestrian and bicycle safety advocates. 

Status

Complete with Actions Initiated

Partners

None

Listed in DOT PlaN

No. This study supports the DOT’s High Priority Performance Goal, 

which is to reduce transportation-related fatalities and injuries. 

Type

Process

Source

External, completed by a consultant evaluator

Findings

While the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program has resulted in a 

wealth of countermeasures, strategies, training, and safety funding 

and activities available to every state, there are still some challenges 

to address, including the following:

 Lack of broad support for safely accommodating pedestrians 

and bicycles in some Federal, state, and local transportation 

agencies; FHWA should work to fully implement policies and 

steps within the Agency that have been recommended for state 

and local agencies to enhance pedestrian and bicycle safety;

 Safe accommodation of pedestrians and bicyclists is not 

fully incorporated as an integral part of each of FHWA’s core 

programs and some State Departments of Transportation do not 

have comprehensive pedestrian and bicycle safety programs; and

There is insufficient exposure and facility inventory data to 

effectively support decision making in the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Safety Program. 

Recommendations

In all, FHWA received 6 recommendations and 15 suggested 

action items. 

 Focus efforts to foster a pedestrian and bicycle safety culture 

within FHWA, state, and local transportation agencies. 

 Implement FHWA and DOT policy recommendations 

to integrate pedestrian and bicycle safety activities 

throughout FHWA. 

 Mainstream and manage pedestrian and bicycle safety activities 

among the safety, planning, research, operations, infrastructure, 

and Division Offices in FHWA as a single program. 

 Promote and track effective Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety 

Program management strategies by state and local agencies. 

 Address safety data limitations to support management and 

evaluation of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Program 

at the Federal, state, and local levels. 

 Create feedback loops in FHWA’s management of its 

Pedestrian and Bicycle Safety Programs, and use program 

output data to help guide decision making. 

Links

None
77 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Looking Forward

The following Quick Wins identified by the Agency were initiated:

 Include a follow-up self-assessment a year later, as part of 

the training assessment by students in FHWA courses on 

pedestrian and bicycle safety. 

 Develop and deliver awareness training for transportation 

program managers, engineers, and specialists. 

 Establish a matrix group within FHWA with representatives 

from all program offices to oversee the Pedestrian and 

Bicycle Safety Program. 
MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION 

AND ANALYSIS

DATA

DETAILS
79 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 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 

passenger vehicle VMT (vehicle-miles traveled) are calculated 

for each calendar year (CY). 

An occupant is any person inside or on top of a moving motor vehicle. 

This includes the driver, passengers, and all persons riding on the 

exterior of a motor vehicle. Passenger vehicle VMT (PVVMT) 

includes vehicle miles traveled by all types of passenger vehicles 

(e.g. passenger cars, vans, pickup trucks, and sport/utility vehicles) 

on public roads within the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

Scope

The number of fatalities is a count of passenger vehicle occupant 

deaths which occur within 30 days of a crash involving a motor 

vehicle traveling on a traffic-way customarily open to the public 

within the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

Sources

Motor vehicle traffic fatality data is 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, containing data derived from a census of fatal 

traffic crashes within the 50 States, and the District of Columbia. 

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is estimated from FHWA’s Traffic 

Volume Trends (TVT) report. TVT is a monthly report based on 

hourly traffic count data and annual data in the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS), which is analyzed by FHWA Traffic 

Monitoring and Analysis System (TMAS). Passenger Vehicle VMT 

(PVVMT) is derived from the HPMS. 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 were projected using recent passenger 

vehicle fatality rate trend data. 

Statistical Issues

While based on historical data, the 2011 fatality rate projection 

depends on the continuation of individual and market behavior 

regarding highway safety policies, vehicle miles traveled, seat belt 

use, and alcohol related fatalities. The 2011 fatality rate projection 

does not reflect recent vehicle improvements. The assumptions 

inherent in these projections, together with the normal levels of 

uncertainty inherent in statistical evaluations, may influence the 

accuracy of the projection. 

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) 

on all Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based on traffic 

counts taken at least once every three years on the National Highway 

System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least once every six 

years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic counts are adjusted 

by the States to reflect day-of-week and seasonal variations, current 

year conditions, and axle corrections, as necessary. States provide 

summary data on the local and rural minor collector roads. The 

AADTs from HPMS are used as a baseline for the TVT report, 

which compiles data from about 4,000 automated traffic recorders 

(ATRFs) provided by the States on a monthly basis. Because both 

HPMS and TVT are based on samples of the traffic, there are 

associated sampling errors. 

Completeness

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Total 

annual fatalities are available through CY 2009. The final PVVMT 

estimate for 2010 will be available in December 2011, and the final 

PVVMT estimate for CY 2011 will be available in December 2012. 

Reliability

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA, and FMCSA:

 highway safety policy

 safety program planning

 regulatory development

 resource allocation

 operational mission performance
80 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. However, it is too early to tell what the final result 

on the fatality rate will be, depending on the following factors, 

among others:

 high price of fuel

 economic downturn

 increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding

 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 2011 and beyond. 

Details on DOT Safety Measures

Large Truck and Bus Fatality Rate (FMCSA/NHTSA /FHWA)

Measure

Large truck and bus fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles 

traveled (VMT). 

The number of large truck and bus fatalities includes all large truck/

bus occupants, occupants of other vehicles and non-occupants who

died in crashes involving a large truck or bus. A large truck is defined

 as being 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 passengers, including school 

buses, inter-city buses, and transit buses. VMT for this measure includes all vehicle miles traveled by all types of vehicles including:

 Passenger cars

 Motorcycles

 Buses

All 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, 

and sport/utility vehicles)

 Single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks

 Combination trucks

Scope

The number of fatalities is a count of deaths which occur within 

30 days of crashes involving large trucks or buses traveling on 

a traffic-way customarily open to the public within the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia. 

Sources

Motor vehicle traffic fatality data is 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, containing data derived from a census of fatal 

traffic crashes within the 50 States, and the District of Columbia. 

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is estimated from FHWA’s Traffic 

Volume Trends (TVT) report. TVT is a monthly report based on 

hourly traffic count data and annual data in the Highway Performance 

Monitoring System (HPMS), which is analyzed by FHWA Traffic 

Monitoring and Analysis System (TMAS). 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 were projected as a range of fatalities 

based on fatal crash data from CY 2006–2009, and partial data 

from CY 2010–2011 (final FY 2010 data will not be available 

until December 2011). FMCSA extrapolated the CY 2011 Motor 

Carrier Management Information System (MCMIS) fatalities into a 

projection for the entire year based on reports from CY 2006–2010. 

FMCSA analyzed the historical relationship between MCMIS and 

FARS fatality reporting to adjust the MCMIS number into a FARS 

projection for CY 2011. 

Statistical Issues

The CY 2011 fatality rate projection depends on the continuation of 

individual and market behavior regarding highway safety policies, 

vehicle miles traveled, seat belt use, 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 major source of error 

is an inconsistent use of the definition of a large truck. 

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) on 

all Federal-aid highway sections. The data is based on traffic counts 

taken at least once every three years on the National Highway 

System, Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least once every 

six years on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic counts are adjusted by the States to reflect day-of-week and seasonal variations, 

current year conditions, and axle corrections, as necessary. States 

provide summary data on the local and rural minor collector roads. 

The AADTs from HPMS are used as a baseline for the TVT report, 

which compiles data from about 4,000 automated traffic recorders 

(ATRs) provided by the States on a monthly basis. Because both 

HPMS and TVT are based on samples of the traffic, there are 

associated sampling errors. 

Completeness

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Total 

annual fatalities are available through CY 2009 (2010 projected 

estimates are available now). The MCMIS fatal crash data used in 

the calculation of Large Trucks are reported based on a subset of 

the Model Minimum Uniform Crash Criteria (MMUCC) used by 

FARS. Total annual fatalities are available from MCMIS through 

CY 2010 and partial data are available through December 2011. 

The VMT is complete through 2009. For 2010 and 2011, it is projected as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final VMT 

estimate for 2010 will be available in December 2011, and the final 

VMT estimate for CY 2011 will be available in December 2012. 
81 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Reliability

This measure informs and guides the following programs 

for FMCSA, NHTSA, and FHWA:

 highway safety policy

 safety program planning

 regulatory development

 resource allocation,

 operational mission performance

It also tracks progress toward the goal of saving lives and reducing 

injuries by preventing large truck and bus crashes. 

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. The final result on the fatality rate will depend on 

several external factors which may include:

 the high price of fuel

 the economic downturn

 changes in vehicle design and guidelines for large 

truck/bus drivers

 increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding

 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 2011 and beyond. 

Details on DOT Safety Measures

Motorcyclist Fatality Rate (NHTSA / FHWA / FMCSA)

Measure

Motorcyclist fatalities per 100,000 motorcycle registrations

 are calculated for each calendar year (CY). 

A motorcycle is a two- or three-wheeled motor vehicle designed

to transport one or two people, including motorscooters, minibikes, 

and mopeds. 

Scope

The number of motorcyclist fatalities is a count of motorcyclist (rider 

(operator) and passenger) deaths which occur within 30 days of a 

crash involving motorcycles traveling on a traffic-way customarily 

open to the public within the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

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, containing data derived from a census of 

fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States, and the District of Columbia. 

The States collect motorcycle registration data and provide the 

data to the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), which then 

provides the data to the public. 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 were projected using recent motorcycle 

fatality rate trend data. 

Statistical Issues

While based on historical data, the 2011 fatality rate projection 

is dependent on the continuation of both individual and market 

behavior regarding highway safety policies, vehicle and equipment 

design, motorcycle registration, 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 be an underestimate of the true 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 accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Annual 

motorcyclist fatalities are available through CY 2009 (2010 numbers 

should be available in 2012). 

The motorcycle 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 of the vehicle counts. Motor vehicle registrations are 

reported by major vehicle classes: automobiles, buses, trucks, and 

motorcycles. 

Reliability

This measure informs and guides the following programs for 

NHTSA, FHWA and FMCSA:

 highway safety policy

 safety program planning

 regulatory development

 resource allocation

 operational mission performance
82 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 motorcycle registration data includes all vehicles that 

have been registered at any time during 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:

 increased motorcycle riding

 the effect of the high price of fuel on increased 

motorcycle riding

 the economic downturn

 increased walking and bicycling

 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 motorcycle registration projections 

for 2011 and beyond. 

Details on DOT Safety Measures

Non-occupant Fatality Rate (NHTSA / FHWA / FMCSA)

Measure

Non-occupant fatalities rate per 100 million VMT are calculated 

for each calendar year (CY). 

A non-occupant is any person who is not an occupant of a motor 

vehicle in transport and includes:

 pedestrians

 bicyclists and other pedalcyclists

 occupants of parked motor vehicles

 joggers, and skateboard riders

 people riding on animals and in animal-drawn conveyances

VMT includes all vehicle miles traveled by all types of vehicles 

including:

 passenger cars

 motorcycles

 buses

all 2-axle 4 tire vehicles (including vans, pickup trucks, 

and sport/utility vehicles)

 single unit 2-axle 6 tire or more trucks

 combination trucks

Scope

The number of fatalities is a count of non-occupant deaths which 

occur within 30 days of a crash involving motor vehicle traffic 

traveling on a traffic-way customarily open to the public within 

the 50 States and the District of Columbia. 

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, containing data derived from a census of 

fatal traffic crashes within the 50 States, and the District of Columbia. 

Vehicle miles traveled (VMT) is estimated from FHWA’s Traffic 

Volume Trends (TVT) report. TVT is a monthly report based 

on hourly traffic count data and annual data in the Highway 

Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), which is analyzed 

by FHWA’s Traffic Monitoring and Analysis System (TMAS). 

Fatality rates for CY 2011 were projected using recent 

non-occupant fatality rate data. 

Statistical Issues

While based on historical data, the 2011 fatality rate projection 

is dependent on the continuation of both individual and market 

behavior regarding vehicle miles traveled, infrastructure, vehicle 

design, 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. 

For HPMS, States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) on all 

Federal-aid highway sections. These data are based on traffic counts 

taken at least once every three years on the National Highway System, 

Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least once every six years 

on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic counts are adjusted by the 

States to reflect day-of-week and seasonal variations, current year 

conditions, and axle corrections, as necessary. States provide summary 

data on the local and rural minor collector roads. The AADTs from 

HPMS are used as a baseline for the TVT report, which compiles 

data from about 4,000 automated traffic recorders (ATRs) provided 

by the States on a monthly basis. Because both HPMS and TVT are 

based on samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 
83 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Completeness

FARS has been in use since 1975 and is accepted as a complete 

measure for describing safety on the Nation’s highways. Annual 

non-occupant fatalities are available through CY 2009 

(2010 numbers will be available in 2012). 

VMT is complete through 2008. For 2010 and 2011, it is projected 

as a percentage of the total VMT projections. The final VMT 

estimate for 2010 will be available in December 2011, and the final 

VMT estimate for CY 2011 will be available in December 2012. 

Reliability

This measure informs and guides the following programs 

for NHTSA, FHWA and FMCSA:

 highway safety policy

 safety program planning

 regulatory development

 resource allocation

 operational mission performance

Early indications show that fatalities have decreased while VMT 

have increased. However, it is too early to tell what the final result 

on the fatality rate will be, depending on the following factors, 

among others:

 high price of fuel

 economic downturn

 increased walking, bicycling, and motorcycle riding

 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 2011 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 

U.S. passenger and cargo air carriers (14 CFR Part 121) and scheduled flights of regional operators (14 CFR Part 135). It excludes ondemand (e.g. air taxi) service and general aviation. Fatal accidents 

involving passengers, crew, ground personnel, and the uninvolved 

public are all included. 

Note: Part 121 and Part 135 define how airlines can operate. Part 

121 allows companies to act as scheduled airlines where they are 

allowed to run and publish a scheduled service. Part 135 allows 

airlines to run as charter companies. 

Sources

The data on commercial fatalities come from the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Aviation Accident Database. 

All but a small share of the data for persons on board comes from 

the air carriers, who submit information for all passengers on board 

to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics (BTS). In addition, 

FAA estimates 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 is an estimate. Crew staffing 

varies only within a very small range for any given aircraft make/

model. Departure data and enplanements for Part 121 are from the 

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. FAA contacts airline 

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 (e.g. Part 121 or Part 135). 

The number of actual persons on board for any given period of time 

is considered preliminary for up to 18 months after the close of the 

reporting period. This is due to amended reports subsequently filed 

by the air carriers. Preliminary FAA estimates are based on projections of the growth in departures. However, changes to the number 

of persons on board should rarely affect the annual fatality rate. 

NTSB and FAA’s Office of Accident Investigation meet regularly 

to validate the accident and fatality count. Accident data are considered preliminary. NTSB usually completes investigations and issues 

reports on accidents that occur during any fiscal year by the end 
84 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

of the next fiscal year. Results are considered final when all those 

accidents have been reported in the NTSB press release (published 

by March 2013). FY 2011 results will therefore be final after the 

March 2013 NTSB press release. In general, however, fatal and serious injury accident numbers are not likely to change significantly 

between the end of the fiscal year and the date they are finalized. 

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 

is available. The final result for the air carrier fatal accident rate is not 

considered reliable until BTS provides preliminary numbers. Due to 

reporting procedures in place, it is unlikely that calculation of future 

fiscal year departure data will be improved substantially. Lacking 

complete historical data on a monthly basis and independent sources 

of verification increases the risk of error in the activity data. 

Reliability

Results are considered preliminary since they are 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 legal 

responsibility to determine probable cause, while FAA has separate 

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 Accident Rate (FAA)

Measure

Number of general aviation fatal accidents per 

100,000 flight hours (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 including:

 single-seat homebuilt aircraft

 helicopters

 balloons

 all other aircraft from single and multiple engine land and 

seaplanes to highly sophisticated extended range turbojets

Sources

The data on general aviation fatalities come from the National 

Transportation Safety Board’s (NTSB) Aviation Accident Database. 

With the assistance of the NTSB, aviation accident investigators 

develop the data used. 

Statistical Issues

The NTSB determines the actual number of general aviation fatal 

accidents. Since this is a simple count of accidents, there are no 

statistical issues relevant to this data. 

The survey data for activity are highly accurate with a percent-standard

error of less than one percent. The general aviation community 

and the General Aviation Joint Steering Committee (GAJSC) of 

the Safer Skies Initiative recommended 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, the NTSB, and other aviation 

industry associations, has made many improvements to the survey. 

First, the sample size has significantly increased. In addition, a reporting form has been created to make it much easier for organizations 

with large fleets to report. Finally, 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 activity on which the general aviation 

community agrees. Every year since 2004, significant improvements 

have been made which substantially improve the accuracy of the data. 

The GAJSC General Aviation Data Improvement Team has worked 

closely with the general aviation community and industry to develop 

this performance measure and target. There is strong support and 

consensus for the measure and target. 

Completeness

The number of general aviation fatal accidents, even when reported 

as preliminary, is very accurate. When final reports are issued, the 

number of fatal accidents does not change significantly. NTSB 

classifications are considered final when the Board issues their 

annual press release. Accidents during a fiscal year are addressed 

in the NTSB press release issued at the end of the following year. 

GA Survey calendar hours are finalized by October 31 of the 

following year. As a result, the fatal accident rate for FY 2011 

will not be considered final/complete until October 2012. 

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 legal 

responsibility; however, most of the accident investigations related 

to general aviation are conducted by FAA Aviation Safety Inspectors 

without NTSB’s direct involvement. FAA’s own accident investigators 

and other FAA employees participate in all accident investigations led 

by NTSB investigators. 

As mentioned above, the large sample for FAA’s activity survey, 

along with the ease of data collection, produce highly accurate 

flight hour data. The low standard error which results ensures 

the reliability of these data. 
85 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Details on DOT Safety Measures

Rail-related Accident and Incident Rate (FRA)

Measure

Number of rail-related accidents and incidents per million 

train-miles. (FY)

Scope

The Railroad Safety Information System (RSIS) is FRA’s principal 

repository for data relating to:

 railroad accidents and incidents

 railroad inspections

 highway-rail grade crossings

 other rail safety-related information

The Railroad Accident/Incident Reporting Subsystem (RAIRS) 

compiles rail-related accidents andincident data that railroads submit 

as required under 49 CFRPart 225. This subsystem contains approximately 35 years of data on railroad casualties, train accidents, 

highway-rail grade crossing collisions, and operating statistics. 

A rail equipment (including train) accident is any collision, 

derailment, fire, explosion, act of God, or other event involving 

the operation of railroad on-track equipment (standing or moving), 

that results in damages greater than the current reporting threshold 

to railroad on-track equipment, signals, track, track structures, 

or roadbed. The reporting threshold for CY 2011 was $9,400. 

A reporting threshold for CY 2012 had not been set as of October 

2011. Train accidents are reported on form FRA F6180. 54, “Rail 

Equipment Accident/Incident Report. ”

Operational data, including train-miles, are reported on 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 FRA of all train accidents that meet or exceed 

the specified calendar year dollar threshold ($9,400 in CY 2011). 

The railroads are also required to file monthly operations reports 

of train-miles, employee-hours, and passenger train-miles. 

Accident/incident reports must be filed within 30 days after the end 

of the month in which the event occurred. Data must be updated 

if the costs of a particular accident are more than 10 percent higher 

or lower than the initially reported cost. 

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)

 track existing inside an industrial compound

insular rail (e.g. , rail that is not connected to the general 

system and does not intersect with a public highway-rail 

grade crossing or go over a navigable waterway)

Reliability

FRA uses the data in prioritizing its inspections and safety reviews 

and for strategic management of its rail safety program. 

FRA inspectors review the railroads’ reporting records and have 

authority to write violations if railroads are not reporting accurately 

and completely. Violations can 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 (e.g. contractors) and 

others. A transit fatality is a death within 30 days of an incident 

related to transit revenue service

Previous to 2002, safety data was collected on a fiscal year, 

as opposed calendar year, basis. 

Sources

These data are reported annually by operators to the FTA National 

Transit Database (NTD) and to the Federal Railroad Administration’s 

Rail Accident and Incident Reporting System (RAIRS). RAIRS 

data are used exclusively for commuter rail (CR) systems. NTD 

and RAIRS data are inputs to FTA’s 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 typically derived from reported passenger trips and 

average trip length. Passenger-miles are the cumulative sum 

of the distances ridden on passenger trips. 

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 approximate 

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 
86 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Technology or a FTA-approved sampling technique. To obtain 

passenger mile data on rail systems, ferry boats and paratransit, 

transit authorities often use computerized tracking systems, such 

as the Smart Card. In some cases, such as small fare-free systems 

or large free-transfer systems (e.g. the New York City subway), 

passenger miles are sampled directly since a 100% count of 

unlinked passenger trips is not available. Validation based on 

annual trend analysis is performed on the passenger mile inputs 

from the transit industry. The validation is performed by analysts

 at the NTD contractor (currently Savantage Solutions). 

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 2010/2011 measure is an extrapolation 

of partial-year data, particularly of passenger-miles traveled. 

Reliability

The transit agency’s CEO certifies that data reported to the NTD are 

accurate. Submitted data are reviewed by analysts and compared 

to trend data for the transit system and to National benchmarks. 

The USDOT Volpe National Transportation Systems Center also 

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

The number of pipeline incidents involving death 

or major injury. (CY)

Scope

Natural gas pipeline incidents are reportable under 49 CFR 191.15,

and hazardous liquid pipeline incidents are reportable under 

49 CFR 195.50. Both interstate and intrastate pipelines are subject 

to incident reporting requirements. 

An injury is reportable if it requires in-patient hospitalization resulting 

from a failure in a pipeline system in which there is a release of 

a hazardous liquid, CO2, or natural gas being transported. This 

includes operator employees, contractors working for the operator, 

other workers in the right of way, emergency responders, and the 

general public. If the person dies within 30 days of the incident date 

is it counted as a death, not as an injury. In-patient hospitalization 

means hospital admission and at least one overnight stay (detailed 

guidance is on the PHMSA website at www.phmsa.dot.gov). 

Sources

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from 

pipeline operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7100.1 

and F-7000.1. Most incidents are reported online through the 

PHMSA website. 

Statistical Issues

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. There 

is some normal annual variation in the number of reported incidents 

each year, particularly given the small number of these incidents, and 

this variation might not reflect real changes in the underlying risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. The 

target each year is set at one standard deviation from the trendline to 

account for normal variation year-to-year (which shows a decline of 

about 3.3% on average each year over the past 22 years (1989–2010). 

This provides about 80% probability of achieving the target if the risk 

continues to follow the trendline. An exponential trendline is used to 

reflect the concept of diminishing returns as the numbers decline. 

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in 

exposure—external factors like changes in pipeline mileage, 

energy consumption, or U.S. population—that could affect the 

number of incidents with death or major injury. 

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. 

There may be a 30- to 60-day lag in reporting and compiling 

information in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which we 

have reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing months 

based on the historical fraction those months represent in the final 

totals over the past five years. 

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 inspectors also regularly discuss 

incidents with operator personnel during routine inspections. PHMSA 

continues to work to improve Best Management Practices to ensure 

quality of the incident data. 
87 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Details on DOT Safety Measures

Hazardous Materials Transportation Incidents (PHMSA)

Measure

The number of hazardous materials transportation incidents involving 

death or major injury. (CY)

Scope

Hazardous materials transportation incidents are reportable under 

49 CFR Parts 171.15 and 171.16. All modes of transportation (air, 

water, rail, and highway) except pipelines are covered. In maritime 

transportation, tank vessels (where the vessel itself is the container) 

are exempt from reporting. This measure is limited to transportationrelated releases of hazardous materials that are in commerce. 

An injury is reportable if a person receives an injury requiring 

admittance to a hospital as a direct result of a hazardous material—

during the course of transportation in commerce (including loading, 

unloading, and temporary storage). This includes employees, 

emergency responders, and the general public. Hospitalization 

means admittance to a medical facility, not treated and released for 

a facility such as a hospital emergency room where the person was 

never admitted to the hospital proper (detailed guidance is on the 

PHMSA website at www.phmsa.dot.gov). 

Sources

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from 

reports submitted on Form DOT F 5800.1 and maintained in 

the Hazardous Materials Information System (HMIS). 

Statistical Issues

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. There 

is some normal annual variation in the number of reported incidents 

each year, particularly given the small number of these incidents, and 

this variation might not reflect real changes in the underlying risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. The 

target each year is set at one standard deviation from the trendline to 

account for normal variation year-to-year (which shows a decline 

of about 1.5% on average each year over the past 22 years (1989–

2010)). This provides about 80% probability of achieving the target 

if the risk continues to follow the trendline. An exponential trendline 

is used to reflect the concept of diminishing returns as the 

numbers decline. 

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in 

exposure—external factors like changes in the amount of hazmat 

shipped, number of shipments, or U.S. population—that could 

affect the number of incidents with death or major injury. 

Completeness

Compliance in reporting is very high and most incidents that resulted 

in death or major injury are reported. Each person in physical 

possession of a hazardous material at the time an incident 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. 

There may be a 30- to 60-day lag in reporting, verifying, validating 

and compiling information in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which we 

have reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing months 

based on the historical fraction those months represent in the final 

totals over the past five years. 

Reliability

PHMSA routinely cross-checks incident data against other sources 

of data, including matching incident reports with reports made to 

the National Response Center (NRC) and the use of a news clipping 

service to provide information on significant hazmat incidents that 

might not be reported. If sufficient information exists, PHMSA 

follows up with carriers who may need to file an incident report. 

Incidents with death or major injury are considered to be the most 

reliable of the incident data. These incidents have additional verification and validation procedures to include follow-up contact with 

the company or individual who made the report, contact with state 

and local law enforcement and/or emergency response officials, and 

matching data with initial reports made to the NRC. 

Details onDOT REDUCEDCONGESTION Measures

Highway Infrastructure Condition (FHWA)

Measure

The percent of travel on National Highway Systems (NHS) that 

meets pavement performance standards for a “good” rated ride. (CY)

Scope

Data include Vehicle-Miles Traveled (VMT) 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 pavement. An IRI of 95 inches per mile or less 

is necessary for a good rated ride. 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 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 from data collection 

equipment error and differences in data collection methodologies 

between the States. Because the measure contains section data, it 

is sensitive to differences in section length from year to year and 

State to State. 
88 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

States provide annual average daily traffic (AADT) on all Federalaid highway sections. These data are based on traffic counts taken 

at least once every three years on the National Highway System, 

Interstate, and Principal Arterials and at least once every six years 

on Minor Arterials and Collectors. Traffic counts are adjusted by 

the States to reflect day-of-week and seasonal variations, current 

year conditions, and axle corrections, as necessary. States provide 

summary data on the local and rural minor collector roads. VMT 

is calculated from this traffic data. Because HPMS is based on 

samples of the traffic, there are associated sampling errors. 

Completeness

The 2011 actual results for this measure are reported based on 

available 2010 data, as of January 2012. 

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 onDOT REDUCEDCONGESTION Measures

Highway Bridge Condition (FHWA)

Measures

The percent of deck area on expanded National Highway System 

Bridges rated structurally deficient. (CY)

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’s 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.

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 the accuracy and reliability of the submitted NBI 

information is evaluated through data checks and field reviews

 by both Headquarters and field office personnel. 

Details onDOT REDUCEDCONGESTION Measures

Highway Congestion (FHWA)

Measure

The percent of total annual urban-area travel occurring in congested 

conditions. (FY)

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 
89 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation 

Research Board, the methodology was significantly revised in both 

2010 and 2011 to take advantage of new studies and detailed data 

sources that have not been previously available. 

Completeness

The FY 2009 and prior measures are final. The FY 2010 and FY 

2011 measures are preliminary as only partial 2010 HPMS data 

were available as of October 2011. HPMS data is compiled from 

the States and verified approximately 10 months from the base year. 

For example, FY 2011 actual numbers will not be available from 

HPMS until October 2012. 

Reliability

The HPMS data are collected by the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico in cooperation with local governments. 

Most of the data items, such as type of median, rarely change 

between years. However, there are items such as traffic volume that 

change yearly. Typically, the States maintain data inventories that 

are warehouses for a wide variety of data. 

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. All reported data is 

subjected to intense editing, 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 onDOT Reduced Congestion Measures

Transit Ridership (FTA)

Measure

The average percent change in transit boardings per transit market 

(150 largest transit agencies). 

Scope

This metric includes transit passengers at the 150 largest transit 

systems. These 150 systems account for over 95% of all transit 

boardings in the US. 

Sources

Each of the transit systems reports total boardings by transit mode 

to the Monthly Module of the National Transit Database within 30 

days of the end of each month. This data is then aggregated by the 

103 transit markets primarily served by the 150 largest agencies. 

The metric is the average increase in boardings across those 103 

transit markets. 

Statistical Issues

Data is reported by the individual transit system. Transit systems 

with nine or more vehicles and who receive or benefit from FTA’s 

Urbanized Area Formula Grants are required to report to the NTD 

Monthly Module. The quality of this metric is largely reliant upon 

the quality of the data collected and submitted by the individual 

transit systems. 

Although FTA requires a 100% count of boardings to be reported 

whenever it is available, not every system has a 100% count available. In particular, several large subway systems with free transfers 

still rely on statistical sampling data to estimate the number of 

boardings each month. 

The ranking of the 150 largest transit systems by transit boardings 

changes from year-to-year. FTA revises the list of 150 largest transit 

systems annually, which produces small variations each year in the 

number of transit markets included in the average. 

Completeness

This measure only includes the 150 largest transit systems, 

as measured by ridership data available to FTA. 

Reliability

FTA validates the submitted data against the historical data reported 

by each agency, but occasional reporting errors may remain 

undetected. As part of the validation process, changes to the data 

collection procedures by an individual transit system and identified 

by FTA are manually corrected in all calculations to ensure 

a consistent comparison of the ridership data. 

Details onDOT Reduced Congestion 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

ADA compliance for bus fleet means that vehicles used in scheduled, 

fixed-route transit services are equipped with wheelchair lifts or ramps. 

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 at the end of a line, at a transfer point, 

or that has been designated as such by the operator. 

All new rail stations are required to be ADA compliant upon 

completion and must meet standards for new rail stations, not key 

stations. Altered stations are also required to be ADA compliant 

upon completion and must meet standards for alterations of 

transportation facilities by public entities. 
90 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Sources

Compliant bus fleets: National Transit Database (NTD)

Compliant rail stations: Rail Station status reports to the FTA 

Office of Civil Rights

Statistical Issues

The NTD collects data from all transit systems that receive or 

benefit from FTA’s Urbanized Area Formula Grants. It is believed 

that NTD Data covers over 99% of the Nation’s transit bus fleet. 

Information on the ADA key rail stations is reported to FTA by 

transit authorities. 

Completeness

Data reported for key station accessibility excluded those stations 

for which time extensions had been granted under 49 CFR 37.47(c) 

(2) or 37.51(c) (2). There were 138 stations for which time extensions 

of various lengths were granted; some through 2020 the maximum 

permitted. These deadlines are now beginning to pass and the

stations can no longer be excluded from the total key station 

accessibility figures. Currently, the total number of time extensions 

from 2010/2011 through 2020 stands at 14. The total number of key 

stations will increase and the percentage of compliant stations may 

decrease as they are added to the total key station count. Beginning in 

2010/2011, 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. 

Details onDOT Reduced Congestion Measures

NAS On-Time Arrivals (FAA)

Measure

Percent of all flights arriving no more than 15 minutes late. 

Scope

A flight is considered on-time if it arrives no later than 15 minutes 

after the 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 the published schedule, which 

may be dated. 

The time of arrival of completed passenger flights to and from the 35 

Core airports is compared to their flight plan scheduled time of arrival. 

For delayed flights, delay minutes are subtracted from the total minutes of delay to determine lateness. Such delay minutes include:

 delay minutes attributable to extreme weather

 carrier caused delay

 security delay

share of delay minutes due to a late arriving flight at the 

departure airport

If the flight is still late, it is counted as a delayed flight attributed 

to the National Aviation System (NAS) and the FAA. 

Sources

The ASPM database, maintained by the FAA’s Office of Aviation 

Policy and Plans, and the DOT’s ASQP causation database, provides 

the data for this metric. By agreement with the DOT, certain major 

air carriers file ASQP flight data for all flights to and from most 

large and medium hubs. Flight records contained in the Traffic Flow 

Management System (TFMS) and flight movement times provided 

by Aeronautical Radio, Inc. (ARINC) supplement the flight data. 

Statistical Issues

Data are not reported for all carriers, only 20 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)
91 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Scope

Includes contracts awarded by DOT Operating Administrations 

through direct procurement. It does not include FAA contracts 

exempt from the Small Business Act. 

Sources

New data reports will come directly from the Federal Procurement 

Data System (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 into the FPDS database. 

The FPDS website can be queried to compute all needed statistics. 

All USDOT contracts are itemized. 

Statistical Issues

DOT is currently required to examine FPDS/NG data and resubmit it 

for validation. After re-verifying these data against internal sources, 

all known major errors in the data are eliminated. Business types 

are 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 (SBA), and others. Performance goals 

follow actual data, as finalized by the SBA, and 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

The 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, NY) 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 by:

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

 lock equipment malfunction

Sources

Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation (SLSDC) Office 

of Lock Operations and Marine Services

Statistical Issues

None

Completeness

SLSDC is the agency responsible for the operation and maintenance 

of the U.S. portion of the St. Lawrence Seaway. Furthermore, 

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 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. 
92 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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. 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 System 

(GPS) or other communication devices 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 2009, FHWA made progress in addressing the issues of 

sample size and the 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’s location, direction, and speed. 

Completeness

FHWA is partnering with vendors that collect automatic vehicle 

information from a customer base, primarily with interstate 

long-haul carriers. The data provides nationwide coverage from 

approximately 500,000 vehicles (trucks and trailers) in the United 

States, Canada and Mexico. The majority of the data is from fleets 

that have signals sent to vehicles with readings taken as often as 

every 15 minutes. The interval between probe readings depends 

on the subscription and which services the individual carriers 

have authorized. The intervals vary and may range from every 

two minutes to every two hours. 

The following data is transmitted:

truck identification

 latitude

 longitude

 date and time

 interstate route

In FY 2009, FHWA enhanced the completeness of the data set by 

adding two additional vendors. This increases the percentage of 

local 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 gather the information for this measure. 

On average the data set produces over 340,000,000 truck positions 

monthly and over 4,000,000,000 positions annually. 

Reliability

Probe vehicle performance systems are designed to provide travel 

time and speed/delay information without traditional fixed-location 

traffic monitoring and data collection systems. Probe-based systems 

enable coverage of much larger geographic areas (e.g. 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 (e.g. 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 National Highway System border crossings 

with a decrease in unexpected delay. 

Scope

U.S. Border Crossings with a decrease in unexpected delay, based on 

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 
93 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 are collected from the following five U.S./Canada border 

crossings:

Blaine (Pacific Highway): Blaine, WA

 Pembina: Pembina, ND

 Ambassador Bridge: Detroit, MI

 Peace Bridge: Buffalo, NY

 Champlain: Champlain, NY

In addition, data collection efforts were initiated at two U.S./Mexico 

border crossings. 

Data collection is satellite-based and uses automated vehicle location

(AVL) and other technologies to obtain information. Using this 

method, the specific location of a vehicle can be determined at 

regular time intervals using latitude and longitude positioning. 

When collected, the locations are stamped with a time, date and 

vehicle identification number. This data makes it possible to 

compute the average crossing times. 

To support data collection, FHWA has established contracts with 

third parties who arrange for access to data from technology 

vendors and commercial carriers. 

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 2010, FHWA made positive progress in 

addressing the issues of sample size and the 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

Traffic travel time information is traditionally collected with fixedlocation systems (e.g. detectors embedded in the roads and video 

cameras). While the border data collection methods used provide 

non-intrusive ways of measuring border delay, data are not collected 

on every commercial truck for a particular crossing. There is 

continuous sampling over time, but data are collected only for 

commercial vehicles equipped with the technology. There is also 

important information about the crossings that can significantly 

influence travel times that is not accounted for or explained by the 

data collection methods used. These include the number of inspection/processing booths, the traffic volume and/or threat levels. 

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 the border transportation system.

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

benefit more than one project category

Each year a number of Exemplary Human Environment Initiatives 

(EHEI) will be selected for Nationwide recognition and promotion 

as models for other areas to consider implementing. Since 2008, 

projects can be recognized under both EHEI and the Exemplary 

Ecosystem Initiative to further demonstrate environmental stewardship. 

Sources

State DOT and FHWA field offices submit a list, including 

descriptions, of human environment initiatives for consideration

 to FHWA Headquarters. 

Statistical Issues

The data do not represent all ecosystem and habitat conservation 

initiatives underway. Submittals are made at the discretion of the 

States and FHWA field offices. 
94 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Completeness

All recognized 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

Environmental Impact Statements (FHWA / FAA/ FTA)

Measure

Median elapsed time in months to complete Environmental Impact 

Statements (EIS) for DOT funded infrastructure projects. 

Scope

There are two purposes for an EIS. First, an EIS provides full and 

open evaluations of the human and natural environmental issues 

and alternatives. Secondly, an EIS is used to inform decision-makers 

and the public of reasonable alternatives that could avoid or 

minimize adverse impacts and enhance the quality of the environment. EIS completion time covers the period from publication of 

the Notice of Intent (NOI) to publication of the Record of Decision 

(ROD) for DOT-funded infrastructure projects. 

DOT modes have tools for measuring the agency’s performance 

in preparing and completing EISs for DOT funded infrastructure 

projects. Not only do they provide a measure of the time to complete 

an EIS and the intermediate steps, they will also help assess the success of environmental streamlining initiatives undertaken by DOT 

operating administrations. 

Sources

Data are derived from FHWA, FTA, and FAA statistical compilations. 

FHWA data are collected primarily through the FHWA’s Environmental Document Tracking System (EDTS). The EIS processing time is 

tracked from the NOI to the ROD. 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 and 

annual reports to the Council on Environmental Quality. 

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 and all data 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 

NOI to Prepare an EIS through Draft EIS, Final EIS, and ROD. 

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 

EDTS. The EIS processing time is tracked from the NOI to the ROD. 

FTA maintains an EIS tracking database for EISs. 

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. Unanticipated 

requirements, such as additional funding for airport improvements 

or a split in the Airport Improvement Program, can have an effect 

on the timeliness of reporting. 

The FHWA division offices are responsible for entering data into 

EDTS on a regular basis. EDTS also accounts for inactive periods 

in the processing of environmental documents. Delays can result 

from funding and/or to changes in State agency priorities. 

FTA: None

Completeness

Projects for which an NOI has been published in the Federal 

Register are entered into the FHWA EDTS. As the NEPA process 

progresses, the dates for the Draft EIS, Final EIS, and the ROD 

are also entered. FHWA reports out on the median time it takes 

to process an EIS from the NOI to the ROD. 

For FAA, completeness and reliability of the data is the responsibility 

of the reporting lines-of-business. Unanticipated program changes 

can impact the timeliness of recording data and therefore the completeness of the database and accuracy of the reported performance 

measure. After the start and completion of each EIS is recorded the 

total time until completion can be calculated. Then the mean time 

for completion 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 States and 

Headquarters verifies those dates by the Federal Register Publication 

dates. This measure is reliable in the time it takes to complete the 

“environmental process,” which satisfies environmental laws and 

permitting requirements that apply to a DOT-funded project after 

subtracting “down time. ”

Details on DOT Environmental

Stewardship Measures

Mobile Source Emissions (FHWA / FTA)

Measure

A twelve-month moving average of the number of areas 

in conformity lapse. (FY)
95 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 nonattainment (or maintenance) areas

Sources

The FHWA and FTA jointly make conformity determinations within 

air quality non-attainment and maintenance areas. This is done to 

ensure that Federal actions conform to the purpose of State Implementation Plans (SIP). With DOT support, 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

A 12-month conformity lapse grace period can be granted if:

 compliance cannot be determined within 24 months 

after SIP actions

 four years have passed since the last conformity determination

After the grace period, the consequences of a conformity lapse 

will apply. 

During a conformity lapse, no new non-exempt projects may 

advance. This holds 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

Sustainability Measures

Hazardous Liquid Pipeline Spills (PHMSA)

Measure

The number of hazardous liquid pipeline spills with environmental 

consequences. (CY)

Scope

Hazardous liquid pipeline incidents are reportable under 49 CFR 

195.50. This measure tracks the number of spills, of five barrels 

or more, where the accident report noted any environmental 

consequences (fish, birds, terrestrial wildlife, soil, or water)— 

from hazardous liquid pipelines in the U.S. 

Sources

DOT/Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration 

(PHMSA) incident data are used. These data are derived from pipeline operator reports submitted on PHMSA Form F-7000.1. Most 

incidents are reported online through the PHMSA website. 

Statistical Issues

Results in any single year should be interpreted with caution. There 

is some normal annual variation in the number of reported incidents 

each year, particularly given the small number of these incidents, and 

this variation might not reflect real changes in the underlying risk. 

Targets are presented as ranges to account for this variation. The 

target each year is set at one standard deviation from the trendline to 

account for normal variation year-to-year (which shows a decline of 

about 5% on average each year over the 9-year period 2002–2010). 

This provides about 80% probability of achieving the target if the risk 

continues to follow the trendline. An exponential trendline is used to 

reflect the concept of diminishing returns as the numbers decline. 

The performance measure is not normalized for changes in exposure—external factors like changes in pipeline mileage, petroleum 

consumption, or ton-miles moved through pipelines—that could 

affect the number of incidents with environmental consequences. 

Completeness

Compliance in reporting is very high and most or all incidents

that meet reporting requirements are submitted. Operators must 

submit reports within 30 days of an incident or face penalties for 

non-compliance. There may be a 30- to 60-day lag in reporting 

and compiling information in the database for analysis. 

Projections from partial-year data include all months for which we 

have reliable data plus an estimated number for the missing months 

based on the historical fraction those months represent in the final 

totals over the past five years. 

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 
96 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Response Center (NRC). PHMSA inspectors also regularly discuss 

incidents with operator personnel during routine inspections. 

PHMSA continues to work to improve Best Management Practices 

to ensure quality of the incident data. 

Details on DOT Security Measures

Shipping Capacity (MARAD)

Measure

Percent of the Department of Defense (DOD) required shipping capacity, complete with crews, available within mobilization timelines. 

Scope

This measure is based on the availability of 48 ships in the Maritime 

Administration’s Ready Reserve Force (RRF) and approximately 

132 ships enrolled in the Voluntary Intermodal Sealift Agreement 

(VISA) program. The VISA program 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: The Maritime Administration 

records (and information exchanged with the 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 available include:

 the ship is in drydock

 the ship is undergoing a scheduled major overhaul

 the ship is undergoing an unscheduled repair

The Maritime Administration and the 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 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. Ports must 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

 marshalling areas off the port

 required security clearances and operational Secure 

Terminal Equipment (STE)
97 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 DOT Security Measures

Emergency Management (OST)

Measure

Percent of DOT personnel with emergency management responsibilities who are prepared to respond to disasters or emergencies. 

Scope

DOT tracks participation in exercises conducted under the National 

Exercise Program as well as completion of training required under 

the National Security Professional Development Program. 

Sources

The Department of Homeland Security establishes training 

requirements for the Department. For example, certain National 

Incident Management System courses are required. We notify 

staff of required courses and keep a list of all who are required to 

take the courses and those who have taken them. In addition, the 

Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response leads 

the Department’s participation in four Principals Level Tabletop 

Exercises hosted by the White House Staff and in National Level 

Exercises that improve the Department’s abilities to respond to 

natural disasters and terrorist events. Further, the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response leads DOT participation 

in Tier II exercises and White House hosted tabletop exercises. 

A roster of participation is maintained which is matched against 

a list of staff required to participate in such exercises. 

Statistical Issues

Data collection is a manual process with self-reporting requirements. This can lead to under-reporting of those required to take 

courses and an under reporting of those who have taken them. 

Completeness

The data is as complete as can be obtained in a manual process. It 

is possible that the names of some participants are not captured. In 

addition, staff turnover makes it necessary to continually update 

the list of those required to participate in exercises or training. In 

addition, staff turnover makes it necessary to continually update 

the list of those required to take training. Similarly, the list of staff 

required to participate in exercises may not include all the required 

staff because the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency 

Response may not have been notified of changes in staffing or 

responsibility. 

Reliability

The data is as reliable as can be expected for a system that requires 

participants to report their participation and where records are 

manually maintained. 

Details on DOT Security Measures

Emergency Management with Exercises—Operating 

Administrations (OST)

Measure

Percent of Operating Administrations meeting annual response 

requirements. 

Scope

This performance measure attempts to gauge the ability of the 

Department to effectively respond to emergencies affecting the 

transportation sector. Since it is not possible to measure actual 

response activities as each disaster has a unique set of response 

requirements, the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency 

Response maintains measures the capability of the department to 

respond to emergencies based on activities that would be required 

in a response. 

Sources

DOT establishes key response activities that are required of each 

of the Operating Administrations for operations of the Continuity 

of Operations sites, the Crisis Management center and the Regional 

Emergency transportation program and evaluate whether they have 

fulfilled the requirement for the activity. The results are then averaged 

for each of the Operating Administrations to determine the result 

for the Department. 

Statistical Issues

Data for this performance measure are taken by direct observation. 

Completeness

Because of the lack of meaningful metrics, there are limits in what 

can be measured. To ensure preparedness, compliance with requirements of the Continuity of Operations, Crisis Management Center 

and Response Programs there are a series of questions that are 

focused on. First, there are seven Continuity of Operation requirements that are measured:

 Did the Operating Administration continuity of operations site 

pass 95 percent of communications tests?

 Was the Operating Administration continuity of operations 

plans 90% or more in line with the Continuity of Operations 

Evaluation Checklist?

 Did the Operating Administration maintain a fully operational 

continuity of operations site?

 Was the Operating Administration able to fully participate 
98 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

in exercises/events from their continuity of operations site?

Did the Operating Administration maintain adequate staffing 

to manage the continuity of operations program?

 Did the Operating Administration have a redundant continuity 

communications program?

 Did the Operating Administration ensure vital records were 

available at the continuity site?

In addition, three Crisis Management Center requirements are 

analyzed:

Did the Operating Administration meet staffing requirements?

 Did the Operating Administration provide Emergency 

Coordinators when required?

 Did the Operating Administration report incidents per 

reporting requirements?

Finally, four Response Program requirements are measured:

 Did the Operating Administration provide the required 

Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator?

Did the Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator/

Regional Emergency Transportation Representative maintain 

an adequate and trained cadre?

Did the Operating Administration provide required financial 

support to the Regional Emergency Transportation Coordinator program?

Did the Operating Administration provide staffing to the

Federal Emergency Management Agency National Response 

Coordination Center Care. 

Reliability

The data provide a reliable indicator of the Department’s

 preparedness to respond to disasters and man-made events. 

Details on Organizational Excellence 

Measures

Critical Acquisitions on Budget (FAA)

Measure

For major DOT aviation systems, percent of cost goals established 

in the acquisition project baseline that are met. (FY 2011)

Scope

The purpose of the Critical Acquisitions on Budget target is to 

encourage programs to stay on budget, identify significant projected 

budget variances early, and take corrective actions. FAA’s Air Traffic 

Organization (ATO) Service Units select specific programs that 

are determined to provide a capital asset to the NAS. For FY 2011, 

34 acquisition programs were tracked and monitored. The designation 

of “critical acquisition programs” in the title of this performance 

target expresses the critical value of the program to the NAS. The 

budget measure is set to the January 2011 CIP. 

Sources

ATO tracks and reports the status of all cost performance targets 

using an automated database. ATO Service Units provide a monthly 

Red, Yellow, or Green assessment that indicates their confidence 

level in meeting their established milestones. To ensure milestones 

and cost are maintained within the established performance targets, 

comments are provided monthly that detail problems, issues, and 

corrective actions. 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 ATO. They include programs that 

have an Exhibit 300 as well as programs referred to as “variable 

quantity” programs. The latter are typically not required to undergo 

a standard acquisition life cycle process. The amount of equipment/

systems procured or replaced with these programs is determined by 

the amount of funding available each fiscal year. 

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, to determine 

resource requests. They are also used during the annual budget 

preparation process, for reporting progress made in the President’s 

Budget and for making key program management decisions. 

The monthly status is reported through the SPIRE database and 

included in monthly high-level management reviews. Once the program is selected and approved for tracking purposes it is reported 

with detailed commentary each month, and assigned a Red, Yellow, 

or Green confidence indicator when the cost is within the 10% 

threshold. These detailed reports are reviewed at all levels of the 

appropriate Service Unit, and Executive levels within the ATO, 

and the FAA Administrator. 

Details on Organizational Excellence 

Measures

Critical Acquisitions on Schedule (FAA)

Measure

For major DOT aviation systems, percent of scheduled milestones 

established in acquisitions project baselines that are met. (FY 2011)
99 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Scope

FAA’s Air Traffic Organization (ATO) Service Units select specific

milestones and completion dates against programs that are 

determined to provide a capital asset to the NAS. For FY 2011, 

54 selected critical milestones were to be tracked. However, four 

of the original 54 milestones that comprised this year’s target 

programs were approved to slip their planned September 2011 

milestones into FY 2012 following the furlough of approximately 

4,000 workers in August. The four programs would have completed 

their milestones originally scheduled for September 2011. Thus, the 

number of milestones included in this FY 2011 target was reduced 

from 54 to 50. Forty-five of the fifty milestones must meet their 

targeted date to be within 90 percent of the performance goal. 

Most of the programs selected were FAA Acquisition Category 

1 and 2. Those that did not provide Exhibit 300’s were included 

because they provided an asset to the NAS with a useful life of more 

than two years. The designation of “critical acquisition programs” in 

the title of the performance target expresses the critical value of the 

program to the NAS. 

The schedule measure is set to only those milestones selected at 

the beginning of the current fiscal year. FY 2011 was an exception 

due to the unscheduled furlough. In FY 2009, the FAA National 

Airspace System Capital Investment Plan began assessing program 

performance against the total program acquisition baseline. These 

reports document the agency’s performance in compliance with 

the Federal Aviation Reauthorization Act of 1996, PL 104-264, 

Section 252—Air Traffic Control Modernization Reviews. 

Sources

ATO tracks and reports the status of all schedule and cost performance 

targets using an automated database. ATO Service Units provide 

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 to 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 ATO. They include programs that are 

referred to as “variable quantity” programs. The latter are typically 

not required to undergo a standard acquisition life cycle process. 

The amount of equipment/systems procured or replaced with these 

programs is determined by the amount of funding available each 

fiscal year. 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. They are also used during the annual budget 

preparation process, for reporting progress made in the President’s 

budget and for making key program management decisions. The 

monthly status is reported through the SPIRE database and included 

in monthly high-level management reviews. Since the Acquisition 

Performance target is a fiscal year performance measure the specific 

milestone and date selected is set at the beginning of each fiscal 

year and not changed. The ATO Executive Council must approve all 

requested changes. Once the milestone is approved it is reported on 

with detailed commentary each month and assigned a Red, Yellow, 

or Green confidence indicator that the milestone will be met on 

schedule. These detailed reports are reviewed at all levels of the 

appropriate Service Unit, Executive levels, within the ATO and 

up to FAA Administrator. 

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 growth in the project completion 

milestones as reported in the financial plan. (FY)

2. Percentage of finance plan cost estimates for major federally 

funded transportation infrastructure projects with less than 2 

percent annual growth in project baselines that are met. (FY)

Scope

This measure addresses the following:

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 public, 

Congress, or Administration interest

 FAA runway projects with a total cost of $1 billion or more

Sources

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 
100 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

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 NextGen

Implementation Plan (formerly Operational Evolution Plan). 

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. 

FTA—Oversight contractors and third-party risk assessment providers 

are used 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. 

Statistical Issues

FAA—Schedule completion performance is measured for two 

milestones: project design and project completion. 

A project milestone is considered to meet the performance target 

if actual annual rate of completion is not more than two 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 two 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 six to 

ten 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, 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 database. 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 

oversight contractors and third-party risk assessment providers 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. 
101 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ANNUAL PERFORMANCE REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2011

Details on DOT Organizational

Excellence Measures

Transit Grant Process Efficiency (FTA)

Measure

Average number of days a grant is awarded 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/Persons 

with Disabilities formula grants

 Capital grants

 Job Access and Reverse Commute grants

 Over-The-Road Bus grants

 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) 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. 
Office of the Secretary of Transportation

Assistant Secretary for Budget & 

Program Performance

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington DC 20590