Measurement Tools for Assessing Motor Vehicle Division Port-of- Entry Performance FINAL REPORT 527 Prepared by: Jason Carey 4304 East Campbell Avenue Phoenix, AZ 85018 SEPTEMBER 2003 Prepared for: Arizona Department of Transportation 206 South 17th Avenue Phoenix, Arizona 85007 in cooperation with U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration The contents of the report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts and the accuracy of the data presented herein. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official views or policies of the Arizona Department of Transportation or the Federal Highway Administration. This report does not constitute a standard, specification, or regulation. Trade or manufacturers’ names which may appear herein are cited only because they are considered essential to the objectives of the report. The U.S. Government and The State of Arizona do not endorse products or manufacturers. Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient's Catalog No. FHWA-AZ-03-527 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date September 2003 6. Performing Organization Code Measurement Tools for Assessing Motor Vehicle Division Port-of-Entry Performance 7. Authors 8. Performing Organization Report No. Jason Carey 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. Jason Carey 4304 East Campbell Avenue, Phoenix, AZ 85018 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR-PL-1-(59) 527 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13.Type of Report & Period Covered ARIZONA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 206 S. 17TH AVENUE PHOENIX, ARIZONA 85007 14. Sponsoring Agency Code Project Manager: John Semmens 15. Supplementary Notes Prepared in cooperation with the U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration 16. Abstract The Arizona Port of Entry (POE) Program provides a valuable service to the residents of Arizona, but lacks a clear means of evaluating the efficiency and effectiveness of its enforcement program. This in turn makes it more difficult to communicate the achievements of the Port of Entry Program, and to identify potential improvements in service quality. This research addresses the development of measures of performance for evaluation of the Arizona Port of Entry Program. By developing specific measures tied to the goals and objectives of the program, Arizona POE managers will have a better set of tools for decision making, and increased accountability to Arizona taxpayers. Measures of performance should communicate the need for improvement in an organization, but should highlight accomplishments as well. Many of the performance measures discussed in the literature emphasized quantity of a particular unit of measurement (e.g., trucks weighed), but did not relate that quantity to the operational conditions under which it was achieved. In contrast, the measures recommended in this report provide a means of relating measurements to the intended outcome of each activity. Comparing revenues to truck travel, or overweight traffic to the percentage of traffic weighed, indicates the degree to which enforcement induces compliance with state regulations. Similarly, illustrating the benefits that accrue to highway users as a result of port of entry services provides a means of evaluating the overall value of POE services. Performance measures need to be redefined as the priorities of an organization change, and special care must be taken when comparisons are made between multiple agencies or time periods. The best assessment of the needs of the port of entry program will come from port managers, who are most familiar with the goals and operating conditions that affect the ports of entry. The measurements developed for this study were intended to provide additional tools from which port of entry performance could be managed, but the ultimate responsibility for selecting and implementing an appropriate measurement system remains with port of entry administrators. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 23. Registrant's Seal ports-of-entry; truck weight enforcement; Document is available to the truck safety enforcement; commercial fee U.S. public through the collection National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 19. Security Classification 20. Security Classification 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 117 SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol LENGTH LENGTH in inches 25.4 millimeters mm mm millimeters 0.039 inches in ft feet 0.305 meters m m meters 3.28 feet ft yd yards 0.914 meters m m meters 1.09 yards yd mi miles 1.61 kilometers km km kilometers 0.621 miles mi AREA AREA 2 2 2 2 in square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm mm Square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in 2 2 2 2 ft square feet 0.093 square meters m m Square meters 10.764 square feet ft 2 2 2 2 yd square yards 0.836 square meters m m Square meters 1.195 square yards yd ac acres 0.405 hectares ha ha hectares 2.47 acres ac 2 2 2 2 mi square miles 2.59 square kilometers km km Square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi VOLUME VOLUME fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz gal gallons 3.785 liters L L liters 0.264 gallons gal 3 3 3 3 ft cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m m Cubic meters 35.315 cubic feet ft 3 3 3 3 yd cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m m Cubic meters 1.308 cubic yards yd NOTE: Volumes greater than 1000L shall be shown in m3. MASS MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g g grams 0.035 ounces oz lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg kg kilograms 2.205 pounds lb T short tons (2000lb) 0.907 megagrams mg Mg megagrams 1.102 short tons (2000lb) T (or “metric ton”) (or “t”) (or “metric ton”) TEMPERATURE (exact) TEMPERATURE (exact) ºF Fahrenheit 5(F-32)/9 Celsius temperature ºC ºC Celsius temperature 1.8C + 32 Fahrenheit ºF temperature or (F-32)/1.8 temperature ILLUMINATION ILLUMINATION fc foot candles 10.76 lux lx lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2 cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS FORCE AND PRESSURE OR STRESS lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf lbf/in2 poundforce per 6.89 kilopascals kPa kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per lbf/in2 square inch square inch SI is the symbol for the International System of Units. Appropriate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380 Table of Contents SUMMARY OF KEY FINDINGS ...............................................................................................1 I. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................5 Why Measure Performance? ........................................................................................... 7 How Is Performance Measured?...................................................................................... 8 Deciding What To Measure............................................................................................. 9 Measuring Efficiency Versus Measuring Effectiveness .............................................. 9 Establishing Benchmarks And Performance Targets .................................................... 11 II. PORT OF ENTRY PERFORMANCE: STATE FINDINGS........................................................13 State-Specific Performance Evaluations ....................................................................... 14 Comparative Measures Of Port Of Entry Performance................................................. 30 Comparisons Of Weight Enforcement Activity......................................................... 30 Weight Enforcement Measures Of Effectiveness: Weigh-in-motion Data................ 36 State Port Of Entry Performance Survey Results.......................................................... 39 Summary Of Port Of Entry Performance Measures Among States .............................. 46 III. ARIZONA PORT OF ENTRY EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................47 Arizona POE Goals And Initiatives............................................................................... 47 Arizona POE Current Conditions.................................................................................. 48 Operational Challenges .............................................................................................. 48 Procedural Challenges................................................................................................ 52 Summary Of Port Of Entry Activity, 1998 To 2002 ..................................................... 53 Selected Operational Measures ..................................................................................... 55 Weight Enforcement .................................................................................................. 55 Safety Inspections ...................................................................................................... 56 Service Contacts......................................................................................................... 56 Financial Measures..................................................................................................... 57 Summary Of Operational Measures........................................................................... 58 IV. ARIZONA PORT OF ENTRY PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT .........................................59 Existing