Performance Reporting and Target Setting

Tuesday, July 27th

Francis G. Ziegler, P.E. NDDOT Director

ASSET MANAGEMENT - PERFORMANCE MANAGEMENT PEER EXCHANGE

State specific – states have different priorities and different customer perspectives which leads to different levels of expectations.

How should performance targets be set: what percentage of pavements, bridges, or other assets have to be in acceptable condition?

IRI has many variables:◦ Different equipment and calibration

methods.

◦ Different IRI levels represent different levels of pavement

condition.

Setting pavement categories as good, fair, or poor should be done on the national level and targets set at the state level.

For pavements, how can IRI and other pavement condition information be used to categorize pavements as good, fair, or poor and/or what constitutes a state of good repair ?

Department of Transportation's road work goes high-tech

Difficult due to differences: Budgets Equipment Environment Staffing/organizational

culture Customer expectations

How do we ensure consistency of condition reporting among states?

All state systems vary in age, traffic volume, reaction to weather & environmental challenges.

How do unique differences among states in terms of weather conditions, degree of urbanization, age of the system and other factors like this enter into determining what the targets should be?

Professional judgment can’t be programmed, but must be considered on basis of local factor.

Different information gathering processes offer other perspectives to be offered during the planning phase of the project development.

How do you ensure that professional judgment that takes into account unique local conditions or factors is part of the decision making process at a state or national-level?

Bridges – Would ND build a bridge to deal with the same seismic conditions as California?

Pavement striping - Would Florida need to

replace their pavement striping as frequent as North Dakota and other Midwestern states would with all of the plowing during the winter?

Non-Comparable issues

Nile Valley Landslide Yakima, Washington

Pavement – Would I-5 in Washington deteriorate faster due to traffic conditions than I-94 in North Dakota?

Non-Comparable issues

Pembina, N.D. surrounded by water

Stakeholder expectations for all levels of service are different for each state.

Whereas – Targets need to be set by each state DOT in order to address; legislative priorities, different levels and methods of funding, and different areas and levels of stakeholder expectations.

Performance Management Discussion

Investigating Performance Management

Demonstrate clear linkage between government expenditures and transportation agency results

Accountability and transparency - show what the public receives for its transportation investment

Improved decision making and investment processes

Why performance management?

Who determines goals, measures, sets targets…

Collaborative effort from all levels of government

One level should not mandate the performance of another

Broad policy goals set at national level

Allow each state to negotiate measures and priorities important to their unique circumstances and set appropriate targets

Who should be involved?

Agreement on federal and state roles AASHTO SCOPM work USDOT Strategic Plan International Scan – Linking Transportation

Performance and Accountability April 2010(FHWA-PL-10-011)

Where do we begin?

Is it necessary?

Is it more important that states have measures and targets appropriate to their situation ?

Is it more important to ensure each individual state is held accountable to their agreed upon performance management system ?

Is it similar to federal requirements for STIP and Long Range Transportation Plan?

Excellent guides already exist for possible measures that states could draw from (AASHTO/FHWA/USDOT)

How do we ensure consistency among states?

Proposed: Safety

Pavement Preservation

Bridge Preservation

Congestion

Freight/Economic Competitiveness

System Operations

Environment Livability

What goal areas should be included in law?

International Technology Scanning Program – “Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability” April 2010 Report – Other nations doing Performance Management for over a decade.

“The nations it studied articulated a limited number of national transportation policy goals, negotiate intergovernmental agreements on how state, regional, and local agencies will achieve the goals, and evaluate performance by tracking the measures and reporting them in clear language appropriate to the audience.”

When to learn from others?

Performance Indicators

18

Goal Areas Candidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals Issues

Safety A. Annual fatalities (3-5 yr. moving avg.)

B. Major injuries

A. Annual fatalities on a 3-yr moving avg. (TIER 1)

B. Serious injuries(TIER 2)

Reduce the national total by 50% in twenty years

Definition of serious and tech support

Preservation A. Pavement PSI or Remaining Service Life

B. Pavement IRIC. Bridge %

structurally deficient by deck area

A. IRI (TIER 1)B. Structural

Condition (TIER 2)C. NHS Structurally

Deficient Deck Area (TIER 1)

D. Bridge structural adequacy

(Tier 3)

Interstate and other NHS –no goal at this time

More uniform definition of pavement structural adequacy; national goals or targets need to be a function of funding levels. Need to get a new measure for bridges

Performance Indicators

19

Goal Areas

Candidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals Issues

Congestion Travel time index; Travel delay; Total travel time;Buffer Index;Congestion Cost;Economic Benefits

1. Travel delay (TIER 1)2. Travel delay per commuter (regional measure) (TIER 2)3. Congestion cost (TIER 2)4. Interstate System Travel Time Reliability (Tier 2)

Nothing yet .Perhaps limit to certain Interstate or NHS routes of national significance

Geographic application.Uniform measurement—”single” contractor,. Agreement on measures among states and MPOs

Systems Operations

Urban: travel time Reliability;Snow removal time; Rural: Road closure index; Customer satisfaction

1. Incident response timeon the NHS (TIER 3)2. Incident clearance time the NHS (TIER 3)3. Work Zone Closures on the NHS (TIER 3)

Nothing yet. Big variation in cold weather states vs. warm and rural vs. urban

Measures to use and comparability.

Performance Indicators

20

Goal Areas Candidate Measures

RecommendedMeasures

National Goals Issues

Environment 1. GHG (or surrogate based on VMT)

2. Climate change adaptation cost

3. Water quality

1. Transportation greenhouse gases; (TIER 2)2. Storm water runoff (% of state owned impervious pavements with treated water quality) (TIER 3)

Need to develop candidate measures in a uniform way

Freight/ Economics

1. Truck travel time time/speed/reliability

2. Border cross time3. Double stack train

bridge clearance; heavy train track capability

1. Reliability on SFC’s (TIER 1)

2. Speed/Travel Time on SFC’s (TIER 1)

3. Roadway Access measure (TIER 3)

Defining SFC’s• Coordination with MPO’s• Developing access measures for autos and trucks

North Dakota’s Perspective

Performance Measures Report Card◦Customer Satisfaction◦Employee Satisfaction◦Worker Safety◦Highway Safety◦Highway System Condition◦Project Development & Delivery

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

Legislatively Approved Highway Performance Classification System◦ Prioritized 5-tier system to identify desired

levels of service in the following areas: Ride & Distress Load Capacity Access Management Investment Strategy

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

All data tied to common reference system:◦ Extensive quality data◦ Pavement condition◦ Highway components◦ Video log tied to GIS data◦ Sign inventory

Robust pavement management system and bridge management system

Strategic committee actively working to continue advancing asset management within the organization

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

Mandated specific performance measures and targets could result in the need for extensive changes in state’s data collection, analysis, and reporting methods = time and resources.

Momentum is there for improving asset management and performance management. Too many prescriptive changes could affect momentum due to efforts needed to comply.

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

Individual states are best equipped to determine measures that fit their needs and set targets that are reasonable and appropriate to advancing their missions.

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

All agencies are doing Performance Management and Asset Management at some level.

No one system is “right” for everyone. Emphasis should be placed on ensuring

systems and processes are in place that work for each individual state and continuous effort is made to enhance the systems.

ND Perspective on Performance Reporting & Target Setting

AASHTO has determined the following goal areas:

AASHTO Model of Goal areas

Goal Area Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3

Safety 3 year Moving Average of the state number of fatalities

3 year Moving Average of the state number of serious injuries

Pavement Preservation IRI Structural adequacy

Bridge Preservation NHS Structurally Deficient deck area Structural adequacy of NHS bridges (New measure suggested by FHWA)

Operations(Goal of AASHTO)

Incident Management on NHS Routes: response time, clearance time, work zone closure

Congestion Travel delay Travel delay per commuterCongestion costReliability on Interstate system

Environment GHG emissions Storm water runoff

Freight/Economic Competitiveness

Speed/travel time on significant fright corridors (SFC’s); Reliability on SFC’s

Rural Highway Accessibility (New measure suggested by AASHTO)

Livability TBD

AASHTO & FHWA Performance Measures for Eight Goals Draft dated 7-12-10