comparative performance measurement highlights and standing committee on performance management task...
TRANSCRIPT
Comparative Performance
Measurement HighlightsAnd
Standing Committee on Performance Management Task
Force UpdateOctober 2009
Mara CampbellOrganizational Results Director
Missouri Department of Transportation
A Road is a Road
How States Differ
• Climate• Population• Topography• Organizationa
l structure• State
economies
• Focused on knowledge sharing,• Based on rigorous measurement
methodologies,• Designed to minimize additional
data collection, and • Reported to protect DOTs from
unfair scrutiny.
Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance
• A total of 20 states participated
• Significant buy-in to the process
• 28 best practices from nine states!
Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance
• A total of 32 states participated
• 12 high-performing states identified
• Five agency best practices and four contractor best practices
Pavement Smoothness Performance
• Fatalities Accident Reporting System data
• Best practices identified in governance, budgeting and technical methods
Highway Safety Performance
• Bridge Conditions has 35 states participating
• Incident Management still in the process of soliciting states
New Projects Underway
Task Forces Status ReportsGoal Areas Candidate
MeasuresRecommended
MeasuresNational
GoalsIssues
Safety A. Annual fatalities(3-5 yr. moving avg.)
B. Major injuries
Number of Roadway Fatalities
· * 3-Year Moving Average of Annual fatalities
· * Number of Major Injuries
· 4 * Number of fatalities by emphasis area (such as impaired, inattention, etc)
Reduce the national total by 50% in twenty years
Yes-definition of major and tech support
Preservation A. Pavement PSI or Remaining Service Life
B. Pavement IRI
C. Bridge % structurally deficient by deck area
A. YES
B. Pavement
Condition Index
C. Structurally
deficient bridges by
desk area
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
Task Forces Status Reports Continued
Goal Areas Candidate Measures
Recommended Measures
National Goals
Issues
Congestion Travel time index; Travel delay; Total travel time;
Buffer Index;
Congestion Cost;
Economic Benefits
Travel Delay
Travel Delay per
Commuter
Congestion Cost
Nothing yet .
There should be two specific components: a congestion measure and pop/job/ or economic growth
Differences
In technical capabilities/ problems/ agreement on measures among states and MPOs
Systems Operations
Urban:traveltime
Reliability;
Snow removal time; Rural:Road closure index; Customer satisfaction
None yet Nothing yet Measures to use and comparability
Task Forces Status Reports Continued
Goal Areas Candidate Measures
Recommended Measures
National Goals
Issues
Environment 1.GHG ( or surrogate based on VMT)
2.Climate change adaptation cost
3.Water quality
The three shown are likely; others to be
explored
none Refining measures and measurement techniques
Freight/ Economics
1. Truck travel time/speed/reliability
2. Border cross time
3. Double stack train bridge clearance; heavy train track capability
none none Refining measures and measurement techniques
• It can be done!• Common definitions are a must• States do benefit from comparative
performance measures• Comparative performance measures
can identify best practices
Lessons Learned
• Continue to elevate the importance of comparative performance measures.
• Continue to spotlight best practices among high-performers.
• Launch more comparative performance measures.
Next Steps
Questions?
Thank You!For more information, contact:
Mara Campbell Missouri Department of Transportation
(573) 526-2908