Comparative Performance Measurement Highlights And Standing Committee on

Comparative Performance Measurement Highlights And Standing Committee on Performance Management Task Force Update October 2009 Mara Campbell Organizational Results Director Missouri Department of Transportation

A Road is a Road

How States Differ • • Climate Population Topography Organizational structure • State economies

Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance • 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!

Pavement Smoothness Performance • A total of 32 states participated • 12 high-performing states identified • Five agency best practices and four contractor best practices

Highway Safety Performance • Fatalities Accident Reporting System data • Best practices identified in governance, budgeting and technical methods

New Projects Underway • Bridge Conditions has 35 states participating • Incident Management still in the process of soliciting states

Task Forces Status Reports Goal Areas Safety Preservation Candidate Measures A. Annual fatalities(3 -5 yr. moving avg. ) B. Major injuries A. Pavement PSI or Remaining Service Life B. Pavement IRI C. Bridge % structurally deficient by deck area Recommended Measures * 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) A. YES B. Pavement Condition Index C. Structurally deficient bridges by desk area National Goals Issues Reduce the Yes-definition of national major and tech total by 50% support in twenty years 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 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 National Issues Goal Areas Candidate Recommended Measures Environment Freight/ Economics Measures 1. GHG ( or surrogate based on VMT) 2. Climate change adaptation cost 3. Water quality The three shown are likely; others to be 1. Truck travel time/speed/reliabili ty 2. Border cross time 3. Double stack train bridge clearance; heavy train track capability none explored Goals none Refining measures and measurement techniques

Lessons Learned • It can be done! • Common definitions are a must • States do benefit from comparative performance measures • Comparative performance measures can identify best practices

Next Steps • Continue to elevate the importance of comparative performance measures. • Continue to spotlight best practices among high-performers. • Launch more comparative performance measures.

Questions?

Thank You! For more information, contact: Mara Campbell Missouri Department of Transportation (573) 526 -2908 mara. campbell@modot. mo. gov