Maintenance Quality Assurance Peer Exchange October 11 -13

Maintenance Quality Assurance Peer Exchange October 11 -13 2004 Madison, Wisconsin The Road to Performance Measurement Al Bailey, Maintenance Division California Department of Transportation

California is Vast • • 36 million people and growing World’s 5 th largest economy $1. 3 T annual Gross State Product 37% U. S. International Trade flows through CA • 50, 000+ lane miles State Highways carrying 255 B VMT annually (of 322 B Statewide) • 168, 000+ lane miles local streets and roads • 24, 000+ bridges (state and local)

Maintenance Division • • 5, 000+ Employees $814 million annual budget 450+ inches of snow (I-80 Donner Summit) 50, 000+ lane miles of state highway 250, 000 acres of right of way (30 K Landscape) 88 Rest Areas, 410 Park & Ride Lots 94 tunnels 40, 000+ Adopt-A-Highway participants

Maintenance Challenges • Topography and temperature extremes • Natural disasters, earthquakes, mudslides, fires, floods • Severe urban congestion – limited work windows • Loss of 1, 000 Maintenance staff • High public expectations – public complaints on service not safety items ($40 million annually on letter/debris and graffiti) • Stormwater - Snow hauling not just plowing

Level of Service (LOS) • Outcome Measures developed in 1998 • Quality assurance teams (after the fact) • 10% randomly-selected centerline miles • Spring & Fall reviews (ex. snow & ice) • Safety, Preservation, Service • Frequency changed in 2003 • Once per year during summer after close of FY • Quality assurance samples done during same day

Maintenance Budget Model • Ties performance to resources • Uses Safety, Preservation, Service priority structure to develop performance targets • Incorporates inventory data to develop needs and allocations

District Performance Contracts • Implemented in 1998 between Maintenance and 12 districts • Maintenance activities are classified into: – Safety – Preservation – Service • Resources documented • Annual outcome targets negotiated for major activities • Consensus from all parties

Sample Performance Plan

Sample Performance Plan (Cont. )

Maintenance Customer Surveys • Surveys in 1996, 1998 and 2001 • Telephone surveys were conducted by outside contractors • Results were seldom shared with policy makers or public • No attempt to resolve discrepancies between public perceptions and our own LOS scores

Customer Surveys Cont’d • Internet survey of transportation users (2004) • Separate surveys of stakeholders, Rest Area users on-site, Snow and Ice control efforts (ski resorts and Nevada casinos) • Attempt to verify where we are, and the customer's priorities • If we are achieving a 60 LOS Roadside score and the public is satisfied, why target an 80 LOS? • Justification for shifting or requesting resources

Department-wide Efforts • Primarily output measures focused mostly on the Capital Program • Revision of Mission, Vision, Goals – Safety, Reliability, Performance, Flexibility, Productivity • District and deputy director performance contracts with Director modeled after Maintenance • Then in 2003 came…………

Arnold • California Performance Review – Campaign promise to make government accountable to citizens • Performance Improvement Initiative – Cabinet level process improvement review • Transportation System Performance Measures – Development of Administration’s Transportation Vision for the State through Performance Measurement (internals and externals) • Organizational Performance Measures – Departmentwide reporting process (managing performance)

Transportation System Performance Measure Team • • • Appointed by Cabinet Secretary, 5/04 Public and private sector interests & experts State, regional, local governments Focused first on outcomes, then indicators Identified outcomes and indicators to pursue immediately, others needing further development • Final report delivered July 30, 2004 • Reporting to start in January 2005

Performance Measure Uses • Accountability to Legislature, Control Agencies and the public • Justification for budget increases • Development of Budget Allocation Model • Priority setting especially during fiscal cutbacks • Consistent statewide education effort to both internals and externals on Maintenance activities

Performance Measure Definitions • Mobility/Accessibility/Reliability – Minimize time and cost and maximize choice and dependability. Reach desired destinations within reasonable time, cost, choice, dependability and ease • Productivity – Maximize throughput or efficiency (system wide) • System Preservation – Preserve the publicly owned transportation system at a specified state of repair or condition. Physical condition of the system

Performance Measure Definitions • Safety – Reduce fatalities, injury, and property loss of system users and workers. Facilitate perception of personal safety – Environmental Quality – Maintain and enhance the quality of the natural and human environment • Coordinated Transportation and Land Use – Ensure transportation decisions promote and support job/housing proximity

Performance Measure Definitions • Economic Development – Contribute to California’s economic growth. • Return on Investment – Benefit cost analysis or best return on investment (includes life cycle costing) • Equity – No person shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance – No disproportionate impact based on income and ethnic groups. Ensure equitable sharing of benefits. Ensure accessibility for people with disabilities

Maintenance Performance Measures • • • Pavement Smoothness (IRI) Distressed Lane Miles Illness and Injury Index Bridge Health Index (BHI) Structurally Deficient/Functionally Obsolete (SD/FO) Bridges • Incident Clearance • Levels of Service – Pavement, Roadside, Electrical, Structures

Recent Maintenance Changes • LOS reviews reduced to once per year • Quality assurance to be done at same time • Customer surveys to be done in-house • Publicize efforts to shift spending priorities from service activities to safety and preservation activities • 5 -year plan (SB 1098) to coordinate maintenance and rehab operations (value of PM recognized)

Performance Goals • Reporting externally – Citizens want to know – How much $ we are given – How we are spending $ – How much they are getting • Benchmarking against other states – Information exchanges improve performance • International Exchanges China, Japan, etc.

Remaining Challenges • Technology and resources • Cultural reluctance to deliver “bad news” – need to deliver accurate info • Maintaining a customer, not technician focus • Keeping the measures outcome-based— ensuring the RIGHT projects and services are delivered when needed AND that they are delivered efficiently and effectively • Run program like a business – asset management

Success Factors • Executive Management Support – 1 steering committee – Dedicated staff – Communication plan to all employees • MPO experience • Movement to performance-based programming for SHOPP • Technology • CTP update, Strategic Goals • Recognition of power of performance measures to making good programming decisions

Success Factors Cont’d • Recognized support for business-to-business relationships • Need for ROI in fiscally constrained environment • Public support • Shared responsibilities for reporting (no one agency can or should do it all) • Willingness to drive organizational behavior

Thank you • For more information: www. dot. ca. gov al. bailey@dot. ca. gov