CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
final report<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong><br />
prepared for<br />
Colorado Department of Transportation<br />
prepared by<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.<br />
1566 Village Square Boulevard, Suite 2<br />
Tallahassee, FL 32309<br />
date<br />
December 31, 2011
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table of Contents<br />
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................ 1<br />
1.0 Introduction ......................................................................................................... 1-1<br />
1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 1-1<br />
2.0 Stakeholder Outreach ........................................................................................ 2-1<br />
3.0 <strong>Performance</strong> Measures ....................................................................................... 3-1<br />
3.1 <strong>Performance</strong> Reporting Context ............................................................... 3-1<br />
3.2 Benefits ......................................................................................................... 3-3<br />
3.3 Assessing <strong>CDOT</strong> Current Practices .......................................................... 3-4<br />
3.4 Recommended Measures ........................................................................... 3-7<br />
3.5 <strong>Data</strong> to Support Measures ....................................................................... 3-22<br />
3.6 Initial Calculations .................................................................................... 3-25<br />
3.7 <strong>Data</strong> Inventory .......................................................................................... 3-30<br />
3.8 Alignment with Goals .............................................................................. 3-37<br />
3.9 Potential Enhancements ........................................................................... 3-38<br />
4.0 <strong>Data</strong> Governance <strong>Plan</strong> ....................................................................................... 4-1<br />
4.1 Best Practices ............................................................................................... 4-1<br />
4.2 State of <strong>Data</strong> Governance at <strong>CDOT</strong> .......................................................... 4-7<br />
4.3 Recommendations and Timeline ............................................................ 4-14<br />
5.0 External Reporting Dashboard ......................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.1 Best Practices ............................................................................................... 5-1<br />
5.2 Current <strong>CDOT</strong> Process and Web Reporting Capability ...................... 5-19<br />
5.3 Recommendations for <strong>CDOT</strong> Dashboard Report Format .................. 5-19<br />
6.0 Cost/Benefit Curves for Safety and Mobility ................................................ 6-1<br />
6.1 Safety ............................................................................................................ 6-2<br />
6.2 Mobility ........................................................................................................ 6-3<br />
Appendix A Additional <strong>Data</strong> Collection Recommendations ............................. A-1<br />
Appendix B <strong>CDOT</strong> Supporting Measures ............................................................ B-1<br />
Appendix C References ............................................................................................ C-1<br />
Appendix D Stakeholder Interview Summary ..................................................... D-1<br />
Appendix E <strong>CDOT</strong> Goals and Objectives ............................................................. E-1<br />
Appendix F Sample <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team Charter .............................. F-1<br />
Appendix G Congestion ........................................................................................... G-1<br />
Appendix H Calculation Spreadsheet Pages ........................................................ H-1<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.<br />
i
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
List of Tables<br />
Table 3-1 Assessing <strong>CDOT</strong> Practices ...................................................................... 3-5<br />
Table 3-2 Summary of Measures ............................................................................. 3-7<br />
Table 3-3 Summary of Results for 2010 ................................................................ 3-21<br />
Table 3-4 <strong>Data</strong> Sources to Support <strong>Performance</strong> Measures .............................. 3-22<br />
Table 3-5 Report Sources ........................................................................................ 3-23<br />
Table 3-6 <strong>Data</strong> Catalog ........................................................................................... 3-33<br />
Table 3-7 <strong>Data</strong> Quality Issues for Measures ........................................................ 3-36<br />
Table 4-1 <strong>Data</strong> Management Maturity Model Matrix .......................................... 4-9<br />
Table 4-2 <strong>CDOT</strong> Multi-Asset Management Self-Assessment ........................... 4-11<br />
Table 5-1 Hennepin County Sample Balanced Scorecard ................................. 5-18<br />
Table 5-2 Dashboard Types ................................................................................... 5-20<br />
Table 5-3<br />
A Comparison of Operational and Tactical Dashboards and<br />
Strategic Scorecards ............................................................................... 5-21<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.<br />
iii
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
List of Figures<br />
Figure 3.1 <strong>Performance</strong> Management Framework ................................................ 3-1<br />
Figure 3.2 <strong>Data</strong> Flow ................................................................................................ 3-24<br />
Figure 3.3 <strong>CDOT</strong> Mission ........................................................................................ 3-37<br />
Figure 4.1 <strong>Data</strong> Management, <strong>Data</strong> Governance, and <strong>Data</strong> Stewardship .......... 4-3<br />
Figure 4.2 Self-Assessment Results ........................................................................ 4-13<br />
Figure 4.3 Timeline ................................................................................................... 4-21<br />
Figure 5.1 Georgia DOT <strong>Performance</strong> Management Dashboard ......................... 5-2<br />
Figure 5.2 Georgia DOT Bridge Maintenance Measures ...................................... 5-3<br />
Figure 5.3 VDOT Main Dashboard .......................................................................... 5-4<br />
Figure 5.4 Detailed View for Project Delivery ........................................................ 5-5<br />
Figure 5.5 Virginia Governor’s Scorecard ............................................................... 5-6<br />
Figure 5.6 Washington State Transportation Improvement Board<br />
Dashboard ................................................................................................. 5-7<br />
Figure 5.7 Washington State <strong>Performance</strong> Management Dashboard ................. 5-8<br />
Figure 5.8 Washington State Key <strong>Performance</strong> Indicators ................................... 5-8<br />
Figure 5.9 N<strong>CDOT</strong> Organization <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard ................................. 5-9<br />
Figure 5.10 Detailed View for Infrastructure Health ............................................. 5-10<br />
Figure 5.11 N<strong>CDOT</strong> Quarterly Scorecard ............................................................... 5-11<br />
Figure 5.12 District Transportation Access Portal (Beta 2.0) ................................ 5-12<br />
Figure 5.13 Detailed View for Safety ....................................................................... 5-13<br />
Figure 5.14 Capital Bikeshare <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard ....................................... 5-14<br />
Figure 5.15 Capital Bikeshare Dashboard Drill Down .......................................... 5-15<br />
Figure 5.16 MNDOT <strong>Performance</strong> Results Scorecard ........................................... 5-16<br />
Figure 5.17 Dashboard Design Elements ................................................................ 5-25<br />
Figure 5.18 <strong>CDOT</strong> Dashboard Example .................................................................. 5-29<br />
Figure 5.19 <strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures Site Organization .............................. 5-32<br />
Figure 6.1 Example Cost/Benefit Curve – Interstate Bridges in the Atlanta<br />
Region ........................................................................................................ 6-1<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.<br />
v
List of Figures, continued<br />
vi<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Executive Summary<br />
Like many transportation agencies, the Colorado Department of Transportation<br />
(<strong>CDOT</strong>) collects, maintains, and reports on a wide variety of internal and<br />
external performance areas. <strong>CDOT</strong> has been collecting and using performance<br />
measures data to support long-range planning, policy, and investment analysis<br />
since the early 2000s. Several internal offices are directly involved with the<br />
collection of data and the maintenance of systems to store and analyze the<br />
information to support the measures. <strong>CDOT</strong> performance data is reported<br />
regularly (both internally and externally). These include the Annual<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Report; Annual Report; Transportation Deficit Report; Strategic<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>; FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship Agreement; and <strong>CDOT</strong> Fact Book. Several<br />
internal offices also report on various indicators including regions, bridge office,<br />
contracts and market analysis, project development, and maintenance. In<br />
addition, there are several related initiatives occurring within <strong>CDOT</strong> that are<br />
aimed at improving access to data and information.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>, like many other state DOTs, realizes that the highway construction era is<br />
changing, and the Department’s focus needs to shift from increasing capacity to<br />
managing and operating the existing system. Managing and operating the system<br />
requires detailed information about current and past performance, as well as<br />
predictions of future performance. Mobility, safety, asset management, and data<br />
collection/management are critical to the success of any <strong>CDOT</strong> performance-based<br />
planning process.<br />
The overall objective for this project was to develop a <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong> for <strong>CDOT</strong>. The report comes at an optimum time for <strong>CDOT</strong> to get ready for<br />
potentially changing Federal requirements and to support enhanced data<br />
management, performance reporting and decision-making within the agency. The<br />
project was sponsored by the <strong>Performance</strong> and Policy Analysis Unit within<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>’s Division of Transportation Development. This report documents the<br />
results of this effort. It recommends the following nine core performance<br />
measures:<br />
1. Number of fatalities;<br />
2. Bridge condition;<br />
3. Pavement condition;<br />
4. Roadside condition;<br />
5. Snow and ice control;<br />
6. Roadway congestion;<br />
7. On time construction;<br />
8. On budget construction; and<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.<br />
ES-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
9. Strategic action item implementation.<br />
It also addresses data management methodologies to support these measures,<br />
and details best practices and recommendations related to data governance,<br />
performance measures, and dashboard development. The products were<br />
generated with extensive internal stakeholder input.<br />
ES-2<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
1.0 Introduction<br />
1.1 PURPOSE<br />
There are two main types of challenges associated with performance<br />
measurement: 1) making effective use of performance data for decision-making,<br />
and 2) ensuring that the critical processes and responsibilities for data<br />
processing, analysis, and distribution work as effectively as possible. <strong>CDOT</strong>, like<br />
other agencies, is facing both types. Each aspect of performance measurement –<br />
data quality, data management, analysis tools and methods, dissemination, and<br />
use in business process – is important to the ultimate success of the effort. In<br />
general, agencies should determine which element(s) need more attention and<br />
they need to develop a balanced strategy for improvement. Typically, this<br />
strategy will require efforts on multiple fronts within <strong>CDOT</strong> including:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Measuring the right things, at a level of detail appropriate to what they will<br />
be used for;<br />
Taking advantage of current technologies and tools for data collection,<br />
processing, and analysis;<br />
Making the best possible use of existing data and legacy systems;<br />
Enhancing tools over time to provide better decision support; and<br />
Building the staff capability and commitment required to ensure quality<br />
information and analyses that are used to make decisions.<br />
The purpose of this project was to develop and deliver a <strong>Plan</strong> to improve the<br />
Department’s management of performance information in the following areas:<br />
identification of priority performance measures, identification of critical data for<br />
these measures, data quality assurance and control, interfacing with a data<br />
management system, ensuring consistency, and minimizing the burden of<br />
reporting.<br />
This report documents current practices and next steps for <strong>CDOT</strong> with regard to<br />
performance measures, data governance and dashboard development.<br />
The remainder of this report is organized in the following sections:<br />
2.0 Stakeholder Outreach Process – Summary of outreach efforts.<br />
3.0 <strong>Performance</strong> Measures – Details current practices, best practices, and<br />
recommended practices related to performance measures. Included in this<br />
section is a detailed discussion regarding data needs to support the<br />
recommended measures.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 1-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Data</strong> Governance – Details best practices and specific recommendations for<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> regarding the development of a <strong>Data</strong> Governance strategy.<br />
5.0 External Dashboard – Documents best practices and examples from other<br />
states and recommends a specific dashboard structure for <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
6.0 Cost/Benefit Curves for Safety and Mobility – Addresses options for<br />
evaluating the relationship between funding level and future safety and mobility<br />
performance.<br />
1-2 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
2.0 Stakeholder Outreach<br />
A key component of this project was coordination with the large number of<br />
stakeholders within <strong>CDOT</strong>. The input received from these staff was integral to<br />
developing the recommendations. Following is a summary of the outreach<br />
efforts.<br />
1. A list of internal stakeholders was developed in coordination with <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Stakeholders included both performance measures program and data<br />
program owners and users. They represent offices that collect, own,<br />
maintain, use, interface with, access, benefit from, or are otherwise affected<br />
by the data and performance measures. The stakeholders were organized<br />
into a Core Team and Stakeholder Group. The Core Team’s role was to<br />
provide guidance to the project team by reviewing the recommended<br />
approach and products, assist with stakeholder coordination and<br />
reconciliation of issues, and help to ensure that the products met all<br />
Stakeholder needs. The Stakeholders Group’s role was to assist with<br />
interviews, provide feedback on the recommended performance measures,<br />
contribute to populating the data matrix, and provide <strong>CDOT</strong> best practices.<br />
2. Kickoff meetings of the Core Team and Stakeholders Group were held on<br />
May 2, 2011. Individual interviews were also held with the stakeholders to<br />
discuss the following topics: <strong>Business</strong> Area Mandates and <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Measures (SAP role, What? Who? When? How?), Tools and Dashboards<br />
(Existing and new tools, <strong>Data</strong> Sources, Source? Owner? <strong>Data</strong> quality?); <strong>Data</strong><br />
Governance (Methods? Readiness?). A summary of the kickoff meetings<br />
and interviews is included in Appendix D.<br />
3. Additional meetings were held by telephone throughout the summer of 2011<br />
with stakeholders who were not available for the face-to-face meetings in<br />
May.<br />
4. A Core Team meeting was held by teleconference on July 25. The draft<br />
performance measures matrix was reviewed by the team at that time.<br />
5. A final set of meetings were held with stakeholders on September 6 and 7,<br />
2011 to review and validate the recommendations to date. Large meetings<br />
were held with a Management team and with the broader Stakeholder<br />
Group. Individual meetings were also held with each data owner to discuss<br />
data needs for the nine recommended measures.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 2-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3.0 <strong>Performance</strong> Measures<br />
3.1 PERFORMANCE REPORTING CONTEXT<br />
This section reviews <strong>CDOT</strong>’s performance reporting processes, compares them<br />
to best practices nationally, and recommends opportunities for improvement.<br />
To help structure the review of current practices, the study team used a<br />
performance management framework developed through a National<br />
Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) study. This framework,<br />
illustrated in Figure 3.1, shows performance reporting as one of three related<br />
DOT management processes, alongside strategic planning and performance<br />
management. Together, these three components establish the foundation for a<br />
continuous cycle of identifying priorities, allocating resources, refining agency<br />
practices, managing staff, and maintaining accountability to the public. Each<br />
process has its own timeframe and cycle, and though they are all closely related,<br />
each is characterized by distinct activities conducted by various parties within an<br />
agency.<br />
Figure 3.1<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Management Framework<br />
Source: <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, NCHRP 8-62 Final Report, Transportation <strong>Performance</strong> Management<br />
Programs, Insight from Practitioners, April 2009.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Each component illustrated in Figure 3.1 is described below. The descriptions<br />
define the terms and characteristics used for the assessment of <strong>CDOT</strong> practices<br />
presented in Section 3.3. This information (along with the benefits of<br />
performance reporting provided in Section 3.2) draws heavily from the NCHRP<br />
8-62 work, but has been tailored for this report.<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
The strategic planning process typically includes the following elements:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Vision or Mission. An agency’s mission or vision is the set of foundational<br />
principles that guide all of its policies and business decisions. A mission<br />
should be broad enough to encompass the agency’s entire breadth of<br />
responsibilities, while specific enough to suggest actionable goals and<br />
objectives.<br />
Goals. While an agency’s mission can remain the same for a long period<br />
(although it does not have to), its goals should change as necessary in<br />
response to new or evolving challenges. <strong>Performance</strong> measures can directly<br />
inform the development of goals by highlighting troubling trends and<br />
particular agency challenges. Goals can address a variety of facets of the<br />
agency’s performance, including external performance (state of the system,<br />
project delivery, customer satisfaction, etc.) and internal performance<br />
(human resources, communication, employee satisfaction, etc.).<br />
Objectives. One of the characteristics of an effective strategic plan is that it<br />
contains a limited number of achievable, measurable objectives that can be<br />
achieved within a few years. Strategic objectives will ultimately determine<br />
the measures that are used to gauge success.<br />
Initiatives. Strategic initiatives and implementation strategies are used to<br />
help orient an agency towards achieving the desired outcomes and fostering<br />
informed and responsive decision-making. Once goals are in place and<br />
specific measurable objectives have been set, agencies can identify policies<br />
and procedures that ensure success.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Management<br />
Figure 3.1 presents performance management as a continuous cycle consisting of<br />
the following four activities:<br />
Selecting measures. <strong>Performance</strong> measures provide a means for connecting<br />
decisions to agency goals and objectives. The best measures reflect an agency’s<br />
priorities, are feasible to calculate given existing data, and can be influenced by<br />
an agency’s actions.<br />
Setting targets. <strong>Performance</strong> targets are the gauges of success that support and<br />
advance an agency’s strategic plan. Without them, objectives may represent<br />
abstract concepts. The most useful targets are ambitious but achievable.<br />
3-2 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Making decisions. Ideally, performance management begins at the strategic<br />
level, where the setting of agency goals and objectives implies certain resource<br />
allocation priorities right from the start. However, DOT decision-making is far<br />
more nuanced than simply deciding that a particular function or outcome, such<br />
as pavement condition, is where the agency will invest its resources. There are<br />
numerous business decisions made within individual divisions or business<br />
functions that can benefit from a performance-based approach.<br />
Evaluating the system. One key objective of performance management is to<br />
discourage complacency in an agency that might otherwise be slow to embrace<br />
and adopt change. Likewise, the performance system itself should be regularly<br />
evaluated and updated as necessary. The most important area of evaluation is<br />
the selection of the measures. Although measures should be updated<br />
periodically to ensure consistency with agency priorities and strategic plans,<br />
there are significant benefits associated with maintaining a stable collection of<br />
measures. Internally, consistently collecting and reporting the same measure for<br />
several years enables the in-depth analysis of long-term trends. Externally,<br />
consistent measures can make it easier for stakeholders to fully appreciate<br />
progress that is being made or new challenges that arise.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Reporting<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> reporting is an essential component of any performance<br />
management program. Therefore, the form and frequency of performance<br />
reports should not be an afterthought. Reporting performance is in itself a key<br />
component in developing a culture of performance throughout a DOT.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> reports should reflect agency priorities, assess progress towards<br />
goals and objectives, be understandable by target audiences, be easily accessible,<br />
and be updated regularly.<br />
3.2 BENEFITS<br />
Strategic planning, performance management and performance reporting can<br />
help agencies make difficult decisions about longer-term policy priorities,<br />
(“doing the right things”) as well as where and how to apply day-to-day staff<br />
and capital resources (“doing the right things well”). Additional benefits<br />
include:<br />
<br />
Helping agency leaders set a strategic agenda and motivate staff – effective<br />
leaders keep their organizations focused on the highest business priorities.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> data can help them understand challenges and set appropriate<br />
policy priorities. At a transportation agency, for example, analysis of data<br />
can reveal where performance is inadequate in key focus areas like pavement<br />
condition, fatalities, congestion, project delivery, or maintenance and this<br />
information can be used to set a strategic agenda. Armed with a<br />
performance-driven strategic direction, leaders can energize staff and focus<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-3
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
resources around key policy priorities – such as reducing fatalities or<br />
alleviating congestion – to maximum effect.<br />
Helping agency managers improve business processes – Strong<br />
performance emerges when day-to-day business processes are aligned with<br />
agency-wide strategic priorities. In large organizations, business practices<br />
that have neutral or even adverse impacts on performance can easily become<br />
routine. Careful scrutiny of performance indicators can help managers make<br />
better day-to-day decisions about how to direct staff and resources to achieve<br />
outcomes that are more closely aligned with an agency’s overall strategic<br />
agenda for achieving improved performance.<br />
<br />
Helping agencies improve accountability to external stakeholders – The<br />
need for improved accountability is increasingly becoming a fact for public<br />
agencies. Transportation agencies that ignore the expectations of elected<br />
officials, advocacy organizations or the public run the risk of stimulating<br />
adversarial relationships that drive up the risk of negative policy mandates<br />
and reductions in funding. In contrast, agencies able to provide stakeholders<br />
with timely and compelling performance-based information about important<br />
issues can increase credibility and establish a positive environment for setting<br />
policy and funding direction.<br />
3.3 ASSESSING <strong>CDOT</strong> CURRENT PRACTICES<br />
Table 3.1 provides an assessment of <strong>CDOT</strong>’s current practices in the areas<br />
described above. It summarizes <strong>CDOT</strong> practices, and indicates the study team’s<br />
assessment of how closely they align with best practices.<br />
These findings are based on the results from interviews with <strong>CDOT</strong> staff and a<br />
review of several <strong>CDOT</strong> documents including:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Amendment to the 2035 Revenue Forecast and Resource Allocation (June<br />
2010);<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> 2010 Transportation Deficit Report;<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> 2011 Chief Engineer’s Objectives;<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> 2010-2011 Fact Book;<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>/FHWA 2010 Stewardship Agreement;<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Fiscal Year 2010 Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Report;<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Project Priority Programming Process (4P) and STIP Development<br />
Guidelines (September 2009);<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Strategic <strong>Plan</strong>, 2011-2012 Budget; and<br />
Transportation Commission Policy Directive 14 (December 2006).<br />
3-4 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table 3-1<br />
Assessing <strong>CDOT</strong> Practices<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Element<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Alignment<br />
with Best Practices<br />
Vision/mission High Vision and mission statements are documented in Policy Directive 14, the Strategic <strong>Plan</strong> and the Statewide Transportation<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> (long-range plan).<br />
Goals and objectives High Policy Directive 14 provides goals and objectives by investment category, and the objectives are referenced in subsequent<br />
performance reports.<br />
Initiatives Low The Statewide Transportation <strong>Plan</strong> (long-range plan) provides investment strategies by corridor. The Strategic <strong>Plan</strong> provides<br />
general strategies by investment category. However, their treatment in the Strategic <strong>Plan</strong> is inconsistent; with some of the<br />
strategies lacking details required to track progress towards. For example the strategy for mobility includes “changing<br />
traveler behavior”, although this term in not defined. The Annual Report alludes to some strategies throughout the document.<br />
Overall, the study team found no consolidated list of <strong>CDOT</strong>’s priority strategic initiatives.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Management<br />
Measures Med <strong>CDOT</strong> tracks and reports a wide variety of measures. An annotated inventory of existing measures can be found in<br />
Appendix B. Overall, the measures tend to support the documented goals and objectives, reflect a mixture of system<br />
measures and organizational measures, and are actionable. In terms of coverage, <strong>CDOT</strong>’s vision and mission contain a<br />
multimodal aspect, which does not appear to be accounted for in the measures. The vision also highlights enhancing quality<br />
of life, which is not addressed.<br />
As illustrated in Appendix B, the number of measures tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong> is quite large. Most agencies calculate<br />
more measures than they report in formal performance reports. However, maintaining a large volume of measures can make<br />
it difficult for internal staff and external audiences to understand agency priorities. In addition, superfluous measures can also<br />
unnecessarily burden data collection and IT efforts. Measures that are not reported externally or used internally to influence<br />
decision-making should be removed.<br />
Targets Med <strong>CDOT</strong> has two sets of targets – annual targets and longer-term, aspirational targets. Although the longer-term goals are<br />
described in the executive summary of the Annual Report, the use of annual targets throughout the report tends to mask<br />
overall progress (or lack of progress) towards them. This is because green lights are assigned to areas in which annual<br />
targets have been obtained, regardless of the relationship between current performance and the longer-term targets.<br />
Notes<br />
The Deficit Report addresses this disconnect directly. It indicates a significant gap between aspirational targets and current<br />
performance. It also describes that significant additional funding would be required to achieve these targets. It appears as<br />
though financial constraints were not a major consideration when the aspirational targets were initially set. This decreases<br />
their strategic value because they do not represent true relative priorities (e.g., if <strong>CDOT</strong> cannot afford to do everything, these<br />
areas are its priorities), and because the department’s day to day decisions cannot influence their obtainment. In addition,<br />
tracking chronically unmet targets may eventually desensitize external decision-makers to the need for transportation funding.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-5
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Element<br />
Using measures in decisionmaking<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Alignment<br />
with Best Practices<br />
Low<br />
Notes<br />
The study team found little documentation on the use of performance measures to influence decision-making. In some areas,<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> staff explained how performance data is used to evaluate potential projects (for example, which safety<br />
countermeasures have the most promise, and which pavements and bridges to work on). However, discussions frequently<br />
focused on the mechanics of performance reporting (data collection, processing, and report development) rather than on their<br />
use.<br />
Evaluate system High <strong>CDOT</strong> has an organizational unit responsible for managing its performance management efforts.<br />
Reporting<br />
Required IT infrastructure High <strong>CDOT</strong> has made significant progress on the underlying IT infrastructure required for performance reporting. Ongoing efforts<br />
regarding a performance dashboard and PBF implementation will further enhance these capabilities.<br />
Organizational responsibility High <strong>CDOT</strong> has an organization structure that clearly defines a performance management champion, responsible for establishing,<br />
compiling, and reporting performance measures.<br />
Reporting format and content Med <strong>CDOT</strong> maintains a variety of performance measure reports. Each report has its specific purpose (e.g., fulfill a reporting<br />
mandate, highlight internal measures, communicate funding gaps, etc.), and therefore contains a custom set of measures.<br />
Similar to the discussion above regarding the use of multiple measures, the use of multiple reports can make it difficult for<br />
internal and external audiences to clearly understand agency priorities, what success looks like, and how <strong>CDOT</strong> is<br />
progressing towards success.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> provides on-line access to many of its performance reports in PDF format. The reports are not located in a central<br />
location, and users must sift through the reports if they are interested in a specific performance area.<br />
3-6 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3.4 RECOMMENDED MEASURES<br />
This section recommends a set of priority performance measures. The measures<br />
were chosen based on stakeholder input, public priorities, and alignment with<br />
goals. Taken collectively, they can provide a comprehensive status report for the<br />
public, help to communicate agency priorities and progress, and enhance<br />
transparency and accountability.<br />
Table 3.2 summarizes the measures and categorizes them into tiers. Tier 1<br />
measures require no further work, while Tier 2 measures have issues that need to<br />
be resolved before implementation. In most cases, the issues reflect options and<br />
suggestions by <strong>CDOT</strong> staff that are not consistent with the recommendations<br />
presented below.<br />
Table 3-2<br />
Summary of Measures<br />
# Measure Tier Issues Recommendations<br />
1 Number of fatalities 2 Determine if measure should reflect a Report a count rather than a rate.<br />
rate (fatalities per 100 million VMT) or a<br />
count.<br />
Determine if measure should be<br />
Report measure for <strong>CDOT</strong> roadways.<br />
reported for the entire state or for <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
roadways.<br />
Determine if measure should reflect Focus measure on fatalities<br />
injuries in addition to fatalities.<br />
Determine if measure should reflect an Use a 5-year average<br />
annual value or a 5-year average.<br />
2 Bridge condition 1<br />
3 Pavement condition 2 Determine if the measure should include Combine remaining service life with IRI<br />
an IRI component.<br />
4 Roadside condition 2 Determine the preferred scope of this<br />
measure – the entire maintenance<br />
program, the Commission’s priorities, or<br />
roadside condition.<br />
Focus measure on roadside conditions<br />
5 Snow and ice<br />
control<br />
6 Roadway<br />
congestion<br />
7 On time<br />
construction<br />
8 On budget<br />
construction<br />
9 Strategic action item<br />
implementation<br />
1<br />
2 Add measures on delay and travel time<br />
reliability.<br />
1<br />
2 Determine if this measure should be<br />
considered as a priority measure and<br />
reported externally.<br />
Include measure in external reports<br />
2 Identify actions items to monitor. Tie this measure to actions identified in<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>’s strategic plan and/or long<br />
range plan.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-7
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
In addition to the issues identified in Table 3.2 a global issue is to finalize the use<br />
of a grading scale. The following sections recommend a grading scale from A to<br />
F that could be applied consistently to all measures except for number of<br />
fatalities. Other options identified throughout the course of this project include a<br />
variable grading scale that reflects differences in the measures (for example, an A<br />
for bridges might represent a higher percent of good/fair than an A for<br />
pavements), and the assignment of grades based on achievement of a long-term<br />
target value.<br />
The following sections describe the recommended measures. Details related to<br />
data and calculations are contained in Section 3.6.<br />
System <strong>Performance</strong><br />
1. Number of Fatalities (5-year moving average)<br />
Existing Measure: Number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled<br />
is currently tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to report<br />
the number of fatalities rather than the fatality rate, and report a five-year<br />
moving average rather than a single year.<br />
Current Value: 1.01 fatalities per 100 million VMT<br />
Value Based on Recommendation: The current annual average of fatalities on<br />
state highways from 2005 to 2009 is approximately 542 (based on NHTSA<br />
Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data).<br />
Owner: Rahim Marandi<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Fatalities by year for past five years TRAFDA Safety and Traffic Engineering<br />
Unit of Measure: Count<br />
Calculation:<br />
Where:<br />
<br />
<br />
K = number of fatalities<br />
n = year of calculation<br />
Update Frequency:<br />
Annually<br />
Additional Notes: A random element occurs in the timing and location of<br />
serious crashes. Therefore, the annual number of fatalities may fluctuate a great<br />
deal from one year to the next. Relying on a moving average number of fatalities<br />
over a five-year period provides a more stable picture of crash occurrence, and<br />
3-8 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
will make it easier to identify trends and establish a correlation between <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
actions and observed performance.<br />
“Fatalities” are defined as a fatality that occurs within 30 days of a crash.<br />
This is the only measure not converted to a grading scale. If a grading scale is<br />
preferred, a different type of safety measure is probably necessary.<br />
2. Bridge Condition<br />
Existing Measure: The percent of deck area on bridges and major culverts on<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> system that are classified as “good” or “fair” is currently tracked and<br />
reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>. Good/fair/poor are based on the following criteria:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Poor – Sufficiency rating less 50 and classified as SD (structurally deficient)<br />
and/or FO (functionally obsolete).<br />
Fair – Sufficiency rating between 50 and 80 and classified as SD or FO.<br />
Good – Do not meet the criteria for poor or fair.<br />
Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent good or fair:<br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to convert the<br />
existing results to a letter grade.<br />
Current Value: 94.5%<br />
Value Based on Recommendation:<br />
Owner: Mark Nord<br />
A<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Structure ID Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
Bridge region Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
Bridge length Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
Bridge width Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
Bridge sufficiency rating Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
Bridge SD/FO status Pontis Staff Bridge Branch<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-9
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. Calculate the deck area of each structure as follows:<br />
<br />
2. Determine which bridges are “good or fair” using the criteria described<br />
above.<br />
3. Calculate percent good or fair as follows:<br />
<br />
∑ <br />
∑ <br />
100<br />
4. Convert result to a letter grade using the thresholds defined above.<br />
Update Frequency: Annual (<strong>Data</strong> are collected biannually for each bridge.<br />
However, the inspections are performed on a rolling basis, so it is recommended<br />
that the measure be reported annually.)<br />
Additional Notes: The criteria for defining good/fair/poor are based on<br />
national standards used to determine eligibility for Federal bridge funds.<br />
Bridges in poor condition are eligible for Federal reconstruction funds. Bridges<br />
in fair condition are eligible for Federal rehabilitation funds. Bridges in good<br />
condition are not eligible for Federal funds.<br />
Sufficiency rating is reported on a scale of one to one hundred. It is based on<br />
condition data and bridge characteristics related to serviceability and essentiality<br />
for public use. Structurally deficient (SD) status indicates that a bridge has a<br />
significant condition defect. Functionally obsolete (FO) status indicates a design<br />
issue, such as insufficient shoulder width. All three metrics are based on data<br />
collected biannually.<br />
3. Pavement Condition<br />
Existing Measure: The percent of miles of pavement that are classified as<br />
“good” or “fair” based on remaining service life (RSL) is currently tracked and<br />
reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>. RSL thresholds are as follows:<br />
Poor – RSL < 6<br />
Fair – 6 ≤ RSL ≤ 10<br />
Good – RSL ≥ 11<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to combine<br />
RSL with percent of miles of pavement classified as “good” or “fair” based on IRI<br />
(International Roughness Index), and then convert the result to a letter grade.<br />
The recommended IRI thresholds are as follows:<br />
Poor – IRI > 170<br />
Fair – 95 ≤ IRI ≤ 170<br />
Good – IRI < 95<br />
3-10 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent good or fair:<br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
Current Value: 48% based on RSL<br />
Value Based on Recommendation:<br />
available.)<br />
Owner: Stephen Henry<br />
F (At time of this writing IRI data was not<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Pavement segment identifier ADLP Pavement Design Unit<br />
Pavement segment region dTIMS Pavement Design Unit<br />
Pavement segment number of miles dTIMS Pavement Design Unit<br />
Pavement segment RSL ADLP Pavement Design Unit<br />
Pavement segment IRI Surface Condition <strong>Data</strong>base Pavement Design Unit<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. Classify each segment as good, fair or poor using RSL thresholds defined<br />
above.<br />
2. Calculate percent good or fair based on RSL as follows:<br />
<br />
∑ good or fair based RSL<br />
∑ <br />
100<br />
3. Classify each segment as good, fair or poor using IRI thresholds defined<br />
above.<br />
4. Calculate percent good or fair based on IRI as follows:<br />
percent IRI <br />
∑ M good or fair based IRI<br />
∑ M<br />
100<br />
5. Combine the results of step 2 and step 4 as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
6. Convert percent total to a letter grade using the thresholds defined above.<br />
Update Frequency:<br />
Annual<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-11
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Additional Notes: RSL is defined as the number of years remaining until<br />
reconstruction is necessary. A pavement segment’s RSL is estimated based on<br />
pavement age, traffic volumes, climate zone, cracking distress, rut depth, and<br />
smoothness as measured by IRI.<br />
IRI is a measurement of pavement smoothness, and reflects how the traveling<br />
public experiences a roadway. The recommended thresholds for good/fair/poor<br />
for IRI are based on thresholds being considered by AASHTO and FHWA as part<br />
of a national performance monitoring program.<br />
RSL is a holistic representation of pavement condition based upon age,<br />
environment, distress deterioration rates, and the user's perspective as<br />
represented by IRI. Combining RSL with IRI elevates the importance of the<br />
user's perspective. However, <strong>CDOT</strong> may want to adjust the weight associated<br />
with each component. The current proposal is to weight them both equally. If<br />
the public surveys indicate willingness for less than perfect pavement, RSL<br />
should be weighted higher than IRI.<br />
ADLP is a tool maintained by the pavement group. Output from the ADLP is<br />
stored in an access database and/or spreadsheet, and imported into the<br />
pavement management system.<br />
4. Roadside Condition<br />
Existing Measure: Nine measures are tracked and combined to provide an<br />
Overall Maintenance Level of Service grade at <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to the existing measure is to<br />
combine the LOS grades for the Roadside Facilities and Roadside Appearance<br />
Maintenance Programs into a new measure of roadside condition.<br />
Current Value:<br />
Value Based on Recommendation: B+<br />
Owner: B.J. McElroy<br />
Roadside Facilities B+ / Roadside Appearance B<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Roadside Facilities LOS<br />
Roadside Appearance LOS<br />
Roadside Facilities expenditures from<br />
previous year<br />
Roadside Appearance expenditures<br />
from previous year<br />
BPS Module of SAP (source will be<br />
PBF, when complete)<br />
BPS Module of SAP (source will be<br />
PBF, when complete)<br />
BPS Module of SAP<br />
BPS Module of SAP<br />
Operations and Maintenance Division<br />
Operations and Maintenance Division<br />
Operations and Maintenance Division<br />
Operations and Maintenance Division<br />
3-12 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. Convert the two LOS values from a grade to a numeric value using the<br />
following table:<br />
Grade<br />
Value<br />
A+ 98<br />
A 95<br />
A- 91<br />
B+ 88<br />
B 85<br />
B- 81<br />
C+ 78<br />
C 75<br />
C- 71<br />
D+ 65<br />
D 65<br />
D- 61<br />
F+ 58<br />
F 55<br />
F- 51<br />
2. Calculate a weighted average of the two numeric values based on the<br />
expenditures in the previous year, as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
3. Convert the resulting numeric value to a letter grade using the following<br />
table:<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-13
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A+ ≥ 97<br />
A 93-96<br />
A- 90-92<br />
B+ 87-89<br />
B 83-86<br />
B- 80-83<br />
C+ 77-79<br />
C 73-76<br />
C- 70-73<br />
D+ 67-69<br />
D 63-66<br />
D- 60-63<br />
F+ 57-59<br />
F 53-56<br />
F- < 53<br />
Update Frequency:<br />
Annual<br />
Additional Notes: LOS is based on the results of an annual visual inspection.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> is collected on a sampling basis, so that statewide results can be reported<br />
with a reasonable level of statistical confidence.<br />
The LOS for the Roadside Facilities program accounts for the following items:<br />
drainage inlets and structures, drainage ditches, slopes, fencing, sound barriers,<br />
litter, debris, and sand on shoulders. The LOS for the Roadside Appearance<br />
program accounts for the following items: grass mowing, vegetation control,<br />
and landscape appearance.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> currently reports maintenance LOS values using a grading scale that<br />
includes plusses and minuses. Although plusses and minuses are not included<br />
for the other measures, it is recommended that they be used for this measure to<br />
maintain consistency with current reporting practices.<br />
5. Snow and Ice Control<br />
Existing Measure: A letter grade is reflecting the level of service (LOS) for<br />
snow and ice control is currently tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Recommendation:<br />
Current Value: C+<br />
Value Based on Recommendation: C+<br />
Owner: B.J. McElroy<br />
No modification to this measure is recommended.<br />
Status: This measure is currently reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
3-14 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Snow and Ice Control LOS<br />
BPS Module of SAP (source will be<br />
PBF, when complete)<br />
Operations and Maintenance Division<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation: No additional calculation is necessary. Measure can be reported<br />
directly from SAP.<br />
Update Frequency: Annual<br />
Additional Notes: See notes on LOS above.<br />
6. Roadway Congestion<br />
Existing Measure: The minutes of delay per traveler on congested state<br />
highway segments is currently tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Recommendation:<br />
reported as follows:<br />
It is recommended that three congestion measures be<br />
1. Extent of Congestion – Assign a letter grade based on percent of person miles<br />
traveled (PMT) on all corridors that are considered congested/uncongested.<br />
Letter grades are based on the thresholds below for percent uncongested.<br />
2. Delay Per Traveler (annual hours) –<br />
<br />
A T<br />
T FFS PSL<br />
T T <br />
FFS – Free Flow Speed<br />
PSL – Posted Speed Limit<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
3. Travel Time Reliability – begin tracking a travel time reliability metric in<br />
coordination with the ITS Office. Recommended measure is the planning<br />
time index formula.<br />
<br />
<br />
For example – the measure would be reported as an A if more than 90% of all<br />
person miles traveled occur on uncongested roadways. The measure would be<br />
reported as an F if less than 60% of all person miles traveled occur on<br />
uncongested roadways.<br />
The measure is to be reported for urban and rural segments of the state<br />
separately.<br />
The following relates to the first measure. Measures two and three need further<br />
development and coordination regarding data availability.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-15
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
Current Value: Rural 8.4% congested / Urban 45.5% congested<br />
Value Based on Recommendation: Rural – A / Urban – F<br />
Owner: Mehdi Baziar<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Roadway segment ID TRAFFON Information Management Branch<br />
Roadway segment region/MPO area TRAFFON Information Management Branch<br />
Roadway segment vehicle miles traveled<br />
(VMT)<br />
Average vehicle occupancy rate by<br />
region/MPO area<br />
TRAFFON<br />
TRAFFON<br />
Information Management Branch<br />
Information Management Branch<br />
Roadway segment volume/capacity ratio TRAFFON Information Management Branch<br />
Roadway segment urban/rural designation IRIS Information Management Branch<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. Determine urban and rural VMT and perform the remainder of the steps for<br />
each group separately.<br />
2. Calculate PMT for each segment as follows:<br />
<br />
3. Calculate percent PMT on rural roads as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
∑ / .<br />
∑ <br />
100<br />
Calculate percent PMT on urban roads as follows:<br />
∑ / .<br />
∑ <br />
100<br />
4. Convert the results to a letter grade using the thresholds defined above.<br />
Update Frequency:<br />
Annual<br />
3-16 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Additional Notes: In locations with permanent traffic counters, V/C is based on<br />
the 30th highest hour. In other locations, it is based on the highest peak hour.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> needs to begin including system operation improvements such as<br />
managed lanes, variable speed limits, and adaptive traffic signalization in the<br />
planning process. Appropriate performance measures need to be adopted to<br />
monitor, measure and track the success of these projects in terms of improving<br />
mobility and improving congestion. The most appropriate measure to<br />
accomplish this is travel time reliability.<br />
In a broader sense, reliability is a dimension or attribute of mobility and<br />
congestion. Traditionally, the dimensions of congestion have been spatial (how<br />
much of the system is congested?) (represented by measure one above), temporal<br />
(how long does congestion last?), and severity-related (how much delay is there<br />
or how low are travel speeds?) (represented by measure two above). Reliability<br />
adds a fourth dimension: how does congestion change from day to day?<br />
The recommended measure is:<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Time Index<br />
95 th percentile Travel Time Index<br />
(95th percentile travel time divided by the free flow travel time)<br />
In general, reliability is defined as the variation in that performance measure<br />
over a specified period of time, whether speaking in terms of travel times, delay,<br />
stops, queues, speeds or any other transportation performance measure.<br />
“Variability” and “reliability” are interchangeable terms and refer to<br />
performance, regardless of how performance is measured or predicted. To be<br />
more specific, travel time reliability relates to the how travel times for a given<br />
trip and time period perform over time. For measuring reliability, a “trip” can<br />
occur on a specific highway section, any subset of the transportation network, or<br />
can be broadened to include a traveler’s initial origin and final destination.<br />
Reliability (more appropriately, unreliability) is caused by the interaction of the<br />
factors that influence travel times: fluctuations in demand, traffic control<br />
devices, traffic incidents, inclement weather, work zones, and physical capacity<br />
(based on prevailing geometrics and traffic patterns). From a measurement<br />
perspective, reliability is quantified from the distribution of travel times, for a<br />
given facility/trip and time slice, that occurs over a significant span of time; one<br />
year is generally long enough to capture nearly all of the variability caused by<br />
disruptions. A variety of different metrics can be computed once the travel time<br />
distribution has been established.<br />
The <strong>Plan</strong>ning Time Index was calculated from actual data for the period from<br />
November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011 covering I-70 from Denver<br />
International Airport to Vail in both directions. The values and maps showing<br />
peak hour <strong>Plan</strong>ning Time Indices are included in Appendix G.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-17
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Organizational <strong>Performance</strong><br />
7. On Time Construction<br />
Existing Measure: The percent of construction projects being delivered on time<br />
is currently tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong> and included in the Chief Engineer’s<br />
Objectives and the FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> stewardship agreement. <strong>CDOT</strong> is moving<br />
towards defining "on time" delivery as occurring when a project is completed<br />
within the period specified in the contract after the pre-construction conference.<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to assign a<br />
letter grade based on the thresholds below.<br />
A potential alternative for this measure is to base it on information provided in<br />
the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP). Measuring against<br />
the STIP would enable <strong>CDOT</strong> to assess performance against the public’s<br />
expectations, which are often established by the project timing information<br />
provided in the STIP. Options include using a project’s original completion year,<br />
as first specified in the STIP as the definition of on time; and assessing the degree<br />
to which progress has been made on a project in each year specified in the STIP.<br />
Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent of on time<br />
projects:<br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
Current Value: 72.2%<br />
Value Based on Recommendation:<br />
Owner: Scott McDaniel<br />
C<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Project identifier for projects completed in previous<br />
quarter<br />
SAP Projects System Module<br />
Completion date for each project SAP Projects System Module TBD<br />
Project completion data specified in the contract after SAP Projects System Module<br />
TBD<br />
the pre-construction period for each project<br />
TBD<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
3-18 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Calculation:<br />
1. For each project completed in the previous quarter, flag as “on-time” if it was<br />
completed within the period specified in the contract after the preconstruction<br />
conference.<br />
2. Calculate percent on time as follows:<br />
# <br />
100<br />
# <br />
3. Convert the result to a letter grade using the thresholds defined above.<br />
Update Frequency: Quarterly<br />
Additional Notes: None<br />
8. On Budget Construction<br />
Existing Measure: The percent of construction projects being delivered on<br />
budget is currently tracked and reported by <strong>CDOT</strong> and included in the Chief<br />
Engineer’s Objectives and the FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> stewardship agreement. A project<br />
is considered to be “on budget” if it is completed within the project commitment<br />
amount.<br />
Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to weight<br />
the measure by project cost, and assign a letter grade based on the thresholds<br />
below.<br />
Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent of on budget<br />
projects:<br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
Current Value: 92.9%<br />
Value Based on Recommendation: A<br />
Owner: Scott McDaniel<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-19
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
Project identifier for projects completed in the<br />
previous quarter<br />
SAP Projects System Module<br />
Final construction cost for each project SAP Projects System Module TBD<br />
Project commitment cost for each project SAP Projects System Module TBD<br />
TBD<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. For each project completed in the previous quarter, flag as “on-budget” if the<br />
final cost was less than the project commitment amount.<br />
2. Calculate on budget average as follows:<br />
∑ “ ” <br />
100<br />
∑ <br />
3. Convert the result to a letter grade using the thresholds defined above.<br />
Update Frequency: Quarterly<br />
Additional Notes: None<br />
9. Strategic Action Item Implementation<br />
Existing Measure:<br />
This is a new measure.<br />
Recommendation: Assign letter grade based on <strong>CDOT</strong>’s progress<br />
implementing the policies and/or action items defined in its strategic plan or<br />
similar type of document. The implementation status for each item could be<br />
categorized based on the following scale:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Complete – <strong>CDOT</strong> has sufficiently addressed an action<br />
Advancing – Work on the action item is proceeding as planned<br />
Delayed – Work on the action item is delayed<br />
Dropped – The action item has been dropped and will no longer be<br />
implemented.<br />
Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent of items complete<br />
or advancing:<br />
Grade<br />
Threshold<br />
A 90 – 100<br />
B 80 – 89<br />
C 70 – 79<br />
D 60 – 69<br />
F < 60<br />
3-20 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Current Value: NA<br />
Owner: Gary Vansuch<br />
Required <strong>Data</strong> Item Source Owner<br />
TBD TBD TBD<br />
Unit of Measure: Grade<br />
Calculation:<br />
1. Identify priority policies and/or action items that should be tracked.<br />
2. Categorize each item using the scale above.<br />
3. Calculate the measure as follows:<br />
# <br />
100<br />
# <br />
4. Convert the result to letter grade<br />
Update Frequency:<br />
Quarterly<br />
The following table summarizes the results of all measures.<br />
Table 3-3 Summary of Results for 2010<br />
# Measure Current Value<br />
Value Based on<br />
Recommendation<br />
1 Number of fatalities 1.01 per 100 mil VMT 542<br />
2 Bridge condition 94.5% A<br />
3 Pavement condition 48% F<br />
4 Roadside condition B+ / B B+<br />
5 Snow and ice control C+ C+<br />
6 Roadway congestion R 8.4% cong / U 45.5% cong A / F<br />
7 On time construction 72.2% C<br />
8 On budget construction 92.9% A<br />
9 Strategic action item<br />
implementation<br />
NA<br />
NA<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-21
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3.5 DATA TO SUPPORT MEASURES<br />
This section summarizes the data sources for the recommended measures. It also<br />
documents the approach used to determining initial values for each measure.<br />
Table 3-4<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Sources to Support <strong>Performance</strong> Measures<br />
DATABASE SOURCE<br />
MEASURE<br />
Number of Fatalities<br />
ADLP<br />
BPS Module of SAP<br />
dTIMS<br />
IRIS<br />
Pontis<br />
SAP Projects System<br />
Module<br />
Surface Condition<br />
<strong>Data</strong>base<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
X<br />
Pavement Condition X X X<br />
Roadside Condition<br />
X<br />
Snow and Ice Control<br />
X<br />
Roadway Congestion a X X<br />
On Time Construction<br />
X<br />
On Budget Construction<br />
X<br />
Strategic Action Item Implementation<br />
a Measure one only<br />
TRAFDA<br />
X<br />
TRAFFON<br />
3-22 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table 3-5 describes the data sources (reports) that were referenced to calculate<br />
the measures. <strong>CDOT</strong> typically reports measure results in an annual performance<br />
report.<br />
Table 3-5<br />
Report Sources<br />
Measure DATA SOURCE LOCATION<br />
Number of Fatalities<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
Pavement Condition<br />
Roadside Condition<br />
Snow and Ice Control<br />
FARS website<br />
% Good/Fair available in <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Report<br />
% Good/Fair based on RSL available<br />
in <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Report<br />
IRI not available<br />
available in <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Report<br />
available in <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Report<br />
Reports for 2007 through 2010<br />
available on <strong>CDOT</strong> website as PDF<br />
Reports for 2007 through 2010<br />
available on <strong>CDOT</strong> website as PDF<br />
Reports for 2007 through 2010<br />
available on <strong>CDOT</strong> website as PDF<br />
Reports for 2007 through 2010<br />
available on <strong>CDOT</strong> website as PDF<br />
Roadway Congestion 2010-Urban-Rural-summary.xlsx. Provided by <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
On Time Construction<br />
Chief Engineer’s Objectives Final Provided by <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Report<br />
On Budget Construction<br />
Chief Engineer’s Objectives Final Provided by <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Report<br />
Strategic Action Item Implementation TBD TBD<br />
The following diagram shows the general flow of data among <strong>CDOT</strong> systems<br />
and databases to generate the performance results.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-23
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 3.2<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Flow<br />
3-24 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3.6 INITIAL CALCULATIONS<br />
This section describes the details involved in calculating initial value for each<br />
measure. An accompanying spreadsheet was created and delivered to <strong>CDOT</strong> as<br />
part of this project. Figure 5.18 is a recommended dashboard design with<br />
measures calculated as described in Section 3.6. The dashboard illustrates the<br />
department’s performance status at a glance.<br />
Number of Fatalities<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
Fatality data was gathered from the NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System<br />
(FARS) Encyclopedia at http://www-fars.nhtsa.dot.gov/Main/index.aspx.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Number of fatalities was entered into Excel spreadsheet as well as the reporting<br />
year. <strong>Data</strong> was available from 1994 to 2009 at the time of this report.<br />
Year 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Number of<br />
Fatalities 586 645 617 613 628 626 681 741 743 642 667 606 535 554 548 465<br />
Five Year<br />
Average 617.8 625.8 633.0 657.8 683.8 686.6 694.8 679.8 638.6 600.8 582.0 541.6<br />
Years of<br />
Average<br />
1994‐1998<br />
1995‐1999<br />
1996‐2000<br />
1997‐2001<br />
1998‐2002<br />
1999‐2003<br />
2000‐2004<br />
2001‐2005<br />
2002‐2006<br />
2003‐2007<br />
2004‐2008<br />
2005‐2009<br />
2006‐2010<br />
Build Formula<br />
A formula was built to average the first five years of fatality data. This formula<br />
was used to calculate rolling averages for all data.<br />
Plot Results<br />
A line chart was created from the calculated data. This type of chart was chosen<br />
to display trends over time.<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
Bridge condition data was collected from the <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Reports for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. The data is available as a percentage<br />
of bridge deck area in good or fair condition.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Percentages were entered into spreadsheet as well as the year of reporting.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-25
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Percent in "good" or "fair" condition 94.8% 93.8% 94.4% 94.5%<br />
Percent in "poor" condition 5.2% 6.2% 5.6% 5.5%<br />
Grade A A A A<br />
Build Formula<br />
A formula was built to calculate and return the letter grade associated with the<br />
percentage. The grades were based on the ten-point scale previously defined.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Pie charts were created from the percentages. This type of chart was chosen for<br />
comparison of parts to the whole.<br />
Pavement Condition<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
Percentage of pavement condition in good or fair condition is available in the<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Reports. At the time of this writing IRI was not<br />
available therefore only the RSL data was used to generate the graph.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Percentages were entered into spreadsheet as well as the year of reporting.<br />
Build Formula<br />
A formula was built to calculate and return the letter grade associated with the<br />
percentage. The grades were based on the ten-point scale previously defined.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Line charts were created from the percentages. This type of chart was chosen to<br />
display trends over time.<br />
Roadside Condition<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
Roadside condition data was collected from the <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Reports for fiscal years 2007 through 2010. The data is a calculation of roadside<br />
appearance and roadside facilities budget and grades.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Annual grades and amount spent were entered into the spreadsheet. Grades<br />
were manually changed into percentages based on the scale in Section 3.4.<br />
3-26 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Year 2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Roadside Fac B A‐ A‐ B+<br />
Roadside Appear C+ B B B<br />
Roadside Fac $ 19,600,000 $ 18,500,000 $ 22,300,000 $ 19,000,000<br />
Roadside Appear $ 7,500,000 $ 7,400,000 $ 8,300,000 $ 8,000,000<br />
$ 27,100,000 $ 25,900,000 $ 30,600,000 $ 27,000,000<br />
Roadside Fac 85% 91% 91% 88%<br />
Roadside Appear 78% 85% 85% 85%<br />
83% 89% 89% 87%<br />
B‐ B+ B+ B+<br />
Build Formula<br />
The calculation to arrive at the weighted average was entered. Then the letter<br />
grade was assigned based on the scale.<br />
Plot Results<br />
A bar chart was created from the average percentage.<br />
Snow and Ice Control<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
Snow and ice control grades were collected from the <strong>CDOT</strong> Annual <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Reports for fiscal years 2007 through 2010.<br />
Roadway Congestion<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> was collected from 2010-Urban-Rural-summary.xlsx, which was provided by<br />
the Office of Transportation Development (Mehdi Baziar).<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Person miles traveled on all corridors considered congested was entered for<br />
urban and rural roads separately.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-27
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
URBAN<br />
RURAL<br />
Year: 2010<br />
uncongested 32,591,598<br />
congested 27,228,080<br />
total 59,819,678<br />
% uncongested 35.3%<br />
% congested 45.5%<br />
Grade: F<br />
uncongested 37,047,182<br />
congested 3,403,623<br />
total 40,450,805<br />
% uncongested 91.6%<br />
% congested 8.4%<br />
Grade: A<br />
Build Formula<br />
The calculation to determine percentage congestion was entered, and a letter<br />
grade assigned based on the ten-point scale outlined in Section 3.4.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Pie charts were created from the percentages. This type of chart was chosen for<br />
comparison of parts to the whole.<br />
On Time Construction<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> was gathered from the Chief Engineer’s Objectives, FY 2011 Final Report.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
The percentage of on time construction was entered into the spreadsheet.<br />
FY 2011<br />
Quarter: Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Year to Date<br />
Number projects<br />
completed on time: 21 38 11 13 83<br />
Number of projects<br />
completed: 27 46 14 18 105<br />
On Time 77.78% 82.61% 78.57% 72.22% 79.05%<br />
Late 22.22% 17.39% 21.43% 27.78% 20.95%<br />
Grade: C B C C C<br />
3-28 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Build Formula<br />
The formula to determine percentage of on time construction was entered as well<br />
as to assign grades.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Pie charts were developed to show percentage on time and not on time<br />
construction.<br />
On Budget Construction<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> was gathered from the Chief Engineer’s Objectives, FY 2011 Final Report.<br />
Only the fourth quarter and year-to-date data was available from this source.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
The percentage of under budget construction was entered into the spreadsheet.<br />
Q4 Year to Date<br />
Number projects completed on budget: 13 96<br />
Number of projects completed: 14 119<br />
Under Budget 92.9% 80.7%<br />
Over Budget 7.1% 19.3%<br />
Grade: A B<br />
Build Formula<br />
A formula to calculate the percentage of construction that was delivered on or<br />
under budget was entered. A grade was determined from the resulting<br />
percentage.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Pie charts were developed to show percentage under budget and over budget<br />
construction.<br />
Strategic Action Item Implementation<br />
Gather <strong>Data</strong><br />
This is a new measure so mock data was used in order to illustrate results.<br />
Enter Into Spreadsheet<br />
Percentages were entered for action items complete, advancing, delayed and<br />
dropped, to total 100% for each reporting year.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-29
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Year: 2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Percent of implementation progress 60% 75% 80% 95%<br />
"complete" or "advancing" of strategic<br />
plan policies<br />
Grade: D C B A<br />
Complete 30% 35% 40% 50%<br />
Advancing 30% 40% 40% 45%<br />
Delayed 20% 15% 10% 5%<br />
Dropped 20% 10% 10% 0%<br />
100% 100% 100% 100%<br />
Build Formula<br />
A letter grade was assigned based on the percentage of the complete and<br />
advancing action items totaled together.<br />
Plot Results<br />
Pie charts were developed showing the percentages of action item<br />
implementation.<br />
3.7 DATA INVENTORY<br />
A data inventory assessment was completed as part of this project for the data to<br />
support the recommended measures. The recommended steps to complete a<br />
data inventory are listed in Section 4.3 (Priority 3). They are summarized below<br />
with notes describing how each step was accomplished specifically for the<br />
recommended performance measures.<br />
1. All priority data sets to support key department business – Key business needs<br />
include performance reporting and asset management.<br />
The data sets were identified by referencing the performance measures matrix in<br />
Appendix B and verification of data availability and quality through interviews<br />
with data owners.<br />
2. <strong>Data</strong> owners, stewards, stakeholders, community of interest, working groups etc. and<br />
roles/responsibilities for all.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> owners were identified based on the matrix in Appendix B and as<br />
suggested by <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
3. A data catalog detailing all data programs, sources, business owners, requestors of<br />
data, data definitions, data standards, metadata standards, format, data models, and<br />
identification of IT and business subject matter experts who may be contacted<br />
regarding information about the data programs and instructions for accessing data<br />
standards and definitions used with each data program. The catalog should be<br />
updated regularly (every two to three years).<br />
3-30 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
A data catalog was created for the nine recommended core performance<br />
measures. It is contained in Section 3.4. The following summarizes the data<br />
catalog specifically for the nine core measures:<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-31
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table 3-6<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Catalog<br />
#<br />
<strong>Performance</strong><br />
Measure<br />
1 Number of<br />
Fatalities<br />
2 Bridge<br />
Condition<br />
3 Pavement<br />
Condition<br />
4 Roadside<br />
Condition<br />
5 Snow and Ice<br />
Control<br />
Sources<br />
TRAFDA<br />
<strong>Business</strong><br />
Owner<br />
Rahim<br />
Marandi<br />
Requestors of<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
TBD<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Definitions<br />
“Fatalities” – fatality that occurs within 30 days of a<br />
crash<br />
Pontis Mark Nord TBD Poor – Sufficiency rating less 50 and classified as<br />
structurally deficient or functionally obsolete.<br />
Fair – Sufficiency rating between 50 and 80 and<br />
classified as structurally deficient or functionally<br />
obsolete.<br />
Good – Do not meet the criteria for poor or fair.<br />
ADLP, dTIMS,<br />
Surface<br />
Condition<br />
<strong>Data</strong>base<br />
BPS Module of<br />
SAP (source will<br />
be PBF, when<br />
complete)<br />
BPS Module of<br />
SAP (source will<br />
be PBF, when<br />
complete)<br />
Stephen<br />
Henry<br />
TBD<br />
RSL – the number of years remaining until<br />
reconstruction is necessary.<br />
IRI – a measurement of pavement smoothness, which<br />
reflects how the traveling public experiences a<br />
roadway.<br />
B.J. McElroy TBD LOS is based on the results of an annual visual<br />
inspection. The LOS for the Roadside Facilities<br />
program accounts for the following items: drainage<br />
inlets and structures, drainage ditches, slopes, fencing,<br />
sound barriers, litter, debris, and sand on shoulders.<br />
The LOS for the Roadside Appearance program<br />
accounts for the following items: grass mowing,<br />
vegetation control, and landscape appearance.<br />
B.J. McElroy TBD LOS is based on the results of an annual visual<br />
inspection.<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
Standards<br />
Metadata<br />
Standards<br />
Format<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
Models<br />
IT &<br />
<strong>Business</strong><br />
Subject<br />
Matter<br />
Experts<br />
TBD TBD Count TBD Safety and<br />
Traffic<br />
Engineering<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD Staff Bridge<br />
Branch<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD Pavement<br />
Design Unit<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD Operations<br />
and<br />
Maintenance<br />
Division<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD Operations<br />
and<br />
Maintenance<br />
Division<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-33
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
#<br />
<strong>Performance</strong><br />
Measure<br />
Sources<br />
<strong>Business</strong><br />
Owner<br />
Requestors of<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> Definitions<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
Standards<br />
Metadata<br />
Standards<br />
Format<br />
<strong>Data</strong><br />
Models<br />
IT &<br />
<strong>Business</strong><br />
Subject<br />
Matter<br />
Experts<br />
6 Roadway<br />
Congestion<br />
TRAFFON, IRIS<br />
Mehdi<br />
Baziar<br />
TBD<br />
Reliability – the variation in travel time, delay, stops,<br />
queues, speeds, or any other transportation<br />
performance measure over a specified period of time.<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD Information<br />
Management<br />
Branch<br />
7 On Time<br />
Construction<br />
SAP Projects<br />
System Module<br />
Scott<br />
McDaniel<br />
TBD<br />
A project is considered to be “on time” if is completed<br />
within the period specified in the contract after the preconstruction<br />
conference.<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD TBD<br />
8 On Budget<br />
Construction<br />
SAP Projects<br />
System Module<br />
Scott<br />
McDaniel<br />
TBD<br />
A project is considered to be “on budget” if it is<br />
completed within the project commitment amount.<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD TBD<br />
9 Strategic Action<br />
Item<br />
Implementation<br />
TBD<br />
Gary<br />
Vansuch<br />
TBD<br />
Complete – <strong>CDOT</strong> has sufficiently addressed an action<br />
Advancing – Work on the action item is proceeding as<br />
planned<br />
TBD TBD Grade TBD TBD<br />
Delayed – Work on the action item is delayed<br />
Dropped – The action item has been dropped and will<br />
no longer be implemented.<br />
3-34 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
A data inventory should also include an assessment of quality. There are many<br />
issues surrounding data quality. These include accuracy, completeness, validity,<br />
availability, timeliness, and coverage. Other considerations for converting the<br />
data into information and performance measures include archiving/aggregation,<br />
analysis, delivery and access. The table below documents a review of the quality<br />
issues for each measure. Yes (Y) indicates that the data characteristics meets the<br />
criteria for that measure. For example, the accuracy/validity and availability of<br />
the data to support the number of fatalities measure is satisfactory. No (N)<br />
indicates that more work is required to bring the data up to standard to be used<br />
to report on the measures. Each No (N) is accompanied by a note – notes are<br />
numbered and included beneath the table.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-35
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Characteristic<br />
Table 3-7<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Quality Issues for Measures<br />
Measure<br />
Number of<br />
Fatalities<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
Pavement<br />
Condition<br />
Roadside<br />
Condition<br />
Snow and Ice<br />
Removal<br />
Roadway<br />
Congestion<br />
On Time<br />
Construction<br />
On Budget<br />
Construction<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Implementation<br />
Accuracy, Validity, Availability Y Y Y Y Y N (1) N(2) N(3) N(4)<br />
Completeness Y Y Y Y Y N(5) N(6) N(7) N(8)<br />
Timeliness N(9) Y Y Y Y N(10) Y Y N(11)<br />
Coverage Y Y Y Y Y N(12) Y Y N(13)<br />
Archiving/Aggregation Y Y Y Y Y N(14) Y Y N(15)<br />
Delivery/Access Y Y Y Y Y N(16) Y Y Y<br />
Notes:<br />
1. More work is required to verify the availability and accuracy of the data (speeds and delay on arterials and Freeways) to support the<br />
delay and travel time reliability measures<br />
2. There were questions among data providers regarding a consistent source for this<br />
3. There were questions among data providers regarding a consistent source for this<br />
4. <strong>Data</strong> is not yet available for this measure.<br />
5. <strong>Data</strong> for arterials for % congested is required. <strong>Data</strong> is still needed for other congestion measures.<br />
6. <strong>Data</strong> may not be available for all projects<br />
7. <strong>Data</strong> may not be available for all projects<br />
8. <strong>Data</strong> is not yet available for this measure.<br />
9. <strong>Data</strong> on fatalities could be processed in a more timely manner<br />
10. Details regarding how often data is to be reported need to be discussed and agreed upon<br />
11. <strong>Data</strong> is not yet available for this measure<br />
12. Details regarding coverage (which facilities to be reported) still need to be discussed and agreed upon<br />
13. <strong>Data</strong> is still needed to support these measures.<br />
14. Archiving of speed data should be accomplished by the ITS/Operations office<br />
15. <strong>Data</strong> is not yet available for this measure<br />
16. Access should be through the dashboard.<br />
4. A business case for every critical data program.<br />
This step was not accomplished for the core measures because the business case<br />
for the data is essentially to report on performance.<br />
In general, data issues should be addressed with a data governance plan, which<br />
is discussed in more detail in Section 4.<br />
3-36 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3.8 ALIGNMENT WITH GOALS<br />
It is critical that the measures align closely with <strong>CDOT</strong>’s vision, mission, values<br />
and goals/objectives. The following figure shows that connection.<br />
Figure 3.3<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Mission<br />
The goals and objectives for each investment category are listed in Appendix E.<br />
The supporting measures are contained in Appendix B and they are color-coded<br />
to coincide with the investment categories.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-37
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
The figure above could be expanded to also include the public budget categories:<br />
maintain, maximize, expand, deliver, pass-through/multimodal and<br />
Transportation Commission contingency/debt.<br />
The recommended measures could be mapped to these categories as follows:<br />
Maintain – bridge condition; pavement condition; roadside condition; snow and<br />
ice control; roadway congestion<br />
Maximize – roadway congestion<br />
Expand – roadway congestion; on time construction; on budget construction; and<br />
strategic action item implementation.<br />
Deliver – on time construction; on budget construction; and strategic action item<br />
implementation.<br />
Pass-through/multimodal – none<br />
Transportation Commission contingency/debt - on time construction; on budget<br />
construction<br />
3.9 POTENTIAL ENHANCEMENTS<br />
This section presents opportunities for improving <strong>CDOT</strong> practices categorized in<br />
Table 3.1 as low or medium relative to best practices.<br />
Initiatives<br />
1. Clearly define the terms “strategic initiatives” and “strategies”. Develop or<br />
select a reporting mechanism for communicating <strong>CDOT</strong>’s strategic initiatives<br />
and tracking their implementation. The initiatives should support the vision,<br />
mission, goals and objectives, and represent specific policies or procedures<br />
required to achieve them. The Strategic <strong>Plan</strong> currently contains strategies,<br />
but it is recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> update them in order to ensure that they<br />
are concrete, actionable, and can be tracked.<br />
Measures<br />
2. Continue to explore options for measuring progress in the multimodal and<br />
quality of life aspects of the vision and mission. Of these two, the<br />
multimodal area lends itself better to quantitative measures. Developing<br />
these measures would require clarification of the role of <strong>CDOT</strong> within each<br />
mode, and on which aspects of multimodalism to track. Example measures<br />
include access to other modes (e.g., percent of population within a ½ mile of<br />
a bike/ped facility or transit service), coverage (e.g., pairs of employment<br />
centers connected by a bike/ped facility or transit service), operational<br />
performance (e.g., transit delay), and improvements to modal connectors<br />
(e.g., access to airports or freight rail facilities).<br />
3-38 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
It also is possible to address quality of life through specific measures.<br />
However, this approach can be difficult given the subjective nature of the<br />
term. Another approach is to document the relationship between this<br />
priority and existing measures. For example, <strong>CDOT</strong> could explain the role of<br />
mobility in improving quality of life.<br />
3. Building from the existing inventory of performance measures, look for<br />
measures that are not used or no longer used, and remove them from the<br />
performance measurement systems.<br />
4. Begin reporting on Travel Time Reliability as an additional mobility measure.<br />
Example results and maps are included in Appendix G.<br />
Targets<br />
5. Either 1) revisit the long-term, aspirational goals to ensure that they reflect<br />
relative priorities between competing needs, and that they are feasible to<br />
obtain; or 2) develop a new set of mid-range targets that meet these criteria<br />
and provide a link between year-to-year performance progress and the<br />
aspirational goals. The target setting exercise could be conducted by <strong>CDOT</strong>’s<br />
Statewide <strong>Plan</strong>ning Unit as part of a long range planning process or strategic<br />
planning process, to help ensure that short-term resource allocation decisions<br />
support a longer term view of the transportation system defined in the long<br />
range plan.<br />
6. Add an indication of movement towards the long-term targets in the Annual<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Report. For example, combine the current red/yellow/green<br />
scale with an arrow indicating if the measure is trending towards the longterm<br />
target. A green arrow pointing upwards could indicate that the annual<br />
target was achieved, and that performance is improving from previous years.<br />
Using Measures in Decision-making<br />
7. Evaluate opportunities to further integrate performance measures (current<br />
and future projections) into decision-making processes. Examples include:<br />
1) using measures to support the allocation of funds across budget categories<br />
and/or regions (building from current practices evaluating funding and<br />
performance scenarios for the pavement, bridge, and maintenance<br />
programs); 2) using measures to support the prioritization of specific projects<br />
within categories, and 3) using performance results to identify internal<br />
strategic action items.<br />
8. Document the basis for resource allocation decisions in the Long Range <strong>Plan</strong>,<br />
Revenue Forecast and Resource Allocation document, and/or the STIP<br />
Development Guidelines.<br />
9. Work with senior management to further promote a culture of performance.<br />
Examples include: consistently communicate a strategic direction for the<br />
agency; explain how a small set of measures reflect this direction; refer to<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-39
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
performance reports in management meetings; identify the role of <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
branches in achieving which performance targets; and in addition to<br />
identifying a reporting owner for each measure, identify an owner<br />
responsible for achieving the target value, etc. Research has shown that<br />
when agencies (such as <strong>CDOT</strong>) identify a performance management<br />
champion, staff in other offices may feel that they are off the hook because<br />
someone else is responsible for performance management. In reality, the<br />
performance champion is responsible for ensuring that accurate and current<br />
performance data is provided in a manner that enables other offices to use it<br />
to make better decisions.<br />
Report Format and Content<br />
10. Work to improve consistency among the various <strong>CDOT</strong> reports that contain<br />
performance information. For example, develop boilerplate text that defines<br />
the purpose, content, and use of each report; and include this text on the<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> web site and at the front of each document. Other options for<br />
improving consistency include:<br />
a. Add a discussion of <strong>CDOT</strong>’s vision, mission, goals and objectives to each<br />
document.<br />
b. Establish an overall message for the agency (for example, a message that<br />
reflects agency priorities, what is being done to address these priorities,<br />
and what needs to be done) and ensure that this message is weaved<br />
throughout each document.<br />
c. To the extent possible, modify the content of the reports so that they use<br />
the same measures. When the content is mandated, work with the<br />
mandating organizations to update the list of required measures based on<br />
the agencies current priorities. For example, the Annual <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Report contains a measure called “on-time performance for buses on U.S.<br />
36.” Ensure that this measure still reflects a current priority. If not,<br />
remove it from the report.<br />
11. Identify a “performance report of record” that represents <strong>CDOT</strong>’s vision of<br />
what an annual performance report should look like and contain. Ideally,<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> could work to turn one of the existing reports into this document,<br />
rather than developing a new one. (Based solely on document names, the<br />
Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Report appears to serve this role now.) Once<br />
established, refer to this report as much as possible during internal and<br />
external discussions. While other reports will likely still be required, they<br />
could be described in terms of addressing a particular mandate, rather than<br />
reflecting <strong>CDOT</strong>’s strategic direction.<br />
12. Provide on-line access to the information in the “performance report of<br />
record” identified in item #10. On-line dashboards provide easy access to<br />
key performance data and enable users to drill down into specific<br />
performance areas. Agencies have found that dashboards can increase the<br />
3-40 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
visibility of performance efforts, which in turn helps to integrate measures<br />
into an agency’s culture (see item #8 above), increase accountability to<br />
external partners, and ensure the longevity of performance efforts. For more<br />
information regarding the effective dashboard design, refer to Section 5 of<br />
this report.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 3-41
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
4.0 <strong>Data</strong> Governance <strong>Plan</strong><br />
This section recommends an approach for data governance within <strong>CDOT</strong>. It<br />
discusses opportunities for data governance at <strong>CDOT</strong> and documents<br />
recommendations concerning how a data governance committee could best assist<br />
the department in reporting on performance.<br />
In evaluating data issues surrounding performance reporting, it quickly becomes<br />
apparent that <strong>CDOT</strong> could benefit from a broader scaled data governance<br />
approach. This section documents the observations and recommendations made<br />
related to data management and governance at <strong>CDOT</strong>. The recommendations<br />
cover data governance to support the performance measurement/reporting<br />
process and <strong>CDOT</strong> business in general.<br />
This section is organized as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
4.1 Best Practices – Review of other existing <strong>Data</strong> Governance <strong>Plan</strong>s<br />
4.2 Assessment of <strong>CDOT</strong> – State of <strong>Data</strong> Governance at <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
4.3 Recommendations<br />
4.1 BEST PRACTICES<br />
The application of data governance in a data management plan is critical and the<br />
benefits are numerous. From a policy standpoint, data governance promotes the<br />
understanding of data as a valuable asset to the organization and encourages the<br />
understanding and management of data from both a technical and business<br />
perspective. On a practical level, data governance provides for enterprise access<br />
to data standards and metadata. It provides a central focus for identifying and<br />
controlling the collection, storage, and sharing of data. Improved sharing of data<br />
within <strong>CDOT</strong> can result in costs savings associated with data collection and<br />
integration. <strong>Data</strong> governance also is very important from an IT perspective. It can<br />
result in reduction of redundancy of maintenance of data systems, ensure that<br />
data quality is closest to the source of data collection, and provide opportunities<br />
to implement new and improved technologies for use in data programs. It also<br />
provides flexibility in responding to changes in reporting requirements.<br />
A data governance framework documents key business programs and data<br />
systems, and defines roles and responsibilities for data owners, data stewards,<br />
and data custodians. Organizations that have successfully implemented a data<br />
governance framework tend to have the following factors in common:<br />
<br />
<br />
Strong executive leadership;<br />
Partnership between the IT and the business units of the organization;<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Effective communication between the various communities of interest (COI)<br />
regarding the data and associated application systems that are used to collect,<br />
maintain, and report information;<br />
Published definitions and standards for source data, metadata, and data used<br />
in the data marts for creating reports from the various data systems; and<br />
Use of a knowledge management system to document work process, data<br />
dictionaries, data models, etc.<br />
There also are many documented obstacles to implementing successful data<br />
governance. They include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Required culture change to adapt the organization;<br />
Resistance to migration of data from silos to an enterprise management<br />
system; and<br />
Lack of funding or available resources.<br />
State DOTs face many challenges to establishing formal data governance policy<br />
and procedures. <strong>Data</strong> governance models for State DOTs are relatively new,<br />
emerging in response to improved practices for collecting, analyzing, sharing<br />
and disseminating data for the purposes of asset management, performance<br />
reporting, resource allocation and decision-making.<br />
The following definitions were developed previously by <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong><br />
for inclusion in Target-Setting Methods and <strong>Data</strong> Management to Support<br />
<strong>Performance</strong>-Based Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies (NCHRP Report<br />
666).<br />
<strong>Data</strong> management is defined as the development, execution, and oversight of<br />
architectures, policies, practices, and procedures to manage the information life<br />
cycle needs of an enterprise in an effective manner as it pertains to data<br />
collection, storage, security, data inventory, analysis, quality control, reporting,<br />
and visualization.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> governance is defined as the execution and enforcement of authority over<br />
the management of data assets and the performance of data functions.<br />
Organizations have different strategies for their approach for data governance.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> governance defines how organizations coordinate the strategic<br />
management of their data and information resources. This includes establishing<br />
clear roles, responsibilities, and authorities through various committees and<br />
works structures. These committees may range from an executive steering<br />
group, operation unit information systems strategy groups, IT strategy groups,<br />
application or technical management groups, and service management groups.<br />
The data governance steers the organization and defines the role that top<br />
management plays in information management planning, ensuring a fit between<br />
the information management and the strategy of the organization, improving<br />
communication between top management and middle management, and<br />
influencing user attitudes about information management practices.<br />
4-2 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> stewardship is defined as the formalization of accountability for the<br />
management of data resources. <strong>Data</strong> stewardship is a role performed by<br />
individuals within an organization known as data stewards.<br />
A data program refers to specific data systems that support a business area of the<br />
organization. The “program” usually includes the functions of data collection,<br />
analysis, and reporting. In the case of a DOT, some examples of these programs<br />
include traffic, roadway inventory, safety, and pavement data.<br />
A hierarchical relationship exists between data management, data governance,<br />
and data stewardship as illustrated in Figure 4.1.<br />
Figure 4.1<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management, <strong>Data</strong> Governance, and <strong>Data</strong> Stewardship<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance<br />
(DG Board, Stakeholders, DG Maturity Model)<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Stewardship<br />
(Stewards, Owners, Custodians)<br />
Source: Modified from Figure 1 <strong>Data</strong> Governance Team, The <strong>Data</strong> Governance Maturity Model. White<br />
Paper, RCG Information Technology, 2008.<br />
In addition to those who collect and provide data, there are users of the data,<br />
known as stakeholders. These stakeholders form a Community of Interest (COI)<br />
for the data system. The COIs serve a vital role by identifying needs for data and<br />
information and helping to determine where the gaps exist in data programs.<br />
<strong>Data</strong>/information “owners” who create the information do not necessarily have<br />
an interest (and, in fact, may actively resist) data sharing and dissemination.<br />
Information managers, by contrast, understand that: 1) their information only<br />
has value if it is accessible; and 2) accessibility results from syndication through<br />
the richest possible variety of information streams.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-3
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Several state DOTs have embarked on data management plans and data<br />
governance strategies in particular. They include Washington State, Minnesota,<br />
Alaska, Virginia, Georgia, California, and Colorado.<br />
Best practices that are particularly relevant to <strong>CDOT</strong> are described briefly below.<br />
Virginia DOT – Communities of Interest<br />
One of the key first steps in data governance is to establish clear roles of<br />
stakeholders. Virginia DOT assigned the following roles in the development of<br />
their data business plan:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Steward – Owns the data business plan and its associated processes<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Architect and <strong>Data</strong> Coordinator- Designated by data steward to carry<br />
out the directorate-wide business data stewardship functions<br />
<strong>Business</strong> Owner – Responsible for a data product<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Custodian – Assigned by business owner to ensure that data services<br />
are provided in the most effective way<br />
Community of Interest – The COI at Virginia DOT is the group of people<br />
who either use the product directly, or depend on its results<br />
More information related to VDOT can be found in the NCHRP 666 report and<br />
Alaska DOT&PF <strong>Data</strong> Governance, Standards and Knowledge Management<br />
(September 2009).<br />
Minnesota DOT – User Survey to Prioritize <strong>Data</strong> Needs<br />
A web survey could be used as a precursor to the more detailed interviews to<br />
prioritize data needs. Minnesota DOT used a web survey. Examples of the<br />
questions used are provided below.<br />
MNDOT User Survey of <strong>Data</strong> and Information Priorities<br />
Purpose<br />
The Minnesota Department of Transportation (MNDOT) is using a multi-step<br />
approach for implementation of a strategic data business plan to guide the<br />
management of data programs at the department. This plan will be used to meet<br />
strategic business objectives and provide information in four core business<br />
emphasis areas: safety, mobility, preservation, and support.<br />
In support of the data business plan, this survey instrument is used to gain<br />
insight into the data and priority information needs as identified by the users of<br />
the core data programs. These users are members of the Communities of Interest<br />
(COIs) representing the core programs from the following data emphasis areas:<br />
<br />
<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Project Development<br />
Produce<br />
4-4 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
Operate/Maintain<br />
Support<br />
The results of this survey will help MNDOT to identify priorities for addressing<br />
the gaps and to also improve current data programs in support of the<br />
Department’s <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
<strong>Business</strong> Areas<br />
1. What business area are you primarily associated with? (Safety, Mobility,<br />
Preservation, Support)<br />
2. Are you also associated with other business areas? Which ones?<br />
3. What are the business objectives for your business area?<br />
4. What are the priority business decisions made in your area?<br />
Role of <strong>Data</strong><br />
1. What data systems are used to support those business decisions?<br />
2. For each of the data systems previously identified, please rate each data<br />
system’s ability to meet the criteria of Accuracy, Completeness, Timeliness,<br />
Validity, Coverage and Accessibility as described below:<br />
a. High – meets criteria most of the time<br />
b. Medium – meets criteria some of the time<br />
c. Low – Does not meet the criteria<br />
For each of the following criteria?<br />
– a) Accuracy – degree to which data is free from error<br />
– b) Completeness – degree to which data values exist in the data system<br />
– c) Timeliness – degree to which data is available when required<br />
– d) Validity – degree to which data is in domain of acceptable data values<br />
– e) Coverage – degree to which sample data accurately represents the<br />
entire set of data<br />
– f) Accessibility – degree to which data is easily retrievable<br />
– g) Overall – degree to which the data system meets all of the criteria listed<br />
above<br />
1. For the systems which do not meet the Overall criteria for supporting<br />
information and business decisions, what recommendations do you have<br />
to improve system?<br />
2. Is the data collected for system by the DOT or by contractor or in<br />
partnership with other agencies?<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-5
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
3. Do quality assurance procedures exist for the collection of data for the<br />
respective systems? (Assessment of validity, accuracy, timeliness,<br />
completeness, etc.)<br />
4. How is the quality of the data affecting your ability to make business<br />
decisions?<br />
5. Do you know if the data systems you identified have metadata available<br />
to you, which explains what the data is used for?<br />
6. Does that data system have established targets and measures as part of a<br />
performance management process?<br />
7. How is the data accessed? (application systems, intranet, web, other)<br />
8. How is the data reported? (published reports, intranet, web, other)<br />
9. How is the data stored? (PC, data warehouse, legacy system)<br />
Gaps in <strong>Data</strong> and Information<br />
1. Have you identified any areas where data is lacking to support business<br />
decisions?<br />
2. Are you aware of any planned changes to existing data systems or plans to<br />
develop new data system that will address “gaps in data” issues?<br />
3. Do you have any additional recommendations to improve the data systems<br />
that support business operations?<br />
Minnesota DOT – Assessing State of <strong>Data</strong> Programs<br />
As part of the data business plan development Minnesota DOT sponsored a<br />
white paper recommending best practices for assessing the state of its data<br />
programs. The white paper documents methods, tools, and procedures that can<br />
be used to 1) assess the ability of existing data and information programs to meet<br />
user business needs, 2) determine existing and anticipated gaps in the programs,<br />
and to 3) examine how access to information can be enhanced. Additional<br />
Information can be obtained from MNDOT.<br />
Alaska DOT – <strong>Data</strong> Governance Manual<br />
Alaska DOT created a data governance manual to provide guidance in<br />
implementing data governance structures. The manual contains roles and<br />
responsibilities of all stakeholders and a data governance charter. Additional<br />
information can be found in NCHRP 666 report.<br />
District of Columbia – <strong>Data</strong> Catalog<br />
The District of Columbia developed a very comprehensive data catalog for<br />
operational data with a browsing feature to search types of data. For more<br />
information, see http://data.octo.dc.gov/.<br />
4-6 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Washington State Department of Transportation – <strong>Data</strong><br />
Stewardship Council<br />
WSDOT has a data council and a data stewardship council to help support data<br />
governance at WSDOT. WSDOT also further defines two categories of data<br />
stewardship: business stewardship and technical stewardship. The business<br />
stewards are executive, managerial, and operational stewards, while the<br />
technical stewards include the more traditional roles of system architects and<br />
database administrators. For more information, see reference 1.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management Principles from Michigan, Virginia, and Alaska<br />
DOTs<br />
Following is a summary of key data management principles identified by the<br />
subject states during their data governance/management initiatives.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Create data once, store once, and use many times.<br />
Define data from an enterprise perspective; define data so that it is sharable<br />
across the department.<br />
Make data available, allowing access to those who need it and create a<br />
“published” data dictionary available through a web site or other means.<br />
Establish data standards to reduce time and costs of maintenance of<br />
redundant data sources.<br />
Establish a data governance structure for the organization and data<br />
stewardship roles to serve as liaisons with user groups, executives, IT and<br />
COIs on data needs and emerging issues for such programs including safety,<br />
mobility, preservation, etc.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> is best managed by people who use it; business people must define the<br />
data and services they need at all levels of the organization.<br />
Establish a formal process for communicating business needs and manage<br />
changes to existing data systems to ensure data programs continue to<br />
support business needs.<br />
4.2 STATE OF DATA GOVERNANCE AT <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
This project included an assessment of the needs and gaps related to data<br />
governance to support performance reporting. The assessment was conducted<br />
through interviews and meetings with relevant stakeholders throughout <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
The stakeholder process is described in more detail in Section 2.<br />
In addition to the stakeholder outreach, two informal yet revealing surveys<br />
resulted in observations and led to the recommendations included in Section 4.3.<br />
The first informal survey was conducted with the Division of Transportation<br />
Development. The group participated in an evaluation of the data management<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-7
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
structure at <strong>CDOT</strong> using the <strong>Data</strong> Management Maturity Model Matrix from the<br />
NCHRP 666 report. A maturity model is a framework describing aspects of the<br />
development of an organization with respect to a certain process. It is a helpful<br />
tool to assess where an organization stands with respect to implementing certain<br />
processes. A maturity model also can be used to benchmark for comparison or<br />
assist an agency in understanding common concepts related to an issue or<br />
process. The maturity model matrix is shown below (Table 4.1). It can be used<br />
to assess an agency’s status and assist in identifying next steps to achieve success<br />
toward an ultimate goal state.<br />
4-8 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table 4-1<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management Maturity Model Matrix<br />
Level 0 – Ad Hoc 1 – Aware 2 – <strong>Plan</strong>ning 3 – Defined 4 – Managed 5 – Integrated<br />
Technology/<br />
Tools<br />
People/<br />
Awareness<br />
Institutional/<br />
Governance<br />
No tools in place<br />
Not aware of<br />
need for<br />
improved data<br />
management to<br />
support<br />
performance<br />
measurement<br />
processes<br />
No data<br />
governance in<br />
place<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning for<br />
tools to support<br />
data<br />
management in<br />
some offices<br />
Aware of need<br />
for improved data<br />
management to<br />
support<br />
performance<br />
measurement<br />
processes /<br />
No action has<br />
been taken<br />
Agency is<br />
discussing<br />
needs/plans for<br />
data governance<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning for tools to<br />
support data<br />
management across<br />
agency or for a specific<br />
office.<br />
Aware of need for<br />
improved data<br />
management to support<br />
performance<br />
measurement processes<br />
/<br />
Some steps have been<br />
made within agency to<br />
improve technology or<br />
institutional setting to<br />
support data<br />
management in at least<br />
one office<br />
Some level of data<br />
program assessment and<br />
formulation of roles for<br />
data managers is<br />
underway in one or more<br />
offices of agency.<br />
Implemented some tools<br />
to support data<br />
management but not<br />
widespread across<br />
agency.<br />
Aware of need for<br />
improved data<br />
management to support<br />
performance<br />
measurement processes<br />
/<br />
Some steps have been<br />
made within agency to<br />
improve both technology<br />
and institutional setting to<br />
support data<br />
management in more<br />
than one office<br />
<strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
underway – including<br />
development of<br />
governance model for<br />
multiple offices in agency.<br />
Widespread<br />
implementation of tools<br />
to support data<br />
management but not<br />
integrated<br />
Aware of need for<br />
improved data<br />
management to support<br />
performance<br />
measurement processes<br />
/ Improvements are<br />
under way to improve<br />
both technology and<br />
institutional setting to<br />
support data<br />
management across the<br />
agency<br />
<strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
developed with data<br />
assessment complete<br />
and data governance<br />
structure defined<br />
Integrated, widespread<br />
implementation of tools<br />
to support data<br />
management and<br />
performance<br />
measurement<br />
Aware of need for<br />
improved data<br />
management to support<br />
performance<br />
measurement processes<br />
/ technology and<br />
institutional processes are<br />
in place to support data<br />
management for<br />
performance measures<br />
Fully operational data<br />
governance structure in<br />
place<br />
6-Continuous<br />
Improvement<br />
Ongoing assessment of<br />
new technology to<br />
support and improve data<br />
management and<br />
performance<br />
measurement.<br />
Agency is able to develop<br />
performance measures<br />
and predict outcomes for<br />
programs based on<br />
success with other<br />
programs.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> governance<br />
structure fully supports<br />
data management<br />
activities across the<br />
agency.<br />
Red line indicates the level in the matrix <strong>CDOT</strong> is based on informal assessment<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-9
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
The group generally agreed that <strong>CDOT</strong> scores as follows for each category:<br />
Technology/Tools – Between Levels 3 and 4<br />
People/Awareness – Level 2<br />
<br />
Institutional/Governance – Level 1, which equates to “Agency is discussing<br />
needs/plans for data governance.” The ultimate state for governance is a<br />
Level 6 where the data governance structure fully supports data management<br />
activities across the agency.<br />
The scores are shown on in the table with a red solid line.<br />
A second informal survey was conducted by the <strong>Performance</strong> and Policy<br />
Analysis Unit. The following questions were asked of eleven key stakeholders<br />
questions were asked of eleven key stakeholders selected from the <strong>Plan</strong>ning,<br />
Finance and Engineering Divisions.<br />
Table 4-2<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Multi-Asset Management Self-Assessment<br />
Policy Guidance<br />
1. Policy goals and objectives reflect a holistic, longterm<br />
view of asset performance and cost.<br />
2. The agency proactively helps to formulate effective<br />
asset management policy, by working with elected<br />
officials and interest groups.<br />
3. Policy formulation allows the agency latitude in<br />
arriving at performance-driven decisions on resource<br />
allocation.<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning and Programming<br />
4. Capital versus maintenance expenditure tradeoffs<br />
are explicitly considered in the preservation of assets<br />
like pavement and bridges.<br />
5. Our agency periodically updates its planning and<br />
programming methods to keep abreast of current<br />
policy guidance, customer expectations, and critical<br />
performance criteria.<br />
6. Criteria used to set program priorities, select<br />
projects, and allocate resources are consistent with<br />
stated policy objectives and defined performance<br />
measures.<br />
Program Delivery<br />
7. Our agency uses well-defined program delivery<br />
measures to track adherence to project scope,<br />
schedule, and budget.<br />
Strongly<br />
agree Agree Neutral Disagree<br />
Strongly<br />
agree<br />
Strongly<br />
agree<br />
Strongly<br />
disagree<br />
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly<br />
disagree<br />
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly<br />
disagree<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-11
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Policy Guidance<br />
8. When adding projects or changing project<br />
schedules, our agency considers effects on the<br />
delivery of other projects in the program or other<br />
potentially impacted programs.<br />
Strongly<br />
agree Agree Neutral Disagree<br />
Strongly<br />
disagree<br />
Information and Analysis<br />
9. Our agency has a complete and up-to-date<br />
inventory of our assets.<br />
10. Our agency regularly collects information on our<br />
asset condition.<br />
11. Null. Programmer error.<br />
12. Our agency regularly collects information on the<br />
performance of our assets.<br />
13. Agency managers and staff at different levels can<br />
quickly and conveniently obtain information they need<br />
about asset characteristics, location, usage, condition,<br />
or performance.<br />
14. Our agency has established data standards to<br />
promote consistent treatment of existing asset-related<br />
data and guide development of future applications.<br />
15. Information on changes in asset condition over<br />
time is used to improve forecasts of asset life and<br />
deterioration in our asset management systems.<br />
Strongly<br />
agree<br />
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly<br />
disagree<br />
Source: Questions selected from AASHTO’s Transportation Asset Management Guide.<br />
The respondents were asked to answer the questions in the context of current<br />
and desired status at <strong>CDOT</strong>. The number “1” corresponds to “strongly disagree”<br />
and “5” corresponds to “strongly agree”. The results are shown in Figure 4.2.<br />
4-12 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 4.2<br />
Self-Assessment Results<br />
5.00<br />
4.50<br />
4.00<br />
3.50<br />
3.00<br />
2.50<br />
2.00<br />
1.50<br />
1.00<br />
0.50<br />
0.00<br />
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 13 14 15<br />
Actual<br />
Desired<br />
The CS team agrees with the survey data presented above. However, surveys<br />
may be biased since they were based on feedback from select <strong>CDOT</strong> employees.<br />
While <strong>CDOT</strong> management and staff clearly recognize the need for governance<br />
related to data collection and management, there is not a consistent<br />
understanding regarding what is needed and how it would affect the<br />
department. The following gaps were identified through stakeholder interviews<br />
during this project.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
No one office is championing data management or data governance (overall)<br />
at <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
There are varying definitions for terms – which results in misleading and<br />
inconsistent data reporting, for example:<br />
– The definition of “injury” has changed over time, and “crash rates” are<br />
not calculated consistently (e.g., crashes per 100 million VMT and crashes<br />
per million VMT are both used.)<br />
– “Fatalities” and “fatal crashes” have been used interchangeably by<br />
decision-makers though tracked separately.<br />
– The term “lane miles” means at least four different things to four different<br />
units across <strong>CDOT</strong>. It is also calculated differently – for example, some<br />
units divide the number of lanes by twelve (assuming 12-foot lanes) and<br />
others divide by fourteen.<br />
Communication regarding data availability, sharing and sources is not<br />
consistent.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-13
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Methods of enacting and enforcing policy and procedure are not consistent at<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> (and possibly even ignored.)<br />
There is a great deal of data at <strong>CDOT</strong>. The agency needs to be more efficient<br />
in reporting it, more standard/universal methods to report and avoid<br />
variations.<br />
There are opportunities to reduce the redundancy of data (i.e., both<br />
Maintenance and Pavement collecting the same data items.) In some cases,<br />
there are several offices collecting the same data. For example, it was<br />
recently discovered that several units are all going into the field and<br />
collecting the same asset data (culverts and fences.)<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> needs a repository/library for information to reside in and standard<br />
ways to report.<br />
There is a disconnect with respect to data, i.e., different branches own<br />
different data which makes it difficult to establish performance measures.<br />
In summary, <strong>CDOT</strong> is clearly in need of an improved structure to reduce<br />
redundancy in data collection, clarify/standardize terms/definitions used,<br />
clarify roles and responsibilities, and identify and prioritize stakeholder needs<br />
for data.<br />
This improved governance will result in improved sharing of data and<br />
information, improved input to the performance reporting process, improved<br />
ability to fund/prioritize new data programs, ability to measure the right things<br />
at the appropriate level of detail, take advantage of newer technology and tools,<br />
facilitate integration of data and ensure quality decisions are made based on<br />
informative data.<br />
4.3 RECOMMENDATIONS AND TIMELINE<br />
This project provides <strong>CDOT</strong> with a unique opportunity to recommend specific<br />
steps to carry out successful data management through a data governance<br />
approach. The timing is ideal, as the information technology management team<br />
(ITMT) has been engaged in recent discussion regarding improvements in data<br />
including data governance and document management systems.<br />
As indicated above, data governance is a method by which successful data<br />
management is accomplished – essentially data governance falls under the<br />
concepts of data management. For example, techniques such as some of those<br />
being discussed by the ITMT (such as document management systems) really fall<br />
more into the realm of data management.<br />
The recommendations in this section pertain to <strong>CDOT</strong> data management needs<br />
with a focus on data governance. Additional recommendations related to data<br />
collection and data assessment are located in Appendix A.<br />
4-14 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance<br />
The following recommendations are in priority order. A timeline and<br />
responsibility chart is included (Figure 4.3) to provide more detail.<br />
Priority 1 – Create a Formal <strong>Data</strong> Governance Structure<br />
It is recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> create a formal <strong>Data</strong> Governance Structure that<br />
includes:<br />
<br />
<br />
A high level <strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee which should be part of<br />
or a reconfiguration of the ITMT; and<br />
A <strong>Data</strong> Governance Working Group comprised of data owners from all<br />
offices within <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
The Committee and Working Group need authority and resources from the top<br />
of the organization. A champion/leader for each group needs to be identified. It<br />
would be desirable if the leaders of each group were at a middle management<br />
level and be given at least 50% time to work on this initiative over the next year.<br />
Each leader would also need support staff to assist with meetings and<br />
coordination. The Working group should be comprised of one representative<br />
from each business area and there should be at least one data owner assigned to<br />
each data program (e.g., safety, pavement, mobility, bridge, maintenance etc.)<br />
It is recommended that the ITMT take the lead in this task (with authority from<br />
the Executive Director of <strong>CDOT</strong>). The work should be accomplished in close<br />
coordination with the <strong>Performance</strong> and Policy Analysis Unit and other units in<br />
the Division of Transportation Development.<br />
In order to have data management in place within the next two years, this task<br />
could be accomplished in the month 1/month 2 timeframe.<br />
Priority 2 – Develop a <strong>Data</strong> Governance Charter<br />
The Committee and Working Group need to work closely to agree on a vision,<br />
mission and objectives for data governance within <strong>CDOT</strong>. These items should be<br />
documented in a charter. Key considerations are the needs for data to support<br />
asset management and performance reporting. A sample charter from<br />
Minnesota is included in Appendix F.<br />
An example mission could be: “The <strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee<br />
shall implement policies, procedures and standards to be used in the<br />
management of data within <strong>CDOT</strong> in order to support the agency mission and<br />
goals.”<br />
Sample objectives include:<br />
<br />
To oversee the development and implementation of a <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> (the<br />
<strong>Plan</strong> would encompass Priorities 3 – 6 described below).<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-15
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<br />
To review and prioritize all new data collection/management efforts within<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
The charter may also need to clarify the need for data management/governance.<br />
This could be accomplished with a more thorough application of the <strong>Data</strong><br />
Management Maturity Model defined in Section 4.2.<br />
This task could be accomplished by the newly formed <strong>Data</strong> Governance<br />
Oversight Committee. It should take the Committee no more than two meetings<br />
to accomplish this in month 2.<br />
Priority 3 – Complete a <strong>Data</strong> Inventory/Assessment<br />
A data inventory assessment has been completed as part of this project for the<br />
data to support the recommended measures. It is described in Section 3.7. The<br />
tasks include the identification of:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
All priority data sets to support key department business – Key business<br />
needs include performance reporting and asset management.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> owners, stewards, stakeholders, community of interest, working groups<br />
etc. and roles/responsibilities for all.<br />
A data catalog detailing all data programs, sources, business owners,<br />
requestors of data, data definitions, data standards, metadata standards,<br />
format, data models, and identification of IT and business subject matter<br />
experts who may be contacted regarding information about the data<br />
programs and instructions for accessing data standards and definitions used<br />
with each data program. The catalog should be updated regularly (every two<br />
to three years). A data catalog was created for the nine recommended core<br />
performance measures. It is documented in Section 3.7.<br />
Develop a business terminology dictionary to align the use of business terms<br />
commonly used throughout an organization. This is particularly helpful to<br />
staff such as IT professionals who are often responsible for developing<br />
applications to meet business needs.<br />
A business case for every critical data program.<br />
This task could be accomplished methodically through the following steps:<br />
Step 1 – Identify the business objectives of the agency (<strong>CDOT</strong> and business<br />
units).<br />
Step 2 – Identify the business functions or services of the agency that support the<br />
business objectives.<br />
Step 3 – Identify which business functions are supported by which data<br />
programs.<br />
Step 4 – Establish policies, standards, and procedures, which mandate how data<br />
is to be collected and used within the agency.<br />
4-16 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Step 5 – Establish data action plans on both a data program and enterprise level,<br />
to address needs and gaps in data and information across the agency. This step<br />
is described in more detail in Appendix A related to data assessment.<br />
It is recommended that the Oversight Committee and Working Group assign a<br />
group to perform this analysis. Outside assistance in the form of consulting<br />
services may be warranted. It is recommended that this step take place starting<br />
in month 2 through month 5.<br />
Priority 4 – Develop and Adopt a <strong>Data</strong> Governance Procedure<br />
The recommended procedure would include a glossary of terms; a framework to<br />
show the relationship between the <strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee, the<br />
Working Group and data owners within <strong>CDOT</strong>; clear description of roles and<br />
responsibilities of the Oversight Committee, Working Group, data owners, data<br />
custodians, IT, data stakeholders and data working groups (if necessary); and a<br />
process for making decisions related to investment of resources in<br />
data/information projects within <strong>CDOT</strong>. For example, the procedure should<br />
require that the Procurement Office run all requests for new data collection<br />
efforts through the <strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee.<br />
The procedure could be developed by the Working Group and approved by the<br />
Oversight Committee, and could be accomplished by month 4.<br />
Priority 5 – Perform a Risk Assessment of <strong>Data</strong> Programs<br />
Although this is listed as Priority 5 – it is nevertheless an important component<br />
of the data governance efforts. A risk assessment of data programs would help<br />
to demonstrate the value of data programs in terms of <strong>CDOT</strong> business needs.<br />
The risk assessment would provide for the ability to determine priorities for<br />
addressing any negative impacts to the division, agency, or external customers,<br />
including the public, due to temporary unavailability of data systems or<br />
catastrophic loss of strategic systems.<br />
It is recommended that the risk management plan include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
A list of risk associated with the reduction in quality, availability, timeliness<br />
and coverage of data as it supports business functions. The <strong>Data</strong> Assessment<br />
conducted in Priority 3 could serve as the basis.<br />
A risk value for each risk (low, medium, high), which evaluates the impact of<br />
the risk to the overall program if data is no longer available or if access to the<br />
data is interrupted for a period of time.<br />
Costs and benefits and Return on Investment for each of the data program<br />
components.<br />
A consistent method for conducting such risk/benefit cost/ ROI on a regular<br />
basis.<br />
A person/office responsible for handling each risk (same as data owner).<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-17
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
A demonstration project could be useful for showing the value of data and the<br />
possibilities of having more data (e.g., if you had this data, this is what you could<br />
do). This would enable the data program to become more of a priority at the top<br />
level.<br />
Three excellent references for guidance in this area are Target-Setting Methods and<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management to Support <strong>Performance</strong>-Based Resource Allocation by<br />
Transportation Agencies (NCHRP Report 666), Uses of Risk Management and <strong>Data</strong><br />
Management to Support Target-Setting for <strong>Performance</strong>-Based Resource Allocation by<br />
Transportation Agencies (NCHRP 706) and Alaska DOT&PF <strong>Data</strong> Governance White<br />
Paper.<br />
It is recommended that the Oversight Committee and Working Group assign a<br />
group to perform this analysis. Outside assistance in the form of consulting<br />
services may be warranted. This task should take place immediately following<br />
Priority 3 (Assessment), and could be completed by month 10.<br />
Priority 6 – Implement Ongoing <strong>Data</strong> Management and<br />
Governance at <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
This task includes developing training, manuals and implementing the process<br />
throughout <strong>CDOT</strong>. It is recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> work to accomplish the<br />
following:<br />
<br />
<br />
Develop a <strong>Data</strong> Governance (DG) Manual that includes:<br />
– Introduction explaining the role of data governance at <strong>CDOT</strong>, including a<br />
defined policy for how data is to be collected, managed, and used at the<br />
agency.<br />
– Define the goals/objectives pertaining to the collection and use of data at<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
– Identify process to address non-compliance with goals of data collection<br />
and use.<br />
– Communicate with stakeholders to sustain support for various programs.<br />
Continue to provide outreach to all communities of interest to ensure that<br />
all needs are addressed<br />
– Publish any new standards, policies, procedures that will be enacted as a<br />
result of the use of data governance at <strong>CDOT</strong> and in the regions.<br />
– Once the governance model is established, review annually the data<br />
programs for any needed enhancements, replacements with newer<br />
systems, technologies.<br />
Use data standards to:<br />
– Facilitate establishing targets and measures that meet agency goals.<br />
– Reduce the cost of multiple data collection efforts and maintenance of<br />
duplicate databases. Strive to collect data once, use it many times.<br />
4-18 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
– Facilitate consistent reporting of information.<br />
– Develop a communication plan to market the impact and benefits of data<br />
governance to the Department. This may be needed earlier in the<br />
process.<br />
There are clearly some risks that need to be overcome in the development and<br />
implementation of a <strong>Data</strong> Governance approach. These risks include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
This will result in a culture change for <strong>CDOT</strong>, which there may be resistance<br />
to change in the way data is currently managed at <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
The potential for ill-defined roles for regions.<br />
Need a better way to enact and enforce policy – top down. If the policy is<br />
related directly to performance management, it will be more successful.<br />
Need to ensure ongoing <strong>CDOT</strong>/OIT support of SAP’s performance database.<br />
The above steps assume that <strong>CDOT</strong> managers have been convinced of the need<br />
for data management/governance. However, some work may still be necessary<br />
related to this vital condition. NCHRP 666 contains an entire section related to<br />
establishing the need for data management/governance. Following are some<br />
relevant excerpts for <strong>CDOT</strong> to consider:<br />
“The need and urgency for data management improvements are not always shared<br />
across all levels of an agency. In some cases, a senior manager within the agency<br />
identifies the need and in other cases individuals at lower levels recognize the value of<br />
improved data management. Nevertheless, a clear case must be established to secure<br />
resources and commitment to proceed with a data management improvement strategy.”<br />
A key success factors related to establishing the need for data governance is:<br />
Demonstrate the Return on Investment (ROI) to the organization regarding the use of<br />
data management and data governance in order to gain buy-in from executives and<br />
decision-makers. Demonstrate with specific examples how the use of data governance can<br />
meet the goals and targets most important to executives.<br />
ROI can be determined in many ways and on many levels within an organization. For<br />
instance, in a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP): a) from the perspective of<br />
the HSIP Statewide Coordinator, an investment in more resources (e.g., people,<br />
technology, tools), may lead to the ROI of an improved HSIP strategic plan; b) for traffic<br />
and safety engineers, an investment in Global Positioning System (GPS) field inventory<br />
projects may lead to the ROI of improved crash locations; and c) for the Highway Safety<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Agency, an investment in electronic data collection may lead to the ROI of<br />
improved quality of crash records.<br />
ROI also can be realized across business functional areas within an agency or across<br />
agency boundaries. In the highway crash safety example, a) for law enforcement<br />
personnel, an investment in electronic crash data collection and submittal may lead to the<br />
ROI of reduced time to complete the accident investigation and review; b) for<br />
maintenance and operations personnel, an investment in digital imaging capabilities may<br />
lead to a ROI of quicker and less costly asset management inventory and reduced cost to<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-19
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
prepare HSIP projects for the traffic and safety engineers; and c) for the executive<br />
management, investment in an enterprise Geographic Information System (GIS)<br />
deployment may lead to the ROI for improved tradeoff analysis on project selection by<br />
visualizing the crash history, traffic, and pavement condition.<br />
A data governance framework, implemented on an enterprise level, supports ROI by providing<br />
a means of monitoring and tracking progress of various business programs for<br />
executives as well as data stewards, and stakeholders and users of the source data. <strong>Data</strong><br />
governance provides methods, tools, and processes for:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Traceability – aligning data programs with the agency’s business needs.<br />
Establishing data area communities of interest and working groups that examine<br />
needs in common areas and on a regular basis is essential.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Measures – should be reflective of the business needs identified in the<br />
traceability exercise.<br />
Risk Assessment – requires the agency to assess 1) how much data is needed;<br />
2) how accurate should the data be; 3) what should the refresh rate of the data be,<br />
4) who should have access to the data, and many other questions which help to assess<br />
the risks associated with a particular data program.<br />
Value of <strong>Data</strong> Programs – needs to be demonstrated to users and those who<br />
authorize investments in the data programs. This can be done effectively through the<br />
use of visualization tools, use of enterprise GIS systems, collecting data once and<br />
using it for many purposes, and demonstrated improvements in business operations<br />
through the use of quality, accurate, timely, easily accessible data, and information.<br />
Knowledge Management – must become part of the data governance framework in<br />
order to ensure that lessons learned and experiences pertaining to business operations<br />
within the organization are not lost. This will help to increase the ROI for time and<br />
resources committed to support of data programs.<br />
Institutional challenges may include: centralized policy-making, and decentralized<br />
execution of those policies; limited appreciation by decision-makers of the role of data<br />
systems in supporting business operations; and lack of formal policies and standards<br />
which guide the collection, processing, and use of data within the organization. It is<br />
particularly critical to have standardized policies and procedures for management of data<br />
and information when that information is the foundation of performance measurement<br />
and target setting programs for an agency. A data management program is used to<br />
coordinate the establishment and enforcement of data policies and standards for the<br />
organization.<br />
One of the ways to address these and other data-related needs is through the<br />
establishment of a structured data management program and data governance<br />
framework. <strong>Data</strong> management and data governance can help the agency to prioritize the<br />
most critical data needs and identify the resources available to address those needs in a<br />
timely manner.”<br />
Timeline<br />
Figure 4.3 provides a suggested timeline for the activities described above.<br />
4-20 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 4.3<br />
Timeline<br />
Colorado DOT <strong>Data</strong> Governance Recommendations<br />
TIMELINE<br />
Month<br />
PRIORITY TASK & RESPONSIBLE GROUP 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12<br />
1 Create a Formal <strong>Data</strong> Governance Structure<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance Working Group<br />
2 Develop a <strong>Data</strong> Governance Charter<br />
DG Committee<br />
DG Working Group<br />
3 Complete a <strong>Data</strong> Inventory/Assessment<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Assessment Group<br />
4 Develop and Adopt a <strong>Data</strong> Governance Procedure<br />
DG Working Group<br />
5 Perform a Risk Assessment of <strong>Data</strong> Programs<br />
Risk Assessment Group<br />
6 Implement Ongoing <strong>Data</strong> Management and Governance at <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Task Duration<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance Oversight Committee Meeting<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 4-21
5.0 External Reporting<br />
Dashboard<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
This section addresses methods of external reporting of performance<br />
measures information and recommendations for formatting dashboards and<br />
balanced scorecards.<br />
The use of information technology tools such as executive dashboards and<br />
balanced scorecards can be used for multiple purposes, from transportation<br />
project tracking to project delivery and demonstration of how the agency’s<br />
business programs are performing when compared to established<br />
performance goals and targets.<br />
Dashboards simplify performance reporting. Tools for visualization or<br />
graphic displays of data and information come in many forms such as tables,<br />
charts (pie chart, bar chart, histogram, function graph, scatter plot, etc.),<br />
graphs, maps, or Venn diagrams. A balanced scorecard is one of the<br />
components that can be displayed on a dashboard.<br />
The following section includes analysis and best practices from state DOTs<br />
and public agencies, and recommendations for <strong>CDOT</strong> regarding displaying<br />
performance measures in a dashboard for public communication.<br />
5.1 BEST PRACTICES<br />
Georgia DOT<br />
The Georgia DOT’s performance management dashboard is easily accessible<br />
from the GDOT Home Page. It clearly demonstrates the relationship<br />
between their strategic goals and performance measures. The main<br />
categories are safety, maintenance and planning with individual measures<br />
represented as gauges.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.1<br />
Georgia DOT <strong>Performance</strong> Management Dashboard<br />
http://www.dot.state.ga.us/statistics/performance/Pages/default.aspx<br />
By selecting one of the gauges on the dashboard, more detailed information<br />
is available. An example of a drill-down into more detail is shown in Figure<br />
5.2. The more detailed page describes the goal, strategic objective and<br />
historic values of the measure.<br />
5-2 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.2<br />
Georgia DOT Bridge Maintenance Measures<br />
http://www.dot.state.ga.us/statistics/performance/Pages/Bridges.aspx<br />
Virginia DOT<br />
The Virginia DOT performance management dashboard is accessible from<br />
the VDOT Home Page as a link called “VDOT Dashboard”. This would be<br />
easier to find if it had a descriptive caption. Selecting the link opens the<br />
dashboard screen depicting a series of gauges showing key performance<br />
indicators for roadway performance, safety, pavement condition, finance,<br />
VDOT management, citizen survey results, and project delivery (Figure 5.3).<br />
According to VDOT, their dashboard has served as an early warning system<br />
for project managers to get their projects back on track since early 2003. As a<br />
result, VDOT’s performance with delivering projects on time and on budget<br />
has greatly improved.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-3
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.3<br />
VDOT Main Dashboard<br />
http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/default.aspx<br />
Within the main dashboard, users can select individual gauges to view<br />
additional related performance measures within each area of performance.<br />
For example, Figure 5.4 shows detailed performance measures for project<br />
delivery. Drop-down menus allow users to apply filters such as district,<br />
geographic area, roadway system, date range, funding type, contract type, or<br />
type of work. However, no link to department goals is readily accessible<br />
from the dashboard.<br />
5-4 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.4<br />
Detailed View for Project Delivery<br />
http://dashboard.virginiadot.org/Pages/Projects/ConstructionOriginal.aspx<br />
Users can also access the Governor’s Scorecard (see Figure 5.5), by selecting<br />
the “Virginia Performs” tab from the main dashboard. The Governor’s<br />
Scorecard includes administrative measures that track the effectiveness of<br />
state agency management in five critical categories: emergency<br />
preparedness, financial management, government procurement, human<br />
resources, and information technology. Based on performance in each<br />
category, every agency is assigned a color-coded rating based on whether<br />
expectations are being met (see the legend in Figure 5.5).<br />
Agency heads rate their agency’s performance according to the criteria. Then,<br />
annually, the cabinet, central agencies, and the governor review the ratings.<br />
Citizens can view the criteria and track how state agencies are performing in<br />
critical management categories year-by-year.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-5
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.5<br />
Virginia Governor’s Scorecard<br />
http://www.vaperforms.virginia.gov/agencylevel/src/ScoreCardResults.cfm<br />
The Virginia DOT is utilizing the abilities of dashboards and scorecards in a<br />
very effective manner for transmitting information to department staff and<br />
managers, policy-makers, and the public. It is an outstanding example of<br />
how these methods may be applied to business areas at other DOTs.<br />
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB)<br />
The Washington State Transportation Improvement Board (TIB) uses a realtime<br />
dashboard to monitor active grant projects that are awarded to local<br />
agencies to fund road repairs and new construction. The dashboard was<br />
developed as an internal oversight tool during a period of fiscal crisis, and it<br />
has consistently improved business processes and grant project performance<br />
since its implementation in 2003. The length of time for a local government<br />
to receive payment dropped from five months in 2001 to just seventeen days.<br />
Delayed projects dropped seventy percent, saving millions in public funds<br />
due to construction cost inflation. Grant projects from the TIB’s safety<br />
program averaged nineteen percent fewer accidents and thirty percent less<br />
injuries two years after construction.<br />
The dashboard link is easily found on the TIB Home Page. Selecting it brings<br />
up a web page that has information about the dashboard as well as related<br />
links, awards, and what others are saying about the TIB dashboard. The user<br />
must scroll the page in order to access the actual dashboard.<br />
5-6 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.6<br />
Washington State Transportation Improvement Board<br />
Dashboard<br />
http://www.tib.wa.gov/performance/<strong>Performance</strong>.cfm<br />
This real-time dashboard application is updated every time the page is<br />
loaded. It shows the balance that can be struck between design principals<br />
and real-world constraints. The choice of Xcelsius lends flash-based<br />
interactivity. While some charts and graphs may be better designed from an<br />
information visualization point of view, the level of utility is high. Most<br />
pages do not fit on one screen unless the menu is minimized.<br />
Project level information even includes pictures from the job site. It also<br />
includes a balanced scorecard. Quarterly financial reporting includes<br />
sparklines. A sparkline is a type of information graphic characterized by its<br />
small size and high data density. Sparklines present trends and variations<br />
associated with some measurement, such as average temperature or stock<br />
market activity, in a simple and condensed way. The overview displays the<br />
status of projects in each county. A link to the TIB Strategic <strong>Plan</strong> and<br />
department mission and values is easily accessible from the dashboard.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-7
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.7<br />
Washington State <strong>Performance</strong> Management Dashboard<br />
http://www.tib.wa.gov/TIBDashboard/<br />
Figure 5.8<br />
Washington State Key <strong>Performance</strong> Indicators<br />
http://www.tib.wa.gov/TIBDashboard/<br />
5-8 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
North Carolina DOT<br />
North Carolina DOT’s Organization <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard is easily<br />
accessible from N<strong>CDOT</strong>’s Home Page. It displays one primary executive<br />
performance measure for each of the department’s five goals:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Make our transportation network safer (fatality rate);<br />
Make our transportation network move people and goods more<br />
efficiently (incident duration);<br />
Make our infrastructure last longer (infrastructure health);<br />
Make our organization a place that works well (project delivery rate); and<br />
Make our organization a great place to work (employee engagement).<br />
The main dashboard, shown in Figure 5.9, depicts a series of tabs and gauges<br />
showing key performance indicators for fatality rate, incident duration,<br />
infrastructure health, delivery rate, and employee engagement.<br />
Figure 5.9<br />
N<strong>CDOT</strong> Organization <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard<br />
https://apps.dot.state.nc.us/dot/dashboard/<br />
Users can select links to view additional performance measures within each<br />
area of performance. For example, Figure 5.10 shows detailed performance<br />
measures for infrastructure health. A drop-down menu allows users to filter<br />
results by county.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-9
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.10 Detailed View for Infrastructure Health<br />
Each quarter, the department publishes a performance scorecard that depicts<br />
performance during the previous three months. The scorecard allows users<br />
to see how the agency is performing in meeting the executive performance<br />
measures in each area of performance. An example of the scorecard for the<br />
period from July 1, 2010 to September 30, 2010 is shown in Figure 5.11.<br />
Results are color-coded based on whether current results are exceeding,<br />
meeting, or not meeting annual targets. The scorecard is available as a PDF<br />
from the <strong>Performance</strong> Reports web page.<br />
5-10 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.11 N<strong>CDOT</strong> Quarterly Scorecard<br />
http://www.ncdot.gov/performance/reports/<br />
District of Columbia<br />
The DC Department of Transportation’s dashboard indicates that it is in Beta,<br />
and not easily accessed.<br />
The main dashboard, shown in Figure 5.12 depicts a series of gauges showing<br />
key performance indicators for safety, roadway condition, projects, transit,<br />
finance, and customer service.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-11
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.12 District Transportation Access Portal (Beta 2.0)<br />
http://dashboard.ddot.dc.gov/ddotdashboard/#Home<br />
Within the main dashboard, users can select individual gauges to view<br />
additional related performance measures within each area of performance.<br />
For example, Figure 5.13 shows detailed performance measures for safety.<br />
5-12 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.13 Detailed View for Safety<br />
http://dashboard.ddot.dc.gov/DTAPDOC/Other/Safety276544_2011CrashReport_1%20test.pdf<br />
Capital Bikeshare<br />
The Capital Bikeshare Dashboard is the product of a public/private<br />
partnership between the District Department of Transportation (DDOT),<br />
Arlington County, and Alta Bicycle Share. According to the website, the<br />
Capital Bikeshare dashboard was created to increase government<br />
transparency, accountability, and communication with Capital Bikeshare<br />
members and the public, as well as to facilitate decision-making about the<br />
program.<br />
As shown in Figure 5.14, the following performance metrics are updated<br />
monthly and historical data is also available.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Ridership;<br />
Fleet <strong>Performance</strong> and Safety;<br />
Customer Service; and<br />
Membership.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-13
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.14 Capital Bikeshare <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard<br />
http://cabidashboard.ddot.dc.gov/CaBiDashboard/<br />
Figure 5.15 shows more detail into ridership and includes options for<br />
customizing the report display.<br />
5-14 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.15 Capital Bikeshare Dashboard Drill Down<br />
http://cabidashboard.ddot.dc.gov/CaBiDashboard/#Ridership/StartDate=4/30/2011EndDate=9/30/2011P<br />
ubDate=9/30/2011<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-15
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Minnesota Department of Transportation<br />
Access to the MNDOT’s performance report is readily accessible from the<br />
home page. Several options are available such as a PDF of the scorecard or<br />
annual performance report, or an interactive version of the latest annual<br />
report.<br />
While not contained to one page, the Minnesota annual scorecard is a<br />
visually effective means of providing performance at-a-glance results<br />
(Figure 5.16).<br />
Figure 5.16 MNDOT <strong>Performance</strong> Results Scorecard<br />
http://www.dot.state.mn.us/measures/pdf/2010%20SCORECARD.pdf<br />
5-16 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Hennepin County, Minnesota<br />
An example of the effective use of scorecards comes from Hennepin County<br />
in the state of Minnesota. The Balanced Scorecard helps the County to align<br />
their daily work with their vision and strategic goals.<br />
As shown in Table 5.1, the BSC in Hennepin County is viewed from four<br />
perspectives:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Customer – What results do we need to produce for our customers to<br />
fulfill our mission and achieve our vision?<br />
Finance – What financial objectives must we meet in order to produce the<br />
desired results for our customers?<br />
Internal Process – What processes must we excel at in order to attain the<br />
financial objectives and desired results for the customer?<br />
Learning and Growth – How do we develop our internal resources to<br />
refine the necessary processes that will allow us to attain our financial<br />
objectives and desired results for the customer?<br />
The balanced scorecard forms the basis for discussion between supervisors<br />
and managers, managers and directors, directors and administration, and<br />
administration and the board about progress towards achieving desired<br />
results.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-17
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Table 5-1<br />
Hennepin County Sample Balanced Scorecard<br />
Perspective Strategic Objective Measure Target Actual Comment<br />
Customer<br />
Finance<br />
Internal<br />
Process<br />
Learning and<br />
Growth<br />
Achieve customer<br />
outcomes<br />
Improve customer<br />
satisfaction<br />
Manage expenses<br />
Maximize revenue<br />
Build effective<br />
partnerships<br />
Retain knowledgeable<br />
staff<br />
Number of high<br />
priority issues<br />
resolved<br />
Percent of customers<br />
rating service very<br />
good or excellent<br />
Percent<br />
increase/decrease in<br />
annual budget<br />
Percent<br />
increase/decrease<br />
revenue derived from<br />
grants<br />
Number of projects<br />
involving one or more<br />
partners<br />
Employee retention<br />
rate<br />
60 30<br />
Need improvement,<br />
investigate process<br />
for resolving high<br />
priority issues<br />
80% 80% Right on target<br />
1.5 5%<br />
Reduced expenses<br />
due to budget cuts<br />
5% 13% Good progress<br />
25 10<br />
Based on the<br />
number of projects to<br />
date with one or<br />
more partners<br />
95% 75% Need to monitor<br />
Lessons Learned<br />
Dashboards are becoming commonplace for public agencies to present their<br />
performance results. Both real time and static data are often featured.<br />
Designs vary but some similarities stand out. Best practices include:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Initial view is a single page/screen snapshot of performance measure<br />
results;<br />
Drill down to more detail with filter options;<br />
<strong>Data</strong> export availability; and<br />
Responsible departments and directors displayed;<br />
Other features that present opportunities for improvement for some<br />
dashboards are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Easier to find links from the agency home page, with descriptive text;<br />
More use of maps and corridors to illustrate congestion; and<br />
Link to agency goals and strategies.<br />
5-18 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
5.2 CURRENT <strong>CDOT</strong> PROCESS AND WEB<br />
REPORTING CAPABILITY<br />
The objective of this report is to assist <strong>CDOT</strong> with communicating<br />
performance measures to the public. Currently annual performance measure<br />
reports are available to the public via the <strong>CDOT</strong> Home Page by selecting<br />
Annual Reports from the Quick Links menu on the left of the page.<br />
However, no mention of performance measure reporting is available from<br />
the home page. The Annual Reports page lists all available reports for the<br />
last several years.<br />
The stakeholder process revealed the following needs regarding dashboards:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Need to be able to drill down on measures so a person can see how their<br />
performance objectives link to those of the work unit, division and<br />
Department.<br />
Reporting needs to be more outcome oriented (e.g., rather than focusing<br />
on whether a bid was on time – what was the quality of the work?)<br />
It is a good idea to break down the measures by region. The more<br />
information, the better for the decision-makers. However, <strong>CDOT</strong> may<br />
wish to only show regional breakdowns for internal reporting.<br />
If measures are reported by region it will be important to provide<br />
annotations. For example, urban regions may have more difficulty with<br />
the on-time and on-budget measures than more rural regions.<br />
Dashboard design should not be constrained by the capabilities of<br />
Xcelsius.<br />
These recommendations need to be coordinated with the Public Relations<br />
Office for consistency with current processes at <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
5.3 RECOMMENDATIONS FOR <strong>CDOT</strong> DASHBOARD<br />
REPORT FORMAT<br />
What Should Be Reported In A Dashboard?<br />
Dashboards should contain summary statistics at-a-glance, with drill-down<br />
capabilities to other dashboards for specific areas of interest to the dashboard<br />
user. Best practice indicates that dashboards should include only a few<br />
critical measures.<br />
How Often It Should Be Updated<br />
Dashboards are only tools; effectiveness depends on use. Update frequency<br />
should occur based on the individual measures and is discussed in more<br />
detail in Section 3.4 of this report.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-19
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Visualization Tools to be Used<br />
As the primary purpose of the <strong>CDOT</strong> dashboard is to communicate timely<br />
performance information about the department’s activities, it is important<br />
that this information be displayed in a way that is understandable to the<br />
public and simple to interpret.<br />
Stephen Few (author of Information Dashboard Design and considered a world<br />
leader in data visualization) defines a dashboard as “a visual display of the<br />
most important information needed to achieve one or more objectives;<br />
consolidated and arranged on a single screen so the information can be<br />
monitored at a glance.”<br />
There are three types of performance-based dashboards: 1) operational,<br />
2) tactical, and 3) strategic.<br />
Operational dashboards focus on exception alerting or detailed metrics<br />
related to daily operations, and are based on real-time or transactional data.<br />
These dashboards tend to be more volatile, as data changes frequently<br />
throughout the day. However, they provide an accurate snapshot of what is<br />
happening right now.<br />
Tactical dashboards display data that is not as real-time as operational<br />
dashboards. The tactical dashboard contains an aggregated, summarized, or<br />
averaged view of data, which allows comparison against historical values,<br />
benchmarks, and goals.<br />
The strategic dashboard tracks performance against high-level objectives.<br />
These dashboards tend to summarize performance over the past month,<br />
quarter, or year.<br />
Characteristics for each dashboard type are summarized in Table 5.2.<br />
Table 5-2<br />
Dashboard Types<br />
Type of Dashboard Audience PM Type<br />
Operational – for monitoring in real<br />
time<br />
Tactical – for analysis and<br />
benchmarking<br />
Strategic – for tracking achievement<br />
of strategic objectives<br />
Front-line personnel dealing with dayto-day<br />
activities of the organization<br />
Executives<br />
Organizational leaders<br />
Detailed metrics related to daily<br />
operations<br />
Comparative metrics to review and<br />
benchmark data of the departments<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> indicators with respect<br />
to their goals<br />
Ganapati, Sukumar. Use of Dashboards in Government. IBM Center for the <strong>Business</strong> of Government, 2011.<br />
Scorecards<br />
The balanced scorecard (BSC) is one of the components that can be displayed<br />
on a dashboard. The BSC is used to translate business mission<br />
accomplishment into a critical set of performance measures distributed<br />
among an equally critical and focused set of business perspectives. The BSC<br />
reports how well specific programs are performing based on established<br />
5-20 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
targets and goals that are linked to strategic business objectives. The purpose<br />
of the BSC is to:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Align all members of an organization around common goals and<br />
strategies;<br />
Link initiatives to the strategy, making prioritization easier;<br />
Provide feedback to people on key issues – notably, areas where they can<br />
have an impact; and<br />
Be an essential decision-making tool.<br />
The BSC builds on cross-functional cause and effect relationships. Processes<br />
that contribute to desired results are viewed cross-functionally. Measures<br />
that make one function look good while deflating another are avoided, thus<br />
minimizing negative competition between individuals and functions. One<br />
should test the results ahead of time to avoid this.<br />
Scorecards include two key components:<br />
<br />
<br />
A balanced set of measures, and<br />
A set of strategically focused business perspectives.<br />
The Kaplan/Norton Balanced Scorecard looks at four interconnected<br />
business perspectives. These are:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Financial – How do we look to our stakeholders?<br />
Customer – How well do we satisfy our internal and external customers’<br />
needs?<br />
Internal <strong>Business</strong> Process – How well do we perform at key internal<br />
business processes?<br />
Learning and Growth – Are we able to sustain innovation, change, and<br />
continuous improvement?<br />
A comparison of dashboards and scorecards is provided in Table 5.3.<br />
Table 5-3<br />
A Comparison of Operational and Tactical Dashboards and<br />
Strategic Scorecards<br />
Operational Tactical Strategic<br />
Type Dashboard Dashboard Balanced Scorecard<br />
Users<br />
Managers, supervisors,<br />
Managers<br />
Executives<br />
operators<br />
Information Detailed Detailed / Summary Summary<br />
Usage<br />
Organizational<br />
Level<br />
Monitor daily, production and<br />
operation<br />
Monitor progress on an<br />
initiative<br />
Monitor alignment and success<br />
of strategic objectives<br />
Work Unit Department Enterprise or Strategic <strong>Business</strong><br />
Unit<br />
Updated Intra-Day Daily or Weekly Monthly<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-21
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Person, Ron. Balanced Scorecards & Operational Dashboards with MS Excel. Wiley Publishing, 2009<br />
Dashboard Design Elements<br />
Dashboard design is not meant only for aesthetics, but also for easy grasp of<br />
actionable data and information. If a dashboard is poorly designed, it could<br />
lead the user to erroneous conclusions or time-consuming misinterpretation.<br />
So many options exist for building dashboards it is difficult not to employ so<br />
much that the data gets lost in the design. Too much clutter leads to<br />
confusion.<br />
Experts cite three core principles of design:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Dashboards should fit on one single page;<br />
Dashboards should be simple; and<br />
Dashboards should use the best display medium for communicating data.<br />
Agencies have different design approaches to dashboards. Whereas some<br />
dashboards are visually rich, other dashboards are essentially tables. A<br />
dashboard may be designed to display any combination of data summaries,<br />
charts (e.g., bar charts, pie charts, histogram, function graph, scatter plot,<br />
“sparklines,” etc.), graphs (tree diagram, network diagram, flowchart, etc.),<br />
gauges, maps, or Venn diagrams.<br />
Charts<br />
Depending on the type of data to be presented, choices of types of charts are<br />
numerous. It is important to consider the audience as well as the data when<br />
choosing the type of visualizations for a dashboard.<br />
Gauges, Menus and Sliders<br />
Just as in effective website design, dashboards should give the reader the<br />
information that they need without having to search for it. Undue visual<br />
“noise” should be avoided and design elements should enhance rather than<br />
clutter the dashboard.<br />
Many transportation-related dashboards are created using elements such as<br />
gauges and meters, and other dashboard images from cars. However, these<br />
are not always the best method for representing data. Gauges use a lot of<br />
space unnecessarily. Gauges and meters typically display a single key<br />
measure, sometimes compared to a related measure such as a target, and<br />
sometimes in the context of quantitative ranges with qualitative labels that<br />
declare the measure’s state (such as good or bad). The bullet graph achieves<br />
the communication objective without the problems that usually plague<br />
gauges and meters. Bullet graphs are presented in more detail in Figure 5.17.<br />
Menus are a necessary tool for on-line dashboards in order to drill-down to<br />
more detailed and expansive data.<br />
5-22 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.17 illustrates several charting options and their common uses.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-23
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.17 Dashboard Design Elements<br />
Function Visualization Tool Examples<br />
Compare a Set of Values<br />
Bar Chart – For numerical comparisons showing one or more set of variables<br />
Block Histogram – For visualization of distribution of numeric values in a data set.<br />
Bubble Chart – Displays a set of numeric values as circles, especially useful for<br />
data sets with dozens to hundreds of values or with values that differ by several<br />
orders of magnitude.<br />
Candlestick Chart – A combination of bar and line chart representing the range of<br />
movement of the measure over a given time interval.<br />
Radar Chart – For visualization of multivariate data in the form of a twodimensional<br />
chart of three or more quantitative variables represented on axes<br />
starting from the same point.<br />
Stacked Bar Chart – If values of each category add up to 100% and if this is<br />
important<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Display Key Measures With<br />
Comparative Measure and<br />
Qualitative Ranges<br />
Bullet Graph<br />
n<br />
n<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-25
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Function Visualization Tool Examples<br />
Track Rises And Falls Over Time<br />
Line Graph – For visualizing continuous change<br />
Stack Graph – For visualizing change in a set of items, where the sum of the<br />
values is as important as the individual items<br />
Stack Graph for Categories – For visualizing the total change over time of a group<br />
of quantities<br />
Sparkline – A graphic designed for visualizing trends and variations associated<br />
with high-density data, but displayed in a simple and condensed way.<br />
800<br />
600<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
g<br />
g<br />
5%<br />
See The Parts Of A Whole<br />
Pie Chart<br />
Treemap<br />
Treemap for Comparisons<br />
95%<br />
5-26 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Recommended Dashboard Design for <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Figure 5.18 is a recommended dashboard design with measures calculated as<br />
described in Section 3.6. The dashboard illustrates the department’s<br />
performance status at a glance.<br />
Each of the nine recommended measures are shown along with actual results<br />
for 2007 through 2010. Raw values were obtained from the Annual<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Reports and measures calculated. The letter grades are easily<br />
viewed as are trends and issues needing attention (such as the red “F” in<br />
urban congestion). It is envisioned that the dashboard be updated annually<br />
or as available when the measures are calculated. The dashboard should be<br />
displayed prominently on <strong>CDOT</strong>’s website. Each measure would have drilldown<br />
capability to show more detail and specific values for the measure.<br />
All of the measures except those indicated with an asterisk (*) are based on<br />
actual values. The new recommended measures (congestion map and<br />
strategic action item implementation) are populated with data for<br />
demonstration purposes.<br />
The congestion map section will drill down into corridors with travel time<br />
reliability information. The calculations and maps showing the <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Time Index are shown in Appendix G. The construction section will show<br />
graduated shading indicating the letter grades reached by the results.<br />
A simple palette with color used strategically for emphasis and white used to<br />
segregate areas should be considered in deciding the final layout and theme.<br />
The purpose is to show all measures fitting on an 8 ½ x 11 inch printed page<br />
or one standard 880 x 660 computer screen.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-27
Figure 5.18 <strong>CDOT</strong> Dashboard Example<br />
Pavement Condition<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
Roadside Condition<br />
Snow and Ice Control<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
F F F F<br />
2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Pavement Condition "Good" or "Fair"<br />
2007<br />
5%<br />
6%<br />
95%<br />
2009<br />
A<br />
A<br />
2008<br />
6%<br />
6%<br />
A<br />
94%<br />
2010<br />
A<br />
100%<br />
90%<br />
80%<br />
70%<br />
60%<br />
50%<br />
40%<br />
30%<br />
20%<br />
10%<br />
0%<br />
B+ B+ B+<br />
B-<br />
2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
Snow and Ice Control<br />
2010 C+<br />
2009 C+<br />
2008 C+<br />
2007 B-<br />
94%<br />
94%<br />
Number of Fatalities<br />
Roadway Congestion<br />
Congestion Map<br />
800<br />
600<br />
Five Year Rolling Average<br />
RURAL<br />
2010<br />
URBAN<br />
2010<br />
400<br />
200<br />
0<br />
8.4%<br />
91.6%<br />
A A<br />
45.5%<br />
54.5%<br />
F<br />
% uncongested % congested<br />
Strategic Action Item Implementation<br />
2007 2008 2009 2010<br />
D C B A<br />
Complete Advancing Delayed Dropped<br />
On Budget<br />
Construction<br />
On Time<br />
Construction<br />
Construction<br />
F D C B A<br />
B<br />
C<br />
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-29
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
The dashboard should be easily accessed from the <strong>CDOT</strong> Home Page, and<br />
can serve as the highest tier of an on-line application with drill-down<br />
capabilities for each measure as shown in Figure 5.19. As learned from best<br />
practices of other agencies, the following features should be incorporated in<br />
the performance measure detail pages:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
simple definitions;<br />
how often the measure is updated, and why;<br />
sources of data;<br />
easy navigation using navigation bar, drop-down menus, and tabs;<br />
filters so users can access data of interest;<br />
methods and calculations used to assign grades;<br />
comparisons to national averages (for selected measures)(if desired);<br />
drill-down to specific department goals and strategies;<br />
issues mitigating results, such as budget limitations;<br />
branding consistent with rest of <strong>CDOT</strong> website; and<br />
export options for tabular data.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 5-31
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Figure 5.19 <strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures Site Organization<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Home Page<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>’s <strong>Performance</strong> Results<br />
Dashboard<br />
Summary of all measures on one screen<br />
<strong>Performance</strong><br />
Measure Detail<br />
Pages<br />
Fatalities<br />
Bridge Condition<br />
Pavement Condition<br />
Roadside Condition<br />
Snow and Ice<br />
Roadway Congestion<br />
On Time Construction<br />
On Budget Construction<br />
Strategic Action Item<br />
Implementation<br />
Deployment can be accomplished in phases, beginning with adding a link to<br />
the <strong>CDOT</strong> Home Page, such as a button or logo with text such as “<strong>CDOT</strong>’s<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard”. This can link to the dashboard as in the example.<br />
Hyperlinks from each graph to the appropriate section of the current<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> Report can be added. Further expansion can be developed by<br />
creating a web page for each measure with interactive material and links.<br />
5-32 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
6.0 Cost/Benefit Curves for Safety<br />
and Mobility<br />
In the context of performance management, understanding the relationship<br />
between funding and future performance levels can help to inform resource<br />
allocation decisions. These relationships can be communicated through a<br />
cost/benefit curve, as illustrated in Figure 6.1. This figure represents a<br />
cost/benefit curve for interstate bridge preservation funding in the Atlanta<br />
region. It shows the expected performance (expressed as a percent of bridges in<br />
good condition) in 2040 for various funding levels. For example, the graph<br />
indicates that maintaining current conditions would cost nearly $2 billion over<br />
the next 30 years, and that achieving an 80 percent condition level would cost<br />
around $1.1 billion.<br />
Figure 6.1<br />
Example Cost/Benefit Curve – Interstate Bridges in the Atlanta<br />
Region<br />
These types of curves can help agencies answer the following types of questions:<br />
<br />
How much money would it cost to maintain existing performance levels over<br />
the next X years?<br />
How much would it cost to improve existing performance levels to Y?<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 6-1
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
<br />
<br />
What performance can be achieved with the existing budget?<br />
What would be the impact on performance if the existing budget were<br />
increased or decreased by ten percent?<br />
Understanding the consequences of potential funding levels in terms of expected<br />
future performance can help decision-makers evaluate tradeoffs between<br />
competing needs, and allocate funds in a manner that reflects agency priorities.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>’s Transportation Deficit Report provides this type of information for three<br />
program areas – pavement preservation, bridge preservation and maintenance.<br />
The Deficit Report indicates the costs of achieving various performance levels and<br />
compares these costs to existing funding levels. This section examines the<br />
potential to expand this analysis to two additional program areas – safety and<br />
mobility.<br />
6.1 SAFETY<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Policy Directive 14 identifies two goals related to safety – “to create,<br />
promote and maintain a safe and secure transportation system and work<br />
environment, and to “increase investment in safety and strategic projects.” In<br />
general, <strong>CDOT</strong> works to address the systems components of these goals through<br />
two types of projects:<br />
<br />
<br />
Safety motivated projects – projects identified to address a specific safety<br />
deficiency; or<br />
Non-safety motivated projects – projects identified to address another type of<br />
deficiency, such as a preservation or mobility need.<br />
Safety motivated projects. <strong>CDOT</strong>’s 2010 Amendment to 2035 Revenue Forecast and<br />
Resource Allocation document indicates that over the next five years,<br />
approximately seven percent of agency funds will be allocated to safety<br />
motivated projects. These funds will address a wide variety of project types<br />
including rock fall mitigation, safety related pavement surface treatments,<br />
maintenance activities, railroad crossing programs, education programs, etc.<br />
One option for developing a safety cost/benefit curve is to focus on this bucket<br />
of funds. However, it can be very difficult to estimate the expected impact on<br />
fatalities and injuries of some of these types of projects, and to apply this process<br />
systematically at the network level. The ability to estimate future impacts is a<br />
requirement for developing the type of cost/benefit curves described above.<br />
Given the wide range of project types associated with this program and<br />
difficulties in modeling them, <strong>CDOT</strong> has focused much of its safety analysis over<br />
the past twelve years on non-safety motivated projects.<br />
Non-safety motivated projects. <strong>CDOT</strong> also works to incorporate safety features<br />
into non-safety motivated projects through the project development process.<br />
This process is based on the application of Safety <strong>Performance</strong> Functions (SPF),<br />
which provide an estimate of a location’s expected crash frequency and severity<br />
6-2 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
relative to similar facilities. <strong>CDOT</strong> incorporates safety components into a<br />
project’s design when its location has been identified as a viable safety candidate<br />
through the SPF analysis. This targeted approach and the leveraging of projects<br />
implemented through non-safety programs has enabled <strong>CDOT</strong> to achieve<br />
significant safety improvements over the past decade. Given the success of this<br />
approach, it would be beneficial to understand the relationship between<br />
additional funding and expected future performance. However, a cost/benefit<br />
curve for these funds would be very difficult to develop because the projects<br />
implemented with them are driven by prioritization processes that largely<br />
consider non-safety factors, and the expected impacts of the safety strategies are<br />
largely location and project specific.<br />
Given the focus on incorporating safety into non-safety motivated projects and<br />
the difficulty in modeling the implications of this strategy at the network level, it<br />
is recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> not develop the type of cost/benefit curve<br />
illustrated in Figure 6.1 for safety. Instead, it is recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> assess<br />
safety costs and benefits at the project level. For example, by evaluating the<br />
relationship between the incremental costs of modifying the scope of a nonsafety<br />
motivated project to address safety and the expected impact on safety of<br />
the modification. In addition, if not done so already, <strong>CDOT</strong> should consider<br />
systematically inflating unit costs for preservation projects to account for safety<br />
strategies and updating existing preservation cost/benefit curves based on these<br />
updated costs. This would require developing historic estimates for the cost of<br />
safety related scope changes. Updating the costs would change the shape of the<br />
cost/benefit curves because a portion of the overall funding would go to safety<br />
related work rather than to preservation activities.<br />
6.2 MOBILITY<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>’s Fiscal Year 2010 <strong>Performance</strong> Report indicates that approximately eight<br />
percent of Colorado’s lane miles are considered highly congested. Congestion is<br />
defined as peak traffic exceeding eighty-five percent of a highway’s design<br />
capacity. The Annual <strong>Performance</strong> Report provides a map that shows that the<br />
congested segments are largely concentrated in the Denver region. In major<br />
urban areas such as Denver, increasing highway capacity through capital<br />
projects (for example, adding lanes to an existing highway or building a new<br />
corridor) can be cost prohibitive, leading agencies to focus on a relatively small<br />
set of strategic expansion projects. In these cases, highway operations strategies<br />
provide an alternative means for achieving significant performance<br />
improvements.<br />
Throughout the course of this project, <strong>CDOT</strong> staff confirmed that the situation<br />
described above holds true for Colorado. Achieving significant mobility through<br />
capital improvements does not appear to be a viable option. Therefore, a<br />
meaningful cost/benefit curve would need to focus on potential operations<br />
strategies.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. 6-3
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Section 3 of this report recommends three measures related to congestion – one<br />
based on the percent of person miles traveled (PMT) on congested corridors, one<br />
on person delay, and another one based on travel time reliability. The first<br />
measure is designed to work with <strong>CDOT</strong>’s existing data, and <strong>CDOT</strong> is working<br />
to develop the second and third. The first measure is based on comparing a<br />
highway segment’s traffic volume to its capacity. Developing a cost/benefit<br />
curve would require estimating the change in a highway segment’s capacity that<br />
could be achieved by implementing a project. This calculation is relatively<br />
straightforward for capacity expansion projects but not technically feasible for<br />
operations projects.<br />
Given that the mobility curve should focus on operations projects and that it is<br />
not possible to relate operations projects directly to a highway’s capacity, it is<br />
recommended that <strong>CDOT</strong> hold off on developing a mobility cost/benefit curve<br />
until a measure of reliability is developed.<br />
When the details of delay and reliability measures have been resolved, a<br />
cost/benefit curve could be developed using a project-level approach. This<br />
approach would require <strong>CDOT</strong> to define a list of potential operations projects<br />
and to estimate the following information for each:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Project cost;<br />
Value of the reliability measure on the project segment without the project;<br />
and<br />
Value of the reliability measure on the project segment with the project.<br />
In addition, the projects would need to be ranked from highest to lowest priority.<br />
The prioritization could be done based on cost effectiveness (e.g., change in<br />
reliability per dollar) or using a more comprehensive approach. Once the list has<br />
been prioritized, a cost/benefit curve could be created as follows:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Assume a funding level;<br />
Work down the list of prioritized projects until these funds are expended;<br />
Calculate the cumulative change in reliability expected for the funded set of<br />
projects;<br />
Plot the resulting value; and<br />
Repeat this process for additional funding levels.<br />
6-4 <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc.
APPENDICES<br />
A. Additional <strong>Data</strong> Collection Recommendations<br />
B. <strong>CDOT</strong> Supporting Measures<br />
C. References<br />
D. Stakeholder Interview Summary<br />
E. <strong>CDOT</strong> Goals and Objectives<br />
F. Example of a <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Charter<br />
G. Congestion<br />
H. Calculation Spreadsheet Pages
Appendices<br />
A. Additional <strong>Data</strong> Collection<br />
Recommendations<br />
During the data collection phase within a data program, it is important to take<br />
into account the following considerations:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Collect Accurate and Consistent Location Reference <strong>Data</strong>. Make sure that<br />
performance data is collected with location referencing information that<br />
allows it to be mapped and integrated with other data sources. There are<br />
many efforts underway within <strong>CDOT</strong> to address this. Further<br />
standardization in this area will help <strong>CDOT</strong> to better integrate and share<br />
business data within the agency.<br />
Put <strong>Data</strong> Quality Controls in Place. Location and temporal validity and<br />
integrity control systems for data elements must be compatible. For example,<br />
when collecting data from multiple pieces of equipment, by way of multiple<br />
methods or from multiple sources, consistency of the measurement must be<br />
assured. <strong>Data</strong> from surveillance systems are often faulty or missing because<br />
of errors in the surveillance system (e.g., loop detector errors, communication<br />
drops between loops and traffic management centers (TMC), etc.). It is<br />
important that reliable detector diagnostic tools be in place to check the data<br />
for accuracy and also to fill missing data based on reliable statistical<br />
procedures. <strong>Data</strong> quality also is an area of focus for <strong>CDOT</strong>. For example, the<br />
Division of Transportation Development (DTD), Traffic Analysis Unit (TAU)<br />
has very specific data quality controls in place for the collection, analysis and<br />
reporting of traffic data. Similar/ related quality assurance could be more<br />
standardized within <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Should Facilitate Integration. <strong>Data</strong> should be used to facilitate<br />
integration of information available from multiple systems. This includes<br />
collecting and formatting data at an acceptable precision level that allows for<br />
easier integration of data across systems. The current lack of standards for<br />
data management within <strong>CDOT</strong> may be leading to redundancies in data<br />
collection and in fact may be hindering integration.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Formats. It is essential that all data are provided in electronic format. It<br />
is quite common that static data pertaining to network characteristics are in<br />
non-electronic form (maps, drawings, as built plans, or aerial photos), which<br />
makes it difficult and time consuming to code electronically. Such data<br />
should ideally be available electronically in previously developed simulation<br />
tools, GIS tools, or other software packages.<br />
Open <strong>Data</strong> and Open Standards. The availability of privately owned,<br />
continuously collected data has the potential to improve evaluations but is<br />
likely to increase the complexity of conducting evaluations. This issue calls<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. A-1
Appendices<br />
for the development of data standards for data definitions, means of<br />
collection, and format.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Assessment<br />
In order to support performance measurement efforts effectively, data programs<br />
must be carefully evaluated in terms of their ability to meet overall agency and<br />
stakeholder goals. For example, traffic and safety data programs must produce<br />
quality data to support decision-making regarding safety and mobility projects.<br />
The section assists in performing a health assessment of data systems to<br />
determine where the most critical deficiencies exist and to develop a strategy for<br />
addressing those deficiencies.<br />
In general, criteria must be developed to assess the data programs. An example<br />
of the type of criteria that could be used were initially identified for use with the<br />
FHWA’s Traffic <strong>Data</strong> Quality Management Report and are applicable, as well,<br />
for assessing quality of data used for performance measurement. These criteria<br />
include the following:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Accuracy. The measure of degree of agreement between data values or sets of<br />
values and a source assumed to be correct. It is also defined as a qualitative<br />
assessment of freedom from error, with a high assessment corresponding to a<br />
small error.<br />
Completeness (also referred to as availability). The degree to which data<br />
values are present in the attributes (e.g., volume and speed are attributes of<br />
traffic) that require them. Completeness is typically described in terms of<br />
percentages or number of data values and measures how much data is<br />
available compared to how much data should be available.<br />
Validity. The degree to which data values satisfy acceptance requirements of<br />
the validation criteria or fall within the respective domain of acceptable<br />
values. <strong>Data</strong> validity can be expressed in numerous ways. One common way<br />
is to indicate the percentage of data values that either pass or fail data<br />
validity checks.<br />
Timeliness. The degree to which data values or a set of values are provided<br />
at the time required or specified. Timeliness can be expressed in absolute or<br />
relative terms. This also can be referred to as latency.<br />
Coverage. The degree to which data values in a sample accurately represent<br />
the whole of that which is to be measured. As with other measures, coverage<br />
can be expressed in absolute or relative units.<br />
Accessibility (also referred to as usability). The relative ease with which<br />
data can be retrieved and manipulated by data consumers to meet their<br />
needs. Accessibility can be expressed in qualitative or quantitative terms.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Management<br />
While managing data within data programs, it is important to do the following:<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. A-2
Appendices<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Recognize and <strong>Plan</strong> for <strong>Data</strong> Management Costs. Adequate resources must<br />
be provided to collect, store, archive, analyze, and disseminate critical data<br />
elements.<br />
Manage <strong>Data</strong> as an Asset. <strong>Performance</strong> data needs to be acquired and<br />
managed as an enterprise asset. If a data element is judged to be a critical<br />
input for the performance measurement process, it needs to have a data<br />
owner, a data element definition, a schedule for updating, and a fixed<br />
amount of precision. The definition must be clear to end users and decisionmakers<br />
and applied consistently throughout the agency. Enterprise-level data<br />
elements must be accessible throughout the data-owning agency and for<br />
authorized uses among business process partners in cooperating local, state,<br />
and Federal agencies.<br />
Require Metadata for the <strong>Data</strong>. When transmitting data from one group to<br />
another, the use of metadata greatly enhances the information that is<br />
provided about a set of data. There are different formats used for creating<br />
metadata including geo-spatial and non-geo-spatial formats. The purpose of<br />
the metadata is to provide more detailed information about how the data are<br />
defined and their intended use, and to warn users of data limitations and<br />
variability. The use of metadata and metadata standards are extremely<br />
important in ensuring that data are used appropriately for making business<br />
decisions. Another critical piece of information provided in metadata is<br />
contact information about who can provide additional information about the<br />
data when needed. This can eliminate confusion on the part of users, when<br />
trying to determine the best source of data for addressing a business related<br />
question.<br />
Metadata Standards and Formats. The use of metadata standards and<br />
formats helps to facilitate the understanding, characteristics, and usage of<br />
data. Metadata provides such information as data name, size, data type,<br />
where data is located, how it is associated and data ownership (source:<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metadata). Listed below are some traditional<br />
needs for metadata standards as identified by the Metadata Subcommittee of<br />
the TRB. The Subcommittee identified “Priority Needs for Metadata in<br />
Transportation” in its “Working Document – Research Agenda”, Section 4,<br />
January 15, 2007. Metadata are needed:<br />
– Where data serve a critical function and impacts key decisions;<br />
– Where different data sources need to be combined;<br />
– Where data are published to a large population of users with different<br />
needs;<br />
– Where data value depends on end-user understanding of data quality;<br />
and<br />
– Where data value depends on effectiveness of automated discovery tools.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Dictionaries. <strong>Data</strong> dictionaries contain information about the physical<br />
database tables, such as the names of the tables, the names and attributes of<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. A-3
Appendices<br />
<br />
the data fields in each table, and data owner identification (i.e., which level of<br />
user has read/write capabilities to the database).<br />
Clearly State <strong>Data</strong> Definitions. Particularly where data from secondary<br />
sources are being used to derive performance measures, it is important to<br />
obtain and document precise data definitions.<br />
Research has indicated that as data is transformed into performance measures, it<br />
is important to do the following:<br />
<br />
Focus on Essential Measures. Collect and store only those data that are<br />
essential to the purposes of data integration, strategic decision-making, and<br />
accountability. CS will address this focus during Task 1.1.<br />
Ensure Accuracy and Consistency of Fundamental Measures.<br />
Inconsistencies in the types of measures across data sets and analysis tools<br />
can sometimes arise due to use of different data sources and data estimation<br />
methods. Sometimes, the problem relates to data definitions. Other times, the<br />
problem is due to the lack of data integration and updating procedures with<br />
the result that some systems do not have the most up to date information.<br />
The implementation of the <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> described below<br />
will ensure this issue is resolved.<br />
<br />
Avoid Linear Referencing Pitfalls. Trying to join aged linearly referenced<br />
highway attribute data to an up-to-date cartographic model of highways is a<br />
sure formula for loss of data integrity. The real-world highway system, and<br />
the current cartographic model of it, is changed frequently by route<br />
retirements, route additions, and route re-measurements that occur whenever<br />
geometric changes are included in a project. Archived linearly referenced<br />
highway attributes can only be mapped correctly in a GIS application by<br />
either joining them to the matching archived cartographic model or spatially<br />
transforming the archived attributes to be measured in the linear referencing<br />
datum that is current. Failure of GIS users to account for this temporal aspect<br />
of linear referencing systems is a currently major data integrity issue. One<br />
solution is to establish a business rule that requires all linearly referenced<br />
data enterprise-wide to be transformed to the current cartographic model,<br />
and to enforce the rule each time the cartographic model is updated. As<br />
previously mentioned, <strong>CDOT</strong> is working to address spatial relationship<br />
issues, the <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> will assist greatly by identifying roles, responsibilities,<br />
and rules to ensure data can be integrated spatially.<br />
Successful implementation of a performance-based system will continue to result<br />
in the following for <strong>CDOT</strong>:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Improved system and organizational performance;<br />
Greater results with constrained resources, and fewer investments with low<br />
performance benefits;<br />
Strengthened accountability with elected officials and stakeholder groups;<br />
and<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. A-4
Appendices<br />
<br />
Improved communication with the full range of stakeholders.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. A-5
Appendices<br />
B. <strong>CDOT</strong> Supporting Measures<br />
The following table summarizes all of the measures and supporting data currently reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>. The<br />
measures are organized (and color coded) by Functional Category, Investment Category (Mobility, System<br />
Quality, Safety, Program Development or Non) (does not fit a category)). Raw data are also indicated. The chart<br />
could be further stratified to show relationship to the Public Budget categories (however this was not<br />
accomplished for this project.)<br />
Several of these measures also serve as supporting measures for the nine recommended measures. For example,<br />
the supporting measures for mobility include minutes of delay, congested corridors, volume to capacity ratio etc.<br />
It should be noted that this list of data is for performance measures only – the <strong>Data</strong> Governance section refers to<br />
ALL data collected at <strong>CDOT</strong>.<br />
Table B-1<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Measures<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Avg. time to cross borders 0<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Travel Time Saved ($/resident) x 1<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Health/Service Accessibility x 1<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Job Accessibility 0<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Labor Force Accessibility 0<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Market Accessibility 0<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Destination Accessibility x 1<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Non-Work Accessibility 0<br />
Economic/Freight MOB Network Utility / Connect 0<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-1
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Mobility MOB Inches of snow fall by region x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Minutes of Delay on Congested Corridor (Vehicle) IMB x x x x 4<br />
Mobility MOB Minutes of Delay on Congested Corridor (Vehicle) in next LRTP year IMB x x x 3<br />
Mobility MOB On-Time Buses on US 36 R6 - Stephen Sperry RTD Denver x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Congested Corridors IMB x x 2<br />
Mobility MOB Congested Corridors where ITS implemented ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Congested Corridors where incident management plans implemented ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Congested Corridors where ramp metering implemented ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Ramp Metering Travel Time Benefits ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Incident Clearance Time ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Average incident clearance time along I-70 ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Avg lgth of winter closures due to inc on I-70 (Heavy Tow Program) ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Number of vehicles served by Courtesy Patrol Program ITS - Bruce Coltharp x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Minutes of Delay (Individual) IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Minutes of Delay per VMT IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Volume to Capacity Ratio IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Weighted Avg. AADT per Lane IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB %Lane Miles congested IMB x x 2<br />
Mobility MOB %Urban Lane Miles congested IMB x x 2<br />
Mobility MOB #Miles congested<br />
Mobility MOB Comparison of Growth in Vol. & Loadings on Interstate IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB % Distribution of Traffic Vol. & Loadings on Rural Interstate IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Length by Volume-Service Flow Ratio IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB <strong>Plan</strong>ning Time Index (reliability) IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Trip Travel Time IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Travel Time Index IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Travel Time Saved (hours/resident) IMB x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Travel Time Variation (DRCOG: ratio of peak hour to non-peak hour) IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Congested center line miles IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Congestion severity (DRCOG: % of corridors delayed during peak travel) IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Mobility Level of Service IMB 0<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-2
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Mobility MOB %travelers using non-SOV IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Worker Travel Modes IMB x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Avg. speed on Interstate/NHS IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB Avg. Time for Different Segments IMB x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Lane Closures (lost lane-hours) IMB 0<br />
Mobility MOB % corridors near full speed (cotrip.org) ITS - Bruce Coltharp 0<br />
Mobility MOB I-25 HOT Lane Usage HPTE? x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Transit Trip Demand DTR x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Transit Ridership DTR x x 2<br />
Mobility MOB Dollar value of total FTA funding for grant programs DTR x 1<br />
Mobility MOB #Miles snowplowed, sanded or de-iced M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Average # of vehicles passing through Eisenhower-Johnson daily IMB x 1<br />
Mobility MOB Average # of vehicles passing through Eisenhower-Johnson annually IMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB VMT - CO IMB x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB VMT - State Hwy IMB x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB %∆ in VMT on State Hwy over previous year IMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB DVMT by <strong>CDOT</strong> Region IMB x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB Truck DVMT by <strong>CDOT</strong> Region IMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> MOB VMT/Capita IMB 0<br />
Economic/Freight NON Freight volume by mode x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON Freight volume by corridor 0<br />
Economic/Freight NON Energy development by corridor x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON #Airports x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON Travel Spending x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON Vehicle Maint Saved ($/resident) x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON Long-Term Job Creations x 1<br />
Economic/Freight NON %State gaming revenue from Central City and Black Hawk x 1<br />
Environment NON Wetland impact and replacement ratios EPB - Tom Boyce x 1<br />
Environment NON Water Quality Measure EPB - Tom Boyce x 1<br />
Environment NON Water Quality Violations EPB x 1<br />
Environment NON %RECAT findings addressed within 48 hrs EPB x 1<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-3
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Environment NON Trans-related Air Quality Emit. EPB 0<br />
Environment NON <strong>CDOT</strong> use of Stormwater Pract. EPB 0<br />
Environment NON <strong>CDOT</strong> energy, recycle, carbon EPB 0<br />
Environment NON Annual highway greenhouse EPB x 1<br />
Environment NON Environmental Justice Impact EPB 0<br />
Environment NON Fuel consum saved/resident EPB x 1<br />
Environment NON Petroleum consumption EPB 0<br />
Mobility NON MLOS - Snow & Ice Control M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x x x x x 6<br />
Mobility NON E-470 Toll Revenue HPTE 0<br />
Mobility NON #Tons of solid de-icer M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Mobility NON #Gallons of solid de-icer M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Mobility NON #Feet of snow fence repaired and installed M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Safety NON Workers' Comp Claims Risk Mgt - Tracie Smith x x 2<br />
Safety NON Workers' Comp Claim $ Risk Mgt - Tracie Smith x 1<br />
PD - PD - Transit Contracts Processed TDR 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD CPG and Rural PO PPB x 1<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD #HPMS and other transportation data re-submittals required PPB x 1<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD Transit Contracts - Avg. Days TDR 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD CMAQ Contracts Processed PPB 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD CMAQ Contracts - Avg. Days PPB 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD CPG Contracts Processed PPB 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD CPG Contracts - Avg. Days PPB 0<br />
PD - DTD <strong>Plan</strong>ning PD - DTD Total value of federal grants administered by DTD PPB x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG Region Allocation % budget advertised/encumbered/oblig. x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % FASTER Safety budget encumbered x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % ITS capital budget advertised x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % Rock fall mitigation budget encumbered x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % Regional priority program budget encumbered x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % Surface treatment budget obligated x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % Surface treatment projects match PMS sw plan x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % MLOS budget expended x 1<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-4
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG % of engineering estimates +/- 10% low bid on all projects x 1<br />
PD - Engineering PD - ENG $ for projects on the shelf per region x 1<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN Projects exec by local agencies or sub-grantees as a % of proj auth for constr OFMB x 1<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN %STIP projects advanced in year promised OFMB x 1<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN 7th Pot Progress OFMB - Pat Girten x 1<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN ARRA Obligations CE - Charles Meyer 0<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN FASTER-Safety Projects OFMB 0<br />
PD - Finance PD - FIN Admin Exp % of Tot Budg OFMB 0<br />
PD - HR PD - HR %Empl Turnover CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Cotrip use ITS 0<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Concern by Invest Cat x 1<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Webhits to cotrip.org ITS x 1<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Employee engagement 0<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Cotrip satisfaction ITS 0<br />
PD - ITS PD - ITS Calls to road hotline ITS x 1<br />
PD - MLOS PD - MLOS MLOS - <strong>Plan</strong>ning & Training M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x x 3<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %Design on Time PPB - JoAnn Mattson SAP x x x x 4<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %DBE participating in FHWA program CEO - Debra Gallegos x x x x 4<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %Construction Projects on Time PPB - JoAnn Mattson SAP x x 2<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %Design/ROW paid w/Fed funds not advanced to construction x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #DBEs using CDC and DBE supportive services CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %DBE payments equal goal as awarded at project complet/final invoice CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS Cumulative DBE goal set by region CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Payment complaints by DBEs/ESBs and %compared to non-DBE/ESBs CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Days to investigate Title VI complaints CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #ADA investigations and days to investigate CEO - Debra Gallegos x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS Dollar value of total amonut of purchases and contracts processed Procurement x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Purchase orders and contracts processed Procurement x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Price agreements Procurement x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Projects went to bid Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS Total dollar value of all projects sent to bid Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-5
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS % Low bids w/i +/- 15% of Engineer's Est on projects over $250K Contracts & Mkt Analysis x x 2<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS %Projects completed w/in commitment amount Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Major (>$250K) Change Orders Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Change orders for time extensions Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
PD - Operations PD - OPS #Change Orders (
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Forecast Rev by Source OFMB x x x x x x 6<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Invest by Category OFMB x x x x 4<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Budget at program level OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Actual Expenditures OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW VMT Forecast through next LRTP Year IMB x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO Population U.S. Census Bur. x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO Population Growth thru next LRTP U.S. Census Bur. x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Population by Region in current year and next LRTP Year U.S. Census Bur. x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO Employment x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Gasoline Price OFMB 0<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Relative (to 1992 $) value of motor fuel tax OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO HUTF Distribution OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Forecast Spend by Mode OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Forecast Spend by Invest Cat OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW FASTER Bridge Safety Surcharge Forecasts OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW FASTER Road Safety Surcharge Forecasts OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW FASTER Daily Rental Car Fee Forecast OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW FASTER Oversize/Overweight Vehicle Charge Rev Forecast OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO (state and local) FTA funds by program area OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO (state and local) FHWA transit funds OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW <strong>CDOT</strong> federal transit funds (FTA and FHWA) OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO Gaming Funds Revenue OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CO Capital Construction Funds Revnue OFMB x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW CCI Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Authorized FTE CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Actual FTE Filled CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Authorized FTE and vacancies by division/region CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW %Full service employees elligible for retirement CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW %Reduced service employees elligible for retirement CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #Copies printed per month Facilities x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average daily value of Bid <strong>Plan</strong>s Unit sales Facilities x 1<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-7
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Roadway Center Line Miles by State, County, City and Other IMB - Lou Henefeld x x x 3<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW %∆ in State Hwy Center Line Miles over previous year IMB - Lou Henefeld x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #Bridges by State, County, City and Other Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x x x 3<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Vehicle Lane Miles - CO or State Hwy IMB - Lou Henefeld x x x x 4<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Center Lane Miles by Region IMB - Lou Henefeld x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW %∆ in state Hwy Lane Miles over previous year IMB - Lou Henefeld 0<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Lane Miles Growth Forecast thru next LRTP year IMB - Lou Henefeld x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Miles striping M&O SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Miles Guardrail M&O SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Miles Ditches M&O SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #<strong>CDOT</strong> Signalized intersections total and by region M&O SAP x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #<strong>CDOT</strong> signs total and by region M&O SAP x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #<strong>CDOT</strong> sign structures total and by region M&O SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #<strong>CDOT</strong> Regional maintenance positions filled CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #<strong>CDOT</strong> HQ maintenance positions filled CHRM - Deb Haglund x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #maintenance patrols by region M&O SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost of New Construction Project Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost of a Widening Project Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost of a Reconstruction Project Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost of a New Interchange Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost of a Resurfacing Project Contracts & Mkt Analysis x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average Cost to Maintain one lane mile M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Average cost per plow mile M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW #Plow Miles M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Regis Vehicles in CO by Auto, Bus, Truck, Motorcycle and Other CO Dept. of Rev. x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Total Licensed Drivers in CO and by Gender CO Dept. of Rev. x x 2<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Hits to coloradodot.info Public Information x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW Twitter followers Public Information x 1<br />
Raw <strong>Data</strong> RAW GovDelivery recipients Public Information x 1<br />
Safety SAF Fatality Rate (per 100M VMT) STE - Rahim Marandi x x x x x x 6<br />
Safety SAF Fatal Crash Rate (per 100M VMT) STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-8
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Safety SAF Serious Injury Crash Rate (per 100M VMT) STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF % Seat Belt Use STE - Ilana Erez x x x x x 5<br />
Safety SAF Total Crash Rate (per 100M VMT) STE - Rahim Marandi x x 2<br />
Safety SAF Fatal Crashes - Alcohol (% of all crashes) STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF <strong>CDOT</strong> Vehicle Accidents Risk Mgt - Tracie Smith x x 2<br />
Safety SAF MLOS - Traffic Services M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x x 3<br />
Safety SAF #Crashes in CO STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF %Crashes occur on CO state hwys STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Alcohol STE - Rahim Marandi x x x x 4<br />
Safety SAF Crash data processing time x 1<br />
Safety SAF #Traffic Fatalities STE - Rahim Marandi x x x x 4<br />
Safety SAF Number of Serious Injuries STE - Rahim Marandi 0<br />
Safety SAF Injuries STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Pedestrian STE - Rahim Marandi x x 2<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Speed STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF Crash Reduction Factor 0<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - No Seat Belt STE - Rahim Marandi x x x 3<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Drivers and passengers STE - Rahim Marandi x x 2<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Drivers and passengers other vehicle STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Motorcycles STE - Rahim Marandi x x x 3<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Motorcycles no helmet STE - Rahim Marandi x 1<br />
Safety SAF Fatalities - Drivers and passengers
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Safety SAF Car seat use
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Sys Qual SYS #AAH volunteers M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Bags of trash cleared with corporate sponsors M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Corporate sponsors of ROW hwy trash clearing M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #State bridges by region Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %OnSys Bridge Deck P Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %OnSys Bridge Deck SD Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %OnSys Bridge Deck FO Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #BE Bridges by region and project status Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #NHS Bridge SD Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Signs and sign posts replaced M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Linear feet of fencing replaced, installed or repaired M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Known avalanche paths M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Avalanche paths monitored and controlled M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Avalanches triggered by explosives M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Hwys impacted by triggered avalanches M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Hours of hwy closures due to avalanche control M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Hours spend performing avalanche control activities M&O SAP x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS % Scour critical bridges that have had plans of actions upd after 2008 Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS Linear feet of bridge expansion joint in condition state 1 Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Bridges G/F/P by Functional Classification Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %Resurfacing projects recommended in PMS annual review Materials & Geotech-S. Henry Deighton x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS % Surface treatment funds exp on pavement preservation by reg Materials & Geotech-S. Henry Deighton x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %NHS pavement with IRI
Appendices<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning Ext<br />
<strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Int<br />
PR<br />
Gov<br />
Rela FHWA<br />
2035 Statewide <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Annual Perf Report<br />
Deficit Report<br />
Strategic <strong>Plan</strong><br />
Chief Eng Obj (Internal)<br />
Contracting Improv Report<br />
Fact Book<br />
Annual Report<br />
Elected Officials Guide<br />
Transition Report<br />
Functional Category Investment Category <strong>Data</strong>/Measure Owner<br />
Source<br />
(System, File)<br />
Sys Qual SYS #Culverts total and by region Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %Culverts G/F/P total and by region Bridge - Mark Nord PONTIS x 1<br />
Sys Qual SYS %Pavement G/F Forecast Materials & Geotech-S. Henry Deighton 0<br />
Sys Qual SYS %Pavement Avg. IRA Materials & Geotech-S. Henry Deighton 0<br />
Sys Qual SYS Length by Measured Pavement Roughness Materials & Geotech-S. Henry Deighton 0<br />
Sys Qual SYS MLOS - Overall Forecast M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x 2<br />
Sys Qual SYS Cost to Meet MLOS at x level M&O - B.J. McElroy SAP x x 2<br />
FHWA-<strong>CDOT</strong> Stewardship<br />
Count<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. B-12
Appendices<br />
C. References<br />
Albir, S., UML In A Nutshell – A Desktop Quick Reference. Sebastopol, CA: O’Reilly<br />
and Associates, Inc., 1998.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures High Level<br />
System Design. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities, 2007.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., Alaska <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> – <strong>Data</strong> Sharing and <strong>Data</strong><br />
Delivery Methods and Tools. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public<br />
Facilities, September 2009.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures Concept of<br />
Operations. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities,<br />
September 2005.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures Summary of<br />
Stakeholders Interviews. Alaska Department of Transportation and Public<br />
Facilities, July 2007.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures <strong>Data</strong><br />
Governance, Standards and Knowledge Management. Alaska Department of<br />
Transportation and Public Facilities, September 2009.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc., <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> Measures Technical<br />
Information Sources – White Paper. Alaska Department of Transportation and<br />
Public Facilities, July 2007<br />
Few, Stephen, Information Dashboard Design: The Effective Visual Communication of<br />
<strong>Data</strong>. O’Reilly, 2006.<br />
FHWA, National ITS Architecture, Version 5.0. Washington: U.S. DOT, October<br />
2003.<br />
FHWA, Traffic <strong>Data</strong> Quality Measurement Report. September 2004.<br />
Ganapati, Sukumar, Use of Dashboards in Government. IBM Center for the<br />
<strong>Business</strong> of Government, 2011.<br />
Grant, et al, Congestion Management Process: A Guidebook. FHWA, 2011.<br />
Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), Recommended Practice for<br />
Software Requirements Specifications. IEEE Std 830-1998, June 25, 1998.<br />
NCHRP, Target-Setting Methods and <strong>Data</strong> Management to Support <strong>Performance</strong>-Based<br />
Resource Allocation by Transportation Agencies, Volume I and II, Project 08-70,<br />
NCHRP Report 666 and Report 706, 2011.<br />
NCHRP, Transportation <strong>Data</strong> Self Assessment Guide. Project 08-36, Task 100, 2011.<br />
North Carolina Department of Transportation, <strong>Performance</strong> Dashboard<br />
Documentation – Definitions, Rationale and Supporting Information for the <strong>Performance</strong><br />
Dashboard. Revised September 2010.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. C-1
Appendices<br />
Person, Ron, Balanced Scorecards & Operational Dashboards with MS Excel. Wiley<br />
Publishing, 2009.<br />
State of Washington Transportation Improvement Board Website,<br />
http://www.tib.wa.gov/performance/<strong>Performance</strong>.cfm, accessed October 19,<br />
2011.<br />
Virginia Department of Transportation, Project Dashboard Release 3.0 <strong>Business</strong><br />
Rules and User’s Information. Updated August 2011.<br />
Western Transportation Institute, RWIS Usage Study. Alaska Department of<br />
Transportation and Public Facilities, October 2007.<br />
White, Allan, Operational, tactical, strategic… what kind of dashboard do you have?<br />
Klipfolio blog, http://www.klipfolio.com/blog/entry/347, (Accessed April 7,<br />
2011).<br />
Wikipedia, Dashboard (Management Information Systems). November 23, 2011.<br />
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dashboard_%28management_information_syste<br />
ms%29. (Accessed December 20, 2011).<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. C-2
D. Stakeholder Interview<br />
Summary<br />
Memorandum<br />
TO:<br />
FROM:<br />
Cathy Cole, Colorado DOT<br />
Anita Vandervalk and Joe Guerre<br />
DATE: May 19, 2011<br />
RE:<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Performance</strong> <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong> <strong>Plan</strong> Interviews<br />
Core Team Meeting<br />
Attendance:<br />
Cathy Cole – <strong>Plan</strong>ning and <strong>Performance</strong> Branch<br />
Kate Dill – <strong>Plan</strong>ning and <strong>Performance</strong> Branch<br />
Joe Guerre – <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong><br />
Danny Herrman – Region 6 <strong>Plan</strong>ner<br />
Myron Hora – Region 4 <strong>Plan</strong>ning and Environmental Manager<br />
William Johnson – Information Management Branch<br />
Sandi Kohrs – <strong>Plan</strong>ning and <strong>Performance</strong> Branch<br />
JoAnn Mattson – <strong>Plan</strong>ning and <strong>Performance</strong> Branch<br />
Scott Richrath – <strong>Performance</strong> and Policy Unit<br />
Anita Vandervalk – <strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong><br />
One of the objectives of this project is to identify the 5 to 8 highest priority measures and<br />
provide data governance details for each. The measures should expand beyond pavements<br />
and bridges. Information to be provided for each measure includes definition, units, timing,<br />
data items, data sources, calculations, etc. <strong>CDOT</strong> would like to be able to drill down into<br />
more detail on these top measures.<br />
Project Considerations:<br />
<br />
Change management challenges associated with using performance measures to inform<br />
decisions.
Appendices<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> is required to report to governor on the implementation of <strong>CDOT</strong>’s strategic plan (2-<br />
7-202(13)(a) Colorado Revised Statutes.).<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Public survey results will be available in approximately August*. Results can help to<br />
identify public priorities and help to frame performance results for public consumption.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> would like to analyze future performance scenarios (10-year time horizon).<br />
There is a need to connect <strong>CDOT</strong>’s measures with the measures and decisions made within<br />
individual departments and regions.<br />
<strong>Performance</strong> framework should allow for goals, objectives and measures to evolve over<br />
time.<br />
Work is underway to implement Public Budget Formulation (PBF) module of SAP. This<br />
module is emerging as the performance measure data warehouse. To ensure consistency<br />
with these and other <strong>CDOT</strong> efforts, this project should be technology-neutral and not<br />
address system architecture issues.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> governance recommendations need to identify data owners and formalize their role in<br />
the data QA/QC process.<br />
Dashboard recommendations should be developed from the perspective of the public.<br />
Kick Off Meeting<br />
Attendance:<br />
Mehdi Baziar - DTD<br />
Tony Bemelen - SAP Support<br />
Dave Bouwman - DTS<br />
Patrick Byrne - OFMB<br />
Eric Chavez - Pavement Management<br />
Cathy Cole - DTD<br />
Kathleen Collins - Statewide <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Darrell. Johnson - OFMB/<strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Glenn Davis - OTS<br />
Kate Dill - DTD-PPA+<br />
Deb Hagland - CHRM<br />
Stephen Henry - Pavement<br />
Management<br />
Dan Herrmann - <strong>CDOT</strong>-R6 <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Myron Hora - R4 <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
William Johnson - DTD IMB<br />
Sandi Kohrs - <strong>Plan</strong>ning and<br />
<strong>Performance</strong><br />
Tammy Lang - DTD/IMB<br />
Mark Leonard - Staff Bridge<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Jeff Loeper – Staff Branches<br />
JoAnn Mattson - DTD <strong>Performance</strong><br />
B.J. McElroy - M&O<br />
Gregg Miller - SAP<br />
Mark Nord – Staff Bridge<br />
Steve Olson - SM&G Branch<br />
Darius Pakbaz - SAP Support<br />
Adrianne Raiche - EO<br />
Karen Rowe - SAP Support<br />
Pat Saffo - OFMB<br />
Tracie Smith - Risk Management<br />
Darin Stavish - Region 1 <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Jeff Sudmeier - DTD – <strong>Plan</strong>ning<br />
Casey Tighe - Audit<br />
Will Ware - CFMB<br />
David Wieder - Maintenance & OPS<br />
Branch<br />
Beverly Wyatt - CHRM<br />
Scott Young - Staff Branches<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. D-2
Appendices<br />
The following question was presented to the group and their responses follow:<br />
“What do you hope to gain from the study and what can you contribute?”<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
To unify data collection across <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
Bring connection to SAP<br />
Revenue forecasting and resource allocation,<br />
Would like to see higher-level organizational measures and results for management.<br />
Quality of measures across the stewardship agreement<br />
Chief Objectives reports<br />
Mentioned Transport software<br />
Interested in mobility, congestion, and speed data<br />
Would like to see delay added as a measure<br />
Track risk management associated with human resources<br />
Have information on audit compliance reviews and Efficiency, Accountability Committee<br />
Interested in data governance (who owns the data?)<br />
Roles and responsibilities, collect once using a linear referencing system to share<br />
information, and mobility performance measures<br />
Benefit/cost measures in the region<br />
Use performance measures to see where we are and where we are going<br />
Impacts of investments and outcomes (10 and 20 years in the future)<br />
A vital few measures is desirable, however need to be able to drill down to ones that are<br />
more detailed<br />
Would like to see concrete measures – subjective rather than objective<br />
Would like in real time for making decisions<br />
Would like better coordination and streamlining of data and performance measures, to be<br />
accessible for long range planning and sharing with all parties<br />
Maintenance performance-based budget<br />
Would like to see Department be more efficient in reporting data, more standard/universal<br />
methods to report and avoid variations,<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> spends a lot of time on PMs, needs to be more efficient<br />
Measures and reports frequently, would like to see reduction in redundancy of data (i.e.<br />
both Maintenance and Pavement collecting the same data items)<br />
Not every lane mile may be necessary for pavement data collection<br />
Should optimize among departments (i.e. run the same data collection van)<br />
Would like to figure out best method to obtain information from engineers<br />
Use for formulating budgets, analysis, refining strategic plans<br />
Would like a repository/library for information to reside in and standard ways to report<br />
Would like to see performance measures drill down from the highest level (Strategic <strong>Plan</strong>)<br />
to the IPO level so employees have a “line of site” between them<br />
Need performance measures to help track what we should do in 2013, 2015, etc.<br />
Would like to see all reports in SAP<br />
An external style guide would be appropriate<br />
Agreement on valued measures<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. D-3
Appendices<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
How and when they are defined (quarterly? annually?)<br />
Connection of macro- and micro- levels<br />
Allow flexibility to change measures<br />
SAP will help <strong>CDOT</strong> avoid silos and better integrate performance reporting. This project<br />
will feed into requirements for the dashboard.<br />
Interviews<br />
Twenty-four interviews were conducted with a wide variety of headquarters and region <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
staff. Comments were received related to <strong>CDOT</strong>’s performance measurement process, data<br />
management/governance, and specific recommended high level performance measures. The<br />
recommendations from the interviews were used to create the first version of the framework.<br />
The comments will also be used in the remainder of the project. The following summarizes the<br />
main take-away points related to the project.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> Annual Report: The report may be sending the wrong message, because too many of the<br />
measures are shown as a green light. This indicates that a target has been met, but does not<br />
communicate if the target is a “good” target or not. Report could be improved by providing<br />
trend information. For example, alcohol fatalities have gone down (trend) however, is still<br />
reported as a red light in the performance report.<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance: <strong>Data</strong> governance standards should clearly define measures. For example,<br />
the definition of “injury” has changed over time, and “crash rates” are not calculated<br />
consistently (e.g., crashes per 100 million VMT and crashes per million VMT are both used).<br />
Possible obstacles to PMs and <strong>Data</strong> Governance include change management (attitudes and<br />
behavior/culture change).<br />
There is a disconnect with respect to data i.e. different branches own different data makes it<br />
difficult to establish performance measures.<br />
Specific Measures: Safety should not be included in overall program level tradeoffs, because<br />
much of work is done (and benefits achieved) through other programs.<br />
Mobility measure should be based on delay on a subset of urban corridors which would be<br />
more meaningful than a statewide number that includes a significant rural component.<br />
Reliability is a good measure, but very difficult to explain to public.<br />
A recommended pavement measure is “Percent pavement in good/fair condition (based on<br />
RSL).”<br />
There is an opportunity for tighter coordination between pavement surface LOS and capital<br />
pavement measure (RSL). This connection is tighter for bridges because data used for bridge<br />
LOS is provided by the bridge management system.<br />
Recommended bridge measure is “Percent of deck area on bridges in good/fair condition”<br />
(includes bridges and major culverts).<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. D-4
Appendices<br />
The two most important delivery measures are on-time and on-budget:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Options for on time include obligating money (same as advertising project), starting<br />
project, and completing project. Highest priority for <strong>CDOT</strong> is advertisement date<br />
(consistent with previous interview).<br />
Public is most interested in: contract estimated completion, actual completion and<br />
reason for difference. The following should be measured: 1. How well did <strong>CDOT</strong> do<br />
the estimate? 2. Was it met? 3. Reasons if not.<br />
Good milestones to track would be: 1. Is budget set up before going to bid? 2. Was<br />
there a change in budget after bid? 3. If changes occurred – are they justified? 4.<br />
What was the final budget? The fundamental data is already in SAP to track these 4<br />
– the dates just need to be tightened.<br />
The ideal on-time budget would have thresholds for “on-time” that vary by project<br />
type. For example, a resurfacing project could be 1 month within the ad date, while<br />
a bigger project could be 2-3 months.<br />
The target for an on-time measure based on ad date should not be 100 percent. This<br />
would indicate that staff is too conservative in their estimates. For this measure, a<br />
tight definition and process for when/how to calculate it are critical. For example,<br />
on time could be defined as project ad within 30 days of current ad date. An ideal<br />
measure might be project-based, e.g., percent of projects on-time, or percent of<br />
projects on-time weighted by project cost.<br />
General<br />
An audit of PMs was conducted and it was found that the data was not checked.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> needs to do better measuring program level and connection between federal and<br />
financing (e.g., how was money spent and what did we get for it?).<br />
Need set rules in place for commonly reported data – e.g. there are different ways of reporting<br />
(centerline miles, lane miles, two directions etc.).<br />
Need an annual “publication” from IRIS to send to SAP.<br />
Need to be able to drill down on measure so a person can see how their performance objectives<br />
link to those of the work unit, division and Department.<br />
Reporting needs to be more outcome oriented (e.g. rather than focusing on whether a bid was<br />
on time – what was the quality of the work?<br />
Regions<br />
There appears to be a disconnect between project decisions made in regions and the<br />
performance measures reported by <strong>CDOT</strong>. It is important for regions to buy into future<br />
measures and feel a sense of accountability for them.<br />
It is a good idea to break down the measures by region. The more information, the better for<br />
the decision makers.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. D-5
Appendices<br />
If measures reported by region it will be important to provide annotations. For example, urban<br />
regions may have more difficulty with the on-time and on-budget measures than more rural<br />
regions.<br />
There is less concern for variability between the regions on the network-level measures then on<br />
the delivery measures. Ideally the measures would help estimate the needs in the regions and<br />
identify which regions are being more or less efficient with their resources.<br />
Dashboard<br />
Dashboard design should not be constrained by the capabilities of Xcelsius. All external facing<br />
information including dashboards need to be reviewed by the Public Relations office.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. D-6
Appendices<br />
E. Goals and Objectives<br />
The Public Budget Categories are maintain, maximize, expand, deliver, passthrough/multimodal<br />
and Transportation Commission Contingency/Debt.<br />
The following Vision, Mission and Goals were obtained from <strong>CDOT</strong> in a<br />
spreadsheet “<strong>Performance</strong> Measure Tracking.xlsx” dated April 6, 2011.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>'S VISION<br />
To enhance the quality of life and the environment of the citizens of Colorado by<br />
creating an integrated transportation system that focuses on moving people and<br />
goods and by offering convenient linkages among modal choices.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>'S MISSION<br />
To provide the best multi-modal transportation system for Colorado that most<br />
effectively moves people, goods and information.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>'S TRANSPORTATION OPERATING PRINCIPLES<br />
CUSTOMER FOCUS<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will strengthen its relationships with the increasingly informed and<br />
interested citizenry by reinforcing the public participation process to include outreach,<br />
early involvement and review, candid and understandable presentations,<br />
and consistency in follow-up. The process must include local governments,<br />
interest groups, and formal organizations, along with methods to solicit and<br />
respond to the views of all those impacted by transportation performance,<br />
improvements and financing.<br />
LEADERSHIP<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will bring together varied interests to address the transportation needs<br />
and issues of Colorado’s ever-changing social and physical environment. With a<br />
commitment to its vision, <strong>CDOT</strong> will utilize its unique statewide perspective and<br />
range of expertise in reaching optimal transportation solutions with its broad<br />
customer base.<br />
PARTNERSHIP<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will develop, support and/or participate in the formation of formal and<br />
informal partnerships for the quality development and implementation of<br />
Colorado’s transportation goals. Through cooperative efforts and shared<br />
responsibilities, these partnerships will help to leverage the limited resources<br />
available, and tap new sources of support for transportation development in<br />
Colorado.<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will solicit, support and/or participate in formal arrangements that<br />
further its Vision, Investment Strategy and Statewide <strong>Plan</strong>.<br />
Unsolicited proposals made to <strong>CDOT</strong> should be consistent with transportation<br />
planning process.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. E-1
Appendices<br />
INTEGRATE REGIONAL AND STATEWIDE PRIORITIES<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong>, and the Transportation Commission recognize and support the various<br />
roles of our planning partners, and of transportation providers, in coordinating<br />
an integrated, intermodal transportation system for Colorado. <strong>CDOT</strong> will<br />
collaborate with our partners to build consensus for the integration of local,<br />
regional and statewide transportation priorities. In order to optimize a limited<br />
resource base, effective integration requires mutual respect while addressing the<br />
issues and priorities of competing interests.<br />
FINANCIAL RESPONSIBILITIES<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will pursue diverse and cooperative funding options to reflect the<br />
interrelated nature of all modes within the transportation system. Public<br />
understanding of the financial requirements of the transportation system is a<br />
prerequisite for developing additional funding options that are reliable,<br />
equitable, flexible, adequate and acceptable. In an increasingly competitive<br />
environment for already limited resources, <strong>CDOT</strong> acknowledges and share the<br />
public’s concern over the cost and efficiency of government services. <strong>CDOT</strong> will<br />
continue to enhance its financial management practices to demonstrate<br />
accountability toward achieving established benchmarks.<br />
BALANCE QUALITY OF LIFE FACTORS<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> recognizes the complex interrelationship of the environment, economic<br />
vitality and mobility, and is committed to balancing these factors in the<br />
development and implementation of the statewide transportation plan. By<br />
working with local, regional and state interests, <strong>CDOT</strong> will advocate the<br />
development of a coordinated decision-making process that balances the longrange<br />
transportation, land use and quality of life needs in Colorado. It is not the<br />
intent of the Commission or <strong>CDOT</strong> to prohibit or interfere with local land use<br />
decisions.<br />
ENVIRONMENT<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will support and enhance efforts to protect the environment and quality<br />
of life for all its citizens in the pursuit of providing the best transportation<br />
systems and services possible. <strong>CDOT</strong> will:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
promote a transportation system that is environmentally responsible and<br />
encourages preservation of the natural and enhancement of the created<br />
environment for current and future generations;<br />
incorporate social, economic, environmental concerns into the planning,<br />
design, construction, maintenance, and operations of the state’s existing and<br />
future transportation system;<br />
will, through the active participation of the general public, federal, state and<br />
local agencies, objectively consider all reasonable alternatives to avoid or<br />
minimize adverse impacts;<br />
will ensure that measures are taken to avoid and minimize the environmental<br />
impacts of construction and maintenance of the transportation system, all<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. E-2
Appendices<br />
<br />
<br />
activities are in compliance with all environmental statutes and regulations,<br />
and that mitigation commitments are implemented and maintained;<br />
will plan, design, construct, maintain and operate the transportation system<br />
in a manner which helps preserve Colorado’s historic and natural heritage<br />
and fits harmoniously into the community, local culture and the natural<br />
environment.<br />
will promote a sense of environmental responsibility for all employees in the<br />
course of all <strong>CDOT</strong> activities and we will go beyond environmental<br />
compliance and strive for environmental excellence.<br />
ACCESSIBILITY CONNECTIVITY, AND MODAL CHOICES<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> will promote a transportation system that is reliable and accessible to<br />
potential users, including the transportation disadvantaged. Accessibility<br />
includes the availability of modal choices and connectivity, ease of use, relative<br />
cost, proximity to service and frequency of service. <strong>CDOT</strong> will go beyond the<br />
traditional single-occupancy vehicle highway improvements by emphasizing an<br />
approach to transportation planning, development, and maintenance that takes<br />
advantage of the inherent efficiencies of each mode. Such an approach is<br />
necessary to respond to the diverse needs of both urban and rural customers, to<br />
preserve and improve the environment, and to ensure the connectivity and<br />
interaction of modes.<br />
SOCIAL RESPONSIBILITY<br />
<strong>CDOT</strong> recognizes the value of human capital in achieving state goals, and<br />
maintains a commitment to fostering nondiscrimination practices in a safe and<br />
healthy work environment. Our commitment to fair and equitable business<br />
practices encompasses the interests of all of our customers. Overall the general<br />
welfare of the total public will be reflected in <strong>CDOT</strong>’s decision-making processes.<br />
In everything we do, <strong>CDOT</strong> will be guided by certain values. We will:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Take pride in our work and ourselves.<br />
Demand quality of ourselves.<br />
Strive to improve our personal skills and talents.<br />
Use resources wisely.<br />
INVESTMENT CATEGORIES<br />
SYSTEM QUALITY: Activities, programs and projects that maintain the (physical<br />
integrity/ condition) function and aesthetics of the existing transportation<br />
infrastructure.<br />
GOALS<br />
<br />
<br />
Cost effectively maintain or improve the quality and serviceability of the<br />
physical transportation infrastructure<br />
Increase investment in system quality and in strategic projects<br />
OBJECTIVES<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. E-3
Appendices<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Maintain or improve the CY 2003 projected good/fair condition of the state<br />
highways through 2010<br />
Maintain or improve the CY 2003 projected good/fair condition of the major<br />
structures through CY 2010<br />
Maintain or improve the transportation system at the adopted annual<br />
maintenance level of service grade (In the System Quality program areas)<br />
Maintain or improve the average external customer satisfaction survey grade<br />
for state highways drivability<br />
Maintain or improve customer satisfaction grade of the state highway<br />
system’s appearance<br />
SAFETY: Services, programs and projects that reduce fatalities, injuries and<br />
property damage for all users and providers of the system.<br />
GOALS<br />
<br />
<br />
To create, promote and maintain a safe and secure transportation system and<br />
work environment<br />
Increase investment in safety and strategic projects<br />
OBJECTIVES<br />
By CY 2010, reduce by 4% the total motor vehicle crash rate from CY 2002<br />
level (CY 2002 rate is 307.1 crashes per 100 million vehicle miles of travel)<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
By CY 2010, reduce by 20% the severity and economic loss of transportation<br />
related motor vehicle crashes from CY 2002 levels<br />
By FY 2007, develop a <strong>CDOT</strong> homeland security plan<br />
Within 5 years, reduce the <strong>CDOT</strong> employee injury rate by 50% and reduce<br />
construction contractor employee fatalities (Based on average of three years<br />
of specific <strong>CDOT</strong> OSHA recordable claims data: From an average worker<br />
injury rate in FY 2004 of 9.9 to 5.0 injury accidents per 100 employees by FY<br />
2009)<br />
Over next 5 years, reduce worker accidents by 15% per year (Base year is FY<br />
2004)<br />
Over next 5 years, reduce the number of <strong>CDOT</strong> vehicle accidents by 10% per<br />
year (base year is FY 2004)<br />
Maintain or improve the 2006 customer rating of safety-related programs and<br />
service delivery<br />
MOBILITY: Programs, services, and projects that provide for the movement of<br />
people, goods and information.<br />
GOALS<br />
<br />
<br />
Maintain or improve the operational capacity of the transportation system<br />
Increase integration of the transportation system modal choices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. E-4
Appendices<br />
<br />
Increase investment in mobility and strategic projects<br />
OBJECTIVES<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Maintain or improve the 2006 customer satisfaction rating of operational<br />
services delivery<br />
Reduce the growth rate through CY 2010 below projected growth rate of<br />
person miles traveled in congestion<br />
Increase of infrastructure to improve mobility for the user or increase in<br />
investment to improve mobility for user<br />
Maintain the snow and ice maintenance level of service grade at the adopted<br />
annual grade<br />
Maintain or improve the 2006 customer satisfaction rating of transportation<br />
choices as a part of an integrated statewide transportation system<br />
PROGRAM DELIVERY: Functions that enable the successful delivery of <strong>CDOT</strong>’s<br />
programs, projects and services.<br />
GOALS<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Deliver high-quality programs, projects and services in an effective and<br />
efficient manner<br />
Accelerate completion of the remaining strategic projects<br />
Increase investment in strategic projects<br />
OBJECTIVES<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Encumber all program funds within the planned quarter<br />
Deliver all programs and projects on time and within budget<br />
Maintain or improve customer satisfaction rating of project quality<br />
Maintain or improve a diverse and qualified workforce that supports <strong>CDOT</strong><br />
values<br />
Meet or exceed the Department’s annual Disadvantaged <strong>Business</strong> Enterprise<br />
(DBE) goals<br />
Protect the environment by mitigating adverse environmental impacts while<br />
providing effective transportation systems<br />
For the strategic projects:<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
Promote partnerships with all governments to enhance working relationships<br />
Accelerate strategic project delivery while minimizing the impact to all other<br />
objectives<br />
Preserve options to anticipate Colorado’s future transportation needs in<br />
major corridors<br />
Ensure <strong>CDOT</strong>’s bonding eligibility to secure future funding levels<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. E-5
Appendices<br />
F. Sample <strong>Data</strong> Governance<br />
Work Team Charter<br />
<strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team Charter<br />
June 2009<br />
Purpose<br />
The <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team is established to support a data governance<br />
framework for the Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT). The<br />
work team, under the guidance of the <strong>Business</strong> Information Council, supports<br />
standardizing procedures for the identification and management of enterprise<br />
data. The <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team supports the department vision and<br />
mission for management of enterprise data.<br />
Responsibilities of the <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team:<br />
<br />
<br />
Develop a strategy and process for implementing data governance<br />
throughout the organization, which will include:<br />
– Guidance on priorities for implementing data governance on enterprise<br />
data<br />
– Recommended next steps in data governance (development of data<br />
dictionary, review of current inventory of data systems, etc.)<br />
– A Mn/DOT data governance manual documenting the framework<br />
– A communication plan for reaching the entire enterprise<br />
Develop and recommend for implementation a detailed data governance<br />
framework to:<br />
– Define roles and responsibilities in data governance (board/council,<br />
steward, custodian, stakeholder, etc.)<br />
– Define goals/objectives pertaining to the use of data<br />
– Define goals/objective pertaining to data collection<br />
– Identify process for non-compliance with goals/objectives of data<br />
collection and use<br />
– Identify data values/principals/guidelines which support data’s value as<br />
an asset<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. F-1
Appendices<br />
<br />
Define the need and what should be included in a data catalog for the<br />
enterprise.<br />
Scope<br />
The scope of the <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team is to provide recommendations to<br />
the <strong>Business</strong> Information Council for implementation of standards, procedures<br />
and work products for the enterprise as defined above, in coordination with<br />
business emphasis area work teams.<br />
Deliverables<br />
The deliverables of the <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team include the following:<br />
1. <strong>Data</strong> governance structure including roles and responsibilities of current<br />
and future data-related boards.<br />
2. Action plan for implementing data governance at Mn/DOT.<br />
3. <strong>Data</strong> governance manual for the enterprise and each business area to<br />
include methods and processes for reviewing, approving, and<br />
implementing data governance standards, procedures, and work<br />
products.<br />
4. Communication plan to market the impact and benefits of data<br />
governance.<br />
5. Development plan for a data catalog including structure and content.<br />
Organization of <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team<br />
Tim Henkel, Modal <strong>Plan</strong>ning & Program Management Division Director, Co-<br />
Champion<br />
Pam Tschida, Employee & Corporate Services Division Director, Co-Champion<br />
Bob Brown, Office of Land Management, Co-Chair<br />
Kathy Hofstedt, Office of Information & Technology Services , Co-Chair<br />
Lee Berget, District 4<br />
Sue Dwight, Office of Financial Management<br />
Cassandra Isackson, Office of Traffic, Safety, & Technology<br />
Matt Koukol, Office of Transportation <strong>Data</strong> & Analysis<br />
Jonette Kreideweis, Office of Transportation <strong>Data</strong> & Analysis<br />
Bill Roen, Office of Financial Management<br />
Susan Walto, Office of Transportation <strong>Data</strong> & Analysis (staff)<br />
Expert Resources to the Work Team<br />
Michele Bliss, Mn/DOT Records Manager<br />
Sheila Hatchell, Mn/DOT Library Director<br />
Schedule<br />
The <strong>Data</strong> Governance Work Team will meet at regular intervals (to be scheduled)<br />
based on the on-going development and implementation of the <strong>Data</strong> <strong>Business</strong><br />
<strong>Plan</strong> for Mn/DOT as managed by the <strong>Business</strong> Information Council.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. F-2
Appendices<br />
G. Congestion<br />
The report recommends adopting a travel time reliability measure. This<br />
appendix documents the calculations and results of both travel time index (TTI)<br />
and planning time index (PTI) for I-70 from Denver International Airport to Vail<br />
from for the period of November 1, 2010 through October 31, 2011.<br />
Definition of Travel Time Reliability<br />
There are two widely held ways that reliability can be defined. Each is valid and<br />
leads to a set of reliability performance measures that capture the nature of travel<br />
time reliability. Reliability can be defined as:<br />
1. The variability in travel times that occur on a facility or a trip over the course<br />
of time; and<br />
2. The number of times (trips) that either “fail” or “succeed” in accordance with<br />
a pre-determined performance standard.<br />
In both cases, reliability (more appropriately, unreliability) is caused by the<br />
interaction of the factors that influence travel times: fluctuations in demand,<br />
traffic control devices, traffic incidents, inclement weather, work zones, and<br />
physical capacity (based on prevailing geometrics and traffic patterns). These<br />
factors will produce travel times that are different from day-to-day for the same<br />
trip. The reliability of a facility or trip can be reported for different time slices,<br />
e.g., weekday peak hour, weekday peak period, and weekend.<br />
From a measurement perspective, reliability is quantified from the distribution of<br />
travel times, for a given facility/trip and time slice, that occurs over a significant<br />
span of time; one year is generally long enough to capture nearly all of the<br />
variability caused by disruptions. A variety of different metrics can be computed<br />
once the travel time distribution has been established, including standard<br />
statistical measures (e.g., standard deviation, kurtosis), percentile-based<br />
measures (e.g., 95 th percentile travel time, Buffer Index), on-time measures (e.g.,<br />
percent of trips completed within a travel time threshold, and failure measures<br />
(e.g., percent of trips that exceed a travel time threshold).<br />
Definition of Measures Calculated<br />
The speed and segment data was obtained from the <strong>CDOT</strong> ITS Office in a flat<br />
file, comma delineated format organized by month. CS calculated the TTI and<br />
PTI for the am and pm peak for I-70 for the year beginning November 1, 2010<br />
using the following formulae.<br />
PTI was calculated as the 95th percentile travel time divided by the free flow<br />
travel time.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-1
Appendices<br />
TTI was calculated as the ratio of average peak travel time to an off-peak (freeflow)<br />
standard. For example, a value of 1.20 means that average peak travel times<br />
are 20 percent longer than off-peak travel times.<br />
The segments were revised as shown in the following table for the purposes of<br />
calculating the results.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-2
Appendices<br />
Table G-1<br />
Revised Segments<br />
ORIGINAL<br />
REVISED<br />
SEGMENT NAME SEGMENT LENGTH SEGMENT ID NUM SEG SEGMENT ID SEGMENT NAME SEGMENT LENGTH<br />
070E177 ‐ East Vail to Vail Pass 12.4 E1 1 E1 East Vail to Vail Pass 12.4<br />
070E190 ‐ Vail Pass to Copper 5.8 E2 1 E2 Vail Pass to Copper 5.8<br />
070E196 ‐ Copper to Frisco (Main St) 5.7 E3 1 E3 Copper to Frisco (Main St) 5.7<br />
070E201 ‐ Frisco (Main St) to Silverthorne 4 E4 1 E4 Frisco (Main St) to Silverthorne 4<br />
070E206 ‐ Silverthorne to MM 211 5.62 E5 2 E5 Silverthorne to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 5.62<br />
070E211 ‐ MM 211 to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 2.68 E5 2 E6 Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance to Loveland 2.7<br />
070E214 ‐ Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance to Loveland 2.7 E6 1 E7 Loveland to Bakerville 5<br />
070E217 ‐ Loveland to Bakerville 5 E7 1 E8 Bakerville to Georgetown 6.6<br />
070E222 ‐ Bakerville to Georgetown 6.6 E8 1 E9 Georgetown to US 40 Empire 4.6<br />
070E228 ‐ Georgetown to US 40 Empire 4.6 E9 1 E10 US 40 Empire to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 7.2<br />
070E233 ‐ US 40 Empire to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 7.2 E10 1 E11 CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 6 4.6<br />
070E240 ‐ CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 6 4.6 E11 1 E12 US 6 to Evergreen Pkwy 3.51<br />
070E245 ‐ US 6 to Beaver Brook 3.51 E12 2 E13 Evergreen Pkwy to Lookout Mountain 4.58<br />
070E248 ‐ Beaver Brook to Evergreen Pkwy 3.92 E12 2 E14 Lookout Mountain to C‐470 2.69<br />
070E252 ‐ Evergreen Pkwy to Lookout Mountain 4.58 E13 1 E15 C‐470 to US 6 1.1<br />
070E256 ‐ Lookout Mountain to Morrison / Heritage 2.69 E14 2 E16 US 6 to CO 58 3.49<br />
070E259 ‐ Morrison / Heritage to C‐470 1 E14 2 E17 CO 58 to Kipling St 1.98<br />
070E260 ‐ C‐470 to US 6 1.1 E15 1 E18 Kipling St to Sheridan Blvd 1.57<br />
070E261 ‐ US 6 to 32nd Ave 3.49 E16 2 E19 Sheridan Blvd to Pecos St 2.59<br />
070E265 ‐ 32nd Ave to CO 58 0.98 E16 2 E20 Pecos St to I‐25 0.99<br />
070E266 ‐ CO 58 to Kipling St 1.98 E17 1 E21 I‐25 to Colorado Blvd 1.21<br />
070E268 ‐ Kipling St to I‐76 1.57 E18 2 E22 Colorado Blvd to I‐270 2.48<br />
070E270 ‐ I‐76 to Sheridan Blvd 1.59 E18 2 E23 I‐270 to I‐225 1.61<br />
070E271 ‐ Sheridan Blvd to Pecos St 2.59 E19 1 E24 I‐225 to Pena Blvd 0.69<br />
070E274 ‐ Pecos St to I‐25 0.99 E20 1 E25 Pena Blvd to Tower Rd 2.61<br />
070E275 ‐ I‐25 to Brighton Blvd 1.21 E21 2 W1 Vail Pass to East Vail 12.6<br />
070E276 ‐ Brighton Blvd to Colorado Blvd 1.44 E21 2 W2 Copper to Vail Pass 5.6<br />
070E277 ‐ Colorado Blvd to I‐270 2.48 E22 1 W3 Frisco (Main St) to Copper 5.1<br />
070E280 ‐ I‐270 to Havana St 1.61 E23 3 W4 Silverthorne to Frisco (Main St) 4.7<br />
070E281 ‐ Havana St to Peoria St 1.02 E23 3 W5 Eisenhower Tunnel West to Silverthorne 5.57<br />
070E282 ‐ Peoria St to I‐225 0.95 E23 3 W6 Loveland to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 2.6<br />
070E283 ‐ I‐225 to Pena Blvd 0.69 E24 1 W7 Bakerville to Loveland 5.1<br />
070E284 ‐ Pena Blvd to Tower Rd 2.61 E25 1 W8 Georgetown to Bakerville 6.6<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-3
Appendices<br />
ORIGINAL<br />
REVISED<br />
SEGMENT NAME SEGMENT LENGTH SEGMENT ID NUM SEG SEGMENT ID SEGMENT NAME SEGMENT LENGTH<br />
070W189 ‐ Vail Pass to East Vail 12.6 W1 1 W9 US 40 Empire to Georgetown 4.7<br />
070W195 ‐ Copper to Vail Pass 5.6 W2 1 W10 CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 40 Empire 7.2<br />
070W200 ‐ Frisco (Main St) to Copper 5.1 W3 1 W11 US 6 to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 4.4<br />
070W205 ‐ Silverthorne to Frisco (Main St) 4.7 W4 1 W12 Evergreen Pkwy to US 6 3.29<br />
070W211 ‐ MM 211 to Silverthorne 5.57 W5 2 W13 Lookout Mountain to Evergreen Pkwy 4.75<br />
070W213 ‐ Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance to MM 211 2.63 W5 2 W14 C‐470 to Lookout Mountain 2.85<br />
070W216 ‐ Loveland to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 2.6 W6 1 W15 US 6 to C‐470 0.89<br />
070W221 ‐ Bakerville to Loveland 5.1 W7 1 W16 CO 58 to US 6 3.4<br />
070W227 ‐ Georgetown to Bakerville 6.6 W8 1 W17 Kipling St to CO 58 1.86<br />
070W232 ‐ US 40 Empire to Georgetown 4.7 W9 1 W18 Sheridan Blvd to Kipling St 1.42<br />
070W239 ‐ CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 40 Empire 7.2 W10 1 W19 I‐25 to Pecos St 0.88<br />
070W244 ‐ US 6 to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 4.4 W11 1 W20 Pecos St to Sheridan Blvd 2.39<br />
070W247 ‐ Beaver Brook to US 6 3.29 W12 2 W21 Colorado Blvd to Brighton Blvd 1.1<br />
070W251 ‐ Evergreen Pkwy to Beaver Brook 4.01 W12 2 W22 I‐270 to Colorado Blvd 2.27<br />
070W256 ‐ Lookout Mountain to Evergreen Pkwy 4.75 W13 1 W23 Havana St to Peoria 1.46<br />
070W258 ‐ Morrison / Heritage to Lookout Mountain 2.85 W14 2 W24 Pena Blvd to I‐225 1.12<br />
070W259 ‐ C‐470 to Morrison / Heritage 1 W14 2 W25 Tower Rd to Pena Blvd 1.82<br />
070W260 ‐ US 6 to C‐470 0.89 W15 1<br />
070W264 ‐ 32nd Ave to US 6 3.4 W16 2<br />
070W265 ‐ CO 58 to 32nd Ave 0.89 W16 2<br />
070W267 ‐ Kipling St to CO 58 1.86 W17 1<br />
070W269 ‐ I‐76 to Kipling St 1.42 W18 2<br />
070W270 ‐ Sheridan Blvd to I‐76 1.51 W18 2<br />
070W273 ‐ I‐25 to Pecos St 0.88 W19 1<br />
070W273 ‐ Pecos St to Sheridan Blvd 2.39 W20 1<br />
070W275 ‐ Brighton Blvd to I‐25 1.1 W21 2<br />
070W276 ‐ Colorado Blvd to Brighton Blvd 1.33 W21 2<br />
070W278 ‐ I‐270 to Colorado Blvd 2.27 W22 1<br />
070W280 ‐ Havana St to I‐270 1.46 W23 1<br />
070W281 ‐ Peoria St to Havana St 0.94 W24 1<br />
070W282 ‐ I‐225 to Peoria St 0.94 W25 1<br />
070W283 ‐ Pena Blvd to I‐225 1.12 W26 1<br />
070W285 ‐ Tower Rd to Pena Blvd 1.82 W27 1<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-4
Appendices<br />
Results<br />
The following table shows the segment IDs, segment names, segment speeds and<br />
TTI and PTI for both PM and AM peak hours.<br />
Table G-2<br />
Detailed Summary of Results<br />
AM_PEAK<br />
PM_PEAK<br />
SEGMENT<br />
_ID SEGMENT_NAME Speed TTI PTI Speed TTI PTI<br />
E1 East Vail to Vail Pass 56 1.04 1.20 54 1.10 1.63<br />
E2 Vail Pass to Copper 56 1.05 1.22 54 1.10 1.65<br />
E3 Copper to Frisco (Main St) 60 1.03 1.15 63 1.01 1.06<br />
E4 Frisco (Main St) to Silverthorne 62 1.02 1.10 62 1.02 1.16<br />
E5 Silverthorne to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 56 1.02 1.11 55 1.06 1.27<br />
E6 Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance to Loveland 47 1.03 1.15 46 1.06 1.44<br />
E7 Loveland to Bakerville 60 1.03 1.16 59 1.07 1.55<br />
E8 Bakerville to Georgetown 62 1.02 1.10 60 1.06 1.32<br />
E9 Georgetown to US 40 Empire 64 1.01 1.06 60 1.08 1.56<br />
E10 US 40 Empire to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 64 1.01 1.07 61 1.06 1.33<br />
E11 CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 6 57 1.02 1.08 57 1.03 1.16<br />
E12 US 6 to Evergreen Pkwy 63 1.02 1.11 64 1.01 1.08<br />
E13 Evergreen Pkwy to Lookout Mountain 63 1.02 1.12 62 1.03 1.10<br />
E14 Lookout Mountain to C‐470 56 1.01 1.10 57 1.01 1.08<br />
E15 C‐470 to US 6 64 1.02 1.13 64 1.02 1.10<br />
E16 US 6 to CO 58 64 1.02 1.15 57 1.13 1.52<br />
E17 CO 58 to Kipling St 61 1.05 1.21 48 1.33 2.10<br />
E18 Kipling St to Sheridan Blvd 56 1.06 1.25 55 1.07 1.21<br />
E19 Sheridan Blvd to Pecos St 47 1.16 1.81 54 1.02 1.08<br />
E20 Pecos St to I‐25 39 1.39 2.45 48 1.15 1.70<br />
E21 I‐25 to Colorado Blvd 48 1.15 1.52 44 1.25 1.88<br />
E22 Colorado Blvd to I‐270 50 1.09 1.38 36 1.51 2.51<br />
E23 I‐270 to I‐225 48 1.10 1.31 41 1.28 1.78<br />
E24 I‐225 to Pena Blvd 55 1.00 1.04 55 1.01 1.06<br />
E25 Pena Blvd to Tower Rd 55 1.01 1.07 55 1.01 1.06<br />
W1 Vail Pass to East Vail 56 1.04 1.20 57 1.05 1.34<br />
W2 Copper to Vail Pass 56 1.04 1.21 57 1.05 1.34<br />
W3 Frisco (Main St) to Copper 61 1.02 1.12 62 1.01 1.07<br />
W4 Silverthorne to Frisco (Main St) 61 1.02 1.11 63 1.01 1.06<br />
W5 Eisenhower Tunnel West to Silverthorne 55 1.03 1.16 58 1.01 1.07<br />
W6 Loveland to Eisenhower Tunnel West Entrance 46 1.03 1.14 47 1.01 1.08<br />
W7 Bakerville to Loveland 59 1.02 1.11 61 1.02 1.01<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-5
Appendices<br />
AM_PEAK<br />
PM_PEAK<br />
SEGMENT<br />
_ID SEGMENT_NAME Speed TTI PTI Speed TTI PTI<br />
W8 Georgetown to Bakerville 61 1.02 1.05 63 1.01 1.00<br />
W9 US 40 Empire to Georgetown 63 1.01 1.01 63 1.01 1.00<br />
W10 CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans to US 40 Empire 63 1.01 1.00 64 1.00 1.00<br />
W11 US 6 to CO 103 Idaho Springs / Mt Evans 54 1.00 1.01 54 1.00 1.00<br />
W12 Evergreen Pkwy to US 6 58 1.00 1.00 57 1.01 1.04<br />
W13 Lookout Mountain to Evergreen Pkwy 64 1.01 1.10 64 1.01 1.06<br />
W14 C‐470 to Lookout Mountain 60 1.02 1.12 59 1.04 1.15<br />
W15 US 6 to C‐470 55 1.05 1.15 51 1.13 1.33<br />
W16 CO 58 to US 6 63 1.03 1.17 62 1.03 1.15<br />
W17 Kipling St to CO 58 62 1.04 1.19 61 1.06 1.23<br />
W18 Sheridan Blvd to Kipling St 56 1.02 1.16 51 1.09 1.58<br />
W19 I‐25 to Pecos St 54 1.01 1.09 42 1.30 1.87<br />
W20 Pecos St to Sheridan Blvd 55 1.01 1.07 52 1.05 1.16<br />
W21 Colorado Blvd to Brighton Blvd 51 1.06 1.26 37 1.47 2.07<br />
W22 I‐270 to Colorado Blvd 51 1.06 1.26 32 1.68 2.74<br />
W23 Havana St to Peoria 40 1.35 2.20 39 1.40 2.30<br />
W24 Pena Blvd to I‐225 53 1.05 1.21 54 1.02 1.09<br />
W25 Tower Rd to Pena Blvd 54 1.02 1.15 55 1.00 1.02<br />
The following table summarizes the results<br />
Table G-3<br />
Summary<br />
AM PEAK<br />
PM PEAK<br />
Speed TTI PTI Speed TTI PTI<br />
Min 39.37323 1.002322 1 32.38328 1.002905 1<br />
Avg 56.51019 1.047182 1.206262 54.71064 1.09914 1.363171<br />
Max 63.88306 1.386931 2.45392 63.97534 1.682572 2.744582<br />
The results can also be viewed in graphical format shown below.<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-6
Appendices<br />
Figure G-1<br />
Speed Eastbound AM Peak Period<br />
Speed (mph)<br />
70<br />
65<br />
60<br />
55<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
AM Peak Period Eastbound<br />
Figure G-2<br />
Speed Eastbound PM Peak Period<br />
Speed (mph)<br />
70<br />
65<br />
60<br />
55<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
PM Peak Period Eastbound<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-7
Appendices<br />
Figure G-3<br />
TTI Eastbound AM Peak Period<br />
TTI<br />
1.50<br />
1.40<br />
1.30<br />
1.20<br />
1.10<br />
1.00<br />
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
AM Peak Period Eastbound<br />
Figure G-4<br />
TTI Eastbound PM Peak Period<br />
TTI<br />
1.60<br />
1.50<br />
1.40<br />
1.30<br />
1.20<br />
1.10<br />
1.00<br />
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
PM Peak Period Eastbound<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-8
Appendices<br />
Figure G-5<br />
Speed Westbound AM Peak Period<br />
Speed (mph)<br />
70<br />
65<br />
60<br />
55<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
AM Peak Period Westbound<br />
Figure G-6<br />
Speed Westbound PM Peak Period<br />
Speed (mph)<br />
70<br />
65<br />
60<br />
55<br />
50<br />
45<br />
40<br />
35<br />
30<br />
PM Peak Period Westbound<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-9
Appendices<br />
Figure G-7<br />
TTI Westbound AM Peak Period<br />
AM Peak Period Westbound<br />
1.40<br />
1.30<br />
1.20<br />
TTI<br />
1.10<br />
1.00<br />
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
Figure G-8<br />
TTI Westbound PM Peak Period<br />
PM Peak Period Westbound<br />
TTI<br />
1.80<br />
1.70<br />
1.60<br />
1.50<br />
1.40<br />
1.30<br />
1.20<br />
1.10<br />
1.00<br />
0.90<br />
0.80<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-10
Appendices<br />
A useful format for the dashboard would be map-based as shown below.<br />
Figure G-9 AM Peak PTI 1<br />
Figure G-10 PM Peak PTI 1<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-11
Appendices<br />
Figure G-11 AM Peak PTI 2<br />
Figure G-12 PM Peak PTI 2<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-12
Appendices<br />
Figure G-13 AM Peak PTI 3<br />
Figure G-14 PM Peak PTI 3<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-13
Appendices<br />
Figure G-15 AM Peak PTI 4<br />
Figure G-16 PM Peak PTI 4<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. G-14
Appendices<br />
H. Calculation Spreadsheet Pages<br />
(<strong>CDOT</strong> <strong>Data</strong> and Graphs for<br />
Dashboard.pdf)<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-1
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-2
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-3
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-4
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-5
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-6
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-7
Appendices<br />
<strong>Cambridge</strong> <strong>Systematics</strong>, Inc. H-8