CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CDOT Performance Data Business Plan What performance can be achieved with the existing budget? What would be the impact on performance if the existing budget were increased or decreased by ten percent? Understanding the consequences of potential funding levels in terms of expected future performance can help decision-makers evaluate tradeoffs between competing needs, and allocate funds in a manner that reflects agency priorities. CDOT’s Transportation Deficit Report provides this type of information for three program areas – pavement preservation, bridge preservation and maintenance. The Deficit Report indicates the costs of achieving various performance levels and compares these costs to existing funding levels. This section examines the potential to expand this analysis to two additional program areas – safety and mobility. 6.1 SAFETY CDOT Policy Directive 14 identifies two goals related to safety – “to create, promote and maintain a safe and secure transportation system and work environment, and to “increase investment in safety and strategic projects.” In general, CDOT works to address the systems components of these goals through two types of projects: Safety motivated projects – projects identified to address a specific safety deficiency; or Non-safety motivated projects – projects identified to address another type of deficiency, such as a preservation or mobility need. Safety motivated projects. CDOT’s 2010 Amendment to 2035 Revenue Forecast and Resource Allocation document indicates that over the next five years, approximately seven percent of agency funds will be allocated to safety motivated projects. These funds will address a wide variety of project types including rock fall mitigation, safety related pavement surface treatments, maintenance activities, railroad crossing programs, education programs, etc. One option for developing a safety cost/benefit curve is to focus on this bucket of funds. However, it can be very difficult to estimate the expected impact on fatalities and injuries of some of these types of projects, and to apply this process systematically at the network level. The ability to estimate future impacts is a requirement for developing the type of cost/benefit curves described above. Given the wide range of project types associated with this program and difficulties in modeling them, CDOT has focused much of its safety analysis over the past twelve years on non-safety motivated projects. Non-safety motivated projects. CDOT also works to incorporate safety features into non-safety motivated projects through the project development process. This process is based on the application of Safety Performance Functions (SPF), which provide an estimate of a location’s expected crash frequency and severity 6-2 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan relative to similar facilities. CDOT incorporates safety components into a project’s design when its location has been identified as a viable safety candidate through the SPF analysis. This targeted approach and the leveraging of projects implemented through non-safety programs has enabled CDOT to achieve significant safety improvements over the past decade. Given the success of this approach, it would be beneficial to understand the relationship between additional funding and expected future performance. However, a cost/benefit curve for these funds would be very difficult to develop because the projects implemented with them are driven by prioritization processes that largely consider non-safety factors, and the expected impacts of the safety strategies are largely location and project specific. Given the focus on incorporating safety into non-safety motivated projects and the difficulty in modeling the implications of this strategy at the network level, it is recommended that CDOT not develop the type of cost/benefit curve illustrated in Figure 6.1 for safety. Instead, it is recommended that CDOT assess safety costs and benefits at the project level. For example, by evaluating the relationship between the incremental costs of modifying the scope of a nonsafety motivated project to address safety and the expected impact on safety of the modification. In addition, if not done so already, CDOT should consider systematically inflating unit costs for preservation projects to account for safety strategies and updating existing preservation cost/benefit curves based on these updated costs. This would require developing historic estimates for the cost of safety related scope changes. Updating the costs would change the shape of the cost/benefit curves because a portion of the overall funding would go to safety related work rather than to preservation activities. 6.2 MOBILITY CDOT’s Fiscal Year 2010 Performance Report indicates that approximately eight percent of Colorado’s lane miles are considered highly congested. Congestion is defined as peak traffic exceeding eighty-five percent of a highway’s design capacity. The Annual Performance Report provides a map that shows that the congested segments are largely concentrated in the Denver region. In major urban areas such as Denver, increasing highway capacity through capital projects (for example, adding lanes to an existing highway or building a new corridor) can be cost prohibitive, leading agencies to focus on a relatively small set of strategic expansion projects. In these cases, highway operations strategies provide an alternative means for achieving significant performance improvements. Throughout the course of this project, CDOT staff confirmed that the situation described above holds true for Colorado. Achieving significant mobility through capital improvements does not appear to be a viable option. Therefore, a meaningful cost/benefit curve would need to focus on potential operations strategies. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 6-3
Page 3:
final report CDOT Performance Data
Page 7:
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 10 and 11:
List of Figures, continued vi Cambr
Page 12 and 13:
Page 14 and 15:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 33 and 34:
Page 35 and 36:
Page 37 and 38:
Page 39 and 40:
Page 41 and 42:
Page 43 and 44:
Page 45 and 46:
Page 47:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56 and 57:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 67: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 81 and 82: 5.0 External Reporting Dashboard CD
Page 103: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 109: Figure 5.18 CDOT Dashboard Example
Page 119 and 120: Appendices A. Additional Data Colle
Page 121 and 122: Appendices Recognize and Plan
Page 123: Appendices Improved communication
Page 126 and 127: Appendices Planning Ext Planning In
Page 138 and 139: Appendices Person, Ron, Balanced Sc
Page 140 and 141: Appendices CDOT is required to rep
Page 142 and 143: Appendices How and when they ar
Page 144 and 145: Appendices If measures reported by
Page 146 and 147: Appendices INTEGRATE REGIONAL AND S
Page 148 and 149: Appendices Maintain or improve
Page 151 and 152: Appendices F. Sample Data Governanc
Page 153 and 154: Appendices G. Congestion The report
Page 155 and 156: Appendices Table G-1 Revised Segmen
Page 157 and 158: Appendices Results The following ta
Page 159 and 160: Appendices Figure G-1 Speed Eastbou
Page 161 and 162: Appendices Figure G-5 Speed Westbou
Page 163 and 164: Appendices A useful format for the
Page 165 and 166:
Appendices Figure G-13 AM Peak PTI
Page 167 and 168:
Appendices H. Calculation Spreadshe
Page 169 and 170:
Appendices Cambridge Systematics, I
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
show all

CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?