CDOT Performance Data Business Plan - Cambridge Systematics

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CDOT Performance Data Business Plan In addition to the issues identified in Table 3.2 a global issue is to finalize the use of a grading scale. The following sections recommend a grading scale from A to F that could be applied consistently to all measures except for number of fatalities. Other options identified throughout the course of this project include a variable grading scale that reflects differences in the measures (for example, an A for bridges might represent a higher percent of good/fair than an A for pavements), and the assignment of grades based on achievement of a long-term target value. The following sections describe the recommended measures. Details related to data and calculations are contained in Section 3.6. System Performance 1. Number of Fatalities (5-year moving average) Existing Measure: Number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled is currently tracked and reported by CDOT. Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to report the number of fatalities rather than the fatality rate, and report a five-year moving average rather than a single year. Current Value: 1.01 fatalities per 100 million VMT Value Based on Recommendation: The current annual average of fatalities on state highways from 2005 to 2009 is approximately 542 (based on NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data). Owner: Rahim Marandi Required Data Item Source Owner Fatalities by year for past five years TRAFDA Safety and Traffic Engineering Unit of Measure: Count Calculation: Where: K = number of fatalities n = year of calculation Update Frequency: Annually Additional Notes: A random element occurs in the timing and location of serious crashes. Therefore, the annual number of fatalities may fluctuate a great deal from one year to the next. Relying on a moving average number of fatalities over a five-year period provides a more stable picture of crash occurrence, and 3-8 Cambridge Systematics, Inc.
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan will make it easier to identify trends and establish a correlation between CDOT actions and observed performance. “Fatalities” are defined as a fatality that occurs within 30 days of a crash. This is the only measure not converted to a grading scale. If a grading scale is preferred, a different type of safety measure is probably necessary. 2. Bridge Condition Existing Measure: The percent of deck area on bridges and major culverts on CDOT system that are classified as “good” or “fair” is currently tracked and reported by CDOT. Good/fair/poor are based on the following criteria: Poor – Sufficiency rating less 50 and classified as SD (structurally deficient) and/or FO (functionally obsolete). Fair – Sufficiency rating between 50 and 80 and classified as SD or FO. Good – Do not meet the criteria for poor or fair. Letter grades are based on the following thresholds for percent good or fair: Grade Threshold A 90 – 100 B 80 – 89 C 70 – 79 D 60 – 69 F < 60 Recommendation: Recommended modification to this measure is to convert the existing results to a letter grade. Current Value: 94.5% Value Based on Recommendation: Owner: Mark Nord A Required Data Item Source Owner Structure ID Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Bridge region Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Bridge length Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Bridge width Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Bridge sufficiency rating Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Bridge SD/FO status Pontis Staff Bridge Branch Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 3-9
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: CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 74 and 75:
CDOT Performance Data Business Plan
Page 76 and 77:
Page 78 and 79:
Page 81 and 82:
5.0 External Reporting Dashboard CD
Page 83 and 84:
Page 85 and 86:
Page 87 and 88:
Page 89 and 90:
Page 91 and 92:
Page 93 and 94:
Page 95 and 96:
Page 97 and 98:
Page 99 and 100:
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 109:
Figure 5.18 CDOT Dashboard Example
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
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 128 and 129:
Page 130 and 131:
Page 132 and 133:
Page 134 and 135:
Page 136 and 137:
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?