Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

More documents

Recommendations

Info

FIGURE 4 CDOT performance measures. (MLOS maintenance level of service; Mntnce =maintenance; Mgmt = management; Equip = equipment.)FIGURE 5Region workshop flow and objectives.
PANEL DISCUSSION: AGENCY IMPLEMENTATION OF SYSTEM PERFORMANCE MEASURES 63So we are dropping down into that core servicearea, knowing that certain elements of what theregions are doing are going to feed up into those investmentlevels. But it also helps to provide feedbackfor the commission on the validity of some of themeasures. They have selected some as we drop down:Do we have the data? Do we have everything weneed for it? Are there better measures that some ofour own employees can come up with that will giveus a better, easier tool to measure performance?We have found as we work with our regions thatthere has been a focus through several concurrent efforts.Our budget doubled, and we got the ability todo bonding, which made schedule and budget muchmore important for all of our projects. That emphasison budget and schedule has thrown us out of whackwith some of those softer-side environmental communityimpacts that were not getting measured. Sowe are trying to bring the balance back.Here are a couple of examples. We have maintenancelevels of service (Figure 6) and are currentlyrated overall for all of our eight major maintenanceareas at a B level. It is scored on a scale of Athrough F, just like a report card, as part of an annualsurvey. What we have and are using as a budget toolis a projection that we are at B now. To get to a B,it would take additional funds to raise that level ofservice just 0.005 percent. Part of what we found isthat there is a lot of deferred maintenance out therethat we are paying for with major repairs instead ofkeeping up with it as an asset management type ofscenario. We also have used these maintenance levelsof service to project what would be needed to keep usat an A, B, and B area to have resources allocatedto it as part of our 20-year planning process.We did the same scenario with pavement; it is oneof our oldest management systems, and it has gonethrough a lot of changes. We changed from a rideabilityindex to remaining service life (RSL; Figure7). The public understands ‘‘rideability’’ but has noclue what RSL is. But we can relate to the commissionand match that with some of our customer surveyinformation to ask the following: ‘‘How does theRSL correlate with customer satisfaction for the departmentoverall, and how can we meet those objectives?’’Again, we were able to make projections withthose different funding levels for different goals thatthe commission might set (Figure 8). It has a 60/40goal—60 percent in a good to fair condition, whichthey struggle with, saying ‘‘Surely you should be ableto do better than that.’’ But coming back to the balanceof measures, they cannot put more money intopavement management without affecting other programsin the department.FIGURE 6of service.)Maintenance level of service: condition projections by level of funding. (LOS level
Page 5 and 6:
National Academy of SciencesNationa
Page 7 and 8:
Workshop Summary ..................
Page 9:
General OverviewIntroductionExecuti
Page 12 and 13:
4 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 14 and 15:
6 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE T
Page 18 and 19:
10 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 20 and 21: 12 PERFORMANCE MEASURES TO IMPROVE
Page 23: Linking Performance Measures withDe
Page 42 and 43: Panel DiscussionJohn Poorman, Capit
Page 48 and 49: Workshop SummaryJohn Basilica, Loui
Page 55 and 56: RESOURCE PAPERImplementing Performa
Page 57 and 58: IMPLEMENTING PERFORMANCE MEASUREMEN
Page 67 and 68: Panel DiscussionJennifer Finch, Col
Page 69: FIGURE 2Level of measures and align
Page 73 and 74: PANEL DISCUSSION: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 79 and 80: WORKSHOP SUMMARY: AGENCY IMPLEMENTA
Page 81: Selecting Measures, Data Needs, and
Page 96 and 97: Panel Discussion, Part 1Anita Vande
Page 102 and 103: Panel Discussion, Part 2Douglas Zim
Page 104 and 105: FIGURE 11 Example data
Page 108 and 109: Workshop SummaryBrenda Berg, Trans
Page 113 and 114: RESOURCE PAPERMeasuring That Which
Page 115 and 116: MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 117 and 118: TABLE 1Sustainability MeasuresNewma
Page 119 and 120: MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 121 and 122:
MEASURING THAT WHICH CANNOT BE MEAS
Page 123 and 124:
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
PANEL DISCUSSION: CONNECTING SYSTEM
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Workshop SummaryScott Bassett, Oreg
Page 145:
Freight Performance MeasuresCurrent
Page 148 and 149:
Page 150 and 151:
Page 152 and 153:
Page 154 and 155:
Page 156 and 157:
Page 158 and 159:
Page 160 and 161:
Page 163 and 164:
APPENDIX ASummaries of 20 Poster Se
Page 165 and 166:
SUMMARIES OF 20 POSTER SESSIONS 157
Page 167 and 168:
TABLE 1(continued) WSDOT Outcomes,
Page 169 and 170:
Page 171 and 172:
Page 173 and 174:
Page 175 and 176:
Page 177 and 178:
FIGURE 2 Sacramento Regional Transi
Page 179 and 180:
FIGURE 3Goal evaluation table: Chit
Page 181 and 182:
Page 183 and 184:
Page 185 and 186:
Page 187 and 188:
TABLE 6Mobility Performance Measure
Page 189 and 190:
Page 191 and 192:
Page 193 and 194:
Page 195 and 196:
FIGURE 13 MPAH lane-miles by roadwa
Page 197 and 198:
Page 199 and 200:
Page 201 and 202:
Page 203 and 204:
Page 205 and 206:
Page 207 and 208:
SUMMARY OF PEER EXCHANGE ON DATA FO
Page 209 and 210:
Page 211 and 212:
Page 213 and 214:
Page 215 and 216:
Page 217 and 218:
Page 219 and 220:
Page 221 and 222:
Page 223 and 224:
APPENDIX C: RESEARCH STATEMENTS DEV
Page 225 and 226:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 217University,
Page 227:
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS 219Darwin Stua
show all

Conference Proceedings 26 - Transportation Research Board

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?