Transportation Asset Management PM Peer Exchange Performance Reporting and Target Setting (Section 2): VDOT’s Experience Connie Sorrell Chief of System.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
1 AASHTO - FHWA Peer Exchange on Asset Management and Performance Management July 26-27, 2010.
Advertisements

Global Congress Global Leadership Vision for Project Management.
Tennessee Department of Transportation ITS Mobility and Operations Summit Performance Measures November 18 – 19, 2009.
HB 1048 / SB 518 Adjustments for Local Programs May 13, 2014 Jennifer B. DeBruhl Director, Local Assistance Division.
Title I Schoolwide Providing the Tools for Change Presented by Education Service Center Region XI February 2008.
Bridge Preservation Update Wade F. Casey, P.E. Bridge Management Engineer Federal Highway Administration AASHTO SCOM Meeting Louisville, KY July 20, 2011.
MAP-21 Performance Management Framework August 8, 2013 Sherry Riklin Bob Tuccillo Angela Dluger The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21)
NCHRP 07-21: Asset Management Guidance for Traffic Control Devices, Barriers, and Lighting 2014 ATSIP Annual Meeting Presented by Nancy Lefler Vanasse.
Title Subtitle Meeting Date Office of Transportation Performance Management MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Performance Management.
1 POLICY-PLANNING- FORECASTING October 3, Outline Background Role of Legislation, Policy, Planning, Programming in Transportation Briefly on Using.
PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OVERVIEW Lecture 2. n Provide a historical perspective of the evolution of PMS over the last 20 years n Describe the basic.
Section 4 – Supplement Maintenance Management System (MMS) (WAC 136 – 11) Larry Pearson, Maintenance Programs Manager.
Transportation leadership you can trust. presented to NCHRP Project Panel presented by Cambridge Systematics, Inc. with PB Consult Inc. Texas Transportation.
AASHTO SCOP Linking Planning to Programming P2P Link Rural Transportation Summit January 16, 2014 ADOT Vision and Long-Range Plan Planning to Programming.
U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration MAP-21 Moving Ahead with Progress in the 21 st Century Linking.
FY 2012 President’s Budget Released February 14, 2011.
Ohio Transportation Planning Conference July 16, 2014.
U.S Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration Federal Transit Administration Regional Workshop on Performance Management and Performance-Based.
Transportation leadership you can trust. Performance Measurement State of the Practice presented to AASHTO Annual Meeting presented by Lance A. Neumann.
MnDOT-ACEC Annual Conference March 5,  Capital planning and programming at MnDOT  Major considerations  A more transparent and collaborative.
Ron Hall Tribal Technical Assistance Program Colorado State University
Evaluation Assists with allocating resources what is working how things can work better.
NETWORK LEVEL EXAMPLES OF PMS İNŞ.YÜK. MÜH. VEYSEL ARLI.
Individual Service Strategy (ISS) 1 Presented by Will Miles, Quality Assurance Region 2, Workforce Development Board of Okaloosa and Walton Counties, Florida.
Manage by Measure: Just Do It AASHTO SCOPM Annual Meeting October 23, 2009 Steve Simmons TxDOT Deputy Executive Director.
Maintenance & Rehabilitation Strategies Lecture 5.
‘‘Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act’’ or ‘‘MAP–21’’ Signed into Law July 6, 2012 Implications for Infrastructure Asset Management, Pavement.
Title Subtitle Meeting Date Office of Transportation Performance Management MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21 st Century Performance Measure Update.
PAVEMENT MAINTENANCE 1: Part 1: Pavement Preservation Idaho Roads Scholar Program.
Transportation Asset Management PM Peer Exchange Section 3 Overview: Additional Asset Management Classes Connie Sorrell Chief of System Operations.
Statewide Radio Feasibility Study (SIRN) Presented by Tom Harris SIEC Chair Mike Ressler.
A Strategic Plan for Pavement Engineering NCHRP 20-7(223) AASHTO Joint Technical Committee on Pavements Dan Dawood, P.E. Pennsylvania Department of Transportation.
© 2012 KPMG LLP, a U.S. limited liability partnership and a member firm of the KPMG network of independent member firms affiliated with KPMG International,
97 th Annual Purdue Road School Presented by: Katie Zimmerman, P.E. Applied Pavement Technology Transportation Asset Management.
Title Subtitle Meeting Date Office of Transportation Performance Management MAP-21 Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century An Update on Implementation.
Title Subtitle Meeting Date Office of Transportation Performance Management MAP-21 and Managing National Highway Performance Michael Nesbitt Federal Highway.
0 Freight Activities: Year in Review Dec. 12 th 2015.
WIS DOT MCLARY MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT.
Perspectives on a Performance-Based Federal-aid Highway Program Jeffrey F. Paniati Executive Director, Federal Highway Administration January 12, 2010.
Nevada Transportation Conference
7 Training Employees What Do I Need to Know?
Assessing and Regulating Health Services
The Administration of Subrecipient Agreements
The assessment process For Administrative units
“Strategic Planning” Mississippi Library Commission
Developing a Business Plan
Overview of Changes Made to CMAQ & System Performance Measures
Director of Policy Analysis and Research
Performance Measure Index
Update on the South Dakota Digital Cadastral Initiative
TSMO Program Plan Development
Communicate the Impact of Poor Cost Information on a Decision
Communicate the Impact of Poor Cost Information on a Decision
Communicate the Impact of Poor Cost Information on a Decision
Using Risk to Help Define Your Capital Plan
Managing for Today and Tomorrow
Communicate the Impact of Poor Cost Information on a Decision
Implementation of the New Federal Performance-based Planning Requirements: Data and Information Needs of State DOTs Data Collection and Analysis in Washington.
Scanning the environment: The global perspective on the integration of non-traditional data sources, administrative data and geospatial information Sub-regional.
Ranking of Pavement Preservation Methods and Practices
Governor’s Guidelines to State and Local Program Partners
Purpose & Need Categorical Exclusion Training Class – Presented by the Office of Environmental Services.
Jack Stickel Alaska Dept of Transportation & Public Facilities
Capital Improvement Plans
Managing for Today and Tomorrow
Addressing State and MPO Concerns with Performance Requirements
MGT601 SME MANAGEMENT.
2018 – 2020 Budget| Presented by: Rick Bacon
TIBC Road Maintenance Sub-Committee Meeting
ADA Transition Plan – Brief Overview
Presentation transcript:

Transportation Asset Management PM Peer Exchange Performance Reporting and Target Setting (Section 2): VDOT’s Experience Connie Sorrell Chief of System Operations

2 How Are Measures Chosen and Targets Set? Legislative requirements dictate areas for measurement, but leave choice of measures to the agency In some cases, measures have been dictated by higher authority –Governor’s office set safety measures for VDOT, DMV, and State Police –DPB established administrative measures –Transportation Accountability Commission set congestion measures Program managers and subject matter experts suggest measures, chiefs and commissioner decide which measures to implement –What is needed to manage? –May be based on research (TRB, NCHRP, AASHTO) or available data –Collecting and integrating necessary data can be challenging –Good data management practices are a must Target Setting: –Set by VDOT commissioner and chiefs –Generally based on recent performance – what’s achievable

3 Performance Measures and Targets Pavements Measure 1: % of interstate and primary system lane miles rated deficient. Target: ≤ 18% Measure 2: % of Interstate and Primary system pavements with IRI < 140. Target: > 85% “Deficient”: Critical Condition Index (CCI) of < 60 CCI is based on the quantity and severity of Load Related and Non-Load Related Distresses Patching and thin overlays are no longer effective or economical on Deficient pavements IRI does not provide a good basis for long-term maintenance planning. For that, CCI is better Structures and Bridges Measure: % of statewide S&B rated Structurally Deficient Target: ≤ 8% Structurally Deficient (SD): one or more of its major components have a General Condition Rating (GCR) of 4 or less Condition ratings are used to describe the existing, in-place bridge or culvert as compared to the as-built condition. Evaluation is for the materials related, physical condition of the deck, superstructure and substructure components of a bridge. GCR is a numerical system that ranges from 0 (failed condition) to 9 (excellent condition) SD structures are those with deficient elements that require the structure to be monitored and/or repaired and has either been restricted to light weight vehicles or has been closed to traffic

4 Setting Targets for Other Assets Measures for other assets should address what customers ask for and what is needed by the agency to manage the program Outcome measures such as “% of inventory in good working condition”, are better than output measures such as “units of work accomplished”. Output measures should support outcome measures Targets: Should be achievable and realistic, may be “maintain current” Should reflect level of service customers want “Acceptable” condition or level of service should be based on customer preferences. Regular phone or mail surveys and focus groups are ways to assess customer preferences

5 Ensuring Consistency of Condition Reporting among States Need clear federal definitions and guidelines on condition measures and reporting requirements National effort to standardize asset classes/taxonomy (especially for non pavement and non bridge assets) Studies to identify what information agencies actually base decisions on. National reporting should reflect this National benchmarking and peer exchange to help identify differences and foster consensus

6 Professional Judgment and Local Conditions in Target Setting Target setting should: Reflect what customers and stakeholders want - How do customer preferences differ from region to region, from urban to rural area, etc.? Need to find out Take into account cost of achieving the target, what’s feasible – local conditions Take into account the criticality of the facility or asset – what are the consequences of an unexpected disruption in service on that facility? Utilize a common information base (asset, maintenance, operations etc.) to facilitate better decision making Avoid drastic swings in funding from year to year – stability costs less