Highway Maintenance Performance Measurement Annual Report September 2004

2 Annual Report Contents  Executive Summary pages  Performance Measurement Index  Reallocation Thresholds, FY 04 State Average Performance & Repair Costs to Bring All Districts up to the Reallocation Thresholds  Comparisons of Measures for Four Fiscal Years pages  Safety  Motorist Services  Preservation  Review of the Start of Calendar Year 2004 Paint Striping pages  Automated Performance Measures for Snow & Ice Results pages  Dead Deer Removal Report for Government Oversight Committee pages

3  Executive Summary  Performance Measurement Index pages Composite Index 2.Road Surface Index 3.Shoulder Index 4.Roadside/Drainage Index 5.Traffic Services Index  Reallocation Thresholds, FY 04 State Average Performance pages & Repair Costs to Bring All Districts up to the Reallocation Thresholds 1.Safety 2.Services 3.Preservation

4 Performance Measurement Index The Performance Measurement Index, formerly referred to as weighted scores, utilizes weighting factors to produce yield a possible score of 100 for a composite score and for each of the four categories: Road Surface, Shoulders, Roadside/Drainage and Traffic Services.  Safety elements assigned a weight of 5 for the percent passing include: Pavement Potholes/Spalls & Ruts; Shoulder Drop-off/Build-up; Signs & Delineator/Hazard Markers Missing or Damaged; Pavement Markings; Guard Rail; Trees in the Clear Zone or Interfering with Roadside Safety Features.  Motorist Services elements assigned a weight of 3 for the percent passing include: Pavement Bumps & Depressions; Signs & Delineator/Hazard Markers Height & Vertical; Culvert & Station Markers Missing/Damaged Height/Vertical; Noxious Weeds & Mowing; Dead Animals or Litter Visible from the Roadway.  Preservation elements assigned a weight of 1 for the percent passing include: Pavement Cracks/Joints & Surface Condition; Culverts & Drains Damaged or Obstructed; Obstructed Water Flow in Ditches & Erosion/Slides.

5 Performance Measurement Index Fiscal Year 2001 through 2004  Question: What are the statewide trends and variations for the status of the system for the last four fiscal years?  Data: 1.The Composite, Road Surface, Shoulder State Average Indices show a mild trend downward from the FY 2001 baseline for FY with a mild increase for FY There is moderate variation among the Districts. 2.The Roadside State Average Index also shows a mild trend downward from the FY 2001 baseline for FY with a mild increase for FY There is fairly substantial variation among the Districts, with a mean variation of 15 points for the four fiscal years. 3.The Traffic Services State Average Index shows a drop of 19 points from the FY 2001 baseline to FY 2002 and then stabilizing for the last two fiscal years. The mean variation of 22 points among the Districts is substantial.

6 Performance Measurement Index Composite Index

7

8 Performance Measurement Index Road Surface Index

9

10 Performance Measurement Index Shoulder Index

11 Performance Measurement Index Shoulder Index

12 Performance Measurement Index Roadside/Drainage Index

13 Performance Measurement Index Roadside/Drainage Index

14 Performance Measurement Index Traffic Services Index

15 Performance Measurement Index Traffic Services Index

16 Reallocation Thresholds, FY 2004 State Average Performance & Projected Repair Costs  Selected Performance Measurement Elements are Arranged by:  Safety  Motorist Services  Preservation  Repair costs may be projected when the state average is above the Reallocation Threshold if some Districts are below the Threshold  Paths to Additional Information on DOTNET: 1.Background on Reallocation Thresholds: DOTNET  Highway  Statewide Operations  Maintenance  Performance Measurement  Process  What is a Reallocation Threshold 2.Reallocation Threshold Values : DOTNET  Highway  Statewide Operations  Maintenance  Performance Measurement  Process  Reallocation Threshold Values 3.Calculations for Projected Repair Costs: DOTNET  Highway  Statewide Operations  Maintenance  Performance Measurement  Results  Cost to Fix Data  Measured Elements that are not included in this report:  Paved Shoulder: Potholes/Spalls, Faulting/Rolldown, Cracks/Joints, Bumps/Depressions, Surface Condition  Unpaved Shoulder: Cross-slope, Surface Condition  Cable Guardrail, Concrete Barrier Walls, Illumination

17 SAFETY Reallocation Thresholds, FY 04 State Average Performance & Repair Costs to Bring All Districts up to the Reallocation Thresholds

18 MOTORIST SERVICES Reallocation Thresholds, FY 04 State Average Performance & Repair Costs to Bring All Districts up to the Reallocation Thresholds

19 PRESERVATION Reallocation Thresholds, FY 04 State Average Performance & Repair Costs to Bring All Districts up to the Reallocation Thresholds

20 Comparison of Measures for Four Fiscal Years  Measurements of Percent Passing are shown for all of the Fiscal Years of the program: Fiscal YearCalendar Year Survey Cycles Summer 2000, Fall 2000, & Spring Summer 2001, Fall 2001, & Spring Summer 2002, Fall 2002, & Spring Summer 2003, Fall 2003, & Spring 2004  The same Elements from the previous section are arranged by Safety, Motorist Services & Preservation  Each graph shows for each Fiscal Year the State Average with the Scores for the Districts with the Highest Average & Lowest Average  Each graph indicates the Reallocation Threshold & Mean Sample Size for that Element per Fiscal Year  Paths to Additional Information on DOTNET:  Element Definitions & Measurement Methodology: DOTNET  Highway  Statewide Operations  Maintenance  Performance Measurement  Process  Printable Performance Measurement Manual  Data from individual Survey Cycles: DOTNET  Highway  Statewide Operations  Maintenance  Performance Measurement  Results  Tabulated & Graphed Data  Percent Passing

21  Comparisons of Measures for Four Fiscal Years  Safety pages Pavement Markings 2.Beam Guardrail 3.PCC Potholes/Spalls 4.ACC Potholes 5.ACC Wheel Ruts 6.Paved Shoulder Drop-off or Build-up 7.Unpaved Shoulder Drop-off or Build-up 8.Signs Missing or Damaged 9.Delineators & Hazard Markers Missing or Damaged 10.Trees in Clear Zone or Interfering with Roadside Safety Features  Motorist Services pages PCC Bumps or Depressions 2.ACC Bumps or Depressions 3.PCC Faulting 4.ACC Rolldown 5.Sign Height & Vertical 6.Delineators & Hazard Markers Height & Vertical 7.Culvert & Station Markers Missing or Damaged 8.Culvert & Station Markers Height & Vertical 9.Noxious Weeds 10.Mowing 11.Litter Visible from Roadway 12.Dead Animals Visible from Roadway

22  Comparisons of Measures for Four Fiscal Years [continued]  Preservation pages PCC Pavement Cracks & Joints 2.ACC Pavement Transverse & Random Cracks 3.ACC Pavement Longitudinal Cracks 4.PCC Surface Condition 5.ACC Surface Condition 6.Culverts Damaged or Obstructed 7.Drains Damaged or Obstructed 8.Obstructed Water Flow in Ditches 9.Slope Erosion & Slides

23 Comparisons of Measures for Four Fiscal Years  Questions: 1.Are comparisons of amounts passing [counts, linear feet, square feet] better indicators of condition for some performance measurement elements than the current standard measure of sample sites passed? 2.How much of guardrail defects are due to height?  Discussion: In some District meetings in late 2003, there was discussion of whether some elements, such as pavement markings and guardrail, would have their condition portrayed more accurately by the percentage of linear feet passing instead of the percentage of sample sites passing. In general, percentage of sites passing are used to describe system status and amounts passing are used to calculate projected repair costs.  Data: 1.The next four pages compare the two different approaches for pavement markings and beam guardrail. 2.Whichever approach is used, height is the prevalent defect, based on the last 4 survey cycles.

24 SAFETY Pavement Markings by Sample Sites reallocation threshold = 75%mean sample per fiscal year = 5,144 sites

25 SAFETY Pavement Markings by Linear Feet of Paint Striping reallocation threshold = 75%mean sample per fiscal year = 5,903,499 linear feet

26 SAFETY Beam Guardrail by Sample Sites reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per fiscal year = 294 sites

27 SAFETY Beam Guardrail by Linear Feet of Guardrail reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per fiscal year = 63,867 linear feet

28

29 SAFETY PCC Potholes/Spalls reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per fiscal year = 1,773

30 SAFETY ACC Potholes reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per fiscal year = 3,556

31 SAFETY ACC Wheel Ruts reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per fiscal year = 3,556

32 SAFETY Paved Shoulder Drop-off/Build-up reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per fiscal year = 1,127

33 SAFETY Unpaved Shoulder Drop-off/Build-up reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per fiscal year = 4,021

34 SAFETY Signs Missing or Damaged reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per fiscal year = 3,051

35 SAFETY Delineators & Hazard Markers Missing or Damaged reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per fiscal year = 1,867

36 SAFETY Trees/Shrubs in Clear Zone or Interfering with Roadside Safety Features reallocation threshold = 95%mean sample per fiscal year = 4,991

37 SERVICES PCC Pavement Bumps/Depressions reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 1,745

38 SERVICES ACC Pavement Bumps/Depressions reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 3,536

39 SERVICES PCC Faulting reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 1,743

40 SERVICES ACC Rolldown reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 3,533

41 SERVICES Sign Height & Vertical reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per cycle = 3,051

42 SERVICES Delineators & Hazard Markers Height & Vertical reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per cycle = 1,862

43 SERVICES Culvert & Station Markers Missing or Damaged reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per cycle = 4,692

44 SERVICES Culvert & Station Markers Height & Vertical reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per cycle = 4,692

45 SERVICES Noxious Weeds reallocation threshold = 70%mean sample per cycle = 4,964

46 SERVICES Mowing reallocation threshold = 85%mean sample per cycle = 4,872

47 SERVICES Dead Animals Visible from Roadway reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 5,134

48 SERVICES Litter reallocation threshold = 65%mean sample per cycle = 5,048

49 PRESERVATION PCC Pavement Cracks/Joints reallocation threshold = 70%mean sample per cycle = 1,730

50 PRESERVATION ACC Pavement Transverse & Random Cracks reallocation threshold = 55%mean sample per cycle = 3,528

51 PRESERVATION ACC Pavement Longitudinal Cracks reallocation threshold = 60%mean sample per cycle = 3,528

52 PRESERVATION PCC Surface Condition reallocation threshold = 90%mean sample per cycle = 1,730

53 PRESERVATION ACC Surface Condition reallocation threshold = 75%mean sample per cycle = 3,528

54 PRESERVATION Culverts Damaged or Obstructed reallocation threshold = 70%mean sample per cycle = 2,878

55 PRESERVATION Damaged or Obstructed Drains reallocation threshold = 75%mean sample per cycle = 2,513

56 PRESERVATION Obstructed Water Flow in Ditches reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per cycle = 4,942

57 PRESERVATION Slope Erosion & Slides reallocation threshold = 80%mean sample per cycle = 4,944

58

59  Review of the Start of Calendar Year 2004 Paint Striping  Reflectivity & Line Miles Painted [May 7 – September 9] pages  Reflectivity & Material Costs [May 7 – August 12] pages  Reflectivity Before Spring Painting pages

60 Districts Ranked by Line Miles Painted Compared to Average Reflectivity May 7 to September 9, 2004  Question: Does a focus on high quality [retroreflectivity ratings] reduce quantity [line miles painted]?  Possible Reason: One way to increase retroreflectivity is to reduce painting speed by 1 – 3 miles per hour.  Data: The preliminary data on the next page from the first 18 weeks of the 2004 paint season indicate that high quality and high quantity are compatible. All Districts exceeded the expected new paint minimums of 200 Millicandella for yellow and 300 Millicandella for white. The yellow range was 245 to 275. The white range was 330 to 425. In general, Districts with higher quantity also had higher quality.  Discussion: Field staff have suggested other variables that might have more influence on the quantity painted: Equipment problems Weather Travel time to paint locations Urban painting.

61 Districts Ranked by Line Miles Painted Compared to Average Reflectivity May 7 to September 9, 2004 expected new paint minimums: yellow = 200 mcd; white = 300 mcd

62 Districts Ranked by Material Cost per Mile Compared to Average Reflectivity May 7 to August 12, 2004  Question: Does a focus on high quality [retroreflectivity ratings] increase material cost [inventory expenditures per line mile for paint and beads]?  Possible Reason: One way to increase retroreflectivity is to increase paint and bead rates.  Data: The preliminary data on the next page from the first 14 weeks of the 2004 paint season indicate that we have insufficient data to directly link quality with material costs. All Districts exceeded the expected new paint minimum of 200 Millicandella for yellow. Only one District, with an average of 297, did not exceed the minimum 300 Millicandella for white. The yellow range was 249 to 275. Excluding the 297, the white range was 365 to 372. The District with the lowest cost also had the lowest average yellow reflectivity and the District with the highest cost had the highest average reflectivity for both yellow and white. However, the District with the lowest white reflectivity had a cost of $63.31, about midway in the range from $45.94 to $  Discussion: Much of the data for this period was for yellow centerline and does not distinguish between continuous and skip lines. This analysis assumes that the mix is about the same across the Districts. Due to savings in labor and equipment, lines with a material cost of $83/mile would be more cost effective than lines at $46/mile if they last twice as long.

63 Districts Ranked by Material Cost per Mile Compared to Average Reflectivity May 7 to August 12, 2004 expected new paint minimums: yellow = 200 mcd; white = 300 mcd

64 Old Paint Reflectivity Reported in Spring 2004 Measured Prior to the May 7 Start of 2004 Paint Season  Question: Do high reflectivity ratings for new pavement markings yield high reflectivity ratings the following year?  Possible Reasons: 1. If paint thickness, bead size and placement, and pavement type and condition are major factors for high reflectivity, initial readings could be an indicator of subsequent readings. 2. If time, traffic, weather, and snow and ice operations are major factors for high reflectivity, these variables could be important indicators of subsequent readings.  Data: Insufficient data currently.  Discussion: Reflectivity readings on the next page were taken before the 2004 paint season began. Currently, we do not enough data about the readings for the same locations the previous year. We now have substantial data on reflectivity for the paint applied this season. We will collect data this fall and again in the spring to determine if high ratings for new pavement markings yield high reflectivity ratings the following year.

65 Old Paint Reflectivity Reported in Spring 2004 expected repaint minimums: yellow = 100 mcd; white = 150 mcd

66  Automated Performance Measures for Snow & Ice Results  Discussion page 67  Relative Locations of Automatic Traffic Recorders [ Speed] page 68 & Road Weather Information System [Road Surface]  Average Interstate Speeds page 69 Noon Friday February 14 to Noon Sunday February 16, 2003  Comparison of Data for Average Speed & Road Surface pages on I-80 Westbound between Mileposts 138 & 141  Videolog Pictures of I-80 Westbound between Mileposts 138 & 141 pages

67 Automated Performance Measures for Snow & Ice Results  Question: Could a comparison of existing data sources provide measures or indicators of the results of snow and ice operations with no additional data collection costs?  Possible Data Sources: 1.Speed data from Automatic Traffic Recorders [ATR] 2.Road surface and weather data from the Road Weather Information System [RWIS] 3.Physical layout from videolog pictures  Data: Data from one large statewide storm indicate that drivers’ perceptions indicated by average speed are compatible with road surface measurements. Videolog pictures of the site with the slowest recovery of average speed show physical features that might indicate contributing factors to the recovery time.  Discussion: The sites shown on “Average Interstate Speeds” are listed from west to east on I-80, with the exception of Ankeny on I- 35 a short distance north of the Altoona sites. The speed recovery time for Altoona eastbound was noticeably faster than Altoona westbound. The pictures of Altoona westbound show the vegetation and embankments near the north edge of the roadway and the concrete barrier wall dividing the highway.

68 Automatic Traffic Recorder & Road Weather Information System Locations

69 Average Interstate Speeds Noon Friday February 14 to Noon Sunday February 16, 2003

70

71

72 I-80 Westbound Between Mileposts 138 & 139

73 I-80 Westbound Between Mileposts 139 & 140

74 I-80 Westbound Between Mileposts 139 & 140

75 I-80 Westbound Between Mileposts 139 & 140

76 I-80 Eastbound Between Mileposts 139 & 140

77  Dead Deer Removal Report Graphs for Government Oversight Committee  Deer Killed on Iowa Public Highways 1990 – 2003  Percent of Highway Samples with No Dead Animals Visible from the Road  Deer Picked Up by Iowa DOT in 2003 by Month  Deer Picked Up by Iowa DOT in 2003 by Day of Week

78 Dead Deer Removal Report Graphs for the Government Oversight Committee of the Iowa General Assembly July 22, 2004 At the request of the Government Oversight Committee, Will Zitterich presented this information on July 22, 2004 Government Oversight Committee Members Senator Mary Lundby, Chair Representative Dwayne Alons, Chair Senator Bob Brunkhorst, Vice Chair Representative Scott Raecker, Vice Chair Senator Tom Courtney, Ranking MemberRepresentative Vicki Lensing, Ranking Member Senator Robert Dvorsky Representative Clel Baudler Senator Ron Wieck Representative Willard Jenkins Representative Kent Kramer Representative Jo Oldson Representative Roger Thomas Representative Roger Wendt

79

80

81

82