1. AASHTO Perspectives on Use of Comparative Performance Measurement Tony Kane, AASHTO TRB ANNUAL MEETING 2010 January 12, 2010 Session #420 Hilton, International East

2. Topics Covered Status of recent state DOT and AASHTO comparative performance measure efforts Efforts currently planned by State DOTS and AASHTO Issues and concerns

3. AASHTO Comparative Performance Measure Efforts Highway Construction Project Time and Cost Pavement Smoothness Highway Fatalities and Serious Injuries Bridge Condition Others TBD—freight; environment; operations; congestion; etc.

4. Project Time and Cost “Comparing State DOT’s Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance : 28 best Practices from 9 States” April 2007 40 or so states added to group Good practices is goal Next steps: AASHTO Task Force in the new Organizational Management subcommittee; additional NCHRP work; tie-in to FHWA’s new goal of halving delivery time on significant projects

5. Pavement Smoothness 32 states participated; report published in 2008 Good contractor and agency practices determined To enhance IRI measurements in the future recommendations made on equipment,software, and data (collection spacing/frequency/treatment history, etc.)

6. Safety Report published in 2009 States poised to go with 3 year moving average number of annual fatalities Serious injuries needs a great deal of effort to have a comparable definition

7. Safety—cont’d. key factors leading to success Leadership and Interagency Partnerships Performance Targets and Continuous Monitoring of Progress Support Legislation to Reduce Highway Fatalities Use timely and accurate data to target programs and countermeasures for greatest payoff Maximize coordination across state and local law enforcement agencies Pursue creative and proactive public communications and messaging

8. Safety cont’d. DATA NEEDS Shift to use of fatalities to fatalities + injuries to provide a more robust basis for comparison Support improvements to timeliness of both crash and VMT data Improve geo-coding and accuracy of crash data (particularly for local roadways) Quantification of both enforcement activities and engineering improvements to allow for cross state comparison would be of value

9. Bridge Condition NCHRP project started Sept 2009 final report due in May 2010 32 states in initial surveys Initial promising measures based on :  Sufficiency rating  Structural deficiency  Deck rating  Posted bridges

10. Common Concerns and Issues Comparable definitions and data collection Cost of data collection/analysis/usage Useful practices and sharing of knowledge and self –improvement is the goal not punishment Top leadership commitment A supportive authorizing environment Need to construct measures in a local way, build support, have guidelines or standards for comparability, get buy-in from all states

11. AASHTO Next Steps Measure by measure—build support and guidelines/specs Institutionalize process for comparisons— sharing results learning form each other Look at—lessons from abroad: AUSTROADS and the European Community Get ahead of the curve to help influence the authorizing environment