Comparative Performance Measurement Highlights And Standing Committee on Performance Management Task...

Comparative Performance

Measurement HighlightsAnd

Standing Committee on Performance Management Task

Force UpdateOctober 2009

Mara CampbellOrganizational Results Director

Missouri Department of Transportation

A Road is a Road

How States Differ

• Climate• Population• Topography• Organizationa

l structure• State

economies

• Focused on knowledge sharing,• Based on rigorous measurement

methodologies,• Designed to minimize additional

data collection, and • Reported to protect DOTs from

unfair scrutiny.

Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance

• A total of 20 states participated

• Significant buy-in to the process

• 28 best practices from nine states!

Construction Project Cost & Schedule Performance

• A total of 32 states participated

• 12 high-performing states identified

• Five agency best practices and four contractor best practices

Pavement Smoothness Performance

• Fatalities Accident Reporting System data

• Best practices identified in governance, budgeting and technical methods

Highway Safety Performance

• Bridge Conditions has 35 states participating

• Incident Management still in the process of soliciting states

New Projects Underway

Task Forces Status ReportsGoal Areas Candidate

MeasuresRecommended

MeasuresNational

GoalsIssues

Safety A. Annual fatalities(3-5 yr. moving avg.)

B. Major injuries

Number of Roadway Fatalities

·   * 3-Year Moving Average of Annual fatalities

·    * Number of Major Injuries

· 4 * Number of fatalities by emphasis area (such as impaired, inattention, etc)

Reduce the national total by 50% in twenty years

Yes-definition of major and tech support

Preservation A. Pavement PSI or Remaining Service Life

B. Pavement IRI

C. Bridge % structurally deficient by deck area

A. YES

B. Pavement

Condition Index

C. Structurally

deficient bridges by

desk area

Interstate and other NHS –no goal at this time

More uniform definition of pavement structural adequacy; national goals or targets need to be a function of funding levels

Task Forces Status Reports Continued

Goal Areas Candidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals

Issues

Congestion Travel time index; Travel delay; Total travel time;

Buffer Index;

Congestion Cost;

Economic Benefits

        Travel Delay

        Travel Delay per

Commuter

        Congestion Cost

Nothing yet .

There should be two specific components: a congestion measure and pop/job/ or economic growth

Differences

In technical capabilities/ problems/ agreement on measures among states and MPOs

Systems Operations

Urban:traveltime

Reliability;

Snow removal time; Rural:Road closure index; Customer satisfaction

None yet Nothing yet Measures to use and comparability

Task Forces Status Reports Continued

Goal Areas Candidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals

Issues

Environment 1.GHG ( or surrogate based on VMT)

2.Climate change adaptation cost

3.Water quality

The three shown are likely; others to be

explored

none Refining measures and measurement techniques

Freight/ Economics

1. Truck travel time/speed/reliability

2. Border cross time

3. Double stack train bridge clearance; heavy train track capability

none none Refining measures and measurement techniques

• It can be done!• Common definitions are a must• States do benefit from comparative

performance measures• Comparative performance measures

can identify best practices

Lessons Learned

• Continue to elevate the importance of comparative performance measures.

• Continue to spotlight best practices among high-performers.

• Launch more comparative performance measures.

Next Steps

Questions?

Thank You!For more information, contact:

Mara Campbell Missouri Department of Transportation

(573) 526-2908

mara.campbell@modot.mo.gov