Performance Measures and Management at VDOT

Download Report

Transcript Performance Measures and Management at VDOT

Transportation Asset Management PM Peer Exchange

Performance Reporting and Target Setting (Section 2): VDOT’s Experience

Connie Sorrell Chief of System Operations

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

2

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 3

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 4

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

5

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 6