Presented by Standing Committee on Performance Management: Update and Status July 26, 2010 Kirk T. Steudle, Director Michigan Department of Transportation.

presented by

Standing Committee on Performance Management:Update and Status

July 26, 2010

Kirk T. Steudle, DirectorMichigan Department of

Transportation

2

AASHTO SCOPM

History» Pete Rahn first chaired the task forces in February 2008» I became chair in 2010 of SCOPM and the task forces

Six task forces created to identify National Performance Measures across all states in six key areas » Safety» Preservation» Congestion» System Operations» Freight/Economic Development» Environment

Task Forces

Each lead by a member of the SCOPM Offered 2-4 performance indicators in each key area Working with relevant stakeholders to ensure

recommendations could be embraced as national performance metrics.

Developed a tiered approach» Tier 1—General consensus on the definition; common

method of/or central collection point for data collection ; comparability or can be in the methods/data across the states

» Tier 2 : Close to meeting the tier one criteria but still needs some work and consensus amongst DOTs

» Tier 3 : Significant work is need to meet the tier 1 criteria3

Performance Indicators

4

Goal AreasCandidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals

Issues

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

B. Major injuries

A. Annual fatalities on a 3-yr moving avg. (TIER 1)

B. Serious injuries(TIER 2)

Reduce the national total by 50% in twenty years

Definition of serious and tech support

Preservation A. Pavement PSI or Remaining Service Life

B. Pavement IRIC. Bridge %

structurally deficient by deck area

A. IRI (TIER 1)B. Structural

Condition (TIER 2)C. NHS Structurally

Deficient Deck Area (TIER 1)

D. Bridge structural adequacy

(Tier 3)

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. Need to get a new measure for bridges

Performance Indicators

5

Goal Areas

Candidate Measures

Recommended Measures

National Goals

Issues

Congestion Travel time index; Travel delay; Total travel time;Buffer Index;Congestion Cost;Economic Benefits

1. Travel delay (TIER 1)2. Travel delay per commuter (regional measure) (TIER 2)3. Congestion cost (TIER 2)4. Interstate System Travel Time Reliability (Tier 2)

Nothing yet .Perhaps limit to certain Interstate or NHS routes of national significance

Geographic application.Uniform measurement—”single” contractor,. Agreement on measures among states and MPOs

Systems Operations

Urban: travel time Reliability;Snow removal time; Rural: Road closure index; Customer satisfaction

1. Incident response timeon the NHS (TIER 3)2. Incident clearance time the NHS (TIER 3)3. Work Zone Closures on the NHS (TIER 3)

Nothing yet. Big variation in cold weather states vs. warm and rural vs. urban

Measures to use and comparability.

Performance Indicators

6

Goal AreasCandidate Measures

RecommendedMeasures

National Goals Issues

Environment 1. GHG (or surrogate based on VMT)

2. Climate change adaptation cost

3. Water quality

1. Transportation greenhouse gases; (TIER 2)2. Storm water runoff (% of state owned impervious pavements with treated water quality) (TIER 3)

Need to develop candidate measures in a uniform way

Freight/ Economics

1. Truck travel time time/speed/reliability

2. Border cross time3. Double stack train

bridge clearance; heavy train track capability

1. Reliability on SFC’s (TIER 1)

2. Speed/Travel Time on SFC’s (TIER 1)

3. Roadway Access measure (TIER 3)

Defining SFC’s• Coordination with MPO’s• Developing access measures for autos and trucks

Performance Indicators

Planning and Programming—Led by Deb Miller• Engaging Metropolitan and Regional Planning Organizations• National Summit in September

Comparative Performance Measurement Efforts—Led by Mara Campbell and Daniela Bremmer. » Demonstrate state DOTs can compare performance in

areas key to every DOT’s mission.» Focus on three areas:

• Project Delivery (On-Time/ On-Budget), • Smooth Pavements, and • Safety.

Livability (raised by FHWA) is a key focus area that needs to be addressed.» No SCOPM Task Force yett

7

8

Next Steps

Aggressively move towards guides/standards for adoption by appropriate AASHTO committees of the Tier 1 measures

Launch serious study efforts at the Tier 2 measures and Tier 3 measures; including comparative measure studies

Develop web-based methods for data storage and display at the national level

Develop long range research road map Get AMPO and APTA support and transit performance

metrics into the package: Planning conference in September will aid in this

Get CEO buy in and support at a workshop in the fall a month or so prior to the annual meeting in Biloxi

Thank you!