AASHTO SCOP Linking Planning to Programming P2P Link Corridor Profile Studies Measuring Performance Rural Transportation Summit – January 14, 2015 AASHTO SCOP Linking Planning to Programming P2P Link

Agenda Overview and Purpose of the Corridor Profile Studies Corridor Profile Study Process Performance Measurement Lessons Learned

Overview of Corridor Profile Studies Performance-based analysis that identifies strategic improvements Eleven strategic corridors Round 1 (I-17, I-19, I-40 West): Solution evaluation Round 2 (I-8, I-40 East, SR 95): Performance evaluation Round 3 (5 corridors in blue): Kickoff and Literature Review Recommendations will integrate with existing project nomination process - Speaker: Tazeen

Planning to Programming (P2P) 4/27/2018 Planning to Programming (P2P) Speaker: Tazeen Transparent, defensible, logical, reproducible process for programming projects Linking planning to programming to use available funds more effectively Identify system performance needs that will drive decision making Assist with implementation of MAP-21 requirements Nominate strategic projects for consideration in program Projects will require additional scoping after nomination

4/27/2018 Study Expectations Develop performance-based solutions that can be evaluated through the statewide P2P programming process Address needs in strategic locations that provide the most value for the investment Develop tools that ADOT can use to track corridor performance and levels of need over time Provide initial statewide comparison of need across all 11 strategic corridors Tazeen

Corridor Profile Study Process 4/27/2018 Corridor Profile Study Process Study process leads to project prioritization for each corridor Methodology and approach developed in Rounds 1 and 2 Integrates with existing project nomination process Brent

Task 1 - Literature Review 4/27/2018 Task 1 - Literature Review Previous findings and recommendations Prior recommendations not implemented yet Overall corridor plan or vision Brent

Task 2 - Performance Evaluation Assess corridor health through a performance- based system Apply uniformly across multiple corridors Allow comparison of corridors Identify locations that warrant further investigation Three-level scale Good/Above Average Fair/Average Poor/Below Average Performance Area Primary Measure Secondary Measures Pavement Pavement Index (Combination of IRI and Cracking) Pavement Serviceability Pavement Failure Pavement Hot Spots Bridge Bridge Index (Deck Rating, Substructure Rating, or Superstructure Rating) Sufficiency Rating Functionally Obsolete Lowest Bridge Rating Bridge Hot Spots Mobility Mobility Index (Combination of Current V/C and Future V/C) Current Volume/Capacity Future Volume/Capacity Travel Time Index (TTI) Planning Time Index (PTI) Road Closure Frequency % Non-Single Occupancy Vehicle Trips Bicycle Accommodations Safety Safety Index (Frequency of fatal and incapacitating injury crashes) Strategic Highway Safety Plan Emphasis Areas Crash Unit Types Directional Safety Index Safety Hot Spots Freight Freight Index (Truck Planning Time Index) Directional Truck TTI (TTTI) Directional Truck PTI (TPTI) Road Closure Duration Clearance Restrictions Brent

Task 2 - Performance Evaluation 4/27/2018 Task 2 - Performance Evaluation Brent

Task 2 - Performance Evaluation 4/27/2018 Task 2 - Performance Evaluation Brent

Task 3 - Corridor Goals and Objectives 4/27/2018 Task 3 - Corridor Goals and Objectives Describe corridor context Major functions of corridor Current and future issues on corridor Relate statewide goals to performance system Identify which performance areas are “Emphasis Areas” Establish performance objectives Need = when measured performance does not meet performance objectives Brent

Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment 4/27/2018 Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment Assess corridor needs based on performance evaluation Apply uniformly across multiple corridors Allow comparison of corridors Identify locations that warrant strategic investment Brent

Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment 4/27/2018 Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment Brent

Task 5 - Candidate Solution Sets 4/27/2018 Task 5 - Candidate Solution Sets Do not recreate or replace existing programming May include programs or initiatives for further study Address elevated levels of need Focus on modernization Address overlapping needs Reduce costly repetitive maintenance Extend operational life of system Leverage programmed projects Provide measurable benefit Brent

Tasks 6 and 7 - Candidate Solution Evaluation Process Brent

Task 8 – Project Prioritization 4/27/2018 Task 8 – Project Prioritization Solutions/projects prioritized within each corridor Three prioritized categories Preservation Modernization Expansion Nominations for consideration in statewide P2P process Recommendations will likely require future project scoping Integrates with existing project nomination and scoping process Brent

Corridor Profile Studies Status 4/27/2018 Corridor Profile Studies Status Round 1 (I-17, I-19, I-40 West) Project evaluation phase Develop prioritized project list by early 2016 Round 2 (I-8, I-40 East, SR 95) Performance evaluation phase Developing corridor goals and objectives Prioritized project list in Spring 2016 Round 3 (5 current corridors) Project kickoff phase Literature review Prioritized project list in Fall 2016 Brent

Lessons Learned – Educating on the “Why” 4/27/2018 Lessons Learned – Educating on the “Why” Need to educate on benefits of performance measures Identify state of system and areas for improvement Meet requirements (e.g., federal mandates) Help prioritize improvements Communication tool to show progress Benefit of improvements linked to degree of change in measures Bring transparency and objectivity to decision-making process Michael Image source: www.clipartpanda.com

Lessons Learned – Performance Framework 4/27/2018 Lessons Learned – Performance Framework Builds on existing measures and processes Provides outline and guidance Overarching goals and objectives Identifies what to measure Defines how to measure performance Defines what constitutes deficiencies Needs input from technical staff Needs input from decision-makers Needs transparent, defensible, and reproducible process Michael Image source: www.gascandinavian.com

Lessons Learned – Data Integrity System-wide coverage Updated regularly and available Garbage in = Garbage out. . .watch for gaps and abnormalities Discuss data limitations with technical staff Develop instructions to process data consistently Image source: www.bicorner.com

Lessons Learned – Presentation of Findings Intended audience – tools and level of detail Maps – spatial context but can be hard to see Tables – comparison of features but can be bulky Charts – shows trends but only for a few items Other graphics – format familiar to readers (e.g., dashboard) but can be difficult to generate Image source: www.bitrebels.com

Lessons Learned – Process Refinement “Pilot” corridors or measures help refine process Start with less complex scenarios Include a few more complicated scenarios to highlight process limitations Have multiple staff working on different components of process but collaborating to vet process Image source: www.nasa.gov

Lessons Learned – Stakeholder Involvement Right number of stakeholders Multiple levels of stakeholder review Staff reviews help “truth” preliminary results May be all internal staff or could involve outside entities depending on what is being measured Review of best practices can provide guidance Image source: wiki.mdgfund.net

Questions??