Compass 2004 Year in Review & Challenges Ahead Alison S. Lebwohl Compass Advisory Team Stevens Point March 30, 2004

Looking back & forward Overview The program has grown. We met our goals. Area supervisors will set targets in spring. We will report on signs & winter this year. We will take Compass to Secretary’s office in summer. Wisconsin will host national MQA peer exchange in fall.

Challenges Overview Model for going from field data to feature scores and element grades still not as robust as I would like. Resources remain tight. Program was given a broad charge. Pressure to take this to the legislature.

Possible solutions Overview Focus on critical tasks. Simplify where possible. Look for tasks and services to table or abandon.

Looking back Looking forward

2003 program growth Compass measures are expanding dramatically Number of elements46 Percent of ops budget27%82% Condition datayes Cost data--yes Data sourcesamplesample & inventory

Goals accomplished in 2003 We accomplished all goals set by the Advisory Team. Continued the field review of 4 elements. Expanded to cover pavement. Began expanding to cover winter. Began including cost data. Outsourced data analysis and reporting. Began dialogue on targets and alternative service levels.

2003 additional achievements We made strides toward asset management. Incorporated highway operations into WisDOT-wide survey. Results this spring. Acquired funding for a national peer exchange of MQA programs to be held here in Wisconsin, October Successfully submitted $100K research proposal on information design to AASHTO.

Winter measures Reports will be issued this summer. Weather related crashes per VMT. Salt use per lane mile. Percent of fleet calibrated in the fall. Cost per lane mile vs. severity index. Budgeted $ vs. LOS $ vs. actual $. Public satisfaction level. Time to clear/wet pavement.

Signs We’ll use the sign inventory database from now on. Use age as a measure. Report out by district, state and county. Show entire inventory, broken down by years of remaining service life. Note problems with data and assumptions. –Not all districts have complete reports. –Signs deteriorate at different rates depending on direction and location.

Communication Presentation to the district directors in May. IDIA (the modal administrators) in June. The Secretary’s office after that.

2004 legislative preparation We are on course to go to the legislature in May: District area assistants will set targets. –Targets will be approved by SPO Managers. –This is a first step to going to the legislature. Summer: a proposed project to gather pictures.

Challenges

Challenges Reprise Model for going from field data to feature scores and element grades still not as robust as I would like. Resources remain tight. Program was given a broad charge. Pressure to take this to the legislature.

Possible solutions

Focus on critical tasks Move reporting in-house. Have UW team focus on analysis. –Ensures our ability to generate reports. –Allows us to better understand differences among districts and across time; margins of error in measures. Get ready to go the legislature. –Improve the model. –Create pictures and stories. –Select targets, alternatives & price tags.

Rate segments pass/fail Make reporting more intuitive without changing field review. Features scores become 0-100% passing. Eliminates extra step and confusion of mapping to Compass scores. Field review remains the same.

Use only features Focus on improving and reporting existing measures. Removal of element grading. e.g., Washington state, New York state Eliminates need to do complicated modeling of relationship between feature and element. Still allows us to tell the story of the relationship between feature and element.

Sample at the district level Increase analytic power, but preserve county reporting. Allows us to continue reporting at the county level. Eliminates a cumbersome step in reporting. Allows more power in analysis.

Simplify data entry & reporting Save time; decrease errors. Move data entry closer to data gathering by putting it on laptops. Discontinue online flexible reporting. Provide one standardized report.

Simplify formatting Spend bulk of time on analysis rather than formatting. Agree on all report formats beforehand, so rework is minimized. Hold off on developing new report formats. –Use current formats for old reports. –Put new reports primarily in tables, rather than charts. Revisit formatting and reporting tool after AASHTO study and MQA peer exchange.

Questions?