1. 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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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

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

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

11. 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

12. 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

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

14. 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

15. Tasks 6 and 7 - Candidate Solution Evaluation Process
Brent

16. 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

17. 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

18. 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:

19. 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:

20. 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:

21. 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:

22. 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:

23. 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

24. Questions??