1. Performance Reporting and Target Setting Tuesday, July 27 th Francis G. Ziegler, P.E. NDDOT Director

2.  State specific – states have different priorities and different customer perspectives which leads to different levels of expectations.

3.  IRI has many variables: ◦ Different equipment and calibration methods. ◦ Different IRI levels represent different levels of pavement condition.  Setting pavement categories as good, fair, or poor should be done on the national level and targets set at the state level.

5.  Difficult due to differences:  Budgets  Equipment  Environment  Staffing/organizational culture  Customer expectations

6.  All state systems vary in age, traffic volume, reaction to weather & environmental challenges.

7.  Professional judgment can’t be programmed, but must be considered on basis of local factor.  Different information gathering processes offer other perspectives to be offered during the planning phase of the project development.

8.  Bridges – Would ND build a bridge to deal with the same seismic conditions as California?  Pavement striping - Would Florida need to replace their pavement striping as frequent as North Dakota and other Midwestern states would with all of the plowing during the winter? Nile Valley Landslide Yakima, Washington

9.  Pavement – Would I-5 in Washington deteriorate faster due to traffic conditions than I-94 in North Dakota? Pembina, N.D. surrounded by water

10.  Stakeholder expectations for all levels of service are different for each state.  Whereas – Targets need to be set by each state DOT in order to address; legislative priorities, different levels and methods of funding, and different areas and levels of stakeholder expectations.

12.  Demonstrate clear linkage between government expenditures and transportation agency results  Accountability and transparency - show what the public receives for its transportation investment  Improved decision making and investment processes

13.  Who determines goals, measures, sets targets…  Collaborative effort from all levels of government  One level should not mandate the performance of another  Broad policy goals set at national level  Allow each state to negotiate measures and priorities important to their unique circumstances and set appropriate targets

14.  Agreement on federal and state roles  AASHTO SCOPM work  USDOT Strategic Plan  International Scan – Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability April 2010 (FHWA-PL-10-011)

15.  Is it necessary?  Is it more important that states have measures and targets appropriate to their situation ?  Is it more important to ensure each individual state is held accountable to their agreed upon performance management system ?  Is it similar to federal requirements for STIP and Long Range Transportation Plan? Excellent guides already exist for possible measures that states could draw from (AASHTO/FHWA/USDOT)

16. Proposed:  Safety  Pavement Preservation  Bridge Preservation  Congestion  Freight/Economic Competitiveness  System Operations  Environment  Livability

17.  International Technology Scanning Program – “Linking Transportation Performance and Accountability” April 2010 Report – Other nations doing Performance Management for over a decade.  “The nations it studied articulated a limited number of national transportation policy goals, negotiate intergovernmental agreements on how state, regional, and local agencies will achieve the goals, and evaluate performance by tracking the measures and reporting them in clear language appropriate to the audience.”

18. 18 Goal Areas Candidate 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 IRI C.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

19. 19 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 time on 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.

20. 20 Goal Areas Candidate Measures Recommended Measures 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 time 3. 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

22.  Performance Measures Report Card ◦ Customer Satisfaction ◦ Employee Satisfaction ◦ Worker Safety ◦ Highway Safety ◦ Highway System Condition ◦ Project Development & Delivery

23.  Legislatively Approved Highway Performance Classification System ◦ Prioritized 5-tier system to identify desired levels of service in the following areas:  Ride & Distress  Load Capacity  Access Management  Investment Strategy

24. All data tied to common reference system: ◦ Extensive quality data ◦ Pavement condition ◦ Highway components ◦ Video log tied to GIS data ◦ Sign inventory  Robust pavement management system and bridge management system  Strategic committee actively working to continue advancing asset management within the organization

25.  Mandated specific performance measures and targets could result in the need for extensive changes in state’s data collection, analysis, and reporting methods = time and resources.  Momentum is there for improving asset management and performance management. Too many prescriptive changes could affect momentum due to efforts needed to comply.

26.  Individual states are best equipped to determine measures that fit their needs and set targets that are reasonable and appropriate to advancing their missions.

27.  All agencies are doing Performance Management and Asset Management at some level.  No one system is “right” for everyone.  Emphasis should be placed on ensuring systems and processes are in place that work for each individual state and continuous effort is made to enhance the systems.

29. AASHTO has determined the following goal areas: Goal AreaTier 1Tier 2Tier 3 Safety 3 year Moving Average of the state number of fatalities 3 year Moving Average of the state number of serious injuries Pavement Preservation IRIStructural adequacy Bridge Preservation NHS Structurally Deficient deck area Structural adequacy of NHS bridges (New measure suggested by FHWA) Operations (Goal of AASHTO) Incident Management on NHS Routes: response time, clearance time, work zone closure Congestion Travel delay Travel delay per commuter Congestion cost Reliability on Interstate system Environment GHG emissionsStorm water runoff Freight/Economic Competitiveness Speed/travel time on significant fright corridors (SFC’s); Reliability on SFC’s Rural Highway Accessibility (New measure suggested by AASHTO) Livability TBD AASHTO & FHWA Performance Measures for Eight Goals Draft dated 7-12-10