National Academies Press: OpenBook

Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities (2004)

Chapter: Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures

« Previous: Appendix A - Draft Benchmarking Agreement
Page 185
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 185
Page 186
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 186
Page 187
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 187
Page 188
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 188
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B - Catalog of Benchmarking Measures." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2004. Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/13720.
×
Page 209

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

191 APPENDIX B: CATALOG OF BENCHMARKING MEASURES This appendix provides a catalog of outcome and output measures that can be used for benchmarking. The measures presented focus on those that are important from the standpoint of the customer, but other useful measures are also offered. Measures are organized by type of maintenance element (e.g., pavements, bridges) and then by attribute (e.g., smoothness, safety, and aesthetics). In addition, for each measure information is provided on the unit of measure, whether the measure is commonly recognized (based on the consensus reached at the National Workshop on Commonly Recognized Measures for Maintenance), repeatability, the cost of collecting the measure, and other issues that may be important. The catalog of benchmarking measures covers the following maintenance elements: • Pavements; • Shoulders; • Bridges; • Signs, striping, and markings; • Safety features; • Ice and snow control; • Roadside vegetation; • Drainage; • Litter removal; • Rest areas; • Signals; and • Other electronic devices. Note that many states have developed rating systems for Levels of Service (LOS). In many cases, rating scales are not the LOS the customer experiences, but instead are condition ratings. The table below attempts to make this clear by referring to “Levels of Service” as “Level of Service Condition Ratings” unless otherwise explicitly stated.

PAVEMENTS Pavements experience a wide variety of different deterioration that affects their appearance, riding experience, and structural soundness. Table B-1 presents pavement condition measures that have an important direct or indirect relationship to the customer. Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 192 Table B-1. Condition Measures for Pavements (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Pavement smoothness (roughness) International Roughness Index (IRI) Inches/mile or m/km Yes Well-established procedures and equipment that result in repeatable, reliable, and reasonably accurate results Low incremental cost for agencies already collecting IRI; moderate to high cost of new data collection effort National Quality Initiative (NQI) or other survey question asking customer satisfaction regarding pavement smoothness 1–5 response scale Survey question on pavement smoothness Standard NQI survey question; not accurate for jurisdictions lower than state level, unless separate survey administered Low cost to use NQI survey results; moderate to high cost to develop and administer your own survey including question on pavement smoothness Pavement smoothness (potholes) Number of potholes of specified size per unit distance Number per unit distance Potholes are easily observed, but the number per unit distance can be difficult to count. The number of potholes can change rapidly as new ones appear and existing ones are repaired. High cost to develop a comprehensive, accurate pothole count. Pavement smoothness, accessibility (blowups) Number of blowups per unit distance Number per unit distance Blowups are easily observed and easy to count. Blowups occur during the freeze-thaw transition, so new ones can suddenly emerge and affect the reliability of the count. Seasonal problem that requires moderate measurement cost. Motorist call-ins could reduce data collection costs. Safety (danger of hydroplaning) Rutting Inches Yes Well-established, reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measurements using a ruler Low cost to do for sample sections or if data already exists; high cost to obtain comprehensive coverage if data doesn't exist

193 SHOULDERS Shoulders can deteriorate in a number of ways. The shoulder and pavement edge can separate, letting in moisture that can lead to premature deterioration of the pavement and even structural failure. Shoulder drop-off or a significant rise in the edge can emerge over time and create safety hazards. Gravel shoulders lose their shape and require reshaping. Table B-2 presents measures of shoulder condition. Table B-1. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Safety (skid resistance) Friction Yes Well-established equipment and procedures for reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measures Low incremental cost if agency already routinely measures; high cost for new measurement program Preservation attributes (protection against water damage to structure due to faults) Faulting Inches Repeatable, reliable, and reasonably accurate measures obtained using a ruler Low cost to do for sample sections or if data already exists; high cost to obtain comprehensive coverage if data doesn't exist Preservation attributes (appearance of deterioration, raveling, water infiltration) Extent and severity of different types of cracking: –alligator –longitudinal –transverse Percent of area covered or length of cracks and rating of severity on a scale Challenge in maintaining consistency among raters; automated distress identification technology not highly accurate Much lower cost to do for sample sections in comparison to comprehensive network coverage Overall pavement condition Health Index Some type of index, say from 0–100 Requires construction of index reflecting key pavement attributes; each attribute can be measured with varying degrees of reliability Low to high cost to develop and apply index, depending upon the availability of data to calculate index components Overall level of service Visual level of service condition rating Rating scale of A, B, C, D, or E Often visual rating scales combine more than one attribute and so it is difficult to portray and to isolate condition of different attributes Mainly useful for communicating to policy makers and general public.

Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 194 Table B-2. Potential Condition Measures for Shoulders Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Preservation attributes (shoulder separation) Distance between edge and shoulder Inches Well-established, reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measurements using a ruler Low cost to obtain data if in a Pavement Management System or similar database Safety feature Edge drop off Inches Yes, edge variance Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. However, well-established, reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measurements using a ruler are available. Low cost to obtain data if in a Pavement Management System or similar database Safety feature Edge rise Inches Yes, edge variance Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. However, well- established, reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measurements using a ruler are available. Low cost to obtain data if in a Pavement Management System or similar database Safety and preservation attributes (support for vehicles on shoulder and preservation of shoulder shape) Gravel bunched or spread disbursed Lack of agreed-upon, repeatable, reliable, accurate measure Low cost to obtain data if in a Pavement Management System or similar database Preservation, safety, and aesthetics Survey question asking customer satisfaction regarding shoulder condition 1–5 response scale Repeatable, and reliable, if rigorous sampling and administration procedures used; precision and statistical confidence depends on sample size and stratification Moderate to high cost to develop and administer new survey; less costly to add this question to existing survey instrument Visual level of service condition rating Scale of A, B, C, D, and E Often visual rating scales combine more than one attribute and so it is difficult to portray and to isolate condition of different attributes

BRIDGES There have long been standardized measures of bridge condition based on the condition ratings in the National Bridge Investment Analysis System (NBIAS).1 The condition ratings in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) consist of ratings for substructure; deck; superstructure; and channel under the bridge, if one exists. There are also inventory and operating ratings. Certain ratings together signify that a bridge is structurally deficient, and other ratings signify a bridge is functionally obsolete. For years, FHWA has supported a bridge inspection training program that enables inspectors to fairly consistently and accurately rate the condition of bridges and, therefore, to rate the extent to which they are structurally deficient or obsolete. These condition ratings and determinations of structural deficiency and functional obsolescence are potentially useful for benchmarking. More recently, states have established a more detailed, widely used, and widely recognized set of bridge condition measures known as condition states corresponding to “commonly recognized (CoRe) structural elements” of bridges. There are commonly recognized measures of bridge condition for nearly 100 elements that pertain to different parts of structures made of virtually every important type of bridge configuration and material found throughout the United States. Under the CoRe system, condition ratings have been carefully defined to be consistent with alternative actions appropriate to each condition state. In addition, eight smart flags that address such factors as settlement and fatigue have been defined under the CoRe definitions. 2 Condition states have been carefully defined by bridge managers, structural engineers, and inspection experts so that the condition states are consistent with a set of alternative actions that are reasonable options for addressing a particular condition state. The actual actions an agency takes depend upon many factors, including the costs of each action. Condition states were originally defined to facilitate the development of probabilistic deterioration models for use in the Pontis, BRIDGIT, and other bridge management systems. A large number of states have participated in the development of the commonly recognized elements. Also, software has been developed that automatically maps bridge CoRe condition states to condition ratings used in the NBI. Consequently, not only do the vast majority of state bridge programs use the CoRe condition states, but also FHWA fully supports their use and has funded the development of the bridge inspection training program that teaches inspectors how to rate bridges using the CoRe system. 195 1 Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, FHWA, U.S. DOT, December 1988 (update of 1979 Guide). 2 AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements, AASHTO, Washington DC, 1998.

Table B-3 provides bridge condition measures potentially useful for customer-driven benchmarking. Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 196 Table B-3. Bridge Condition Ratings Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Preservation attributes (condition) Condition ratings of channel, approach, substructure, deck, and superstructure; also inventory and operating rating as measures of load capacity Discrete scale of 0–9 for condition ratings Long-established bridge inspection and rating procedures have been developed that are reliable, repeatable, and fairly accurate Condition data easily obtained from NBI database; low cost Preservation attributes (condition) and functionality Classification of bridges according to whether they are structurally deficient or functionally obsolete Binary measure of whether structurally deficient and whether functionally obsolete Derived from NBI condition ratings and therefore well established, repeatable, and reliable Determination of structural deficiency and functional obsolescence easily obtained from NBI database; low cost Preservation attributes (condition) CoRe condition ratings for nearly 100 bridge elements (e.g., deck, piers, railings, truss, and girders) Discrete scale of 1 to 3, 4, or 5, depending upon the element Adopted by the AASHTO Bridge Subcommittee in 1995 Well-established, reliable, repeatable, and reasonably accurate measurements based on well- defined bridge inspection procedures Low cost to use bridge condition ratings in bridge inventory and condition databases Preservation (condition) Customer satisfaction 1–5 scale Standard NQI survey question; not accurate for jurisdictions lower than the state level, unless separate survey administered Low cost to use NQI survey results; moderate to high cost to develop and administer your own survey that includes NQI or similar type of question Preservation (condition) Visual rating level of service Scale of A, B, C, D, and E Often visual rating scales combine more than one attribute, and so it is difficult to portray and to isolate condition of different attributes

SIGNS, STRIPING, AND MARKINGS An important attribute of signs, markers, and striping that is critically important to drivers is nighttime visibility. During the daytime, signs still need to be legible. If a sign is knocked down, missing, or blocked by vegetation, it can pose a serious safety hazard. Pavement markers or striping that wears out completely, comes loose, or is not visible in rain is also a problem. Table B-4 presents customer-driven condition measures for signs, striping, and markers. 197 Table B-4. Condition Measures for Signs, Striping, and Markers (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Nighttime visibility Retroreflectivity Candelas per lux per square meter, or candelas per foot- candle per square foot Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. However, well-established, reliable, and repeatable procedures for measuring reflectivity of signs, striping, and markers exist for static measurements using a handheld retroreflectometer; measures taken from a van at highway speeds have not yet proven to be reliable, repeatable, and accurate Measurements of retroreflectivity of signs, striping, or markers, either standing still or while in motion, are moderate to high cost. The labor costs for static measurements for a large portion of the network are high, and so are initial vehicle and equipment costs. Visual rating scale of nighttime visibility This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters Cost is a function of the number of signs to be rated and the miles covered. Generally low to moderate cost using windshield survey

Table B-4. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Legibility of signs Visual rating scale of daytime legibility Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Measurements are expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Cost is a function of the number of signs to be rated and the miles covered. Generally low to moderate cost using windshield survey Sign blocked Percent of signs blocked by vegetation or other obstructions This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Cost is a function of the number of signs to be rated and the miles covered. Generally low to moderate cost using windshield survey Downed or missing sign Visual determination of whether sign is downed or missing Downed or missing signs are likely to be detected quickly by motorists or maintenance supervisors or crews. Systematic inspections of downed and missing signs would also be reliable, accurate, and repeatable, provided inspectors know whether signs are supposed to be at each location. Low cost Day condition Composite rating reflecting legibility, color fade, contrast, graffiti, and damage Rating scale or index Requires training and retraining to achieve reasonably reliable, accurate, repeatable ratings Low cost if data already available in sign inventory and condition data base; otherwise, potentially high cost Physical appearance Sign condition ratings for contrast, color fade, legibility, and post condition; Pavement marking condition rating for contrast and presence Individual ratings or composite rating scale Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Requires training and retraining to achieve reasonably reliable, accurate, repeatable ratings Low cost if data already available in sign inventory and condition data base; otherwise, potentially high cost

SAFETY FEATURES Many different types of appurtenances have been installed in roadways to protect motorists from accidents and to reduce the seriousness of crashes. These features include guardrails, medians, crash attenuators, and truck escape ramps. Table B-5 presents condition measures for safety features. 199 Table B-4. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Deterioration Age of sign Years Reliable, accurate, and repeatable if age of each sign is accurately entered into sign inventory database; however, age is not necessarily a good proxy for deterioration. Many old signs can remain in good condition. Low cost if database already exists. May be infeasible to determine age if age is not known. Response time Mean time to replace or repair in response to report of damaged, downed, or missing sign Minutes and fraction thereof Time from initial report to repair or replacement is almost always recorded in a log book and is quite accurate Low cost to extract time to fix problem from log books Missing striping and markers Visual inspection of percent of markers or percent of striping missing Percent Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. This measure is expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost to estimate using windshield survey Visibility of signs, striping, and markers Customer satisfaction 1–5 scale Yes Standard NQI survey question; not accurate for jurisdictions lower than state level, unless separate survey administered Low cost to use NQI survey results; moderate to high cost to develop and administer your own survey that includes NQI or similar question

Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 200 Table B-5. Condition Measures for Safety Features (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Guardrail functionality Percent functioning as intended Percent of components functioning as intended Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. This measure is expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of rater. Requires inspectors to determine whether guardrail components are functioning according to specifications. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Guardrail end-treatment functionality Percent functioning as intended Percent of components functioning as intended Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. This measure is expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of rater. Requires inspectors to determine whether components of end-treatments are functioning according to specifications. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Guardrail condition Percent damaged so as to require repair, percent requiring replacement, and percent requiring no action Percent of guardrail length in each condition state This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Guardrail appearance Percent of guardrail having different visual appearance ratings of 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5 Percent of guardrail length in each condition state This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Guardrail obsolescence Percent of guardrail that is functionally obsolete and requires replacement Percent of guardrail length that is functionally obsolete This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities

ICE AND SNOW CONTROL In the northern-tier states and Canada, as well as in the mountains of the southern-tier states, freezing and subfreezing conditions are common during the winter months and, in many places, during the spring and fall. A major challenge of government jurisdictions in these areas is to prevent the build-up of ice and snow and, if there is significant snowfall, to remove the snow as quickly as possible to keep roads safe and open to traffic. In addition, there is the need to conduct clean-up operations such as the sweeping up of abrasives (e.g., sand). A key part of snow and ice control is the prevention of both (1) water pollution due to salt and other anti-icing chemicals and (2) air pollution due to dust caused by abrasives. 201 Table B-5. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Median (Jersey barrier) condition (crash protection) Percent damaged so as to require repair, percent requiring replacement, and percent requiring no action Percent of guardrail length in each condition state This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Attenuator functionality Percent functioning as Intended Percent of components functioning as intended Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. This measure is expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Moderate to high cost; requires inspectors to determine whether each component is functioning according to specifications Crash attenuator condition (crash protection) Damaged or undamaged Yes or no This measure is fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost if part of other inspection activities Safety (crash protection) Customer satisfaction regarding safety features (crash barriers and attenuators) 1–5 Scale Yes Standard NQI survey question; not accurate for jurisdictions lower than state level, unless separate survey administered Low cost to use NQI survey results; moderate to high cost to develop and administer your own survey that includes NQI or similar question

Table B-6 presents condition measures for ice and snow control. Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 202 Table B-6. Condition Measures for Ice and Snow Control (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Mobility, accessibility, and safety Bare Pavement Indicator (such as response time to loss of bare pavement or duration of loss of pavement with respect to the duration of an ice or snow event) Ratio or percent Yes Defining when a snowstorm starts and ends and when bare pavement is restored can be problematic. Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. This measure is expected to be fairly reliable, repeatable, and accurate, provided there is rigorous training and retraining of raters. Low to moderate cost Mobility, accessibility, and safety Friction Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate friction measurements can be obtained using appropriate friction measuring equipment. Friction measuring equipment for ice and snow control is currently prohibitively expensive except for limited applications. This is an area of active research. Mobility, accessibility, and safety Percent of time during cold season a road has a particular road and weather condition rating such as "good, fair, or poor" or "open, passable, closed." Percent A number of Roadway Weather Information Systems (RWIS) displayed on road condition ratings websites and kiosks. These are defined and applied in a consistent manner and can be adapted as maintenance performance measure. Initial medium to high cost to write software to tap information on road and weather condition ratings in an Advanced Traveler Information System/RWIS. High cost to install RWIS sensors. Low to moderate cost to obtain information thereafter.

Table B-6. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Mobility, accessibility, and safety Closures Number and/or duration of closures Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established; information on closures is expected to be accurate because it comes from public safety officials or a road maintenance organization. Low cost Mobility, accessibility, and safety Elapsed time from the requirement that chains be put on vehicle tires to the removal of the requirement. Measure has applicability only in areas where chains are used. Crews and managers involved in winter operations keep careful records of duration of time chains are required. Low cost to obtain data from logs Mobility, accessibility, and safety Percent of miles in each functional class where roads have been treated for snow and ice in accordance with ice and snow control plan Percent Data obtain during snowstorms and debriefs after storms may provide reasonably reliable and accurate information Requires careful recordkeeping during freezing conditions and snowfall to compile data. May require the use of Automated Vehicle Location Systems involving global positioning systems (GPS) and data storage in a geographic information systems (GIS). Initial cost to establish automated vehicle identification (AVI) and GIS/database is high. Mobility, accessibility, and safety Percent of population (or households and businesses) where roads have been treated for snow and ice in accordance with ice and snow control plan Percent Data obtained during snowstorms and from debriefs may provide reasonably reliable and accurate information. Requires careful recordkeeping during freezing conditions and snowfall to compile data. May require the use of Automated Vehicle Location Systems involving GPS and data storage in a GIS. Initial cost to establish AVI and GIS/database is high.

Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 204 Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Mobility, accessibility, and safety Customer satisfaction regarding ice and snow control 1–5 scale Yes Accuracy and statistical confidence depends on sampling plan. Measure needs to be incorporated into reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument. Moderate to high cost to develop and administer your own survey that includes question on customer satisfaction regarding ice and snow control Mobility, accessibility, and safety Clear of unplanned obstructions 1–5 customer rating scale or percent of time road is in this condition Needs to be incorporated into reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument; the percent of time a road is in a certain condition is difficult to measure. Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility, accessibility, and safety Roadway clear of ice and snow 1–5 customer rating scale or the percent of time a road is in this condition Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility, accessibility, and safety Trucks plowing as soon as snow appears 1–5 customer rating scale Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility, accessibility, and safety Plowing frequency during average snowfall 1–5 customer rating scale or frequency Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Driver comfort, safety Ability to see shoulder striping during snowfall 1–5 customer rating scale Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Needs to be incorporated into reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument; percent of time a road is in a certain condition is difficult to measure. Table B-6. (Continued) (continued on next page)

205 Table B-6. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Driver comfort, safety Ability to see road edge during snow fall 1–5 customer rating scale Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility, accessibility, and safety Ability to make turns at crossovers and intersections 1–5 customer rating scale Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility and safety Driving speed during snowfall 1–5 customer rating scale or miles per hour by functional class Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Mobility, accessibility, and safety Bare wheel paths 1–5 customer rating scale or percent of time there are bare wheel paths, by functional class Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument Safety Slippery spots 1–5 customer rating scale or percent of centerline miles with slippery spots, by functional class Needs to be incorporated into a reliable, accurate, and repeatable survey instrument. Very difficult to obtain reliable, repeatable, and accurate objective, physical measurement Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument. Physical measurements of slippery costs would be very high cost.

ROADSIDE VEGETATION Vegetation management is one of the most important functions of road maintenance. If vegetation is allowed to grow unchecked, it blocks signs, reduces sight distance at intersections, creates hazards for vehicles leaving the roadway, allows water to infiltrate the base and sub-base, causes pavement damage from roots of plants growing through shoulder edges and pavement surfaces, results in noxious weeds spreading to neighboring property, increases the likelihood of deer darting in front of vehicles, and Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 206 Table B-6. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Mobility, safety, and driver comfort Only right lane plowed to bare pavement Percent of centerline miles by functional class Plow truck operators or patrol supervisors may be able to report this information reliably and accurately. Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; Medium to high cost to include in new instrument. Measurements using image processing would be very high cost. Mobility, safety, driver comfort All driving lanes plowed to bare pavement Percent of centerline miles by functional class Plow operators or patrol supervisors may be able to report this information reliably and accurately. Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument. Measurements using image processing would be very high cost. Mobility, safety, and driver comfort All lanes plowed full width Percent of centerline miles by functional class Plow operators or patrol supervisors may be able to report this information reliably and accurately. Low to medium cost to incorporate into existing survey instrument; medium to high cost to include in new instrument. Measurements using image processing would be very high cost. Safety Number of accidents Fatalities, reported personal injury accidents Fatalities are quite accurate; reported personal injury accidents do not include all personal injury accidents Low cost; fatalities and reported personal injury accidents would normally be included in accident database.

becomes unsightly. Proper vegetation maintenance provides cover for the nesting, feeding, and migration of wildlife and helps preserve habitat. In addition, vegetation management is critical for preventing erosion and facilitating drainage. Other purposes of vegetation management are for beautification and to serve as natural snow fences that prevent snow from drifting onto highways. The customers of maintenance benefit from roadside vegetation management in many different ways, which are reflected in the outcome measures that appear in Table B-7. 207 Table B-7. Condition Measures for Roadside Vegetation (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Safety Sight distance at intersections Feet Necessary to establish convention for measurement; requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements. Periodic measurements may be required because of continual growth and trimming requirements. Low cost to measure at selected intersections; high cost to cover road network Safety and appearance Grass height Inches Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Easy measurement to take for reliable, repeatable, measurements; requires little training; periodic measurements may be required because of continual growth and cutting requirements. Low cost to measure for sample sections; high cost to cover road network

Table B-7. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Safety Number of signs blocked by vegetation Number Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements. Periodic measurements may be required because of continual growth and trimming requirements. Low cost to count number of signs blocked by vegetation Externalities (adverse effects on property owners adjacent to roads) Presence or absence, area infested, or percent of right- of-way (ROW) infested with a type of noxious weed Presence or absence, square feet or meters, percent Yes (present or absence) Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements. Periodic measurements may be required because of seasonal changes and continual growth and control requirements. Moderate to high cost to conduct accurate field inspections Aesthetics Aesthetic rating scale 1–5 customer rating scale Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Low cost to measure for selected roadway sections; high cost to cover road network Aesthetics Neatness of vegetation 1–5 customer rating scale Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Low cost to measure at selected roadway sections; high cost to cover road network Environmental protection Percent of ROW acreage managed to enhance wildlife habitat Percent Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Medium to high cost to establish GIS database and collect inventory and condition data Safety Clear zone distance: –Vertical clearance, –Horizontal clearance from edge Feet Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established. Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Medium to high cost to establish GIS database and collect inventory and condition data; Low cost to measure for selected road sections; high cost to cover road network Safety Percent of centerline miles with thick trees too close to road to provide safe, clear area for cars running off road Percent Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Medium to high cost to establish GIS database and collect inventory and condition data; low cost to measure at selected road sections; high cost to cover road network 208

209 DRAINAGE Maintaining proper drainage is critical to protect pavement structures and maximize their service life. Drainage is also important to prevent water accumulating from on roads and bridges and creating a hazardous situation. Other important functions of drainage control are to help prevent erosion, keep storm water from running off onto adjacent properties, and prevent contaminants on roads and bridges from entering surface and ground water. Table B-8 shows drainage condition measures that are of direct and indirect importance to customers. Table B-7. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues with trees overhanging travel way in unsafe manner accurate measurements. Periodic measurements may be required because of continual growth and control requirements. and collect inventory and condition data; Low cost to measure for selected road sections; high cost to cover road network Aesthetics and environment Percent of median, interchanges and ROW acreage planted with wildflowers Percent Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements. Medium to high cost to establish GIS database and collect inventory and condition data Safety Percent of centerline miles Percent Requires training for reliable, repeatable, and Medium to high cost to establish GIS database Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Safety Number of spots on roads that flood during normal rainfall events and during 10-year storms Spots of flooding Difficult to measure reliably and accurately; may have to depend in part on motorist reports of flooding Measurement would be facilitated by having a GIS; cost of data collection is relatively low Safety and mobility Customer satisfaction rating of drainage during storms 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in a well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Table B-8. Drainage Condition Measures

Table B-8. (Continued) (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues and repeatable measurements cost to cover entire network Preservation Linear feet of ditchline obstructed and unobstructed Linear feet Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation Level of service condition rating of ditches Rating scale Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation, safety, mobility Blockage of culverts, cross drains, ditches, curb, gutters, barrier walls, catch basins, and inlets Percent of each drainage structure Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established; requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation, safety, mobility Damage of culverts, cross drains, ditches, curb, gutters, barrier walls, catch basins, and inlets Percent of each drainage structure Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established; requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation Blockage for subsurface drainage Percent of each drainage structure Yes Protocol for commonly recognized measure needs to be established; requires training for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurements Moderate cost for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation Roadway settlement around and over culverts, cross drains, and storm drains Pass/fail Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation Percent of ditchline not maintained Percent Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high 210

LITTER REMOVAL Lots of litter along the road creates an unpleasant experience for both drivers and passengers alike. Every state, locality, and turnpike authority has a significant program of litter pickup, often an adopt-a-highway program. Widely used customer-oriented outcome measures pertaining to litter removal appear in Table B-9. 211 Table B-8. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues –In the invert –Outside or near the inlet –Due to deflection or structural damage Preservation, environment Erosion around culverts, cross drains, and storm drains Visual rating scale of none, moderate, or severe Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to entire cover network Preservation Structure distress of culverts, cross drains and storm drains Pass/ fail Requires use of closed circuit television cameras; training needed for reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurement Moderate equipment costs; low cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Safety, mobility Obstructed and unobstructed barrier walls, curb, and gutter and slotted drains Linear feet Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to entire cover network Paved and rock lined drainage ditches needing repair versus total length Linear feet Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low to moderate cost for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network Preservation, mobility, and safety Flow area inhibited by debris or damage of culverts, cross drains, and storm drains Percent Requires some training for reasonably accurate, reliable, and repeatable measurements Low to moderate cost to do for sample road sections; high cost to cover entire network

REST AREAS Rest areas are one of the main places other than roads where customers encounter transportation facilities. Customers have expectations regarding parking availability; types of services offered; time to wait in line for food, restrooms, and gas; and neatness, cleanliness, odor, and absence of dog feces. Customers can be surveyed to obtain information regarding their level of satisfaction regarding each of these attributes of rest areas. Table B-10 shows potential customer-oriented outcome measures concerning rest areas. Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 212 Table B-9. Roadside Litter Condition Table B-10. Potential Customer-Oriented Outcome Measures—Rest Areas (continued on next page) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Litter Number of pieces of litter within 6 feet of shoulder edge per 0.1 mile Pieces of litter per 0.1 mile Fairly easy to measure reliably and accurately; requires training to obtain reliable, repeatable, and accurate measurement Low cost to do for sample sections; high cost to do for all roads Litter count Needs definition Yes Commonly recognized measure requires definition and protocol needs to be developed. Low cost to do for sample sections; high cost to do for all roads Customer satisfaction rating of roadside litter 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Functionality All toilets in working order? Yes or no Observations would generally be repeatable, reliable, and accurate Toilet paper available in all stalls? Yes or no Observations would generally be repeatable, reliable, and accurate

213 Table B-10. (Continued) Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Odor Restrooms free of unpleasant odor? Yes or no Somewhat subjective responses; objectivity can be increased through training Outdoor areas free of unpleasant odor? Yes or no Somewhat subjective responses; objectivity can be increased through training Delay Average wait time to use restrooms Minutes Reliable and accurate, provided sufficient resources devoted to observe wait time Moderate costs to make occasional observations; high cost to make frequent observations Cleanliness Customer satisfaction rating of cleanliness of rest rooms 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Cleanliness Customer satisfaction rating of cleanliness of outside eating areas 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Neatness Customer satisfaction rating of neatness of outside eating areas 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Maintenance condition Customer rating of overall maintenance condition 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort Customer satisfaction rating of animal sanitation 1–5 scale Reasonably reliable, repeatable, and accurate if included in well- designed survey administered using scientific sampling Moderate to low cost if added to questions in existing survey; moderate to high cost if part of a new survey effort

SIGNALS Traffic signals are essential to regulating traffic flow at intersections. Intersection safety depends on traffic signals functioning reliability and continually operating. However, occasionally there are traffic signal failures due to age, motor vehicle accidents, electrical outages and other reasons. From the standpoint of the customer, the average time between these failures should be as long as possible. Once a failure has been reported, road users expect signals to be repaired or replaced as quickly as possible. Table B-11 presents customer oriented performance measures for traffic signals. Appendix B: Catalog of Benchmarking Measures 214 Table B-11. Performance Measures for Traffic Signals OTHER ELECTRONIC DEVICES Other electronic devices are also expected to function reliably. Performance measures similar to those for traffic signals also apply to other electronic devices, as shown in Table B-12. Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Failure rate Mean time to failure Years and days Nearly all agencies keep accurate logs of signal failure and potentially are able to assess mean time to failure accurately. Requires establishment of electronic database; low to moderate cost Response Time Mean time to repair or replace once failure reported Minutes Nearly all agencies keep accurate logs of the time it takes to repair or replace a signal once signal failure is reported. Requires establishment of electronic database; low to moderate cost

215 Table B-12. Condition Measures for Electronic Equipment Attribute Measure Units Commonly Recognized by AASHTO? Repeatable, Reliable, & Accurate? Cost and Other Issues Functionality Mean time to failure Days Most agencies keep accurate logs of electronic equipment failure and potentially are able to assess Requires establishment of electronic database; low to moderate cost mean time to failure accurately. Response time Mean time to repair once reported Minutes Most agencies keep accurate logs of the time it takes to repair electronic equipment once a problem has been identified Requires establishment of electronic database; low to moderate cost Legibility of message signs All lights in signs working Yes or no Easy to assess in a reliable, repeatable, and accurate manner Low cost

Next: Appendix C - Guidance on Designing and Administering Surveys »
Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 511: Guide for Customer-Driven Benchmarking of Maintenance Activities provides guidance on how to evaluate and improve an agency's performance through a process called "customer-driven benchmarking." The objective of benchmarking is to identify, evaluate, and implement best practices by comparing the performance of agencies.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!