Click for next page ( 53


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 52
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Appendix B. Example State DOT Performance Targets This appendix contains sample performance targets documented for illustrative purposes that were established at some point in time by each of the referenced states; they are not necessarily current and are likely to change over time. Table B.1 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Pavement Preservation Measure Description State Target Distress Rating 0100 scale based on roughness, Alabama 75 cracking, rutting, patching, raveling Highway Adequacy 0100 scale based on pavement Maine condition rating, safety, backlog, Overall--60 average daily traffic, posted speed, and shoulder International Index based on vehicle response to Federal 93% 170 Roughness Index roughness (lower = smoother) Louisiana 170 (IRI) Nevada I--70% <80 II--65% <80 III--60% <80 IV--40% <80 V--10% <80 Pennsylvania 94 Maintenance 15 scale based on pavement, traffic Texas Interstate 80% Assessment Program operations and roadside Other 75% Maintenance Rating 1100 scale based on pavement, shoul- Tennessee Overall 75 Index ders, roadside elements, drainage, and traffic services Nebraska 0100 scale based on surface Nebraska Overall 72% Serviceability Index distresses--cracking, patching, roughness, rutting, faulting Overall Pavement 05 scale based on pavement distress Delaware 15% Poor Condition Pavement Condition Good, fair, and poor based on pave- Kentucky 30% Poor Index ment smoothness Pavement Condition 1100 scale based on cracking, pot- Ohio Priority 75% 65 Rating holes, deterioration, and other Other 75% 55 (continued on next page) B-1

OCR for page 52
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Table B.1 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets (continued) Pavement Preservation Measure Description State Target Pavement Condition 010 scale for pavement segments Florida 80% >6 for all 3 criteria Survey based on ride smoothness, pavement cracking, and rutting Pavement Quality 0100 scale based on 3 surface distress Indiana Interstate--75 Index factors NHS--75 Other--65 Pavement Quality 0.04.5 scale based on smoothness and Minnesota Principal 3.0 Index distress (cracking) Other 2.8 Pavement 05 scale based on ride, rutting, and Wyoming NHS--3.5 Serviceability Rating cracking Other--3.0 Performance Levels PL-1: good condition; PL-2: requires Kansas Interstate 80% PL1 maintenance; PL-3: poor condition Other 75% PL1 Present Serviceability 05 scale based on subjective rating by Arizona 3.23 Rating road users Remaining Service Poor (05 years), fair (610 years), or Colorado Interstate 80% Life good (11+ years) based on surface NHS 70% distress Other 55% Ride Index 15 scale based on vehicle response to Utah 50% 2.75 roughness with adjustment for pave- 15% 1.84 ment type Roughness Index and Roughness index--0.0 to 5.0 based on Idaho 18% <2.5 Cracking Index public perception Cracking index--0.0 to 5.0 for each pavement section Sufficiency Rating Excellent, good, fair, poor, very poor, Michigan 30% Poor or Very Poor based on surface distresses B-2

OCR for page 52
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Table B.2 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Structure Preservation Measure Description State Target Bridge Value Index Ratio of current value to replacement Oregon 8790% value GASB 34 Bridge 010 scale assigned to each component- Alabama 5 Rating rating category Health Index 0100 scale based on condition of sev- Kansas Overall 80 eral elements NBI Appraisal 09 scale based on deck, substructure, Ohio 85% of deck area 5 Ratings and superstructure condition Delaware 75% 6 <10% 4 Washington 95% Good or Fair Number of Closed Bridges closed Pennsylvania Reduce by 50% by 2010 Bridges Number of Posted Bridges with weight restrictions Oregon 0 Bridges Pennsylvania Reduce by 30% by 2010 Structural Condition Good, fair, or poor based on National Minnesota Principal--92% Fair to Good Rating Bridge Inventory (NBI) condition and Other--80% Fair to Good appraisal ratings Structurally Deficient SD--FHWA rating that indicates a Colorado 25% SD (SD) or Functionally bridge is restricted to light vehicles, Federal <20% of NHS either SD or Obsolete (FO) requires immediate rehabilitation to FO remain open, or is closed Florida 90% 5 SD FO--FHWA-defined rating based on deck geometry, load-carrying capacity, Georgia <5% (based on deck area) clearance, and approach roadway alignment Kentucky 7% SD Michigan 35% SD Tennessee >75% neither SD nor FO Wisconsin 15% SD Structures Inventory 1100 scale based on condition of major Utah 50% 80 System elements 15% 49 Sufficiency Rating 0100 scale based on 4 factors reflecting Indiana Interstate--87% ability to remain in service NHS--85% Other--83% Maine Overall--60% Wyoming NHS--83% Other--80% B-3

OCR for page 52
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Table B.3 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Operational Efficiency Measure Description State Target Toll Operations Costs Operational costs per toll transaction Florida <$0.16 Incident Clearance Average clearance time for incidents on Minnesota 35 minutes Time the Twin Cities urban freeway system that occur between 6:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on weekdays and Monthly incidents with clearance times Washington 0 over 90 minutes Snow and Ice Average time required to provide bare Minnesota 25 hours Removal Time pavement on super commuter routes following a weather incident Table B.4 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Capacity Expansion Measure Description State Target Congestion Percent of urban freeway miles in Minnesota 21% regional trade centers that are moder- ately congested (02 hours of speeds below 45 mph) Level of Service Describes operating condition in terms Washington D for urban areas and C for of speed, travel time, and safety rural areas Traffic Density Annual percent growth in vehicles per Florida <4% mile on Interstate and Freeways with annual ADT (AADT) Maryland <32% greater than 20,000 vehicles per lane Travel speeds Percent of interregional corridor miles Minnesota 90% by 2020 where travel speeds met or exceed minimum levels B-4

OCR for page 52
Volume II: Guide for Performance Measure Identification and Target Setting Table B.5 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Safety Measure Description State Target Correctable Crash Number of correctable crash sites Montana Improve over time Sites Improved funded for improvement Crash Rate 3-year average rate per million VMT Minnesota 0.73 Fatal and Disabling Percent decrease in number of fatal and Washington Decrease over previous Crashes disabling crashes since 1990 year Fatalities 3-year average Minnesota 550 (3-year average) Pennsylvania Reduce by 10% by 2010 Fatality Rate 5-year fatality rate (fatalities per 100 Idaho 1.8 million VMT) Injury Rate 5-year serious injury rate (serious inju- Idaho 10.22 ries per 100 million VMT) Road Condition Percent of crashes on strategic highway Florida <1% Related Crashes system where road-related conditions are a contributing factor Table B.6 Examples of State DOT Performance Targets Transportation Environmental Impacts Measure Description State Target NOx Emissions Transportation-related VOC emissions Maryland <33.9% as a percent of total VOC emissions VOC Emissions Transportation-related VOC emissions Maryland <40.2% as a percent of total VOC emissions Impacted Wetlands Ratio of acres of wetlands replaced to Minnesota 1 Replaced acres impacted B-5