Click for next page ( 190


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 189
~PENDIX B Saga 0E HICK AGENT SU~EY RESPONSES

OCR for page 189

OCR for page 189
HIGHWAY MAINTENANCE QUESTIONNAIRE NCHRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance 1. What is Me approximate total amount of your agency's maintenance budget? 2. How many employees are in your maintenance organization? 3. Approximately how many lane-miles of roadway is your agency responsible for? 4. What is your agency's annual expenditure for contract maintenance? What areas of maintenance are included in the maintenance budget and what are the approximate amount of funds are spent annually in each area? (please check and specify) Maintenance Included? Area Disbursements? Pavement Maintenance Pavement Resurfacing Roadside (General and Agronomy) Mowing Bridge Maintenance Bndge Rehabilitation Drainage Snow & Ice Rest Areas Traffic (Signs, Lighting, Pavement Marking) Other (Specify: ) Other (Specify: ) d, hi? ,~ $ d, V 6. In which areas of maintenance have qualibr assurance programs been instituted and what are your agency's perceptions of Me successfulness of Hose programs? (please theck and specify) QA Maintenance Perceived Program? Area Successfulness? Pavement Maintenance Pavement Resurfacing Roadside Mowing Bridge Maintenance Bridge Rehabilitation Drainage Snow & Ice Rest Areas Traffic Over (Specify: Over (Specify: ) B-1

OCR for page 189
7. Does your agency have any literature on in-place maintenance QA programs? Have copies of this literature be included with your completed survey? Based on the results of this survey, some follow-up questions pertaining to in-place QA programs may be desired by the ERES research team. As such, we would appreciate it if you could provide the following information Name of Preparer Tide: Telephone: Fax: Name of Appropnate Follow-Up Contact Title: Telephone: Fax: B-2

OCR for page 189
Table B-1. City and County responses to noetic NCHRP 1~12 survey. Nannc of City/Caunt~ cncy Total Maintenance Budget (inch contract maintcnanec) Albuquerque, NM Casper, WY Charleston WV Columbus, OH Grand Rapids, MI Jackson, MS Kansas City, MO Jimmie, WY [little Rock, AR Peoria, L . Providence, RI . Raleigh' NC Rochester, NY Sioux Falls, SD . Springfield, MO . Virginia Beach, VA Wichita, KS Bannock County, ID Bell County, 1X Broward County, FL Calcasian Parish, LA Cass County, ND Champaign County, Il. Hennepin County, MN Hillsborough County, FL johnson County, KS Kent County, MI Kern County, CA Lane County, OR |Lexington County, SC 1 Lexington-Fayette County, KY . Milwaukee Camty, MI r Orange County, MY Palm Beach Camty, FL Ramsey County, MN Tama County, IA . Tulsa County, OK Volusin County, FL . . . Vashoe County, NV _ Sll,OOO,oOO S2~067,000 No Iffy Sll,600,000 $~12,000,000 S2,058,605 $20~700~000 . S2rO00,000 S6~500,000 S7,600,000 S30,700,000 . S4~500,000 55~417,000 S1,000,000 S4,076~909 S2,300,000 $6~842,664 SS,324,746 S19r595~200 S5~000~000 $2,418,000 S4,000~000 $16,000,000 S7~506~785 S1,350~000 S2,500,000 S12,000~000 $30~000,000 $3~900,000 S10,800,000 S8~500~000 $11,000,000 $3~200~000 Sl,8i1~350 S23~400,000 No inforrn~ion I. _ $6,602,193 1 S12,000,000 S3~500,000 S5,500~000 Sll,OOO,oOO . 3,585 .,144 1 650 6,200 1100 2,800 Lane.Mlle5 for which Annual E - enditure for Roadway Attend is Contract Maintenance Responsible S30~000 S2~000~000 S1,300,000 S2,200,000 S3,500,000 S1,462,000 S1,000,000 . No inforrn~ion Banded. S1 0r S513,560 S1,400~000 S7~976~300 S4~700,000 SO SO S600,000 S14,000,000 pit S185,000 Slr500,000 S2,200,000 S3~000~000 Sl,100,oOO S1,500,000 No infannation Carded. SO S350~000 S1~500~000 S2,951,000 S1~400~000 S150 000 , SSO,OOO S1,600,000 S2~700,000 (roads and budges)

OCR for page 189
Name of City/County Agency Laramie, WY Little Rock, AR Kiowa Falls, SD . Springfield, MO Virginia Beach, VA Wichita, K'S Bannock County, ID Bell County TX toward County FL Cal~cian Pansh, LA Cass County, ND Champaign County, L l ennepin County, MN Hillsborough County, FL Johnson County, K'S ent County MI em County, CA Lane County, OR exington County, SC L=cington-Fayette County, KY Mancopa County, AZ Milwaukee County, MI . range County, NY ?alm Beach Cc~nty, FL . . Ramsey County, MN [ama County, IA . Tulsa County OK Volusin County, FL . Table B-1. City and County responses to initial NCHRP 1~12 survey. Pavement Maintenance _ _ Approximate QA Pe~ta~c of Program? 4% Approximate Perceived Successfulness of QA Program Percenta~c of Total Budge' 18% 11% 9% 2% Yes (monitored by Management Info System). TQA in progress The QA program in the Street Division has been very successful It brings an awareness to the work force of perceived work standards, productivity, and is an outstanding method of tracking cost of labor, equip., and malls. in our many activitivities. All roads are inspected and rated. Good (district supervisor inspection) QA Perceived Successfulness of QA Program Program? A must - insures design life extension. Fair (use contract inspection and testing). Very good. . . . Improved pavement life. See "Pavement Maintenance." All roads are inspected and rated. Good (for pavement mime).

OCR for page 189
Table B-1. City and County responses to Outed NCHRP 1~12 survey. Name of City/County Agency Albuquerque, NM Charleston, WV l Columbus, OH |Grand Rapids, MI ackson MS Kansas City, MO Jimmie, WY Little Rock, AR 1% 3% Mesa, AZ t Milwaukee, WI l Newark, N] Peona, IL l Providence, RI F Raleigh, NC L ochester, NY Sioux Falls, SD Springfield, MO Virginia Beach, VA Wichita, KS . Bannc~cCaunty, ID l Be out 8roward County FL Calcasian Parish, LA Cass County, ND Champaign County, IL Hennepin County, MN Hillsbora~gh County, E:L I Johnson Caunty, KS L Kent County, MI 1 Kern County, CA 1 Lane County, OR |Le~ngton County, SC L~cington-Fayette County, KY 1 |Maricopa County, AZ |Milwaukee Caunty, MI Orange County, NY Palm Beach County, FL Ramsey County, MN Tame County, LA Tulsa Calnty, OK 2% 2% 2% Volume County, FL Washoe County, NV . ~ . Roadside (General & Agronomy) Mowing/ landscaping Approximate Percentage of QA Program? Total Budget No No No Yes 19% 1% 6% - 1% 5% 5% 9% No No Perceived Successfulness of QA Percentage of Program Total Budget No No 1 9,o Yes (monitored by Management Info System). 49G Perceived Successfulness of QA QA Program? Program No No Yes Yes (monitored by Management Info Systerr0. No Yes a% See "Pavement Maintenance." 15% No Yes See "Pavement Maintenance." No

OCR for page 189

OCR for page 189
Table B-1. City and County responses to initial NCHRP 1~12 survey. Name of City/County Agency Albuquerque, NM - Casper, WY Charleston WV Columbus, OH . . Grand Rapids, MI ackson, MS Kansas City, MO Laramie, WY Little Rock, AR Sioux Falls, SD Springfield, MO Virginia Beach VA Wichita, KS . . Bannock County, ID . Bell County' 1X Brow Calcas~ast Parish, LA Cass County' ND Champaign County, IL HennepinCount;y, MN . Hillsborough County, FL [ohnsonCamty, KS . ent County, MI . l Kern County, CA l Lane County OR , l l e~angton County, SC L - ngton-Fayette County, KY Mancopa County, AZ Milwaukee County MI Orange County, NY Palm Beach Camty, FL Ramsey County, MN Tama County, IA Tu1~9~ Volusin County, FL Washoe County, NV 10% 28% 4% Ayproxanate Perceived Successfuln - s of App~x~mat~ Percentage of QA Program? QA Program Total Budget - ~9 ~ ~ . .__~.~ ~ D.. X ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ - , ~ ~ ~ Stir 3 ,3~ ~ 5% No Yes _R. . 3~ . 11~o See common under"PaveTneT 149` Perceived Successfulness of QA Prog'~n Good Yes (monitored by Management Info System). I - roved drainage system. . Yes (monitored by Management Info SysteTn). Y-c See coin nent under ''PaveTnen Maintenance". See"Pavetnent Maintenance." I Good (district supervisor | _S__~:__\ I peplum). 11 _1 _1 1 1 _1 _1 _1 _1 _1 _1 _1 _1 _1

OCR for page 189
Table B-1. Citr and County responses to initial NCHRP 1~12 survey. Rest Areas - 1 Traffic (Si - , Lighting, ~ averment Marking) Approximate Perceived Successfulness of Percentage of QA Program? QA Program Total Budget Name of City/County Agency App~c~atc Percentage of Total Budget Albuquerque, NM Casper, WY Charleston, WV Columbus OH r r Grand Rapids, MI L Jackson, MS ~ KansasCiy, MO L |Laramie, WY l~tleRo=^ L Mesa, AZ r 1 |Milwaukee, WI |Newark, NJ 1 IMP, IL 1 |Prov~dence, RI |Raleigh' NC |Rochester, NY Is oux Falls SD |Spungfield, MO Vi~ia Beach, VA 1 Wichita, KS BannockCamty, ID Sell County 1X , roward County, FL Calcasian Parish, LA Sass County, ND Champaign County, IL Hennepin County, MN Hillsborough County, FL ohnson County, KS Kent Camty, MI ern County, CA Lane County, OR Lexington County, SC e~angton-Fayette County, KY No No No No No - No No Yes No No No No No 0% Mancopa County, AZ Milwaukee County, MI range County, NY elm Beach Camty, FL abbey County, MN Tama County, LA Tulsa County, OK Volusin County, FL l Washoe County, NV = = = Perceived Successfulness of QA Program? QA Program No | No No No No No No No - No No No No No No 30% 9% 7% 16% 7% TQA in prowess .S~"PavPmPnt Maintenance" 9% IS% 2% 7% 1296 4% 5% 18% 12% 2'C 6% 8% 18% 2% . . 15% 13% 4% No No Yes No No No No No No No No No Yes No No No No No No Yes Yes No No No No No - No No No No No No Yes Yes (monitored by Management Info System). No y es No No No Yes Improved operation and safety. YPC See "Pavement Maintenance." Good (standards set by state ant rules). B-8

OCR for page 189
Table B-1. Cite ant! Countv responses to initial NCHRP 1~12 survey. Nanne of City/County A~cocy A~uquerc~ue, NM Casper, WY | Charleston,WV T Columbus, OH Grand Rapids, MI Jaclcson, MS Kansas City, MO Laramie, WY Little Rocl`, AR Mesa AZ . ' ~ Milwaukee, WI Newarl<, NJ eona IL , . Providence, Rl Raleigh, NC ochester NY Sioux Falls, SD Springfield, MO irginia Beach, VA Wit ~ Bannock Camp, ID Bell County TX . B~,~ Calcasian Pansh, LA Cass County, ND Champaign County, IL ennepin County, MN Hillsborough County, FL ohnson County, KS Kent County, MI em County, CA Lane Ca~nty, OR Lexington County, SC L~dngton-Fayette County, KY Ma= pa (Dy, AZ Mid Orange County, NY Palm Beach County, FL Ramsey County, MN Tulsa County, OK Volus~n County, FL Washoe County, NV ~_ _ _ ~,1 ~ Other Arm of Maintenance Other (1) A"v~ _ Other (1) DcscripHon Pcrecr~tage of Total Budget _ Sweeping 5% . Guard Rail 0% . _ . Storm Sewers No mform~'on provided. Street Sweeping 3% __ l Street Sweeping 10% ~- Road Materials 26% _ Admin. equip. purchase, Bldg. & grounds, tuning, 17% employee leave Utility Cuts 13% Road Rebuilding 17% Traffic Signals 48% Gravel road blading & 45% regravel~n~ ~ lders 2% Constmction 10% Dust Control 3% Dust Control 11% Special Project 9% . Dirt Road Grading 64% Dirt Road Maintenance 8% . Salaries including 49% ffinges/ovenime Street Sweeping 4% Granular Surfaces 17% . . . Over (1) Over (2) App~c~atc Successfulness of Over (2) Descr~on Percentage of Total QA Pram . Unpaved Road 4% Maintenance Shoulder 0% Maintenance , Alleys ~ mfiorr - 'on proud. Yes (monitored by Management Info Signals 8% deny. Concrete Repair 6S . l~p~ for other departments. Street Sweeping 6% _ Very good. Cmshing, Stockpilin 20% _ Shader repair & 3% maintenance = Permits ~3% Ma6~uto Control 6% Gravel and Patrollin 1496 Equiprrent MiscellaneouS Tools 0% Miscellaneous 18% Blading 9% = _~ B-9 Odor (2) Pered~d Succmsf~ of QA Program Yes (monitored by Management Info System).

OCR for page 189
June 22, 1995 Page 3 - 19. 20. 21. 22 Is ~e output from any of ~ese systems ~ncorporated into your agency's LOS rating system? O Pavement O Bridges O Safety O Congestion Does your agency have an active maintenance Quality Assurance (QA) program? (If No, skip to question 25) O Yes O No Please rate the effectiveness of your agency~s existing maintenance QA program. Very Ineffective 2 ^ _ ~4 5 6 7 8 Very Effective 9 10 In one or two paragraphs, please describe how your agency's maintenance QA program Is used. 23. Are teams formed to establish QA policies and conduct reviews? O Yes O No 24. Are QA evaluations conducted.... 25. O while Me activity is being performed? O after He activity is completed? Does your agency have an active maintenance Quality Improvement (QI) program? (If No, skip to question 28) O Yes O No NCHRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance Survey ~23

OCR for page 189
June 22, 1995 Paced A, 26. 27. Please rate Me effectiveness of your agencyls existing maintenance QI program. Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 Very Effec'tive 6 7 8 9 10 In one or two paragraphs, please describe how your agency's maintenance Ql program Is used. 28. Is your agency's maintenance operation administered from a central office or has au~orit,Ybeen decentralized to field units? ~ Central Office ~ Decentralized 29. Is We agency maintenance budget.... C] based on an annual needs assessment? developed through historical funding levels. 30. Do you recommend Mat over States adopt your agency's memos of managing maintenance operations? O Yes ~ No NCHRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance Survey B-24

OCR for page 189
June 22, 1995 Page 5 Possibly Mere are questions where Were was not adequate space to provide a complete araswer. If so, you are invited to furnish supplemental information below at your discretion. Also, we would appreciate it if you could furnish Me namers) and telephone numbers of: Name of Preparer 1: Telephone No. ~ ~ Name of Preparer 2: Telephone No. ~ ~ Thank you very much for your assistance. Tide: FAX No. Title: FAX No. t NCHRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Qualiby Assurance Survey B-25

OCR for page 189
- E ~ ~ c to ~ 5 c o ._ ~O of U) ~4 d4 ~4 z o au in o A U) o in a' be in - .n a, U) o - U) o 5 E ~ Cat E ~ 3 ~ 5 c 5 ~ ~ c to ~ ~ 8.2 ~ ~ . ho E ~ ~ ~ . lo, ~ 11 ,~ it, to ~ ~ 'o C ~._ _ i,, is ~ ~ - - ~ ~ ~ E C! H~ C I-t ~ ~ OU 11 ~ ~ ~ ~ O~ ~ ~ ~ E :2 ~ E ~ D ~1 E I I~ ~ ,^ a) 08 t~l ,~t ~ , ~-W u_ ~ ~ ; ~^. - ~ 1 ~o i, ~ ~E ' 1~ ~ . l ~ ~ l .l ~ 3~ ~ l 1 3~ ~ l 11 ~ . ~ ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ O ~ I , ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ I ~ ~ _ ~ , ~ ~R R ~ a ~ ~ . ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ 1^ l~ ! , ~ ~ 1 l ~ ~ ~ , E~ ~ l ~ E~ ~ ~ l l ' _ ~ O ~ ~ l ~ _ ~ O l ~ ~ _ ~ O c __ ' ~ : c _ ._ 1~1 ~ l ~ c _ ._ ' ~ c _ - _11 ' ~ . o ~ ~ 1 - ~ ' ~ o ~ ~l ~ 0 0 ig ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ . <~u ~ ~ ~ u-~ az v~ _ __ l t . ,y _ ~ R I ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ _ 1';~ 81 ~ ~ Z Vo3~=I ~ Z I ~ Z I ~ -1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ~ zl ~Z I Zt Z I ~ ~ ~ ~ ~- -1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 ~ 3 1 '~ ~3~ ~:~ 3 43 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 E E 3 | ~O I O c | ~26 ~, '= ~= U , I ~ IY = | 1~ m~ , ~ 1 1 a, ~_ 0 _ 0 ~li~- ,Tn ~1 ~ 1 ~ ~i: 6 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ _ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 - 1 1 3 _ I ~t ~ . E~ or E E ~ --Z ~ ~ ~ E ~ I ~ I ~ I o ~I 1 ~h 3 i ~ ~ ~ 1 Z ~E 8 1 8 1 =, 1 ~ 1 8 1 1 1 ~ 1 1 1 ~ 1 ~ ~ 1 1 1 1~11, 1 ~1 01 ^1 zl ~1 ~E j=~uI t! 8 U 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 ~ .3e 1 ~1 . - 1 ~1 ~ -

OCR for page 189
a' :> in ~ - o c-J a) o cn a, in o a] be . cO a, ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~,= e 5 ~ ~ .~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 p us Pa 2 >, ~ ~ ~ a= ~ =~= g -4 . ~ ~ m0 ~ , 0 ~ p ~ O ~ 3.~1111 ~ j' 5 i~2 3 -2 8~1 Id ~ u P4 _ o O ' ,9 ~ e -~ 8~a: _ ~ be ~ . Z Z U] be loo at 5 =~o .= Ma, E~ 0` z _ m~ ~ ^] a ~ . ~ ~ 6Z us ~ . _8 E=: ~ . 1 = - 1 ~ I:'i Imp ski ! ]] ~ ~ ~ l 1 ~ 1 1.8 ~ ~l 1 Ft ~ W! 1 71 ~ B-27

OCR for page 189
nit - In <: 5- fit . Cal ~ ~ ,o l ~ g <:- .= I Ah 3 11 O It O I,, ~.! -A fit ~ ' is. 5s ~ ~ - to ~ ~ W~ ~q :~E ~ u ~ ad ~ ~ ~I~ u ~ ~ O.- ]~ v ~ o ~ 1B ~ U 4t, m~ ~ ~ ~o 1- a, (L,- ~-1- t, sow ~ ~ ~ =. ~1 1 ~ a' = 3 ooze ~ to ~ ~= u 51 ~ .0O$ ~ ~ ~ bO A, ~ .~0 ~ ~ bO ~1 1' ~ be D ~ D ~ ~ D ~ ~ ~ D ~D of l l ~ ~1~ _ ~l l ~ ~ l At_ ~l l ~ 81 = ~ ~ 1 1 ~ = Be ~ 1 1 = -1 ~ ~ ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ I. ~ 1 1 ~ ~ ~ l At_ ~. . l ~ o ~ 0 ~ 1 ~_ - o 0 o~} 0 _ c,1 ~ .8 = ~ 1 3~ .2~ 11 ~ - ~ 1E ~ 1 - 1 ~ bOc~ U ~ ~3~ , U L4 ~ y ~ ~0 ~ , U ~ ~ _~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ l ~ ~ U ~s ~ , ~s p~ ~ ~t , ;~.o _g ~ ~- ;~ ~ :a'~ = t l ~ 3}~ ~._ ~ ~ ~ `~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~E , .~, ~ ~ _~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 115 ~ ~ , $ 0 ~ . ~ ~o ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ , ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ ~ t ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ cn g ~ u) = ~ u, ~ Ol ~ ~n g P ~ ~ cn ~ Ol u' ~ O cn ~ v ~ ~ ~ 3~ cn -g O' - 1 . ~ ~1 ~t~ ~ ~ ~ I I ~- ~ 1 1 . B111 ~_. ~1 1 1 3 ~! . ~ ~ ~ ~1 ! 15 ~ 3~ ; ~ i ~_~ ~ l l ~ ~ ~ ~11 15 ' se ~1 ~ ~ ~ F ~_~ ~ l l ~ ~1. ~ ~ ~11~1 ~ _ . ~ ~41 ~ ~ z~ ~ ~ z 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~lilz~l _: OC ~ c ~ ~ -: ~ ~ r ~ <~ < B-28

OCR for page 189
u] ~ - he o a) On o On a, i) o to a' but at: . m - En ~ I ~W 1 1 1 1 'S ~ 1~ ~ ~ 1 z 1 1 1 E At Fi ~ ~ a. ,~ ~ q'OO _ ~ ~ -~rr~ z 1 ~ I z 1 ~ 1 z~= z 1 z ~ I z =1 1 z .t I u I C I - ~| 6 ~ ~ | C ~ | ~ ~ | | ~ ~ ~ \; ~11,~ 3 ~ :~; ~ ~ =~ a ~ ~ ~ ,3, d I a a a a ~c: c ~ a u a u u a ~ ~ _ Oc e I | e C | 5 o ~ _,_ D | C .8 18 -= | c .0 ~ ~n 3 ~ ~ g ~ ~ n ~ ~ . 11_-~ ~ u o) ~ S] ~ 8] r' 83 U O : 5 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ R l ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ ~ 1 1 -~ -- 1 ~c ~ ~ ~ _ ~ ~1~ ~ ~14 ~ 1 ~ ~ ~ , ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l _ ~ 1~ , ~ ~ ~ '- ~ '4 t ',- ~ ~ ~ ~i ~ ~ '- ~ '- ~ '- ~ '- cn ~v , ~v ~V q' 1 R , _8, ~ ~ 1 ~ _: R_ Dl7S I R ~_ I L 5__~ I ~ l_ _l l ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~l ~C ~CO ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ l ~1 ~ ~ ~ ~ l 1 1 1 1 ~ ~ ~ ~ l l l l ~ ~- ~ ~ ~ :_~: T rr 1 1 1 1 1 D 1 ~ 1 .5 1 ~ 5 1 ~ ~ 1 Ro 1~m' ~ ~ ~ 13 1 ~ 1 5 1 5 1 ~ 1 ~ 1 '3- ~ 1 5~ 1 =5i ~ 1 61 1 ~ 1 81 1 _1 1 ~1 1 =1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 ~1 - . ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ C, ~ ~ ~ o S t3 {3 ,0 u]. ~ o ~ G~ E e;~n c5 '; e; ` O U) f; ~ ,~ O ~ ~ ~ . ~. 1 >~ 1 ~ == 1 .~O 5 ~ ~ Y s s 1 ~29

OCR for page 189
DETAILED RESPONSES TO SECOND NCHRP 14~12 SURVEY Survey Question: Descnbe how the QA program is used. Florida Central office conducts annual reviews to insure compliance win Agency and State laws, rules, procedures and guidelines to insure conformance with "agency designated critical requirements." This provides management with an overview of how each District Is performing, and establishes uniformity in Me LOS provided the taxpayer. Maryland Annual Peer Reviews of each county are done by teams of maintenance managers from different areas. These results are helpful in prioritizing work needed for We counties' annual programs. Peer Rewew criteria are shared wad team leaders so that Hey know what is Me desired I~OS for each activity. Team leaders will inspect Weir assigned areas daily, note conditions which need corrections, and then working win the RME/ARME, or on Weir own, schedule corrective actions, within budget/personnel/equipment limitations. Pennsylvania The Department's Quality Assurance program serves a number of functions as follows: I. Monitors short-term and long-range performance trends. 2. Used to recommend and provides a form to evaluate changes to performance and production standards. 3. Source for recommendations for policy changes. 4. Identifies localized or statewide training needs. 5. Identifies localized deficiencies in adherence to performance standards. Identifies high achievers and recommends organizations for awards/recognition programs. B-30

OCR for page 189
British Columbia Used to monitor Me contractor's performance by performing three types of inspections-rando~rdy selected 2-km sections, end-product, and ~n-process inspections. The first type (present state) is a measure of how well the contractor is performing, is an the work done. The other two types are more of a check on how well specific work is nerfom~ed. Sioux Falls, SD - r Our agency's quality assurance is somewhat informal. Our workforce is trained In methods, has We correct equipment for Me activity Hey are asked to perform, and has He performance standards to adhere to. Everyone within the chain of command (from management, to foreman, to crew lead equipment operator, along with He rest of He work force) are all dedicated to getting He job done right He first time so as not to have to do it over within a reasonable pavement life span. Outside testing firms are also enlisted for compaction tests and materials testing. Virginia Beach, VA In-house teams of employees are used to review existing processes, standards, etc. Outside consultants and testing labs are employed by He City or contractors working for the City to provide qualibr contTo! on active construction projects. Washoe County, NV (Pavement) Paver - Inspection of all roads (500 centerline miles, every 2 years). Two-man inspection crews working from April to September. Ohio The Ohio DOT's Maintenance Quality System is used to get a general picture (evaluation) of He condition of Ohio~s highways, looking at 13 components of He highway system (pavements, shoulder drop~ffs.' mowing, litter' etc.). Twenty 2-mile (3.2-km) of highway are evaluated each quarter In each of our 88 counties. Each section is randomly selected by computer. B-31

OCR for page 189
Survey Question: Describe how the QI program is used. Florida Continuous teams are established by Me State Maintenance Office to review the performance standards, maintenance rating program, maintenance management system, and activity cost data on an annual basis. This "dynamic change" process provides continuous updates for these systems. Changes are communicated Trough annual trairung sessions with appropriate personnel. Maryland Maintenance personnel from different areas of Me State meet periodically in "Maintenance Business Team" sessions in order to develop more efficient/effective processes. They share current ways of performing maintenance, Men choose We best methods across the State and mix why new ideas and technologies to come up win an ideal process for Me selected activities. Oregon Pilot project in one geographic area using self managed teams to increase ownership In final product. Pennsylvania The Maintenance Organization Is the biggest user of Me Suggestion Connection. _ . . . . . ~, .. . . - vie These suggestions are sunm~neu and tor tne most part unplemented as a pilot or suggested for statewide implementation by Me review committee. These ideas are captured yearly In a GAINS brochure published by Me Productivity Center, in Me Innovation Flyers published monkey by Me Center, and also broadcast on our electronic bulletin board through Me Bureau of Office Services on a monthly basis. The Maintenance Organization is also Me biggest user of Me Productivity Improvement Fund. This fund gives the submitter up to $15,000 per idea to pilot and Implement qualified ideas. M~int~nzin~P hat trained a great deal of their nersc)nne1 in the quality CQI Overview course which introduces Me workers to Total Quality. Many continue on to be Instructed In Creative Problem Solving, CQl Tools and Techniques, Process Flow Analysis and other quality courses. Many continue on to be instructors of Me quality courses and facilitators of quality teams. ~ ~ ^~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-_ _ ~-__ ~ Teamwork has become just a part of Me job In Maintenance. The formal teams have developed into the less formal Crew-as-a-Team. There are working groups who B-32

OCR for page 189
perform their jobs daily using the tools and concepts learned from the Creative Problem Solving courses. Maintenance has taken part In many quality measurement pilots In Me past year surveying customers to see how quick our response rate is after calls on repairs are made. Also, to see how weD we're doing in We Maintenance field-a Customer Service Indexing pilot was completed this past fiscal year and implementation in every county will occur this year. Sioux Falls, SD Our quality unprovement program consists of in-house and seminar type training which includes our entire work force. Virginia Beach, VA The maintenance QI is an integral part of the City's total quality program. Issues identified for study are reviewed by process improvement teams made up of employees from different levels of Me orgaruzation. Ramsey County, MN Public works has a HPP (high performance participation) program underway Mat includes our maintenance operation. ~ maintenance, we have started PI (process improvement) groups Mat have reviewed our pavement recycling/resurfacing program and is now beginning a review of our snow and ice control program. Washoe County, NV Feedback from crews. They are told to look for ways to Improve Me system. B-33