Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs (2019) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 15-30
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 15... ...
15 This chapter summarizes the state of the practice for State DOTs and MPOs in collecting and analyzing performance data, collaborating with partners, and setting targets. The chapter reflects the literature review (see Appendix A)
|
From page 16... ...
Figure 3-1. DOTs and MPOs with data to support bridge condition measures.
|
From page 17... ...
Current State of the Practice 17 to support the bridge measures. For "condition of culverts," more than one-half of the MPOs responding do not have the data.
|
From page 18... ...
18 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs One state indicated that it does not have the data for IRI on the NHS non-Interstate. One state also indicated that it does not have the data for rutting on the NHS Interstate.
|
From page 19... ...
Current State of the Practice 19 Transit measures are the most frequently reported by State DOTs (61%)
|
From page 20... ...
20 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs governments, from HPMS, or use estimation and sampling techniques. For example, one state responded, "Counts are taken on representative samples of all roadway classifications, with uncounted locations estimated based on these samples and the statewide network of automatic traffic recorders." Another state responded "The DOT through the normal processes and in response to the Minimum Inventory Roadway Elements (MIRE)
|
From page 21... ...
Current State of the Practice 21 Bridge Data Analysis Twenty-nine State DOTs are using specialized technology and tools. The specialized tools include AASHTO BridgeWare Management Software (11)
|
From page 22... ...
22 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs travel demand models (5) , MATLAB, SAS and R, SPATEL from TRANSCOM, and PostgreSQL.
|
From page 23... ...
Current State of the Practice 23 ArcGIS, dTIMS, Excel, InDesign, Tableau, Oracle Business Intelligence, Agile Assets Pavement Analyst reports, and COGNOS. New York State DOT uses an internal pavement data viewer that allows for synchronized viewing of location maps, right-of-way video logs, and pavement images, along with certain pavement data.
|
From page 24... ...
24 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs Bridge Target Setting Twenty-eight states have developed bridge target-setting processes. Most are based on historic trends, models into the future or goals.
|
From page 25... ...
Current State of the Practice 25 Some practices by DOTs related to pavement target setting are as follows: • Michigan DOT: "For the First Performance Period, Michigan DOT plans to collect and analyze data, and then use historical trend analysis to develop targets. Michigan DOT's targets and method will require the Director's approval before final coordination with the MPOs.
|
From page 26... ...
26 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs • Iowa DOT: "This will be impacted by anticipated federal guidance. However, the process is likely to be similar to what was used for safety measure target setting.
|
From page 27... ...
Current State of the Practice 27 • Rhode Island: "Rhode Island DOT has adopted an aspirational goal that results in a calculated 3.2% reduction every year." • Maine: "DOT to be working with Maine Bureau of Highway Safety to establish targets as prescribed. May have supplemental targets -- yet to be determined.
|
From page 28... ...
28 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs No demonstrated proficiencyCategory Some knowledge Satisfactory Somewhat proficient Fully capable and proficient Technical capability of staff 0.0% 0.0% 2.2% 11.1% 86.7% Technical capability of consultants 7.7% 2.6% 5.1% 20.5% 64.1% Current analysis tools 0.0% 4.4% 20.0% 44.4% 31.1% Table 3-3. DOT bridge condition measures proficiency ratings.
|
From page 29... ...
Current State of the Practice 29 Many DOTs reported that their staffs are fully capable and proficient with data collection, analysis, and reporting for bridge condition measures. Forty-four percent of states reported that they are somewhat proficient with the current analysis tools.
|
From page 30... ...
30 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs No demonstrated proficiency Some knowledge Satisfactory Somewhat proficient Fully capable and proficient Technical capability of staff 1 0 1 8 4 Technical capability of consultants 0 1 0 4 1 Current analysis tools 1 0 5 6 2 Category Table 3-10. MPO safety measures proficiency ratings.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.