National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Appendix A
Page 189
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 189
Page 190
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 190
Page 191
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 191
Page 192
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 192
Page 193
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 193
Page 194
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 194
Page 195
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 195
Page 196
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 196
Page 197
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 197
Page 198
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 198
Page 199
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 199
Page 200
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 200
Page 201
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 201
Page 202
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 202
Page 203
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 203
Page 204
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 204
Page 205
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 205
Page 206
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 206
Page 207
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 207
Page 208
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 208
Page 209
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 209
Page 210
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 210
Page 211
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 211
Page 212
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 212
Page 213
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 213
Page 214
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 214
Page 215
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 215
Page 216
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 216
Page 217
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 217
Page 218
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 218
Page 219
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 219
Page 220
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 220
Page 221
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 221
Page 222
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 222
Page 223
Suggested Citation:"Appendix B." Transportation Research Board. 1997. Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/6346.
×
Page 223

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.

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

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

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

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 0°r°°° 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)

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).

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

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

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

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).

Table B-1. City and County responses to initial NCHRP 1~12 survey. N~c of City/County A8eng . 0~13) At- Off`cr (3) Dc~on Percentage of Total uquerq~e, NM asper, WY Charleston, WV olun~us, OH Grant Rapids, MI l ackson, MS Curb Repair Cansas Gty, MO rue, WY little Rock AR . vlesa, AZ dihvaulcee, WI l ewark, NJ 1 eoria, L l rov.idence, RI Raleigh, NC Rochester NY , Other(3) Perceived Succe~fulne" of QA Program 5% Icy O~cr(4) Approximate O~er(4) Pcrc~ved Odor (4) Dcscr~don Pcrecnta~c of Total Successfulness of QA Budget Program Sioux Falls, SD l pringfidd, MO Virginia Beach, VA Wichita, KS Alley Maintenance Bar~nockCa~nty, ID Bell County 1X Broward County, FL Calcasian Parish, LA CassCa~nty, ND Chan~ai~ County, L Hennepin County, MN Hillsborough County, FL ohnson County, KS Kent County, MI . Kern County, CA Lane County, OR Miscellaneous - !~- L - ngton-Fayette Calnty, KY Maricopa County, AZ . Milwaukee Camty, MI Orange County, NY Palm Beach County, FL Ramsey County, MN Tama County, IA |TU1Sa County, OK ilolosi ~ W"hoe County, NV B-10 Service Cuts

Table B-1. City and County responses to initialNCHRP 1~12 survey. Other At of Maintenance .. Other (5) Approxm~atc Name of City/County Agency Other (5) Descr~don Percentage of Total Budget . Albuquerque, NM . Casper, WY Charleston, WV Columbus, OH Grand Rapids, M! Dust conuol SO (alley MS Kansas City, MO , lmanie, WY little Rock, AR Mesa AZ , l Milwaukee, Wl 1 |Newark ~ Peona, ~ |Providence, RI |Raleigh, NC |Rochester, NY _ Falls SD ~I I |Spr~gfield MO l 1 ' l |Vir~rua Beach, VA l ~l Child KS Ba~ockCa~nty, ID Bell County 1X I. iBroward County FL 1 ' l |Calcas~an Pansh, LA ~ 1 |CassCa~nty, ND . |Champaign County, IL ~l |Hennepin County, MN . |Hillshoralgh County, FL 1 , |Johstson County, KS |Kent County, MI 1 , |Kern County, CA Lane Caunty, OR Lrexington County SC ~ ' |Le~dngton-Fayette County, KY |Mancopa County, AZ Milwaulcee County, MI l~n~m I T I 1 l Palm Beach County, FL . |Ra~r6ey County, MN _ _ l County,lA , Tulsa County, OK l |Volusin County, FL l Washy County, NV Other(5) Perceived Succ~fulne" of QA Program B-11

Table B-2. State responses to initial NCE~P 14-12 survey. N~e of Stat~incia1 A8en~r Alabama A~ona Arkansas Califorrua _ ~_ ~ EFlonda Georg~a Hawau daho min~ _~ ; Tota1 Maintenance Budget (including con~ract No. of Employe. m~ntenanec) 1,600 S70,000,000 870 S106,000,000 S494,000,000 SllO,OOo,OOO S280,000,000 S196,000,000 S115,000,000 S45,000,000 . S200,000,000 S98,000,000 5,400 1,75;0 2,40.0 l~ne-Miles for which Roadway A - ncy Responaible 24,314 2,300 35,500 Annua1 Expenditure for Contract Maintenance S90,000,000 Sll,oOO,Ooo S350,000 11,400 S55,000,000 S14,800,000 SllO,OoO,OOo S55,000,000 sl,6sO,ooo SlO,OOO,OOO S24,000,000 S16,800,000 lowa Maryland Michi~;an M~ Nebraska Nevada New Me~dco New York North Carolina Ohio O~h~ Oregon Wash~ngton We:V~ W'sconsin wyoniin8 Bridsh Columha Manitoba New Bn~nswiLk = Qu~ec S300,000,000 S114,000,000 S181,316,855 ~WO S137,000,000 S200,000,000 S200,000,000 S269,000,000 S64,500,000 .......... _ S50,000,000 S450,000,000 - S420,000,000 S631,000,000 S111,400,000 S114,160,723 _ S760,000,000 _ S21 830 420 ,, S98,591 000 S700,000,000 S34,695,000 S581,000,000 S225,000,000 1.525 2~5,000 S16,000,000 1,171 1,612 15,954 S40,000,000 (appro)amate) 1,280 S233,000,000 3,000 Sl20,000,000 S40,000,000 S310,000,000 S51,000,000 S62~0,000 Ministry-200, Contract.-2,40( 7,100 130 34,000 30,000 S9,600,000 S9,600,000 S2l,000,000 Sl,lOO,oOO S3 -5,000,000 S17,400,000 S2 25,000,000 S135,000,000 S515,000,000 S520,000 + contracts S2,293,025 S300,000,000 S3,40~0,000 S28,156,951 S350,000,000 SO S247,000,000 S5 to 6,000,000 S50,000,000 S108,000,000 S25,000,000 S295,000,000 S12,000,000 S450,00~0 (wint~) S130,00.0,000

Table B-2. State responses to initial NCHRP 14-12 survey. Name of State/Psovincial Amend Hawaii Indiana low, Maryland Oregon Washington Wyomu~ British Co}umb" Manitoba Approximate Percentage of Total Budget 8% 17% 34% 15% 33% 3% 6% 1% 16% 19% 12% 17% Perceived Successfulness of QA Program Arkansas does not currently have a formal QA program Use maintenance. The department is actively involved in QIP for the overall maintenance operation. CDOl~s patrol system does provide quality assurance due to the ownership employees have in their assigned road. The depar~anent is actively involved in QIP for the overall maintenance operation. Good (potholes and paving kept up). Program is officially starting statewide July 1995. Yes- (quality evaluation program). QA is confined to testing materials to detensune We are in the be8~nin8 stages of developing; a levels of service and performance standards - Equal . . . Oregon has an independent rating system which may or Nay not fit your definition of a quality alumna, program. Our rating System world well and is permuted to be OIL QC/QA program JUSt Betting established, no opinion on succ~mlness yet B-13 Pavement Re~fac~ Perceived Successfulness of QA Program See "Pavement Maintenance." Genera success (lonely resurfacing). Success is questionable (gathered by PMS). Annual condition ratin' Csur~re . . ~ . . ~ ~ ~ . ~ . #I . ~ Very successful See 'pavement Maintenance." . _ _ . _ . . _R~C~ ~ See "Pavement Maintenance." Works Very Well See 'pavement Maintenance."

HI New of ~ ~_ a_ _ ~n Blow _^ N_ Male B-2. Sate responses to iniha1 NC~ 14-12 survey. . . R-~. ~1 ~ ~ MO~-P~ B-14 ~~.~d Succ~ of am_ Ye (I moon am). i' Hen net" . ~ an_ hem." AWE . it. . ~ . .

Table B-2. State responses to initial NIP 14-12 survey. Bridge Maintenance Bridge Rehabilitat ion Percerved Successfulness of QA Poem Name of StatelPro~rincial Agency Condo Hawaii Idaho Indiana Iowa Maryland Oldahoma Oregon Vermont Washington West Virginia British Coh~mBia Manitoba New Bn~nswick Yea Yea Perceived Successfulness of QA P=gr;an Systematic inspection and repot& Success m; questionable (inflects inbnd8e 1S\6~ ~ i . ~ ~ i~7ecclcm'. ·-1 We feel Air budge prepays are among th best in the United ~51~ See "Pavement Maint See '"Pavement Maintenance " See 'pavement Maintenance " See '"Pavement Maintenance." B-15 2% I QA Program? We Mel our bridge programs are among the best in the United Stated See "Pavement Maintenance."

Male B-2. Sate responses to initial NC~ 14-12 sump. ~age ~e of Ago glass . _ gags (am 1 Ha_ In _^ Cow 4 4 4 3~ Such of a_ to Abet 1~. (~ ~_). go_ ma. D-16 _^ of T~ Dada 1~ No Ne No beeped Sash_ of ~_ ~ of gag -1~5. . ~ "ace ma." _ . ~ . -'game _e~"

Sle B-2. Sate responses to initial INCH 14-12 survey. Id Upon EVE ma Colt ~ ~ Lit - ~~ i Scat of . go_ : ~ .~ 0-1/ ma? Nag I I ( I) ~ me_ In. DOE IT

N~e of `~ a_ _ . _ Bow ma Colorado I_ w _~ hi_ Ma ~6~ gags (it Dada . _~= Mayor -h C_~ Bow Peso ~m Vat Amok Wit tea ~ Bat Male B-2. Sate responses to ins NC~ 14-12 survey. Woof _ 1 - ~mP ~-e_~ Sat of ~= ~ D_ ~- of ~ ~_ Bud ~. ~ 0~ n 6 . `~ Dam 6* . mug 2~ _ _ ~3~ Act_ .5* - ~. 4 . . ~ Abet 1~. . 3 ~. _ 2 ~. . BOMB_ 2 ~20 . ~12 H^g ~ mug ~2 ~- ~ MUNG ~2~ . ~1^ - 2 _e-~e ~3 . ~d ~3 wider _ 2 .~^ m ~_ ---- Saw ~ wider Ha_ 2 -~ Spat 16 Em gap Pa ~2 ~1 _ s ~2 3 5 Cogs 9 _ _&S^ as ~4 Adam 1 8~ ~_ as. ~ Amen 3~ 1, ~r hi__ 2 _~s we 0 ~.) 2~ ~- 4~ . Co~1 3 /~e 1 3 0~_ ~ ~_ ~6 got _ Gait 17 Game ~ Dig ~3% Me_ ~ go ~-10 ~P~ Sac_ of go_

Table B-2. State responses to initial NCHRP 14-12 survey. Other Aze" of M - nt~nce Name of State/Provincia1 Agency Alabama Arizona Arks C~rrua olomdo Other O Demon Other Highway Maintenance Other (A Apple Percentage of Total Bridget 1 Over (4) Approximate Other (4) Description Permatage of Tota1 B"~- Non-3toutine Major Maintenance 3% _ . . . 1 1 1 1 1 ~ . 1 1 'it Equipment 7% 1 1 1 I L . 1 1 Municipal Payments (work on 7% designated highways) _ Other (3) Pcrcemd Succe - *gem of QA Pros 1 ~ _ 1 await Idaho Dlino~s [Dana owe K~ Kentucky Maryland Do Overheat . 2% 17% Michigan Michigan (contracts) Me Nebraska Nevada New Mexico New York orth Carolina klahoma Oregon l Penn~Ivania Puesto Rico rennmsee Bridge Reph~mera Vat nia Washington West Virginia W~sconsu~ Wyoniin8 Brush Columbia Other - General (supervision, training) 6c 3rd party Damages 14% A= robe ew Back Quebec Overheads 6c Supenmon 5ih B-19 Other (4) Perceived Success*dne~ of QA Prom =

Table B-2. State responses to initial NIP 14-12 survey. Name of StatdPrDv~nc" Agency Alabama I Arizona Arkansas Jiforn~a Colorado Idaho Illinois Indiana _ Iowa Maryland Michigan Mithigan (contracts) Nebraska . Nevada New Mexico New York North Carolina Other (5) Demon Other ~ App~nate Personage of Tom Budget Other (5) Perceived Succe - *them of QA Program Oklahoma Oregon Washington Who Vi~ia Wisconsin Wyoming New BnwwiLk B-20

June 22, 1995 Page 1 Current Maintenance Program 1. Does your agency currently have a maintenance management system (MMS)? (If No, skip to question 3) 0 Yes O No Please rate Me effectiveness of your agency's MMS In managing your maintenance program? Very Ineffective 1 _ 7 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 3. Does your agency have performance standards for all maintenance activities? If No, what percentage of your maintenance activities do have performance stander s?_ SO 4. Does your agency have Level of Service (LOS) criteria for each of these performance standards? 5. Does your agency have a LOS rating system? (if No, skip to question 20) Does Me LOS raking system measure Me total system condition (i.e., network-level maintenances? _ 7. Does Me LOS rating system measure only work accomplishments?O Yes C] No Very Effective 10 O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No O Yes O No S. How frequently are Me LOS ratings made? 9. Who performs the LOS ratings? 10. O 6 months Olyear O 2 years O Over (specify) What was He basis for He development of He LOS criteria? O In-house O Telephone surveys O Public meetings O Over (specify) NCEIRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance Surrey B-21

~- June 22, 1995 Pace 2 11. 12. At which of He Free levels of maintenance are He ratings done (mark all that are appropriate)? O Activity O Project O Network Is a Quality Control (QC) process done to ensure He accuracy of He LOS ratings? (if No, skip to question 15) Who performs He QC checks? 14. How often are QC checks performed? O Yes O No O Daily O Weekly O Monthly O Yearly O Other (specify) 15. Please rate He effectiveness of your agency's LOS criteria to assist in managing maintenance operations. Very Ineffective 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 16. Does your agency perform a separate LOS rating for groups of activities? 17. Verv Effec'tive 8 9 10 Please check (or specify) which groups of activities are rated? O Pavement O Bridges O Traffic Services O Roadside O Vegetation O Over (specify) O Over (specify) 18. Does your agency have separate management systems for He following? O Pavement O Bridges O Safety O Congestion O Yes O No NCEIRP 1~12 Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance Survey B-22

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

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

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

- 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 ~ -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Highway Maintenance Quality Assurance: Final Report Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
  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!