Corridor Profile Studies: Measuring Performance for Rural Transportation

1. Corridor Profile Studies Measuring Performance Rural Transportation Summit – January 14, 2015 AASHTO SCOPLinking Planning to ProgrammingP2P Link

2. Agenda Overview and Purpose of the Corridor Profile Studies Corridor Profile Study Process Performance Measurement Lessons Learned

3. Overview of Corridor Profile Studies • Performance-based analysis that identifies strategic improvements • Eleven strategic corridors • Round 1 (I-17, I-19, I-40 West): Solution evaluation • Round 2 (I-8, I-40 East, SR 95): Performance evaluation • Round 3 (5 corridors in blue): Kickoff and Literature Review • Recommendations will integrate with existing project nomination process

4. Planning to Programming (P2P)

5. Study Expectations • Develop performance-based solutions that can be evaluated through the statewide P2P programming process • Address needs in strategic locations that provide the most value for the investment • Develop tools that ADOT can use to track corridor performance and levels of need over time • Provide initial statewide comparison of need across all 11 strategic corridors

6. Corridor Profile Study Process • Study process leads to project prioritization for each corridor • Methodology and approach developed in Rounds 1 and 2 • Integrates with existing project nomination process

7. Task 1 - Literature Review • Previous findings and recommendations • Prior recommendations not implemented yet • Overall corridor plan or vision

8. Task 2 - Performance Evaluation • Assess corridor health through a performance-based system • Apply uniformly across multiple corridors • Allow comparison of corridors • Identify locations that warrant further investigation • Three-level scale • Good/Above Average • Fair/Average • Poor/Below Average

9. Task 2 - Performance Evaluation

10. Task 2 - Performance Evaluation

11. Task 3 - Corridor Goals and Objectives • Describe corridor context • Major functions of corridor • Current and future issues on corridor • Relate statewide goals to performance system • Identify which performance areas are “Emphasis Areas” • Establish performance objectives • Need = when measured performance does not meet performance objectives

12. Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment • Assess corridor needs based on performance evaluation • Apply uniformly across multiple corridors • Allow comparison of corridors • Identify locations that warrant strategic investment

13. Task 4 - Corridor Needs Assessment

14. Task 5 - Candidate Solution Sets • Do not recreate or replace existing programming • May include programs or initiatives for further study • Address elevated levels of need • Focus on modernization • Address overlapping needs • Reduce costly repetitive maintenance • Extend operational life of system • Leverage programmed projects • Provide measurable benefit

15. Tasks 6 and 7 - Candidate Solution Evaluation Process

16. Task 8 – Project Prioritization • Solutions/projects prioritized within each corridor • Three prioritized categories • Preservation • Modernization • Expansion • Nominations for consideration in statewide P2P process • Recommendations will likely require future project scoping • Integrates with existing project nomination and scoping process

17. Corridor Profile Studies Status Round 1 (I-17, I-19, I-40 West) • Project evaluation phase • Develop prioritized project list by early 2016 Round 2 (I-8, I-40 East, SR 95) • Performance evaluation phase • Developing corridor goals and objectives • Prioritized project list in Spring 2016 Round 3 (5 current corridors) • Project kickoff phase • Literature review • Prioritized project list in Fall 2016

18. Lessons Learned – Educating on the “Why” • Need to educate on benefits of performance measures • Identify state of system and areas for improvement • Meet requirements (e.g., federal mandates) • Help prioritize improvements • Communication tool to show progress • Benefit of improvements linked to degree of change in measures • Bring transparency and objectivity to decision-making process Image source: www.clipartpanda.com

19. Lessons Learned – Performance Framework • Builds on existing measures and processes • Provides outline and guidance • Overarching goals and objectives • Identifies what to measure • Defines how to measure performance • Defines what constitutes deficiencies • Needs input from technical staff • Needs input from decision-makers • Needs transparent, defensible, and reproducible process Image source: www.gascandinavian.com

20. Lessons Learned – Data Integrity • System-wide coverage • Updated regularly and available • Garbage in = Garbage out. . .watch for gaps and abnormalities • Discuss data limitations with technical staff • Develop instructions to process data consistently Image source: www.bicorner.com

21. Lessons Learned – Presentation of Findings • Intended audience – tools and level of detail • Maps – spatial context but can be hard to see • Tables – comparison of features but can be bulky • Charts – shows trends but only for a few items • Other graphics – format familiar to readers (e.g., dashboard) but can be difficult to generate Image source: www.bitrebels.com

22. Lessons Learned – Process Refinement • “Pilot” corridors or measures help refine process • Start with less complex scenarios • Include a few more complicated scenarios to highlight process limitations • Have multiple staff working on different components of process but collaborating to vet process Image source: www.nasa.gov

23. Lessons Learned – Stakeholder Involvement • Right number of stakeholders • Multiple levels of stakeholder review • Staff reviews help “truth” preliminary results • May be all internal staff or could involve outside entities depending on what is being measured • Review of best practices can provide guidance Image source: wiki.mdgfund.net

24. Questions??