AASHTO Domestic Scan Proposal Form



Domestic Scan Proposal Form

AASHTO is now soliciting proposals for a Calendar Year 2019 US Domestic Scan Program (NCHRP Panel 20-68A).

Selected scan topics will be investigated by one of three ways: (type 1) site visits to three to six locations for approximately a two week period or less, by webinar; (type 2) peer exchange; or (type 3) conducted by a group of eight to 12 transportation professionals with expertise in the selected topic area. Proposed topics should meet the following criteria:

0. Address an important and timely need for information by transportation agencies;

0. Are of interest to a broad national spectrum of people and agencies;

0. Are complex and also “hands-on,” meaning they lend themselves particularly well to exploration through on-site visits; and

0. Are sufficiently focused that the tour participants are able to investigate and understand key issues in the limited time available on the tour.

Before submitting your proposal it is highly recommended that you read What Makes a Good Scan Topic Proposal

This form is designed to collect the full length of your proposal. Sections requiring essays have unlimited space for you to use. Contact information has some limited text. Use your TAB( key to advance to the area where you need to complete information.

Proposals should be returned no later than SEPTEMBER 28, 2018.

IMPORTANT NOTE on How to save your document: LastNameFirst Initial, underscore_Organization Acronym _CY2019.

Saved Document Name Example: NgetheP_AASHTO_CY2019

If you have more than one, add a number after first initial: NgetheP1_AASHTO_CY2019

Domestic Scan Proposal Contact Information

|Name |Caleb B. Dobbins |Address |7 Hazen Drive, PO Box 483 Concord, NH 03302-0483 |

|Title |State Maintenance Engineer |E-mail |Caleb.Dobbins@dot. |

|Member Department |NHDOT |Telephone number |(603) 271-2693 |

|AASHTO Committee |Maintenance |Date of submission |9/27/2018 |

Title of Proposed Scan: Performance Measure Best Practices For Winter Maintenance

Problem Statement (What topic is to be examined? What drives the need for the scan? Why now?)

Performance measures for winter maintenance operations are crucial for the internal management of the activity as well as providing external transparency to the public and elected officials. There have been a number of studies conducted associated with winter maintenance performance measures, however, differences in both the actual measures themselves, as well as even how a similar measures are collected and the associated data then correlated and presented, has caused some variation and confusion. The recently completed Clear Roads Research Project 14-05 "Snow Removal Performance Metrics" demonstrated the varying levels of maturity that performance measurements have among snow and ice states, as well as the variety of the actual measures used to evaluate the performance of winter maintenance activities. NHCRP Project 14-34 Guide for Performance Measures in Snow and Ice Control Operations, which is scheduled to be published in early 2019, will provide further, more detailed, information on the various winter performance measures that can be utilized and the elements that go into each measure and the results that can then be achieved. It is crucial at this time, as states and other agencies are beginning to embrace winter performance measures to a much greater degree, that a domestic scan be performed to identify the successful measures and associated data needs that provide the required information, as well as identify those measures that were tried and discarded due to complications discovered by the agency.

Scan Scope (What specific subject areas are to be examined? Which cities and states might be visited? Which agencies/organizations (including specific departments or types of staff if applicable)?

This scan tour would visit states/agencies that have more mature winter performance measure programs and document the agency preferences regarding their data gathering methods and effectiveness. It would be determined how the measures may have developed over time and assess if the agency has plans for future improvement of the measure(s). A review of the Clear Roads 14-05 report indicated that the following locations should be considered due to the maturity of their program and the various measures used by the different states:

Utah- Uses road condition assessment during storm

Ohio- Uses regain to normal travel speed after storm

Minnesota- Uses time to visual bare lane after storm and customer satisfaction

Michigan- Uses time to regain speed after the storm and customer satisfaction

Iowa- Uses % of system to normal speed by specified time

Idaho- Uses % time a roadway section has a grip of less than .60 during the storm, and weighed against storm severity

City of West Des Moines- Uses time to achieve LOS after storm and grip/friction levels

This domestic scan could be held as a "reverse scan" (Type 3) and thus held at a central location bringing in subject matter experts that have experience in the development and implementation of their agency winter performance measures. Because of the complexity of the measures, the variations in how each measure could be implemented and why a specific measure was chosen over another, this topic is not suited for a simple synthesis due to not being able to provide depth of knowledge into those matters. It is important to identify why a measure(s) was chosen by an agency, which may require feedback from an administrative management level. In addition, it is critical to learn how difficult it is to actually collect the data for the measure and calculate/present the ultimate information that is produced, which would involve managers and possibly field staff involvement.

Sample amplifying questions could be:

Why did you agency implement your winter performance measures? (budgetary, stakeholder communications, internal management, etc)

What are the current performance measures being utilized?

How do you collect the data for the calculation of these measures? (traffic data, RWIS grip factor, customer surveys, crew/supervisor reports, crash data, etc)

Have these measures remained consistent or has your agency had to adjust/change what you have been measuring?

What have been the challenges that your agency has encountered employing these measures? (data collection, subjectivity of results, cost, ability to relate to inputs, etc)

How does your agency communicate the performance measure results and to whom?

Are/how are the employees of your agency held accountable for meeting set performance goals?

Is there a correlation between your measures and the budgetary funding for your agency?

Anticipated Scan Results (What key information is to be gained? What information is to be shared after the scan? Who would the audience be for this information?)

Provide information on real world applications that would detail the benefits and shortcomings of winter performance measures as actually used and experienced by the scan team member states. One clear result from the Clear Roads 14-05 report is that a considerable number of states are either in the process of considering to implement a winter performance measure (CO, KS, MA, NV) or considering revising the measure they are currently utilizing (CT, DE, IA, ME, MO, ND, PA, SD, VT, WA, WI, WY) . There are also a number of states that responded to the research that indicated that they are not utilizing any winter performance measures currently (AZ, IL, MT, TX, WV). This scan would identify the measures that are currently being utilized, what these measures are being used for (budgeting, communication to public/political, system assessment), how the data to calculate them is being collected, the benefits or shortfalls of the various metrics and provide general but valuable information sharing on the use and importance of winter performance measures. This scan tour would provide a critical comparison of theoretical measures identified in NCHRP 14-34 to actual measures being used by agencies in Clear Roads 14-05, the ability to collect the required data for a measure, the value and usefulness of the information that is collected and ultimately what information is utilized for budgeting and provided to decision makers and the public. One of the areas for future research identified in the Clear Roads 14-05 Project was "the examination of which agencies are collecting performance metric data, how agencies are utilizing the data to evaluate their program and make improvements is an important area of potential research". The audience for this scan tour results would be any agency involved in snow and ice operations that is interested in tracking the performance of their winter operations and being able to report that information in a consistent and useful manner. The ability to ultimately tie these performance measures into cost/budgeting operations would also be of great benefit to the agencies.

Benefits Expected (Including potential impacts on current technology or procedures)

Winter performance measures are used for a variety of reasons including simple information reporting to interested parties outside the agency, performance tracking of internal operations, budgeting excercises or even compliance with possible future government initiatives. Successful winter performance measures are used to provide data to meet agency objectives, as well as allow states, that may utilize consistent, similiar measures, to be compared to each other and can thus derive tangible evidence of how changes in operations and/or policy may cause an effect to the overall mobility and/or safety of the travelling public. Properly implemented measures may be used to provide data to the possible future MAP-21 initiatives by comparing snow& ice states to those that do not have this seasonal impact (i.e injury crashes may be different in NH vs Texas due to weather conditions). FHWA MAP-21 has several performance measures that have a direct relation to winter maintenance. The ability for an agency to accurately and consistently report performance measures as they relate to winter maintenance and the various MAP-21 measures will be crucial as this program matures. Some of these winter related measures include: NHS and Interstate Travel Time Reliability, Freight Reliability, Number of Fatal Crashes, Number of Serious Injury Crashes, Fatal/Serious Injury Crashes per VMT and Environmental Sustainability. These measures were only reemphasized by the Clear Roads 14-05 project where safety, mobility, economy, essential functions and the environment were currently the top reasons given by agencies for the implemetation of their performance metric programs. By identifying the measures that provide valuable information, with reasonable effort and reliable repeatability, and allow for cross state line comparisons, states will not only be able to evaluate their snow and ice program but possibly be able to gauge their performance and related LOS to other states with winter operations. The information from this scan could be used in conjuction with the information presented from the Domestic Scan Project 14-01 "Leading Management Practices in Determining Funding Levels for Maintenance and Preservation" by allowing states to quantify where their program is currently at and the funding implications associated with a change in that level of service. As an example in New Hampshire almost 50% of the annual maintenance budget is spent on winter maintenance activities, so any change in that program has considerable financial impact to the Department.

This scan is supported by AASHTO Snow and Ice Pooled Fund Cooperative Program (SICOP) as a part of the strategic initiative on Winter Performance Measures and the AASHTO Committee on Maintenance ranked the National/Regional Snow and Ice Performance Measure Implementation Workshops as the # 2 need in the Research Needs Statements at the 2018 annual meeting.

................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download