docMelissa Batula
download 
Report Transcription
Melissa Batula
Pennsylvania PM PA Challenges/Impetus LPN Performance Measures – Joint Goals Bridge Performance Measures Pavement Performance Measures Highway Delivery Measures (PennDOT only) Melissa Batula, P.E. Highway Delivery Division Pennsylvania Department of Transpiration [email protected] 2 PA Challenges Aging Infrastructure Size - Large State Network 40,0000 miles roads 25,000 bridges (>8’) Large Local Network 80,000 miles roads 6,100 + local bridges (>20’) Climate – Freeze/Thaw Usage – Heavy Truck Large Customer Base (Transportation user) 3 Pennsylvania – Organization - Districts 11 District Offices + Central Office ERIE 1 WARREN McKEAN SUSQUEHANNA BRADFORD TIOGA POTTER CRAWFORD FOREST ELK VENANGO CAMERON MERCER CLARION 2 LYCOMING CLINTON JEFFERSON LAWRENCE 10 ARMSTRONG BEAVER LUZERNE COLUMBIA SNYDER NORTHUMBERLAND NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL MIFFLIN JUNIATA CAMBRIA BLAIR PERRY WESTMORELAND WASHINGTON 12 FAYETTE SOMERSET 9 MONROE CARBON ALLEGHENY GREENE PIKE UNION CENTRE INDIANA 11 3 LACKAWANNA MONTOUR CLEARFIELD BUTLER 4 WYOMING SULLIVAN DAUPHIN LEBANON HUNTINGDON 5 LEHIGH BERKS 6 BUCKS MONTGOMERY CUMBERLAND FULTON WAYNE YORK FRANKLIN ADAMS BEDFORD 4 8 LANCASTER CHESTER DELAWARE PHILADELPHIA Pennsylvania Organization – Planning Partners 23 Planning Partners (MPOs/RPOs) [67 Counties] ERIE 1 WARREN McKEAN SUSQUEHANNA BRADFORD TIOGA POTTER CRAWFORD FOREST ELK VENANGO CAMERON MERCER CLARION 2 LYCOMING CLINTON JEFFERSON LAWRENCE 10 ARMSTRONG BEAVER LUZERNE COLUMBIA SNYDER NORTHUMBERLAND NORTHAMPTON SCHUYLKILL MIFFLIN JUNIATA CAMBRIA BLAIR PERRY WESTMORELAND WASHINGTON 12 FAYETTE SOMERSET 9 MONROE CARBON ALLEGHENY GREENE PIKE UNION CENTRE INDIANA 11 3 LACKAWANNA MONTOUR CLEARFIELD BUTLER 4 WYOMING SULLIVAN DAUPHIN LEBANON HUNTINGDON 5 LEHIGH BERKS 6 BUCKS MONTGOMERY CUMBERLAND FULTON WAYNE ADAMS 5 8 YORK FRANKLIN BEDFORD LANCASTER CHESTER DELAWARE PHILADELPHIA PA Challenges REALITY: Needs of EXISTING Network far outweigh funds Existing Infrastructure is aging and rapidly deteriorating PennDOT and Planning Partners MUST work together to address needs of system How do we agree on what we need to do? 6 Annual Performance Measures • Asset Planning – LPN Initiative 2009 - Teams comprised of PennDOT and Planning Partners Established Goals and Methodology for Performance Measures Goal was to establish baseline for each region and drive improvement from that point Maintain Performance Levels once goals attained Identical Performance Reports prepared for each District, MPO, RPO, and statewide 7 LPN: Annual Performance Measures Department and Planning Organizations are jointly responsible to manage assets Setting goals for pavement and bridge through performance measures, we achieve a unified voice The LPN process as it relates to LPN provides all available data to everyone and provides a channel in which to communicate through LPN: Annual Performance Measures Performance Measures created for both Districts and MPO/RPO’s Created for Bridge and Pavements Produced Annually every spring using the previous years data (Started Spring 2011) LPN: Annual Performance Measures • Bridge Objectives: Program Highest Risk SD Bridges Reduce SD Backlog and reach established SD Goals Preservation Goals – Invest in timely preservation activities to keep non-SD bridges in Good Repair Maintain SD Levels (once established SD Goals have been reached) LPN: Annual Performance Measures The Bridge performance measures are broken out by Business plan network and include Reduction in % SD by Count and Deck Area Reducing the rate of Deterioration Annual Net SD Reduction And tracking SD prevention by expenditures and Count Bridge Performance Measure Annual Report 12 Bridge Performance Measure Annual Report Bridge – Performance Measures 13 Bridge Performance Measure Annual Report Bridge – Performance Measures 14 LPN: Annual Performance Measures Pavement Objectives Reduce the Miles of Poor IRI Reduce the Miles of “Out of Cycle” Pavement Reduce Surface Out of Cycle Reduce Reconstruction Out of Cycle Extend Pavement Life Maintain and preserve OPI for Good and Excellent pavements LPN: Annual Performance Measures The Pavement performance measures are broken out by Business plan network and include Reduce/ Maintain Poor IRI Maintain Good/Excellent OPI Maintain Surface Out of Cycle, Fair and Poor OPI Maintain Pavement past 40 years old on NHS in Poor OPI LPN: Annual Performance Measures #1 – Focuses on System Preservation - Shares information on existing system #2 – Shared Goals – Planning Partners and PennDOT #3 – Influence project selection for selection of projects which will demonstrate performance towards goals #4 – GIS tools in LPN System support selection of projects to drive performance Design Project Delivery Measures 2014 Scheduled Program Project Delivery Performance Bid On-time and Within Estimate Percent On-Time Percent Within Estimate Number of Projects 100% 250 222 221 80% 70% 200 93% 95% 91% 60% 58% 50% 40% 150 99% 52% 48% 48% 100 86 30% 20% 50 44 10% 0% 2013 Q2 Percent On-Time Goal: 90% As of 4/2/2014 2013 Q3 2013 Q4 2014 Q1 0 Percent Within Estimate Goal: 50% Number of Contracts 90% % Bid On-time / Within Budget Design Project Delivery Performance Definitions: Percent On-time Bid within 30 days of the committed let date. Percent within Estimate - Bid amount within +/10% of the engineer's estimate. Goals: PennDOT's goal for on-time project delivery is 90%. PennDOT's goal for bid within +/- 10% of the estimate is 50%. Highway Delivery Measures – On –time - Actual Delivery to Committed Delivery - by year, by District, Statewide 19 Highway Delivery Measures – On Budget - Low Bid vs. Final Estimate - by year, by District, Statewide 20 Construction Project Delivery Measures Program Constructed On-Time and Within Bid Amount Construction Project Delivery Performance Goals: Final Construction Costs within 103% of the original bid amount. On-time Completion – 80% of contracts by the contract completion date. Highlights of the Scheduled Program Contracts: PennDOT completed 718 scheduled projects for the last 4 Quarters. The average cost overrun was 4.32% for programmed projects Cost w/in 103% of Bid Amount 100% 96% 90% 94% On-Time 96% 91% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 72% 66% 65% 55% 20% 10% 0% 2013-Q2 2013-Q3 2013-Q4 2014-Q1 Wrap-up – Collaborative Approach to drive change – Delivery Important (deliver on expectations) – Doesn’t end at design – construction measures are “lagging” design measures - Check back with original program – how are we doing with controlling creep?
