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
mbatula@pa.gov
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?