Compass 2004 Year in Review & Challenges Ahead Alison S. Lebwohl Compass Advisory Team Stevens...

Compass 2004Year in Review & Challenges Ahead

Alison S. Lebwohl

Compass Advisory Team

Stevens Point

March 30, 2004

Looking back & forwardOverview

• The program has grown.• We met our goals.• Area supervisors will set targets in spring.• We will report on signs & winter this year.• We will take Compass to Secretary’s office

in summer.• Wisconsin will host national MQA peer

exchange in fall.

ChallengesOverview

• Model for going from field data to feature scores and element grades still not as robust as I would like.

• Resources remain tight.

• Program was given a broad charge.

• Pressure to take this to the legislature.

Possible solutionsOverview

• Focus on critical tasks.

• Simplify where possible.

• Look for tasks and services to table or abandon.

Looking back Looking forward

2003 program growthCompass measures are expanding dramatically.

2002 2003

Number of elements 4 6

Percent of ops budget 27% 82%

Condition data yes yes

Cost data -- yes

Data source sample sample & inventory

Goals accomplished in 2003We accomplished all goals set by the Advisory Team.

Continued the field review of 4 elements. Expanded to cover pavement. Began expanding to cover winter. Began including cost data. Outsourced data analysis and reporting. Began dialogue on targets and alternative

service levels.

2003 additional achievementsWe made strides toward asset management.

• Incorporated highway operations into WisDOT-wide survey. Results this spring.

• Acquired funding for a national peer exchange of MQA programs to be held here in Wisconsin, October 11-13.

• Successfully submitted $100K research proposal on information design to AASHTO.

Winter measuresReports will be issued this summer.

• Weather related crashes per VMT.

• Salt use per lane mile.

• Percent of fleet calibrated in the fall.

• Cost per lane mile vs. severity index.

• Budgeted $ vs. LOS $ vs. actual $.

• Public satisfaction level.

• Time to clear/wet pavement.

SignsWe’ll use the sign inventory database from now on.

• Use age as a measure. • Report out by district, state and county.• Show entire inventory, broken down by

years of remaining service life.• Note problems with data and assumptions.

– Not all districts have complete reports.– Signs deteriorate at different rates depending on

direction and location.

Communication

• Presentation to the district directors in May.

• IDIA (the modal administrators) in June.

• The Secretary’s office after that.

2004 legislative preparationWe are on course to go to the legislature in 2005.

• May: District area assistants will set targets.– Targets will be approved by SPO Managers.– This is a first step to going to the legislature.

• Summer: a proposed project to gather pictures.

Challenges

ChallengesReprise

• Model for going from field data to feature scores and element grades still not as robust as I would like.

• Resources remain tight.

• Program was given a broad charge.

• Pressure to take this to the legislature.

Possible solutions

Focus on critical tasks• Move reporting in-house. Have UW team

focus on analysis.– Ensures our ability to generate reports.– Allows us to better understand differences

among districts and across time; margins of error in measures.

• Get ready to go the legislature.– Improve the model.– Create pictures and stories.– Select targets, alternatives & price tags.

Rate segments pass/failMake reporting more intuitive without changing field review.

• Features scores become 0-100% passing.

• Eliminates extra step and confusion of mapping to Compass scores.

• Field review remains the same.

Use only featuresFocus on improving and reporting existing measures.

• Removal of element grading.

• e.g., Washington state, New York state

• Eliminates need to do complicated modeling of relationship between feature and element.

• Still allows us to tell the story of the relationship between feature and element.

Sample at the district levelIncrease analytic power, but preserve county reporting.

• Allows us to continue reporting at the county level.

• Eliminates a cumbersome step in reporting.

• Allows more power in analysis.

Simplify data entry & reportingSave time; decrease errors.

• Move data entry closer to data gathering by putting it on laptops.

• Discontinue online flexible reporting.

• Provide one standardized report.

Simplify formattingSpend bulk of time on analysis rather than formatting.

• Agree on all report formats beforehand, so rework is minimized.

• Hold off on developing new report formats.– Use current formats for old reports.– Put new reports primarily in tables, rather than

charts.

• Revisit formatting and reporting tool after AASHTO study and MQA peer exchange.

Questions?