Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
FY 2011 PMIS Scores. CST DivisionDE/DD/OD/RD MeetingAugust 16-18, 2011. Condition Score Includes. Distress(What you see...) Such as cracks, ruts, patches, potholes Ride (What you feel...) Such as bumps and dips. Ride Quality is adjusted for ADT and Speed Limit - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
FY 2011 PMIS Scores
CST Division DE/DD/OD/RD Meeting August 16-18, 2011
Condition Score Includes...Condition Score Includes...
●Distress (What you see...)Such as cracks, ruts, patches, potholes
●Ride (What you feel...)Such as bumps and dips
Ride Quality is adjusted for ADT and Speed LimitHigh-traffic and high-speed routes get more penalty for marginal ride
Less Penaltyfor Marginal Ride
More Penaltyfor Marginal Ride
100
90
70
50
35
1
Very Good (“A”)
Good (“B”)
Fair (“C”)
Poor (“D”)
Very Poor (“F”)
Commission Goal:Commission Goal:“Good or Better” is PMISCondition Score 70 or above
Condition Score CategoriesCondition Score Categories
Percentage of Lane MilesPercentage of Lane Milesin “Good” or Better Conditionin “Good” or Better Condition
Slight Drop in FY 2011:from 86.97 percent to 86.66 percent
Outstanding Accomplishment Outstanding Accomplishment of Continued Efforts Affecting of Continued Efforts Affecting
PMIS ScoresPMIS Scores
●Four-Year Pavement Management PlanCurrent Version, FY 2012-2015
●“Pennies to the Pavement”
●Ongoing Peer Reviews
●Continuing Cost Savings
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
ABL AMA ATL AUS BMT
Abilene Amarillo Atlanta Austin Beaumont
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
La
ne
Mil
es
in
“G
oo
d”
or
Be
tte
r C
on
dit
ion
Baseline FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better TrendsABL — BMTABL — BMT
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better TrendsBWD — DALBWD — DAL
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
BWD BRY CHS CRP DAL
Brownwood Bryan Childress Corpus Christi Dallas
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
La
ne
Mil
es
in
“G
oo
d”
or
Be
tte
r C
on
dit
ion
Baseline FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better TrendsELP — LBBELP — LBB
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
ELP FTW HOU LRD LBB
El Paso Fort Worth Houston Laredo Lubbock
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
La
ne
Mil
es
in
“G
oo
d”
or
Be
tte
r C
on
dit
ion
Baseline FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better TrendsLFK — SJTLFK — SJT
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
LFK ODA PAR PHR SJT
Lufkin Odessa Paris Pharr San Angelo
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
La
ne
Mil
es
in
“G
oo
d”
or
Be
tte
r C
on
dit
ion
Baseline FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better TrendsSAT — YKMSAT — YKM
45
50
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
SAT TYL WAC WFS YKM
San Antonio Tyler Waco Wichita Falls Yoakum
Pe
rce
nta
ge
of
La
ne
Mil
es
in
“G
oo
d”
or
Be
tte
r C
on
dit
ion
Baseline FY 2002 FY 2003 FY 2004 FY 2005 FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better Trendsby Highway Systemby Highway System
Percentage “Good” or Better TrendsPercentage “Good” or Better Trendsby Pavement Typeby Pavement Type
Possible Future ImpactsPossible Future ImpactsEagle Ford Shale Oil and Gas Eagle Ford Shale Oil and Gas
ExplorationExploration
Questions???Questions???
