Skip to main content

Transportation Final 10-15-11 -   2.3 - Percent of targets met for state highway maintenance levels

 
Go Search
       
Transportation Final 10-15-11
1. Safety
2. Preservation
3. Mobility
4. Ferries
5. Stewardship
Action Plan
  
 
 

2.3 - Percent of targets met for state highway maintenance levels
What percentage of highway maintenance targets were achieved?

 
 
Data Notes
Data Source: WSDOT Maintenance Office.
Measure Definition:
Target Rationale:
Link to Agency Strategic Plan: Objective 2.1: Maintain highway and bridge systems to optimize their short and long term usefulness, and minimize life cycle cost.
Relevance:

Notes: (optional)

 

 

Targets are adjusted periodically based on funding levels and other maintenance priorities. In 2006, Paving & Crack Seal was merged into one activity, changing the total number of activities from 33 to 32. In 2009, in addition to targets being adjusted to better reflect funding levels, the Safety Patrol activity was removed from reporting, changing the total number of activities from 32 to 31.

Also Available
Action Plan: Yes
Extended Analysis: Yes

 Summary Analysis

The Maintenance Accountability Process (MAP) measures performance related to 31 maintenance activities, using metrics that include asset condition (Level of Service (LOS). Asset condition is measured through data collection from site surveys in many different forms including surveys conducted on over 2,200 random tenth-mile sections of highway throughout the state.

For the second year WSDOT achieved 65% – or 20 of 31 – MAP asset condition targets. After several years of a downward trend, this “leveling off ” is a result of increased funding – to catch up with the backlog of some maintenance activities – balanced against the increased maintenance workload related to a growing number of highway assets from the Nickel and TPA gas tax-funded projects. Thirteen activities achieved a slightly higher score than last year, eight were slightly lower, while 10 remained the same. Most changes were relatively small(from a C to C+, etc.). MAP targets for asset conditions were adjusted in 2009, to align performance expectations with the changed buying power of the maintenance budget.

Explanation of missed LOS targets for 2010

Keller Ferry Operations, which went from a consistent B over many years to a C- in 2010: the ferry was out of service for 43 days while the engine was overhauled and hull maintained.

Structural Bridge Repair completed many higher cost repairs in 2010 allowing for fewer total tasks to be completed. The LOS score missed its target but improved from an F in 2009 to a C- in 2010.

Data for Pavement Patching & Repair is collected over 12 to 18 months. Work performed in 2009-2010 will be reflected in 2011 scores.

Data collection for Pavement Striping Maintenance on high volume roads was conducted using a retroreflectometer-equipped van for the first time. The van captures many more measurements than previous years, impacting LOS scores.

Increased funding for Raised/Recessed Pavement Markers will not be reflected in LOS ratings until 2011 because the program’s implementation on the east side of the state was delayed.

Two of six regions missed the target for Rest Area Operations. 2010 scores are based on 46 surveys on 39 out of 44 rest areas; past scores were based on more surveys.

The number of deficient Culverts decreased from 18 to 15 out of 100 in 2010. The LOS score missed its 2010 target but improved slightly compared to 2009.

Shoulder Maintenance targets were missed by two of six regions; statewide the target (B-) was missed by a small number of points, attaining a C+ for 2010.

Noxious Weed Control, Nuisance Vegetation Control, and Landscape Maintenance. These relatively low priority area missed targets for 2010, in part because WSDOT has stepped up workforce education and awareness in these areas resulting in more accurate measurement of LOS.