looking beyond condition - cnam.cacnam.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/pediadocs/ross homeniuk -...

Looking Beyond Condition: Using right-of-way levels of service to drive roads and transportation investment in Winnipeg

Jonathan Foord, M. Sc., EITSignals Asset Engineer

City of Winnipeg, Public Works

Ross Homeniuk, MBA, P.Eng.Vice President, Strategic Consulting

CH2M HILL

• Winnipeg• Population 778,000 (2012)• Geographic Centre of NA

• Hub of major continental/ global transportation routes

• Lowest Property taxes amongst 11 major Canadian Cities (2014)

• 14 yr Property Tax Freeze ended in 2012

Background

2

• Transportation System• >6,500 ln‐km of Roadways

• Regional: >1,750 ln‐km• 83 Bridges

• 47 Water Crossings• 3 City Grade Separated Interchanges

• Traffic Management• 637 Signalized Intersections• 157 Pedestrian Corridors

• >400 km of Active Transportation Facilities

Background

3

• Challenges• Ageing infrastructure• Aggressive climate• Limited resources• Competing priorities• Reactive mindset

Background

4

• Initiated in 2011 to align and support AM across the City

• Deployed in three stages• Group 1: Water & Waste, Roads, Facilities• Group 2: Traffic, Parks, Transit, Fire, Parking• Group 3: Others (Future)

• Large focus on Investment Planning process• LOS > Needs > Solutions > Priorities > Plans

Corporate Asset Management Program

5

• Continuously delivering established levels of service…

• …at an acceptable level of risk…

• … while minimizing the costs of owning, operating and maintaining supporting assets…

Asset Management Definition

CostLOS

Risk

• Most municipalities and public utilities consider good customer service to be a given, but at what cost and with what effectiveness?

Level of Service

Customer Focus

Customer‐Centric

Customer Success

What does good service look like?

Have we defined Customer Service Levels? Are we using them to plan?

• Need to progress setting, measuring and balancing service level and cost trade‐offs

• Reliable service is a hallmark for most organizations, yet formally measuring LOS and testing trade‐offs is relatively new territory

Need to define what this means…

Asset Management Approach

• Asset Centric• Capital Maintenance based on age and condition• No assessment of impact of asset of customer service• May overstate need by limiting optimization and adoption of innovative non‐capital solutions

Traditional ‘Asset Stewardship’

Approach

• Customer Centric• Capital Maintenance based on risk to service delivery• Considers asset impact and consequences of failure• Considers the capacity of a system of assets and operators to deliver service

‘Serviceability’ Approach

• Making this shift requires better integration of “service” into planning and decision making

• Our approach to investment planning must be redefined in this context…

Shift in thinking

• Work to date tied to ‘Asset Stewardship’• Condition assessment• Needs prioritization• Deterioration and budget forecasting

• City’s focus is shifting to ‘Serviceability’ • LOS definition• Performance management• Budget justification • Trade‐off and willingness to pay

Prioritization vs. Justification

Investment Planning Framework

• Delivering Levels of Service (LOS) is fundamentally why a City is in business

Levels of Service

Corporate LOS “Why we’re here…”

Customer LOS “What the Customer gets…”

Technical LOS “What we do…”

• Need to ensure: Significant activities covered Number of Measures is manageable Measures are meaningful from an AM &

organizational perspective Data can be obtained as part of regular

management activities at reasonable cost LOS Measures should assist the unit in

achieving its corporate goals

Defining Levels of Service

• Defined as statements of desired performance outcome that are a priority:

• to their customers• to the environment• or required by Regulators/Legislation

• Should be: • within the control of the City • have performance data that can be collected and audited – without significant cost

Defining Levels of Service

Common DimensionsCategory Attribute Definition

Essential Regulatory Does the service meet legal requirements?

Safety Does the service present a risk to safety?

Quality Functionality Does the service meet our needs?

Reliability How dependable is the service?

Sustainability Does the service fit with future needs?

Accessibility Can the service be easily used?

Affordability Does the service offer value for money?

Image Shine Is the service appealing the public?

Reputation Does it make us look good?

A few methods available…• Direct Measurement

• Some assets provide a direct measurable service ‐ e.g. water supply

• Here we can use data to measure compliance with pre‐defined essential, quality, and image related service parameters

How do we measure Customer LOS?

A few methods available…• Quality Rating System

• Some assets provide intangible benefit tied to the customer’s experience

• Here we must evaluate the Quality of service based on multiple subjective attributes

• Can be represented as a 1 to 5 Quality of Service rating

How do we measure Customer LOS?

Quality Rating Framework

Customer LOS Rating

Category 1Attribute 1 Measure(s)

Attribute 2 Measure(s)

Category 2Attribute 3 Measure(s)

Attribute 4 Measure(s)

Category…Attribute… Measure(s)

Attribute… Measure(s)

Ratings based on Qualitative Feedback

Grade 1

Grade 2

Grade 3

Grade 4

Grade 5

None

Does not exist

Extensive work req’d

Very poor condition

Already dead

Very limited availability

Lacking

Does not meet std.

Needs major work

Poor Condition

Sick or dying

Some availability

Limited

Just meets standards

Minor repair req’d

Fair condition

Reasonably healthy

Generally availability

Adequate

Easily meets standard

Little work required

Good condition

Very healthy

Available during peak

Pristine

Exceeds standards

No work required

Very good condition

New or nearly new

Always available

Customer LOS Rating

Category 1Attribute 1

Attribute 2


Attribute 4

Category…Attribute…

Attribute…

Performance Management vs. Targets

Type 1

Type 2

Type 3

Type 4

Type 5

Type 6

3 3 4 5 5 5

3 4 4 4 5 5

3 3 3 4 4 4

2 2 2 3 3 4

5 5 4 3 3 4

2 2 3 4 4 5

Customer LOS Rating


Attribute 2


Attribute 4

Category…Attribute…

Attribute…

• Take off your ‘Asset Manager’ hat…• Consider a route you drive regularly…• Rate your journey from Very Poor to Very Good…

• What are the factors impacting your assessment?

• Think of your reasons in “non‐technical” terms

Quick Exercise…

ROW Service Model

Service Quality

Functionality

Reliability

Safety

Accessibility

ROW Service Model

Bridge Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Pavement Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Traffic Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Signals Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Signage Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Markings Attribute(s) Measures(s)

Service Quality

Functionality

Reliability

Safety

Accessibility

ROW Service AttributesService Area Functionality Reliability Safety Accessibility

Bridges • Component Condition• User Complaints

• Frequency/ duration of reactive shutdown

• Load Restriction

• Frequency/ duration of safety shutdown

• Compliance to safetystandards

Range of accommodationof traffic type/mode (Cars, Trucks, Buses, Bikes and Pedestrians)

Pavements • Pavement Condition• User Complaints

• Frequency/ duration of reactive shutdown

• Frequency/ duration of safety shutdown

Traffic• Applicability of traffic

management features• User Complaints

• Relative peak hour average travel speed

• Frequency/ severity of traffic related collisions

Signals• Timing Performance• Timing Currency• User Complaints

• Frequency of Major / Minor Disruption due to Signal Failure

• Frequency/ severity of traffic related collisions

• Frequency/ severity of pole incidents

Signage • Visibility / Condition • Response to reported sign faults

• Compliance with regulatory standards

• Frequency/ severity of sign related collisions

Markings • Visibility / Condition • Compliance with repainting standards

• Compliance with regulatory standards

Example Service Measures ‐ TrafficCriteria Attributes Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Functionality Applicability of Traffic Mgmt. Features

No access control. Continuous driveways and permitted left turns.

Limited access control. Some accommodation of turning vehicles.

Average level of access control and turning movement accommodation.

Limited access with turning movement accommodation.

Limited access at well spaced intervals with storage for turning movements.

Reliability Relative peak hour averagetravel speed

<40% of posted limit

>40% of posted limit




Safety Frequency/ severity of traffic related collisions

High collision zone ‐ High likelihood of major collisions resulting in severe damage, hospitalization or death.

High collision zone ‐ High likelihood of minor collisions resulting in moderate vehicle damage or minor injury.

Average likelihood of collisions resulting in damage or injury.

Below average likelihood of collisions resulting in damage or injury.

Safety enhanced zone ‐ Special features to reduce collisions resulting in damage or injury.

Example Service Measures ‐ SignalsCriteria Attributes Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5

Functionality Signal Timing Performance

>4 timing complaints per year

3 to 4 timing complaints per year



<1 timing complaint per year

Signal TimingCurrency

Last reviewed more than 7 years ago

Last reviewed less than 7 years ago



Last reviewed within the past year

Reliability Frequency of Major Disruption due to Traffic Signal Failure

>10 per year 5 to 10 per year 3 to 5 per year 2 to 3 per year <2 per year

Frequency of Minor Disruption due to Traffic Signal Failure

>4 per year and per intersection

4 per year and per intersection

3 per year and per intersection

1 or 2 per year and per intersection

<1 failure per year and per intersection

Safety Frequency of Traffic Signal Pole Collisions

>3 per 3 years 3 per 3 years 2 per 3 years 1 per 3 years <1 per 3 years

ROW Service CriteriaReg1

Reg2

Reg3

Ind1

Ind2

Col 1

Col2

Res1

4 4 3 4 3 3 2 2

4 3 3 3 2 2 2 2

4 4 3 3 2 3 2 2

4 3 3 3 2 3 2 2

4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2

Bridge

Pavement

Traffic

Signals

Signage

Service Quality

Markings

• Model tested for practicality and effectiveness on major City routes

• Portage Avenue• Pembina Highway• Ness Avenue

Pilot Overview

Pilot Overview

• Data drawn together from existing sources• Primarily a manual process, as information stored in many locations with different owners

• While information generally exists, it is often difficult to access or stored in different terms

• Significant streamlining possible if process adopted as normal report

Pilot Overview

• Routes broken in to sections based on configuration and then rated on each of the service measures

• Gaps between rating and section target identified and used to identify needs

Score

PembinaSouth City Limit ‐> La Salle Bridge

PembinaLa Salle Bridge ‐> Perimeter

PembinaPerimeter ‐> University

PembinaUniversity ‐>

Jubilee

PembinaJubilee ‐> Confusion corner

PortageMain ‐> Spence

PortageSpence ‐> Arlington

PortageArlington ‐> St James

PortageSt James ‐> Moray

PortageMoray ‐> Cavalier

PortageCavalier ‐> Perimeter

NessSt James ‐> Century

NessCentury ‐>

Ferry

NessFerry ‐> Moray

NessMoray ‐> Sturgeon

NessSturgeon ‐> Cavalier

C B B A A B B A A A B B B B B C

Bridge?B224 EB &

WBC311New B215 C300 B223 B178 C305 C324

General Condition of Bridge Deck 0 0 1 0 1 1 0 0

General Condition of Bridge Structure 0 0 0 0 1 2 1 0

Reliabil ityShutdown due to reactive maintenance 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0

Safety Shutdown due to safety issue 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

0% 0% 10% 0% 10% 20% 0% 10%0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 0.5

0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0.0 2.5General condition of the road surface

Surfacing Complaints

Reliabil ityShutdown due to reactive maintenance

Safety Shutdown due to safety issue

0% 20% 13% 9% 25% 7% 20% 30% 7% 0% 4% 35% 20% 14% 20% 60%0.0 1 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1 1.5 0.5 0 0 2 1 0.5 1 2

0.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 2.0 1.0 0.5 1.0 2.0Quality Access Management 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 1 1 1 0

Reliabil ityPeak Hour Average Travel Speed 0 0 0 1 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 0 0

Safety Collis ions 0 0 0 1 0 2 2 1 0 1 0 2 2 0 1 1

0% 0% 0% 27% 20% 20% 13% 7% 0% 0% 0% 33% 27% 7% 13% 0%0.0 0 0 1.5 1 1 0.5 0.5 0 0 0 1.5 1 0 0.5 0

0.0 0.0 0.0 1.5 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 1.0 0.0 1.5 1.5 0.0 0.5 0.5Signal Timings Performance (Divided by Number of intersections per l ink)

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0

Signal Timings Revis ion (Divided by Number of intersections per l ink)

3 3 3 4 4 3 3 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3

Frequency of Major Disruption due to Traffic Signal Failure (Divided by Number of intersections per l ink)

3 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0

Duration of Major Disruption due to Traffic Signal Failure (Divided by Number of intersections per l ink)

3 1 0 2 2 0 0 4 1 0 0 0 2 0 0 0

Frequency of Minor Disruption due to Traffic Signal Failure (Divided by Number of intersections per l ink)

2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Safety Frequency of Traffic Signal Poles Related Incidents

43% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 7% 3% 3% 0% 0% 10% 0% 0% 0%1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0

1.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.0Visual sign condition ‐ Major Regulatory 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

Visual sign condition ‐ Minor Regulatory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Visual sign condition ‐ Major Non‐Regulatory 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4

Visual sign condition ‐ Minor Non‐Regulatory 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3

Reliabil ityResponse to reported sign faults

2 2 2 3 3 2 2 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 4

Safety Compliance with standards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

13% 13% 13% 17% 17% 13% 13% 17% 17% 17% 13% 13% 13% 13% 13% 73%0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5

0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5Quality Visual Condition of Makings 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 3

Reliabil ityCompliance with repainting standards

0 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 1 1 0 1 1 1 1 4

SafetyCompliance with placement / visibil ity standards 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4

0% 7% 7% 13% 7% 0% 7% 13% 13% 13% 7% 13% 13% 13% 13% 73%0.0 0.5 0.5 1.5 1.0 0.0 0.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5

0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 2.5

AccessibilityAccommodation of all vehicle types and modes (Cars, Trucks, Buses, Bikes and Pedestrians)

0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Shine Overall Customer Impression

0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0% 0%0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Service Categogy

Sub‐Ca

tegory

Service Criteria Service Attribute

Bridge

Con

struction and

Mainten

enace

Bridges

Quality

Roadway Con

struction and

Mainten

ance

Pavemen

t

Quality

Global Attributes

Signals

Quality

Reliabil ity

Signage

Quality

Tran

sportatio

n

Traffic Flow

Markings

0 1 1 0 1 0 1 2 0 0 30 2 1 1 1

Pilot Outcomes – Pembina Hwy

Pilot Outcomes – Portage Ave

• Thoughts?

Conclusions

• Thoughts?

Lessons Learned

Questions? Jonathan Foord, M.Sc., EIT.City of Winnipeg, Public Works

[email protected]

Ross Homeniuk, MBA, P.Eng.CH2M HILL

[email protected]

looking beyond condition - cnam.cacnam.ca/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/pediadocs/ross homeniuk -...

Documents