Communicating Highway Maintenance Budget Needs to

Elected Officials

Lessons Learned in Arizona

Lonnie Hendrix, PEAsst State Maintenance Engineer

Budget Process in Arizona

Maintain only state highway system Needs identified/prioritized internally

– No connection to new construction– Base + new features

Forwarded to Gov and legislature Appropriated as ‘lump sum” ~ $105M Transportation Board controls construction

~ $800M

Budget Plumbing

Past Budget Request Practices

Reams from MMS Spreadsheets and charts Just asking for $$ to maintain the new stuff No matter how extensive and compelling the

justification….it was never enough

Early Experience with LOS

Built modest system in 1998 after NCHRP Measured in nine categories Public phone survey Annual report to legislature But, still no correlation with budget

What They Say…..

“Looks OK to me”

“Reallocate from somewhere else”

“Do it anyway”

“So what”

Obstacles to Communication

Poor understanding of “maintenance” Lack of personal contact and constraints to

talking directly Short-term thinking of legislators “Growth state” mentality Media’s negative focus Adversarial history, lack of trust Lack of good measurements

– Difficult to answer “what if” questions

So…What Are We Doing About It?

Enhancing LOS with legislative buy-in– Shift in responsibility for budget

Increasing management support Using more PR tools Showing a better attitude Increasing education with more direct contact

Performance Based Budgeting?

Can 25 checkmarks on a clipboard determine a $105 million budget?

Date ____________________

Org Number _________ Route __________ Beginning Milepost ____________ Total # of Lanes ________

Condition Indicator N/A Ratings

PAVEMENTS AND SHOULDERS

1. Asphalt: number of unfilled potholes--all lanes If < 20, enter count:

If 20 or more, simply check box at right

2. Percent asphalt surface with open cracks Alligator cracking Other cracking, less than ¼” wide Other cracking, greater than ¼” wide

0-5% 0-5% 0-5%

5-10% 5-10% 5-10%

10-30% 10-30% 10-30%

30-50% 30-50% 30-50%

>50% >50% >50%

3. Percent asphalt surface with bleeding 0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

4. Percent asphalt surface with raveling 0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

5. PCC: number of spalls and faulted or settled joints—all lanes

If < 20, enter count:

If 20 or more, simply check box at right

6. Unpaved roadway: Overall rideability Excellent V. Good Good Fair Poor

7. Unpaved roadway: Percent area requiring reconditioning

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

8. Unpaved shoulder: Overall drivability Excellent V. Good Good Fair Poor

9. Unpaved shoulder: Percent length with erosion or edge drop-off > 2”

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

ROADSIDE, SAFETY AND DRAINAGE

10. Percent length of guardrail with broken or bent rails; broken or bent posts; severe corrosion; or loose or broken bolts

0-5% 5-10% 10-15% 15-25% >25%

11. Are any guardrail or barrier end treatments missing or damaged?

No Yes

12. Do any crash attenuator elements need repair? No Yes

13. Is sweeping of roadway pavement needed? No Yes

14. Litter (inspect at driving speed) No litter Few pieces

Small patches

Unsight-ly areas

> half the area

15. Percent of fence panels missing, in need of repair or replacement

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

16. Percent length of lined channels with debris or vegetation or in need of repair

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

17. Percent length of unpaved ditches with rock or mud slides, debris, or vegetation

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

18. Pipe openings, down drains, other drainage features silted to >25% depth

0-5% 5-10% 10-30% 30-50% >50%

DRAFT May 20, 2004

Do you know what this man is doing?

Questions?