PERFORMANCE-BASED APPROACH
Under the IIJA, the transportation planning process must provide for the establishment and use of a performance-based approach to decision making. Performance-based planning applies performance management principles to transportation system policy and investment decisions. It is a system-level, data-driven process that identifies strategies and investments. Using specific performance measures and agreeing upon desired targets provides an objective, quantified basis for policies and investments, and improves accountability in communicating with the public.
States and MPOs must set specific performance target and develop plans designed to help reach those targets. The intent is to move toward an objectively accountable system that reflects the effectiveness of investment decisions, allowing federal funding recipients to improve decision-making.
SYSTEM PERFORMANCE
Performance measures are used to track and maximize the benefits of the transportation planning decisions, meeting national and regional goals, and link infrastructure investments to the LRTP, TIP, and Congestion Management Process (CMP). Federal regulation requires DOTs and MPOs to establish new targets based on updated data typically every four years or during a mid-cycle update. CDOT has recently updated some of their Performance Measures.
As the region’s designated MPO, PPACG is required to update targets. MPOs can either adopt targets set by the state DOT, or set regional targets based on data only within our MPO boundary. The targets that have been approved by PPACG committees are those set by the state:
- Pavement condition
- Bridge Condition
- System Reliability
- Safety Targets
There are two other targets, congestion mitigation and traffic congestion, that are not required of PPACG because PPACG is in attainment for air quality.
Each performance measure has a corresponding baseline and target. Baselines are important to establish how much progress is being made on a performance target. Baselines are set when the performance measures and targets are first set. The status is the most recent data the PPACG has and is used to evaluate progress on target achievement. The federal performance measure targets are to be achieved by the end of the corresponding performance period, and the regional performance measures are meant to be achieved by 2050. PPACG progress on each performance measure is categorized by one of the following three ratings:
- On Track: The PPACG region is on track to meet the 2023 target set by the state. This is signified by a green check.
- Making Progress: The PPACG region is making progress and trending toward the 2023 target. This is signified by a yellow minus symbol.
- Off Track: The PPACG region is trending in the wrong direction or is not close to achieving the 2023 target. This is signified by a red x symbol.
FHWA assesses targets to determine if states either met targets established or made significant progress. A state is determined to have met or made significant progress toward meeting their safety performance targets when at least four out of the five targets are either met or the actual outcome for the target is better than the baseline performance, which is the fiveyear rolling average. As provided by statute, states that did not meet the targets or make significant progress will be required to submit a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) Implementation Plan and use their funding only for those projects where targets have not been met.
Pavement Condition
Pavement condition is measured using data submitted to the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS), specifically the International Roughness Index (IRI), cracking percent, faulting, and rutting. The IRI is a system used to evaluate and manage the road system, while cracking percent, faulting, and rutting address various aspects of pavement condition. FHWA set certain metric thresholds in the final rule, defining good, fair, and poor conditions for each of these measurements. Table 1 shows the metric categories for good, fair, and poor conditions used as part of this performance measure. The graphics on the following page depict these goals.
The pavement conditions in the Pikes Peak region are illustrated in Figure 3.
There are four targets related to pavement condition, which are described on the following pages. These targets were set by CDOT for the state as a whole and are not specific to the PPACG area. The PPACG Board of Directors approved supporting these targets in 2023. These targets will be re-evaluated in early 2025.
Table 1: Pavement Condition Metric Thresholds
| Category | Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| IRI (inches/mile) | < 95 | 95-170 | > 170 |
| Rutting (inches) | < 0.20 | 0.20-0.40 | > 0.40 |
| Faulting (inches) | < 0.10 | 0.10-0.15 | > 0.15 |
| Cracking (%) | < 5 | 5-20 (asphalt) 5-15 (JCP) 5-10 (CRCP) | > 20 (asphalt) 0.15 (JCP) > 10 (CRCP) |
Figure 3: Pavement Conditions
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percentage of interstate system (NHS) pavement in good condition are greater than or equal to 45% and 47%, respectively. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in good condition was 42.8% statewide and 56.55% in the PPACG area.
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percentage of interstate system pavement in poor condition are less than or equal to 4% and 3.5%, respectively. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in poor condition was 3.2% statewide and 1.01% in the PPACG area.
Meanwhile, the 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percentage of non-interstate system pavement in good condition are 42% and 43%, respectively. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in good condition was 53.4% statewide but only 30.75% in the PPACG area.
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percentage of non-interstate system pavement in poor condition are 3.5% for each target year. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in poor condition was 1.7% statewide, but 4.74% in the PPACG area.
Figures 4-7 depict the statewide and PPACG area trends for 2017 through 2022 compared with these targets.
Figure 4: Percentage of Interstate System Pavement in Good Condition
Figure 5: Percentage of Interstate System Pavement in Poor Condition
Figure 6: Percentage of Non-interstate System Pavement in Good Condition
Figure 7: Percentage of Non-interstate System Pavement in Poor Condition
Bridge Condition
Bridge condition is measured using data reported to the National Bridge Inventory (NBI). The NBI is a rating scale from zero to nine, rated good, fair, and poor. Deck, superstructure, and culvert condition are graded and FHWA set the following thresholds. Table X shows the thresholds for Bridge Condition Metrics.
The bridge conditions in the Pikes Peak region are illustrated in Figure 9.
There are two targets related to bridge condition. These targets were set by CDOT for the state as a whole and are not specific to the PPACG area. The PPACG Board of Directors approved supporting these targets in 2023. These targets will be reevaluated in early 2025.
The 2023 and 2025 statewide target for the percentage of NHS bridges in good condition are 36% for each target year. Meanwhile in 2022, the percentage of bridges in good condition was 38.22% statewide and 39.52% in the PPACG area.
The 2023 and 2025 targets for the percentage of NHS bridges in poor condition was 4% for each target year. In 2022, 3.43% of bridges were in poor condition statewide and 2.15% of bridges in the PPACG area were in poor condition.
Figures 8 and 9 depict the statewide and PPACG area trends for 2017 through 2022 compared with these targets.
Table 2: Bridge Condition Metric Thresholds
| Category | Good | Fair | Poor |
|---|---|---|---|
| Deck | ≥ 7 | 5 or 6 | ≤ 4 |
| Superstructure | ≥ 7 | 5 or 6 | ≤ 4 |
| Substructure | ≥ 7 | 5 or 6 | ≤ 4 |
| Culvert | ≥ 7 | 5 or 6 | ≤ 4 |
Figure 8: Percentage of NHS Bridges, by Deck Area, in Good Condition
Figure 9: Bridge Conditions
Figure 10: Percentage of NHS Bridges, by Deck Area, in Poor Condition
System Reliability
Travel time reliability indexing (TTRI) is a multi-stepped process to determine the ratio of peak travel periods to normal travel periods. Travel time reliability is a measure of the consistency, timeliness, predictability, and dependability of a trip. Travel time reliability is a comparison, expressed as a ratio, of the 80th percentile travel time of a reporting segment to the “normal” (50th percentile) travel time of a reporting segment occurring throughout a full calendar year.
Travel time is reported using the National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) and is collected in 15-minute segments during all time periods between 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m. local time. The 80th Percentile Travel Time represents congested periods, while the 50th Percentile Travel Time represents the average travel time. “Reliable” is considering a TTRI below 1.5.
The system performance targets were set by CDOT for the state as a whole and are not specific to the PPACG area. The PPACG Board of Directors approved supporting these targets in 2023. These targets will be re-evaluated in early 2025.
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percent of person-miles traveled on the interstate system that are reliable are 81% and 79%, respectively. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in good condition was 84.3% statewide and 93.8% in the PPACG area.
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for the percent of person-miles traveled on the non-interstate system that are reliable are 93% and 94%, respectively. In 2022, percentage of interstate system pavement in good condition was 95% statewide and 94.3% in the PPACG area.
Figures 11 and 12 depict the statewide and PPACG area trends for 2017-2022 as well as the targets.
Figure 11: Percent of Person-miles Traveled on the Interstate System that are Reliable
Figure 12: Percent of Person-miles Traveled on the Non-interstate System that are Reliable
TRUCK TRAVEL TIME RELIABILITY
Freight movement is assessed by the Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index. The TTTR ratio is generated by dividing the 95th percentile time by the normal time (50th percentile) for each segment. The TTTR is calculated for each of the following five time periods for each segment of Interstate:
- Morning peak Monday through Friday (6-10 a.m.)
- Midday Monday through Friday (10 a.m.-4 p.m.)
- Afternoon peak Monday through Friday (4-8 p.m.)
- Weekends (6 a.m.-8 p.m.)
- Overnight for all days (8 p.m.- 6 a.m.)
The maximum TTTR for each segment of Interstate is multiplied by the length of the segment, then the sum of all length-weighted segments is divided by the total length of Interstate will generate the TTTR Index.
The 2023 and 2025 state targets for TTTR Index are 1.46 for both target years. In 2022, the TTTR Index was 1.42 statewide and 1.47 in the PPACG area. Figure 13 depicts the statewide and PPACG area trends for 2017-2022 as well as the targets.
Figure 13: TTTR Index
Safety
There are five performance measures in the Highway Safety category related to the number of crashes, both resulting in fatal and/or serious injury, on the entire roadway network within the PPACG boundary. Data is collected from the Colorado Department of Revenue, refined by CDOT, and analyzed by PPACG staff. Targets for the Highway Safety category are supported annually by the PPACG Board of Directors. The targets in this section were supported by the Board in 2024 and will be re-evaluated in early 2025.
The goal for PPACG and the State of Colorado regarding fatalities and injuries is to have none. Realistically that is not likely to happen, therefore targets are set to measure progress. Where targets are not met, funding received must be used towards those areas that need improvement. The safety targets in this document were set by CDOT in November
The statewide targets were adopted by the PPACG BOD in January 2024. Chapter 5 provides additional detail regarding transportation safety in the Pikes Peak region as well as steps being taken to address safety.
FATAL CRASHES
Figure 12 shows the number of fatal crashes and fatalities in Colorado, along with PPACG numbers from 2017-2023. 2020 had an increase in fatalities and fatal crashes following decreases in 2018 and 2019. Between 2019 and 2022, the number of traffic fatalities in Colorado increased by 17%. The number of fatalities includes those crashes with more than one fatality.
Colorado did not meet its target and is headed in the wrong direction in relation to the number of fatalities related to motor
vehicle crashes.
Figure 14: Number of Fatalities
Dividing the number of motor vehicle fatalities by the number of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) considers changes in the population, fuel prices, driving habits, and distances driven. Fatalities per 100 million VMT can be compared over time and between different geographic areas. Figure 13 shows the rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT for Colorado. Colorado’s fatality rate increased sharply (21%) in 2020 after a decrease in 2019. However, Colorado’s fatality rate was slightly lower than the average fatality rate in the United States in 2020.
SERIOUS INJURIES
In this report, serious injury is defined as “evident incapacitating” on the crash report by the responding law enforcement officer. An incapacitating injury is a type of injury that prevents the person from walking, driving, or continuing the normal activities previously capable of performing prior to being injured. Figure 16 shows the number of serious injuries, while Figure 17 shows the rate if serious injuries per 100 million VMT.
Figure 15: Fatalities per 100 million VMT
Figure 16: Number of Serious Injuries
Figure 17: Serious Injuries per 100 million VMT
NON-MOTORIZED FATALITIES AND SERIOUS INJURIES
Non-motorized refers to bicyclists, pedestrians, and other active transportation modes. This measure combines both fatalities and serious injuries. Figure 16 shows the number of non-motorized fatalities and serious injuries.
NEXT STEPS
While this chapter includes the performance targets as adopted most recently by the PPACG Board of Directors, targets are in the process of being updated. In addition, Chapters 4 and 5 document existing conditions and planning considerations related to these targets specific to the Pikes Peak region.
Further the scoring system used to determine the projects included in this LRTP integrated all of these performance measure concepts to support moving the region toward the targets in future years.
Figure 18: Non-motorized Fatalities and Serious Injuries
