Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 11
11 Exploratory Discussions · Eighty-two percent of respondents were using at least one decision support tool. Tools that analyze benefits/ Needs and requirements for analytical tools also were dis- costs and life-cycle costs were the most commonly used cussed with target users as part of the following forums (which (each was used by roughly 80 percent of all respon- included wide national representation of high-level managers dents). Eight of the thirty states (27 percent) used tools involved in asset management from state DOTs): to analyze tradeoffs; four (13 percent) used tools to ana- lyze quantitative investment. · At the National Highway Institute (NHI) Pilot Training Course on Asset Management (Lansing, Michigan, June 2002), participants were asked to identify the top two Survey on the Use of Bridge Management asset management decisions that they need better ana- Systems (BMSs) at State DOTs (3 ) lytical tools to address. · At the joint summer meeting of the AASHTO Task Force This paper, presented at the 8th International Bridge Man- on Asset Management and the TRB Committee on Asset agement Conference in Denver, Colorado (1999), documented Management held in conjunction with the meeting of the use of bridge management systems in 26 states and the TRB Planning and Management Committees in Prov- reported that, although BMSs were in place in most agencies, idence, Rhode Island (July 2002), informal discussions the systems had not yet been used to their full potential. on needs for analytical tools were held with attendees. However, a number of the respondents indicated the interest Results of these discussions are not detailed in this report and intention to expand the use of their BMS, and progress but were used to supplement the state interview findings has been made since the time of the survey. Highlights of the and reviews of tools in the next section. survey follow: · Fifteen of the twenty-six agencies employ a strategic 2.3 LITERATURE REVIEW planning process that includes a bridge component. Eleven of these agencies use quantitative goals in this The literature review was aimed at supplementing the sur- process, typically related to sufficiency ratings, health vey of 10 states conducted for this research. Thus, it focused index, or the number of deficient bridges. on fairly recent efforts (over the past 5 years) that have sur- · Fifteen of the respondents house their BMS in the bridge veyed groups of states on issues related to the use of analyt- division/department; six maintain the BMS in the design ical tools for asset management. Eight studies were identified department; and the remaining five operated the BMS and are summarized below. in their maintenance or operations divisions. Primary BMS users are bridge engineers or bridge maintenance 1999 AASHTO Survey of States on the Use engineers. Typically, a single individual is responsible of Management Systems and Decision Tools (1) for the BMS, and this individual typically has multiple other responsibilities and limited time to devote to BMS The survey was sent to 50 states, and 30 responses were activities. received (thus, there may have been some self-selection bias · About one-third of the respondents use their BMS as towards states that were using decision tools). The findings part of their bridge management business process. of the survey were presented at the Scottsdale Peer Exchange · Four of the twenty-six states use the BMS for State workshop on asset management. Highlights of these survey Transportation Improvement Program/Transportation findings follow: Improvement Program (STIP/TIP) development; most of the other agencies generate bridge programs based on · Nearly all of the respondents had a pavement and bridge sufficiency ratings or state-specific prioritization for- management system; 70 percent had a safety manage- mulas in conjunction with engineering judgment and ment system; 70 percent had a maintenance management inspector recommendations. system; and 57 percent had a congestion management · Fifteen respondents had a maintenance management sys- system. The number of states that reported having safety tem (MMS), but only two of these indicated that the and congestion management systems was substantially MMS information was compatible with the BMS and lower than that found in the 1997 General Accounting could be electronically linked to the BMS. Office survey (2) on state implementation of transpor- tation management systems (96 percent and 90 percent, respectively). Synthesis of Asset Management Practice (4 ) · The majority of respondents (80 percent) said they were able to assess the impacts of investments using manage- This synthesis examined current practice in asset manage- ment systems. Of this majority, 84 percent do so for pave- ment based on site visits to seven states and a literature review ments and 68 percent do so for bridges. covering international experience and private sector efforts.
OCR for page 12
12 Findings relevant to the design of analytical tools to support study recommended that future integrated asset man- asset management practice follow: agement systems be developed that Incorporate performance indicators and the capabil- ity to monitor performance, · Several states are moving from a project-centric view to Provide the ability to analyze maintenance options a more strategic approach to asset management, includ- based on life-cycle costs and develop maintenance pro- ing highway "tiering" systems or corridor designation grams based on best value for the money spent, and systems that go beyond functional classification and Provide the capability to value assets and depreciate provide a structure for performance monitoring, targets, this value with time or use. and investment strategy development. · Specific asset management frameworks are described · Experience in Washington and Colorado DOTs indicates for Australia, New Zealand, Canada, and the United the value of establishing program categories that are con- Kingdom--countries that have done extensive work in sistent with high-level policy objectives. A Colorado DOT the asset management area. effort to establish a customer-oriented, performance- based investment category structure was noted for its support for effective tradeoff analysis and resource allo- TRB Task Force on Transportation Asset cation. Investment categories were organized by policy Management Report of FY 2001 Activity objective as opposed to asset or project type: mobility, system quality, safety, strategic projects, and program This report compiled information on best practices in asset delivery. For example, pavement, bridge, tunnel, rest management from subcommittee members, a review of DOT area, and roadside maintenance activities are all grouped web sites, and information from a Volpe National Trans- within a system quality investment category. portation Systems Center research effort conducted in 1999 · States interviewed were making an effort to shift their in preparation for the Asset Management Peer Exchange. program philosophies to put greater emphasis on preven- The following best practices that were reported are most rel- tive preservation and lowest long-term cost, as opposed evant to development and use of analytical tools: to a reactive or "worst first" approach. Experience has shown that, although moving to a preventive approach · Use of management systems and related tools to sup- is justified economically and technically, the decision to port development of long-range strategic systems plans work on assets in good condition while those in poor (Michigan, Washington) or medium-term programs condition are left alone is politically difficult. Analytic (New York, Montana) based on performance or condi- studies conducted by Washington and Michigan DOT tion objectives; staff have been helpful in building support for these new · Establishment of data standards (Michigan Architecture approaches. Project); · Almost all of the states visited had plans to upgrade their · GIS/management system integration efforts in Arizona, asset management systems or support tools. Use of data Maryland, Michigan, Wyoming, and Minnesota; warehouses to consolidate asset inventory information · Coordinated interagency effort to establish a common GIS (and in some cases project information) from different framework (Michigan Geographic Framework Program); systems was a common theme, as was use of GIS plat- · Integrated program and project information system to forms to provide integrated views of information from handle both program development and implementation- disparate systems. related information (New York); and · Existing asset management systems are not typically · Meta-manager to analyze physical deterioration and geared for use by high-level managers to support resource safety, conduct congestion modeling, evaluate improve- allocation and program tradeoff analysis. The need for ment alternatives, assess costs, develop priorities, and this type of capability is likely to increase given new ini- define budget needs (Wisconsin). tiatives in asset management and requirements of Gov- ernment Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. An This report also commented on the limited progress made example of a successful executive information system to date in effectively using existing management systems (EIS) in Washington was cited, as was a prototype EIS because of the lack of organizational alignment around an developed as part of a study for the Transportation asset management approach: "Too often pavement manage- Association of Canada (TAC) (5). ment systems become the territory of pavement experts and · An Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Devel- bridge management systems, of bridge experts. The result is opment study (6) of 13 member countries noted that all often that the systems are not used by organizations to make respondents were using management systems for indi- real investment decisions. The wealth of information that vidual asset classes, but that no country had introduced they could contribute is lost and investments are too often an integrated system for their entire road network. The suboptimized."
OCR for page 13
13 State-of-the-Practice Review 2001 (7 ) · Generation and analysis of system performance data are major obstacles to implementation of outcome- NCHRP 8-36 Task 7, Development of a Multimodal Trade- based, user-oriented performance measures. The ana- offs Methodology, summarized the methods, tools, and pro- lytical methods and tools need to be refined, and these cedures used by state DOTs to address multimodal tradeoffs, tools need to be made more readily available to a range building on prior research efforts (including NCHRP Syn- of users. thesis of Highway Practice 286 ), and developed a frame- · Replacing an inherently complex, political process with work for multimodal tradeoffs. Key conclusions of interest one that is overly simplified or purely quantitative is not follow: desirable. While performance measurement can bring higher quality information to the decision process, it is · An overall structure is needed to link asset management most valuable as an input to the existing process and information systems, travel demand forecasting systems, should not replace those more deliberative, qualitative traffic simulation models, economic analysis models, processes. and various other related analytical tools in an inte- · A more flexible approach to data collection, analysis, grated manner to better address decision-making needs. and reporting procedures in support of performance- In many cases, these analytical capabilities exist in par- based planning would allow public planning agencies to allel but are not effectively integrated. If systems were evolve and respond more quickly to changing needs and better integrated and linked, tradeoff analyses would be expectations of their customers. less cumbersome, more accurate, and more likely to be · The tendency to use output and efficiency measures of pursued by DOT staff and decision-makers. the analytic system as opposed to outcome and effec- · Multimodal tradeoff analysis varies considerably from tiveness measures meaningful to users is in part due to state to state: several states have made significant limitations in data and analytical models, as well as the advances in multimodal planning and development of high initial and ongoing costs of applying and main- support tools, whereas other states have no involvement taining certain types of tools. The research found sev- in multimodal tradeoff decisions. eral cases where agencies wishing to adopt measures of · Many tools--such as management systems, travel fore- accessibility and mobility were constrained not only by casting tools, and benefit/cost techniques--can support the lack of current data but also by the inability to esti- multimodal tradeoff analysis, but these tools have not yet mate values for important data under hypothetical future been integrated in a manner that would support program- scenarios. level modal tradeoffs that reflect a broad range of pol- icy objectives. · Significant work has been accomplished in developing NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming specific impact analysis tools and piecing together infor- and Project Selection (1997) (10 ) mation for specific corridor studies, modal needs stud- ies, statewide plan development efforts, and so forth; This synthesis included a survey of 39 agencies on however, no state has developed a strategic, top-level, approaches to capital programming since the Intermodal Sur- ongoing view of major tradeoffs around core agency face Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA). Key objectives. findings related to use of analytical tools for asset manage- · State DOTs cited deficiencies in data and analytic tools ment follow: as the second most serious constraint to multimodal planning. · Most agencies have management systems in place and · Development of technical tools and data to support use them to track facility conditions. Pavement and multimodal planning should follow a dialog between bridge management systems were being used in half of customers and stakeholders (providers) of the trans- the states to help set reconstruction and rehabilitation portation system. project priorities. Use of these systems to help define program-level funding was increasing in prevalence. However, use of management systems for more strategic- Multimodal Transportation: Development of a Performance-Based level decision-making such as performance measure- Planning Process (1999) (9 ) ment and investment tradeoffs across programs or modes was not well developed. Phase I of NCHRP Project 8-32(2) conducted 20 case · Sufficiency rating and deficiency rating methods were studies and 8 workshops on the topic of how performance widely used for setting priorities. Benefit/cost techniques measurement had been incorporated into planning decision- were in use primarily for safety improvements. Only two making. The following key findings are relevant to analyti- surveyed states were not using any quantitative methods cal tools: for setting priorities.