Click for next page ( 15


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 14
14 Although states were improving their ability to examine These interviews do not represent in-depth case studies and a wider range of solutions and modal tradeoffs, the survey may not be fully representative of activities or needs in the found significant barriers to multimodal programming. subject states; the views expressed may not represent the offi- These barriers included institutional, organizational, and cial opinion of the agencies. In virtually all of the interviews, funding constraints as well as the "continued need for opinions and perspectives among the different interviewees more effective technical tools and data to support multi- representing an individual state varied significantly--not only modal analysis within reasonable resource constraints." regarding the perceived needs for new tools, but also regard- The use of quantitative criteria for establishing goals and ing current asset management practice and use of existing measuring performance was increasing but was not as tools. Nevertheless, the objectives of the interviews were comprehensive or as widespread as might be expected. achieved--to provide a picture of the types of information needed to improve asset management decisions, the degree of receptivity to different types of new analytical tools, and State-of-the-Practice Survey on Statewide Multimodal Planning (1999, 2000) (11) the specific types of features desired. This survey was conducted by the Washington State Trans- portation Center for the Washington State DOT as part of a Current Use of Analytical Tools research effort to develop a multimodal tradeoff decision process. A survey was mailed to all state DOTs, and 38 states Current (as of 2002) use of analytical tools is summarized responded. The survey was updated in 2000 based on follow- in Table 3. Nearly all of the 10 states had pavement and bridge up calls to selected agencies (12). The authors summarize the management systems, and most used these systems (in vary- results of this survey by stating, "There are more state DOTs ing degrees) to support project prioritization and analyses of that are uninterested in developing a multimodal program the relationship between investment levels and system per- analysis tool than there are states that are interested." Spe- formance. Several states had congestion, safety, and/or main- cific conclusions of the survey follow: tenance management systems that were used for prioritization or investment analysis. One state (Maryland) was developing Many states lack interest in analyzing multimodal trade- a drainage management system. offs because dedicated funding is used to support specific Six of the ten states reported use of benefit/cost analysis program areas; therefore, there is no cross-modal compe- tools to evaluate some types of projects or strategies. Five of tition to provide the motivation for tradeoff analysis. the ten states have GIS-based tools for displaying and ana- For some states (e.g., Minnesota, Rhode Island), multi- lyzing the outputs of various asset-specific management sys- modal planning responsibility is primarily at the metro- tems in order to support the program development process. politan planning organization (MPO) level rather than Such systems are used by district staff to identify projects at the state DOT level. that reflect multiple types of needs (e.g., pavement and safety) Program tradeoffs, where they do occur, are made in a and, in some cases, analyze the predicted impacts of a set of subjective, ad hoc environment. projects on system performance. All of the states analyzed Only one state (New Jersey) reported that it currently life-cycle costs but typically only for large pavement proj- analyzes multimodal tradeoffs. A handful of states sur- ects, consistent with federal requirements. Two of the states veyed expressed interest in developing a multimodal were conducting or evaluating life-cycle cost analysis for tradeoff methodology. bridges. None of the states reported using analytical tools to eval- The two highest ranked impediments to implementing uate the impacts of alternative policies or standards for proj- multimodal planning activities were (1) inadequate depart- ect scope, timing, and design. None of the states had formal mental resources and (2) lack of multimodal data and ade- tools for analyzing budget tradeoffs across different program quate tools. categories. Only two of the states had tools that supported feedback of information on actual project costs and/or effec- 2.4 STATE INTERVIEW FINDINGS tiveness back into management systems. Structured interviews with representatives of 10 state DOTs were conducted in the summer and fall of 2002. These inter- Interest in New Analytical Tools views yielded useful insights into the needs for new analyti- cal tools and the factors that contribute to the success or fail- The degree of receptivity to new analytical tools and the ure of analytical tools for asset management. Detailed results specific types of information desired by each state are sum- of each state interview are provided in Appendix A. Tables 3 marized in Table 4. (Additional comments on gaps in capa- through 5 summarize the results. Key findings and their bilities are synthesized in Section 4.1.) Respondents were implications are discussed in the following paragraphs. (text continues on page 20)

OCR for page 14
TABLE 3 Current (as of 2002) use of analytical tools South Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio Carolina Wisconsin Investment level versus PMS PMS PMS PMS PMS CMS (CNAM) District PMS PMS predicted performance multiyear within a program BMS BMS DMS BMS BMS work plan BMS SMS category ITMS MMS SWS Road Quality SMS (manual) MMS CMS Funds mgt. Forecasting spreadsheet Syste m CMS (manual) analysis (RQFS) PMS (future capability) Performance tradeoffs Spreadsheet for different budget analysis allocations across program categories Predicted impacts on ITMS Decision Systems Program Meta-manager system condition, safety, Support performance support mobility, economic System (DSS) query tool system/ growth, etc., for a set of (semi manual) project proposed projects management information system (PSS/PMIS) Project/ California Micro- In-house tools SMS In house B/C High-hazard Highway strategy evaluation Life-Cycle/ BENCOST for for pavement analysis tools safety projects Investment Benefit/Cost construction and safety B/C analysis Analysis Analysis office B/C analysis Package Model (HIAP) (Cal-B/C) Present worth spreadsheet Micro- ITMS for pavement BENCOST analysis In-house spreadsheet B/C tools (continued on next page)

OCR for page 14
TABLE 3 (Continued) South Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio Carolina Wisconsin Project prioritization PMS PMS PMS PMS In-house tools PMS CMS (CNAM) District PMS PMS within or across project based on info multiyear types BMS BMS SMS BMS from BMS Prototype tool work plan BMS BMS transportation for cross- MMS (IMMS) MMS CMS (Boston SMS SMS MMS CMS management project In-house tools MPO) prioritization CMS DMS* system, PMS, SMS for calculating BMS based on Safety Index, SWS excess user Delay Index costs ITMS APMS Life-cycle cost (LCC) Spreadsheet Value LCC for major FHWA LCC for Evaluating Pavement, LCC on major LCC for Pavement analysis for engineering projects pavement projects bridge LCC, Adaptation of pavement bridges and LCC tool pavements (for projects LCC analysis >$1 million NCHRP FHWA Demo projects pavements (in-house) > $20 million) tool Project 12-43 Project 115 Workbook system* describing recommended approaches Monitoring actual project PSS/PMIS Financial costs and effectiveness management (to provide feedback into MMS* strategic management systems) planning system Other CTIS Maintenance integrated GIS quality view of assurance current and program* planned projects *System under development. Key: APMS Airport Pavement Management System DMS Drainage Management System PMS Pavement Management System BMS Bridge Management System ITMS Intermodal Transportation Management System SMS Safety Management System CMS Congestion Management System MMS Maintenance Management System SWS Storm Water Management System

OCR for page 14
TABLE 4 Level of interest in new analytical tools South Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio Carolina Wisconsin 4: Investment level Congestion 4: Safety 5: Other than versus predicted 5: 3: 3 3: Bridges, pavements or 1: Bridges, 1 4/5 4 1 performance within Maintenance Maintenance drainage bridges pavements a program category 1/2: Others Performance tradeoffs for 5 different budget 3 4 5 5 5 4/5 5 5 1 allocations across program categories Predicted impacts on system condition, 5: 5: If includes safety, mobility, more than 5: Bridges Maintenance 3 4/5 4/5 4 4 5 5 economic growth, roads and 1: Pavements etc., for a set of 3: Others bridges proposed projects Impacts of alternative 4/5: Bridges policies/standards 2 4 1 5 1 4 4/5 4 for project scope, 1: Pavements timing, and design 5: Congestion, Project/strategy 4: 4: Safety, Drainage 5: Safety 3 1 4 4/5 5 2 evaluation Maintenance Maintenance 2: Others 3: Bridges 1: Others 5: 5: For Congestion MPOs 5: Across 4/5: Safety Project Prioritization within 4: Across asset types 5: Across 1: within or across 1 project types asset types 1 1 4/5 5 asset types 1: Within Pavements, project types 1: Across 3: Bridges asset type bridges project types 2: Others (continued on next page)

OCR for page 14
TABLE 4 (Continued) South Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio Carolina Wisconsin 5: 5: Bridges "Important" 4: Bridges Life-cycle cost assets 5 3 3/4 5 2 1 3: Safety 1 1: Pavements 3: Others 1: Pavements Monitoring actual project costs and 5: Bridges, effectiveness (to pavements 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 4/5 provide feedback into management 2: Safety systems) Other (e.g., customer 5: Customer 3 1 1 5 feedback analysis) survey data 1 = Very Low, 5 = Very High

OCR for page 14
TABLE 5 Preferences for implementation platforms South Platform California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio Carolina Wisconsin Stand-alone web-based tool Y Y Y Y Y N1 Y Y Y N Stand-alone spreadsheet-based tool N Y Y N Y N1 D2 N Y Y Stand-alone GIS-based tool Y N3 Y3 Y N3 N3 D2 N Y3 Y Plug-in module for integration with Y Y Y Y Y Y D2 Y Y Y existing systems Guideline/specification Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y D4 (as opposed to software) Other (specify) Y5 Y5 Preference Level (Y = OK or Indifferent, N = Not OK, D = Depends on Specifics) Notes: 1 Stand-alone tools work against an integrated approach to data management and analysis. 2 Type of tool may create data setup and interoperability issues. 3 Tool would need to be compatible with GIS Framework. 4 OK if accompanied by software. 5 Client/server architectures.

OCR for page 14
20 asked to rate their interest in each type of analysis capability sions, particularly in this era of tight budgets. Such a tool on a scale of 1 to 5 (1 indicated very low interest, and 5 indi- would address the impacts that cuts in the preservation budget cated very high interest). Low interest indicated either a lack would have on routine and responsive maintenance needs. of perceived need for the tool or current possession of this type of analysis tool with no perceived need to improve or Predicted Impacts of a Set of Projects on System Condition/ supplement its capabilities. Results are organized according Performance. Nine of the ten states indicated a high level of to the key processes of the generalized asset management interest in improved capabilities in this area. Specific gaps decision model presented in Figure 2. included (1) tools able to calculate the economic benefit for a proposed program of projects and (2) tools focused on the benefits to customers or facility users rather than benefits related to facility condition. Evaluate Investment Levels and Tradeoffs Investment Level Versus Performance Within Program Categories. Six of the states indicated a high level of inter- Identify Needs and Solutions est (4+) in program-level tools for analyzing the relationship between investment levels and system performance. Several Impacts of alternative policies/standards for project scope, of these states noted that capabilities already existed in the timing, and design. Six of the ten states were interested in pavement and bridge area; a few already had these capabili- tools in this area. Specific needs were mentioned for tools ties for other program categories (as noted previously). How- to analyze alternative work scoping/packaging and timing ever, the need for improved capabilities to quantify the ben- options--both at a project level (how do the benefits and costs efits of preventive maintenance and, specifically, to predict change if the project is delayed by 3 years?) and at the network the life-extension impacts of different levels of preventive level (what are the impacts of a change in policy regarding maintenance was reported by more than one respondent. what ancillary work is done with pavement projects?). Other specific gaps cited were in the congestion, safety, and maintenance program areas and for equipment, buildings, and other physical assets not covered by standard manage- Evaluate and Compare Options ment systems. Some states said that they were not interested in pursuing predictive capabilities for safety projects because Project/Strategy evaluation. Seven of the ten states indicated of liability implications, whereas other states did not have a high level of interest in additional tools for project or this concern. strategy evaluation. Respondents generally acknowledged that although several existing tools addressed this need, there were Performance Tradeoffs for Different Budget Allocations some gaps to be filled, including improved capabilities to eval- Across Program Categories. Eight of the ten states indicated uate safety, congestion, and drainage projects; improved capa- a high level of interest in this capability. Some were interested bilities to quantify life-extension benefits of maintenance in tradeoffs across modes, whereas others were only inter- projects; improved techniques to estimate economic devel- ested in tradeoffs across program categories within the high- opment benefits, and improved capabilities to represent ben- way mode (e.g., preservation versus new capacity, preventive efits of reduced vulnerability costs (risks) associated with maintenance versus rehabilitation, tradeoffs across functional bridge projects. classes or corridors). Several respondents expressed the need for a relatively high-level analysis tool that could be used to Project prioritization. Seven of the ten states indicated a illustrate program tradeoffs to policy-makers during the bud- high level of interest in new tools for project prioritization. get process. Two individuals expressed interest in a marginal Three of these states specifically indicated an interest in new analysis approach that would support decisions on where tools for prioritization across project types. additional money would be best spent (or conversely, where needed cuts should be made) given a base program of projects. Life-cycle cost analysis. Six of the ten states gave life-cycle In discussions during the TRB Providence conference, a cost analysis a high rating; two of the states said that their pri- representative from Washington State noted that methods for mary interest was for bridge projects, because they already analyzing multimodal tradeoffs continue to be of interest to had an adequate capability in place for pavement projects. that state. WSDOT has sponsored a multimodal investment One state mentioned the need for better methods for transit tradeoff tool (MICA) based on goal achievement analysis, vehicle life-cycle cost analysis. which is still in the research stage. The Washington State rep- resentative felt that a tool that addresses preservation ver- Other. One state felt that an improved approach to overlay a sus maintenance tradeoffs would be more methodologically customer perspective on the engineering-oriented decision tractable and (if done right) could significantly affect deci- criteria for project selection was needed.