Click for next page ( 24


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 23
23 SECTION 3 REVIEW OF EXISTING TOOLS 3.1 OBJECTIVES AND SCOPE 3.2 REVIEW OF CURRENT ANALYTICAL TOOLS Tools existing as of August 2002 were reviewed to ensure that: Pavement, bridge, maintenance, safety, congestion, and other management systems are common in most DOTs; many of these systems have analytical capabilities spanning the full New tools can complement and build upon the existing range of activities in the asset management process. The fol- base of experience and resources; and lowing subsection briefly describes these management sys- Tools developed as part of this effort can be designed to tems. Subsequent subsections cover more specialized tools integrate effectively with other available tools. and are organized by the categories established in Figure 2. The selection of tools for the review is not intended to be exhaustive; the goal was to identify the kinds of capabilities that are generally available to support asset management. Management Systems Tools that have been developed by FHWA and NCHRP, Pavement Management Systems (PMSs) which currently are available to states at low or no cost, were emphasized. However, the review also covers general classes PMSs are well established in state as well as regional and of tools that individual agencies have developed in-house or local transportation agencies. Many commercial and custom- that are available from private vendors. The choice of tools developed PMSs are in place and provide capabilities for for inclusion in this review is consistent with the stated pri- mary focus for this project on the highway mode and, secon- darily, on multimodal tradeoffs. Maintaining inventory information on the road network, This section presents a summary of the tool review; it is in some instances linked to GIS maps; organized according to the analysis categories used in the Storing condition information (e.g., roughness, rutting, state needs survey to facilitate a comparison of needs with distress) and calculating summary statistics for different available tools. Appendix B provides detailed summaries of portions of the network; the capabilities of and methodologies used in the PIARC Projecting future changes in condition for different HDM-4 model and the following tools developed through indicators as a function of pavement type, level of use previous FHWA or NCHRP projects. (e.g., functional class, average daily traffic, or equiva- lent single-axle loads), and other characteristics; NCHRP Project 12-43 Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analy- Applying decision rules (often implemented as condition- sis Tool; based triggers) for when particular treatments should be EAROMAR Pavement Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Tool; performed; FHWA Project 115 Pavement Life-Cycle Cost Analysis Simulating the deterioration and application of dif- Software Tool; ferent treatments over time (with and without budget HDM-4 Roadway Investment Analysis Tool; constraints), which provides the basis for needs estima- Highway Economic Requirements System for State Use; tion and analysis of investment levels versus projected IDAS ITS Deployment Analysis System; performance; MicroBENCOST; Generating candidate projects and, in some cases, gener- National Bridge Investment Analysis System; ating and evaluating alternatives and selecting the most Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model; cost-effective ones within the simulation framework; and StratBENCOST; and Ranking candidate projects based on condition, benefit/ TransDec. cost, or other user-defined measures.

OCR for page 23
24 Bridge Management Systems (BMSs) the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) data set and uses the modeling approach that is in the Pontis BMS. A series of Nearly all states operate a BMS that assists with identifica- enhancements to NBIAS is ongoing to provide improved tion and evaluation of bridge preservation and improvement capabilities to work with specific bridges (as opposed to aggre- strategies. Several states have developed in-house systems. gate populations of bridge elements simulated from NBI data). AASHTO licenses the Pontis BMS to more than 45 states These enhancements will make feasible the use of NBIAS and other agencies. AASHTO released Pontis version 4.1 in capabilities in conjunction with Pontis datasets from indi- 2002. Pontis provides the capabilities to relate performance vidual states. to investment levels and to develop an optimal long-term PlanOpt, a tool with similar capabilities to NBIAS, is in bridge investment strategy. The system is in use in more than use at the Swedish National Road Administration. PlanOpt 30 states, although many agencies are not yet making full use was designed to work with the existing SAFEBRO bridge of the system's modeling and optimization features. Version inventory system and uses a modeling and performance 4.1 of the system provides considerable new flexibility in the approach based on the lack of capital value (LCV) concept. modeling and simulation process for users to incorporate LCV is a measure of overall bridge health (calculated based agency-specific work packaging and selection practices. on the ratio of bridge restoration cost to replacement cost) and consists of bearing capacity and durability components. PlanOpt uses (1) deterioration curves to model changes in Congestion, Safety, Public Transit, LCV over time and (2) models to estimate agency and user and Intermodal Management Systems costs as functions of LCV. The previously discussed management systems are most Congestion, safety, public transit, and intermodal man- frequently used to analyze the relationship between perfor- agement systems were developed by a number of states in mance and investment levels within particular program cate- response to the original ISTEA legislation management sys- gories. However, some agencies have developed specialized tem requirements. These systems provide useful capabilities tools external to their management systems. The Michigan for identifying transportation needs, analyzing investment DOT's Road Quality Forecasting System (RQFS) and com- options, and assessing performance. ponents of Wisconsin's meta-manager are examples. Maintenance Management Systems (MMSs) Performance Tradeoffs Across Many states have an MMS in place primarily to plan, Investment Categories schedule, and track maintenance activities. Several DOTs The Highway Economic Requirements System (HERS) have developed or are pursuing development of analytic was originally designed in the late 1980s for use in FHWA's capabilities within their MMSs to relate budget levels to level biennial reports on the condition and performance of the of service (LOS) or performance targets. California is in the nation's transportation system. For this purpose, HERS applies process of implementing a new integrated maintenance man- a combination of economic and highway-engineering analy- agement system (IMMS) for planning, budgeting, and sched- sis to sample-section data in FHWA's Highway Performance uling of maintenance work. Monitoring System (HPMS), a database that contains detailed information for a sample of approximately 100,000 sections of highways. Tools That Evaluate Investment Levels and Tradeoffs A version of HERS for state use (HERS/ST) has been eval- uated by 17 states, and work on an enhanced version is under Performance Tradeoffs Within way. HERS/ST is a tool for analyzing the relationship between Investment Categories highway investment levels and performance. HERS/ST applies engineering standards and benefit/cost analysis to identify The FHWA sponsored the development of and continuing project alternatives to correct deficiencies, but also can accept enhancements to the National Bridge Investment Analysis overrides to its selections to reflect actual planned or pro- System (NBIAS), an analysis tool for predicting nationwide grammed projects. Given either a budget constraint or a set bridge maintenance, improvement, and rehabilitation needs of performance objectives, the system selects the most eco- and measures of effectiveness over a multiyear period for a nomically attractive project options and produces reports on range of budget levels. A graphically based system for con- the resulting network performance. HERS/ST provides users ducting "what-if" analyses, NBIAS enables a user to experi- with information about individual sections of highway (which ment with different budget assumptions to see how the con- is not provided by the national HERS) and the ability to use dition of the national bridge network will vary in the future state-specific values for the cost of highway improvements based on the annual level of investment. NBIAS works with and for other parameters.

OCR for page 23
25 Because HERS/ST can analyze a range of investments, asset management and/or work program management sys- including system expansion and improvement as well as sys- tems of some states (e.g., New York, Wisconsin). tem preservation, it is ideally suited to analyzing tradeoffs between preservation and mobility programs for a state DOT. The World Bank and the World Road Association (PIARC) Tools That Identify Needs and Solutions have released an updated version of the Highway Develop- ment Model (HDM), which has been widely used throughout Needs identification is a core function of pavement, bridge, the world (primarily in developing countries) to analyze road- safety, and congestion management systems, as described pre- way management and investment alternatives. Prior versions viously. Several states have implemented integrated approaches of HDM emphasized project-level analysis; HDM-4 offers to needs and solution identification using the outputs of man- program and strategy analysis capabilities. HDM-4 includes a agement systems together with GIS and query tools: simulation capability featuring pavement deterioration mod- Wisconsin's "meta-manager" is built around a SAS data- els; application of user-defined standards and criteria for when different project candidates are considered; and calculation of set that combines information on highway inventory life-cycle agency costs, road user costs, and social and envi- characteristics, pavement and bridge conditions, crash ronmental impacts. data, traffic data, geometric deficiencies, and actual proj- ects in the program. All of these data can be viewed in Washington State DOT has sponsored the development GIS displays. of a prototype multimodal investment choice analysis tool Montana has implemented a performance program- (MICA) intended to assist in making budgetary tradeoffs ming process that places information from the pave- across programs. MICA includes a set of worksheets for ment, bridge, congestion, and safety management sys- benefit/cost analysis for different project types. Impacts on tems into an ArcView-based system performance query qualitative criteria also are entered for each project. The tool tool. Districts use this tool to select projects to nominate selects groups of projects that fit within a specified set of bud- for programming that are consistent with the project mix get constraints (lump sum, regional, or modal) and provide in the funding plan. the best value according to a selected criterion or multiple Michigan DOT has built an integrated transportation criteria. management system that supports integrated views of NCHRP Project 8-36(7) developed a generalized frame- pavement, bridge, congestion, and safety information. work for multimodal tradeoff analysis, including a set of tem- Florida DOT has a GIS-based decision support system plates for (DSS) that supports needs analysis for the intrastate high- way system. DSS generates a need category or grade for Establishing a structure of goals, objectives, performance segments or user-defined corridors based on five vari- measures, and targets for interprogram analysis (along ables: pavement condition, congestion, safety, intermodal with identifying assessment data and procedures); connectivity, and economic development. The system Establishing a similar structure for intraprogram analysis; also shows projects in the current work program. Identifying key programs of interest that should be ana- California's new IMMS includes the core asset inven- lyzed in the tradeoff process; tory and is intended to be used in conjunction with pave- Applying analysis procedures to calculate performance ment, bridge, and highway LOS management systems measures for the current situation and for a set of alter- to identify needs. native scenarios of future funding allocation; and Presenting tradeoff analysis information in a manner that highlights differences across alternatives. Impacts of Alternative Policies for Project Scope, Timing, and Design NCHRP Project 8-36(7) provided a set of sample tem- FHWA's Strategic Work Zones Analysis Tools (SWAT) plates for hypothetical tradeoff analyses. See Table 6 for an program has produced a spreadsheet analysis tool called example. QuickZone for analyzing the impacts of work zones and associated mitigation strategies. Additional tools providing a richer set of capabilities are under development. Predicted Performance Impacts QUEWZ-98 (13) is another tool available for analyzing for a Set of Projects traffic impacts, emissions, and road user costs associated with lane closures. Some PMSs and BMSs provide network-wide performance Other systems, such as EAROMAR and life-cycle cost results associated with the implementation of a set of specific analysis tools, also have capabilities to analyze alternative projects. This capability has been built into the integrated project scopes and timing.

OCR for page 23
TABLE 6 Multimodal tradeoff analysis example (assessment of inter-program effects) Examples Current Baseline Passenger Freight Agencywide Goal Agency Performance Measures Long-Term Target Condition Scenario Scenario Scenario System Preservation Percentage of roadway lane-miles in Principal arterials: >95% 93% 96% 96% 96% and Maintenance good or excellent condition. Other state roads: >80% 81% 80% 80% 79% Percentage of bridges that are Principal arterials: >98% 98% 95% 94% 94% structurally sound. Other state roads: >95% 93% 90% 90% 90% Percentage of transit vehicles within >95% >92% >92% >96% >91% design life-span. Deferred maintenance expense (cost N/A N/A $9 B $10 B $10 B to "fix" everything in year 10). Percentage of bridges on arterials >95% 90% 90% 89% 88% without weight restrictions. Safety Crash exposure across all modes Reduce by 10% 1.0 0.84 0.82 0.82 (number of persons in crashes per number of person-trips) (crashes per million person-trips). Support Economic Extent to which citizen's "key N/A Fair Fair Fair-poor Fair-good Development factors" are addressed. In-state jobs supported through N/A 10,000 11,500 11,600 11,400 transportation expenditures. Statewide Mobility Sum of public sector expenditures N/A $28 B $36.5 B $36 B $34 B and Equity and user costs (vehicle ownership, travel time, fees, fares, etc.). Percentage of bridges on arterials >95% 90% 90% 89% 88% without weight restrictions. Ratio of peak to off-peak travel <1.25 1.30 1.39 1.36 1.35 conditions.

OCR for page 23
TABLE 6 (Continued) Examples Current Baseline Passenger Freight Agencywide Goal Agency Performance Measures Long-Term Target Condition Scenario Scenario Scenario Statewide Mobility Percentage of trips that can be made Commute: >50% 40% 38% 39% 38% and Equity by non-automotive modes. Local non-commute: >75% 65% 60% 63% 60% (continued) Percentage of population with access Intercity: >50% 45% 40% 40% 40% to demand-responsive transit or 100% 80% 72% 75% 72% paratransit. State's General Extent to which "Smart Growth" N/A Fair support Fair support Fair support Fair support Public Policies principles are supported. Extent to which local planning and N/A Fair-good Fair-good Fair-good Fair support development decisions are support support support supported. Consistency with State Meet all SIP budgets Met Met Met Met Implementation Plan (SIP). and deadlines Extent to which environmental N/A Fair-Good Fair Fair Fair resources are protected. Source: (9).

OCR for page 23
28 Tools That Evaluate and Compare Options IDAS is a sketch-planning tool that analyzes benefits and costs for ITS investments, such as traffic management sys- Project/Strategy Evaluation tems, emergency management services, electronic payment systems, and incident management systems. Like STEAM, it Most of the extensive array of project- and strategy-level acts as a post-processor of travel demand model data. IDAS analysis tools include benefit/cost analysis capabilities. These also includes a Monte Carlo simulation capability for risk tools can be used to assess the merits of an individual project analysis. or strategy and can be applied sequentially to different options The new 2002 AASHTO Roadside Design Guide includes to compare the relative merits of different approaches for a an updated algorithm (and companion software, Roadway specific facility and, in some cases, for a corridor or subarea/ Safety Analysis Program [RSAP]) for comparing the cost- subnetwork. The tools vary with respect to the types of proj- effectiveness of alternative safety improvement designs. ects analyzed, the types of benefits and costs considered, and TransDec is a tool that provides a generic multicriteria the level of detail for the analysis. evaluation of multimodal investment strategies. Users spec- MicroBENCOST evaluates the benefits and costs of high- ify a hierarchy of goals, objectives, measures, and rating way projects (added capacity, new location or bypass, reha- scales and provide specific performance measures for a set of bilitation, pavement improvement or overlay, bridge improve- alternatives. The tool calculates scores for each alternative. ment, safety improvement, railroad crossing, high-occupancy vehicle [HOV], and combination projects). The benefits account for changes in vehicle operating costs, accident costs, travel time, fuel consumption, and vehicular emissions. This Project Prioritization software is a DOS product, although an upgrade to Windows has been proposed. Many of the previously described tools that can be used to StratBENCOST also provides benefit/cost analysis for evaluate options also can be used to rank or prioritize a set of highway improvements, but it is designed to assist in compar- candidate projects within a particular program category or ing large numbers of projects in the concept stage. Highway across program categories. Projects are most commonly pri- facility upgrades are defined based on the transition of a facil- oritized within pavement, bridge, and congestion and safety ity from 1 (of 12) facility type to another. Vehicle operating management systems; through previously described integrated cost and emissions estimates are based on MicroBENCOST management systems; or by simple scoring methods tailored lookup tables. Accident reductions are based on the original to the needs and data available in specific agencies. HERS accident rates (which have been updated). One of Washington State DOT has developed TOPSIS, a program StratBENCOST's innovations is the incorporation of risk that uses a benefit/cost ratio (from the in-house B/C analysis analysis using a built-in Monte Carlo simulation to allow tool) together with project impacts on a set of non-quantitative users to understand levels of uncertainty associated with the evaluation criteria (e.g., community support, modal integra- results. tion) to rank projects based on their distance from a theoret- Some states, including California and Washington, have ical ideal solution. developed their own benefit/cost analysis systems. Califor- nia's system can analyze both highway and transit projects; Washington's system handles highway projects, including Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (LCCA) HOV lanes, park-and-ride lots, and safety projects. STEAM analyzes the benefits, costs, and impacts of multi- Life-cycle costs are typically analyzed as part of a detailed, modal investments. It incorporates economic analysis to project-level analysis of alternative design choices for major develop monetized impact estimates and provides separate pavement or bridge projects. However, planning-level tools estimates of energy and environmental impacts. STEAM are also available that calculate life-cycle costs for different works with input from traditional four-step transportation maintenance strategies, both for individual facilities and net- models. It post-processes traffic assignments to obtain more works of facilities. In addition to EAROMAR, other pave- accurate highway speeds, particularly under congested con- ment and bridge management systems as well as HDM-4 ditions. STEAM incorporates risk analysis to describe the provide capabilities for analyzing life-cycle costs of differ- level of uncertainty in analysis results. FHWA also has ent maintenance and rehabilitation strategies. developed a simpler spreadsheet model called SPASM for NCHRP Project 12-43 developed a methodology and asso- multimodal corridor analysis on the sketch-planning level, ciated Visual Basic software tool (BLCCA, completed in which can be used where travel demand model outputs are 2002) to analyze bridge life-cycle costs. not available. Released in 1999 by the National Institute of Standards NET_BC (developed by Bernardin Lochmueller & Asso- and Technology, Bridge LCC 1.0 is a tool that analyzes life- ciates) is another example of a travel model post-processing cycle costs to assess the cost-effectiveness of alternative tool that performs benefit/cost analysis. This tool was applied bridge construction materials. This tool is intended for use at to analyze major corridor investment in Indiana. the preliminary design phase of bridge project development.

OCR for page 23
29 NCHRP Project 1-33 developed a methodology to improve on traffic flow and congestion, it also can be used to investi- pavement investment decisions. This life-cycle cost method- gate (1) the staging of projects, (2) the effects of construction ology and companion software tools incorporate user costs, or maintenance contract packaging, and (3) options to limit based on new research on the relationship between pavement road occupancy to particular hours of the day or to particular roughness and vehicle operating costs. months or seasons of the year. FHWA Demonstration Project 115 produced the compre- hensive Technical Bulletin, Life-Cycle Cost Analysis in Pavement Design. This bulletin, published in September Tools That Monitor Results 1998, provides detailed procedures for conducting pavement LCCA. The FHWA sponsored development of a software Performance and Cost Monitoring and Feedback package to automate application of these procedures. Developed for FHWA, EAROMAR is a tool for analyz- Construction management/estimation systems such as ing pavement life-cycle costs on high-standard roads. This the BAMS/DSS and Estimator products in the AASHTO tool is older (DOS-vintage) but provides significant flexi- Trnsport suite have the potential to be used for cost track- bility to analyze different types of pavement maintenance, ing; however, careful planning is required to ensure that mean- rehabilitation, and reconstruction options and their impacts ingful results can be derived from these systems, and a trans- on both agency costs and user costs. It has the capability to lation process is required to develop unit costs that are usable assess capital/maintenance tradeoffs and the comparison of by most management systems. preventive versus deferred maintenance. Because EAROMAR Some PMSs and BMSs allow cost assumptions to be employs a detailed analysis of work zones and their effects updated based on recorded costs of actions taken.