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 30
30 SECTION 4 SELECTION OF TOOLS FOR DEVELOPMENT 4.1 GAP ANALYSIS Table 8 summarizes the evaluation of candidate tools con- cepts against these criteria; the candidate concepts are cate- Table 7 presents a matrix of current tools by category along gorized according to the major processes of the asset man- with the needs for improved analytical tools found in the agement decision model identified in Figure 2. Ratings were interviews and supplementary literature review. assigned on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the lowest rating (e.g., relatively low need, hard to adapt to different practices, high risk) and 5 is the highest (e.g., great need, easy to adapt, 4.2 SCREENING OF CANDIDATE TOOL CONCEPTS low risk). The general conclusions from this screening exer- cise are presented in the following paragraphs. The analysis of needs and available tools indicates that Tools to support analysis of investment versus performance there is an extensive and varied set of decision support needs levels within individual program categories are embedded as well as a large body of existing tools that at least partially in most pavement, bridge, and other management systems. match these decision support needs. To establish priorities Although some agencies feel that they have pavement and for which needs should be addressed under this project, can- bridge categories covered, others are not satisfied with the cur- didate tools were judged on how well they met the following rent level of decision support available in their existing tools. five criteria: A need that several agencies expressed was to have a capa- bility to gain a better understanding of (1) the benefits of pre- A. Respond to Needs. Would the candidate tool address ventive maintenance (for life extension and long-term costs) the needs expressed by a wide spectrum of states; and (2) how routine maintenance needs may increase as asset B. Support the Core of Asset Management. Would the conditions decline. However, readily available, useful data to candidate tool provide capabilities that address issues support this kind of tool are lacking. commonly recognized as core asset management prin- Some agencies also were interested in supplementing the ciples and likely to advance the state-of-the-practice in condition-based performance measures with measures that asset management, consistent with the framework set were more related to customer outcomes. Some agencies forth in the Asset Management Guide developed for also had gaps in analysis capabilities in certain program cat- NCHRP Project 20-24(11); egories--including safety, equipment, and buildings, but C. Fill a Void. Would the candidate tool provide capabil- these needs are likely to be addressed in other initiatives. ities currently not met in existing tools and unlikely Agencies expressed a reasonable degree of interest in better to be addressed by other research efforts over the next tools to analyze cross-program tradeoffs, which is a core prin- 3 to 5 years; ciple of asset management. The challenge is to develop tools D. Fit with a Range of Business Processes, Systems, that could be used by a variety of agencies with different lev- and Data. Would the candidate tool apply to a variety els of capabilities within the existing single-category manage- of agencies with different decision-making methods, ment systems. Tools that address tradeoffs within the highway databases, and existing systems; and mode in areas where existing management system information E. Minimize Risk. Would the candidate tool build on is available would have a lower degree of risk and a higher established techniques likely to be generally accepted potential for wide use than tools addressing multimodal trade- by the target user group and would it be feasible to offs. Prior research efforts, such as NCHRP Project 20-29(2) develop within the allotted budget and timeframe? (which produced the TransDec tool) and the NCHRP Proj- ect 8-36(7) framework, point to an "impact tableau" approach These criteria were useful for establishing a focus for to looking at multimodal or cross-program tradeoffs. In this development of candidate tool concepts. They provide a richer approach, a common set of performance measures are estab- basis for screening candidate tools than the two-dimensional lished across all programs, and the impacts of program invest- "value versus availability" matrix originally envisioned in ment levels are estimated through a variety of quantitative and the research plan for this project. (text continues on page 33)
OCR for page 31
31 TABLE 7 Gaps in analysis capabilities for asset management Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Investment level · HDM-4 (highway investments). · Ability to analyze benefits of versus predicted preventive maintenance, determine performance within · NBIAS (national bridge investments). life-cycle cost and condition-related a program category · PMS (pavement). outcomes from different levels of maintenance expenditures. · BMS (bridge). · Ability to show value of keeping an · RQFS (MDOT Road Quality asset at a given condition level (for all Forecasting System). assets). · Wisconsin DOT Meta-Manager (safety, · Tools to incorporate consideration of bridge and pavement condition, policy initiatives such as passing congestion). lanes and upgrades to roads with · NYSDOT Congestion Needs Analysis seasonal weight restrictions within Module (CNAM). the condition-based needs assessment method used by management systems. · Tools for tracking ITS equipment condition, replacement needs. · Program-level safety management tool, better predictive capability (though some states are concerned about liability implications). · Network-level what-if analysis tool to understand impacts on pavement lives (and corresponding investment needs) of different truck loadings for variations in soil and snowfall conditions. · Tools for equipment management, buildings, other physical assets not covered by standard management systems. Performance · WSDOT Multimodal Investment Choice · Cross-program and cross-modal tradeoffs for Analysis (MICA) prototype. tradeoffs (e.g., state rail/transit different budget · Ad hoc spreadsheet program analysis versus highway investments) need to allocations across tools/manual analysis of results from find common measure(s) for program categories individual management systems. comparison. (e.g., pavement · Preservation versus new capacity preservation versus · HDM-4 (highway investments segment and network level). tradeoffs. new capacity) · Tool to support analysis of current · HERS/ST (highway investments). performance versus targets versus projected performance given investment levels. · What-if analysis tool to test different allocations across functional systems/classes of facilities, different corridors. · Tradeoff analysis tool that could be used with policy-makers during the budget process. Predicted impacts · WisDOT Meta-Management System. · Improved ability to calculate on system condition, economic benefit for a program of safety, mobility, · Florida Decision Support System (DSS). projects. economic growth, · MDT Systems Performance Query Tool. · Tools focused on impacts on etc., for a set of customers/users as opposed to proposed projects · NYSDOT Program Support System facility condition. (PSS). (continued on next page)
OCR for page 32
32 TABLE 7 (Continued) Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Impacts of · QuickZone (work zone delay estimation · Tool to easily analyze alternative alternative policies/ software project-level analysis). work packaging and timing options standards for project · Life-cycle cost analysis tools (see life- impacts of delaying projects. scope, timing and cycle cost analysis below) can analyze design alternative project designs, scopes, and timing. · HDM-4 (alternative design and maintenance standards). Project [or strategy] · MicroBENCOST (highway projects). · Improved capabilities to quantify life- evaluation · StratBENCOST (highway improvement extension impacts and benefits of strategies segment and network level). routine and preventive maintenance. · TransDec (generic multicriteria · Representation of vulnerability costs evaluation of multimodal investment (risks) in bridge management strategies). systems. · IDAS (ITS strategies). · Tool focused on freight-related impacts and benefits of multimodal · STEAM (post-processor tool to calculate investment alternatives. costs and benefits of multimodal or demand management strategies · Improved estimation of economic analyzed with four-step travel demand development impacts assessment. models). · Improved tools for analyzing new · NET_BC (similar capabilities as interchanges (using results of special STEAM). studies). · RSAP B/C analysis for roadside safety · Need for better, more reliable input improvements; integrated with data to feed models. AASHTO Roadside Design Guide. · Evaluation of drainage projects. · California Life-Cycle B/C Analysis Model (highway and transit projects). · WSDOT Mobility Project Benefit/Cost Software (highway projects, including HOV, park-and-ride lots, safety projects). Project prioritization Within Project: · Capability to prioritize across project within a single types. · PMS pavement. project type (e.g., · Given a set of candidate pavement · BMS bridge. pavement/bridge/mobility/safety preservation) or projects, capability to recommend across different · CMS congestion. where the marginal dollar should go? project types · SMS safety. · Benefit/Cost analysis tools above may be used for prioritization as well. · Many agencies have developed in-house methods and tools. Across Project: · TOPSIS (WSDOT) used in conjunction with B/C software. · Benefit/Cost analysis tools above also may used for prioritization across project types.
OCR for page 33
33 TABLE 7 (Continued) Type of Analysis Current Tools* Perceived Needs Life-Cycle Cost · FHWA Pavement LCCA. · Need for better, more reliable input data to feed models. · NCHRP 12-43 Bridge LCCA. · Tools for transit LCCA. · EAROMAR (High-standard roadways). · NCHRP 1-33 Pavement LCCA. · NIST Bridge LCCA. Monitoring actual · MMS maintenance management · Improved tracking of the impacts of project costs and systems. maintenance on facility life. effectiveness · Construction management/estimation · Improved ability to track outcomes (to provide feedback systems, e.g., AASHTO Trns·port and outputs. into management BAMS/DSS and Estimator. systems) · Improved accuracy of cost estimates · PMS and BMS (Some systems have used in needs, project evaluation, modules for recording actual project prioritization and program tradeoffs, costs and updating cost models). account for typical project amenities, add-ons (possibly using outputs from bid tabulations, maintenance management systems) use activity- based costing, separate out different project elements (e.g., paving versus safety improvements). · Support for GASB-34 requirements by providing a tool to tie together capital and betterment investments by asset type and location. · Cradle-to-grave project tracking systems. · Query tools to provide easy access to estimated versus actual costs, past experience, lessons learned. Other · Several states--including CA, MT, WI, · Tool/approach to overlay customer and FL--have in-house tools for satisfaction and priorities with consolidating results of individual engineering decisions for use in management systems in a GIS program planning and prioritization. framework for use in project · User-friendly statistical analysis tools, identification/program development. e.g., to estimate sample size requirements for condition surveys. *Detailed summaries are provided for tools listed in italic in Appendix B. qualitative methods. In the NCHRP 8-36(7) framework, these calculations (tailored to different project categories) and a results are simply displayed in a format that highlights the variety of other qualitative evaluation criteria to compare tradeoff to be made. In the NCHRP 20-29(2) TransDec tool, alternative program scenarios. However, this project is still ratings can be calculated based on user-defined weights. in the research phase. New York State is developing a tradeoff tool based on the Tools to summarize aggregate impacts of a program of concept of excess user costs, which calculates reductions in projects are seen as valuable by states but would likely need delay costs, accident costs, and vehicle operating costs (with to be highly tailored to each individual agency's needs. respect to a base acceptable level) attributable to pavement, Agencies expressed a moderate level of interest in tools to bridge, safety, and mobility improvements. The MICA effort analyze project scope and timing decisions. Some of these in Washington State, perhaps the most ambitious undertak- needs could be met by existing tools for LCCA and work zone ing in cross-program analysis, uses a mix of standard benefit analysis. There is a gap in program-level, sketch-planning