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 52
52 · Construction projects are frequently implemented in ranks third in the nation in both total population and urban phases, possibly over a longer time span than the PT population and ranks first in the nation in the number of pub- tool is intended to cover. In this situation, judgment lic transit passengers. NYSDOT is responsible for 15,000 must be exercised to determine what portion of a proj- miles of highway and roughly 7,500 bridges. Total vehicle- ect's impacts should be included, when only a single miles of travel in New York State approaches 135 billion, of phase of the project is being included in the tool. which 45 percent is on the highway network administered by NYSDOT (14). Because AssetManager PT does not predict deterioration, NYSDOT's asset management efforts have focused on "before" and "after" average pavement and bridge conditions using the capital program update process as an integrating must be analyzed using the current condition as the "before" mechanism across the various "stovepipe" programs for pave- case, even though the projects being considered are to be ment, bridge, congestion/mobility, and safety. Management implemented several years out. Therefore, the predicted systems have been developed in-house to provide the capa- "after" condition from AssetManager PT cannot readily be bility to simulate needs and relate investment to performance. compared to a target or PMS projection for the future year NYSDOT's program update process makes use of these man- when the set of projects being analyzed will actually be com- agement systems to establish performance targets for each of pleted. The only solution would be to derive projected con- these program areas; the regions propose programs of proj- ditions from PMS simulation results. Unfortunately, obtain- ects to meet the performance targets. Programs are then cen- ing this information would have required, at minimum, a new trally reviewed to ensure consistency with performance tar- report or query capability to be added to the PMS, which was gets as well as to look horizontally across the different not feasible to do in an expedient fashion. program areas. New York has a program support system/project manage- MDT staff suggested several enhancements as a result of ment information system (PSS/PMIS) in place that tracks the testing process: candidate projects throughout their life cycles and balances alternate programs against funding sources. The capability to · On the program analysis screen, add the capability to perform what-if analysis to determine the financial impacts deal with only a subset of projects in the automated of different sets of projects is handled by interfaces with a selection process. bridge needs forecasting model and a pavement needs fore- · Add a filtering capability on reports to allow results to be casting model. viewed by geographic and network categories. [This sug- At the time the testing took place, NYSDOT had developed gestion was implemented for the final version of the tool.] a prototype of an integrated asset management system that · On the performance report, add summary lines to see uses a common measure, "excess user costs," for comparing overall performance by network category (across geo- alternative investments and making tradeoffs across different graphic categories), by geographic category (across net- packages of diverse project types. Excess user costs are work categories), and then total across all categories. defined as the incremental costs incurred by users as a result · On the performance report, add the capability to com- of a facility in less than ideal operating conditions. Three cost pare different scenario results; currently comparison of components are considered: delay costs (for passengers and two different scenarios is awkward. [This suggestion freight), accident costs, and vehicle operating costs. This sys- was implemented for the final version of the tool.] tem can be used to compare candidate project proposals based on benefit/cost, where benefits are defined as the decrease in excess user costs attributable to an investment. Summary Evaluation Field testing at NYSDOT began in late December 2003 and was concluded with a site visit by the research team on Staff assigned the following summary evaluation ratings March 22, 2004. to AssetManager PT: · Potential value of functionality: 67, AssetManager NT · Ease of data preparation: 89 (if a "cookbook" were available), and Data Preparation · Reports/Outputs: 56 (higher if reports included filter- NYSDOT staff prepared two data sets for AssetManager ing capabilities and summaries). NT using their in-house pavement and bridge analysis systems (PNAM and BNAM). The first data set included statewide 6.3 NYSDOT FIELD TESTING results (aggregate for all regions and network categories), from five runs using different average annual budget levels New York is a diverse state with a land area of 47,376 over the 10-year period between 1993 and 2003. The second square miles and a population of roughly 19 million. The state data set included results for four regions and two networks (on
OCR for page 53
53 and off the NHS). Data for four budget levels were provided. single designated performance measure (in NYSDOT's Staff reported that they spent about 30 staff-hours to prepare case, minimizing excess user costs). NT data, including running the analysis systems. However, · Improve the capability to compare results across differ- this process could be further automated to reduce data prepa- ent NT scenario files. ration time if the tool was to be used on a regular basis. · For the cross-criteria view, rather than having a slider The research team created the initial configuration files for for the year, have each pane show a trend graph over the these data sets, loaded the input files, created scenarios, and scenario time horizon for the selected performance mea- sent NYSDOT the NT tool with the scenarios for testing. sure. [This comment was later addressed by adding the The field tests used a common set of performance measures allocation view.] for AssetManager NT and PT, which included excess user · Provide an option to fix an overall budget level and then cost, pavement condition rating, percentage of poor and fair see how a performance measure changes as the alloca- lane-miles, bridge condition rating, and number of deficient tion in resources changes across assets (and potentially bridges by number and percentage of deck area. In addition, geographic and network categories as well). [This com- several output measures were used, including the lane-miles ment was later addressed by adding the allocation view.] of pavement rehabilitation and reconstruction, the lane-miles · Add validation to the create scenario feature to check if of pavement preventive maintenance, the number of bridges there are different numbers of runs entered per asset/ rehabilitated or replaced, and (for PT only) the number of geography/network combination. If so, the process should bridges with maintenance work. terminate with a message to the user. Currently, the sce- nario is created but the results are not valid. [Validation was later added in response to this comment; errors are Testing Results written to a log file.] · Add capability to print or export tabular results as The research team demonstrated each of the AssetManager NT views. Overall, the reaction was very positive; staff felt opposed to just the graphical views. that this tool could be very useful in exploring investment tradeoffs as part of the development process for the 5-year plan. Staff also expressed interest in exploring how the tool Summary Evaluation could be used to look at tradeoffs across corridors as well as Staff assigned the following summary assessment ratings across assets. to AssetManager NT: Currently, scenario analyses are run by request. Asset- Manager NT could be used to run and package multiple sce- · Potential value of functionality: 7 (9 if an optimization narios for executives so that they could explore variations feature was provided), without having to request additional runs. · Ease of data preparation: 6 (although, producing inputs NYSDOT staff made the following comments: for multiyear periods would have been easier), · User interface: 7, and · The NYSDOT analysis tools predict results by multi- · Reports/Outputs: 8 (higher if reports included filtering year funding periods, not annually (interpolation was capabilities and summaries). used to produce annual results). The NT tool can also be used in this manner, which would reduce data prepara- tion requirements. Tool documentation should be sure AssetManager PT to say that the analysis periods need not be single years. · NYSDOT's analysis tools also allow for different proj- Data Preparation ect prioritization criteria to be entered (e.g., worst-first versus minimum life-cycle cost). Different NT scenar- NYSDOT staff prepared two data sets for the PT tool ios could be created for sets of runs using different cri- using queried information from New York's PSS. The PSS teria to provide a tool for visualizing the performance stores approved candidate projects, and automated proce- differences. dures are in place to retrieve system performance informa- · A help file is needed. [A help file was developed in con- tion based on candidate project location references. Both PT junction with the documentation.] data sets included 473 projects scheduled for years 2009 and 2010. In the first data set, the projects were identified by NYSDOT staff suggested the following enhancements: region (A or B), and a single budget category was used for all projects. In the second data set, the projects were identi- · Add an optimization feature to find the resource alloca- fied by region (A or B) and network (interstate, non-interstate tion across a set of asset types, geographic categories, NHS, other state system, or other touring route), and five dif- and network categories that minimizes or maximizes a ferent budget categories (maintenance, preservation, mobil-
OCR for page 54
54 ity, safety, and other) were used. Approximately 32 staff- For these latter types of projects, NYSDOT would be hours, mostly for data cleaning, were required to produce a more likely to specify a performance measure target PT data set. Staff felt this time could be reduced to about (e.g., reduction in excess user costs). Performance tar- 10 staff-hours through further automation of the process. gets may be set on the baseline performance screen. The deterioration issue that was raised in Montana also was Testing Results discussed in New York: because the PT tool's most likely use is to look at projects being considered for implementation at Because NYSDOT staff had logged many hours working least 3 years into the future, projected conditions rather than with multiple versions of the tool before the visit, the research current baseline conditions need to be reflected in the tool if team did not run any tests on site. Rather, researchers reviewed the performance projections are to be compared to targets for each screen with the staff members and asked them for com- a future year. This need increases the complexity of data ments and suggestions. preparation. However, even without considering deteriora- NYSDOT staff made the following comments: tion, the tool is still useful for comparing different project mixes based on relative performance results. · The PT tool provides the capability to explore perfor- NYSDOT staff suggested AssetManager PT could be mance results of different project mixes, which is simi- enhanced by the addition of an option for the data entry of lar to a planned enhancement to New York's PSS. system measures and baseline performance indicators to have · The PT tool also was useful for looking at the program the system calculate aggregate statistics based on entries for balance, i.e., the mix of work by category (e.g., safety, individual geographic/network category combinations. mobility, pavement preservation). · Their work with the PT tool will likely shape require- ments for the PSS tool enhancements (specifically, the Summary Evaluation capability to represent changes in system measure as the result of a project). Staff assigned the following summary ratings to Asset- · The ability of work targets to be set for only those types Manager PT: of work that are defined by a physical system measure seemed limiting at first. For example, NYSDOT speci- · Potential value of functionality: 10, fied system measures for pavement and bridge preser- · Ease of data preparation: 10, and vation projects, but not for safety and mobility projects. · Reports/Outputs: 10.