Click for next page ( 33


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 32
32 Summary of the Tool Evaluation for the areas of mobility, safety, environment, and integrating results. Additionally, Table 4.1 lists specific analytical tools that The analytical tools identified through the review were can be used to support asset management analyses consistent evaluated to determine the degree to which they support the with the guidance presented below. Interstate Asset Management Framework. Table 4.1 lists sys- A general issue in considering the data and tools needed for tems and tools currently maintained, support at least one step asset management is that of degree of coverage. While it is in the framework, and are available in the public domain and/or generally agreed that good data supporting quantification of through NCHRP research, from AASHTO or from FHWA. qualitative policies, goals, and objectives often are required to properly manage highway assets, and agreement that asset man- 4.4 Guidance on Data and Tools agement decisions should be supported by data, there is debate for IHS Asset Management over what constitutes good data and exactly how that data This section provides guidance on using available data and should be used. Generally, the more complete, accurate, and tools for supporting the Interstate Asset Management Frame- timely the data, the more expensive it is to collect. In determin- work. Guidance is provided for each asset category, as well as ing the extent to which data should be collected for the Inter- Table 4.1. Analytical tool summary. Tool System Type Available From Notes AssetManager NT Investment analysis AASHTO Integrates investment analysis results from multiple sources AssetManager PT Needs and Project AASHTO Prioritizes projects based on Evaluation user-specified measures BCA.Net Needs and Project FHWA Performs benefit/cost analysis Evaluation for highway improvements BLCCA Needs and Project NCHRP Bridge preservation life cycle Evaluation cost analysis DIETT Risk Assessment NCHRP Prioritizes risks to transportation choke points HDM-4 Investment Analysis McTrans, Presses Simulates highway investment de l'ENPC (Paris) needs, condition and performance HERS-ST Investment Analysis FHWA Simulates highway investment needs, condition and performance IDAS Needs and Project McTrans and Evaluates network impact of ITS Evaluation PCTrans improvements MOOS Bridge Needs and Project NCHRP Assist in developing bridge-level Level Model Evaluation strategies using data from Pontis. Also can be used to prioritize investments to mitigate bridge risks MOOS Network Investment Analysis NCHRP Uses data from the bridge-level Level Model model to perform multi-objective analysis NBIAS Investment Analysis FHWA Simulates bridge investment needs, condition and performance PONTIS Management System AASHTO BMS licensed by most U.S. state DOTs REALCOST Needs and Project FHWA Performs benefit/cost analysis Evaluation for pavement projects STEAM Needs and Project FHWA Evaluates network impact of Evaluation multimodal improvements TRNS*PORT Results Monitoring AASHTO Supports preconstruction, contracting, and construction management

OCR for page 32
33 state Asset Management Framework, it is important to weigh IHS owners should use a BMS for assessing current condi- the cost of data collection against the cost of poor decisions tions, setting performance and budget targets, and identifying from incomplete or inaccurate data. Also, it is important to candidate projects when updating the capital plan for struc- consider the possible use of the data for supporting asset man- tures. Pontis and other agency-specific systems that support agement, and try to avoid the situation whereby an IHS owner analysis of element or component-level conditions provide a collects too little data to support asset management decisions strong basis for implementing the Interstate Asset Manage- or, alternatively, more data than can practically be put to use in ment Framework. NBIAS provides sufficient support for as- a systematic manner. The guidance below has been developed sessing current conditions and setting performance and budget considering the need to find a balance between these extremes. targets for bridges. Spreadsheet analyses, preferably calibrated using a BMS or NBIAS, may be used to support setting per- Roadways. IHS owners should collect roadway inventory formance and budget targets. and inspection data consistent with HPMS reporting require- ments on an annual basis. All IHS sections should be treated Safety Features and Facilities. IHS owners should as HPMS sample sections, implying the full set of HPMS data collect inventory and condition data for all assets listed in items should be quantified for each section. Further, IHS Table 2.1, including safety features, facilities, and shoulders, owners should collect additional measures of pavement condi- sufficient for estimating the asset extent and the percent of tion consistent with the requirements of COTS pavement man- the extent functioning as intended. A maintenance manage- agement systems and expected future HPMS requirements. ment system, which supports a maintenance quality-assurance Agencies should use a pavement management system for approach for assessing current conditions and setting perfor- assessing current conditions, monitoring performance trends, mance and budget targets by asset category, provides support setting performance and budget targets, and identifying for IHS asset management. Alternatively, an RSL approach can candidate projects when updating the capital plan for pave- be used, particularly for discrete assets with known construc- ments. Existing COTS and agency-specific systems that support tion dates, such as facilities. The Asset Management Data measures of roughness, cracking, faulting and rutting pro- Collection Guide (13) recommends specific data items to vide sufficient support for implementing the Interstate Asset collect for selected asset types, including signs, pavement Management Framework. An RSL approach is recommended markings, and guardrails. Also, this guide recommends cri- for modeling pavement needs. Where possible, survival analy- teria for determining what data to collect as part of an asset sis should be used to establish pavement deterioration models management data collection and is a particularly valuable considering relevant performance risk. HERS-ST should be reference for determining what data to collect for assets run to validate the results obtained from an agency's PMS, or classified here as safety features. to act as a substitute for assessing conditions and setting per- formance and budget targets where an agency lacks a PMS. Mobility and Safety. IHS owners typically have basic data required for mobility and safety. The mobility-related data Structures. IHS owners should collect inventory and con- items required for the Interstate Asset Management Frame- dition data on all structures, preferably on a two- to four-year work are collected for HPMS sample segments. IHS owners basis. This guidance applies to bridges and other nonbridge should collect HPMS sample data for their entire IHS. IHS structures--tunnels, culverts/drainage structures, noise barrier owners already have access to counts of crashes and fatalities. walls, retaining walls, overhead sign structures, and high mast IHS owners should use HERS-ST to help set targets and light poles--as all of these structures have the potential to fail predict future values for mobility and safety measures. Agency catastrophically, and thus lead to system failure (closure of a travel demand models, where available, can be used in con- portion of the IHS for some period) and possibly loss of life. junction with HERS-ST to more accurately assess current Bridge data are already collected for IHS bridges consistent conditions and provide better estimates of future traffic. with NBI requirements. In addition to collecting NBI data, IHS owners should collect inventory and condition data for Environment. For this area the primary challenge is in all structures at the element or subcomponent level. NBI data defining a set of environmental performance measures, as is collected at the component level--deck, superstructure, described in Chapter 5. At a minimum, IHS owners should and substructure. These data provide an overall picture of document environmental goals and commitments for IHS bridge condition, but are not sufficient for identifying specific assets, and track the degree to which they meet these commit- bridge preservation projects such as painting and repairs to ments on an annual basis. The prototype Environmental elements such as bearings or joints. Element level data pro- Information Management System developed through NCHRP vides the finer level of detailed condition required to identify Project 25-23 (2) (19) can be used to support an agency's com- candidate projects. mitment tracking process.