National Academies Press: OpenBook

An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System (2009)

Chapter: Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance

« Previous: Chapter 5 - Performance Management
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 6 - Implementation Guidance." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14233.
×
Page 53

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

44 6.1 Implementing the Interstate Asset Management Framework The objective of this research effort is to “develop a practi- cal framework for applying asset management principles and practices to managing Interstate Highway System (IHS) invest- ments.” The question of whether the uniquely important attributes of the IHS warrant a differentiated asset manage- ment framework will be proven one way or another by the number of IHS owners and key stakeholders who embrace the concepts and implement the principles and practices recom- mended in this report. This section attempts to address the fol- lowing issues related to implementation: • Why implement Interstate Asset Management? • What are the primary motivating factors? • What are the primary focus areas? • Who are the stakeholders—what are the opportunities for collaboration? • Where are the champions? Implementation—Yea or Nay? An initial question an IHS owner must answer in consid- ering how to implement the Interstate Asset Management Framework is whether to implement it at all. To understand how best to present the case for an Interstate Asset Manage- ment Framework, it can be instructive to first address those who are unlikely to immediately implement such a concept. These “nonimplementers” fall into two simple and distinct categories: 1) those who accept and have implemented trans- portation asset management but fail to perceive the need for a distinct approach tailored to the IHS; and 2) those who are generally disinterested in implementing transportation asset management practices beyond gathering basic inventory and condition information. The first group of nonimplementers would be those who perceive themselves to be practitioners of transportation asset management, but who fail to see the advantages of a separate framework for the IHS. An agency in this category may have a well-considered approach to asset management, but simply not have a set of assets or organizational structure that lends itself to making distinctions based on IHS designation. These agencies will presumably continue to apply a common asset manage- ment framework to interstate and noninterstate facilities alike. On the surface it may appear that such agencies in the second group, by definition, would not implement a differentiated asset management approach for the IHS. On the other hand, it is conceivable that exposure to the unique framework of asset management for the IHS could stimulate new interest and potentially serve to transform nonasset management practi- tioners into newfound supporters. It is certainly plausible that some nonpractitioners who appreciate the unique importance of the IHS system and the value of approaching such IHS issues as operational management and capital investment needs via a systemic and structured asset management approach may become newly motivated. This leaves a third group of agencies consisting of those who will perceive that the benefits of an Interstate Asset Manage- ment Framework outweigh the costs and challenges and that a differentiated approach for the IHS should be imple- mented. In most cases these will be IHS “owner” agencies such as state DOTs and toll authorities. But it is likely that other stakeholders also will play a role in deciding whether and how to implement an Interstate Asset Management Framework: stakeholders such as MPOs, emergency man- agement agencies, law enforcement officials, military orga- nizations such as the National Guard or the Department of Defense agency overseeing the national Strategic Highway Network (STRAHNET), and national organizations with a surface transportation focus such as the American Truck- ing Association, the American Automobile Association, the American Road and Transportation Builders Association, the Highway Users Alliance and the U.S. Department of Transportation. C H A P T E R 6 Implementation Guidance

Implementation—Motivating Factors There are a number of factors that might drive an agency toward implementing an IHS-based asset management approach. While in reality a combination of factors likely will be at play within any particular agency, it is instructive to look at them individually. Implementation efforts may be: • Culture driven; • Leadership driven; • Private sector driven; • Stakeholder driven; or • Event driven. Culture Driven Some agencies are more likely to move toward implementa- tion because the underlying philosophy as well as the specific practices of transportation asset management have become integral to the way they are led, managed, and function day to day, from headquarters to field units and across functional areas. They are very likely to be those organizations currently practicing and gaining significant benefits from applying transportation asset management principles. They are led and managed by leaders and managers who would find it incon- ceivable that critically important decisions about allocating and managing scarce resources could be made any other way. They are organizations populated with staff whose buy-in is so ingrained that changes in leadership and management can occur without jeopardizing the continuity of asset management practices. The widespread application of transportation asset management in such organizations implies that they would tend to be both open and receptive to new and better practices, and therefore will be open to the notion that the IHS ought to be differentiated on the basis of its unique significance. Implementation actions motivated by the culture of an organization are most likely to be successful and sustainable since they are more likely to occur within multiple functions and at multiple levels, engaging a broad array of internal stake- holders who will become vested in making it work. The leader- ship of such organizations can be expected to play a facilitative and supportive role, having grasped the benefits of having at their fingertips a stronger foundation of factual information, a richer array of policy choices, and an enhanced state of readiness to cope with and manage risks that can disrupt the operation of the premier highway network for which they are responsible—the IHS. Leadership Driven Certainly many, if not most, significant changes affecting organizations are driven or strongly influenced by leadership factors. The question of whether to embrace a differentiated asset management approach for IHS assets should find reso- nance with transportation agency leaders who come to recog- nize that among the greatest risks they face are the potentially dire events that might cause major disruptions in service along the most important transportation routes on their sys- tem. Such emergencies can and do occur—fierce storms, fiery crashes, hazardous spills, damaging earthquakes, structural failures—and examples abound that demonstrate how they are handled by the agency will have a profound and lasting effect on the reputation of that agency and the tenure of its leadership. Invariably in the aftermath of catastrophic events questions are raised about whether they might have been anticipated in some way and managed more effectively using risk assessment practices and advanced contingency plan- ning. This is why there is a good chance that many trans- portation leaders will respond favorably to the notion that the IHS and key NHS routes deserve special attention—not to the exclusion of other systems but as an overlay that affords a heightened level of asset management attention to their most critical transportation arteries. In contrast with culturally driven processes, leadership- driven implementation strategies are more likely to focus on specific aspects of IHS asset management, resulting from the perceptions and priorities of individual leaders. For obvious reasons, this motivation is the most susceptible to changes in the leadership of an organization. Private Sector Driven A number of states (Virginia and Florida foremost among them) have awarded performance-based lump sum contracts for various combinations of maintenance, repair, and oper- ational activities along IHS routes. Such contracts typically involve a minimum of five years to amortize investments in equipment and facilities that are often required. In addition, some owners (such as the City of Chicago, and the States of Indiana and Texas) have awarded long-term concessions (of anywhere from 50 to nearly 100 years) to private companies who will manage and collect tolls along IHS and similarly sig- nificant NHS corridors. Both approaches involve the establish- ment of a comprehensive suite of specified performance standards to provide an objective method to guide and moni- tor the contractor, and to facilitate the transfer of various, pre- determined risks (from pavement distress to snow removal) to a private sector entity. Note that worldwide, the most pervasive application of risk- based asset management principles and practices to interstate- type highway systems occurs among private sector managers and operators governed by performance-based fixed-price contracts and driven by financial incentives to minimize costs and maximize profitability. The process of pricing such 45

contracts is built upon risk/reward models, and so risk assess- ment and risk management are ingrained in their processes (a unique example is the mitigation of the difficult-to-predict risks of ice and snow through the purchase of specialized insurance packages.) It is testimony to the effectiveness of asset manage- ment for Interstate-type highways to observe how investment decisions by the private sector are driven by their finely tuned management systems and models that track current condition and rates of asset deterioration and that indicate on the basis of traffic forecasts and other information optimal schedules for preventive maintenance and repair activities. The same tools are available to public agencies seeking to optimize the efficient and effective use of their most important highway assets. Stakeholder Driven While owning agencies are the most likely to lead the imple- mentation of an IHS asset management approach, leaders and staff of these agencies need little to remind them that the most significant highway routes on their network are also the most significant routes in a local transportation context as well. Many regional and local entities, such as MPOs, local govern- ments, and other state and Federal agencies, are likely to have strong, vested interest in the continuing operational integrity of the IHS and other key NHS routes considered part of an agency’s “highest priority network.” The same will be true of the private sector, including major companies and regional industries that ship goods as well as individual citizens whose ability to earn a living and the very quality of their lives depend upon continuous access to a viable system of interstate and other major highways. It is not uncommon for incident management programs and traffic management centers serving major IHS routes in metropolitan areas to emanate from, or even be sponsored by and managed with, local resources. Certainly the ability of emergency response entities—police, fire, ambulance, envi- ronmental hazard teams, and, under certain circumstances, the military to use the IHS to reach the locations requiring their urgent attention, including locations on the system itself— earn them standing as significant stakeholders whose interests may provide a key impetus for establishing an Interstate Asset Management Framework. Event Driven This is the least desirable but not necessarily the most uncommon driver of implementing changes such as a risk- based Interstate Asset Management Framework. In the after- math of a major disruption, much attention is focused on whether and how it could have been avoided, and what mea- sures could have been taken to reduce the magnitude and dura- tion of the adverse impacts. There is nothing like a catastrophic event to drive change, but the inescapable question is that if certain actions make sense to reduce the likelihood and impacts of a recurrence, then inevitably the question will be raised about why weren’t these same actions implemented ear- lier. IHS owners and key stakeholders may wish to ponder in advance of such catastrophic events: 1) what the risks of worst case scenarios may be in terms of major disruption in service; and 2) what actions in the aftermath are they likely to be implementing that would have made just as much, if not more, sense to implement as a preventive or mitigating mea- sure before an event ever occurred. 6.2 Primary Focus of Implementation Just as the motivation for implementing a differentiated IHS asset management approach will vary, so will there be variations in the primary areas of interest. An Interstate Asset Management Framework may focus on areas that vary accord- ing to function (preservation, mobility, safety, and environ- ment), or level within the organization (policy level issues, program and project prioritization issues, management and operational issues), or any combination of these. For exam- ple, an IHS-owning transportation agency may focus on system preservation at the program and project levels while focusing on levels of service and mobility issues at the pol- icy level. Policy and Strategic Focus An Interstate Asset Management Framework can focus on a variety of policy level and strategically important issues con- fronting agency and political decision makers, including (as examples): • Network coverage—are key geographic regions and major transportation corridors adequately served with IHS access and capacity? • Is there sufficient network resilience and redundancy to facilitate the management of potential major disruptions? • Should the investment in people and processes be made to identify potentially significant risks to IHS highways and to manage those risks by formulating strategies aimed at reducing the likelihood of their occurring and mitigating impacts if they do occur? • Is there an adequate “operations” mentality that drives the agency’s inclination and ability to deal with both recurring congestion and nonrecurring incidents? • Are relationships, resources, and training in place to ensure adequate response to various contingencies in various locations along the IHS and comparable NHS corridors? 46

• How adequate are current investment levels and strate- gies, and are the unique requirements inherent in the IHS being addressed with current resource allocation processes, including transportation improvement plans, annual budg- ets, and other funding structures and mechanisms? • To what extent should a differentiated Interstate Asset Man- agement Framework extend beyond policy considerations and into program and project level priority setting as well as operational management? Program and Project Prioritization Focus The primary focus of an Interstate Asset Management Framework may address issues relating to IHS programs and project prioritization, including: • Should separate funding be allocated for IHS capital and operating budgets as opposed to having IHS projects com- pete with projects on lower order systems? • Should performance targets for IHS be differentiated from non-IHS facilities? • Should performance targets be differentiated among IHS routes based upon their relative role or importance (func- tional criticality) in serving local area, state-level, or national needs? • Should national priorities that may not represent state or local priorities be addressed and, if so, how? • Is there a need for more and better data for IHS assets than are currently available to determine performance targets and levels? Operational Management Focus There is a rapidly growing recognition among highway agencies and stakeholders of the need to pay significant atten- tion to the allocation of resources for operational management (beyond capital investments and physical maintenance), par- ticularly on higher order systems such as the IHS. After a century or more in which most state highway agencies have focused their attention and resources on capital investments and maintenance of the roadway networks under their juris- diction, there is a clear trend emerging in the direction of real- time operational management, involving: • Surveillance of traffic conditions; • Rapid response and clearing of incidents; • Traveler’s information; • Electronic toll collection; • Ramp metering; • Preclearance of trucks; and • Work zone safety. While some agencies have extended such operational ser- vices to surface streets, the overwhelming emphasis has been on controlled access highways such as the IHS. Key issues to address with an IHS asset management system include the level of investment in operations versus capital improvements and maintenance, the distribution of investments among opera- tional service categories, and the benefits gained in terms of improved reliability and safety. Work Category Focus An Interstate Asset Management Framework may empha- size different work categories (such as preservation, mobility, safety, environment) depending upon the unique needs and motivations of the agency. As the premier highway network, IHS corridors may be confronted by a variety of risks in each of these areas that can threaten their viability in meeting crit- ically important transportation needs in ways different from the rest of the highway network, including: • Preservation—Examples include structural adequacy of bridges and pavements to handle the higher magnitude and frequency of loads typically carried on interstate highways, as well as visibility and reflectivity of pavements and mark- ings under varying weather and lighting conditions essen- tial to routes carrying significant levels of nonlocal traffic, and the physical condition of rest area facilities important to long distance through corridors. • Mobility—The IHS was conceived and completed to serve mobility goals on a national as well as a regional scale. Mobility performance measures include levels of service, travel time, and operational dependability during recurring peak period loadings as well as for nonrecurring incidents that occur at any time, such as crashes, hazardous material spills, and special events. • Safety—While the IHS and similarly designed and built highways on the NHS are clearly the safest, especially when compared with surface arterial streets and highways lacking controlled access, the combination of high speed and vari- able speeds, along with the mix of trucks, buses, passenger cars, and motorcycles affects not only the frequency but the severity of crashes as well. So while risks may be lower, the potential adverse consequences can be greater on these high order systems. • Environment—IHS routes are typically the largest in scale and can have the most severe impacts on the natural, built and cultural environments when it comes to noise, wildlife, vegetation, water quality and quantity, communities, open spaces, and historic resources. Environmental issues are often beyond the normal sphere of transportation asset management, but particularly in the case of an IHS-oriented framework, participants in this research project felt strongly 47

that they are an important component in view of the size of IHS facilities and the various adverse impacts to the natural, social, and built environments that can occur. There are a variety of potential areas of focus that may pro- vide key reasons for considering the implementation of a dif- ferentiated asset management framework for the IHS. 6.3 Leadership Roles and Implementation Planning The underlying motivations for implementing an Interstate Asset Management Framework as well as the primary areas on which to focus will have a significant bearing upon the leader- ship roles that are taken. At the same time, whether and how an asset management framework for the IHS is implemented within a particular organizational entity both influences and is influenced by how that responsibility is parceled out in terms of leadership roles and responsibilities. Lead Office. Experience with state DOTs and their imple- mentation of transportation asset management principles and practices reflects a wide variation in roles and responsibilities, ranging geographically from headquarters to field operations as well as functionally from planning and design to materials and maintenance. Often such responsibilities vary by asset class. For example, it is quite common for a centralized struc- tural division (with design responsibilities for new and reme- dial design) to play the lead role for bridge management systems while a decentralized network of materials or mainte- nance offices takes the lead for asset management activities involving pavements. In some DOTs, as well as within the AASHTO committee structure, the focus of asset management is strongly influenced by resource allocation policy level issues, and asset management is led by the planning function. There is clearly no single set way. It is essential in implementing an Interstate Asset Management Framework to take into account the unique organizational framework of each agency, prefer- ences among managers and staffs, and the actual day-to-day practices that in a de facto way define relationships, roles, and responsibilities. Integration. For entities that already practice transporta- tion asset management and have decided to differentiate in some manner an Interstate Asset Management Framework, they can integrate the framework as a separable yet adjunct set of activities within the overall asset management framework or further differentiate by assigning leadership and management responsibilities for the Interstate Asset Management Frame- work to separate organizational units or to separate individu- als. This implementation decision is fraught with “shades of gray.” Depending upon the way it is done and the people involved (people and personalities are inevitable and unavoid- able factors), the decision to differentiate IHS asset manage- ment may ultimately succeed or fail. Most significantly, the degree of integration among transportation asset management activities should be the result of conscious decisions and strate- gies that work best for the agency. Champions and Communities of Practice. What seems to be universal, at least in the early stages of implementing an asset management framework, is the need for a “champion.” Typically, this champion can be anyone with sufficient interest and influence—from the front office to the front lines—to make it happen. A champion may be designated by someone in authority or may simply emerge from among members of affected groups. In any case, a champion is one who does not rest until the mission is accomplished. Possible champions may include: • Leader of the organization; • Functional or geographic managers; • First line supervisors; and • Key technical or policy level staff. The champion of implementing an Interstate Asset Manage- ment Framework, which in one way or another will stand apart from other transportation asset management activities, will bear the burden of prevailing in the likely deliberations and debates about why such a differentiated approach is needed at all. The arguments about the unique significance of the IHS, the benefits (and burdens) of a risk-based approach, the need for mitigation strategies and contingency plans, the strong interest of outside stakeholders—most if not all of these argu- ments are likely to be relevant to the champion. The chances for a successful implementation of any change are immeasurably improved when a lone champion coalesces with others who buy in and support the ideas, and thereby form a community of practice—a group of cham- pions and supporters whose common commitment is to the successful implementation of the proposed change. The strongest communities of practice are cross cutting, spanning the full range of relevant functions and hierarchies across an organization. Implementation Plan. Implementing an Interstate Asset Management Framework, like any deployment of a new or modified way of doing business, requires a systematic plan to clearly define the objectives, formulate the change process, establish a schedule and responsibilities, identify and secure resources, and measure progress. Ideally such a plan would be developed not only by internal lead agency participants but by involving outside stakeholders who can lend support to the effort and to the utilization of the results. Assembling an implementation planning team would be an invaluable step in the process. 48

Stakeholders and Collaboration Under almost any circumstance the owner of an IHS route or network (state DOT, state or regional toll authority, or pri- vate sector lessee or concessionaire) will be involved in the core data components of an asset management system involving inventory and condition information of the primary asset categories: pavements and structures. The use of this data to influence policy, program, and project decision making varies considerably however. Even more variable is the role of nonowner stakeholders in applying asset management princi- ples to transportation facilities under the ownership and con- trol of others. Yet, nonowner stakeholders may well have a level of interest in IHS facilities comparable to owner-operators by virtue of how critical the IHS is to their own underlying core missions. The opportunity for state DOTs and other owner/operators of IHS assets to engage stakeholders as partners can be an appealing characteristic of an Interstate Asset Management Framework if it is developed with collaboration and consensus building in mind. Federal. The IHS is a national resource. It was funded 90 percent by the Federal government, but while the Federal government is charged with overseeing maintenance to ensure that the national investment in the IHS is preserved, as a prac- tical matter there is little or no decision-making authority at the Federal level in the day-to-day management of IHS assets. Yet clearly the criticality of the IHS to the nation’s well being is if anything stronger than when the system was first conceived. FHWA is charged with reporting biennially to Congress on the condition, performance and funding needs of the nation’s Fed- erally funded highways and bridges, of which the IHS is the most significant. FHWA is therefore a key stakeholder in the availability of inventory and condition information which it collects through the efforts of the state DOT. Note that whether the Federal role should involve more than information gathering and reporting is a subject of some debate. But even in its most limited role the Federal government is clearly an important stakeholder of an IHS asset management approach. AASHTO. It may be more likely to achieve implementa- tion of an Interstate Asset Management Framework by multi- ple states on a national scale by working through a peer process facilitated by AASHTO’s Subcommittee on Asset Management than by way of Federal direction. AASHTO’s policy-making structure, in its deliberations on future Federal authorizing leg- islation, seems to be moving toward the recognition that the time has come for AASHTO itself to propose nationally con- sistent, outcome driven, accountability measures to which the DOTs would agree up front as offering fair and reasonable per- formance assessments. The sense among an increasing num- ber of DOTs is that a surface transportation program legisla- tive reform agenda holding states accountable for how Federal funds are spent, coupled with the recognized need to better define the Federal interest in transportation, is inevitable and will lead to a core set of common measures. DOTs believe that by working through AASHTO, they would be better served by developing such proposals themselves rather than having them imposed by Congress or the U.S. DOT as potentially unfunded mandates. The IHS, with its critically important national role, represents one of the strongest candidates for the near term implementation of such national performance measures. At the same time, it is clear from deliberations among AASHTO members that the DOTs feel very strongly about how such measurement systems may be used in terms of setting appro- priate targets and evaluating performance. The clear consensus is that they must be customized for, and left to, individual state circumstances to account for the substantial variation in every significant aspect, from soils to weather conditions, from topog- raphy to traffic characteristics, from conditions and needs to financial capacity. Implementing an Interstate Asset Manage- ment Framework on a state-by-state basis, with AASHTO pro- viding a coordination mechanism, seems like a suitable way to advance towards a performance-based, outcome-driven pro- gram structure. MPOs. MPOs are charged under Federal statute with long range planning and short range capital program development for over 400 metropolitan areas in the United States. Some MPOs have areawide financial, operational, and governance functions that go well beyond the core set of Federally man- dated activities (the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area, with its responsibilities for financing and operating programs, is among the best exam- ples). What this means is that a number of MPOs are positioned as partners with state DOTs, toll authorities, and private sector operators in terms of their ongoing interest in activities affect- ing resource allocation decisions. The need for mutual trust in such partnership arrangements can be best served with full and open access among all partners to a common set of informa- tion as well as tools made available to analyze and apply such information to decision making. An Interstate Asset Manage- ment Framework could serve as an excellent way to build, test, and sustain this partnership arrangement. Local Government. Since the IHS invariably serves as not only the nation’s and individual states’ most important high- way network but serves similarly in terms of its significance across metropolitan regions and often within individual coun- ties and municipalities, an implicit choice among “owners” and local authorities is whether or not to initiate a collegial, outreach approach to the management of IHS assets. This kind of collaboration must be forged on a case-by-case basis. In some cases (such as Wisconsin and Michigan) county governments 49

are responsible for highway maintenance, including interstate highways under contract with the state DOTs, and share an operational need for asset management information. (Michi- gan is unique in its statutory requirement that local govern- ments implement an asset management approach to managing all streets and highways in the state.) Law Enforcement and Emergency Response Organiza- tions. In the vast majority of cases, responsibility for law enforcement, environmentally hazardous spills, fire, crash investigations, emergency evacuations, and other similar man- made or natural emergencies lies with organizations other than the highway agency. The importance of addressing the needs of these organizations in terms of both prevention as well as emergency response is self evident. The process of addressing such needs in an objective and systematic way can effectively be incorporated into an Interstate Asset Management Frame- work, particularly if the process is carried out in a collabora- tive way. Regional, Statewide, and Multistate Forums. With the risks, opportunities, and decisions on resource allocation and operational management of interstate highways invariably affecting multiple stakeholders, consideration ought to be given to convening a meeting of stakeholders, either on a peri- odic or as needed basis. Such forums may occur in a variety of ways, from summit meetings among principals to consider policy level issues to operational managers addressing real time traffic management and emergency response. Within a state such forums might be organized on a regional basis— within metropolitan or rural areas, or on a statewide basis. Many states sponsor statewide transportation conferences, which might also provide a venue for initiating regional or statewide forums. On a multistate basis, IHS asset management forums might be organized around specific major interstate corridors. In fact, a number of such multistate corridors have coalesced around the country (I-95, I-15, I-10, and others) to address real-time operational issues as well as long-term economic goals centered on the movement of freight. Such voluntary corridor coalitions are already addressing asset management issues involving potential major disruptions in service as well as the investment needs associated with heavy growth in freight movement. An approach that involves formulating risk-based assessments and strategies along multistate interstate corridors would be a nat- ural adjunct to activities already underway or likely to be initi- ated in the foreseeable future along such corridors. An Implementation Reference List A quick and relatively painless way to develop an IHS asset management implementation strategy customized to each application (as well as a way of assessing and validating earlier decisions to implement an Interstate Asset Management Framework) is to utilize an implementation reference list such as the one provided below: 1. Implementation: Yea or Nay? (Whether to Implement): – Currently use asset management tools to establish per- formance goals investment decisions, guide investment decisions, and monitor performance? – Have experience with and have benefited from risk man- agement methodologies? – Recognize potential benefits of differentiating the IHS from other highways in performing asset management? 2. Motivating Factors (Why Implement): – Culture Driven? – Leadership Driven? – Private Sector Driven? – Stakeholder Driven? – Event Driven? – Other Factors? 3. Focus Areas (What to Implement): – Policy & Strategic? – Program & Project Priorities? – Operational Management? – Functional Categories? – Other Focus Areas? 4. Leadership and Implementation Planning (How to Implement): – Lead Office? – Integration? – Champions & Communities of Practice? – Implementation Plan? – Objectives – Process – Responsibilities – Schedule – Resources – Progress 5. Stakeholders and Collaboration (Buy-in for Implementa- tion): – Federal? – AASHTO? – MPOs? – Local Government? – Law Enforcement and Emergency Response? – Regional, Statewide, and Multistate Forum? 6.4 Benefits of Implementation At the March 13, 2008 workshop conducted as part of this research effort, the participants conducted a wide-ranging dis- cussion of the key benefits and challenges that a state DOT would likely encounter in establishing an asset management 50

program for its IHS. (In reviewing these benefits, and also chal- lenges in the following section, it is apparent that a majority of the items relate to asset management generally, rather than the specific benefits and challenges associated with an Interstate Asset Management Framework. However the full range of top- ics discussed at the workshop is presented here.) The following benefits were identified by the group (the consultant team has provided a brief description of each.) General • Right Thing To Do—For some agencies the underlying principles and specific practices of asset management have become integral to the way the organization is led and man- aged and the way it functions day-to-day, from the head- quarters to the field and across functional areas. • Defining Roles and Responsibilities for a Sustainable Stewardship Approach—Transportation agencies are increasingly expected to conduct their activities in a manner that supports broader societal goals to sustain and improve the environment. Agencies are accepting these broader responsibilities and asset management provides a frame- work in a systematic, measurable manner. • Initiate Asset Management Elsewhere—An Interstate Asset Management Framework can serve as a pilot to test princi- ples, policies, and procedures as an initial step toward appli- cation to the entire network. Internal Procedures • Defined Core Performance Measures—Effective asset management requires organizations to identify what their core performance measures should be and then focus upon the achievement of those measures to accomplish the orga- nization’s mission. This would be particularly beneficial for the IHS. • Makes Use of Data and Identifies Data Limitations— Many agencies collect a great deal of condition and per- formance data that are not actually applied to any practical purpose. Effective asset management will put these data to work and foster a greater understanding of the data’s strengths and limitations. • Defensible Prioritization Approach—Effective asset man- agement facilitates the prioritization of investments based upon systematic data-driven analysis rather than anecdotes. • Comprehensive Evaluation, including Improved Eco- nomic Analysis—Properly conducted, this systematic analysis extends beyond traditional measures of asset condi- tion to include a broader range of considerations, including an economic evaluation of costs and benefits. This is par- ticularly important to the highest order network such as the IHS. • Strengthen Predictive Performance and Modeling Capability—Bridge and pavement management systems typically include predictive modules that permit agencies to model the effects of different levels and types of investments on asset condition. Focusing on the IHS where the data are often the most reliable and complete will ultimately have broader benefits to the entire highway network. • Rational Risk Approach—A quantitative approach to char- acterizing risks of system failure and development of risk mitigation strategies are fundamental aspects of an asset management framework and particularly applicable to the IHS where the consequences of disruption in service can be quite severe. • Continuous Improvement of a Replicable Process—Asset management establishes a process that can be repeated annually through each program cycle and provides the basis for continued fine-tuning of that process to improve effi- ciency and effectiveness. Communication with External Stakeholders • Meet Stakeholder Expectations—Asset management improves an agency’s ability to meet stakeholder expecta- tions in terms of both results on the ground and convey- ing an image of an effectively managed results-oriented organization. • Accountability with Customers and Their Elected Representatives—Asset management fosters an environ- ment in which the asset owner establishes a set of expecta- tions with the public and elected officials and then has its performance measured against those expectations. • Building Consensus in Political Environment—A consis- tent record of achieving expectations builds consensus in the political environment that an agency is effectively man- aged and can deliver on its promises. • Justifying Increased Funding for IHS Projects—Establish- ing credibility in this manner lays the foundation to secure approval for increased funding. Several state DOTs have suc- cessfully utilized this strategy to enact transportation revenue programs. Outcomes • More Effective and Efficient Allocation of Financial and Other Resources—At its foundation, asset management is about resource allocation. If it is not influencing the allocation of resources, its utility has to be questioned. • Improved Performance with Constrained Funding— Application of asset management principles (e.g., early intervention strategies before significant deterioration occurs) can lead to improved asset condition even with limited funding. 51

• Leads to Reasonable Expectations that Validate Intu- ition—When the processes are working properly, asset management tends to provide quantified verification for findings that, as involved managers, we already knew. • Defensible and Timely Decisions. • Preventive Maintenance Funding—As noted above, effec- tive asset management lends support to early intervention strategies. • Fewer Unmitigated Disasters (i.e., more averted system failures)—Asset management, particularly when enhanced with risk management processes, provides the early warning signals to support proactive intervention before a situation becomes untenable. • Reliability of Access to Key Facilities—Effective asset management should focus resources on key facilities such as the IHS. • Global Competitiveness—One of the keys to the rise of the United States during the post-World War II era as the eco- nomic engine of the planet was the comparative advantage provided by our highway network, as exemplified by the IHS. That advantage has eroded in recent years—an effec- tive asset management program can support the restoration of a highway network that should improve the nation’s com- petitiveness in a global economy. National Perspective • Focus on IHS and its Defined National Mission— Adoption of an asset management framework for the IHS will refocus attention on the preservation of this nationally critical system in its post-new construction phase. • Framework for Interstate Discussions—Asset manage- ment can provide a common framework of definitions and processes to facilitate effective communication among the states that can foster a consistent (although not identical) approach to managing the nation’s premiere highway sys- tem, the Interstate. • Enhanced Regional Cooperation—These interstate dis- cussions can lead to improved regional cooperation among states and toll authorities that operate common and con- necting links and networks to the benefit of each other and the traveling public. • Make the Case for IHS Criticality More Competitive with Other Needs—As at the state level, an effective asset man- agement program can establish credibility and help build the case for increased Federal funding for the IHS. 6.5 Challenges Consistent with the approach to benefits, the March 13, 2008 workshop participants identified the following as imple- mentation obstacles and costs: General • Resistance to Change; Parochialism—As Machiavelli famously observed, change is inherently difficult to achieve and is often resisted by parochial interests oriented to turf protection. • Internal Stakeholder Buy-In—Obtaining the enthusiastic support of the agency personnel most directly affected by an asset management program is a key hurdle in a successful rollout. Many initiatives have foundered to a lack of this support—outright openly expressed opposition is unusual but a silent pattern of passive resistance is equally debilitating. • Too Big a Challenge; Fear of Getting it Wrong—Since by its nature asset management emphasizes a comprehensive approach there is a very real danger that it can founder of its own weight. Several agencies have overcome this obstacle through a phased implementation model in which the ini- tial steps are modest to achieve credibility and success that builds upon itself. • Perceived as Cost Excessive—In an era of constrained budgets and declining revenues it can be difficult to justify a program where the costs are immediate and easily measur- able while the benefits are longer term and less defined. • Lack of a Champion in a State—The absence of a passion- ate and committed champion is a key obstacle to the suc- cessful rollout of an asset management program. Similarly, a change in agency leadership, which occurs all too fre- quently in today’s environment, can cost a program its champion and place further implementation in doubt. • Do Not Reward Bad Behavior—There is a concern that asset managers who have conducted their stewardship role poorly will be rewarded with additional funding since reported needs will be greater. This dynamic was in play during debates on a national bridge inspection and repair program; some states were concerned that a needs-based funding formula would penalize them for maintaining their bridges in a state of good repair. Internal Procedures • Getting bogged down in data issues: – High Data Threshold—Effective asset management requires a great deal of highly disaggregated data in order to produce meaningful results. This poses a chal- lenge to agencies that rely upon system averages for con- dition data. – Data Quality—Even if data are available in the required level of detail, there can be challenges regarding the qual- ity of the data. Condition ratings, for example, may vary significantly among districts or even between individu- als within a single district unless there is an effective quality control program to assure replicable results. 52

– One More System to Feed—Many agencies have a plethora of management information systems, some of which produce results of questionable utility. Asset management may be perceived by some as one more on that list. • Finite Staff Time—Perhaps an agency’s most precious resource is staff time (whose numbers are typically declining both relative to the mission and in absolute terms). Allocat- ing the staff time that effective asset management requires poses a significant challenge. • Finite Resources in Addition to Staff Time—Other resources (funds, people, facilities, and equipment) are also in limited supply and applying them to asset management means they are not available for other priorities. • Tools May Be Unavailable or May Not Deliver—Tools are primarily in the categories of data collection systems for inventory and condition information and management information systems. Many agencies have had unsatisfac- tory experiences in both categories. • Difficulty in Quantifying Risk—As noted above, a quanti- tative approach to characterizing risks is a key potential ben- efit of asset management. However, developing meaningful numbers for low probability events is a challenging task. • Inability to Achieve Consensus on Details—As always, the devil is in the details and achieving internal consensus on the myriad aspects of an effective asset management program is often an arduous proposition. • Paralysis by Analysis—Having achieved the capability of modeling the performance effects of various investment levels and patterns, it is possible to have too much of a good thing and becoming bogged down in endless iterations. The number of alternative scenarios to be tested should be lim- ited to a number that the mind can readily comprehend. Communication with External Stakeholders • External Stakeholder Buy-In—Just as achieving buy-in from internal stakeholders can be problematic, so too is the case for external parties who may question the commitment of resources to the undertaking, or not understand or care about the results. • Elected Officials’ Comprehension—Elected officials are among the most important external stakeholders, particu- larly those serving on legislative budget committees. Such officials may have little understanding of the goals and pur- poses of an asset management program. • Political Influence—As noted above, asset management focuses on resource allocation. However, as a practical mat- ter, politics are also very involved in resource allocation and the political dynamic may produce far different results than the asset management program. Outcomes • Results Refute Intuition; Do Not Make Sense—Even agencies that have devoted a great deal of careful attention to developing an accurate asset management program have experienced receiving results that simply don’t make any sense. Some have had to resort to a “k factor” approach to make the numbers come out the right way. • Cross-Silo Comparisons and Competition—Asset man- agement can produce a programming dynamic in which, say, pavement and bridge projects are competing for the same limited pot of funds. While some would argue that this is a desirable exercise, it can be a bruising process for the participants. • Local Interstates May Suffer—Focus on the most nationally significant IHS routes may cause a reduction in resources allocated to other routes in particular states. • Intimidating Needs Results—The asset management pro- gram may generate a list of needs that is so overwhelming as to be politically unacceptable. National Perspective • Achieving Consistent Definitions—In order to be mean- ingful, an asset management framework for the IHS will require consistent definitions for items such as condition levels among the states. Achieving such consistency has proven to be problematic in the past due to variation in cir- cumstances across the states. • Comparable Measures State-to-State (also could be seen as a benefit by elected officials)—A national Interstate Asset Management Framework could lend itself to conclu- sions being drawn about comparative performance among the states. Such comparisons have, on occasion, been inap- propriately conducted in the past, causing many states to view such an exercise with trepidation. 53

Next: Chapter 7 - Conclusions »
An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 632: An Asset-Management Framework for the Interstate Highway System explores a framework for applying asset-management principles and practices to managing Interstate Highway System investments.

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!