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

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.

57 A literature review was conducted to investigate recent research and current state-of-practice related to performance measurement, risk assessment and risk management imple- mentation by transportation agencies. The sources for the lit- erature review included FHWA reports, NCHRP reports, published papers in professional journals (ASCE, TRR, etc.), and current practices from Federal, state, and local agencies. This appendix summarizes the review, organized by risk man- agement, asset data and analytical tools, and performance management. A.1 Risk Management The review of risk management literature focused on two primary areas: asset/operations-specific approaches to risk in management systems; and statewide or regional approaches to management of catastrophic/severe risk. Two resources merit special mention: the 2002 AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulner- ability Assessment (1), and the draft final report for NCHRP Project 20-59, Guide to Risk Management of Multimodal Trans- portation Infrastructure (2), provided to the research team by NCHRP. Key concepts from theses resources are discussed in Chapter 3, and the two documents are summarized under a separate heading since they embody state and Federal agency level guidance documents that are different from the other research studies included in the review. Approaches to Risk in Management Systems Many research studies have been conducted on the analysis and management of specific highway assets (especially bridges, tunnels, and roads) with risk-based methodologies. The risk categories analyzed in these studies include terrorism, earth- quake, and loss of structural or functional performance of assets. Several risk-based methodologies were developed for bridge management systems and highway maintenance man- agement systems using these concepts. Risk-Based Bridge Management (3). This paper describes a methodology for bridge project selection based on reliability methods and optimization procedures. The authors use a Mar- kovian model to simulate deterioration of structural compo- nents, and determine a reliability index for each element using either subjective assessment or first-order reliability methods. The overall reliability of the bridge is calculated as system reli- ability by combining the individual reliability of the compo- nents in a series system. Risk is estimated with the reliability of the bridge and the consequence of closure. The paper discusses methods for finding the optimum set of repairs that minimize the total network risk and describes use of a near-optimum algorithm for this application. Risk-Based Prioritization of Terrorist Threat Mitigation Measures on Bridges (4). This paper discusses developing a risk-based methodology to facilitate prioritization of terrorist threat mitigation strategies on individual bridges. This method- ology was designed to focus on a single bridge and the risk of terrorist attack associated with each of its many individual structural components. The methodology evaluated the bridge risk based on such factors as the component’s importance to overall structural stability, its location and accessibility to ter- rorists, and its resistance to the specific threat. The result of the methodology was a rank-ordered list of components most at risk to attack, allowing prioritization and optimization of the mitigation design for the bridge. Once mitigation schemes are identified, the methodology can be utilized to recalculate miti- gated risk, allowing for a direct indication of benefit/cost of the mitigation design. A Risk-Based Decision-Support System for Bridge Man- agement (5). This paper presents a novel framework for a risk-based decision-support system for an advanced bridge management system. The authors suggest evaluating bridge risk using structural safety reliability and anticipated conse- quences of the bridge’s failure. The system they describe includes components addressing inspection, data collection A P P E N D I X A Literature Review

and storage, deterioration modeling, structural assessment, economic appraisal of maintenance, MR&R actions through whole-life costing, work programming optimization method- ologies, and a number of reporting facilities. Risk-Based Asset Management Methodology for Highway Infrastructure Systems (6). This study applies risk-based models to highway maintenance management systems. The authors developed a systemic risk-based asset management methodology as a decision-making tool for highway planners and maintenance engineers to manage the maintenance of highway infrastructure systems. A Risk-Based Maintenance Management Model for Toll Road/Tunnel Operations (7). The focus of this study was to develop a risk-based maintenance management model to prioritize preventive maintenance activities for equipment in complex plant installations like toll road/tunnel systems. The resulting model is based on the five core elements of the risk management process: identification, measurement, assess- ment, valuation, and control and monitoring. The model requires participation of different departments to determine the failure modes and effects of equipment and the corre- sponding preventive actions. The model can help operators to establish and determine suitable maintenance strategies for selecting the best courses of action in managing identified risks. Risk-Based Life-Cycle Costing of Infrastructure Reha- bilitation and Construction Alternatives (8). This paper presents a new approach for estimating life-cycle costs and evaluating infrastructure rehabilitation and construction alter- natives, derived from probability theory and simulation appli- cation. In this study, highway pavement data are used to demonstrate the model concept and development. The devel- oped risk-based life-cycle cost model considers the time to fail- ure of each pavement rehabilitation/construction alternative and provides additional knowledge about the uncertainty lev- els that accompany the estimated life-cycle costs. The paper describes the various components of the developed model, the factors affecting pavement performance and service life, the statistical stratification process of highway pavement networks, and the data input modeling and simulation utilized for the analysis. The model can help engineers in the decision-making process regarding the selection of pavement construction and rehabilitation alternatives. Approaches to Management of Catastrophic/Severe Risk Several risk-based research studies have been conducted at the statewide or regional levels for highway infrastructure sys- tems on catastrophic/severe risk. They include terrorism risk studies in Virginia and seismic risk studies in California, as well as development of a general vulnerability rating based on work originally performed by New York State Department of Transportation. Assessing and Managing Risk of Terrorism to Virginia’s Interdependent Transportation Systems (9). This study was conducted to assess and manage the risk of terrorism to Virginia’s interdependent transportation infrastructure. The focus was to understand how the failure of one piece of infra- structure or any of its elements propagates in order to imple- ment management policies that can mitigate the consequences. It uses several risk assessment and management models: the Hierarchical Holographic Model (HHM) for identifying risks; the Risk Filtering, Ranking, and Management (RFRM) for ranking risks; the Inoperability Input-Output Model (IIM) for accounting for direct and indirect impacts/consequences; and the Partitioned Multi-Objective Risk Method (PMRM) for accounting for extreme events. At the statewide level, the direct and indirect economic impacts of transportation infrastruc- ture disruptions (natural hazard, intentional attack, etc.) on various dependent industry sectors are assessed using the IIM. The industry impacts are measured in two metrics, economic losses and percentage of inoperability. Workforce impacts are also considered in the IIM in terms of income reduction and the number of workers affected. The data from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) Input-Output Table and the Regional I-O Multiplier System II (RIMS II) is used in IIM for ranking industry sector impacts. Census workforce data and commodity flow data are used to quantify the disruption to the transportation system produced by an act of terrorism. Modeling the Impact of Infrastructure Interdependencies on Virginia’s Highway Transportation System (10). In this study, risk assessment and risk management techniques are used to identify system vulnerabilities and the risks associated with those vulnerabilities. HHM described above is used to identify risks and vulnerabilities. Information used in HHM includes jurisdictional, intermodal, economic and user per- spectives. A case study is presented focusing on risk manage- ment and finding ways to unlock the interdependencies of the highway system to reduce the risks associated with those inter- dependencies. As part of the project findings, a sampling of risk management options is introduced in two categories: Response (form response teams, alternative routes, redundancy in the system, etc.); and Unlock Interdependencies (alternate forms of transportation, overstocking critical facilities, staggering work schedules, etc.). Seismic Risk Assessment of Transportation Network Systems (11). In this study, the risk from earthquakes to a transportation system is evaluated in terms of direct loss from damage to bridges and travel delays in the transportation net- work. The direct loss is estimated from repair costs due to dam- age to bridges and is dependent on the size of the bridge and 58

59 the expected damage state of the bridge. The travel delays resulting from closure of damaged bridges are calculated using origin-destination (O-D) tables, coupled with network analy- sis of the pre-earthquake scenario with a base transportation network and the post-earthquake scenario with a modified transportation network. The consequence of earthquakes on the transportation network is evaluated for a magnitude 7.0 earthquake scenario in California. The information for bridge inventory and the highway transportation network was obtained from transportation agencies for this study. The study reports that liquefaction damage is the largest contributor to the repair cost which is used as a measure of the loss from damage. System Risk Curves: Probabilistic Performance Scenarios for Highway Networks Subject to Earthquake Damage (12). The authors develop methods for evaluating the per- formance of highway systems subjected to severe earthquake impacts. In this study, the total transportation network delay is estimated with user-equilibrium network analysis methods to evaluate the network system performance due to seismic induced damage. The bridge damage and highway network link damage is evaluated by means of a damage index with Monte Carlo simulation techniques and bridge fragility curves. The fragility curves for individual bridges are developed on the basis of empirical damage data and dynamic analysis performed on bridge structures. These curves are used to gen- erate network damage states for various earthquake scenarios by means of Monte Carlo simulation. To test the approach changes in system performance in different scenarios are mea- sured in terms of additional total network delay for a set of sample scenarios. The final result of these efforts is a transpor- tation system risk curve, which shows the annual probability of exceedance and the hazard-consistent probability for different levels of network delay. Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems (13). Appendix B of this report details an approach to calculating a vulnerability rating for a structure for scour, fatigue, seismic, and other vulnerabilities. This approach is in turn based largely upon work performed by the New York State Department of Transportation. The vulnerability scor- ing approach described here provides a thresholding approach for assessing structures risk that can be used in conjunction with the risk assessment approach described in Section 3. Note that other portions of this report are also relevant, and described further in the review of data and analytical tools. AASHTO and NCHRP Guides to Risk Management 2002 AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assess- ment (1). This document, developed in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 attack, focuses on providing high level guidance for vulnerability assessment of highway transporta- tion assets against terrorist threats, including bridges, tunnels, roadways, interchanges, tollhouses, and roadside infrastructure (e.g., signs, barriers, sensors). It provides a six-step process for conducting a vulnerability assessment. Key aspects of the guide include: • Reliance of the organization to organize and sustain a multi- disciplinary team ready to identify critical assets, perform vulnerability assessments, and subjectively identify costs and effectiveness of countermeasures. • Guidance on selecting critical assets and subjectively assign- ing “asset criticality” scores over a number of asset factors and their subsequent aggregation to determine a criticality factor for each asset. • Guidance on subjectively assessing “asset vulnerability” scores over a number of factors and their subsequent aggre- gation to determine a vulnerability factor for each asset. • Guidance on combining and analyzing the criticality and vulnerability assessments to determine countermeasure action. • Guidance on countermeasures spanning the capital, main- tenance and operational areas, countermeasure packaging, and first-order estimation of costs for countermeasures. • Guidance on reviewing operational and security planning. The guide relies heavily on experience, expertise, and resource commitment. There is very little automation of the process and the factors chosen are subjective to a point where different teams looking at the same asset or vulnerability could potentially come up with different scores and mitigation pri- orities. The Guide also stops short of proposing a methodology to compute/impute the consequences of extreme events. NCHRP Project 20-59: Guide to Risk Management of Multimodal Transportation Infrastructure (2). This report seeks to improve upon the concepts presented in the 2002 AASHTO Guide, and expand the applicability of the proce- dures developed to all intentional, unintentional, and natural hazards and all modes of transportation, not just highways. It makes significant proposals in formalizing the risk manage- ment process, but it consciously avoids consequence modeling benefit/cost analysis, return on investment calculations, and/or other economic analysis of risk consequences and mitigation measures. Further, event probability is not fully tied into risk calculation for all threats/hazards. A.2 Asset Data and Analytical Tools Data Cambridge Systematics, U.S. Domestic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset Management (14). This scan report identifies best practice examples of the application of asset management principles and practice in

U.S. transportation agencies. The scan participants included FHWA officials, representatives from state transportation agencies in Michigan, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, and Vermont, a university professor in transportation engineering and planning, and a consultant support staff. Highway Performance Monitoring System Reassessment 2010 (15). The report summarizes the HPMS 2010+ reassessment recommendations, including stakeholder input, proposed recommendations, and impacts of the reassessment. The reassessment is intended to address current and future business needs, address new data requirements in transporta- tion reauthorization legislation, and update HPMS to take advantage of technological improvements. Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Side- walks (16). This study examines the state-of-the-practice for managing transportation infrastructure assets other than pavements and bridges, including traffic signals, lighting, signs, pavement markings, drainage culverts, and sidewalks. A key finding is that the amount of data and manner collected varies significantly for these assets between different agencies. Culvert Management Systems: Alabama, Maryland, Minnesota, and Shelby County (17). This report provides details about the culvert management data and practices used in four jurisdictions, and provides guidance for agencies seek- ing to improve their culvert management approach. Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual (18). This manual was developed by FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). It provides specific information for the inspection of both highway and rail transit tunnels. The goal of the manual is to provide uniformity and consistency in assessing the condition of the various tunnel components and to present good maintenance and rehabilitation practices. Guidelines for the Installation, Maintenance, and Repair of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Signals (19). This document is designed to provide guidance for the installation, inspection, maintenance, and repair of structural supports for highway signs, luminaries, and traffic signals. It recommends using an element-level approach for inspecting these structures, similar to that used for bridges using the AASHTO Pontis BMS. Colorado DOT, Feasibility of a Management System for Retaining Walls and Sound Barriers (20). This report makes the case that the management systems for retaining walls and sound barriers are feasible and can be modeled on existing systems for bridge management such as AASHTO’s Pontis BMS. It presents the tasks for full development of wall and barrier management including the proposed data and procedures specific to walls and barriers and recommendation on inspection practice and intervals. Use of Highway Maintenance Management Systems in State Highway Agencies (21). This paper details surveys of 29 state highway agencies on the state-of-the-practice in MMS. It shows there is considerable variation between agen- cies in the data collected in their MMS and the state of MMS implementation. XML Schemas for Exchange of Transportation Data (22). For the NCHRP 20-64 Project detailed in this report, a research team developed TransXML—a family of broadly accepted public domain eXtensible Markup Language (XML) schemas for exchange of transportation data. The following pilot business areas were selected as the focus of the study: Survey/Road Design; Transportation Construction/Materials; Highway Bridge Structures; and Transportation Safety. The report discusses the possible benefits by adopting and expand- ing TransXML, and highlights efforts designed to help ensure its success. Asset Management Data Collection Guide (23). This guide was prepared by a joint committee of AASHTO, the Associated General Contractors of America (AGC) and the American Road and Transportation Builders Association (ARTBA). It reviews asset management concepts, discusses current data collection practices, and presents a set of criteria for determining what data to collect. Also, this guide recom- mends inventory and condition data items that should be col- lected for: • Drainage assets, including culverts, ditches, drop inlets, catch basins, drains, curbs, and sidewalks; • Roadside assets, including grass, slopes, and fences; • Pavement assets, including pavement and shoulders; and • Traffic assets, including signs, pavement markings, pave- ment markers, guardrail, guardrail treatments, and traffic barriers. Analytical Tools A comprehensive review of asset management tools was recently performed for NCHRP Project 20-57 and docu- mented in NCHRP Report 545 (23). The research team used the materials gathered through the NCHRP 20-57 project as a starting point. This information was supplemented with a review of the literature published since the completion of NCHRP Project 20-57 and additional best practice examples and information on data resources. Also, the research team reviewed materials from other relevant NCHRP efforts, and materials available on systems developed or distributed by 60

AASHTO, FHWA and other Federal agencies. The review was performed to help answer two questions: • What asset data and analytical tools are in use in the United States and/or international agencies that could help sup- port the Interstate Asset Management Framework; and • What data and analytical tools are available in the public domain for immediate implementation during the frame- work pilot? The following is a summary of the materials reviewed. Analytical Tools for Asset Management (24). This report details the set of analytical tools available as of 2005 and describes two new tools developed through the NCHRP 20-57 Project: AssetManager NT for network-level asset analysis and AssetManager PT for project-level analysis. In establishing the needs for a new analytical tool, the NCHRP 20-57 research team reviewed the available literature, performed detailed interviews of 10 transportation agencies, and prepared detailed profiles of 11 tools available in the public domain, including: • Highway Economics Requirements System State Version (HERS-ST); • Highway Development and Management Tool (HDM-4); • Surface Transportation Efficiency Analysis Model (STEAM); • Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS) Deployment Analysis System (IDAS); • Pavement LCCA Tool, now titled RealCost; • EAROMAR (Economic Analysis of Roadway Occupancy for Maintenance and Rehabilitation); • MicroBENCOST, since superseded by BCA.NET; • StratBENCOST; • Transportation Decision Analysis Software (TransDec); • National Bridge Investment Analysis System; and • Bridge Life Cycle Cost Analysis (BLCCA) Tool, detailed in NCHRP Report 483: Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis (25). Further, the report details what tools are available and/or in use, discusses the gaps in existing tools, and details the need for new functionality, both in the AssetManager tools developed through the project and in other analytical tools. Pavement Management Applications Using Geographic Information Systems (26). This synthesis describes approaches to integrating PMS and Geographic Informa- tion Systems (GIS). It reports that approximately half of state DOTs use global positioning systems (GPS) as part of their data collection process, though data collected by GPS present issues because of the lack of compatibility with his- torical data and interoperability with existing systems. The synthesis concludes that the benefits of implementing a GIS for supporting pavement management outweigh the costs, but relatively few DOTs are using GIS as part of their pave- ment management decision process. Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems (13). This report reviews approaches to multi- objective optimization, and prototype application of a heuristic approach to BMS data. It recommends adapting the incremental benefit cost (IBC) approach already used for sim- ulation models in many management systems for use in a multi-objective approach, expanding this into an incremental utility cost (IUC) approach to factor in additional objectives. The report also describes two spreadsheet tools developed through the project, the Multi-Objective Optimization System (MOOS) bridge-level and network-level models. Although MOOS is intended to integrate programmatic risks with risks of system failure, as these concepts are described in Section 3, it can be used to prioritize risks of system failure consistent with the approach detailed in Section 3. AASHTO Guidelines for Maintenance Management Systems (27). This document describes MMS functionality at a general level and identifies the components of a compre- hensive MMS that agencies should consider in terms of their approach to maintenance management and their operating environment. These components include: planning; pro- gramming and budgeting; resource management; scheduling; monitoring and evaluation; and maintenance support and administration. Disruption Impact Estimating Tool—Transportation (DIETT)—A Tool for Prioritizing High-Value Transporta- tion Choke Points (28). This report details a tool developed to prioritize risks to transportation choke points (TCP) such as bridges and tunnels. The tool includes a Microsoft Access application for filtering a set of TCPs. The Access application exports data to an Excel spreadsheet which is used to perform the prioritization. The example provided with the study shows the example prioritization of bridges based on NBI data and additional parameters used to characterize the economic value of freight traffic utilizing the TCP. DIETT is designed to work in conjunction with the Consequences Assessment Tool Set (CATS) developed by Science Applications International Corp. (SAIC). Prototype Software for an Environmental Information Management and Decision Support System (29). This details data sources and analytical tools used by transporta- tion agencies for environmental management. This reference describes the prototype environmental information manage- ment system developed through NCHRP Project 25-23(2) for storing environmental management data for supporting long-range planning, project development and maintenance. 61

A.3 Performance Management Guidance Documents Performance Measures and Targets for Transportation Asset Management (30). This report provides a comprehen- sive review of current practices in transportation performance measurement, drawing upon an extensive literature review and in-depth interviews of 15 state transportation agencies. Its review was used as the starting point for the current study. The report provides an assessment of performance measures for facility preservation, operation, improvement, and expansion, though the primary focus of the report is on preservation measures. It describes different approaches for classifying per- formance measures, and presents a set of criteria and guide- lines for selecting performance measures. Volume II of the report is a guide for selecting performance measures, with an approach to classifying measures and examples of the measures in use in different state DOTs. Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement (31). This guidebook was developed through NCHRP Pro- ject 3-68. It provides comprehensive treatment of the topic of freeway performance measurement, particularly regarding congestion and mobility measures. The guide recommends a set of core measures that agencies should collect for all free- ways, as well as supplemental measures. Measures are classified according to whether they are measures of quality of service or agency activity, by the extent of the measure (e.g., measured section-by-section, over an area, or across an entire state). The guidebook also details possible applications of the performance measures, including real-time, operations planning, short- term planning, and long-term planning applications. Measuring Performance Among State DOTs (32). This report recommends the use of comparative performance measurements for enabling different agencies to compare their performance in order to improve customers’ satisfaction and communication between agencies. The report reviews litera- ture related to this topic and details a series of workshops held for the study. It presents principles for comparative perfor- mance measurement and includes a detailed framework for developing a comparative performance measurement initia- tive. Further it recommends the use of seven core measures for comparing performance between DOTs in the following four strategic focus areas: • Preserving the Physical Condition of the Transportation System. Percentage of vehicle miles traveled on state’s NHS pavement that meets or exceeds an “acceptable” perform- ance standard, based on IRI; and percentage of state’s bridge deck area on the NHS that meets structural condition tar- gets (measured using element-level inspection data). • Managing Congestion. Annual hours of delay per traveler on freeways and principal arterials. • Managing Project Delivery. Average actual project letting and completion versus scheduled letting and completion; and annual ratio of actual construction cost versus bid amount. • Safer Travel. Three-year moving average annual number of fatalities per 100 million vehicle miles traveled; and three- year moving average annual number of fatalities per 100,000 population. Effective Organization of Performance Measurement (33). As part of NCHRP Project 8-36, Task 47, this AASHTO Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP) study assesses how transportation agencies, particularly state DOTs, incorporate performance measurement functions within their overall orga- nizational frameworks. The report provides useful “lessons learned,” based on case study research, for transportation organizations that are setting up new programs or adjusting and reorganizing existing programs. It identifies the most effective organizational attributes that contribute to a success- ful program. Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance (34). This report prepared by the National Research Coun- cil’s Committee on Measuring and Improving Infrastructure Performance provides guidance on developing a framework for performance measurement, and on using performance measures in decision making on infrastructure. The report focuses on implementing performance-based infrastructure management in urban regions and on four broad categories of infrastructure: transportation, water, wastewater, and munic- ipal waste. This study is notable in several respects. It was con- ducted in the wake of a series of early studies that identified the need for increased investment in infrastructure, but prior to the more recent wave of studies of performance-based plan- ning, asset management, and performance measures repre- sented by the other documents described previously. Further, it provides an unusually comprehensive treatment of the underlying concepts of performance measurement as they relate to publicly owned infrastructure. Finally, it reflects upon a number of topics that, even over a decade later, still seem quite timely for managing IHS assets, including handling of multiple objectives in decision making and factoring in uncer- tainty and risk. State-of-the-Practice Examples A number of state-of-the-practice examples have been com- piled and are summarized in the guidance documents detailed earlier. To supplement this information, the research team reviewed two additional examples of national-level summaries of the condition of the IHS and/or the nation’s highways. 62

Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Performance Report (C&P Report) (35). The United States Department of Transportation prepares the C&P Report for the U.S. Congress on a biennial basis. It is intended to provide an objective appraisal of the nation’s high- ways, bridges, and transit systems. The report uses data from FARS, the HPMS, the NBI, and the National Transit Database (NTD) to evaluate the physical conditions and operational performance of the nations’ surface transportation system. It includes a section specifically on conditions of the IHS. Mea- sures for which predicted changes in conditions are reported include IRI, percent of vehicle miles traveled (VMT) on roads with IRI < 95, percent of VMT on roads with IRI ≤ 170, total delay, total user costs, travel time costs and bridge investment backlog. U.S. DOT Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Account- ability Report (36). This document measures the agency’s progress towards achieving a set of targets for the nation’s transportation system in support of six strategic goals, identi- fying performance measures and targets for each. Highway- related measures in the report are summarized below, organized by strategic goal: • Safety: – Fatalities per 100 million VMT; and – Fatalities involving large trucks per 100 million VMT. • Mobility: – Percentage of travel on the NHS meeting pavement per- formance standards for “good” ride; and – Percentage of total annual urban-area travel that occurs in congested conditions. • Global Connectivity: – Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct con- tracts that are awarded to women-owned businesses; – Percent share of the total dollar value of DOT direct con- tracts that are awarded to small disadvantaged businesses. • Environmental Stewardship: – Ratio of wetlands replaced for every acre affected by Federal-aid highway projects; – Percent of DOT facilities characterized as No Further Remedial Action Planned under the Superfund Amend- ments and Reauthorization Act; and – 12-month moving average number of area transporta- tion emissions conformity lapses. • Security: – Transportation Capability Assessment for Readiness Index Score. • Organizational Excellence: – For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, per- centage that meet schedule milestones established in project or contract agreements, or miss them by less than 10 percent; and – For major Federally funded infrastructure projects, per- centage that meet cost estimates established in project or contract agreements, or miss them by less than 10 percent. International Resources Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand (37). This is a compilation report of an international scan of asset management tech- niques and processes from four countries. The report addresses leadership and organizational challenges, asset management’s role in decision making, data use, and technical approaches, lessons in effective program delivery, and human resource requirements. The scan team synthesized the data from the scan into a list of lessons which could be applied to infrastruc- ture resource allocation in the United States, including: • Common asset management performance measures can be categorized into condition, function, and capacity indica- tors. In some instances, these categories serve as the basis for cross-asset evaluation and prioritization methods. • All transportation authorities interviewed use the concept of risk in their prioritization process. Whereas, the application of risk is absent from most U.S. agencies’ asset management frameworks. • The integration of asset management into public-private ventures is instrumental in ensuring assets are returned to the public entity in good condition and good service is deliv- ered to the users during the life of the contract. • Data itself should be treated as an asset; data collection should have a clear purpose and be directly tied to a per- formance measure used in the decision-making process. Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand (38). This international scan was conducted to help provide U.S. agencies with a back- ground on the issue of performance measures in transporta- tion decision-making. The scan team identified a number of common themes and lessons applicable to U.S. agencies. These include: • The international transportation officials in the scan clearly distinguished between outcome (i.e., the ultimate character- istic of the performance of the system) and output (i.e., products and services leading to outcomes) measures. • Identifying a small set of key performance measures, as the National Ministry in Japan has, encourages the use of the measures in decision making; localities can establish addi- tional measures specific to their circumstance as appropriate. • The most commonly used categories of measures were road network congestion, accessibility and mobility, road safety, travel time, and trip reliability; transportation system secu- rity was absent from all survey countries’ measures. 63

• The best examples of performance measure use included a relatively dynamic set of measures, to address the evolving goals of the organization. International Infrastructure Management Manual (39). The goal of this manual is to provide organizations with skills to monitor their assets cost-effectively. A series of steps is pro- posed to plan, prepare, and develop asset management within an organization. Based on the manual, in order for an agency to implement asset management, the organization should define: i) the levels of service for each of its assets, the current levels of service, the customers’ expected levels and the levels the customers are willing to pay for; ii) forecast future demand; and iii) determine the physical condition and current utiliza- tion of its assets. The organization should also communicate with its customers to define their expectations. The manual also proposes a process for collecting and managing data. A framework is proposed to enable an organization to determine how an asset may fail to achieve its expected level of service. Determining the failure mode of an asset can help the organi- zation in monitoring the asset. Likewise, the manual addresses the issue of identifying and evaluating risks related to an asset. The manual provides examples of asset management in Aus- tralia and New Zealand. A.4 References (1) Science Applications International Corp. 2002 AASHTO Guide to Highway Vulnerability Assessment for Critical Asset Identification and Protection, Contractor’s Final Report prepared for NCHRP Project 20-07/Task 151B, 2002. (2) Science Applications International Corp. and PB Consult. Guide to Risk Management of Multimodal Transportation Infrastructure, Draft Final Report prepared for NCHRP Project 20-59(17), 2007. (3) Cesare, M., Santamarina, J. C., Turkstra, C. J., and E. Vanmarcke. “Risk-Based Bridge Management,” Journal of Transportation Engi- neering, Volume 119, Number 5, 1993. (4) Ray, J. C. “Risk-Based Prioritization of Terrorist Threat Mitigation Measures on Bridges,” Journal of Bridge Engineering, Volume 12, Number 2, 2007. (5) Flaig, K. D. and R. J. Lark. “A Risk-Based Decision-Support Sys- tem for Bridge Management,” Proceedings of the Institute of Civil Engineers: Bridge Engineering, Volume 158, Number 3, 2005. (6) Dicdican, R. Y., Haimes, Y. Y., and J. H. Lambert. Risk-Based Asset Management Methodology for Highway Infrastructure Systems, Vir- ginia Transportation Research Council, Virginia Department of Transportation, 2004. (7) Ng, M. F., Tummala, V. M. and R. Yam. “A Risk-Based Mainte- nance Management Model for Toll Road/Tunnel Operations,” Con- struction Management and Economics, Volume 21, Number 5, 2003. (8) Salem, O., Abourizk, S., and S. Ariaratnam. “Risk-Based Life-Cycle Costing of Infrastructure Rehabilitation and Construction Alterna- tives,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Volume 9, Number 1, 2003. (9) Crowther, K. G., Dicdican, R. Y., Leung, M. F., Lian, C. and Williams, G. M., Assessing and Managing Risk of Terrorism to Vir- ginia’s Interdependent Transportation Systems, Report: VTRC-05- CR6 prepared for FHWA and Virginia DOT, 2004. (10) Dryden, L. M., Haggerty, M. S., Lane, L. M. and C. S. Lee. “Model- ing the Impact of Infrastructure Interdependencies on Virginia’s Highway Transportation System,” 2004 IEEE Systems and Informa- tion Engineering Design Symposium, IEEE Cat. No.04EX785, 2004. (11) Kiremidjian, A., Moore, J., Fan, Y., Yazlali, O., Basoz, N., and M. Williams. “Seismic Risk Assessment of Transportation Network Systems,” Journal of Earthquake Engineering, Volume 11, Num- ber 3, 2007. (12) Shiraki, N., Shinozuka, M., Moore, J. E., Chang, S. E., Kameda, H., and S. Tanaka. “System Risk Curves: Probabilistic Performance Scenarios for Highway Networks Subject to Earthquake Damage,” Journal of Infrastructure Systems, Volume 13, Number 1, 2007. (13) Patidar, V, Labi, S. Sinha, K. C. and P. NCHRP Report 590: Multiple-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 12-67, 2007. (14) Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Michael D. Meyer. U.S. Domestic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset Management, Scan Tour Report, NCHRP Project 20-68, 2007. (15) FHWA. Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) Reassess- ment 2010+ Final Recommendations Report, 2008. (16) Markow, Michael J. NCHRP Synthesis 371: Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Sidewalks, 2007. (17) FHWA. Culvert Management Systems: Alabama, Maryland, Min- nesota, and Shelby County, 2007. (18) FHWA. Highway and Rail Transit Tunnel Inspection Manual, 2005. (19) FHWA. Guidelines for the Installation, Maintenance, and Repair, of Structural Supports for Highway Signs, Luminaries, and Traffic Sig- nals, 2007. (20) Hearn, George. Feasibility of a Management System for Retaining Walls and Sound Barriers, Report CDOT-DTD-R-2003-8 prepared for the Colorado Department of Transportation, 2003. (21) Applied Pavement Technology, Inc. Use of Highway Maintenance Management Systems in State Highway Agencies, 2006. (22) Ziering, E., Harrison, F., Scarponcini, P., InfoTech, Inc., Michael Baker Jr., Inc. and C. E. Campbell. NCHRP Report 576: TransXML—XML Schemas for Exchange of Transportation Data, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-64, 2007. (23) AASHTO-AGC-ARTBA Joint Committee, Asset Management Data Collection Guide: Task Force 45 Report, 2006. (24) Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, and System Metrics Group, Inc. NCHRP Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Manage- ment, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-57, 2005. (25) Hugh Hawk. NCHRP Report 483: Bridge Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 12-43, 2003. (26) Flintsch, G., Dymond, R. and J. Collura. NCHRP Synthesis 335: Pavement Management Applications Using Geographic Information Systems, 2004. (27) AASHTO. Guidelines for Maintenance Management Systems, 2005. (28) Friedman, David, Monteith, M. C., Kay, D. H., Couts, V. B., Trombly, J. W., Bratvold, D., and I. Hirshmann. NCHRP Report 525 Volume 11: Disruption Impact Estimating Tool—Transportation (DIETT)—A Tool for Prioritizing High-Value Transportation Choke Points, Contractor’s Final Report Prepared for NCHRP Project 20-59(9), 2006. (29) Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Parsons Brinckerhoff and Venner Consulting, Inc. Final Report for NCHRP Research Results Digest 317: Prototype Software for an Environmental Information Manage- ment and Decision Support System, NCHRP Web-Only Document 103, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 25-23(2), 2006. 64

65 (30) Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, and Texas Transporta- tion Institute. NCHRP Report 551: Performance Measures and Tar- gets for Transportation Asset Management, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 20-60, 2006. (31) Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Texas Transportation Institute, University of Washington and Dowling Associates. NCHRP Web-Only Document 97: Guide to Effective Freeway Performance Measurement—Final Report and Guidebook, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 3-68, 2006. (32) AASHTO. Measuring Performance Among State DOTs, 2006. (33) Padgette, Robert. Effective Organization of Performance Manage- ment, Contractor’s Final Report for NCHRP Project 8-36(47), 2006. (34) National Research Council Board on Infrastructure and the Constructed Environment. Measuring and Improving Infra- structure Performance, National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., 1995. (35) FHWA. Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: 2006 Conditions and Performance Report, 2006. (36) U.S. Department of Transportation. Fiscal Year 2006 Performance and Accountability Report, 2006. (37) FHWA. Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand, 2005. (38) FHWA, American Trade Initiatives, and LGB and Associates, Inc. Transportation Performance Measures in Australia, Canada, Japan, and New Zealand, 2004. (39) NZ National Asset Management Steering (NAMS) Group, Insti- tute of Public Works Engineering of Australia (IPWEA). Interna- tional Infrastructure Management Manual, 2000.