Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 66
66
APPENDIX B
Pilot Program
This section describes the pilot conducted of the Interstate other structures listed above for which the agency lacks
Asset Management Framework. The pilot was conducted pri- detailed asset data)--Inventory of roadside assets includ-
marily to test application of the framework using existing ing asset type, extent (e.g., counts of the asset over the cor-
data and tools. Section B.1 details the approach of the pilot. ridor), and annual maintenance cost for the asset;
Section B.2 describes the data obtained. Section B.3 details · Facilities (rest areas, weigh stations, toll booths and any
the analysis performed, and Section B.4 summarizes conclu- other buildings or other facilities associated with the
sions from the pilot. pilot corridor)--Inventory of facilities including facility
type, location, and annual maintenance cost; and
B.1 Approach · Other--Information on the status, scope and cost of
planned, programmed or in-progress projects for the pilot
Participants in the pilot effort were selected by the research
corridor, counts of crashes and fatalities by year for the past
panel, and included representatives from the DOTs of Califor-
five years on the pilot corridor.
nia, South Carolina, and Wisconsin. Each participant identified
an IHS corridor from their DOT's IHS network to include in
Agencies were requested to provide whatever data they had
the analysis. The corridors included in the pilot were as follows:
already collected and were readily available from the set of
data items described above, as well as additional relevant data
· California--Interstate 80;
(e.g., a description of risk scenarios or travel demand data
· South Carolina--Interstate 95 (approximately 100 miles
that could be used to facilitate risk analysis).
of this highway, extending south from the North Carolina
Data were requested in December 2007 and received between
border); and
January and February 2008. Once data were obtained, the re-
· Wisconsin--Interstate 94.
search team performed a series of analyses to characterize exist-
ing conditions of each corridor, and predicted future conditions
The research team requested the same basic data and per- under different funding and risk scenarios. These analyses are
formed, to the extent feasible, the same analyses on the data described in Section B.3 and are considered typical of that re-
from each pilot participant. The research team requested the quired to develop an Interstate Asset Management Plan.
following types of data from each participant, at a minimum:
B.2 Summary of Data Obtained
· Pavement/Highway Inventory--Inventory and condition
data for each pavement section, including the agency's All of the pilot participants were extremely helpful in facil-
HPMS file and additional pavement condition measures itating collection of the data for the pilot, despite the fact that
not included in the HPMS; this frequently required coordination with a number of dif-
· Bridge--Pontis database or NBI file; ferent groups within their respective agencies. Table B.1 sum-
· Other Structures--Listing of other structures, including marizes the data obtained from the pilot participants. The
structure type, annual maintenance cost, replacement cost, following paragraphs further detail the data obtained for each
estimated remaining service life, and any available listing asset category.
of deficiencies for the asset;
· Roadside Assets (signs, striping, traffic operations equip- · Pavement/Highway Inventory--All of the pilot partici-
ment, guardrails, right-of-way, shoulders, and any of the pants had HPMS data and additional pavement condition
OCR for page 67
67
Table B.1. Summary of pilot data obtained.
Category Data Obtained
Pavement/ All participants had HPMS data
Highway Inventory
All participants had data on existing/historic conditions
One participant had PMS runs available
Bridges All participants had NBI data
All participants had additional element-level data
Two participants had cost models needed to run Pontis
One participant had supplemental information on structure-related risk (e.g.,
seismic, guardrails, scour, etc...)
Other Structures Limited data available
Roadside Assets Signs/pavement markings for one-third of the participants
Facilities Two participants had basic inventory and cost data for rest areas
Other All participants had crash data
All participants had project data
All participants have (or will soon have) travel demand model data, but none
were in a position to define risk scenarios to analyze using travel demand data
One participant had some level of risk-related data details on structure
vulnerabilities of different types, with scores
data. One participant (South Carolina) had an in-house Facilities. Facilities specific to the IHS for the pilot corri-
capability to simulate future conditions using its Pavement dors included rest areas along each corridor. Two of the par-
Management System (PMS) and provided PMS results for ticipants (South Carolina and Wisconsin) provided details on
the pilot corridor. their rest areas, including maintenance and renewal costs.
· Bridges--All of the participants had NBI data and addi-
tional element-level data. Two participants (South Carolina Other Data. All of the participants had project information
and California) had developed deterioration and costs for programmed projects on the pilot corridors. All of the par-
models for use in predicting future bridge conditions. One ticipants provided data on crashes and fatalities on the pilot
participant (California) provided additional data on a vari- corridors.
ety of risk-related bridge needs, including seismic vulnera- All of the participants had additional data beyond the
bilities, scour mitigation needs, and safety improvement minimum data requirements described above. For example,
(guardrail) needs. California recently updated its process for developing its
· Other Structures--Limited data were available on other Strategic Highway Operations and Protection Plan (SHOPP)
structures. All of participants store some amount of struc- and had data and results available from that effort. South
ture data for nonbridge structures (e.g., tunnels and some Carolina had detailed data on highway interchanges and
culverts) in their bridge management system (BMS). Except interstate highway sections, including potential interchange
for the data available through their BMS, none of the partic- improvements and performance measures related to highway
ipants had available additional detailed structure inventory sections and interchanges in its Interactive Interstate Man-
and condition data. agement System (IIMS). Figure B.1 shows an example screen
from the IIMS showing an interchange diagram and predicted
Roadside Assets. Limited data were available for roadside performance measures for an I-95 interchange. Wisconsin
assets. One participant (Wisconsin) had inventories avail- provided information on its passenger and freight demand
able for signs and pavement markings. Another participant models, as well as additional freight analyses.
(California) had data on roadside vegetation needs, as well as Regarding risk, two of the participants had considered risk
system-level data on roadside assets to support a maintenance in operational planning in some manner (California through
budgeting process, though this was not localized to the pilot identifying "emergency lifeline routes" and South Carolina
corridor. In some cases, participants indicated that individual through developing hurricane evacuation plans). Also, Cal-
districts likely had additional inventory data (e.g., in the form ifornia had significant additional data available regarding
of spreadsheet inventories), but this information was not read- structure-related risk, as described above. All of the partici-
ily available and attainable within the timeframe requested. pants either had (California, Wisconsin) or were developing
