National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework

« Previous: Chapter 1 - Introduction
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 - Interstate Asset Management Framework." 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 14

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.

52.1 Asset Management Overview Part of the challenge of managing the IHS lies in developing cost-effective investment strategies with measurable outcomes that are mutually agreed upon by agency staff and external stakeholders for managing the various assets on the system. Assets need to be managed collectively by asset type, as well as by segment, by corridor, by region, and for the system in its en- tirety. The challenges only will grow greater as the system ages, and there are more increases in passenger and freight traffic. A hallmark of the IHS is that it was initially constructed to conform to consistent design standards. However, individual segments of the system now face very different realities result- ing from factors such as varying physical condition, age, traf- fic characteristics, operating environments, weather, design standards, and the diverse approaches to operating and main- taining the system that have been employed at the state level. Figure 2.1 demonstrates how the variations in condition on the IHS are manifested over a typical corridor based on analysis of data from the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). The figure plots the Average Daily Traffic (ADT) and pavement condition over one of the cross-country interstate corridors. Variations in ADT are plotted on the vertical axis, while International Roughness Index (IRI) ranges are shown using different colors. As indicated in the figure, there are significant variations in both traffic and pave- ment condition over the length of the corridor. There are peaks in traffic levels in several areas of the corridor where the highway passes through urban areas, with particularly high levels at approximately 700 miles. Pavement conditions are generally very good (IRI less than 60) or good (IRI between 60 and 95). However, conditions appear to worsen as one progresses through the corridor (right side of the graph), based on the increasing occurrence of sections classified as “acceptable” (values between 95 and 170) or “unacceptable” (IRI greater than 170). Note that IRI is measured and reported somewhat differently from state to state, complicating na- tional comparisons. Also, note that as a measure of roughness of the pavement surface, IRI does not necessarily provide an indication of the condition of the underlying pavement structure or substructure. Clearly the system owners of different portions of the cor- ridor shown in Figure 2.1 must consider different factors as they determine how best to manage their portion of the IHS, illustrating the fact that there is no “one size fits all” solution to measuring and managing the system. The IHS is of na- tional importance, but management of the system must be based on balancing challenges at the state, corridor, and local levels. An objective approach addressing the needs at these varying geopolitical levels is essential if the vital interests of each are to be considered in a rational way. Transportation asset management is a developing field that provides a set of tools and techniques for managing infrastruc- ture assets. Asset management is, at its core, a set of guiding principles and best practice methods for making informed transportation resource allocation decisions, and for improv- ing the accountability for these decisions. AASHTO defines asset management as follows (1): Transportation Asset Management is a strategic and system- atic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading, and expand- ing physical assets effectively throughout their lifecycle. It focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision-making based upon quality information and well defined objectives. The core principles of asset management have increasingly gained acceptance in the transportation community since they were initially described in the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide (2). These principles hold that asset management is: • Policy-Driven. Resource allocation decisions are based on a well-defined and explicitly stated set of policy goals and objectives. C H A P T E R 2 Interstate Asset Management Framework

• Performance-Based. Policy objectives are translated into system performance measures that are used for strategic management and tied to the resource allocation process. • Reliant on Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs. Decisions on how to allocate resources within and across different types of investments are based on an analysis of how dif- ferent allocations will impact the achievement of relevant policy objectives. • Focused on Yielding Decisions Based on Quality Infor- mation. The merits of different options with respect to an agency’s policy goals are evaluated using credible and cur- rent data. Where appropriate, decision support tools are used to provide easy access to needed information, to as- sist with performance tracking and predictions, and to per- form specialized analysis. • Reliant on Monitoring to Provide Clear Accountability and Feedback. Performance results are monitored and re- ported. Feedback on actual performance may influence agency goals and objectives, as well as resource allocation and utilization decisions in future budget cycles. Figure 2.2 summarizes the basic asset management process, highlighting issues of particular importance for the IHS at each step of the process. The following paragraphs discuss these steps. Policy Goals and Objectives. The first step of the process is to establish agency policy goals and objectives. In this step, internal stakeholders across an agency must define its basic goals and objectives, translating these into a set of performance measures and targets. This step must be performed factor- ing in available information on funding levels and customer expectations, and considering the perspectives of all internal and external stakeholders. Customer expectations are of partic- ular importance for management of the IHS, given the impor- tance and level of use of the system. Customers of the system may be interpreted to include stakeholders in the resource allo- cation process (e.g., Metropolitan Planning Organizations and other planning partners, Federal agencies, and resource agen- cies), the traveling public, and private sector freight carriers. Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs. Once an initial set of goals and objectives has been established, the next step is to analyze options and tradeoffs. In this step, analytical tools are used to systematically analyze the impact of different budget levels for a specific set of assets and activities. Note that this iterative step is both informed by and informs the develop- ment of policies, goals, and objectives. As analyses are per- formed, an agency may realize the need to revisit its goals, objectives, and performance targets. This step establishes the concept of an asset management approach that provides decision-making transparency to the framework development. Resource Allocation Decisions. Analysis of options and tradeoffs typically results in a target funding level by asset type and/or treatment, and a set of prioritized candidate projects 6 Figure 2.1. Traffic levels and pavement conditions along an interstate corridor. AADT (vehicles per day in Thousands) Very Good Good Acceptable Not Acceptable Distance Along Corridor (miles) 0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1,000 1,100 1,200 1,300 1,400 1,500 1,600 1,700

that can populate fundable programs to renew and extend asset life. The next step is to determine how to allocate resources based on this information, in a manner consistent with an agency’s policy goals and objectives and the external stake- holders understanding of the potential implications of these allocation strategies. Program and Service Delivery. The focus shifts to deliv- ery once resource allocation decisions have been made. There are a number of key issues an agency must consider in this area, including determining the best approach to delivering the program, managing work zones, and communicating the status of the program to industry partners and the public, to provide transparency into an agency’s processes and convey important information about ongoing or upcoming con- struction work that may impact travel decisions. System Conditions and Service Levels. In conjunction with program delivery, an agency monitors the system con- ditions and service levels, as indicated in the final step of the figure. Because asset management is data-driven, the process is designed assuming that data collected in this step are inputs to every other step in the process. The asset management principles and process described apply to all types of investments in transportation infrastruc- ture assets. Conceptually asset management is not limited to a preservation focus, but considers the full range of potential investments, as well as factors related to safety, operations, environmental management, corridor management, and project/program delivery. 2.2 Applying Asset Management to the IHS The basic transportation asset management principles and process described in this report and detailed in the AASHTO Guide are wholly applicable to IHS infrastructure assets. The asset management framework for the IHS necessarily 7 Figure 2.2. Generic asset management process with issues of importance for the IHS. • Customer expectations • Response to program implementation • Use analytical tools to analyze the impact of different funding levels on system performance • Incorporate risk assessment results • Consider tradeoffs between preservation, mobility, safety, environment, and other areas • Monitor and report performance results • Collect and manage data for accountability and feedback • Evaluate delivery alternatives • Keep all stakeholders updated on delivery status • Determine strategy for developing programs and prioritizing projects • Define the role of the stakeholders in the resource allocation process • Finalize budget allocations • Establish goals and objectives for IHS assets • Select the performance measures • Set performance targets Policy Goals and Objectives Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs Resource Allocation Decisions Program and Service Delivery System Conditions and Service Levels Funding Levels Customer Input

encompasses and builds upon the concepts in the AASHTO Guide. However, in applying asset management to the IHS one must first ask what, if anything, is unique about the IHS that demands a targeted approach. The answer to this most fundamental question is that the IHS is uniquely important because it represents the most critical set of highway assets in the United States. Keeping its portion of the IHS in operation is a critical concern for every IHS owner, and asset management promises an ap- proach for helping accomplish this objective. This answer is based on the following key assumptions: • The IHS typically represents the highest priority network for a transportation agency. High priority can be defined in a number of ways, but by any definition of the term, the IHS is clearly the highway network with the highest priority at the national level. For any given transportation agency, their portion of the IHS is likely a reasonable approximation of their highest priority network. However, it may be that there are additional highway sections not classified as inter- states that are critical from a regional or statewide perspec- tive (e.g., nonredundant portions of the network, evacuation routes, and/or other high traffic sections). By the same token there may be some highway segments, though classified as interstates, which do not carry the same level traffic or pro- vide the same degree of connectivity as other segments off of the IHS. Thus, the concepts described in this report should properly be considered as applying to a transporta- tion agency’s “highest priority network,” with the under- standing that this network largely consists of, but may not be identical to, an agency’s portion of the IHS. • Keeping its highest priority network in operation is of fun- damental concern for any transportation agency. With the IHS largely complete, and the corresponding shift in focus of U.S. highway owners from building the network to de- livering transportation as a service, the immediate challenge transportation agencies face is keeping their most critical assets in operation. The concern for keeping the network in operation is reflected in the emphasis on Intelligent Trans- portation Systems (ITS) and Vehicle Infrastructure Integra- tion (VII) aimed at using technology to improve network operations and safety. Also, this focus is readily apparent in areas such as snow and ice removal in cold-weather cli- mates. But keeping the network in operation is more than a day-to-day challenge; it is a long-term concern that should be reflected in project development, capital budget- ing, long-term planning, and other processes. • Asset management helps an agency keep its network in op- eration by improving decision making based on data that provides a quantitative overview of the performance of the system. That is, transportation asset management helps an agency make decisions that are better targeted to achieve agency policy goals and objectives, and that help achieve those goals and objectives in a more cost-effective manner. There is a significant amount of evidence in other industries that a performance-based approach helps improve per- formance, and an abundance of anecdotal evidence con- cerning agency successes in applying asset management principles. Nonetheless, the focus on asset management is still a relatively new phenomenon, and must be treated with the assertion that it is of benefit as an assumption until suf- ficient evidence mounts to prove or disprove it. Based on the preceding assumptions, applying asset manage- ment to IHS assets is not an objective unto itself, but a means for achieving a larger, national goal, that of helping keep the IHS network in operation using the most effective means. This objective is in one respect very targeted, in that it applies to a single portion of the U.S. transportation network. In another respect, the objective is quite broad, as it implies consideration of the full range of factors that might impact operation of the IHS, and introduces the concept of a national interest in IHS asset performance. This approach provides a consistent asset management framework and performance expectations for the IHS by leveraging existing agency-to-agency institutions and relationships in managing the connection points of the system. Figure 2.3 presents a perspective concerning how IHS asset management decisions relate to the larger resource allocation process. It is intended to put decisions concerning IHS assets into a practical context. As indicated in the figure, agencies typically make a distinction between modes (e.g., highway, transit, rail, ports, aviation) in their resource allocation process. Within the highway mode, an agency must make decisions across network classifications. Network classifications vary from one agency to another, but frequently include the IHS (and/or other high-priority network links), the National High- way System (NHS), and other classifications. Within a net- work classification an agency must determine how to allocate resources to obtain the best performance and lowest risk (greatest reduction in risk) across all asset types, recognizing any relevant legislative direction or other constraints. The fig- ure depicts this relationship within the IHS network, but the network can be further subdivided by corridor. In practice the lines between decisions concerning IHS assets and other assets are not so sharply delineated as depicted in the figure. Investments in IHS assets must be balanced with invest- ments in other parts of the network. Also, there are legitimate reasons for establishing policies and evaluating performance for selected asset types across networks. Further, the dimension of time is not illustrated in the figure, though certainly relevant. Practically speaking, certain decisions, such as those concerning capacity expansion projects, are the product of a long-term planning process. Other capital budgeting decisions are made on a year-to-year basis, while maintenance and operations 8

decisions are often made with a shorter time horizon and often targetexisting(notprojected)performanceandcondition issues. The basic strategy recommended for integrating decision making for IHS assets with the broader decision-making scope presented here is for each IHS owner to develop an Interstate Asset Management Plan on a periodic basis. The plan should summarize conditions of IHS assets, establish performance measures for those assets considering available funds, and de- scribe the plan for future investments in the IHS. The plan, once developed, will help support the agency’s ongoing re- source allocation process for its IHS network across invest- ment categories and decision-making horizons. It also should provide consistent information about the system that can be shared among the many agencies managing the network. A recommended outline for an Interstate Asset Management Plan is presented in Section 2.4. 2.3 Focus Areas for Interstate Asset Management Previous work on transportation asset management is readily transferable to the present study, but developing an asset management framework tailored to the IHS requires ex- tending previous work on transportation asset management, focusing in on selected areas. These include: • Defining how to better incorporate assessment of the risks of system failure into an asset management framework; • Providing guidance for handling all IHS assets, particularly assets besides pavements and bridges; and • Recommending a set of measures tailored for use in re- porting and facilitating discussion of IHS performance both within an agency, to system users, industry partners, and nationally. The following sections describe each of these areas further. Risk Management Ideally, any decision-making process should take risk into account. As the risks faced in management of the IHS are significant and the potential consequences of risk such as failure of an IHS link can be staggering, incorporating risk assessment into a framework for managing the IHS is a topic of particular importance. Risk management is of importance for managing any transportation system, but is of particular importance for the IHS because of the magni- tude of the consequences to society when and if risks to the system are realized. Tragic events such as the Northridge Earthquake of 1994 starkly illustrate the importance of this topic. When this earthquake struck the Los Angeles area on January 17, 1994, it caused extensive damage to Los Angeles freeways, includ- ing the collapse of two bridges on Interstate 10 between downtown Los Angeles and Santa Monica, the collapse of the Interstate 5/Antelope Valley Freeway interchange and a closure of a portion of State Route 118 in the Simi Valley. The transportation-related economic impact of the event has been estimated to be over $1.5 billion (3). Similarly tragic consequences arose from the collapse of the Mianus River Bridge on Interstate 95 in Connecticut in 1982, from the damage caused along the Gulf Coast by Hurricane Katrina in 2005 and by Hurricane Ike in 2008, and from the 2007 collapse of the Interstate 35W bridge over the Mississippi River in Minneapolis. Transportation agencies that own and operate the IHS are well aware of the risks they face as they deliver a service— providing a transportation network—to the public. Further, individual agencies have performed in an exemplary fashion in responding to events such as those described above. However, the existing tools and approaches developed for asset manage- ment are of limited value for managing risk. While asset man- agement principles are not inconsistent with the concept of risk 9 Figure 2.3. Example IHS resource allocation process in context. Highway Overall Resources Available for Transportation Transit Rail Air Port Interstate System Roads Structures Safety Features Facilities Allocation Across Networks Allocation Across Assets Allocation Across Modes Scope of IHS Plan Other NHS Other Systems

assessment, it is true that this has not been an area of significant focus in many asset management implementation efforts. Fur- ther, while significant work has been performed on risk assess- ment for transportation in recent years, there is little guidance available on how to integrate a risk management approach with an agency’s asset management-related processes. Chapter 3 of this document describes an approach to risk assessment for IHS assets that integrates best practices in risk management with the concepts of transportation asset man- agement. The approach is focused on the risks of system failure. In the context of this report, system failure refers to any con- dition that results in closure of an IHS link to travel for some period of time, as a result of unintentional hazards, inten- tional threats, natural hazards, or substandard performance. A scenario-based approach is presented for quantifying the risks to a set of IHS assets, including their likelihood, consequences if realized, and available mitigation approaches. Ideally, the quantitative approach presented in this section would be used to perform a comprehensive risk assessment. However, the section describes an alternative threshold approach that an agency can use where sufficient data and resources are lacking to support the recommended approach. The outcome of ap- plying the scenario-based approach is a recommended allo- cation of resources to mitigating risk based on a determination of how an agency can best minimize the expected economic losses from the risks it perceives to its IHS assets. If a risk can be managed through other systems and processes without employing the scenario-based approach detailed in Chapter 3, the risk is referred to as a “programmatic” risk. In the case of performance risks, such as substandard design, construction defects, materials defects, and unexpected traffic volumes, these risks are best addressed through existing preser- vation programs, such as pavement preservation and bridge preservation programs. In theory, asset management systems should help manage these risks, but the reality is that there are gaps that need to be filled to improve systematic capabilities for handling programmatic risk. Chapter 4 describes the exist- ing tools available for managing IHS assets and identifies gaps that should be addressed in their capabilities. Guidance for the Comprehensive Set of IHS Assets Each of the individual segments of the IHS is composed of a number of distinct types of infrastructure assets. Table 2.1 details the infrastructure assets associated with the IHS, organized by asset category. Even though rights-of-way, equipment, and people may be viewed as assets using a broader definition of the term, they are not included in the table because they are not part of the built infrastructure. AASHTO’s Asset Management Guide emphasizes that the transportation asset management principles and processes apply to all assets, modes, and investment categories. A concern voiced in the Guide and in other work on transportation asset management is that agencies should make investment decisions across assets, modes, and investment categories, rather than concentrating decision making within narrowly defined “silos,” with each silo focusing on a specific asset and/or type of invest- ment. In spite of this concern, the reality is that significant at- tention has been devoted to developing systems and approaches for handling two asset types—pavements and bridges—while the data, tools, and approaches for other asset types are typically rudimentary by comparison. This is not an accidental develop- ment: pavements and bridges necessarily consume the greatest portion of agencies’ preservation expenditures, and the data, tools, and processes have evolved based on this reality. The current study, with its focus on developing a practical approach for managing all of an agency’s assets, but for only the most critical portion of the agency’s network, forces the question of how an IHS owner should go about managing “all of those other assets” listed in Table 2.1. Chapter 4 details the data and tools typically available for each asset category and type, focusing on assets other than pavements and bridges that have been the subject of much of the attention in trans- portation asset management in the past. With regard to other assets beside pavement and bridges, the guidance can be sum- marized as follows: • IHS owners should collect inventory and inspection data for IHS pavements and bridges consistent with both Fed- eral reporting requirements and the requirements of pave- ment and bridge management systems, and they should use these systems to manage pavements and bridges. • IHS owners should collect inventory and inspection data for all of their IHS structures, including those listed in Table 2.1. Tools and techniques employed for managing bridges should be employed for managing other IHS structures besides bridges. The basic logic for this recommendation is simple: structures can fail catastrophically, and in so doing cause system failure (closure of an IHS link for some period). • IHS owners should report conditions on other assets, in- cluding safety features, based on the degree the assets are “functioning as intended.” A maintenance level of service or remaining service life approach is recommended for budgeted future investment needs for these assets. Performance Measure Reporting for IHS Assets A cornerstone of transportation asset management is its emphasis on using quality information to make performance- based decisions. Encouraging a performance-based approach is consistent with best practices followed in other industries and the direction of many state transportation departments 10

(DOT). The AASHTO Guide discusses performance measures for asset management at high level, and NCHRP Report 551 (4) covers this topic in detail. This study adopts the terminology and basic approach for describing performance measures and targets introduced in NCHRP Report 551. The approach described in Volume 2 of that report, summarized in Figure 2.4, has been employed to develop a set of performance measures for use in reporting IHS conditions in an Interstate Asset Management Plan. With this approach, performance measures are used to mon- itor progress towards policy goals and objectives, reflect asset conditions, provide a long-term view of asset life cycles, and track program delivery. Performance targets are specific per- formance measure values an IHS owner plans to achieve. These are set based on consideration of past trends, predicted future performance, agency funding levels, and other factors. In developing the set of measures, the research team made a distinction between measures that every IHS owner should be in a position to report today, labeled “core” measures, and additional measures that would be desirable to report for IHS assets if an agency has sufficient data and resources, labeled “comprehensive” measures. Ideally, every IHS owner would report the core measures described here, at a minimum, and plan to collect and report the full set of comprehensive mea- sures in the future. Chapter 5 details the recommended performance manage- ment approach for IHS assets. Table 2.2 summarizes the recommended core measures. With regard to the Environment category, it is clear that this is an area of great importance, but there are few environ- mental measures that can be both localized to the IHS, and used to support the asset management process. Also, there is little consistency from one IHS owner to another concerning how environmental data are collected and reported. Thus, rather than recommending a specific set of measures as in the other categories, for the Environment category this report recommends a report card approach, whereby an IHS owner establishes a set of environmental milestones and reports whether they are achieving them on a pass/fail basis. These milestones may include measures of air quality, wetlands restoration, provision of mitigation features such as wildlife crossings and fish passages, and an indication of the extent the IHS owner is satisfying its environmental commitments. Chapter 5 lists a number of additional comprehensive measures. The comprehensive set includes measures of asset performance for each of the categories listed in Table 2.1. 11 Table 2.1. IHS infrastructure assets. Asset Category Asset Type PavementRoads Shoulders Bridges Tunnels Culverts/drainage structures Noise barrier walls Retaining walls Overhead sign structures Structures High mast light poles Pavement markings/delineators Lighting Guardrails Median barriers Impact attenuators Signs Surveillance and monitoring equipment Safety Features Signal and control equipment Rest areas Toll plazas Weigh stations Maintenance depots Pump houses Facilities Communication facilities

12 Table 2.2. Recommended core IHS asset management performance measures. Category Asset Type Measure Type Measure Structural Adequacy Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) or an agency’s pavement condition index Pavement Ride Quality International Roughness Index (IRI) Bridges Structural Deficiency Percent classified as Structurally Deficient (SD), weighted by deck area Signs Asset Performance Percent functioning as intended Pavement Markings/ Delineators Asset Performance Percent functioning as intended Preservation Guardrails Asset Performance Percent functioning as intended Travel Time Travel time index Mobility Delay Delay per vehicle in hours Crash Rate Number of crashes expressed as number per year and per million vehicle miles traveled (VMT) Safety Fatality Rate Number of fatalities expressed as number per year and per VMT Environment Agency-specific report card of environmental milestones Pass/fail indication for each measure Figure 2.4. Setting performance measures and targets. Tailor Measures to Decisions Design Consistent Measures Across Program Areas Identify Improvements to Data and Tools Design Communication Devices Engage Stakeholders Document Definitions and Procedures Identify Performance Measures I tif rf r r Inventory Existing Measures Consider Policy and Public Input Assess and Select Measures for Further Design and Implementation Integrate Performance Measures into the Organization I t r t rf r r i t t r i ti Establish Performance Targets t li rf r r t Define Contexts and Time Horizons Select Scope of Measures for Targets Develop Long-Term Goals Consider Funding Availability Analyze Resource Allocation Scenarios and Trade-offs Establish Targets and Track Progress Assess Gaps Define Selection Criteria Identify Candidate Measures/Adjustments to Existing Measures Source: NCHRP Report 551.

2.4 Interstate Asset Management Plan Outline The basic strategy recommended for applying asset man- agement tools and techniques to IHS assets is for each IHS owner to develop an Interstate Asset Management Plan. The plan should summarize conditions of IHS assets, establish performance measures for those assets considering available funds, and describe the plan for future investments in the IHS. The starting point for developing the Interstate Asset Management Plan should be an agency’s existing long-range plan (LRP) developed following the Federally mandated LRP development process. The LRP should include policies, goals, and objectives, with specific measures of effectiveness or performance that can be used and/or supplemented for the Interstate Asset Management Plan. The plan, once developed, will help support the agency’s ongoing resource allocation process for its IHS network across investment categories and decision-making horizons. It also should provide consistent information about the system that can be shared among the many agencies managing the network. The following is a recommended outline for a typical state Interstate Asset Management Plan. As always, some variations will be necessary to address an IHS owner’s specific policies, priorities, organization, responsibilities, business processes, and data capabilities, but this prototype can provide the basic building blocks to initiate such a plan. Typically, sections of the plan should include: 1. Significance of the Interstate Highway System; 2. Assets Included in the Plan; 3. Measuring Performance; 4. Past and Present Funding; 5. Risk Assessment; 6. Interstate Investment Strategy; and 7. Updating the Plan. Section 1.0—Significance of the Interstate Highway System 1. Role of the IHS in our state’s economy and quality of life: a. Percent of miles; b. Percent of traffic; c. Access to ports and gateways; d. Connectivity with the nation; e. Access to regions of the state; and f. Importance to economic development goals. 2. The State’s Interstate system: a. System map; and b. System table, with route number, length, average daily traffic, and percent trucks. Include non-IHS, National Highway System routes included in the plan. (For the sake of brevity all references to the IHS include selected NHS routes.) 3. Interstate Routes—Level of Geographic Significance: a. Criteria: i. National—Serves long corridors on a national scale; ii. Multistate—Located in/serves more than one state; and iii. State/Metropolitan—Serves relatively limited area within one state. b. Table showing results—route number, category (national, multistate, or state/metropolitan), and rationale for designation. Section 2.0—Assets Included in the Plan This section documents the types of asset (pavement, shoulders, bridge, etc.) included in the plan. At a minimum, for each asset type, it is recommended that agencies include a basic inventory unit (lane miles, count, etc.) and the value for each unit. Agencies may also decide to break down the inven- tory information further by level of geographic significance, geographic area (e.g., DOT district), etc. Table 2.1 provides a list of assets that should be included in the plan. Section 3.0—Measuring Performance This section defines the performance measures used to assess the effectiveness of IHS investment and maintenance strategies. Table 2.2 provides a list of measures recommended for the plan, and Chapter 5 provides more detailed guidance on selecting measures. At a minimum, include the value for the measure for the previous year. If the data is available, provide historic trend information for up to 10 years. Section 4.0—Past and Present Funding This section provides information in the form of tables and graphs showing trends over time in sources and levels of funding and how these funds have been allocated from vari- ous perspectives, including transportation system categories (mode and level of system), corridors and geographic areas, functional categories, asset classes, etc. The compilation, presentation, and interpretation of such information would be customized according to the attributes and issues unique to the particular circumstances of the agency and its IHS re- sponsibilities and challenges. The categories used to report historic funding levels in this section should match the cate- gories used to present the investment strategy in Section 6.0 of the plan. 13

Section 5.0—Risk Assessment This section identifies and assesses key issues and challenges including significant vulnerabilities and risks associated with the IHS. It defines deficiencies and provides a factual and objec- tive foundation for the development of IHS policy and per- formance goals and strategies in such critically important areas as economic development, freight, and personal mobility and safety. Chapter 3 provides guidance on conducting a risk assess- ment and communicating the results. Section 6.0—IHS Investment Strategy This section presents the recommended level and distribu- tion of IHS investments and establishes performance targets for the IHS based on predictive modeling and considering potential investment levels. It should serve as guidance for sub- sequent programming and project prioritization processes, and provide a basis for monitoring the effectiveness of invest- ment decisions in terms of the defined targets. Since resources are invariably limited and insufficient to achieve all desired outcomes, the “art” of asset management comes into play when all of the information and analyses are focused on evaluating an array of “what if” investment alter- natives that consider vulnerabilities and deficiencies, risks and priorities, goals and performance targets. The questions will entail addressing what is to be gained and what is to be lost by changing investment strategies, such as: • Between the IHS and non-IHS; • Among asset types on the IHS; • Among specific IHS routes; • At varying investment levels; and/or • At varying performance levels. The end result of this tradeoff exercise is an IHS investment strategy organized around the performance measures identi- fied in Section 3.0 of the plan. For each measure, the agency should define the preferred target level and the annual funding required to achieve it. The investment strategy also may include a list of major proj- ects or initiatives that have been identified throughout the plan- ning and programming process or during the risk assessment. Section 7.0—Updating the Plan This section describes the process and timeframe for up- dating the plan. It is recommended that agencies reassess and update the plan on a defined schedule—perhaps annually but not less often than biennially—based on changing conditions and the effectiveness of previous investments and manage- ment strategies. 14

Next: Chapter 3 - Risk Management »
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!