National Academies Press: OpenBook
« Previous: Front Matter
Page 1
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 1
Page 2
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 2
Page 3
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 3
Page 4
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 4
Page 5
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 5
Page 6
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 6
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 40
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 57
Page 58
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 58
Page 59
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 59
Page 60
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 60
Page 61
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 61
Page 62
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 62
Page 63
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 63
Page 64
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 64
Page 65
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 65
Page 66
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 66
Page 67
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 67
Page 68
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 68
Page 69
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 69
Page 70
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 70
Page 71
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 71
Page 72
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 72
Page 73
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 73
Page 74
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 74
Page 75
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 75
Page 76
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 76
Page 77
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 77
Page 78
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 78
Page 79
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 79
Page 80
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 80
Page 81
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 81
Page 82
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 82
Page 83
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 83
Page 84
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 84
Page 85
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 85
Page 86
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 86
Page 87
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 87
Page 88
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 88
Page 89
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 89
Page 90
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 90
Page 91
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 91
Page 92
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 92
Page 93
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 93
Page 94
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 94
Page 95
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 95
Page 96
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 96
Page 97
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 97
Page 98
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 98
Page 99
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 99
Page 100
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 100
Page 101
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 101
Page 102
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 102
Page 103
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 103
Page 104
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 104
Page 105
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 105
Page 106
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 106
Page 107
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 107
Page 108
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 108
Page 109
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 109
Page 110
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 110
Page 111
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 111
Page 112
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 112
Page 113
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 113
Page 114
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 114
Page 115
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 115
Page 116
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 116
Page 117
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 117
Page 118
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 118
Page 119
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 119
Page 120
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 120
Page 121
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 121
Page 122
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 122
Page 123
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 123
Page 124
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 124
Page 125
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 125
Page 126
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 126
Page 127
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 127
Page 128
Suggested Citation:"Summary." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2009. Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/14270.
×
Page 128

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.

SUMMARY BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS FOR TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DECISION MAKING The objective of this synthesis study has been to gather information on current practices that agency chief executive officers and senior managers use to make network-level invest- ment and resource allocation decisions for their bridge programs, and to understand how they apply their agency’s bridge management capabilities to support these decisions. The following areas of planning, programming, and performance-based decision making have been addressed: Condition and performance measures that are used to define policy goals and perfor-• mance targets for the bridge program Methods of establishing funding levels and identifying bridge needs• Methods and organizational responsibilities for resource allocation between the • bridge program versus competing needs in other programs (pavement, safety, etc.) Methods of allocation among districts and selection and prioritization of projects• The role of automated bridge management systems (BMS) in planning, program-• ming, resource allocation, and budgeting Use of economic methods in bridge management• Methods to promote accountability and communication of the status of the bridge • inventory and the bridge program. The study has also considered recent trends and events that could influence future bridge program management. Several state departments of transportation (DOTs) that were interviewed for this study described ongoing, leading-edge enhancements of their bridge management processes and systems that provide examples for other agencies to apply in the future. The increasing application of asset management principles among state DOTs is another such influence, encompassing bridges, pavements, and a growing set of other transportation assets. Several actions following the collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in August 2007 also promise to reshape bridge management practices in the future, with increasing emphasis on program performance, federal oversight and account- ability, inspection qualifications and procedures, use of innovative inspection technology, and research needs to improve BMSs, procedures, and technology. Information on these topics was gathered through a review of literature on U.S. and international bridge management, a survey of U.S. and Canadian agency bridge manage- ment practices and assessments, and 15 in-depth interviews with state DOT executives and bridge managers. Twenty U.S. agencies and four Canadian agencies responded to the survey. Bridge management in the United States has taken major strides in the past 40 years, with significant accomplishments at the federal and state levels. The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), which were implemented in the 1970s, established a single, unified method of collecting data on the nation’s public-highway bridges. These data are submitted annually by state DOTs to the FHWA, which compiles them within the National Bridge Inventory database. The NBIS have enabled the FHWA and state DOTs to monitor bridge condition and performance nationally on a consistent basis, identify bridge needs,

2 define criteria of project eligibility for federal bridge funding, and thereby promote pub- lic safety through better stewardship of bridge assets. Following the implementation of the NBIS, substantial advances have occurred in bridge management at the national and state levels. Today, all state DOTs have a bridge management process. Most employ some type of automated BMS with an associated database of bridge-related information, including NBIS data and ratings, but often incorporating more detailed element-level data or additional, customized data. State DOTs differ in their specific procedures for bridge program-related management, funding, and resource allocation. This variability is driven by several factors, among them (1) different philosophies of bridge management; (2) different approaches to planning, program- ming, and budgeting; (3) the characteristics of each agency’s transportation system and its infrastructure; and (4) the policy, financial, technical, and institutional environment in which each agency operates. Despite the diversity of their practices, agencies that were addressed in this study appear to have integrated their bridge management procedures and systems well within their individual planning, resource allocation, programming, and budgeting pro- cesses. Philosophies of bridge management may contrast across agencies (e.g., centralized vs. decentralized decision making; use vs. nonuse of prediction models to forecast bridge network condition). Nonetheless, in each case that was studied in this synthesis, the agency has configured its bridge program management to fit within its organizational, financial, managerial, and technical modes of operation. It has tailored its internal communications of information, as well as its institutional relationships with other agencies, accordingly. In interviews conducted under this study, state DOTs stressed the importance of repeated consultations to seek agreement between central office and district personnel, regardless of which management approach they used. In many agencies, the management style is mixed, with centralized techniques often applying to bridge replacement and rehabilitation [i.e., projects that are eligible for federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funding], and more decentralized responsibility typically applying to bridge maintenance and repair (i.e., proj- ects tending to be funded more often by state money). Decisions thus flow both top down and bottom up. Even in decentralized organizations, the central office often handles major bridge projects and may retain responsibility for bridges on “trunk line” or “backbone” networks that have statewide significance. Further insight into the decision-influencing role of bridge management may be gained by considering how agencies use their BMS. The systems vary in analytic capabilities and sophistication, ranging from straightforward repositories of bridge data to full-fledged man- agement systems that include such tools as forecasting models, comparative analyses (sce- nario testing), and optimization procedures or decision rules. Full-featured systems operate at both the program or network level and at the level of individual bridges or projects. Those agencies that have a full-featured BMS thus have the ability to apply higher-end analyses such as project planning, network-level budget scenarios, trade-off analyses, and economic analyses of agency and user costs and benefits. However, the actual use of these capabilities is by no means a given. As a general statement, BMS capabilities are underutilized, a situa- tion that has been observed by other studies as well for at least 10 years. For example, many agencies—including those with sophisticated products—use their BMS solely to manage bridge inspection data. Those agencies that have applied more advanced functionality may still take advantage of only a subset of available features. To establish a benchmark for the current state of practice, interviews were conducted in this study with agencies that do use virtually the full set of available BMS features, including economic analyses and scenario testing. These DOTs might thus be viewed as leading-edge BMS practitioners. In addition to using a full set of BMS capabilities, several of them try to understand bridge program investments in a broad context—for example, considering impacts on different classes of road users and effects on local economic situations.

3 More generally, however, the characteristic use of BMSs for state DOT decision making is toward more limited ends, including the following: Compilation and display of current and near-term information rather than long-term • analyses A focus on technical results such as bridge condition and performance rather than • also considering economic comparisons of benefits and costs A preference for straightforward calculations and analyses, including database man-• agement and computations of bridge ratings and indexes, rather than more sophis- ticated modeling such as forecasting, scenario analyses, trade-off analyses, and optimization. Likely components of agencies’ databases regarding bridge condition and performance include the results of their bridge inspection program and computed NBIS ratings—Struc- tural Deficiency, Functional Obsolescence, and Sufficiency Rating. Agencies may also define custom measures of condition or performance to reflect local bridge, traffic, and transportation system characteristics. Many DOTs reserve more comprehensive, sophis- ticated, long-term analyses for major bridge projects. In considering applications more broadly to the entire bridge network, these types of analyses tend to be the purview of the subset of agencies that routinely employs more advanced BMS features, as discussed earlier. An important way to adapt bridge management to an agency’s business and decision processes is through customization—the ability to define new BMS data, performance measures, analytic procedures, and reports. Among agencies that were interviewed in this study, these customizations are important to ensuring that bridge management information remains relevant to agency decisions across all affected organizational units and levels. In particular, customized performance measures such as deficiency-point calculations and custom bridge health indexes in several cases were believed to be critical to advancing state-specific practices technically, managerially, and procedurally. These new indicators were supported and used by upper management and served bridge-office as well as execu- tive-level informational needs for investment planning, resource allocation, and budgeting. Some agencies also saw customized bridge rating indexes as a way to get better guidance on bridge investment needs and benefits, to compensate for what they believed were short- comings in the Sufficiency Rating as a criterion for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. Organizational responsibilities for decision making vary to some degree by agency, but the following statements generally hold. An agency’s bridge office is substantially involved in all programming decisions that deal specifically with bridges, but this author- ity is shared with other groups within and outside the agency. For example, major bridge projects involve strong participation by agency executives and, in some states, the oversight transportation board or commission. Regional and local officials will also be involved for major bridge projects in urban areas. Local bridge programs engage important roles by local and regional bodies together with the state agency’s local or municipal assistance office. Districts (or regions or divisions) generally have a strong say in decisions involving all categories of bridge projects within their jurisdictions, including local, state owned, and major bridges. One programming decision for which the bridge unit does not have a dominant role among reporting agencies is in the allocation of resources among competing agency pro- grams: bridge versus pavement, safety, maintenance, and so on. Leadership on this deci- sion is seen either as an executive-level function, with transportation board or commission involvement as well in several states, or as a broader departmental decision involving units such as planning, investment management, policy and strategy, project management, and (in a Canadian province) the director of highway design and construction. In two of the

4 states responding to the survey, this decision is decentralized, with program allocations made by districts. In some states, this decision may be moot if bridge funding is allocated “off the top” or is reserved in a noncompeting set-aside. Even with off-the-top or set-aside bridge program funding, however, resource allocation may present issues if the total amount of bridge funding has remained level or declined over time and is now significantly less than current bridge needs. Agencies use economic methods to varying degrees in bridge management, but overall, the practices do not represent wide use. Common examples of applications to individual structures include the use of benefit-cost analysis for major bridge projects, and life-cycle cost comparisons of rehabilitation versus replacement options for specific structures. Agen- cies that have full-featured BMSs are more likely to employ economic analyses in network- level bridge management, but the practice is not yet widespread; also, some agencies may have reservations about the transparency of these analytic procedures or disagreements with the methods’ assumptions. FHWA division offices have encouraged greater use of economic analyses in bridge management, and several agencies interviewed in this study plan to apply such analyses to a greater degree in the future. Several factors that have been identified in this synthesis project point to coming changes in bridge program management, including likely revisions to the NBIS specifically. These factors will shape how advances in bridge management practices, systems, and informa- tion will inform future investment and resource allocation decisions. Although these factors are still evolving and their outcomes are not yet determined, it appears likely—based on the numerous and significant federal and state actions that are described in this report— that changes will occur in state DOT bridge inspection and condition assessment, bridge program management, and application of the NBIS. It also appears likely that federal (i.e., FHWA) oversight of these activities, and particularly over the correction of structurally defi- cient and functionally obsolete bridges, may be strengthened. There may also be a greater focus on accountability to relate funding to performance, quality assurance, quality con- trol, and increased compliance reporting among state DOTs, the FHWA, the U.S.DOT, and Congress. Potential influences on future management practices stem in part from ongoing activities such as BMS enhancements by selected state DOTs, which advance the state of the art to the benefit of peer agencies—for example, customized additions or improvements in BMS data and database processing, new bridge condition and performance indexes, and custom BMS models to estimate near-term and long-term impacts of bridge investments. Other influences on future practice derive from activities such as state DOT, TRB, and FHWA participation in several recent peer exchanges on ways to improve asset management through better plan- ning, programming, budgeting, and use of data and information. Still other activities have identified and reinforced exemplary methods in infrastructure management—for example, a U.S. domestic scan on best practices in asset management, and an FHWA initiative on systemwide bridge preservation. The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in August 2007 catalyzed a number of more far-reaching, national-level influences on future directions in bridge program manage- ment. It should be noted that the causes of the I-35W collapse and the completion of the sub- sequent bridge replacement project were not within the scope of work of this study and have not been addressed in this report. However, this tragedy launched several actions that may significantly enhance and refocus bridge program management and the NBIS, specifically. These factors, which are summarized here, are discussed in chapter four: A comprehensive review of the NBIS that is now being conducted by the U.S.DOT’s • Office of the Inspector General. This three-phased review will consider (1) FHWA’s progress in meeting previous recommendations for oversight of structurally deficient

5 bridges nationwide, (2) state DOT use of federal bridge funding to correct struc- tural deficiencies, and (3) FHWA oversight of the safety of National Highway System (NHS) bridges nationwide. Public reaction following the I-35W bridge failure, which indicated confusion over • the meaning of “structural deficiency” and its implications for bridge condition and public safety. Changes in HBP procedures and criteria that were proposed in congressional testi-• mony. State DOT executives, some of whom represented both their respective depart- ments and AASHTO, recommended several updates to federal HBP decision making and to how the NBIS sufficiency and deficiency ratings are applied as program crite- ria. Hallmarks of this testimony included proposals for greater flexibility in program funding decisions and greater reliance on systematic, data-driven, performance-based methods in lieu of arbitrary criteria. Several other aspects of federal and state bridge program funding were also covered, as were topics of bridge inspection, innovative inspection technology, materials performance, and research needs. A recent U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) report on the federal HBP, • the data and techniques available for bridge management, and results to date in cor- recting structurally deficient bridges. The GAO recommended several actions: (1) to define the national goals of the HBP, (2) to determine HBP performance in relation to these goals, (3) to identify and evaluate bridge management best practices that can improve HBP performance, and (4) to investigate ways to align HBP funding more closely with performance, supporting a more focused and sustainable federal bridge program. Legislation now before Congress that will affect the future practice and technol-• ogy of bridge management. Current bills before the House and Senate define several actions to be undertaken by federal and state agencies with respect to bridge program management and resource allocation. Although provisions of these bills are subject to further congressional deliberation, if passed substantially in their current form they will mandate a number of items, for example, (1) state DOT use of BMSs; (2) establishment of state 5-year performance plans for bridge inspections and correc- tion of structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges, with such plans to be approved by the FHWA; (3) enhancements of the national bridge inspection program with specific requirements for dealing with critical findings and for strengthening inspection team training and qualifications; and (4) a number of other provisions.

6 particular statutory, political, or financial requirements. Most agencies use a computerized tool, a bridge manage- ment system (BMS), to manage and process relevant data and to provide analytical support for bridge program decisions. Again, the particular BMS products agencies use can differ, and even the same product may vary in its details among agencies in how it is customized and applied. The familiarity of upper management with the assumptions, data, and con- ventions of bridge management, and with the capability of their agency’s BMS, may also vary among agencies. DOTs would like to understand how their peers apply and benefit from their bridge management processes and systems when making resource allocation decisions. MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES A DOT’s upper management and its bridge managers are involved in bridge program decisions. However, these two groups bring different responsibilities, perspectives, and cri- teria to their respective roles regarding resource allocation as it affects the bridge program. The DOT chief executive offi- cer (CEO) and his or her senior management team provide executive leadership to the agency. They: Translate federal and state public policy and regula-• tions into agency objectives, procedural requirements, and performance targets Set strategic priorities for the agency• Understand and provide strategic direction regarding • interactions among federal and local governments and the state DOT Provide guidance and oversee decisions on the depart-• ment’s long-range transportation plan, the Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), budget development, and resource allocation, including: Meeting short-term and long-term projections of – needs Addressing uncertainties in the projections of eco- – nomic and demographic shifts, traffic volume and composition, and revenue streams from different sources Accounting for geographic equity considerations – in the balancing of needs; that is, resource alloca- tions among districts, regions, or other geographic subdivisions CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND Bridges are one of the most visible and important compo- nents of a transportation system. By providing crossings at critical locations, bridges maintain network continuity, traversing natural and manmade features that otherwise would add significant travel time and cost. Designing, building, maintaining, repairing, and replacing bridges involve critical investment decisions for agencies because of the high cost of these investments, the need to sustain an appropriate level of investment throughout the consid- erable life of a bridge, and the important structural and functional implications of the selected investments. Agen- cies therefore try to get these investments right, both to minimize life-cycle cost (LCC) and to provide safe and efficient mobility to transportation system users. Agencies must at the same time account for the revenue stream that is available to fund transportation programs, the project eligibility rules and degree of flexibility afforded by dif- ferent funding sources, and the competition between the bridge program and other transportation needs for the lim- ited dollars available. Decision making regarding the funding of state and pro- vincial bridge programs occurs at different organizational levels within departments of transportation (DOTs). The ways in which these decisions are reached, and with what data, depend on an agency’s philosophy and approach to bridge management as well as broader processes for long- range planning, revenue projection, capital and maintenance programming, and budgeting. These more broad-based functions set the levels of investment and the allocation of resources among agency programs, geographic districts or regions, and support activities. This synthesis study was motivated by a desire among DOTs to understand how their peer agencies conduct bridge management, and how this information supports upper-management decisions affect- ing the bridge program. All state DOTs (for brevity, “state” will be understood in this report to refer to both “state” and “provincial” unless noted otherwise) have a bridge management process in place. Later chapters will show that this process can vary consider- ably from one agency to another. There is no single “model” process. These variations may reflect management philoso- phy and culture; they may also be pragmatic responses to

7 Recommend a bridge program, implement the approved • bridge program, and conduct or manage delivery of required bridge work. These management perspectives relate to each other through an agency’s business processes, illustrated schemat- ically in Figure 1. These business processes comprise top- down and bottom-up communications throughout the year in support of ongoing system management and performance monitoring, as well as for project selection, prioritization, and program trade-offs during the agency’s budgeting cycle. Figure 1 is useful as an idealized illustration, recognizing that actual agency practices show considerable variability in, for example, centralized versus decentralized decision making, procedures and criteria for planning and program- ming, the sequence of top-down and bottom-up actions in proposing candidate bridge projects through final program recommendations, and resulting demands for information at various organizational levels. Of primary concern to this study is the information that is transmitted from or by means of the bridge unit to the execu- tive level as part of building the agency’s programs and bud- get, as shown in Figure 1. The adequacy of this information certainly depends on ensuring that its descriptions of bridge status, needs, and costs are complete, current, accurate, and timely. Other attributes, however, are also important to upper management, such as the ability to compare this information with corresponding submittals on competing programs, and to understand the implications of funding all or part of bridge needs at a level, or with a schedule, that may be different from what is requested. These potential trade- offs between bridge and other programs are also indicated in Figure 1. All of these processes and information flows take place within the context of federal and state funding avail- ability, governing regulations, agency procedural require- ments, interagency coordination, and public and stakeholder demands on the quality and level of service of their trans- portation system. STUDY OBJECTIVE AND FOCUS The objective of this synthesis is to document how bridge management—its processes, analytic tools, and informa- tion—meets the needs of upper management regarding their planning, programming, and resource allocation decisions. Although Figure 1 represents many individual functions, flows of information, and decision points, it is important to realize that significant variations exist among agencies in how these are handled and with what information. An agen- cy’s management approach and culture, organizational roles and responsibilities, and strength in information technology are factors in these differences, and are discussed in the syn- thesis findings when they have a significant influence. Balancing needs versus funding sources, account- – ing for dollar levels required versus available, and funding eligibility of programs and projects Monitor agency and transportation system perfor-• mance, document accomplishments, and track prog- ress toward established targets Communicate with the governor, legislature, transpor-• tation board or commission, other stakeholders, and the general public regarding agency plans, programs, projects, and accomplishments. Managers in the bridge unit at both central office and field levels (e.g., districts or regions) have responsibilities for the public highway bridge system within the state. Within the United States, state DOTs have certain responsibilities for bridges that are “on system”—that is, owned and maintained by the DOTs as part of the state highway network—and “off system”—that is, owned by local governments. Bridges on federal lands, privately owned bridges, and tribally owned bridges are excluded from state responsibility. Although bridge-related interactions between a DOT and local gov- ernments vary by state, at a minimum it is the state DOT’s responsibility to ensure the conduct of federally required biennial inspections of local bridges as well as of state- owned structures, and report to the FHWA the results of these inspections. Refer to chapter two for additional infor- mation on this biennial inspection program. Within this con- text, managers in a DOT’s bridge organizational unit: Conduct and assess biennial bridge inspections of on-• system and off-system bridges in coordination with local governments Maintain and submit resulting inspection data to the • FHWA, and compute and assess measures and trends of bridge condition and performance Identify and assess needs for work and their priorities • that result from inspections and evaluations across several areas; for example, structural condition, func- tional performance, vulnerability to seismic damage and scour, potential security concerns, fracture-critical classification, and other circumstances Prioritize bridge projects according to agency criteria, • which may include: Bridge structural condition and functional – performance Other aspects of bridge health, safety, deficiency, – and risk of failure National Bridge Inventory ratings (refer to chapter – two) Funding availability and eligibility requirements – Long-term bridge needs and a strategy for addressing – them as identified, for example, in the agency’s long- term transportation plan or capital investment plan Design and manage bridge projects, including large, • complex “major bridge projects”

8 CEO, Senior Management Team with e.g., Planning, Programming, Financial Mgmt. Provide strategic guidance and priorities for agency function – Oversee department processes Coordinate actions across agency units and disciplines – Reach decisions on stratetic agency matters Monitor agency and transportation system performance – Track progress against targets Communicate with governor, legislature, stakeholders, and public – Communicate internally Funding and Resource Allocation Long-Range Transportation Plan – Revenue Projections – Needs Estimates Funding Allocations – Program Investment Plans – STIP – Budget Impacts of Investments – Tradeoff Analyses – Performance Targets Bridge inspection data Recommended projects and program Benefits or impacts of investment levels Requests for adjustments in funding levels or allocations Context Federal, state, and local regulations Agency policies and procedures: e.g., long-range planning, STIP development, strategic management, performance monitoring Funding availability and eligibility requirements Public outreach, engagement of stakeholders Interactions with other agencies Planning, programming, & funding guidance Performance targets Proposed and/or approved program and allocations Central Office Bridge Unit Conduct & assess biennial inspections of bridges & report to FHWA Compute & assess current and trend line condition & performance Identify and assess needs for bridge work under fiscal constraints Prioritize bridge projects as function of funding, condition, performance, long-term needs, district priorities Recommend a bridge program – Implement the approved program Conduct or manage the delivery of required bridge work Bridge inspection data Propose project candidates; discuss; review project prioritization and selection. Field Bridge Offices Bridge Inspections Bridge Management Tasks (vary by agency) Other, Parallel Programs: Pavement Safety Maintenance Operations System - Improvements - and-Expansion Other Programs Support Activities MPOs’ Proposed Programs – TIPS Rural Planning Organization Inputs FIGURE 1 Interactions between the bridge unit and upper-management decision makers. Note: CEO = chief executive officer; MPO = metropolitan planning organization; TIP = Transportation Improvement Program; STIP = Statewide Transportation Improvement Program.

9 In meeting its objective, this synthesis study has gathered information on current practices that agency CEOs and senior decision makers use to make network-level funding decisions for their bridges. It has asked how their bridge management processes are applied to these decisions. Information has also been collected on future plans for upgrading and better utilizing bridge management processes. The focus has been on both funding allocations for bridges in competition with other agency programs, and allocations within the bridge program for replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs throughout the state. The information that has been gathered falls into a number of categories based on specific items called for in the project scope of work, among them: An agency’s • overall approach to decision making on infrastructure investments The current • state of practice of bridge management, including what factors are considered in the process, ongoing improvements by DOTs, and additional capa- bilities that are desired The • organizational levels at which bridge program decisions are made—that is, who typically makes deci- sions in the following areas: infrastructure funding allocations; selection of performance measures; fund- ing splits among maintenance/repair, preservation/ rehabilitation, and replacement; and project selection Comparison of the • information needed by senior deci- sion makers with that actually provided by the bridge management process/system Use of • economic methods such as LCC and cost-ben- efit ratios by senior managers Standard reports• provided to decision makers and other stakeholders, including the general public The extent to which senior decision makers rely on • BMS outputs or subjective judgment from the bridge management process Suggested enhancements• to existing bridge manage- ment processes and systems. The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis in August 2007 brought several issues related to bridge man- agement and bridge funding into sharper relief. These issues include the need to understand better the current status of a bridge, the meaning of “structural deficiency” and its implications for public safety and structure preservation, and the adequacy of existing bridge program funding levels and eligibility requirements. Wider implications have been recognized regarding the accuracy and reliability of bridge inspections, potential needs for new inspection technology and wider adoption of existing nondestructive evaluation techniques, and a need to reexamine the nation’s approach to assessing and reporting current bridge conditions. All of these issues have arisen in the context of more than 12% of the nation’s bridges being classified as structurally deficient, and a lack of understanding of this concept among the public as well as concern as to what to do about it. This synthesis deals with these issues to the extent that they relate to study objectives. This study is principally concerned with program- or net- work-level decision making. However, project-level concerns have not been ignored. For example, project prioritization and selection are critical steps in building a network-level program. Some agencies adopt an intermediate-level view of project definition and evaluation, in which bridge projects are considered and developed at a corridor or subnetwork level, consistent with the highway links they serve. Another example concerns budget allocations to major bridge proj- ects, which can cost hundreds of millions of dollars and therefore have network-level ramifications. Also, if the scope of a conventional bridge project changes, the funding avail- able for other projects within the program also adjusts, as may their schedules. Finally, a BMS may perform network- level calculations based on its project-level results. STUDY METHODOLOGY Information was gathered for this synthesis through a lit- erature review, a survey of state transportation agencies, and interviews with chief engineers and bridge section engineers. The literature review contributed to the narrative • describing the development of bridge management practice over the past four decades. It established much of the general BMS state of practice and related tools— for example, specialized applications to optimize bridge investments and perform trade-off analyses. Survey questionnaires were sent to all the states and • Canadian provinces. The survey included three parts: Part A, broadly covering the bridge management pro- cess and BMS; Part B, a budgeting component; and Part C, a planning component. The surveys were sent to agency bridge engineers, who were requested to dis- tribute the second and third parts to the heads of bud- geting and planning, respectively. Alternately, a bridge engineer who had the knowledge to do so had the option to complete all parts of the survey. The survey results are discussed in chapter three and are a key source of information on current agency practice. The complete survey questionnaire is included in Appendix A. Ten chief engineers were interviewed to obtain an • executive perspective on bridge management and pro- vide insights on bridge program funding decisions as part of planning, programming, and budgeting. Five engineers in the bridge unit (e.g., state bridge engi- neers and bridge maintenance engineers) were inter- viewed to obtain specifics on how bridge management processes and BMS tools are used within their agen- cies, and how they saw these capabilities supporting upper-level managers in their decision making. Both

10 sets of interviews were critical in elaborating on gen- eral themes identified in the literature and the survey responses. Interview results are also discussed in chap- ter three and are another key source explaining cur- rent practice. The guides for both sets of interviews are included in Appendix B. Participants in these inter- views as well as respondents to the survey are listed in Appendix C. TABLE 1 TALLY OF QUESTIONNAIRES AND RESPONSES Item Tallied Total Number Part B or C by Budgeting or Planning Part B or C by Bridge Engineer Number of question- naires distributed 60 Number of U.S. states responding 20 Number of Canadian provinces responding 4 Total responses: states plus provinces 24 Part A: Bridge Engineer section returns with sta- tistical data 24 — — Part B: Budget section returns with statistical data 22 7 15 Part C: Planning section returns with statistical data 17 6 11 Note:— = not available. Table 1 tallies the questionnaires and responses in the study survey, in terms of both the number of overall questionnaires distributed and received and the specific numbers of results for each of the three parts of the ques- tionnaire. Not all agencies completed all parts of the survey. The numbers of useable statistical results were therefore less than the total number of responses. For Parts B and C (the Budgeting and Planning components, respectively), Table 1 also identifies the organizational position of the respondents—that is, whether Part B or Part C was com- pleted by the chief of budgeting or planning, respectively, or whether it was completed by the bridge engineer or a delegate. Chapter three presents the main survey results in graphic form as a series of charts. Numerical tallies of responses to these questions are included in Appendix D. Appendix E presents supporting survey results regarding factors that affect budgeting. Because the survey response rate was less than desired, several efforts were made to strengthen findings on current agency practice. Additional information was gained from the 15 interviews noted previously and from several other sources—for example, comparison of Topic 37-07 survey findings with those of related NCHRP studies, proceedings of several recent peer exchanges, and congressional testi- mony regarding the condition of U.S. bridges, bridge safety, and funding adequacy. This supplementary information is reported in chapters three and four. OUTLINE OF REPORT Chapter two provides a brief history of the advancement of bridge management over the past four decades. It begins with the inception of the National Bridge Inspection Stan- dards (NBIS) and progresses to today’s general state of bridge management practice. Chapter three evaluates how agencies apply their bridge management processes and their BMS specifically to agency decision making, focusing on the several stages of planning and programming that deal with resource allocation and project prioritization and selection. Definition of bridge program objectives and performance tracking against targets are also covered. Chapter four con- siders emerging trends that will affect bridge management practice, and potential research that could strengthen the application of bridge management to funding decisions. This compilation of research needs draws from the litera- ture review, interviews, and survey responses. Summaries of recent peer exchanges and of relevant items raised in recent congressional testimony are also included in this chapter. Chapter five concludes the report. The five appendixes are as follows: Appendix A, Survey Questionnaire; Appendix B, Interview Guides; Appendix C, Survey and Interviews Participants; Appendix D, Responses to Selected Survey Questions; and Appendix E, Survey Responses: Factors Affecting Budgeting.

11 NATIONAL BRIDGE INSPECTION STANDARDS Overview NBIS came about in the aftermath of the collapse of the Silver Bridge over the Ohio River between Ohio and West Virginia in 1967 (FHWA and FTA 2002, Chapter 11). This failure, and the concerns it raised about bridge conditions nationally and their implications for public safety, resulted in congressional mandates to the U.S.DOT in 1970 to develop and implement national bridge inspection standards and procedures (P.L. 91-605). Subsequent federal surface trans- portation legislation during the next 35 years expanded the inspection requirements and authorized federal funding to bridge programs (FHWA and FTA 2004, Exhibit 15-1). NBIS requirements are issued as federal regulations (23 CFR Sub- part C §650.300) that are updated by the FHWA from time to time in a formal rulemaking process that is published in the Federal Register. The most recent NBIS update was in December 2004 (FHWA 2004). A core requirement of the NBIS is the biennial inspec- tion of all bridges and culverts greater than 20 ft in length on U.S. public roads. Bridges that have serious deficiencies are inspected more frequently, as required. Although select bridges that are in excellent condition and meet certain other criteria may be inspected at intervals longer than 2 years with prior FHWA approval, only a small percentage of bridges nationally, generally new bridges in excellent condition, meet these criteria. Most bridges in the United States are inspected at at least 2-year intervals, and the biennial inspec- tion requirement of NBIS is widely understood throughout the U.S. highway community. NBIS regulations also include other provisions; for example, the required qualifications of inspection staff. The practical guidelines for conducting NBIS-mandated bridge inspections are contained in a bridge recording and coding guide issued by the FHWA (1995). This guidebook includes instructions and examples for more than 125 entries to be recorded, together with coding forms. An overview of the items addressed in the inspection guidelines is as follows: Items 1–27: General description and administrative • information Items 28–42: Functional or operational (capacity) • information, design load Items 43–44: Structure/design/construction type and • material of construction Items 45–56: Span information, geometric informa-• tion, and clearance dimensions (no Item 57) Items 58–70: Structural condition and bridge loading • information Items 71–72: Waterway and approach data (no Items • 73–74) Items 75–97: Inspector’s work recommendations and • projected costs Items 98–116: Other information of various categories• Several items have multiple parts (A, B, C), which accounts for the more than 125 entries. Items relating to structural components and operational characteristics must be observed, assessed, and rated by cer- tified, trained inspectors. The FHWA Recording and Cod- ing Guide describes the alphanumeric codes that inspectors must use to rate each item. Rating systems for bridge condi- tion and structural and functional appraisals are recorded on a scale from 0 to 9 (summarized in the following sec- tions). The results of inspection ratings for all bridges on a statewide network, plus local bridges within the state, are reported annually by each state DOT to the FHWA, where they are compiled and processed within the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. The NBI database is the source of reports on national bridge statistics, including numbers and percentages of bridges that are “structurally deficient” or “functionally obsolete,” as explained later. The NBI database is also the source of data used by the FHWA in its biennial report on bridge conditions and performance to the Congress (e.g., FHWA and FTA 2006, chapter 3). NBI ratings are described in some detail here because they play a key role in federal bridge funding and state DOT track- ing of bridge condition and performance. They are referred to repeatedly in subsequent chapters as a key component of bridge management information. National Bridge Inventory Condition Ratings The following scale is used to rate bridge condition (FHWA 1995): CHAPTER TWO STATE OF PRACTICE IN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT

12 2 = Basically intolerable, requiring a high priority • of replacement 1 = This value of rating not used in appraisals• 0 = Bridge closed• N = Not applicable• TABLE 2 NBI RATINGS FOR BRIDGE DECKS, SUPERSTRUCTURE, AND SUBSTRUCTURE Rating General Description of Condition 9 EXCELLENT CONDITION 8 VERY GOOD CONDITION: no problems noted. 7 GOOD CONDITION: some minor problems. 6 SATISFACTORY CONDITION: structural elements show some minor deterioration. 5 FAIR CONDITION: all primary structural elements are sound but may have minor section loss, cracking, spalling, or scour. 4 POOR CONDITION: advanced section loss, deteriora- tion, spalling, scour. 3 SERIOUS CONDITION: loss of section, deterioration, spalling, or scour have seriously affected primary struc- tural components. Local failures are possible. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present. 2 CRITICAL CONDITION: advanced deterioration of primary structural elements. Fatigue cracks in steel or shear cracks in concrete may be present or scour may have removed substructure support. Unless closely monitored, it may be necessary to close the bridge until corrective action is taken. 1 “IMMINENT” FAILURE CONDITION: major deteri- oration or section loss present in critical structural com- ponents or obvious vertical or horizontal movement affecting structural stability. Bridge is closed to traffic but corrective action may put back in light service. 0 FAILED CONDITION: out of service—beyond cor- rective action. N Not applicable. Source: FHWA 1995. Structural Deficiency and Functional Obsolescence The NBI ratings are used to compute two measures of defi- ciency in bridge condition and performance: Structural Deficiency (SD) and Functional Obsolescence (FO). These designations are important because (1) they call attention to important bridge structural or functional needs; (2) they shape the public’s and stakeholders’ perceptions of bridge condition and performance that are obtained from annual statistical summaries of NBI data and the biennial bridge Conditions and Performance report to Congress; and (3) they are part of the discussions of bridge program funding at federal, state, and local levels. 9 = Excellent• 8 = Very Good• 7 = Good• 6 = Satisfactory• 5 = Fair• 4 = Poor• 3 = Serious• 2 = Critical• 1 = “Imminent” Failure• 0 = Failure• N = Not Applicable• For example, the condition of new, well-constructed bridges would be taken as 9. Ratings from 8 to 6 would characterize generally good performance, with only minor problems. Ratings from 5 to 3 are intended as warnings of growing problems that require action, whether (1) mainte- nance, rehabilitation, or replacement; (2) posting of load limits to prohibit heavy vehicles; or (3) increased frequency of inspection. Some agencies assign “flags” to these ratings to highlight these warnings for managers. Ratings of 2 or 1 are critical and call for immediate action, including possible bridge closure. A rating of 0 denotes a failed bridge that is out of service and cannot be repaired. N means that the par- ticular item is not applicable to that bridge. These general descriptions introduce the rating scale; the actual inspec- tion and rating process uses more specific definitions and explanations that are tailored to particular inspection items. For example, Table 2 gives rating definitions for Inspection items 58-Bridge Decks, 59-Superstructure, and 60-Sub- structure. For comparison, Table 3 lists rating definitions for item 62, Culverts. National Bridge Inventory Appraisal Ratings Appraisal ratings differ from the condition ratings. Appraisal items evaluate the level of service provided by a bridge to the highway it serves, as compared with that of a new bridge built to current design standards that are now applicable to that highway. Appraisals can apply to structural as well as functional items. Unlike condition ratings that are recorded by an inspector, appraisal items are computed by FHWA’s NBI Edit/Update Program based on values of two or more other NBI rating items. The rating scale for appraisals is as follows (FHWA 1995): 9 = Superior to present desirable criteria• 8 = Equal to present desirable criteria• 7 = Better than present minimum criteria• 6 = Equal to present minimum criteria• 5 = Somewhat better than minimum adequacy to • tolerate being left in place as is 4 = Meets basic minimum tolerable limits to be left • in place as is 3 = Basically intolerable, requiring a high priority • of corrective action

13 rated poor or worse. The structural rating items used to eval- uate bridge deficiency are listed in Table 4. The conditions of bridge structures are rated using Items 58–60; the condition of culverts more than 20 ft in length are rated by Item 62. The criteria for poor or worse are also shown in Table 4 in terms of NBI rating values. The implications of this rating approach are that (1) a designation of SD may be triggered by any one of the items in Table 4, (2) a bridge rated as SD does not differentiate whether only one or many items in Table 4 were rated poor, and (3) an SD classification does not convey the causes of the poor ratings. Recent congressional testi- mony has described, for example, how poor ratings might result from deficiencies that do not reflect overall bridge structural integrity (Bizjak 2007; Kerley 2007, p. 7). SD is thus a coarse measure. SD signals a bridge problem requir- ing further attention, but in and of itself does not communi- cate details of the causes or implications of poor rating(s). TABLE 4 STRUCTURAL DEFICIENCY CRITERIA NBI Rating Item Number Structural Item Rated Type of Rating Criterion for Poor or Worse 58 Deck rating Condition <5 59 Superstructure rating Condition <5 60 Substructure rating Condition <5 62 Culvert rating Condition <5 67 Structural evaluation Appraisal <3 71 Waterway adequacy Appraisal <3 Note: FHWA and FTA 2006. The FHWA has observed that the primary reason to clas- sify bridges as structurally deficient is a low condition rating. Eighty percent of structurally deficient bridges nationwide are so classified because of their condition ratings; 20%, because of their appraisals (FHWA and FTA 2006). The two are not mutually exclusive—that is, a bridge may be defi- cient in both its condition rating and its appraisal. Functional Obsolescence An inspected bridge is functionally obsolete if— it is • not already structurally deficient; and it is deficient in terms of its geometry, clearance, or • load capacity. The NBI rating items that are considered when determin- ing FO and the criteria used to determine whether an item is deficient are shown in Table 5. With one exception, these TABLE 3 NBI RATINGS FOR CULVERTS Rating General Description of Condition 9 No deficiencies. 8 No noticeable or noteworthy deficiencies that affect the condition of the culvert. Insignificant scrape marks caused by drift. 7 Shrinkage cracks, light scaling, and insignificant spall- ing that does not expose reinforcing steel. Insignificant damage caused by drift with no misalignment and not requiring corrective action. Some minor scouring has occurred near curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have a smooth symmetrical curvature with superficial corrosion and no pitting. 6 Deterioration or initial disintegration, minor chloride contamination, cracking with some leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and slabs. Local minor scouring at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have a smooth curvature, nonsymmetrical shape, significant corrosion, or moderate pitting. 5 Moderate to major deterioration or disintegration, extensive cracking and leaching, or spalls on concrete or masonry walls and slabs. Minor settlement or mis- alignment. Noticeable scouring or erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have signifi- cant distortion and deflection in one section, significant corrosion, or deep pitting. 4 Large spalls, heavy scaling, wide cracks, considerable efflorescence, or opened construction joint permitting loss of backfill. Considerable settlement or misalign- ment. Considerable scouring or erosion at curtain walls, wingwalls, or pipes. Metal culverts have signifi- cant distortion and deflection throughout, extensive corrosion, or deep pitting. 3 Any condition described in Code 4 but which is exces- sive in scope. Severe movement or differential settle- ment of the segments, or loss of fill. Holes may exist in walls or slabs. Integral wingwalls nearly severed from culvert. Severe scour or erosion at curtain walls, wing- walls, or pipes. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection in one section, extensive corrosion, or deep pitting with scattered perforations. 2 Integral wingwalls collapsed; severe settlement of roadway due to loss of fill. Section of culvert may have failed and can no longer support embankment. Com- plete undermining at curtain walls and pipes. Correc- tive action required to maintain traffic. Metal culverts have extreme distortion and deflection throughout with extensive perforations due to corrosion. 1 Bridge closed. Corrective action may put back in light service. 0 Bridge closed. Replacement necessary. N Not applicable—used if structure is not a culvert. Source: FHWA 1995. Structural Deficiency An inspected bridge is structurally deficient if at least one structural rating item, whether condition or appraisal, is

14 Special Reductions, S• 4 – a deduction from SR, maxi- mum absolute value = 13 Each of these rating components is defined here. Figure 2 provides a graphic representation of these SR components. Note that the structural and the functional components of SR, S1, and S2, respectively, are different from SD and FO in the preceding section. FIGURE 2 Sufficiency rating components (Source: FHWA 1995). Note: Obs. = Obsolescence; Rdwy. = Roadway; STRAHNET = Strategic Highway Network. Structural Adequacy and Safety,• S1, is a function of the following rating items: Item 59, Superstructure; – Item 60, Substructure; – Item 62, Culverts; and – Item 66, Inventory rating (a measure of load – capacity). Serviceability and FO,• S2, is a function of the follow- ing rating items: Item 28, Number of lanes on the structure; – Item 29, Average daily traffic (ADT); – Item 32, Approach roadway width; – Item 43, Structure type, main; – Item 51, Bridge roadway width; – Item 53, Vertical clearance over deck; – Item 58, Deck condition; – Item 67, Structural evaluation (a function of load – capacity); Item 68, Deck geometry; – Item 69, Underclearance; – Item 71, Waterway adequacy; – appraisal items are all computed from other NBI item ratings by the NBI Edit/Update Program. TABLE 5 FUNCTIONAL OBSOLESCENCE CRITERIA NBI Rating Item Number Functional Item Rated Criterion for Poor or Worse 67 Structural evaluation (function of load capacity) =3 68 Deck geometry <4 69 Underclearance (over highway) <4 71 Waterway adequacy =3 72 Approach roadway alignment <4 Note: FHWA and FTA 2006. Rating items 67 and 71 overlap the structural and func- tional evaluations (see Tables 4 and 5). If either of these rat- ings equals 3, then the bridge is not considered structurally deficient, because the problem can still be corrected (refer to the definition of the nine-point appraisal scale mentioned earlier). However, because a rating of 3 implies that bridge load capacity or waterway adequacy is too low to be toler- able, the bridge is characterized as functionally obsolete. If either of these ratings falls below 3, the bridge is considered structurally deficient (FHWA and FTA 2006). Item 72, Approach Roadway Alignment, is an excep- tion to the explanation of appraisal items described earlier. Rather than comparing this alignment with current design standards, the existing approach alignment is compared with the existing bridge alignment. Ratings are assigned based on the ability of the two alignments, functioning together, to permit traffic to enter the bridge without significant speed reduction. If a bridge’s ratings are such that it is both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, it is reported in the NBI database as structurally deficient. SD takes precedence over FO in reporting bridge status. A bridge is listed as function- ally obsolete only if it is not structurally deficient. Sufficiency Rating The Sufficiency Rating (SR) ranges from a value of 100 (best) to 0 (worst). It includes four rating components (FHWA 1995): Structural Adequacy and Safety, S• 1 – maximum value = 55 Serviceability and FO, S• 2 – maximum value = 30 Essentiality for Public Use, S• 3 – maximum value = 15

15 functional classes, traffic levels, and construction materials. The requirement for state DOTs, working with local govern- ments, to inspect bridges periodically and submit NBI data to the FHWA annually ensures a nationwide consistency of method, a wide familiarity with NBI data and ratings, and a comprehensive, up-to-date database. NBI bridge ratings are specified at an aggregate level of structural component and are analytically simple. These characteristics are advantages in that they enable the NBIS to apply to a numerous and diverse nationwide bridge population. Because the approach depends on the skill and training of the certified bridge inspectors, this factor is addressed in detail in the federal regulations that govern the NBIS (23 CFR 650C). The FHWA has updated the NBIS rating items from time to time to address new prob- lems—for example, the need for underwater inspections to protect bridges from scour, and the identification and need for inspection of fracture-critical members that, if degraded, could make the bridge vulnerable to further structural dam- age. Since its inception in the 1970s, the NBI database has compiled a detailed history of every bridge carrying a public highway in the United States, making it the most comprehen- sive and uniformly organized source of bridge condition data in the country. The NBI data are the basis of FHWA’s identifi- cation of bridge needs, allocation of bridge program funding, and biennial reporting to Congress. The NBI database and the computed SD, FO, and SR rat- ings have provided current and comprehensive data on bridge status and investment needs during the last 35 years. Today, however, the deficiency and sufficiency ratings are recog- nized to have shortcomings when applied to management or funding decisions. This chapter covers those shortcomings related to how the NBI ratings are formulated. Chapter three discusses how DOTs are working to compensate for short- comings in NBI-rating decision support. Chapter four recaps key issues regarding NBI deficiency and sufficiency ratings that were presented in recent congressional testimony. These various concerns can be summarized as follows: The SD and FO ratings are coarse: Although they signal • a potential problem, they do not distinguish between single versus multiple causes or their possible impacts, as discussed earlier. The SD, FO, and SR ratings are reactive; that is, they • do not signal a bridge problem until it has already occurred. Moreover, they do not show an improved bridge condition unless corrective or remedial work is done. They are therefore unsuited to preventive maintenance strategies that could prevent or forestall bridge damage before it occurs and that could be more economical. The weights and formulas used to compute SRs are • fixed and may be arbitrary as bridge designs, con- struction materials, vehicle loads, bridge investment strategies and priorities, and other factors continue to evolve. Item 72, Approach roadway alignment; and – Item 100, STRAHNET (Strategic Highway – Network) Designation (a network comprising about 61,000 miles, including the Interstate system, to serve national defense needs). Essentiality for Public Use,• S3, is a function of the ratings of the following bridge items: Item 19, Detour length; – Item 29, ADT; and – Item 100, STRAHNET Highway Designation. – Special Reductions,• S4, are a function of the ratings of items listed here. A Special Reduction is applied only when S1 + S2 + S3 ≥ 50; otherwise S4 = 0. Relevant bridge items are: Item 19, Detour length; – Item 36, Traffic safety features; and – Item 43, Structure type, main. – The rating components S1 through S4 are computed by a set of analytic procedures in the NBI database as a function of the respective NBI ratings listed earlier (FHWA 1995). The SR is the total of S1 through S4: SR = S1 + S2 + S3 – S4, where S4 represents a deduction. When all the NBI ratings listed earlier for S1, S2, and S3 are at their maximum (best possible) value, SR = S1 + S2 + S3 = 100, assuming S4 = 0. As bridge structural, functional, or public use ratings decline, the values of S1, S2, and S3 decline from their maximum val- ues and SR < 100. By correcting structural problems, defi- cient geometry, or other problems represented in the rating items, bridge projects can restore SR to a higher value. With- out any corrective measures, SR theoretically will continue to decline to its minimum (zero) value, at which point the bridge is no longer in service. If a bridge has an attribute that causes a Special Reduction—for example, a long detour route—its SR can never be at the theoretical maximum— that is, SR < 100 even when the bridge is new. Implications for Bridge Management and Program Funding The NBI measures of SD, FO, and SR are important to bridge management and to federal funding of bridge pro- grams. The FHWA lists the number and percentage of SD and FO bridges on its website, and many agencies track these measures as key indicators of the success of their bridge pro- grams. Table 6 gives these statistics for each state as of 2007, including bridges on National Highway System (NHS) as well as non-NHS highways. NBI Ratings as Performance Indicators The NBIS system of coding and recording bridge condition was designed to apply to the entire public highway bridge inventory in the United States. The NBI database currently includes almost 600,000 bridges of various designs, highway

16 TABLE 6 NBI STATISTICS ON BRIDGE DEFICIENCY, 2007 No. of Bridges No. of SD No. of FO No. SD or FO Percent SD or FO Alabama 15,881 1,899 2,158 4,057 25.5% Alaska 1,229 155 179 334 27.2% Arizona 7,348 181 600 781 10.6% Arkansas 12,531 997 1,908 2,905 23.2% California 24,184 3,140 3,837 6,977 28.8% Colorado 8,366 580 824 1,404 16.8% Connecticut 4,175 358 1,042 1,400 33.5% Delaware 857 20 112 132 15.4% Dist. of Columbia 245 24 128 152 62.0% Florida 11,663 302 1,692 1,994 17.1% Georgia 14,563 1,028 1,888 2,916 20.0% Hawaii 1,115 142 358 500 44.8% Idaho 4,104 349 452 801 19.5% Illinois 25,998 2,501 1,840 4,341 16.7% Indiana 18,494 2,030 2,004 4,034 21.8% Iowa 24,776 5,153 1,455 6,608 26.7% Kansas 25,461 2,991 2,372 5,363 21.1% Kentucky 13,637 1,362 2,928 4,290 31.5% Louisiana 13,342 1,780 2,180 3,960 29.7% Maine 2,387 349 468 817 34.2% Maryland 5,127 388 980 1,368 26.7% Massachusetts 5,018 585 1,987 2,572 51.3% Michigan 10,923 1,584 1,304 2,888 26.4% Minnesota 13,067 1,156 423 1,579 12.1% Mississippi 17,007 3,002 1,315 4,317 25.4% Missouri 24,071 4,433 3,108 7,541 31.3% Montana 4,980 473 541 1,014 20.4% Nebraska 15,475 2,382 1,241 3,623 23.4% Nevada 1,705 47 156 203 11.9% New Hampshire 2,364 383 358 741 31.3% New Jersey 6,448 750 1,501 2,251 34.9% New Mexico 3,850 404 294 698 18.1% New York 17,361 2,128 4,518 6,646 38.3% North Carolina 17,783 2,272 2,787 5,059 28.4% North Dakota 4,458 743 249 992 22.3% Ohio 27,998 2,862 4,001 6,863 24.5% Oklahoma 23,524 5,793 1,614 7,407 31.5% Oregon 7,318 514 1,155 1,669 22.8% Pennsylvania 22,325 5,802 3,934 9,736 43.6%

17 The FHWA specifies four criteria based on NBI data that must all be met for a bridge to qualify for federal Highway Bridge Program (HBP) funding (FHWA 2006): The bridge must be longer than 20 ft (NBI Item 49), • be a highway bridge that carries a public road, and be included in the NBI database. The bridge must be classified as either structurally • deficient or functionally obsolete. The bridge must have an SR of 80 or less to qualify for • federally funded rehabilitation, or an SR of less than 50 to be eligible for federal funding of its replacement. The bridge cannot have been built or replaced (NBI • Item 27) or rehabilitated or reconstructed (NBI Item 106) within the last 10 years, regardless of the source of funding (the “10-year rule”). The requirements for an SD or FO rating and the SR thresholds were an attempt to give greatest priority to those bridges that had greatest need for work (essentially a “worst- first” criterion) (23 CFR 650D). The FHWA imposed the 10-year rule “[to prevent] a bridge from remaining in a defi- cient classification after major reconstruction and thereby affecting the bridge fund apportionments to a State” (FHWA n.d.). Recently, the FHWA has clarified these provisions with respect to the eligibility of structurally deficient bridge decks for HBP funding (Lwin 2007). Structurally deficient bridge decks that require rehabilitation or replacement are eligible for federal funding regardless of the bridge’s SR or require- ments of the 10-year rule, consistent with the provisions of TABLE 6 (Continued) NBI STATISTICS ON BRIDGE DEFICIENCY, 2007 No. of Bridges No. of SD No. of FO No. SD or FO Percent SD or FO Rhode Island 748 164 232 396 52.9% South Carolina 9,221 1,260 808 2,068 22.4% South Dakota 5,924 1,216 261 1,477 24.9% Tennessee 19,838 1,325 2,776 4,101 20.7% Texas 50,271 2,186 7,851 10,037 20.0% Utah 2,851 233 254 487 17.1% Vermont 2,712 500 467 967 35.7% Virginia 13,417 1,208 2,234 3,442 25.7% Washington 7,651 400 1,661 2,061 26.9% West Virginia 7,001 1,058 1,515 2,573 36.8% Wisconsin 13,798 1,302 789 2,091 15.2% Wyoming 3,030 389 231 620 20.5% Puerto Rico 2,146 241 822 1,063 49.5% Totals 599,766 72,524 79,792 152,316 25.4% Source: FHWA 2007b. Note: Table for 2007. Data reflect bridges on NHS and non-NHS highways. SD = structurally deficient; FO = functionally obsolete. The SD and SR ratings are somewhat inconsistent with • respect to bridge decks. Although SD directly reflects a deck condition that is poor or worse, the SR is much less sensitive: A deduction for poor or worse deck condition in the Serviceability and FO calculation subtracts at most 3% to 5% from the SR value. Moreover, deck con- dition is not included in the Structural Adequacy and Safety component of SR. No generally accepted and used set of predictive models • exists for SD, FO, and SR. The models that have been developed to date are for specific agencies and purposes as discussed later and are not in general use. Lacking such deterioration or performance models, agencies can- not forecast trends in deterioration of SD, FO, and SR. The lack of such models precludes using NBI ratings to predict future bridge needs; quantify the benefits of future bridge investments; analyze different scenarios regarding infrastructure policy, performance, and cost; and assess resource allocation trade-offs. Chapter three provides examples of other technical mea- sures of bridge condition and performance that DOTs have developed to overcome some of these drawbacks. Funding Implications Utilization of the NBI as the primary data source for the disbursement of funds through HBRRP [Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program, now the Highway Bridge Program] and the Special Bridge Program has been the basis for bridge management decision making since the early 1970s (Small et al. 1999, A-1/2).

18 DOTs are developing based on selected NBI rating items (see chapter three for examples of these indexes). Because a single agency deals with a smaller number of bridge designs and construction materials than those encountered nation- wide, state DOTs are able to subdivide their bridge popula- tions more easily into distinct groups for which modeling becomes more practical. A needs forecasting model has been developed for use with the entire nationwide NBI database. The FHWA applies this predictive tool, NBIAS (National Bridge Investment Analysis System), when preparing its bridge-related needs estimates for submittal to Congress in the biennial Condi- tions and Performance reports. NBIAS draws on the infor- mation in the complete NBI database and on a set of unique analytic techniques based in part on the methodology and data in Pontis, a full-featured BMS used in more than 40 state DOTs (e.g., for element-level deterioration models and default values of required data such as unit costs). Users may specify key input parameters such as standards for bridge structural preservation and functional improvement. The predictive models for bridge deterioration require ele- ment-level data describing the bridge network, informa- tion much more detailed than that in the NBI database. For example, element-level data would require descriptions and condition information on each bridge girder rather than a single numerical rating for the entire superstructure as in the NBI database. NBIAS therefore incorporates a unique set of Synthesis, Quantity, and Condition (SQC) models that draw on current NBI data to estimate the quantity and condition of all the bridge elements in the NBI—that is, the element-level data are “synthesized” from the NBI data. SQC models were derived from a statistical study of more than 10,000 bridges representing structural and materials configurations from throughout the country. NBIAS has continued to be enhanced since its initial use in the 1999 Conditions and Performance report to permit greater user flexibility and to improve the reliability of its estimates (FHWA and FTA 2006). BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS Background Development of new BMSs with more advanced decision- support capabilities began in the United States in the 1980s and continued through the 1990s. BMS designs and imple- mentations were pursued independently by several DOTs, including North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Kansas, New York, Indiana, and Texas. The FHWA sponsored a demonstration project that led to the development of Pontis (Small et al. 1999). Today, Pontis is an AASHTOWare product main- tained as part of AASHTO’s BRIDGEWare suite, and is used by more than 40 state DOTs plus other transportation agen- cies. DOTs that are not Pontis licensees may employ state- SAFETEA-LU. Specific guidelines for decks include the fol- lowing (Lwin 2007): Such bridge work is to be considered rehabilitation • under the HBP regardless of the bridge’s SR. Although the 10-year rule will not prevent federal • funding of deck rehabilitation or replacement, once this work is performed, the 10-year rule will apply. Deck rehabilitation or replacement projects should be • identified systematically, in conjunction with a com- prehensive BMS, to use federal and other bridge funds wisely. This bridge-deck eligibility does not relieve the bridge • owner of having to perform other work needed to restore bridge structural integrity or to correct safety deficiencies. This clarification addressed several concerns expressed in 2007 congressional testimony regarding the eligibility of structurally deficient bridge decks for HBP funding. The key points that were presented in this testimony are discussed in Chapter 4. Predictive Models for NBI Measures The NBI condition and performance ratings are aggregate measures, sufficiently general to apply to the many combi- nations of bridge designs, materials, traffic loadings, and geographic locations throughout the country. It is therefore difficult to develop a general set of predictive models that could apply to the many different bridge configurations nationwide. This form of bridge management [based on NBI data] utilizes aggregated information and thus has limited applicability for analytical decision making. While the formula is convenient for funds allocation, it is not necessarily sufficient for analysis and needs prediction. … A new form of bridge management decision support to facilitate budgeting, policy analysis and project- programming [came to be] desired (Small et al. 1999, p. A-1/2). Today’s BMSs, which are alluded to at the end of the pre- ceding quotation, employ more detailed descriptions of bridge elements and individual deterioration models for each group of elements. These systems are discussed in the next section. A few DOTs have sought to take advantage of the wide coverage, ready availability, and rich content of their NBI database by formulating predictive models tailored to their own state practices and geographic conditions. In some cases, these models predict the change in NBI ratings on a scale of 0 to 9 (Michigan DOT, see Juntunen 2003) or the numbers of bridges in different SR intervals (Louisiana Department of Transportation and Development; see Sun et al. 2004). In other cases, yet newer models are being esti- mated for uniquely defined bridge indexes that individual

19 A report of bridge • NBI ratings Structure, Inventory, and Appraisal (SI&A) and load testing by structure. A supplementary report provides historical trends in NBI ratings for a structure. A report listing bridges by their • SR priority. A list of bridges • scheduled for inspection, with inspection due date. A list of bridges showing • current maintenance needed. A list of bridges showing their • current posting status. A list of bridges indicating those with • data errors that have been identified in the FHWA edit report. A report relating • bridge projects to road projects identified in the agency’s construction project manage- ment system, identifying bridge replacement projects and other types of projects (e.g., bridge painting). Reports on • specific bridge characteristics; for exam- ple, engineering and site conditions for scour-critical bridges. If an agency has defined its own measure of condition and performance, an additional set of reports likely will be avail- able to display this information. In this example for Alabama DOT, the ABIMS system provides a list of bridges by prior- ity in terms of several categories of Deficiency Points: Total, Load, Vertical Clearance, Width, Condition, and Statewide. A manager can tailor the ABIMS reports to focus on par- ticular areas of interest. These may be geographic (district, city, or county); for certain reports, the particular bridges to be shown (e.g., identified by Bridge Identification Number or by route-milepost limits); for inspection and maintenance reports, the inspection responsibility code or the maintenance responsibility code for which records are to be displayed; the type of inspections to be displayed (e.g., those on 24-month intervals versus intervals less than 24 months); the specific maintenance activities to be displayed; for reports on histori- cal records, the years to be displayed; and so forth. All of these reports represent current or historical snap- shots of bridge status. Some categories of reports, such as those related to identified bridge needs and actual mainte- nance work performed, or reports related to explanations of bridge engineering characteristics, may be available in both summary and detailed formats. Because the BMS has no predictive models, there are no forecasts, scenario analyses, or other future-oriented reports. Pontis System Overview Pontis was developed for the FHWA in 1989 and is now sup- ported through AASHTOWare as a product in AASHTO’s BRIDGEWare suite. It is licensed as of 2008 to DOTs in more than 40 states and the District of Columbia, as shown specific systems. Agencies in other countries likewise have the option of licensing Pontis or developing their own BMS. Examples of two U.S. BMSs that illustrate two ends of the analytic spectrum at which these systems operate follow. Alabama Bridge Information Management System System Description Some BMSs focus on database management—for example, input, quality checking, and processing of bridge data, and production of reports. The Alabama Bridge Information Management System (ABIMS) provides a series of bridge inventory and inspection menus by which users may input bridge descriptive information and inspection data. Another set of menus allows users to specify reports on, for example, bridges due for inspection, status of maintenance, bridge posting status, the rating history of a bridge structure, a vari- ety of inventory listings, and priority ranking. The criterion for priority ranking may be specified as either the FHWA SR or the state’s unique Deficiency Point calculation. The latter report may be tailored according to Deficiency category—for example, Total Deficiency, Load Deficiency, Vertical Clear- ance Deficiency, Width Deficiency, Condition Deficiency, and Statewide Deficiency (Alabama DOT 2006). This exam- ple illustrates one measure of value of a BMS: the ability to address unique aspects of bridge operation and customized features of bridge management. ABIMS is able not only to cal- culate Deficiency Points from NBI inspection data (together with SD, FO, and SR), but also to accommodate nonstandard legal loads in its bridge load rating calculations. Reports The ABIMS database is a repository of descriptive informa- tion on bridge structural characteristics, traffic loads, geo- graphic and route location, functional class, and age, as well as current and historical records of inspection data. NBI data are included for annual reporting to the FHWA, and cus- tom data defined by the agency are also included. Standard reports focus on breakouts of bridge characteristics, bridge condition, and information on related management tasks such as inspection and maintenance. Following are examples of the types of reports that are available: Separate reports presenting a complete • list of bridges currently in the inventory, a list of structures catego- rized by current operational status (e.g., now in design or construction, in service, or out of service), and a list of bridges organized by special categories (e.g., those with underwater substructure, those with fracture-critical members, and those with certain NBI structural condition, waterway adequacy, and scour ratings of 3 or less). Inventory cross-referencing information is listed on another report. A list of • bridges by route.

20 Representation of Structural Elements Pontis describes bridge and culvert structures in more detail than the NBI offers. Bridges are expressed in terms of their structural elements. Some examples for different types of bridges include girders, stringers, and beams; truss components; arches; pin and hanger assemblies; deck and deck slab; railings and traffic barriers; deck joints; bear- ings; piers and columns; abutments, approach slabs, and wing walls; and footings and pilings. These elements may be described for bridges as a whole, or within sections with varying characteristics termed “structure units,” as illus- trated in Figure 4 (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2005b). By contrast, the NBI would represent the bridge structure in Figure 4 by the more general components of superstructure, substructure, and deck. Pontis’ analytic approach is built around structural ele- ments. A brief discussion helps to illustrate the difference between element-level descriptions of bridge condition ver- sus the NBI ratings described earlier. Some examples are as follows: Bridge inspections are conducted at the element • level. AASHTO has formalized these inspection procedures within its guide for “commonly recog- nized” (CoRe) elements (AASHTO 1997). Although this guide was based on the Pontis approach, it has been generalized to apply to other BMS in addition to Pontis. Agencies may also define their own elements within Pontis. in Figure 3 (Johnson 2008), plus several city, county, and international agencies. It is a full-featured BMS that pro- vides a number of capabilities useful in supporting bridge program management and resource allocation (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Jan. 2005b): Bridge Inventory: Establish and maintain an inventory • of bridge and culvert information, and exchange data with other agency information systems. Managing Inspections: Schedule bridge inspections, • enter or importing inspection data, produce SI&A and other inspection reports, and produce the NBI files that are required to be submitted to the FHWA annually. Needs Assessment and Strategy Development: Estimate • and update bridge element deterioration and treatment cost models based on individual agency experience; develop long-range, network-level policies for both structure preservation and bridge improvement based on agency standards or guidelines and economic fac- tors, including agency and road-user costs; assess cur- rent and future preservation and improvement needs; and evaluate alternative bridge program investment scenarios based on predicted structure condition and performance, accounting for the technical, economic, and policy-related factors described previously. Project and Program Development: Develop projects • to respond to inspector work recommendations and agency policies and standards; evaluate the impacts of project alternatives on structure performance; rank projects; develop programs of projects subject to budget constraints; and track project status and completion. FIGURE 3 U.S. state agencies licensing Pontis as of 2008 (Source: Johnson 2008).

21 Do Nothing, or Clean and Paint, or Reset Bearings, and/or Rehabilitate Supports; CS-3, advanced cor- rosion: either Do Nothing, or Rehabilitate Supports or Bearings, or Replace the Bearing Unit. Bridge deterioration models and cost models are defined • by the Pontis user for each element. Deterioration mod- els are expressed through transition probabilities that describe the likelihood of an element condition chang- ing from one condition state to another in a simulated cycle. Pontis users may estimate these probabilities when first applying the BMS, and later update them when historical data on element deterioration are avail- able. Preservation costs are expressed for each defined treatment or action by element and condition state. Pontis users may enter costs of bridge improvements— for example, for bridge widening, strengthening, or raising to improve vertical clearance. Bridge elements may be located in different environ-• ments, which might influence rates of deterioration. The following environmental regimes are defined in Pontis (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2005b): Benign—No environmental conditions affecting – deterioration Low—Environmental conditions create no adverse – impacts or are mitigated by past actions or highly effective protective systems Moderate—Typical level of environmental influ- – ence on deterioration Severe—Environmental factors contribute to rapid – deterioration. Protective systems are not in place or are ineffective. Analytic Processes Pontis’ analytic processes are extensive and address several aspects of bridge management. Their descriptions are con- tained in system documentation (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2005a, b; FHWA 2007d). An overview of the sets of procedures, which are organized in “modules,” is shown in Figure 5. FIGURE 4 Structure units and elements in Pontis (Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2005b). Note: PS = painted steel; RC = reinforced concrete. Some agencies inspect bridges at the element level and then apply a Translator program in Pontis (developed for the FHWA) to convert element-level data to the for- mat required for NBI submittals. Other agencies con- duct dual inspections, recording bridge conditions at both the element level and in NBI format. State DOTs also may develop supplementary inspection guides to accommodate state-specific bridge, traffic, or other data requirements. Structure condition is defined at the element level in • terms of up to five discrete “condition states.” The best condition is specified in condition state 1, and the worst condition in the last condition state (condition state 3, 4, or 5, depending on the element). The per- centage of each element in each condition state is com- puted by Pontis in each time period and is available in a report. This breakdown describes the condition dis- tribution of that element, allowing a manager to get a better perspective on the magnitude of network-level deficiency. CoRe elements have predefined condition state descriptors. For example, the condition states for element 152, Painted Steel Floor Beam, and element 313, Fixed Bearing, are as follows (condition states are identified using a CS number convention): Painted Steel Floor Beam: CS-1, no corrosion; CS-2, – paint distress; CS-3, rust formation; CS-4, active corrosion; CS-5, section loss Fixed Bearing: CS-1, no deterioration; CS-2, minor – deterioration; CS-3, advanced corrosion Up to 10 preservation treatments or actions may be • defined at the condition state level for each element. Pontis users may apply default actions or define their own preservation treatments. Actions may range across alternatives such as Do – Nothing, Routine or Preventive Maintenance, Minor Element Repair, Major Element Repair, Element Rehabilitation, and Element Replacement. A specific example by condition state for element – 313, Fixed Bearing, is as follows: CS-1, no deteriora- tion: Do Nothing; CS-2, minor deterioration: either

22 of benefits versus costs and the resulting condition of the bridge network. The results of a Pontis simulation can be expressed in sev- eral ways (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2004): Condition distributions of structure elements• Predictions of structure needs and work that is pro-• jected to have been accomplished The Pontis Health Index, which is the ratio of the cur-• rent value of all structure elements (based on their cur- rent distribution of condition states) as compared with the total value of all elements (assuming all are in their best condition state) Benefits to both agency and road users as the result • of preservation and improvement actions; for exam- ple, monetized benefits owing to improvements in the Health Index, and road-user benefits in terms of reduced travel time, vehicle operating, and accident- related costs as the result of bridge improvements NBI condition ratings for deck, superstructure, sub-• structure, and culvert; deficiency status (SD, FO); NBI appraisal ratings; and calculation of the NBI SR Other measures, including the Health Index of subsets • of elements, eligibility for HBP funding, and detail information for individual structures. The Project Planning module focuses on projects for indi- vidual bridges. Projects are developed from results of the network-level analyses and from work candidates recom- FIGURE 5 Overview of Pontis’ analytic processes (Source: Cambridge Systematics, Inc. 2004). The review and analysis of bridge data, including bridge inventory and inspection data, is handled through the Inspec- tion module, which works with the database that is used in connection with Pontis. The data encompass the standard or default bridge elements and descriptors, the standard NBI data, and any custom data that the bridge manager has defined. The NBI Translator program may be applied to con- vert element-level data to the format required by the FHWA for NBI submittals. Other available processors include the SR program, which computes SR, SD, and FO status, and the Validation program, which conducts edit checks of the most recent NBI data. Pontis conducts a comprehensive analysis of bridge pres- ervation options to recommend a preferred strategy. This entails definition of a preservation policy for each combina- tion of bridge element and environment. Other data items are also defined, including (1) treatments for each element and condition state, (2) corresponding unit costs, and (3) other technical and budgeting parameters. Similarly, specifica- tion of an improvement policy entails providing guidelines and costs for different types of bridge improvements; for example, widening and increasing clearances. Separate sim- ulations and decision-support procedures are conducted for these two types of investments at the network level through the Pontis Program Simulation module. The network-level simulation accounts for the effect of budget constraints and supports estimates of bridge needs and decisions in pro- gramming, resource allocation, and budgeting. These analy- ses estimate impacts of future bridge investments in terms

23 tor of the most recent regular and special inspections, and planned dates for the next inspections. The • Inspection Resource Requirements report provides the dates of the last and the next scheduled inspections and planned resources needed in terms of estimated hours for the inspection crew, flaggers, help- ers, snoopers (trucks with inspector baskets on articu- lated, telescoping arms that can reach overhead or under a bridge), special crews, and other special equipment. The • Bridge Health Index displays the current Pontis Health Index for selected bridges plus detailed infor- mation about the condition distributions of bridge ele- ments that are used to calculate the Index. The • Bridge Condition Summary shows, for each selected facility, the most recent inspection date, the SD and FO rating, the SR, and NBI ratings for the deck, superstructure, substructure, culvert, and channel rat- ing items. The • Network Element Summary shows the network- wide distribution of bridge elements by environment and condition state. Two reports present the results of the network-level mod- eling of Bridge Preservation: The • Unconstrained Needs report displays the costs and benefits of the optimal preservation policy as applied to the bridge network when unconstrained by budget lim- its. The effect of the budget constraint is shown, how- ever, in the distinction between those recommended projects that are “programmed” by Pontis (i.e., allowed by the budget limit) versus those that are not. The • Preservation Details report identifies the recom- mended actions for each element in each type of envi- ronment and condition state, and compares the current distribution of bridge elements versus the distribution that would result from the optimal preservation policy applied over the long term. The report also provides the details on unit cost of each action, and the transition probabilities that were used in the deterioration model to determine the optimal policy. In addition to the bridge preservation results cited pre- viously, several standard reports provide information on Bridge Needs and Projected Work: The • Bridge Management Summary reports the cur- rent requirements of the bridge inventory in terms of estimated future needs and programmed work by year. It helps managers to determine whether current invest- ment levels can meet the optimal long-term investment policy recommended by Pontis. The • Backlog Summary displays the annual budgeted amounts versus the backlog of unmet needs by year and work category: preservation, replacement, and improvement/other work. mended by bridge inspectors. Projects can be assembled into programs. Once programs are defined, further network-level analyses can be run to refine results—for example, by vary- ing the characteristics of scenarios, running what-if analy- ses, and adjusting policy specifications and costs to match agency business processes more closely. Results can be viewed in reports as described here. Customization Options The ability to customize BMS features will be shown in chapter three to be an important aspect of BMS usefulness and acceptability. Pontis has features dedicated to incorpo- rating user-defined additions or revisions within its analytic framework and graphical user display. A number of items may be customized, including the definition and classifica- tion of bridge elements, the definition and classification of bridge actions, the cost index that is used, internal formu- las for data processing, and organization of the desktop and assignment of user privileges. Features such as data input forms and reports may be customized to accommodate the analytic revisions. Reports Pontis presents a broad selection of standard reports, reflect- ing its extensive features and functionality. The reports are organized by system modules and include the examples listed here. Reports are available in metric or English mea- surement units. If a report pertains to a given structure (as opposed, for example, to summaries for a bridge network), the bridge(s) may be selected using Pontis’ Select Struc- ture screen, which selects bridges by district, county, owner agency, custodian agency, function class, NHS or non-NHS, defined administrative area, defined bridge grouping, or inspector responsibility. These descriptions are adapted from the Pontis Release 4.4 User Manual (Cambridge Sys- tematics, Inc. 2005b). Inspection Reports present information on the bridge inventory, current and historical information on bridge con- dition and performance, and inspection schedules. Example reports include the following: The • SI&A sheet lists for each bridge the NBI SI&A information, element-level condition data, and past inspection comments. The • Expanded SI&A report includes notes recorded by the inspector regarding a bridge, bridge element, and inspection; work candidates specified by the inspector; and summary information on past inspections. The • Inspection Schedule gives inspection planning and scheduling information, including the frequency of regular and special inspections, the date and inspec-

24 The • Project Priority List displays projects sorted by program, year, and Pontis Program Rank. Managers may select a single year, a single project status (i.e., Initiated, Programmed, Deferred, In Progress, Completed), or an individual program to be displayed. If these fields are left blank, all projects will be selected. The Pontis Program Rank may be based on project benefits, costs, benefit-cost ratio, average Health Index, SR, or Agency Rank (e.g., a numerical score computed by the agency or a district-provided ranking). The • Pontis Priority List displays Pontis-generated work candidates for a selected scenario and one or more selected years. The • Pontis Candidate List displays Pontis-generated needs or work candidates for a selected set of bridges. Managers may select the groups of work to be included based on year, costs and benefits, whether work was programmed by the selected scenario, whether the work was assigned to a project, and other items avail- able in the Pontis work-related data. The • Project Details report is a one-page-per-project display of all information provided on the project data entry forms, including a list of work items. Projects may be selected for this report based on project ID, pri- mary action type for the project (e.g., Replace Element, Overlay Deck, Replace Paint, or Replace Structure), the year for which the project is programmed, the proj- ect status, the program ID, and the district, route, and milepost/kilometer-post. The • Actual versus Budget report compares the dol- lar value of programmed work by year to the annual budget that has been established for that program. The manager can specify the projects to be included in the programmed work totals in terms of project status cri- teria (i.e., one or more of the project status designations listed previously). The • Program Funding report displays the fund- ing sources and amounts by year for each active program. A • series of reports displays the costs and benefits of needed work and programmed work for the bridge network by year in different formats—for example, for each element or set of selected elements; for each element, grouped by element category; for different combinations of element category and material type; for each district, functional class, on/off NHS, and on/off system classification; for each district and each scenario; for all combinations of values of district, functional class, on/off NHS, and on/off system clas- sification; and overall costs and benefits by year. Two reports on performance measures: a • Bridge Performance Measures report that displays perfor- mance measures by structure and year, and a Network Performance Measures report that displays perfor- mance measures for all combinations of values of dis- trict, functional class, on/off NHS, and on/off system classification. A • Scenario Report displays the specifications for the currently selected scenario. Project Reports produce information related to individ- ual bridge structures: The • Preservation Needs report displays preservation needs for individual structures that Pontis has gener- ated for the currently selected scenario, and an indi- cation of whether or not they have been programmed by the simulation. By selecting a particular year to display, a manager can identify whether needs for specific bridge(s) have been programmed (i.e., recom- mended as work candidates when budget constraints are considered). The • Work Candidates and Projects report displays the proposed projects, inspector-specified work can- didates, and Pontis-generated work candidates for all scenarios for a selected set of bridges. This report is useful to determine which work candidates have been addressed by projects.

25 CHAPTER THREE APPLYING BRIDGE MANAGEMENT TO AGENCY DECISION MAKING characterized by a stronger linkage between public policy and transportation system planning and programming; a greater interest in quantitative measures and criteria of per- formance and accountability; increased roles of actors other than the state DOTs in planning, programming, and shaping the nature of selected projects; greater funding flexibility, prompting a need to investigate trade-offs in resource alloca- tion among programs and projects; and innovative financing mechanisms involving the private as well as the public sec- tor. Adding to this dynamic management environment were continuing trends in broad, sometimes conflicting policy directions; competition among agency programs for scarce resources; increasing emphasis on system preservation and more efficient system operation; and uncertainties in sev- eral pertinent management areas, including funding, project budgets and schedules, and policy shifts following new state administrations and DOT executive turnover. NCHRP Syn- thesis 243 thus addressed methods used by DOTs for prior- ity setting, and the types of quantifiable measures of policy objectives and system performance that they applied, among other topics (Neumann 1997). The NCHRP Synthesis 243 survey was structured to elicit information comprehensively and flexibly. Survey design incorporated open-ended responses that were not limited to particular types of assets or programs, allowing agencies to describe their methods and management systems exactly as they perceived them. Agency responses were therefore broadly cast; for example, encompassing pavement, bridge, safety, congestion, maintenance, drainage, and highway manage- ment; public transit and rail system management; major proj- ects; program management and value engineering; economic development impacts; environmental impacts; and a number of state-specific management systems or priority methods. The results cited here include only those subsets of information that are relevant to this bridge management study. The NCHRP Synthesis 243 results established useful background and context for this current study. Conducted more than 10 years ago, the results of this synthesis can be compared with the current results to see where changes in practice and perspective, if any, have occurred. Overall, 39 state DOTs submitted responses to the NCHRP Synthesis 243 survey, although the numbers responding to any specific question sometimes varied from this total. The sections here focus on bridge-related findings, with corresponding data OVERVIEW This chapter presents findings on bridge management and agency decision making that were gained through the study survey, literature review, and interviews. There is consider- able material regarding past and current bridge management practices and how these processes and systems are applied to agency decision making. The chapter is organized as follows: The historical perspective outlines past bridge man-• agement practices and their applications to agency decision making based on several previous studies. This background provides a context for the current study findings. The section on current practices describes today’s • bridge management processes relating to condition and performance measures and targets, analysis of bridge needs in the context of available funding, resource allocation and prioritization, use of economic methods, and accountability and public communication. The next section on BMSs and their application to deci-• sion making presents additional information on current practices, focusing on the application of current BMS capabilities and information to planning, program- ming, and resource allocation. A final section on organizational responsibilities sum-• marizes survey findings on those DOT units or other agencies that play material roles in various categories of bridge program and project decisions. Additional survey-related information supporting the findings in this chapter is contained in Appendixes D and E. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE Synthesis Topic 27-09 NCHRP Synthesis Topic 27-09 (Synthesis of Highway Prac- tice 243 1997) examined how state DOTs had responded to the planning and programming provisions of the Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act of 1991 (ISTEA) and other factors that at that time were influencing capital pro- gramming and project selection. The passage of ISTEA con- tributed to a more dynamic decision-making environment

26 sis on asset condition and performance exceeded results for other program areas, which are not shown in Figure 6, such as capacity and safety measures. The importance of condi- tion and performance of bridges and other assets as intended guidance for capital programming decision making was clear. These results also implied the importance of periodic inspections of assets in keeping condition and performance information current and accurate. Only a handful of agencies cited measures involving bene- fit-cost, value-for-cost, and needs prioritization (e.g., relational evaluation of state needs). These measures were described gen- erally and not identified with any particular asset. The implica- tion is that economic or needs-related measures were not widely used in establishing objectives or performance measures. One agency identified the number of new bridges as a mea- sure of objectives or performance. This agency also cited a cor- responding measure of pavement output in kilometers built or resurfaced. NCHRP Synthesis 243 noted that whereas only a few states volunteered productivity or program-delivery mea- sures such as these, such measures historically have been an important component of tracking program accomplishments, for pavement management systems (PMS) and safety man- agement systems (SMS) included for comparison. Quantifiable Objectives and Performance Measures Participants in the NCHRP Synthesis 243 survey were asked whether they used quantifiable measures of program objec- tives or system performance—that is, measures of a pro- gram’s impact on facility condition or service. Thirty-two DOTs (86% of respondents to this question) indicated that they used such measures or had them under development. These agencies were asked further to identify the types of measures they employ. Figure 6 shows selected measures and the percentages of the 32 affirmative respondents that identi- fied each as one that they either used or were developing. FIGURE 6 Measures of program objectives and system performance (Source: Neumann 1997). Note: Because respondents could name more than one type of measure, data do not sum to 100%. *No specific asset specified. The results in Figure 6 demonstrate a strong leaning toward condition ratings for bridges and other assets. Bridge safety and condition ratings were identified by 56% of the agencies; pavement-related measures, by 63%; and suffi- ciency or deficiency ratings (pavements or bridges), by 38%. Five agencies also mentioned general highway system condi- tion ratings, with no particular asset specified. This empha-

27 and they likely will continue in that role. Although not dis- cussed in NCHRP Synthesis 243, the few examples of deliv- ery-based measures may also have been the result, in part, of increased attention to results-based rather than output-based measures, and in the bridge case specifically, to a growing emphasis on preservation and maintenance. Use of Bridge Management Systems for Decision Making A specific objective of NCHRP Synthesis 243 was to inves- tigate how agencies met post-ISTEA planning and program- ming requirements by applying management systems and related data. For example, pavement and BMSs were already in use by a number of agencies and, in some cases with PMS, for many years before the passage of ISTEA. Although the NCHRP Synthesis 243 study was conducted after the use of these and other management systems was once again made voluntary, the study found that 87% and 79% of responding states had PMS and BMS, respectively, already available or under development. Much lower percentages of agencies (in all cases less than 40%) reported developing or using other management systems such as safety (SMS), intermodal, and congestion management. The key question that the NCHRP Synthesis 243 study wanted to address, however, was the extent to which these systems were actually being used in capital programming and project selection. The survey for the 1997 report therefore asked DOTs which management systems they had and, of these, which were used in the fol- lowing programming decisions: Developing goals; that is, desired system condition or • service levels Establishing program funding levels• Identifying specific projects and setting project priorities• Evaluating capital maintenance allocations.• Of the 39 survey respondents, 38 reported having at least one management system operational or under development. Responses for selected systems are shown in Figure 7. In addi- tion to the BMS, selected other systems have been included that may address bridge projects; only a handful of states reported these types of highway network or project management appli- cations. Figure 7 shows that PMS, BMS, and SMS were the most widely implemented systems at the time of this survey. These three systems were evaluated in terms of their use in the four program management functions described earlier. Figure 8 shows the rates of application of each of the three systems to the four programming functions at the time of the NCHRP Synthesis 243 survey. In each case, the percentage using the system for decision support is com- puted on the basis of those states that already had, or were developing, the particular system; that is, the percentages of BMS use are based on 31 agencies (see Figure 7); for PMS, 33 agencies; and for SMS, 14 agencies. Roughly 55% to 75% of state DOTs were using these management systems to develop goals (likely based on current and pro- jected condition and performance) and to identify projects and support project prioritization. Although the application for these two uses was greater than those for program fund- ing levels or capital maintenance trade-offs (for BMS, less than 25% and 15%, respectively), the results nevertheless indicate that 25% to 45% of DOTs were not using their sys- tems even for program goals or for prioritization. NCHRP Synthesis 243 explains this lack of use for decision support in the following ways: It appears that many DOTs are using management systems primarily to record and monitor infrastructure conditions or are experimenting with different potential applications but have not determined what, if any, role the systems may play as decision support tools. [When compared to the number of agencies reporting that they have management systems, far] fewer agencies report the use of management systems for management decision making on a program level (Neumann 1997, p. 22). Some of this lack of use of the PMS or BMS to examine capital/maintenance funding tradeoffs reflects the varying approaches that transportation agencies have to the management of capital and maintenance funds. Eight DOTs report that their budgets for the two activities are completely segregated. Fifteen DOTs … [fully fund] a specified level of preventive maintenance/preservation … and then apply the remainder to capital expenditures. In contrast, six DOTs reported … [that they fully match] available federal aid, and then allocate remaining state resources to maintenance. While not specifically reported by any survey respondents, some agencies’ management systems may not have the technical capability to look at both capital and maintenance actions (Neumann 1997, p. 23). Survey respondents were asked about their perceptions on limits and barriers to management system use for deci- sion making. Comments highlighted four general problem areas (Neumann 1997, pp. 23–24): Problems with data collection• , including the need for more timely data acquisition and analysis and the dif- ficulty of data integration. Incomplete system development or implementation• , thus limiting functionality and requiring continuing service needs. Limited usefulness of management systems to the • programming process, which reflected issues in a number of areas; for example, statutory requirements for infrastructure and the use of funds; the need to incorporate judgment regarding policy, liability, and financial capability with the technical data; the need for more subjective or qualitative judgments and deci- sion factors that management systems did not provide; the adequacy of the then-current programming pro- cess; and a judgment that the benefits of management systems were not worth the additional expense.

28 ciency or deficiency ratings, bridge and pavement programs/ projects were the predominant applications. It is likely that PMS and BMS assisted many agencies in this process. Other programs or projects (e.g., for safety, traffic, or major proj- ects) were each prioritized by this method in only one or two states in the survey respondent pool. The other prioritization methods in Figure 9 were like- wise used by a significant percentage of responding DOTs: almost 70% applied benefit-cost analysis and more than 50% reported using the other methods shown. However, the program or project categories to which these methods were applied were quite different and did not include significant bridge-related use. NCHRP Synthesis 243 made the follow- ing observations: Benefit-cost analysis is most frequently used to evaluate safety projects or highway improvement projects. Four [reporting] states use cost-benefit primarily for major highway capacity improvements or high-cost projects. … Cost-effectiveness approaches and other priority ratings [in Figure 9] are used across a broad range of categories with no one type of project being the primary focus (Neumann 1997, p. 20). FIGURE 7 Agencies having management systems (Source: Neumann 1997). Note: *No specific asset specified. Resource limitations• on developing and implement- ing these management systems. Priority Methods The NCHRP Synthesis 243 survey gathered additional details on a specific management function: prioritization. State DOTs were asked about their quantitative methods of priority-setting and to which programs or projects these applied. Methods potentially relevant to the current bridge management study included sufficiency or deficiency rat- ings, benefit-cost analysis, priority given to particular pro- grams or their economic benefit (among other factors), and cost-effectiveness measures. Survey results are shown in Figure 9. The first response under each method in Figure 9 shows the percentage of the 39 responding agencies that reported using that method. For example, 74% (29 agencies) used sufficiency or deficiency ratings for prioritization. The addi- tional responses show the extent to which that method was used for specific programs or projects. In the case of suffi-

29 FHWA Survey of Bridge Management System Practices In 1999, Small and colleagues presented preliminary results of an FHWA survey of agency use of BMSs. The survey focused on activities including strategic and long-range planning, STIP and Transition Improvement Program (TIP) development, and project-level planning. It was supplemented by in-depth follow-up discussions with state DOT personnel. In all, 40 survey responses had been processed at the time of paper preparation, and 26 had been finalized with the follow- up interviews. The paper by Small and colleagues discussed these 26 results, comprising 24 Pontis states and two non- Pontis states that used their own agency-specific BMS. Key findings of this review follow (Small et al. 1999). Custodians of BMS Data and Users of BMS Information NBI and BMS data were universally maintained within DOTs by the central office. Bridge management activities were either concentrated in a single organizational unit or dispersed across several DOT offices. The primary users of BMS information were bridge engineers and bridge maintenance engineers. The two non-Pontis states reported FIGURE 8 Use of management systems (Source: Neumann 1997). Additional Comments Throughout its discussion of the programming process, NCHRP Synthesis 243 observed that capital programming ultimately reflects a mix of technical, policy, and financial considerations. Whereas the previous findings have presented policy objectives, performance measures, and prioritization primarily in technical terms, these functions operate in a much broader context in actual decision making on projects and programs. Perceived transportation needs; funding sources and constraints; transportation implications of statewide pub- lic policy; engineering philosophies regarding design, con- struction, maintenance, and replacement; the technical rigor desired in planning and programming; and a host of other factors all contribute to differences in state practice. NCHRP Synthesis 243 also noted that state DOTs differ in their degree of centralization of capital programming decisions. Although program priority decisions are often made centrally, some agencies adopt a hybrid approach, with some program deci- sions being made in the central office, others by regions or districts. NCHRP Synthesis 243 also observed that some agen- cies were moving toward a more decentralized approach to capital programming generally throughout their states.

30 Seven reported using the system as part of the bridge • management process. Four reported using the system solely within the bridge • or maintenance section. the use of their systems by agency bridge managers and met- ropolitan planning organizations (MPOs) for STIP and TIP development. Among the 24 Pontis states: FIGURE 9 Priority methods reported by state DOTs (Source: Neumann 1997).

31 Three reported using the system to produce results at • the request of planners, district or regional personnel, county engineers, MPOs, and others. Fifteen agencies (including some listed earlier) reported • that no one outside the bridge or maintenance sections had requested results from the BMS to date. Long-Range and Strategic Planning: System Users and Goals Modern, full-featured BMSs are well suited to strategic and long-term planning. These systems can deal with strategic goals, targets, and investment levels; identification of sys- tem-level problems and trends; and suggestions of long-term strategies and optimal actions to achieve the stated goals. Key findings among the 26 completed states were as follows: Agencies using a strategic planning process. Fifteen of • the 26 agencies, or more than half, had a strategic plan- ning process with a bridge component. In 9 of these 15 agencies, the strategic plan was developed by the bridge or maintenance section or by the chief engineer. In 5 of the 15, the strategic planning process involved high-level, external bodies; for example, transportation boards or commissions, or committees encompassing DOT as well as outside personnel. Eleven of these 15 agencies expressed goals quantita-• tively, but they varied in their practice. Examples of goals included the following: Reduce the number of bridges with health index – below a minimum level. Reduce the number of deficient bridges by 5% per – year. Have no more than a defined percentage of struc- – tures with SRs less than 50. Improve a specified number of bridges each year. – Impose specific goals to reflect legislative proposals. – Four of these 15 agencies did not use quantitative goals • in their planning process, but rather relied on generally understood priorities; for example, to reduce or elimi- nate structural and functional deficiencies, reduce the number of load-restricted bridges, and so forth. The 11 agencies without formally defined planning goals • followed FHWA’s suggested bridge network targets as guidelines for reducing bridge deficiencies. These FHWA targets recommend minimum percentages of acceptable (i.e., nondeficient) bridges on NHS and non-NHS systems. Several of these reporting states had bridge populations that met or exceeded the FHWA acceptability levels. Long-Range and Strategic Planning: Performance Measures and Data The performance measures used by responding states were concerned primarily with bridge condition and structural or functional performance. Nineteen of the 26 agencies reported using only the SR or number of deficient bridges as performance measures, singly or in combination with each other. Other agencies reported using a variety of measures, such as the following: Number of Bridges Needing Work• The Pontis Health Index• SD, SR, and other measures such as Number of Bridge • Postings Number of Deficiencies plus Load Carrying Capacity• Bridges in “Safe” condition as determined by agency • formula. Use of BMS for STIP/TIP Development State DOTs develop STIPs that provide intermediate-range (typically 3 to 7 years) plans and program cost estimates that support long-term goals and are the basis for near-term programs and budgets. The survey results indicated that the bridge component of these documents is prepared in several ways; for example, by planning or intermodal programs offices (7 of 26 agencies), bridge or BMS offices (9 agencies), districts or regions (2 agencies), and in the remaining agen- cies by committees comprising representatives of several offices. Proposed projects and estimated costs in the STIP are developed using prioritization procedures plus engineering judgment among all agencies surveyed. However, only four agencies reported using their BMS for STIP development. Three of these agencies applied their BMS to develop lists of bridge replacement projects, although one agency used its BMS to estimate costs and budget levels for various bridge actions. The other agencies did not apply their BMS to STIP development, but five planned to do so in the future. Project-Level Planning and Programming Project-level planning and programming moves proposed bridge work into design, construction, maintenance, or oper- ation. Based on projected annual or biennial budget levels and bridge projects and actions in the STIP, bridge program man- agers prioritize and implement bridge work. For many agen- cies, the STIP itself defines the annual or biennial program. Agencies that do not obtain prioritized programs directly from the STIP rely on either the SR or agency-specific pri- oritization procedures together with engineering judgment and inspectors’ recommendations to build their programs. The four agencies that use their BMS for STIP development also use their systems for project programming. Almost all agencies reported that they intended to use their BMS for project-level programming in the future. Status of Pontis Implementation A paper describing the status of Pontis BMS implementation as of 2002 provided further insight into how agencies were using BMSs more than 10 years after the passage of ISTEA

32 Six agencies (17.6%) used only the Programming mod-• ule for network analysis of bridge needs and system- wide optimization of bridge investment strategy. Three agencies (8.8%) used only the Project Planning • module. Eight agencies (23.6%) used both the Programming • and Project Planning modules. Robert and colleagues observed that the use of the Project Planning module reported in this survey had increased since the previous survey of Pontis customers in 2000. Four of the 26 agencies did not use Pontis to manage their bridge inspection data, as mentioned earlier. Two of these agencies collected and processed bridge inspection data using systems that were integrated with the Pontis database. The other two agencies used external systems that included procedures to export needed data into Pontis. System Customization Customization played a key role in enabling agencies to incorporate Pontis effectively within their business pro- cesses (Robert et al. 2003). This ability to customize the default features and functions within Pontis was important, because agency bridge management philosophies, business processes, and decision criteria could vary considerably. (Robert et al. 2003). Licensees of the Pontis BMS were eval- uated to identify U.S.DOTs that (1) used Pontis primarily to manage a network of bridges (as opposed to other primary uses such as training and research) and (2) had a confirmed production database already implemented. Of the 46 domes- tic licensees, 34 met these two criteria and were profiled in this study. Characteristics of Pontis usage in each of these agencies was gathered through telephone interviews, sup- plemented by information gathered at the 2002 Pontis User Training Meeting and from the Pontis Support Center. Survey Findings The 34 selected agencies used Pontis regularly, but for dif- ferent purposes. This variety in usage is shown in Figure 10 in terms of particular Pontis modules (Inspection Data Management or “Inspection,” Programming Simulation or “Programming,” and “Project Planning”). All but four of the agencies (approximately 88%) used Pontis to manage their bridge inspection data. Among these, 17 agencies (50% of the 34 total) used Pontis solely to input and manage bridge inspection data through the Inspection module. These 17 agencies thus did not apply the advanced functionality of the system to simulate and optimize network-level programs or conduct project planning. The breakdown of Pontis module usage among the other 17 agencies that did use its advanced functions is given in Figure 10 as follows: FIGURE 10 Pontis functionality used by licensing agencies (Source: Robert et al. 2003).

33 inspection data, and added functionality to the Pontis database to automatically convert the KDOT spe- cialized inspection data to the required NBI formats. KDOT also developed an interface between the Pontis database and the agency’s centralized system that stores information on bridges, pavements, and other transportation assets. The Illinois DOT (IDOT) customized Pontis behavior • to support bridge programming and project planning. The agency defined its own bridge elements in lieu of the standard CoRe elements discussed in chapter two to match its procedures for bridge inspection and record- ing of costs and quantities. It customized the Pontis desktop layouts and database to incorporate additional data for network programming. IDOT also developed an extensive set of program simulation rules to ensure that the project recommendations by Pontis were con- sistent with agency practice. Virginia DOT likewise enhanced Pontis program • simulation rules to produce results that better reflected agency practices and preferences. Florida DOT added new elements to be able to manage • other assets through Pontis, such as tunnels and sign struc- tures. It has provided additional functionality in Pontis through agency-specific analytic modeling for program- ming and budgeting (Sobanjo and Thompson 2007). Many of these advances promoted exemplary asset man- agement practices. Agencies also undertook database and information technology (IT) enhancements that likewise promoted better asset management. These efforts included data integration between Pontis and other applications as implemented by Michigan, Mississippi, and Kansas DOTs, and moves toward applying Pontis as a thin-client applica- tion by California DOT, Montana DOT, and Florida DOT (Robert et al. 2003). NCHRP Project 20-57 As part of its development of new analytic tools to support asset management, NCHRP Project 20-57 (NCHRP Report 545 2005) researched existing IT capabilities and perceived needs and requirements for new systems. Broad-based infor- mation was gathered from the DOT user community through literature reviews and discussions with potential system users at two asset management forums in the summer of 2002. More focused, detailed information was obtained through structured interviews with representatives of 10 state DOTs (California, Florida, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Montana, New York, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wisconsin) in the summer and fall of 2002. The information gathered in these early stages of Project 20-57 led to the development of AssetManager NT, now an AASHTOWare product, which assists agencies in conducting program trade-offs using the results of their own management systems for individ- ual assets (e.g., pavements, bridges, signs, and drainage) or The reported degree of customization among licensees was significant, as shown in Figure 11, with most agencies per- forming moderate to extensive customization. Forty-seven percent (16 agencies) made moderate customizations; that is, enhancements that could be accomplished using built- in Pontis features or through Infomaker, a product used to create reports. Thirty-five percent (12 agencies) completed extensive customization, including developing applets or external applications to work with the Pontis database. As of the time of this survey, more than one-third of the agencies had used all of the available basic approaches to customiz- ing Pontis, including reports, desktop layouts, forms, system adjustments, and additional applets or applications. Eighteen percent (six agencies) had performed either no customiza- tion or minor customization; for example, adjusting bridge element definitions. Examples of how agencies were relating customized enhancements to their specific business-process needs were as follows (Robert et al. 2003): The South Dakota DOT made a number of enhance-• ments to accommodate state-specific bridge data that were not included in the NBI database or the Pontis default data. These changes included six new tables in the Pontis database and new forms for entering and editing these data. Other enhancements included cus- tomized database security, a custom desktop layout, and several new procedures to facilitate and manage data exchanges between the Pontis database and the DOT’s mainframe system, and between central office and field office bridge databases. FIGURE 11 Degree of Pontis customization (Source: Robert et al. 2003). The Kansas DOT (KDOT) added more than 100 agency-• specific bridge data items—essentially NBI-like items that are collected at a more detailed structural level or with a greater number of codes. It accomplished this by customizing the Pontis database, data entry forms, and reports. It created an applet to perform batch entry of

34 programs (e.g., safety, new capacity/congestion, and main- tenance). Results of this study were published in NCHRP Report 545 (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2005c). The interviews of 10 DOTs were not detailed case stud- ies, and perspectives among the states varied (as did those of different interviewees within individual states). Neverthe- less, a number of insights were obtained regarding existing analytic capabilities, needs for new capabilities, receptivity to different types of new analytic tools, and specific features desired. BMSs were part of this overall review. The follow- ing major findings relate to the current study (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2005c): Most of the 10 states had pavement and BMSs. Many • of these agencies used these systems (albeit to varying degrees) to support project prioritization and analyses of the relationship between investment levels and sys- tem performance within individual program catego- ries; for example, bridges or pavements. Only one agency reported looking at performance • trade-offs for different budget allocations across multi- ple program categories: Michigan DOT used a spread- sheet analysis for this purpose. Many of the 10 agencies reported use of LCC analyses, • but most of these examples related to pavements or to major projects above a certain estimated cost that varied from $1 million to $20 million. Only South Carolina DOT explicitly mentioned using LCC for bridges. In terms of potential new tools, a number of agencies gave high pri- ority to LCC for bridges or for “important assets.” The reported level of interest in new analytic tools gen-• erated varying responses among agencies, but appeared to reflect an awareness of the capabilities of existing BMS. For example, queries about potential new tools to relate investment levels to predicted performance, or to support project prioritization, generally gave higher priority to assets and programs other than bridges. These responses were consistent with the concept that such capabilities were available in current BMSs. The level of interest in new tools for trade-off analyses • across program categories was uniformly high (with the exception of one DOT that already had a multi- program analysis tool). The interest in a new tool to predict the impacts of a set of projects on system condi- tion, safety, mobility, economic growth, and so on was generally high, but varied somewhat with respect to bridges: One state ranked bridges the highest priority, whereas another gave bridges the highest priority only if the tool included “more than roads and bridges.” A proposed new tool to monitor actual project costs • and effectiveness to provide feedback into manage- ment systems also received high priority from 9 of the 10 agencies. CURRENT BRIDGE MANAGEMENT AND AGENCY DECISION-MAKING PRACTICES Introduction Current information on how bridge management processes relate to agencies’ decision making was gathered through structured telephone interviews with chief engineers and bridge managers from 15 state DOTs, and through state DOT and provincial MOT responses to a comprehensive survey. The survey questionnaire is reproduced in Appen- dix A. The two interview guides that were used are included in Appendix B. The agencies that participated in the survey and interviews are listed in Appendix C. This section describes the bridge component of cur- rent planning, programming, resource allocation, and sup- porting processes as described by agency personnel in the interviews. Five agencies have been profiled to describe the several management steps involved in bridge investment analysis and resource allocation, and to contrast differences in practices among agencies. These profiles are presented in two tables. Table 7 describes processes for two non-Pontis states, each of which employs its own, agency-specific BMS. Table 8 describes equivalent processes for three Pontis states. The specific business processes documented in these tables include the following: General introduction• Condition and performance measures and targets, • which are used to track and monitor system perfor- mance, set management guidelines and decision crite- ria for bridge work, and (potentially) to express policy goals and objectives Procedures to identify funding levels available for • bridge work Procedures to determine bridge investment needs• Methods of resource allocation and prioritization, con-• sidering (as applicable) allocations between the bridge program and other programs, allocations to districts (or regions or divisions), and prioritization of projects Use of economic methods to support the previously • described processes Formal programs to establish and monitor organiza-• tional accountability for bridge program management, program accomplishment, and system performance, and to communicate information about bridge pro- grams to stakeholders and the public.

35 T A B L E 7 B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T W O N O N -P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te A S ta te B In te rv ie w W it h A ss is ta nt S ta te M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r— B ri dg es S ta te B ri dg e E ng in ee r; H ea d of th e A ge nc y’ s D iv is io n of T ra ns po rt at io n In ve st m en t M an ag em en t ( D T IM , r es po ns ib le f or p la nn in g, p ro gr am m in g, an d m ul ti m od al in ve st m en t d ec is io ns ) G en er al T he a ge nc y- sp ec ifi c B M S a pp li es to a ll s ta te a nd lo ca l b ri dg es ( i.e ., br id ge s w it h no nf ed er al , n on pr iv at e ow ne rs ). T he s ys te m is u se d by c en tr al o ffi ce an d di vi si on s (d is tr ic ts ) to p ro ce ss , m an ag e, a nd r ep or t b ri dg e co nd it io n an d pe rf or m an ce d at a. T he B M S d oe s no t h av e pr ed ic ti ve m od el s. B ri dg e in fo rm at io n en co m pa ss es a nd g oe s be yo nd N B I da ta to in cl ud e (a ) a cu st om iz ed D efi ci en cy P oi nt c al cu la ti on a nd ( b) a c us to m iz ed lo ad r at in g ca lc ul at io n to r efl ec t p ar ti cu la r cl as se s of h ea vy v eh ic le s (a bo ve A A S H T O H S -2 0) th at a re le ga l i n th e st at e. D at a ar e ba se d on d is tr ic t N B I in sp ec ti on s th at a ls o re po rt s ta te -s pe ci fi c da ta it em s. B ri dg e de ci si on s ar e ce nt ra li ze d fo r re ha bi li ta ti on a nd r ep la ce m en t, an d de ce nt ra li ze d fo r pr es er va ti on a nd r ep ai r. I n ad di ti on to in pu t f ro m th e br id ge of fi ce , t he D O T ’s o ffi ce e ng in ee r pl ay s a ke y ro le in r ev ie w in g th e pr op os ed br id ge p ro gr am a nd m ak in g re co m m en da ti on s to th e ch ie f en gi ne er . T he re is al so a B ri dg e R ep la ce m en t P ri or it iz at io n C om m it te e co m pr is in g ag en cy m an ag er s fr om s ev er al o ffi ce s pl us a n on vo ti ng F H W A D iv is io n O ffi ce r ep - re se nt at iv e to a dv is e up pe r m an ag em en t o n br id ge in ve st m en t d ec is io ns . B ri dg e de ci si on s ar e ba se d pr im ar il y on D efi ci en cy P oi nt s. T he p ro ce ss is ve rt ic al ly in te gr at ed , m ai nt ai ni ng c om m un ic at io n up a nd d ow n D O T o rg an i- za ti on al le ve ls . T he C en tr al O ffi ce T ra ns po rt at io n In ve st m en t M an ag em en t D iv is io n us es an a ge nc y- sp ec ifi c m an ag em en t s ys te m to h el p al lo ca te r es ou rc es a m on g pa ve m en t, br id ge , a nd s af et y pr og ra m s. B as ed o n th es e al lo ca ti on s, re gi on al b ri dg e m ai nt en an ce e ng in ee rs d ec id e br id ge p ro je ct s an d tr ea t- m en ts , a pp ly in g th ei r kn ow le dg e of th ei r br id ge c on di ti on a nd p ro fe s- si on al ju dg m en t. T he y m ay u se c us to m m an ag em en t t oo ls . R eg io ns h an - dl e m os t b ri dg e m an ag em en t f un ct io ns ; t he C en tr al O ffi ce m an ag es o nl y m aj or b ri dg e pr oj ec ts a nd b ri dg es o n th e st at ew id e “b ac kb on e” o r tr un k- li ne s ys te m ( ne tw or k of m ul ti la ne , h ig h- vo lu m e fr ee w ay s) . T he b ri dg e m an ag em en t p ro ce ss is n ot f or m al ly d oc um en te d, b ut is v er ti - ca ll y in te gr at ed f ro m th e ex ec ut iv e le ve l t o th e re gi on al o ffi ce s. D ec is io ns on b ri dg e re ha bi li ta ti on a nd r ep la ce m en t p ro je ct s ar e re ac he d co ll ab or a- ti ve ly b et w ee n th e ch ie f br id ge m ai nt en an ce e ng in ee r an d re gi on al d ir ec - to rs . D ec is io ns o n pr es er va ti on a nd m ai nt en an ce a re m ad e pr im ar il y by re gi on al b ri dg e m ai nt en an ce e ng in ee rs . B ri dg e de ci si on s co ns id er N B I da ta a nd a R at e S co re th at is b as ed o n N B I st ru ct ur al a nd f un ct io na l i nf or m at io n, b ut c om pu te d di ff er en tl y fr om th e S uf fi ci en cy R at in g. C on di ti on a nd P er fo rm an ce M ea su re s an d T ar ge ts N B I m ea su re s of S D , F O , a nd S R a re u se d, to ge th er w it h th e ag en cy ’s D efi - ci en cy P oi nt c al cu la ti on , f or b ri dg e pr og ra m m an ag em en t. A s ep ar at e, s ta te - sp ec ifi c, w ei gh te d av er ag e in de x of N B I co nd it io n ra ti ng s is u se d ex cl us iv el y fo r G A S B 3 4 re po rt in g. T he D efi ci en cy P oi nt s m ea su re is b as ed o n br id ge p hy si ca l c on di tio n, a llo w ab le lo ad , d ec k w id th , v er tic al c le ar an ce , a nd s pe ci al d ed uc tio ns . D if fe re nt th re sh ol d le ve ls o f d efi ci en cy a pp ly to b ri dg es b as ed o n ow ne rs hi p an d tr af fic u se . W hi le th er e ar e no q ua nt it at iv e br id ge p ro gr am ta rg et s or ta rg et y ea rs , a n un de rs to od p ro gr am o bj ec ti ve is to w or k to w ar d el im in at in g po st ed b ri dg es . P er ce nt d efi ci en t b ri dg es a re a ls o tr ac ke d. I m pl ic it ta rg et s ar e al so b ui lt in to th e D efi ci en cy P oi nt m et ho do lo gy ( e. g. , a S pe ci al D efi ci en cy a ss ig nm en t o f 30 p oi nt s fo r po st ed b ri dg es , a nd th e fa ct th at th e br id ge lo ad D efi ci en cy P oi nt s de pe nd o n th e de gr ee o f lo ad r es tr ic ti on ). S D a nd F O a re m on it or ed a nd c on si de re d by r eg io ns in th ei r br id ge w or k re co m m en da ti on s. T he re a re n o do cu m en te d, q ua nt it at iv e br id ge p ro gr am ta rg et s or ta rg et y ea rs . T he re is a g en er al u nd er st an di ng , t ho ug h, th at th e pe rc en ta ge o f S D a nd F O b ri dg es s ho ul d be d ec li ni ng . In a dd it io n to N B I ra ti ng s, th e ag en cy u se s a R at e S co re , w hi ch is a n in de x ba se d on N B I da ta b ut c om pu te d us in g w ei gh ts th at a re d if fe re nt fr om th os e ap pl ie d fo r S R . T he R at e S co re is a f un ct io n of th e st ru ct ur al it em s in th e S R p lu s A D T , f un ct io na l c la ss , a nd in ve nt or y ra ti ng . F un di ng L ev el R eh ab ili ta tio n an d re pl ac em en t n ee ds a re v er y la rg e an d ar e m et th ro ug h fe de ra l H B P fu nd in g pl us s ta te fu nd in g at a le ve l r ec om m en de d by th e ag en cy ’s F in an ce A dv is or y C om m itt ee , w ith fi na l d ec is io ns b y th e di re ct or a nd c hi ef e ng in ee r. R ep ai r fu nd s (s ta te m on ey ) ar e al lo ca te d to d iv is io ns b as ed o n re la ti ve b ri dg e in ve nt or y. T he re is a la rg e ap pr op ri at io n fo r br id ge r eh ab il it at io n, r ep la ce m en t, an d pr es er va ti on a s co m pa re d w it h ne w o r ex pa nd ed c ap ac it y. T he b ri dg e pr og ra m is w el l f un de d; s ta te f un di ng is c on si de ra bl y hi gh er th an is ne ed ed f or a f ed er al m at ch . S ta te f un di ng to m ee t b ri dg e ne ed s is ta ke n of f th e to p; r em ai ni ng f un ds a re th en a pp li ed to r oa dw ay , s af et y, m in or ca pa ci ty , a nd o th er n ee ds .

36 T A B L E 7 ( C on ti nu ed ) B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T W O N O N -P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te A S ta te B B ri dg e N ee ds F or b ri dg e re ha bi li ta ti on a nd r ep la ce m en t: R ep la ce m en t a nd r eh ab il it at io n ne ed s ar e ve ry la rg e (s ee F un di ng L ev el a bo ve ) an d ar e id en ti fi ed b as ed o n D efi ci en cy P oi nt r at in gs . B ri dg es w it h hi gh d efi ci en cy r at in gs a re e va lu at ed by th e of fi ce e ng in ee r, w ho a dj us ts th e li st to a cc ou nt f or b ri dg es a lr ea dy pr og ra m m ed , fi sc al y ea r ta rg et s fo r w or k pe rf or m an ce , p os te d br id ge s, a nd ti m be r br id ge s (w hi ch th e ag en cy is tr yi ng to e li m in at e) . F or b ri dg e re pa ir : T he C en tr al O ffi ce p ro po se s ca nd id at es ; d iv is io n di re ct or s co m m en t. F in al r ec om m en da ti on s ar e m ad e by th e of fi ce e ng in ee r, s ta te br id ge e ng in ee r, a nd b ri dg e m ai nt en an ce e ng in ee r; th es e re co m m en da ti on s ar e fo rw ar de d to th e F ro nt O ffi ce f or a pp ro va l. F ut ur e ne ed s ar e an ti ci pa te d in te rm s of th e “b ul ge ” in b ri dg es b ui lt d ur in g th e in te rs ta te e ra th at w il l s oo n be a pp ro ac hi ng th e en d of th ei r se rv ic e li ve s. N ee ds a re e st im at ed w it hi n a 10 -y ea r ho ri zo n by a pp ly in g ag en cy -s pe ci fi c m od - el s of d et er io ra ti on in R at e S co re . T hi s pr oj ec te d de te ri or at io n is th en a dd re ss ed in th e an al ys is b y a st an da rd s et o f se qu en ti al a ct iv it ie s (i .e ., de fi ne d tr ea tm en ts th at a re s ch ed ul ed a t d et er m in ed ti m es d ur in g th e br id ge ’s s er vi ce li fe ) an d as so ci at ed u ni t c os ts to c om pu te to ta l e st im at ed b ri dg e ne ed s. T he se d et er io ra ti on a nd c os t m od el s va ry w it h br id ge c on fi gu ra ti on . R es ou rc e A ll oc at io n an d P ri or it iz at io n A B ri dg e R ep la ce m en t P ri or it iz at io n C om m it te e as si st s th e F ro nt O ffi ce in hi gh -l ev el d ec is io ns o n tr an sp or ta ti on p ro gr am f un di ng . T he r ol e of th is co m m it te e is s ti ll e vo lv in g. C om m it te e m em be rs hi p co m pr is es th e ch ie f en gi ne er , a ss is ta nt c hi ef e ng in ee r fo r op er at io ns , s ta te b ri dg e en gi ne er , a ss is - ta nt s ta te m ai nt en an ce e ng in ee r– br id ge s, th e of fi ce e ng in ee r, p la nn in g an d m ul ti m od al s ys te m s, a nd a s tr uc tu ra l e ng in ee r fr om th e F H W A D iv is io n O ffi ce ( no nv ot in g) . T he o ffi ce e ng in ee r ad dr es se s fi na nc ia l a sp ec ts o f th e di sc us si on s. S ta te w id e co m pe ti ti on a m on g br id ge p ro je ct s fo r re ha bi li ta ti on o r re pl ac e- m en t i s de ci de d ba se d on D efi ci en cy P oi nt s. T ie s ar e br ok en b y co ns ul ta ti on s be tw ee n th e B ri dg e O ffi ce a nd th e ag en cy o ffi ce e ng in ee r. F or b ri dg e re pa ir s an d m ai nt en an ce , a ll oc at io ns to d iv is io ns a re b as ed o n th e re sp ec ti ve c en te r- li ne le ng th s of b ri dg es a s m ai nt ai ne d in th e M M S in ve nt or y. E ac h di vi si on h as a b ri dg e m ai nt en an ce o r op er at io ns e ng in ee r w ho tr ac ks br id ge c on di ti on a nd n ee ds a nd is a bl e to d et er m in e ap pr op ri at e pr io ri ti es an d tr ea tm en ts . T he D O T ’s T ra ns po rt at io n In ve st m en t M an ag em en t D iv is io n ha nd le s re so ur ce al lo ca ti on a cr os s pr og ra m s an d re gi on s w it h th e he lp o f it s m an ag em en t s ys te m . T he le gi sl at ur e do es n ot in te rf er e in th es e de ci si on s. W hi le th e C en tr al O ffi ce r ec om m en ds a r eg io na l a ll oc at io n, it c on su lt s w it h th e re gi on s to id en ti fy a ny s pe ci al r eq ue st s re qu ir in g ad ju st m en ts in th e al lo ca ti on s. T he r eg io ns m an ag e th ei r re sp ec ti ve r oa d ne tw or ks a nd s el ec t p ro je ct s to b e in cl ud ed in th e S T IP . T he C en tr al O ffi ce d oe s no t g et in vo lv ed m uc h in th es e de ci si on s w it h on e ex ce pt io n— th e C en tr al O ffi ce m an ag es b ri dg e pr oj ec ts o n th e “b ac kb on e” o r tr un k- li ne h ig hw ay n et w or k, a s ta te w id e ne tw or k of h ig h- vo lu m e fr ee w ay s of s ta te w id e im po rt an ce — an d m aj or b ri dg e pr oj ec ts . T he d at ab as e w it h br id ge c on di ti on d at a is p ro vi de d to r eg io ns , w hi ch e xe rc is e di sc re ti on w it hi n li m it s in d et er m in in g pr oj ec ts , p ro gr am s, a nd c os ts . P ri or it iz a- ti on m et ho ds m ay v ar y by r eg io n an d ar e no t d oc um en te d. R eg io na l p er so nn el ap pl y th ei r kn ow le dg e, ju dg m en t, an d po ss ib ly th ei r ow n cu st om iz ed to ol s in pr io ri ti zi ng a nd s el ec ti ng p ro je ct s. T he F H W A D iv is io n O ffi ce h as r ec om m en de d th at th e de pa rt m en t a do pt m or e un if or m , b et te r do cu m en te d de ci si on p ro ce ss es . E co no m ic M et ho ds E co no m ic m et ho ds a re n ot y et g en er al ly u se d, b ut th e ag en cy ’s b ri dg e m an - ag em en t s ys te m w il l b e en ha nc ed to in cl ud e su ch p ro ce du re s. E co no m ic f ac - to rs a re in co rp or at ed in a ge nc y st an da rd p ra ct ic e to s om e de gr ee . F or e xa m - pl e, p re ca st c on cr et e br id ge d es ig ns th at a re in c on ve nt io na l u se h av e de m on st ra te d co st a nd p er fo rm an ce a dv an ta ge s. H ow ev er , m et ho ds li ke li fe - cy cl e co st a na ly si s ar e no t u se d fo rm al ly . B en efi t- co st a na ly si s is u se d sp ar in gl y (e .g ., to e va lu at e re ha bi li ta ti on v er su s re pl ac em en t) , b ut is n ot in g en er al u se . I n it s pr oc es s im pr ov em en t r ec om m en - da ti on s, th e F H W A D iv is io n O ffi ce h as a ls o re co m m en d us e of e co no m ic a na l- ys is m et ho ds . A cc ou nt ab il it y an d P ub li c C om m un ic at io n W hi le th e ag en cy tr ac ks th e pe rc en ta ge o f br id ge s th at a re d efi ci en t, th er e ar e no f or m al p er fo rm an ce ta rg et s. W hi le th er e is n o fo rm al p ub lic c om m un ic at io n pr og ra m o n br id ge s, th er e is a L eg is la tiv e In fr as tr uc tu re C om m itt ee c om pr is in g re pr es en ta tiv es o f th e ag en cy an d in du st ry to p ub lic iz e in fr as tr uc tu re n ee ds . F or e xa m pl e, it m ay p ro du ce co lo r- co de d m ap s of th e pl an ne d br id ge p ro gr am a nd p er m its a nd p os tin gs . T hi s in fo rm at io n is im po rt an t g iv en th e gr ow th in h ea vy tr uc ks s pu rr ed b y re ce nt c on st ru ct io n of a ut om ob ile m an uf ac tu ri ng p la nt s in th e st at e. A p er fo rm an ce m on it or in g an d ac co un ta bi li ty p ro gr am h as b ee n di sc us se d, b ut no ne h as b ee n de ve lo pe d to d at e. N or m al ly th er e is n o fo rm al c om m un ic at io n on th e br id ge p ro gr am . O cc as io n- al ly b ri dg e in fo rm at io n is p ro vi de d to th e pu bl ic ( e. g. , f ol lo w in g an in ci de nt ). N ot e: A D T = a ve ra ge d ai ly tr af fi c; B M S = b ri dg e m an ag em en t s ys te m ; F O = f un ct io na ll y ob so le te ; G A S B 3 4 = G ov er nm en ta l A cc ou nt in g S ta nd ar ds B oa rd S ta te m en t 3 4; H B P = H ig h- w ay B ri dg e P ro gr am ; M M S = m ai nt en an ce m an ag em en t s ys te m ; N B I = N at io na l B ri dg e In ve nt or y; S D = s tr uc tu ra ll y de fi ci en t; S R = s uf fi ci en cy r at in g; S T IP = S ta te w id e T ra ns po rt at io n Im pr ov em en t P ro gr am .

37 T A B L E 8 B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T H R E E P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te C S ta te D S ta te E In te rv ie w W it h S ta te B ri dg e E ng in ee r S ta te B ri dg e M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r B ri dg e M an ag em en t S ys te m C oo rd in at or G E N E R A L P on ti s co nt ai ns a ll b ri dg e da ta f or s ta te a nd lo ca l br id ge s. D at ab as e in cl ud es s ta nd ar d P on ti s it em s pl us c us to m iz ed d at a. B ri dg e m an ag em en t f un ct io ns a re c en tr al iz ed ; d is - tr ic ts a re in vo lv ed in d at a co ll ec ti on o n th e st at e- ow ne d ne tw or k. C en tr al O ffi ce m an ag es in sp ec ti on of lo ca l b ri dg es . D is tr ic t i ns pe ct io ns a re a t t he e le m en t l ev el . A ge nc y us es P on ti s’ s N B I T ra ns la to r pr og ra m to pr od uc e N B I m ea su re s. P on ti s he lp ed th e br id ge m ai nt en an ce u ni t b ec om e m uc h m or e in vo lv ed in b ri dg e pr og ra m d ec is io n m ak in g, a ls o in vo lv in g th e di st ri ct s m or e in b ri dg e re pl ac em en t d ec is io ns . P on ti s is a pp li ed a t t he C en tr al O ffi ce . D is tr ic ts in sp ec t b ri dg es u si ng d ua l i ns pe ct io ns ( el em en t l ev el an d N B I) . A jo in t a pp ro ac h, b ot to m -u p an d to p- do w n, is u se d in br id ge m an ag em en t a nd p ro gr am d ev el op m en t. S ee te xt f or d et ai ls . T he C en tr al O ffi ce c on du ct s br id ge m an ag em en t us in g P on ti s, s up pl em en te d by c us to m iz ed a na - ly ti c fu nc ti on s th at o pe ra te o n da ta in th e P on ti s da ta ba se . D is tr ic ts p er fo rm e le m en t- le ve l i ns pe ct io ns on ly . B ri dg e m an ag em en t i s pa rt o f th e st at e’ s ov er al l as se t m an ag em en t, an d is in cl ud ed w it h ot he r pr og ra m s th at a re c on si de re d w it hi n a co rr id or . C on di ti on a nd P er fo rm an ce M ea su re s an d T ar ge ts A ge nc y co m pu te s N B I ra ti ng s vi a th e N B I T ra ns la - to r pr og ra m w it hi n P on ti s; it u se s th e P on ti s H ea lt h In de x oc ca si on al ly . B ri dg es e li gi bl e fo r fe de ra l H B P f un di ng a re tr ac ke d vi a th e S el ec t L is t, ba se d on S R . T he B ri dg e O ffi ce is d ev el op in g it s ow n B ri dg e In de x th at w il l p ro vi de m or e gr an ul ar d es cr ip ti on s of b ri dg e co nd it io n an d ad dr es s pr ob le m s w it h S R an d th e S el ec t L is t. S ee te xt f or d et ai ls . C ur re nt p ra ct ic e: B ri dg es in “ ac ce pt ab le ” co nd i- ti on a re th os e th at a re N O T o n th e S el ec t L is t. T ar - ge ts : 8 3 pe rc en t N H S , 8 0 pe rc en t n on -N H S b ri dg es in a cc ep ta bl e co nd it io n (d ev el op ed f or G A S B ). F ut ur e pr ac ti ce : T ar ge ts w il l b e ex pr es se d in te rm s of B ri dg e In de x va lu es o f G oo d, F ai r, P oo r, et c. ; m ee ti ng th es e ta rg et v al ue s w il l b e re fl ec te d in pr oj ec ts in cl ud ed in th e S T IP , a nd w il l a ls o be u se d in tr ad e- of f an al ys es w it h ot he r pr og ra m s. T op m an ag em en t s up po rt s th es e ef fo rt s an d th e m ov e to w ar d tr ad e- of f an al ys is . D ua l i ns pe ct io ns a re c on du ct ed to o bt ai n el em en t- le ve l a nd N B I da ta . T he P on ti s N B I T ra ns la to r pr o- gr am is u se d to c he ck d is tr ic t N B I da ta , w it h ge ne r- al ly g oo d ag re em en t. T ra ck in g of c on di ti on a nd p er fo rm an ce is m ai nl y by co ns id er in g tr en ds in b as ic m ea su re s, in cl ud in g S D an d F O . F H W A th re sh ol ds f or N H S h ig hw ay s (s pe c- if yi ng a ll ow ab le p er ce nt ag es o f S D a nd F O ) ar e al so co ns id er ed . T hi s ag en cy is lo ok in g to e li m in at e S D br id ge s in 1 0 ye ar s, a nd r ep la ce F O b ri dg es in 1 0– 20 ye ar s. T he b ri dg e un it p ro vi de s in pu t t o C om m is si on re po rt s an d su bm it s br id ge n ee ds to e xe cu ti ve m an - ag em en t, th e co m m is si on , a nd th e go ve rn or . U pp er m an ag em en t g en er al ly a cc ep ts th e re co m m en - da ti on s of th e br id ge m ai nt en an ce o ffi ce . N B I ra ti ng s fo r S D a nd F O a re u se d in a tr en d an al ys is f or th e br id ge c ap ac it y pr og ra m o nl y (n ew b ri dg es , e xp an de d ca pa ci ty , b ri dg e re pl ac em en t b as ed o n st re ng th c on si de ra ti on s) , no t b ri dg e pr es er va ti on . F or p re se rv at io n (p re ve nt iv e m ai nt en an ce ), o nl y de ck s, jo in ts , a nd b ea ri ng s ar e co ns id er ed . D ec i- si on s ar e in fo rm ed b y a m od ifi ed h ea lt h in de x. T he re a re s ep ar at e pr io ri ty in de xe s fo r sp ec ifi c de ta il s on s te el b ri dg es a nd f or o ff -s ys te m br id ge s, f or w hi ch p os ti ng is a n is su e. F un di ng L ev el C on st ru ct io n pr og ra m is re la tiv el y sm al l ( $2 00 m il- lio n an nu al ly , t ot al fo r a ll pr oj ec ts ); b ri dg es a nd o th er st ru ct ur es a re a bo ut 1 0 pe rc en t o f t ot al . S ta te d ol la rs ($ 15 –$ 25 m ill io n an nu al ly ) g o to b ri dg e re pa ir s. F ed er al H B P m on ey is d ed ic at ed to b ri dg es a nd c on - st it ut es m os t o f th e ag en cy ’s b ri dg e fu nd in g (> $1 00 m il li on ). S ta te f un di ng ( $1 0 m il li on ) is c om pe ti ti ve . P la nn in g pr ov id es r ev en ue p ro je ct io ns b y hi gh - w ay s ys te m . T he re is s tr on g fe de ra l b ri dg e fu nd - in g, a nd s ta te f un di ng is u se d on r oa d co rr id or pr es er va ti on p ro je ct s. B ri dg e M an ag em en t r un s sc en ar io s in P on ti s to o bt ai n pe rf or m an ce tr en ds fo r di ff er en t b ud ge t l ev el s.

38 T A B L E 8 ( C on ti nu ed ) B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T H R E E P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te C S ta te D S ta te E B ri dg e N ee ds A N ee ds A na ly si s ac ro ss a ll m aj or p ro gr am c at eg o- ri es is c on du ct ed a s pa rt o f S T IP d ev el op m en t. C ur re nt p ra ct ic e: N ee ds id en ti fi ca ti on is g en er - al ly b y ro ad s eg m en t, dr iv en b y de fi ci en t p av em en t co nd it io n. B ri dg e un it id en ti fi es b ri dg es o n th e S el ec t L is t, th e to p 10 n ee ds in d ec k co nd it io n, a nd th e to p 10 n ee ds in e xp an si on d ev ic es , a nd p ro - vi de s th is in fo rm at io n to k ey p la ye rs . D is tr ic ts m ak e de ci si on s on m ee ti ng b ri dg e ne ed s. F ut ur e pr ac ti ce : N ee ds w il l b e ba se d on B ri dg e In de x va lu es ; f oc us w il l b e m or e br id ge -o ri en te d (b y in di vi du al s tr uc tu re ) ra th er th an b y ro ad s eg - m en t. A n in te gr at ed m an ag em en t s ys te m is p ro - po se d fo r de ve lo pm en t, w hi ch w il l a ll ow tr ad e- of fs ac ro ss d if fe re nt p ro gr am n ee ds . A ga in , u pp er m an - ag em en t s up po rt s th es e ef fo rt s. C ur re nt m et ri cs s ho w th e nu m be r of d efi ci en t br id ge s (b as ed o n th e S el ec t L is t) to b e de cl in in g. T hi s tr en d m ay c ha ng e in th e fu tu re w it h (a ) in tr o- du ct io n of th e B ri dg e In de x, w hi ch is m or e gr an u- la r an d m ay fl ag a dd it io na l b ri dg es a s de fi ci en t; a nd (b ) ag in g of b ri dg es b ui lt a h al f- ce nt ur y ag o, n ow ap pr oa ch in g de si gn o r ec on om ic s er vi ce li ve s. T ar - ge ts m ay n ee d to b e re vi se d in th e fu tu re . T he b ri dg e m ai nt en an ce o ffi ce h as c on du ct ed a bo ut ei gh t n ee ds s tu di es w it h P on ti s as si st an ce s in ce th e 19 90 s, th e m os t r ec en t i n 20 04 . T he b ri dg e m ai nt e- na nc e of fi ce a ls o ke ep s tr ac k of p ro gr es s in m ee ti ng ne ed s (e .g ., th ro ug h de ck r ep la ce m en t) a nd u pd at es tr en d li ne s m on th ly . B ef or e Po nt is im pl em en ta tio n, b ri dg e in ve st m en t d ec i- si on s w er e no t m ad e sy st em at ic al ly . T he re w as n o fo r- m al p ro ce ss , a nd d ec is io ns w er e ba se d on a d ho c co n- si de ra tio ns s uc h as p ro je ct s th at w er e “e as y to d o. ” T he p ol ic y no w is th at b ri dg e m an ag er s ne ed to un de rs ta nd th e op er at io ns a sp ec ts o f th ei r de ci si on s (i .e ., w he re a re b ri dg e ne ed s, w ha t a re th e ca us es o f th es e ne ed s, a nd h ow c an th e ro ad s ys te m o pe ra ti on be ne fi t f ro m b ri dg e in ve st m en t? ). T hi s re qu ir es un de rs ta nd in g ho w th e br id ge r el at es to it s su rr ou nd - in g lo ca ti on s in th e ro ad n et w or k. T hi s im pl ie s a m an ag em en t p er sp ec ti ve o f ho w th e ro ut e or c or ri do r is u se d w he n co ns id er in g br id ge in ve st m en ts . T he e le m en t- le ve l d at a dr iv e th e pr og ra m a na ly se s an d re co m m en da ti on s in P on ti s. S ce na ri os a re r un f or un li m it ed a nd c on st ra in ed b ud ge t c as es . B as ed o n P on ti s sc en ar io p ro je ct io ns , t re nd s ar e de ve lo pe d fo r nu m be rs o f st at e- ow ne d br id ge s th at a re S D o r F O ( fo r ca pa ci ty p ro je ct s) , f or u se by P la nn in g in it s tr ad e- of f an al ys es . F or p re ve nt iv e m ai nt en an ce , t he d ec k he al th in de x is th e pr im ar y m ea su re th at is tr ac ke d. P re se rv at io n w or k is d ev el op ed o n a co rr id or ba si s to g ai n ec on om ie s of s ca le . B ri dg e po st in g is a n is su e pr im ar il y fo r lo ca l (o ff -s ys te m ) br id ge s. T he a ge nc y in fo rm s lo ca l go ve rn m en ts w he n br id ge p os ti ng is n ee de d. P os ti ng s ta tu s is a ls o pa rt o f th e pr io ri ti za ti on f or fe de ra l a id to c ou nt ie s. O th er f ac to rs th at a re co ns id er ed in cl ud e br id ge a ge , w he th er a b ri dg e is o f ti m be r co ns tr uc ti on , t ra ffi c (A D T ), b ri dg e le ng th ( co un ti es d o no t h av e th e ex pe rt is e to de si gn b ri dg es lo ng er th an a c er ta in le ng th ), a nd in te rn al c ou nt y pr ef er en ce s. R es ou rc e A ll oc at io n an d P ri or it iz at io n A ll oc at io ns b et w ee n br id ge a nd o th er p ro gr am s ar e m ad e at th e N ee ds A na ly si s m ee ti ng . D is tr ic ts co m m en t o n th e ti m in g of b ri dg e pr oj ec ts in th e S T IP in r el at io n to o ve ra ll n ee ds a nd f un di ng . B ri dg e pr oj ec ts ( ex ce pt a n oc ca si on al b ri dg e re pl ac em en t p ro je ct ) ar e ty pi ca ll y no t a m aj or to pi c in th e N ee ds A na ly si s m ee ti ng , a nd th e st at e do es no t h av e m an y m aj or b ri dg e pr oj ec ts . I n th e fu tu re , tr ad e- of f an al ys es w il l c on si de r th e im pa ct s of d if - fe re nt f un di ng le ve ls a nd a ll oc at io ns a m on g pr og ra m s. T he $ 20 0 m il li on in c on st ru ct io n fu nd in g is di vi de d eq ua ll y am on g fi ve d is tr ic ts , $ 40 m il li on pe r di st ri ct . H ow ev er , b ri dg e fu nd in g m ay n ot b e pr op or ti on al . T he d is tr ic ts p ri or it iz e br id ge p ro je ct s. A ll oc at io ns o f st at e fu nd s ar e de ci de d in a m ee ti ng am on g pr og ra m /o ffi ce m an ag er s. O ne p ot en ti al a re a of im pr ov em en t i s fo r ot he r fu nc ti on al a re as to e st i- m at e ne ed s in th ei r pr og ra m s on a n eq ui va le nt lo ng - te rm b as is ( 20 y ea rs ), a s is d on e fo r br id ge s. A no th er is to c on si de r th e ty pe a nd c ri ti ca li ty o f ne ed s m or e ex pl ic it ly r at he r th an a ll oc at in g by , f or e xa m pl e, f or - m ul as o r pr or at ed p er ce nt ag es . D is tr ic t a ll oc at io ns o f fe de ra l b ri dg e fu nd s in th e pa st w er e ba se d up on a r ou gh ly u ni fo rm d is tr ib ut io n of pr oj ec ts ( e. g. , fi ve o r m or e br id ge s in e ac h di st ri ct ea ch p ro gr am y ea r) . T he tr en d no w is to th in k m or e in te rm s of s ta te w id e ne ed s; a ny o ne d is tr ic t m ay th er ef or e se e it s nu m be r of f ed er al ly f un de d pr oj ec ts va ry f ro m y ea r to y ea r. T he C en tr al O ffi ce a ll oc at es fe de ra l f un di ng . S ta te b ri dg e fu nd s ar e pr or at ed to di st ri ct s ba se d on th ei r re la ti ve s ha re s of b ri dg e la ne m il es . P on ti s da ta a re u se d fo r th is a ll oc at io n fo rm ul a. P ro je ct p ri or it iz at io n is d on e st at ew id e an d di sc us se d w it h th e di st ri ct s. A ll oc at io ns b et w ee n br id ge a nd o th er p ro gr am s ar e an al yz ed b y th e tr ad e- of f pr oc es s co nd uc te d by P la nn in g. T he a ge nc y ha s ex pe ri m en te d w it h th e A A S H T O W ar e pr od uc t A ss et M an ag er N T to c on du ct tr ad e- of f an al ys es . R eg ar di ng a llo ca tio ns a m on g di st ri ct s: B ri dg e pr oj ec ts o n th e N H S ar e ev al ua te d st at ew id e. T he fir st c ut a t p ri or iti za tio n is o bt ai ne d us in g Po nt is an d th e su pp le m en ta ry , c us to m iz ed c al cu la tio ns th at o pe ra te o n da ta in th e Po nt is d at ab as e. A s ec - on d pa ss c on si de rs th e po lit ic al d im en si on in d is - tr ic t a llo ca tio ns . A llo ca tio ns f or s ec on da ry s ys te m an d of f- sy st em b ri dg e pr oj ec ts a re c on si st en t w ith th e st at e’ s re di st ri ct in g la w , w hi ch is u pd at ed ev er y le gi sl at iv e se ss io n (2 -y ea r in te rv al s) , a nd ar e pr or at ed b y br id ge d ec k ar ea . P ro je ct p ri or it iz at io n m ai nt ai ns c on fo rm an ce to th e di st ri ct a ll oc at io ns r eq ui re d by s ta te c od e, co ns is te nc y be tw ee n fu nc ti on al c la ss a nd c ol or of m on ey , a nd P on ti s da ta ba se c om pu ta ti on s of de ck h ea lt h in de x.

39 T A B L E 8 ( C on ti nu ed ) B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T H R E E P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te C S ta te D S ta te E E co no m ic M et ho ds F or m al e co no m ic a na ly se s ar e no t r ea ll y us ed n ow (o th er th an in th e P on ti s al go ri th m ). T he f ut ur e in te gr at ed m an ag em en t s ys te m w il l, ho w ev er , h av e a be ne fi t- co st a na ly si s. T he s ta te a pp li es th e be ne fi t- co st a na ly si s an d us er co st a lg or it hm s in P on ti s. T he s ta te a pp li es th e be ne fi t- co st a na ly si s in P on ti s. T he b ri dg e m an ag em en t o ffi ce h as tr ie d li fe -c yc le c os t a na ly si s, b ut e st im at es o f ro ad us er c os ts f or w or k- re la te d de la ys h av e pr ob le m s. A cc ou nt ab il it y an d P ub li c C om m un ic at io n T he G A S B 3 4 ta rg et s ab ov e pr ov id e so m e de gr ee of a cc ou nt ab il it y, b ut n o ot he r ac co un ta bl e ta rg et s ex is t f or b ri dg es a t p re se nt . T he im pl em en ta ti on o f th e B ri dg e In de x w il l c ha ng e th is a nd p ro vi de in cr ea se d ac co un ta bi li ty . C om m un ic at io n of b ri dg e in fo rm at io n to th e pu bl ic is p ro vi de d th ro ug h th e st at e’ s T ra ns po rt at io n F ac t B oo k (a nn ua ll y in N ov em be r) , w hi ch s um m ar iz es st at e an d lo ca l b ri dg e co nd it io ns a nd n um be rs o f de fi ci en t b ri dg es b y fu nc ti on al c la ss . A dd it io na l in fo rm at io n on th e S T IP is o n th e br id ge u ni t’ s w eb pa ge . T hi s ag en cy is su es a n A cc ou nt ab il it y R ep or t a nn u- al ly . I t i nc lu de s up da te s on th e br id ge d ec k ar ea th at is r at ed S D . T he B ri dg e M ai nt en an ce O ffi ce f or m er ly is su ed a n an nu al S ta te o f B ri dg e In fr as tr uc tu re R ep or t t o D O T m an ag em en t a nd th e T ra ns po rt at io n C om m is si on . T he r ec en t c ol la ps e of th e I- 35 W b ri dg e ha s re ne w ed in te re st in r ev iv in g th is r ep or t. T he re is a p er fo rm an ce m ea su re m en t p ro gr am re la te d to b ud ge ti ng . S ce na ri o an al ys es a re u se d to e st im at e pe rf or m an ce tr en ds f or d if fe re nt b ud - ge t l ev el s, to id en ti fy a r ec om m en de d bu dg et an d pe rf or m an ce ta rg et . P er fo rm an ce is ex pr es se d pr im ar il y in te rm s of th e de ck h ea lt h in de x. In fo rm at io n on b ri dg e st at us a nd in ve st m en t pr og ra m s an d pr oj ec ts is c om m un ic at ed to th e pu bl ic th ro ug h th e de pa rt m en t’ s br id ge w eb si te . N ot e: A D T = a ve ra ge d ai ly tr af fi c; B M S = b ri dg e m an ag em en t s ys te m ; F O = f un ct io na ll y ob so le te ; G A S B 3 4 = G ov er nm en ta l A cc ou nt in g S ta nd ar ds B oa rd S ta te m en t 3 4; H B P = H ig h- w ay B ri dg e P ro gr am ; M M S = m ai nt en an ce m an ag em en t s ys te m ; N B I = N at io na l B ri dg e In ve nt or y; N H S = N at io na l H ig hw ay S ys te m ; S D = s tr uc tu ra ll y de fi ci en t; S R = s uf fi ci en cy r at in g; S T IP = S ta te w id e T ra ns po rt at io n Im pr ov em en t P ro gr am .

40 The tabular organization of bridge management pro- cesses helps in two ways. First, describing these processes by agency illustrates important linkages among process steps. For example, particular condition and performance measures may be used to guide resource allocation and prioritization, as well as to communicate agency account- ability. As another example, understanding how an agency estimates bridge needs and accounts for funding availabil- ity may help in understanding its methods and criteria for resource allocation and prioritization. Second, because they are described in parallel for each agency, the processes of one agency can be compared with the others to observe simi- larities and differences. Supplementary information on the resource allocation and performance accountability business processes was obtained from the interviews with the 10 additional agencies (15 agencies interviewed in total). These additional exam- ples round out the various practices in bridge management used by state DOTs. Collectively, these descriptions estab- lish a picture of how agencies today relate their bridge man- agement capabilities and information to their procedures for analyzing program investments and resource allocations. These results will be amplified by later discussions of the survey responses. The survey data will provide a broader agency coverage of several relevant topics; for example, the use of BMSs, organizational responsibility for various pro- cesses in bridge management and resource allocation, and applications of bridge management specifically to planning and budgeting. When current practices are compared with the historical findings that were discussed in the preceding section, one can identify advances that have taken place in bridge man- agement and its application to agency decisions. This com- parison can crystallize long-standing issues that continue to affect bridge program management, analyses of bridge investment needs versus funding availability, resource allo- cation within and among programs, and bridge project pri- oritization. Trends in BMS implementation can likewise be revealed, indicating what advances agencies have made, or what impediments they continue to face, in applying their management system, data collection, and database process- ing capabilities to actual business decisions. Finally, an his- torical perspective provides a framework for understanding how current practice reflects principles of good asset man- agement that have emerged in the U.S. transportation sector in the last 10 years. General The five DOTs represented in Tables 7 and 8 were selected by the Topic 37-07 Panel as having exemplary bridge man- agement practices that extended into planning, program- ming, and resource allocation. The interviews described business processes that are well integrated among technical, middle management, and executive levels, and that are con- sistent with the broader financial, policy, and programming environment in which the agency operates. Offices involved in bridge management are able to produce the information upper management needs. Executives and managers appear to be satisfied with this input to their decision making. These agencies have created various mechanisms to advise upper management in their decisions and to resolve differences among organizational units in their respective assessments of needs and priorities. These will be described further later, with the understanding that some of these organizational roles and business processes are still evolving. Although all of these DOTs incorporate professional judgment as an element of their bridge investment and resource allocation decision making, agency practices vary in who exercises this judgment, as well as how, when, and with what effect. Although bridge management is well integrated into agency decision making among the DOTs represented in Tables 7 and 8, this is not to imply that policies and pro- cedures are perfect. Aspects of the agencies’ management system capabilities, performance measures, and executive advisory committee roles that were described in the inter- views are still evolving. In some cases, the objectives for further improvement of these internal processes have been spurred by suggestions from the respective FHWA Division Office; for example, the desirability of more standardized, documented project selection procedures, and encourage- ment in the greater use of economic methods. These agen- cies are working continually to influence the external factors that affect their bridge program management as well as their broader planning and programming processes—for example, to promote more stable and predictable short- and long-term funding streams, and to match available funding to bridge and other program needs. These pragmatic steps, includ- ing defining alternative bridge decision criteria to supple- ment the SR, using various internal mechanisms to decide bridge funding allocations, and transferring funds among programs, are described in later sections of this chapter as well as in chapter four. Underlying the current practices described in the remain- ing sections of this chapter are each agencies’ applications of different BMSs and approaches. These differences can be modest or substantial. The two non-Pontis states in Table 7 use agency-specific BMSs: One consists of a database with management and reporting tools that build on those used for NBI data; the other is an overarching system encompassing bridges, pavements, and safety projects that assists in plan- ning, capital programming, and resource allocation. Both systems use customized data and performance measures. The three Pontis states likewise differ in how their systems are customized and applied, whether with additional, state- specific elements, unique analytic tools to compute custom performance measures, or the degree to which Pontis’ eco- nomic modeling is employed.

41 The influence of BMSs can extend beyond their analytic results. State D reported that its implementation of Pontis coincided with a strengthening of its bridge maintenance office’s role in formulating the state’s bridge investment pro- gram. The bridge maintenance office of this state had little influence on bridge programs before the late 1990s. In 1993, however, the state began preparing to use Pontis by begin- ning collection of element-level data and developing cost data and element deterioration estimates. The bridge mainte- nance office began formulating agency bridge programming policy across the board, including replacement or rehabilita- tion and preservation (maintenance and repair). The state began using Pontis fully in 1998. The experience of State D is an example of how a strengthened bridge management approach can result from an informed bridge program initiative coupled with the effective use of BMS information. State D’s approach is now one that, as shown by the framework of Figure 1, includes both top-down and bottom-up aspects. For bridge replace- ment and rehabilitation projects, a joint program develop- ment approach between central office and districts is used. The bridge maintenance office asks the districts for their top 20 to 25 project candidates, while it concurrently runs Pontis to obtain corresponding BMS recommendations. The two lists usually show more than 80% agreement, and they are compared and discussed in a meeting between the bridge maintenance office and district representatives. The final list of recommended bridge replacement projects is prepared by the bridge maintenance engineer for one final district review, and is then submitted as a 5-year plan. Each year the bridge maintenance office (1) adjusts project priorities if needed, (2) conducts statewide audits to ensure that work to date con- forms with the recommended program, and (3) checks with districts to ensure that they are still in agreement with the program. To date this process has worked well. Preservation work—for example, for bridge painting and deck replacement—is handled by the bridge maintenance office with the help of Pontis recommendations, subject to funding constraints. Pontis is used to review local bridge pro- posals; for example, if a locality wishes to widen a bridge, the bridge maintenance office checks to see whether a replace- ment would be preferred. Districts generally do not adjust these decisions unless there is a major change in the field. This is but one example; others are described in Tables 7 and 8. Comments on the remaining items in these tables follow, along with further information gained from the 10 additional agencies that were interviewed. Condition and Performance Data and Guidance The policy objectives and performance targets that agencies use to guide bridge program development include several types of measures that are described here, but underlying them are themes that cut across the various practices among agencies— for example, the widespread use of NBI deficiency ratings. These themes are countered by a desire in many agencies to overcome the limitations of these ratings; the development of customized measures of bridge condition and performance; the preference of many agencies to track progress toward objec- tives and targets somewhat informally, especially by looking at general trends rather than firm thresholds and schedules of accomplishment; and, where explicit policy objectives and performance targets are not available for strategic guidance, the use of other mechanisms to guide resource allocation. Moreover, the field is in flux: a number of agencies that were interviewed in this study described new, improved measures of system condition and performance that were under devel- opment and could be used to express better their program objectives and performance targets. These new quantities, they believed, would help them to understand better the condi- tion of their bridge inventory, the implied bridge investment needs, and the potential benefits of funding these bridge needs. A caveat noted by even those states that had well-developed approaches to policy guidance and performance measure- ment, however, was that meeting transportation objectives and performance targets in a consistent manner required a stable, sustained, long-term trend in their program funding. Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 The measures used to define bridge program goals and tar- gets and to monitor system condition and performance over time are shown in the second row of Tables 7 and 8. All five states monitor NBI ratings: SD, FO, and SR. • SD is often considered in terms of a desired downward trend rather than as a fixed numerical target. Four of the five states have also defined custom mea-• sures. Although these new measures may draw on NBI data, they may differ from NBI database computations in terms of the particular data items that are included, the numerical rating scale that is used, and the weights assigned to respective items. Agencies have defined these custom measures to • serve several purposes that they believe are not being met by the current NBI or default BMS approaches: to provide more detailed or granular information on bridge condition and performance, to supplement the SR as a decision criterion, to give a more com- prehensive and transparent picture of the impacts of bridge investments, to focus on particular state issues and priorities, and to serve as dependent variables in agency-developed predictive models (i.e., bridge dete- rioration models) that are used, for example, in needs estimates. State A, which employs a Deficiency Point approach, • notes that bridge program objectives are essentially “built into” this process in terms of how Deficiency Points and bridge load definitions are defined (certain

42 results from work performance, and (3) the relationship of this improvement to cost. The DOT intends to define three to five intervals of bridge criticality in terms of the weighted Bridge Index computation on the 0 to 4 scale—for example, Index values less than 1.75 might be judged Critical, and val- ues greater than 3.5 might be judged Good, but these are still subject to further development and sensitivity analyses. The DOT is analyzing what level of investment is needed to address bridges at given Index values, and what improve- ment in Index value results from a certain level of invest- ment. The Bridge Index is expected to provide more accurate and helpful indications of bridge condition and performance, as well as a more specific measure by which to communicate objectives and performance targets. The NBI data that contribute to the Index are derived from element-level inspections. NBI ratings for bridge structure elements are computed from the element-level data by the NBI Translator program, which is developed and maintained by the FHWA and incorporated within Pontis. State D NBI ratings in this state’s view were established for safety and are not really management tools. In the opinion of this agency’s state bridge maintenance engineer, SR should not be used to prioritize projects because it does not encompass all of the factors needed to make wise bridge program deci- sions. For example, a bridge may have an SR value somewhat above 50 (e.g., 54 to 56), but replacement may be the preferred long-term option. This agency has discussed this point with the FHWA Division Office and has obtained its understand- ing of their position. This agency would prefer that a level of service-type measure be used instead of the SR. 10 Additional Agencies That Were Interviewed Some states reported only that their current strategic docu- ments (e.g., mission statement, departmental strategic man- agement guide, or long-range state transportation plan) were the source of transportation system goals and objectives, with no further elaboration. Several DOTs that did not now have a performance measurement program for their transporta- tion system reported that they are planning or now undertak- ing efforts to develop and apply such measures and targets. Other agencies already have fairly detailed goal-setting and review procedures and tools. For example, one DOT issues an extensive quarterly report on system performance and the status of its programs. A biennial update on progress toward attaining five legislatively set, overarching goals is attached to this DOT report. The secretary of another DOT reports annually to its transportation commission with a report card on system performance that is transmitted to the gov- ernor and legislature. The agency’s executive management team reviews performance measures with the commission in detail, using dashboards. Although agency staff makes legal truck loads in this state differ from AASHTO standard loads). A Special Conditions deficiency cat- egory allows managers to reflect implicit objectives by essentially raising the priority of a bridge with particu- lar problems. None of the five agencies now employs strict numeri-• cal targets for bridge condition and performance, or for the allowable time to meet condition and performance targets. Rather, the agencies monitor general trends in key indicators, particularly NBI ratings such as SD and, where relevant, the number of posted bridges. Declining trends in deficiency measures are generally understood agencywide to be desirable goals of the bridge program. Two of the five states explicitly mentioned program • goals defined exclusively for use in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) 34 reporting. Additional information is provided here as indicated for two of the agencies in Table 8. State C State C is developing a new Bridge Index for use with Pontis that will provide a more granular description of its bridge condition and performance than the NBI rating approach now used, which involves the Select List (bridges eligible for federal HBP funding for rehabilitation or replacement) based on SR criteria (SR between 80 and 50 for rehabilita- tion, less than 50 for reconstruction). State C identifies two problems with SR and the Select List: (1) a bridge may be structurally deficient or functionally obsolete, but not meet the criteria for the Select List (this case would typically rep- resent a bridge with deficient deck condition, but no other deficiencies); and (2) changes in the Select List do not fully reflect improvements owing to all bridge investments (i.e., the impacts of investments on non-federal aid bridges are not picked up). The proposed Bridge Index is founded on a number of NBI items: deck, superstructure, and substructure condi- tion; channel and waterway adequacy; inventory load rating; bridge railing and approach-guardrail-to-railing transition; approach guardrail and guardrail ends (comparison to state standards); bridge width; vertical clearance over a road; vertical underclearance; lateral underclearance; and func- tional class. Measures of traffic (e.g., average annual daily traffic) are excluded from the Bridge Index because they are not strict measures of bridge condition. They are accounted for, rather, in the programming process and should manifest themselves in bridge deterioration trends. The weights used in the Bridge Index computation are different from those used in the NBI ratings, and they are still being tested and adjusted for reasonableness with respect to how they yield (1) the relative Index values of bridges in different condi- tions, (2) the improvement in the Bridge Index value that

43 replacement that go to contract, and the percentage of weight-restricted bridges. The target in this state is that no more than 1% of bridges should have weight restrictions. There are separate safety and weight-restricted goals con- cerning structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. The agency’s bridge management unit develops these measures and targets as part of the update of the state transportation plan. Funding Availability and Needs Estimation Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 The five agencies included in Tables 7 and 8 all acknowledge the important role of federal HBP funding to meet bridge replacement and rehabilitation needs, and the use of state funding to meet preservation needs—bridge repairs and cor- rective and preventive maintenance—as well as to provide the required federal match. These agencies differ, however, in the magnitude of their federal HBP apportionments, the ratio of their bridge replacement and rehabilitation needs to preservation needs, and the relative split between federal ver- sus state dollars in their bridge programs. These differences reflect the varying physical and transportation environments among states (degree of urbanization, traffic volumes and compositions, terrain, climate, and so on) as well as the composition, age, and condition of their respective bridge inventories. Transfer of HBP funds to other programs has not been an issue among these five agencies in recent years, and therefore was not discussed in the interviews. Bridge funding transfers are now an issue nationally, however, and are covered further in chapter four. Approaches to needs estimates also vary. Agencies with access to the analytic features in Pontis are more likely to consider budget scenarios and to conduct trade-offs of dif- ferent budget levels versus expected system condition and performance. Methods to estimate bridge needs are evolving in some agencies concurrently with more sophisticated use of their BMS and the introduction of custom performance measures that better reflect individual state perceptions of needed work. In one case, an agency is departing from past practice by focusing more on bridge needs specifically, rather than considering them as part of overall conditions within the roadway segment to which the bridge belongs. In a second case, the agency is encouraging its managers to understand bridge investment needs in an operational context. In other cases, agencies are looking to improved performance mea- sures to provide a more explicit way of expressing needs and the consequences of different investment levels. By contrast, those agencies that do not analyze budget scenarios estimate needs based strictly on a single forecast of the deterioration in bridge condition and performance. Two agencies mentioned that projected needs likely will increase in the future owing to the “bulge” in bridge recommendations on targets based on departmental data, analyses, and professional judgment, the commission makes the final decision on updated targets. A couple of states pointed out that their current approaches are corridor based. The two apparently separate and distinct motivations are as follows: (1) to base programming decisions primarily on roadway pavement condition and to identify needed bridge work (apart from critical situations) primarily on corridors slated for pavement investment; and (2) to gain economies of scale in all bridge work identified within the corridor. Bridge managers within an agency driven by the first motivation are hoping that a more refined Bridge Index will shift the focus more toward individual bridge conditions and performance, irrespective of overall corridor condition. Placing greater importance on bridge conditions specifically is particularly important in maritime regions. The harsh environmental conditions in these locations expose bridges to corrosion that causes bridge elements to deteriorate faster than other components of the highway corridor. Several agencies do not have explicit measures of objec- tives and targets, relying instead on general, often qualita- tive, goals in mission statements and strategic plans. For example, one state reports that its top priority is preservation and maintenance; this goal is embodied in the 25-year vision in its long-range plan, which guides the 10-year investment plan, 3-year program, and 1-year work program. Another DOT notes that an overriding objective is to use all available federal aid. Funding set-asides are used to allocate resources to bridges, particularly for state bridge needs not covered by federal funding and for local bridges. Another agency relies on its senior management team to relate revenue projections to recommendations from central office and district man- agers, supported by management system outputs, to devise goals and objectives for the long-range plan. Some agencies that do not have explicit statements of goals, objectives, and performance targets contend that their budget, program structure, or funding formulas have implicit goals and objectives. A bridge manager in another agency believes that condition and performance objectives and targets represent idealized, ambitious vision statements. Because future improvement in bridge condition is not now realistic in light of current funding, the real objective (and a challenging one at that) is to maintain the status quo. A DOT using the Pontis BMS employs a computer- based dashboard with performance measures and targets for bridges. The Pontis Health Index provides a network-level view of bridge condition. This agency looks at bridge condi- tion relative to available dollars for different types of needs. The legislature agrees with and supports this approach. Another DOT uses program-output performance mea- sures such as the number of bridges requiring rehabilita- tion that go to contract, the number of bridges requiring

44 replacement and rehabilitation work expected for bridges built during system expansion in the mid-twentieth century. 10 Additional Agencies That Were Interviewed Several agencies reported that maximizing federal aid is an important objective, although secondary to more fundamen- tal bridge-related goals and objectives. One DOT begins with the amount of federal bridge program funds for replacement and rehabilitation. This is matched at the appropriate per- centage by projected state dollars, which this agency fore- casts quite accurately. Bridge program managers and upper management compare the sum of these resources with the needs. Supplemental funds sometimes come from general revenues or other occasional sources, but an effort is made not to distort the overall program. Another DOT reported that a significant change from historical funding patterns could invalidate the strategic plan. The agency might then need to revise its current highway program, implicitly changing its goals, objectives, and priorities. One state DOT has separate sources of state money to fund bridge needs, based on a history of successive revenue packages passed by its legislature. Although some funding sources allow flexibility, other sources are more restric- tive, with budget line items that dictate individual projects, scope, and schedule. Furthermore, existing needs for bridge replacement and seismic retrofit reduce flexibility further. As a result, even with some line items dedicated to bridge preservation, work is lagging behind needs in areas such as bridge painting, repairs, and maintenance of movable spans. When DOTs have encountered institutional impediments to setting what they perceive as appropriate objectives and priority for the bridge program, and when procedural improvements have appeared to be impractical, some of them have created work-around mechanisms to attain the desired ends. For example, in one state, the bridge program formulation has been stripped from STIP development. The DOT’s head of asset management under the chief of opera- tions now turns to bridge experts under the chief engineer for information on deficiencies, needs, recommendations, and program coordination. A formula remains for distrib- uting funds to the primary and secondary systems, but the total level of bridge funding comes off the top, so it does not have to compete with other projects. The agency’s chief financial officer has played a major role in taking the bridge program out of the normal STIP development process. The DOT commissioner has likewise supported this procedural approach. Other DOTs have reported that their state funding for bridge programs is taken “off the top” or from set-asides for bridge use. A common way to assess needs is by having staff and upper management examine bridge condition, performance, and age distributions of bridges or of key components, such as decks. One state DOT shares this information with the legislature in articulating investment needs. The CEO and top decision makers in another state DOT annually review bridge recommendations based on inspections and other data. Representatives of each funding area make presenta- tions, as do districts. Top management informs the districts of the proposed funding policy. The districts examine the funding policy and request changes or accept the proposal. The current bridge performance level, information on scour problems, and bridge needs in coastal areas are part of the funding analysis. Bridge program managers and top decision makers in this state also look at trade-offs. The criteria for making trade-offs in order of importance is as follows: data, analy- sis, engineering judgment, and political considerations. Top management tries to ensure that political considerations do not trump other factors. This process is meeting top manage- ment’s needs for good information they can use to establish funding levels and make good bridge decisions. At present, 90% of all bridges on this state highway system have condi- tion ratings of good or excellent. Further research seeks to improve decision support for bridge programming and bud- geting to make the bridge management process even more seamless. Another state starts with district input based on inspec- tions. Needs are organized by Interstate system, regional corridor system, and so on. The program delivery person- nel in each district meet to establish priorities and discuss the scope and timing of bridge work. This information then comes to the chief engineer’s office for review. Another DOT discussed its federal- and state-funded pro- grams for bridge replacement, bridge repair, and so on. For bridge replacement, the agency uses a method in which it applies SRs, priorities according to an internal priority for- mula, and traffic volumes to produce a list of priority bridge replacement projects. This list is distributed to districts and headquarters. The list, adjusted for comments, results in a federal aid bridge replacement program. The level of state funding has remained constant for many years. In trying to complete the defined program, the agency has had to take money from the set-aside programs for bridges, safety proj- ects, pavement overlays, and so on. Funding for the bridge repair program has therefore declined in the last 4 to 5 years. The agency is starting to slip behind in funding pavement preservation needs, and pavement condition is beginning to decline as well. Some DOTs that have BMSs with predictive capabilities apply them to needs estimates. They assess future bridge deterioration under different scenarios to see what the needs are at various time periods. However, another DOT, although a Pontis state, uses its BMS software mainly to store inspection results, foregoing use of the system’s pre-

45 dictive capabilities. This inspection information is used to identify candidate projects. Agency personnel go to the field to corroborate identified project needs and prepare a priority list. This list is revised if needed. The highest priority proj- ects are identified from both inspection data and designers’ judgments in reviewing the proposed projects. Agency per- sonnel characterize this process essentially as triage: to deal first with serious problems, then with remaining problems. The agency tries to perform preventive maintenance to keep existing conditions from getting worse. Agencies also discussed their handling of special bridge program needs: particular problems on individual bridges that require ongoing attention—for example, susceptibility to scour, seismic damage, and terrorist attack. Approaches differ on identifying special bridge needs and allocating resources to address them. In one state, monitoring devices are placed on bridges that have been identified as scour critical to understand what is happening. The DOT devotes resources as necessary to address identified problems. This agency has had internal discussions regarding bridges that might be subject to terrorist attacks, but other states are believed to have much more extensive and serious vulner- ability problems. An emergency repair fund exists to help with identified special bridge needs. Another state notes that homeland security is not a source of funding, although management does pay attention to the security issue. States apply different approaches in program funding structure to address special needs. Some states have separate subpro- grams or funding for scour or seismic needs. Other states fund all needs from the same pot of money, with no special bridge subprograms. Several agencies mentioned coming bulges in needs that will arise from the waves of bridges constructed during the Depression and the Interstate construction era that have exceeded or will soon exceed their service lives. Other age- dependent needs may emerge as a result of individual prob- lems with materials, workmanship, or other causes. Resource Allocation and Prioritization Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 Resource allocation and prioritization are at the heart of infrastructure investment decision making. The entries in Tables 7 and 8 illustrate the differences arising from central- ized versus decentralized bridge management philosophies. Several common themes, however, appear in all five agen- cies. These similarities and contrasts at three stages of the decision-making process are summarized here: Resource allocation among programs.• Fundamental decisions on funding allocations among an agency’s programs are made at a high level within all of the interviewed organizations. These decisions, although informed by technical and financial analyses, involve executive and senior management judgment in all cases. Two of the five agencies rely on a single orga- nizational unit to make these decisions; the other three employ a senior-level meeting or an advisory commit- tee assisting agency executives. Decision making tends to be centralized, although State B reports that its cen- tral office unit consults with regional managers on its decisions. State E performs trade-off analyses across programs in support of its decisions. Fund allocations to districts, regions, or divisions.• Allocations of bridge monies among districts encom- pass a mix of procedures within and among agencies. For example, two agencies distinguish between types of proposed work (e.g., replacement vs. preservation) or highway classes to be addressed (NHS vs. non-NHS) and employ a statewide competition using BMS analyses for one category (e.g., bridge replacement or NHS projects), but a formula-based allocation for the other (e.g., pres- ervation or non-NHS). These formulas account for the relative share of bridge inventory in each district based on bridge length or deck area. The remaining agencies adopt other methods: a uniform distribution of funds across all districts (driven by state law), statewide com- petition among all bridge projects (supported by Pontis analyses), and a centrally mandated allocation. Project prioritization.• Prioritization methods reflect a mix of centralized and decentralized techniques. Several states rely on decentralized project prioritiza- tion, which may entail professional judgment among district bridge managers. Other agencies prioritize projects centrally with the assistance of their manage- ment systems, applying their own bridge condition and performance measures. One agency reports comput- ing priorities centrally, but consulting with districts on the results. 10 Additional Agencies That Were Interviewed The interviews with chief engineers of 10 additional state DOTs echoed many of the themes identified in Tables 7 and 8. Resource allocation among programs.• Decisions on bridge program funding in competition with other trans- portation programs are made in most of the interviewed agencies by high-level committees formally charged with this function, or by groups of high-level agency manag- ers. For example, in one agency, these senior managers include the director, chief engineer, heads of design, the bridge office, and other offices. Another agency includes district as well as functional managers. The specific decision processes and analyses these agencies use vary, however. Whereas one agency applies its BMS specifi- cally to analyze critical bridge needs and conformance with technical standards and requirements, at least two

46 repair. Although this decision is based on the magni- tude of the projected work scope, it also has funding implications because the two categories of work are funded from different programs. Economic Methods The five agencies in Tables 7 and 8 employ economic meth- ods to varying degrees, but overall, their practices do not represent wide use. Two of the Pontis states use its benefit- cost analysis, and both are familiar with its user-cost compo- nent. One agency routinely applies user costs in its analyses; the second reports some issues with the calculation of road- user delay costs. Two other agencies plan to use economic methods in the future, following enhancements to their man- agement systems. The fifth agency uses economic analyses infrequently in specific cases (e.g., to compare a rehabilita- tion versus a replacement project), but not on a regular basis. The FHWA Division Office has recommended greater use of economic methods to this agency. Economic methods were not discussed in the 10 addi- tional DOT interviews. Additional information on the appli- cation of economic methods is given, however, in the survey results discussed in the next section. Accountability and Public Communication Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 A formal program of performance monitoring and account- ability reporting does not yet exist among the five agencies interviewed, although several reported having considered the idea. Individual efforts have been undertaken in several spe- cific areas. All agencies track NBI deficiencies in condition and performance ratings. Current reporting methods include providing bridge condition and performance information on an agency’s website, issuing an annual accountability report, including bridge data in an agency’s Transportation Fact Book, applying performance management as part of an agency’s budgeting process, and communicating with the public when needed following bridge-related incidents. GASB 34 reporting also provides a measure of accountabil- ity. State C reported that when its new Bridge Index per- formance measure is implemented, it will provide a clearer picture to the public regarding the overall condition of the state’s bridge inventory. 10 Additional Agencies That Were Interviewed Several of the additional agencies that were interviewed have defined performance measures within a structured program of accountability, but the detail and level of sophistication vary. For example, one agency provides regular information on the status of bridge preservation as well as progress in delivering the bridge construction program. Another has other agencies base decisions on a highway corridor approach in which bridge needs are accounted for only within the broader context of roadway (particularly pavement) needs, with the roadways receiving greater priority. Other agencies depend on managerial or com- mittee recommendations to senior managers, who make the final decisions on program funding. Some agencies perform trade-off analyses on different funding alloca- tions, whereas others do not; one agency reported that its Transportation Commission is interested in the potential of AssetManager NT, a new AASHTOWare product, to assist in cross-program trade-off analyses. Another agency mentioned that bridge program proposals tend to be data-rich compared with those for other programs, making it difficult to provide evenhanded comparisons of needs across programs. Three of the agencies referred to dedicated funding mechanisms affecting bridges as a consideration in their program allocations: one state’s constitutional protection of highway-related funding against modal competition; the dedicated bridge funding provided by the federal HBP; and a desire by an agency to take all bridge funding “off the top,” asserting a prior- ity for bridge needs and avoiding competition with other programs. None of the agencies discussed transfers of federal bridge funds. (Again, this topic will be covered in chapter four.) Fund allocations to districts, regions, or divisions.• Allocations to districts by the 10 additional states that were interviewed represent a mix of methods similar to those reported by the agencies in Tables 7 and 8. Many of the reported methods involve centralized decisions (or a shift toward an increasingly centralized approach), often retaining input from the districts. Allocations may be based on analytic results (percentage distribu- tions of needs) or criteria such as worst-first project candidates. One agency reported a more decentralized, data-driven approach involving district recommenda- tion of funding needs with central office response. Two of the agencies referred to differences in allocation methods based on the type of bridge work (replacement or rehabilitation versus maintenance and repair), with decisions on the former work categories more central- ized, and on the latter, more decentralized. Project prioritization. • All of the reported prioritiza- tion methods involved collaboration between central office and districts, regardless of whether priorities are set centrally or by individual districts. In one example, the central office produces a list of priority projects, but districts can adjust the timing of projects. In another set of examples, the districts submit a recommended prioritization to the central office, but the final deci- sion rests with the state bridge engineer or the chief engineer. One agency has a Feasible Action Review Committee to prioritize work needs and urgency. The committee meets monthly and determines whether the bridge work represents routine maintenance or periodic

47 The bridge inventory and condition and performance • in several categories: structural and functional defi- ciency; susceptibility to catastrophic damage from scour, fracture critical elements that require attention, and seismic events; other safety problems; measures of statewide and district condition or health; and com- parison of performance measures to targets Past and planned work by organizational or geographic • unit Reporting in accordance with GASB Statement 34.• About 30% to 40% of respondents reported using their BMS for higher-level management functions, including budgeting, scenario testing, trade-off analyses, generating quantifiable parameters to provide guidance in project selec- tion, and documenting past and planned bridge projects by political jurisdiction. Fewer than 10% of the respondents used their BMS for economic analyses—that is, for LCC analysis or computation of avoidable user costs as a function of alternative budget scenarios. These results have implications similar to those documented in the NCHRP Synthesis 243 (the Topic 27-09 survey) 10 years ago and the other historical reviews of BMS implementation summarized earlier: a strong use of bridge and other asset developed a report card for distribution to the Transporta- tion Commission, legislature, and governor, and discusses performance targets with the Transportation Commission. A third provides information on bridge structural integrity and impact on mobility using information based on the NBI data. Others base performance reporting on the physical condition of bridges as established through their inspection programs. BRIDGE MANAGEMENT SYSTEM APPLICATIONS TO AGENCY DECISION MAKING The preceding sections have described agencies’ bridge management and decision-making processes in general. More focused information was also obtained regarding spe- cific uses of their respective BMSs. Support of Planning Process The planning component of the survey asked whether par- ticular features of the agency’s BMS were used to support the planning process. A total of 17 agencies responded to this question, with the distribution of responses as shown in Fig- ure 12. More than half of the respondents reported using their BMS for planning-related information in the following areas: FIGURE 12 BMS support of agency planning processes. Note: FO = Functional Obsolescence; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board; SD = Structural Deficiency.

48 The survey results for these three stages of programming analyses are shown in graphics similar to Figure 13. These graphics apply stacked 100% horizontal bars to illustrate the distribution of responses according to the three ratings cited previously; they also give a visual cue as to whether or not the BMS is used at all in each type of analysis. This is done by using a positive and negative scale that extends to 100% of responses in each direction. For example, a bar that extended to +100% would indicate that all respondents used the BMS in some capacity, whether to complete the analysis fully (the first rating cited previously) or partially, supple- mented by additional analyses outside of the BMS (the sec- ond rating cited previously). A bar that extended to −100% (i.e., to the left of the zero origin) would mean that none of the respondents used their BMS regularly for the particular analysis (i.e., all would have selected the third option cited previously). More typically, the bars will lie between inter- mediate values: say, 70% of respondents using the BMS, but 30% that do not. There are, of course, many other possible combinations, but the sum of those using the BMS plus those not using the BMS by definition will always total 100%. Graphics similar to Figure 13 display the survey results; the actual numerical response data are in Appendix D (see Questions 34–50). management systems to track inventory and asset condition and performance, but less use for more advanced tasks in manage- ment, budgeting, and predictive analyses. Although economic methods are recognized as important techniques in good asset management practice, they reportedly receive little attention in BMS applications to planning. Similar findings will be seen in the discussion of programming processes and senior manage- ment uses of BMS information in the following sections. Support of Programming Process Survey participants were queried regarding the application of their computerized BMS to three analyses that are part of project programming: (1) quantifying performance mea- sures; (2) needs analyses; and (3) resource allocation and trade-off analyses. Each question required one of the follow- ing ratings as a response: The analysis is accomplished primarily through use of • the BMS. The analysis makes use of the BMS plus additional • processing of BMS information (external to the BMS) or professional judgment. The BMS is seldom or never used for this analysis.• FIGURE 13 Agency use of BMS to quantify performance measures. Note: BMS = bridge management system; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

49 leaders, and stakeholders. BMSs are applied when preparing reports for use in budgeting by subordinate levels. To a lesser degree, BMSs are used to develop network-level estimates of needs by applying technical inputs in terms of project-level candidates and economic analyses of unconstrained and constrained needs. Supplementary analyses and professional judgment are relatively important in these network-level needs calculations. One interview described an example of such a situation. This particular DOT uses Pontis, which already has built-in predictive models for analyzing future bridge conditions and estimating needs. Nevertheless, the agency applies the NBI Translator program to convert Pontis element-level bridge ratings to NBI ratings. The agency then uses these NBI ratings to estimate its coming bridge needs, even though the NBI data are less detailed and represent cur- rent rather than future bridge condition. Resource Allocation and Trade-offs BMSs are used less frequently for resource allocation and trade-off analyses than for the previous two analytical aspects of programming, as demonstrated by survey results in Fig- ure 15. BMS applications to resource allocations statewide, by functional class or subnetwork and by organizational unit, and budgeting support to central office and field personnel that manage bridges, were reported by 60% to 70% of sur- vey respondents. In many of these cases the BMS informa- tion is supplemented by additional analytic or subjective FIGURE 14 Agency use of BMS for needs analyses. Note: BMS = bridge management system. Quantifying Performance Measures The use of BMSs to quantify performance measures is one of two programming-support analyses that received strong positive survey responses, as shown in Figure 13. Almost all respondents indicated that their BMS is used to calcu- late current bridge condition or performance directly, with relatively little need for additional input from supplementary analyses or professional judgment (first response in Figure 13). Eighty percent of respondents reported obtaining cor- responding condition-performance information for particu- lar subsets of the bridge network. For the other options in Figure 13, the BMS was reportedly used by a smaller share of respondents (roughly 60% in each case), with additional analytic support particularly noted for GASB 34 reporting. Needs Analysis Needs analysis was a second area in which survey respon- dents strongly indicated a key role for BMS in programming, as shown in Figure 14. More than 90% of survey respon- dents use a BMS to support needs analysis, and almost 90% use BMS information in connection with identifying major- bridge needs (first and second entries in Figure 14). The frequent use of other information in addition to that from a computerized system in addressing major projects is not surprising, given the high visibility of these projects and the extent of input provided by agency executives, political

50 The most widely applied uses were as follows, with the percentage of respondents: To generate summary information about the inventory, • condition, SD, and FO at the network and district levels (67%) To produce information that can be compared with per-• formance targets set by management (48%) To identify safety or other serious problems such as • scour, presence of fracture critical elements, or seismic vulnerability (43%) To provide information to satisfy public reporting • requirements of GASB 34 (43%). Additional Information on Budgeting A separate component of the budgeting portion of the survey asked about factors that influence the budgeting process for the bridge program. The results generally reinforce the find- ings described earlier and provide additional details. These additional results are included in Appendix E. System Information Used by Management Team A related set of survey questions inquired about the use of BMS-produced information generally by the CEO and considerations. Interviews indicated that this often occurs regarding decisions on funding allocation. Use of BMS infor- mation to produce project-level or network-level summaries of the impacts of different proposed budgets, as might be used by bridge personnel and upper management to justify particu- lar levels of investment, was reported much less frequently, and where it is performed, it rarely is accomplished using the BMS alone. The reasons for these results may include one or more of the following: (1) preferences by different managers vary on what categories or formats of information to display; (2) models and data that are needed to compute these impacts are not now part of the agency’s BMS; (3) data or analytic models that are needed to calculate the desired impacts may not be available or credible in the opinion of potential users; and (4) agency personnel do not believe that predictions of the impacts of different budget levels are needed or useful. Budgeting Responding to the budgeting component of the survey, two- thirds of participating agencies reported that their agency’s BMS is used to support their budgeting process. The extent of use of particular BMS information was identified as shown in Figure 16. FIGURE 15 Agency use of BMS for resource allocation and trade-off analyses. Note: BMS = bridge management system.

51 Bridge Condition and Performance Reported use of different types of bridge condition and per- formance information by senior managers is shown in Fig- ure 17. More than 80% of the respondents use BMS reports on bridge condition and performance, including NBI ratings, upper-level managers. The three categories of information that were posed were bridge condition and performance, programming and budgeting, and economic analysis. Find- ings are presented graphically in the sections that follow. The numerical survey tallies are in Appendix D (see Bridge Engineer Questions 1–25 and 64). FIGURE 16 Agency use of BMS information for budgeting. Note: GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board. FIGURE 17 Senior manager use of information on bridge condition and performance. Note: BMS = bridge management system; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board.

52 The available predictive models do not enjoy credibil-• ity within the agency. The low reported use of the BMS for GASB-related infor- mation may reflect some of these issues or may stem from the agency’s choice of method for GASB 34 reporting. Programming and Budgeting Information Senior management use of various categories of program- ming and budgeting information is shown in Figure 18. The greatest reported use is for items that are of immediate inter- est and most direct and unambiguous in their scope—for example, a single recommended bridge program budget, estimates of short-term needs for different funding scenar- ios, and information on major bridge projects. Use of BMS results declines as the focus of this information extends to longer planning horizons, more predictive types of analyses such as trade-offs and impacts of different resource alloca- tions, and various ways of breaking down the information. (It is possible that agencies organize their information dif- ferently from the ways suggested in the survey.) Two inter- esting aspects of agency responses were the following: Many responses, including those for widely used bud-• geting capabilities, indicated that additional process- ing is needed beyond that provided by the BMS before other measures and health indexes, and specific ratings of key bridge components. Respondents expressed strong inter- est in other information on bridge safety, including suscep- tibility to catastrophic events, and tracking the success in meeting stated condition targets. All of these examples relate to the current status of the bridge inventory. Reported use of information that is produced by the predictive capabilities of BMS is substantially lower. A perhaps surprising result is that half of the respondents attributed this lack of use to the inability of their agencies’ BMS to predict the future condition or health of their bridges. The survey results did not reveal the reasons for this limited use of BMS prediction models, which might be the result of a number of reasons: An agency’s BMS may lack predictive models.• The BMS has predictive models, but agency staff do • not use them or are not familiar with how to use them. Available models may employ condition or perfor-• mance measures that are different from the ones the agency uses. The BMS has predictive capability, but the agency has • not yet analyzed the data needed to develop appropri- ate models. The BMS itself may be difficult to use in terms of its • user interface, navigation controls, access to the bridge database, lack of integration with other systems and data, and so forth. FIGURE 18 Senior manager use of information for programming and budgeting. Note: BMS = bridge management system; MRR = maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement.

53 Economic Analysis Information Figure 19 displays the reported use by DOT top manag- ers of economic analysis for bridges. Overall, the use is relatively small for all of the cases listed in the survey. Relatively, the greatest application is for benefit-cost anal- yses of major bridge project alternatives, an occasionally used capability that was confirmed in the interviews. The other economic analyses shown in Figure 19 were each reported by fewer than 20% of the respondents. The impli- cation is that the leadership of a relatively small number of agencies is able to use their BMS to gain a network- level perspective of the economic issues relating to their bridge program. These issues include, for example, net- work-level benefit-cost ratios for alternative bridge pro- gram investments, network-level estimates of LCCs, and network-level estimates of avoidable road-user costs (acci- dent, travel time, and vehicle operating costs). Once more, most of the respondents who do not use their BMS for economic analyses claim that the BMS does not support these methods, a claim that is difficult to reconcile with the existing features of Pontis and other modern bridge management tools. Overcoming Obstacles to Achieve More Effective Bridge Management System Use Agencies that reported not using many of the BMS capa- bilities discussed earlier (specifically the features listed the information is in a form useable by agency execu- tives. Supplementary comments suggested that addi- tional information and analyses may relate to things such as district and local priorities, more comprehen- sive project information, socioeconomic and political considerations, and information for other, nonbridge programs, such as roadway pavements, safety, and operations. Many responses referred to the programming and • budgeting information that is reportedly less widely supported by a BMS (the results in the lower part of Figure 18). With the exception of information on in- house versus contracted program delivery, a major- ity of the respondents who do not use their BMSs to obtain this information cited a lack of capability within their BMS as the reason. These results are again somewhat surprising given that features built into modern BMSs appear to support most of the categories of information listed in Figure 18, includ- ing mid- and long-term needs projections and analy- ses of scenarios and trade-offs. The survey results did not state reasons or explanations for the agen- cies’ perceptions, but a number of possibilities exist similar to those proposed in the preceding section. Regarding in-house versus contract program deliv- ery, the lack of use of the BMS to produce this infor- mation appears to relate more to a lack of desire for this information than to any issue with the capability of the BMS. FIGURE 19 Senior manager use of economic analysis information. Note: B/C = benefit-cost; BMS = bridge management system.

54 RESPONSIBLE ORGANIzATIONAL UNITS FOR DECISION MAKING Table 9 organizes the bridge engineer survey responses according to where program decisions are made; that is, by organizational unit, level, or decision maker(s). The key decisions in the row headings are as follows: Program Allocations:• The allocation of funds among different assets or programs (e.g., pavements, bridges, maintenance, or transit) Performance Measures:• What performance measures will be used Performance Targets:• What performance targets will be set Bridge Funding Split:• The split of funds for bridge preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement Major Bridge Projects:• The major bridge projects that will be funded Bridge Project Selection:• Other state-owned bridge projects that will receive funding/some action in a given year Local Non-Metro Bridges:• Local bridges outside met- ropolitan areas that will receive funding Metro TIP Bridges:• Bridges in metropolitan areas that will be funded and included in a metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. The specific organizational units, levels, or managers that survey respondents identified have been consolidated within six categories to enable a broad view of variations in deci- sion-making authority that occur across the types of deci- sions described earlier and among and within the responding in Figures 13 through 15) were asked to identify barriers or impediments to greater BMS use for investment and resource allocation decisions. Responses are listed here as paraphrased from the survey questionnaire, followed by the number of respondents in parentheses. The reasons are wide-ranging with no particular dominant theme, although a few responses do reflect some common agency reactions in terms of (1) reservations about the economic analyses within their BMS and (2) a lack of confidence in, or familiarity with, their BMS’s technical analyses. The recommended actions from the BMS are too dif-• ferent from the actions that agency bridge inspectors and engineers recommend (2). The BMS gives too much emphasis to economic con-• siderations relative to other considerations, especially conditions observed in the field (1). The economic assumptions are not accurate (2).• Too many managers perceive the BMS as a black box—• it uses analytic procedures that are not well understood by agency personnel (1). Management’s capabilities include the ability to assess • current and future needs. A BMS detracts from the bridge manager’s prerogatives (1). We have found it difficult to implement a BMS, train • personnel, and obtain buy-in from managers who must depend on it (2). We have had problems with reliability; for example, in • software, data, and/or analysis (1). Additional survey responses that discuss recommended new BMS capabilities to strengthen the support of program- ming and budgeting are presented in chapter four. TABLE 9 ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS MAKING BRIDGE PROGRAMMING DECISIONS Programming Decisions Board— Commission Agency Executive Central Office—Bridge Central Office— Other Units Districts—Regions Local—Regional Program Allocations 4 7 1 10 2 0 Performance Measures 1 4 9 8 2 0 Performance Targets 2 3 7 5 1 0 Bridge Funding Split 0 3 9 7 9 0 Major Bridge Projects 3 8 8 4 5 0 Bridge Project Selection 0 3 13 6 11 0 Local Non-Metro Bridges 1 2 6 9 4 13 Metro TIP Bridges 2 3 6 7 8 12 Note: Data represent number of survey responses. Most frequently cited responses are in bold and underlined. TIP = Transportation Improvement Program.

55 state DOTs. These organizational categories or levels are as follows, with typical examples of DOT positions or commit- tees that are encompassed by each (equivalent units having different names or titles in other agencies are included by inference): Board—Commission:• The highway/transportation board or commission; the provincial minister or (assis- tant) deputy Agency Executive:• The DOT executive or front office, encompassing (as examples) the CEO, DOT direc- tor, or minister of transportation, highways or public works; agency deputy directors or ministers (and assis- tant deputies); chief engineer and deputy; executive boards or committees; others considered front-office with broad decision-making authority Central Office—Bridge:• Senior central-office bridge managers, including the state (provincial) chief bridge engineer, chief bridge maintenance engineer, bridge program manager, bridge management engineer, and chief or head engineers of bridge design, construction, and operations Central Office—Other Divisions:• Heads, directors, chiefs, and senior managers of other central-office divisions, offices, or units, including planning (and bridge management section if part of planning), capital programming, policy and strategy, highways, design, construction, maintenance, operations, finance, bud- get, programs and contracts, and project management. Also included are those state or provincial agency units related to local programs, particularly local or munici- pal bridge programs Districts—Regions:• District or regional directors, engineers, bridge staff, and liaisons to local or regional organizations Local—Regional:• Local (i.e., city and county) gov- ernments, transportation and public works agencies, MPOs, regional transportation or planning organiza- tions, and bodies with recognized decision-making authority; for example, county engineer associations. The entries in Table 9 tally the number of responses that link decision-making authority of an organizational category with each type of decision. Respondents often identified joint or multiple decision responsibility; in these cases, each such organizational unit was counted. After all responses were tallied and summed, the top two or three organizational lev- els that were most frequently identified as having decision- making authority were identified for each programming decision. These top-voted organizational levels are high- lighted in bold in Table 9 to reveal basic patterns that reflect a high-level consensus of practice across agencies. Generally speaking, the bridge office is significantly involved in all programming decisions that deal specifically with bridges, but this authority is shared with other groups within and outside the agency. For example, major bridge projects involve strong participation by agency executives and, in some states, the oversight board or commission. Regional and local officials will also be involved for major projects in urban areas. Local bridge programs involve sig- nificant roles by local and regional bodies together with the state agency’s local or municipal assistance unit. Districts (or regions or divisions) have a strong say in decisions involv- ing all categories of bridge projects within their jurisdiction: local, state-owned, and major bridges. Although the bridge unit also plays a key role in establishing performance mea- sures and targets for bridge programs, the executive level has a clear interest in bridge condition and performance as an important component of agency performance statewide. There is also strong involvement in performance monitoring by other agency divisions, typically in planning, develop- ment or investment management, policy and strategy, and asset management. The one programming decision in which the bridge unit is reported not to have a dominant role is the allocation of resources among competing agency programs: bridge ver- sus pavement, safety, maintenance, and so on. The respond- ing bridge engineers see this decision as an executive-level function with board or commission involvement in several states, or as a wider departmental decision by such units as planning, investment management, policy and strategy, proj- ect management, and (in Newfoundland and Labrador) the director of highway design and construction. In two states, this decision is seen as decentralized, with allocation deci- sions made by districts. Table 9 is useful as a high-level summary of these sur- vey responses. Readers interested in specific information by state may consult the tables of survey results in Appendix D (see Questions 26–33). Although the numerical results in Table 9 convey the chief engineers’ perceptions of where particular decisions are actually made, they should not be misinterpreted as “degree of influence” on decisions. For example, a state’s transportation board or commission and the agency’s execu- tive office would typically exercise a strong influence on performance measures and targets through their interaction with and response to gubernatorial and legislative bodies; their communication with public interest groups and stake- holders; and their resulting formulation and communication of agency mission, policies, and priorities. A literal reading of the numbers in Table 9 belies the significance of upper- management influence on performance monitoring. Similar comments apply to the other programming decisions regard- ing resource allocation. This somewhat different perspective on organizational decision making for bridges is captured in responses to another question in the survey. Respondents to the budgeting

56 Organizational units that received the greatest number of • responses (more than 60%) included the office of the chief executive, bridge maintenance, planning and program- ming, and the district or regional director or engineer. The group that received 35% to 45% of responses • encompassed the central office budget, maintenance, operations, finance, and bridge construction divisions, and district planning, maintenance, and programming and budgeting offices. The group that received less than 25% of responses • included central office and district construction units (the “other” responses were not further identified). component were asked to identify which organizational units played “a key role” in making decisions regarding the following: Allocation of resources within the bridge program• Allocation of resources between the bridge program • and other programs in the department. This inquiry was structured as a single question with a check-off list of 19 organizational units. Results are shown in Figure 20. Following are the four groupings of organiza- tional units in terms of frequency of response: FIGURE 20 Organizational units with key roles in bridge program decisions. Note: CEO = chief executive officer.

57 The fourth group that received few or no responses • included computer services and local field offices. Apart from the greater emphasis on the role of agency exec- utives, the findings in Figure 20 are generally consistent with those of Table 9—that is, the strong participation in bridge resource allocation of the central office bridge unit, region or district directors, and central office planning and program- ming. These two sets of results were provided by somewhat different pools of respondents (with a degree of overlap), and the check-off list of organizational units underlying Figure 20 did not include all of the decision makers identified by respondents contributing to Table 9. Again, it is important to recognize the considerable variation in agency organizational structures and management culture, programming processes, functional roles and responsibilities, and attitudes toward centralized or decentralized decision making. Although an individual agency’s practices may or may not conform exactly to the trends in Table 9 or Figure 20, a general overview of where bridge-related decisions are made is nonetheless help- ful in understanding the other aspects of bridge resource allo- cation that are discussed in this chapter.

58 CHAPTER FOUR EMERGING TRENDS OVERVIEW Several trends that are emerging industrywide will influence bridge management and its role in agency decision mak- ing. These trends have to do with basic advances in bridge management methodology and practice that result from research—including technical research in the mechanisms of bridge deterioration and in nondestructive technologies of bridge inspection—as well as broader principles of agency decision making that are evolving through such initiatives as asset management and systemwide bridge preservation. Developments that followed the I-35W bridge collapse in Minneapolis in August 2007 crystallized the following issues relevant to bridge program funding, management, and budgeting: The need for a review of the NBIS, which was formally • requested by the U.S.DOT State agency perspectives on the administration of • HBP funding, the need for a long-term, data-driven approach to bridge management, and their implications for executive decision making. These issues were being addressed by some transporta- tion agencies in an individual way up to that point, but now were elevated to national attention. Potential changes that may result in both bridge management practices and agen- cies’ high-level decision making regarding their bridge pro- grams are relevant to this synthesis and are summarized in this chapter, which is organized as follows: The first section summarizes suggestions for action • regarding the NBIS, federal bridge program admin- istration and funding guidelines, and communication and public awareness regarding the bridge program, which followed the I-35W bridge collapse. The second section provides an overview of general • findings and suggestions that have resulted from sev- eral peer exchanges and program initiatives in asset management and bridge preservation. The third section compiles suggestions for further • research to improve bridge management practice that were documented in the bridge-related TRB Millennium Paper or were submitted as part of the sur- vey conducted in this synthesis. AFTERMATH OF I-35W BRIDGE COLLAPSE Introduction The collapse of the I-35W bridge in Minneapolis on August 1, 2007, raised concerns about the condition of other bridges nationwide. Many concerns focused on bridges that were structurally deficient, as was the I-35W bridge, and set in motion several urgent initiatives. Actions included policy pronouncements at the federal, state, and local levels; pro- posed new federal funding programs for the nation’s bridges; extensive congressional testimony on a wide range of bridge- related topics; extensive news coverage of the I-35W failure itself as well as broader coverage of the nation’s structurally deficient bridges, funding needs, and safety concerns; and establishment of several websites to better inform the public about bridge-related matters. The causes of the bridge col- lapse and descriptions of the subsequent bridge replacement project are beyond the scope of this study. However, several actions taken in the aftermath of this tragedy have important implications for future bridge management; these are dis- cussed in the sections that follow. Review of National Bridge Inspection Standards On August 2, 2007, the day after the I-35W bridge collapse, U.S.DOT Secretary Mary Peters announced a “rigorous assessment of the National Bridge Inspection Program” to be conducted by the U.S.DOT’s Office of the Inspector General (OIG). The review was billed as “top to bottom” to prevent such a tragedy from ever happening again. The Inspector General will “determine if the current federal program delivers the highest level of bridge safety” and, if needed, will “make recommendations for future changes to the program” (U.S.DOT 2007). This U.S.DOT review was reinforced by Secretary Peters in subsequent congressional testimony, in which she referred to a “necessary national conversation [that] has begun concerning the state of the Nation’s bridges and highways and the financial model used to build, maintain, and operate them.” Cautioning that the bridge collapse, as tragic as it was, did not represent “a broad transportation infrastructure ‘safety’ crisis,” she described the current and broader problem in U.S. highway transpor- tation as “an increasingly flawed investment model and a system performance crisis” that required basic changes in

59 how competing investment alternatives are analyzed and how existing bridge systems are managed. Secretary Peters outlined suggested process improvements, including a reduction in funding earmarks to promote greater reliance on proper prioritization methods, wider use of benefit-cost analysis, and greater use of performance-based management techniques (Peters 2007). The U.S.DOT OIG elaborated upon the background and scope of the NBIS review in a subsequent memo (Scovel 2007a): Suggestions to improve FHWA’s oversight of struc-• turally deficient bridges had been made in an earlier OIG review in March 2006. The OIG further recom- mended at that time that FHWA “develop a risk-based, data-driven approach and metrics to focus its oversight efforts.” The I-35W bridge collapse highlighted the importance • of exercising oversight of the inspection and repair of SD bridges. An objective of the current review is there- fore to evaluate FHWA’s implementation of NBIS and to suggest improvements that ensure that the FHWA is effectively promoting bridge safety. The current audit will proceed in three concurrent • phases with sequential reporting dates: An assessment of the corrective actions by – FHWA responding to the March 2006 OIG reco- mmendations A study of the HBP and discretionary funding pro- – vided to states to correct bridge structural deficien- cies, which will assess the degree to which states use this funding to repair or replace SD bridges effectively and efficiently A comprehensive review of the FHWA’s oversight – activities to ensure the safety of NHS bridges nationwide. The U.S.DOT OIG review is ongoing as this report is sub- mitted for publication. Proposed Changes in Administration of the Federal Bridge Program Proposals in Congressional Testimony In congressional testimony through September 2007, state transportation agency executives outlined a number of pro- posals to revise current federal and state practices in bridge program administration. Suggestions that relate to the scope of this study included the following (Steudle 2007a): Apply an asset management approach rather than • a worst-first approach. The current approach favors a worst-first strategy (fixing bridges that are rated SD or FO), which in the meantime allows other bridges to deteriorate to a poor condition, becoming the new “worst” problems. An asset management approach systematically addresses bridges according to per- formance targets and appropriate preventive and cor- rective treatments. Experience has shown that this proactive, efficient approach can reduce the percentage rated SD or FO over time. Revise the administration of the federal HBP fund-• ing to allow allocation and expenditure of bridge funds under an asset management approach. For example, eliminate or relax the use of the SR and its arbitrary thresholds (less than 80 for rehabilitation, less than 50 for replacement) used to determine eligibility for HBP funding. These thresholds have not changed in more than 30 years and do not encourage efficient bridge preservation. An effective asset management approach could preserve bridges more economically, and should be used to identify the eligibility of projects for HBP funds more flexibly. Eliminate the 10-year rule.• This rule prevents DOTs from using HBP funds on a bridge more than once in 10 years. An asset management-based approach would benefit from a more flexible timing of bridge work and could preserve bridges more economically and proactively. These recommendations were reinforced and expanded upon in subsequent congressional testimony (Steudle 2007b): Classifying a bridge as structurally deficient (as was • the I-35W bridge and about 74,000 more throughout the country) does not necessarily mean it is unsafe, but it does mean that work is required. Additional federal bridge funding is needed, but should • be combined with long-term, data-driven management practices that give state DOTs more flexibility in their bridge maintenance programs. Taking Michigan’s asset management approach as an • example, bridges are inspected more frequently and more thoroughly than required by federal law. Strategic goals are set and are met with capital preventive main- tenance programs. This systematic approach has been far more successful in reducing the number of structur- ally deficient bridges than Michigan’s earlier use of a worst-first approach. Concerns about state DOTs’ transfers of available • bridge funds reflect a misunderstanding of the reasons involved. Transfers of HBP apportionments to other federal programs do not imply a diminished priority for bridges, but rather a need by agencies to apply available funds more flexibly to their full range of needs. Current rules on HBP funding eligibility are too restrictive, and agencies may transfer bridge dollars to other pro- grams that allow greater flexibility. Conversely, agen- cies may apply federal funds from other, more flexible

60 programs (as well as state funds) to meet their bridge needs. Available data indicate that state and local agen- cies spend more of their own funds on bridges than the amount needed for federal match. Although SAFETEA-LU allows federal HBP funds to • be used for preventive bridge maintenance so long as a state undertakes systematic bridge preservation, “that requirement has been applied inconsistently by fed- eral officials in terms of what is required of the states” (Steudle 2007b, p. 5). Systematic bridge preservation can be implemented with the help of a BMS. Additional support of these positions was provided in congressional testimony by others: The term “structurally deficient” does not mean “that • [a bridge] is unsafe, though it may require the post- ing of a vehicle weight restriction . . . [structural defi- ciency] is not a description of the safety and strength of a bridge, [rather] it is a description created for the pur- pose of allocating federal bridge funds based on need” (Kerley 2007, p. 5). Classification of a bridge as structurally deficient may • be the result of a poor rating in only one or two of the key bridge components: deck, superstructure, and sub- structure (as explained in chapter two). Moreover, not all SD ratings are equally critical in terms of needing more intensive inspection. For example, 95% of SD in California is the result of deck cracking and paint prob- lems—matters to be corrected, but not serious enough to expose the bridge to imminent failure. Items such as waterway clearance and other factors not affecting the structural integrity of the bridge also may contribute to an SD rating. “It may be necessary to revisit the defi- nition of ‘structurally deficient’ before requiring addi- tional non-routine inspections” (Kerley 2007, p. 7). Transfers of HBP funding are done for program man-• agement reasons. They do not indicate a lack of ade- quate spending on bridges at the state level. Although transfers of HBP monies to other programs have attracted recent press attention, expenditures of other federal program funds as well as state funds on bridges have not been adequately reported. Moreover, “states are not credited with bridge spending when a bridge is rehabilitated as part of a larger transportation project” (Kerley 2007, p. 3). Therefore, actual expenditures by state DOTs on bridges are often higher than would be estimated solely by tracking the disposition of federal HBP funds. With respect to additional bridge funding that has • been proposed by Congress, the most pressing bridge needs should be identified through a review of existing bridge data. Furthermore, regardless of how the funds are proposed to be distributed, flexibility is needed so that this funding is used in the most effective, efficient way (Kerley 2007, p. 8). The testimony also addressed particular policy, adminis- trative, and funding issues associated with correcting defi- cient bridge decks. The handling of these matters within the context of SAFETEA-LU provisions was clarified shortly thereafter by the FHWA as described in chapter two (Lwin 2007). The extensive congressional testimony on bridge infra- structure covered several other areas also germane to this study: A review of the characteristics and requirements of the • NBIS (Gee and Henderson 2007, pp. 2–3; Hermann 2007, pp. 2–4; Kerley 2007, pp. 10–11; Washer 2007, pp. 1–3) An overview of bridge inspection procedures, mate-• rials, research, and technology (Anderson 2007; Gee and Henderson 2007, pp. 3–10; James 2007, pp. 1–9; Washer 2007, pp. 3–11, 14–17) An explanation of how inspection data drive investment • decisions in those agencies in which bridge inspection information is the primary constituent of their BMSs (Garrett 2007, pp. 2–8) An overview of federal bridge funding allocation to • states (Gee and Henderson 2007, p. 3; Kerley 2007, p. 11). Government Accountability Office Study The GAO released a Highway Bridge Program report (2008) and accompanying congressional testimony (Siggerud 2008) on its review of the HBP following the I-35W bridge col- lapse. The study found that the existing HBP lacks focus in that the purpose and scope of federal funding of bridges have expanded through the years, and the federal interest in expending HBP funds is not clearly defined. As a result, no clear measures of performance guide HBP investments and assess their results. Moreover, existing funding levels do not provide a sustainable solution to meeting future bridge needs, particularly when cost inflation is factored in. GAO discussed these topics primarily with regard to the federal HBP alone, recognizing that other sources of funding also affect bridge work. The GAO researchers also found the following: Reductions in the number of structurally deficient • bridges have occurred mostly in local and rural bridge inventories. Projects to improve the condition of larger structures on major highways and in urban areas are often too costly to be funded by the HBP alone, and must depend on funds from other sources as well. Comprehensive data are lacking on the total fund-• ing that is allocated to bridge programs, encompass- ing state and local dollars as well as HBP funding. It is therefore difficult to track the respective uses and benefits of these different bridge funding sources, the degree to which funds are transferred between bridge

61 rehabilitation or replacement and other transportation programs, and what substitutions occur among federal, state, and local funds in the bridge program. Lacking clear policy goals and performance measures, • federal and state agencies are unable to determine the overall effectiveness of HBP investments in bridges nationwide. The GAO noted that several steps could improve HBP administration and use of funds: Wider use of BMSs could provide a greater degree of • systematic decision support in project prioritization and resource allocation. Linking bridge program goals to performance measures • would enable managers to determine whether goals are being met, and to apply that information when select- ing projects and reaching funding decisions. These capabilities would provide state and local governments with incentives to improve the performance of their bridge programs as well as of the overall transporta- tion system. Aging bridge infrastructure, the impending revenue • shortfall in the Highway Trust Fund, and continuing increases in the costs of bridge projects all point to the importance of ensuring the financial sustainability of the HBP. The GAO recommended that the U.S.DOT secretary work with the Congress to achieve the following: Identify and define the specific national goals of the • HBP. Determine the performance of the program through • performance measures related to HBP goals. Identify and evaluate best-practice methods and tools • that can be incorporated within the HBP, such as BMSs. Review and evaluate HBP funding mechanisms to align • funding and performance, and to support a focused, sustainable federal bridge program. Federal Surface Transportation Legislation As a prelude to the 2009 reauthorization of federal surface transportation legislation, congressional bills to enact new policies and requirements of the federal HBP have been filed in the U.S. House of Representatives (H.R. 3999) and the Senate (S. 3338). Each of these companion bills bears the short title, “National Highway Bridge Reconstruction and Inspection Act of 2008” (Library of Congress, 110th Con- gress). Although the provisions of these bills are subject to further debate, they signal several topics of current congres- sional interest that relate to this synthesis. Key provisions of the proposed legislation as now drafted are as follows: Definitions.• The legislation explicitly defines key terms relating to federal bridge program management, including structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, rehabilitation, and replacement. It defines “complex bridges” as highway bridges with “unusual character- istics, including movable, suspension, and cable-stayed highway bridges.” It calls upon the U.S. secretary of transportation to issue regulations that define “critical finding” in the context of provisions discussed here. Risk-Based Approach.• The secretary of transporta- tion, in consultation with state DOTs, shall assign a risk-based priority for the rehabilitation or replace- ment of bridges that are rated structurally deficient or functionally obsolete. The secretary shall work with the states to establish a process for assessing these risk- based priorities. The costs of rehabilitating or replacing each bridge shall likewise be determined. The secre- tary shall submit a report to Congress on the risk-based approach that has been developed. Independent Review.• The National Academy of Sciences shall conduct an independent review of the risk-based process described in the preceding bulleted item. The academy shall submit a report to the secre- tary of the U.S.DOT and Congress. Performance Plan.• States shall develop, implement, and update annually a 5-year performance plan for bridge inspections and the rehabilitation or replace- ment of SD or FO bridges. Separate provisions may apply to historic bridges. The secretary of transporta- tion will establish criteria for the approval of perfor- mance plans and annual updates, and will then conduct such approvals annually. If a plan is disapproved, the secretary will inform the state of the reasons and require resubmittal. Bridge Management System.• Each state shall develop and implement a BMS. National Bridge Inspection Program.• The NBIS shall be designed “to ensure uniformity among the states” in conducting bridge inspections and evalu- ations. The NBIS shall “establish procedures for conducting annual compliance reviews of state inspec- tions, quality control and quality assurance procedures, load ratings, and weight limit postings of structurally deficient bridges.” They shall establish procedures for states to report to the secretary of transportation (1) critical findings regarding bridge structural or safety deficiencies, and (2) monitoring and corrective actions to address these findings. They shall provide for test- ing with state-of-the-art technology to detect fatigue cracking on steel bridges that exhibit fatigue damage or that have fatigue-susceptible members. Regulations on Critical Findings. • The secretary of transportation shall issue regulations by which states will report to the secretary critical findings of bridge deficiencies and resulting monitoring and remedial

62 actions. The regulations will define “critical finding,” establish due dates for states’ reports, describe require- ments for actions following a critical finding determi- nation, and provide for training of bridge inspectors regarding critical findings. Within 15 days of a critical finding that results in a bridge closure, the secretary of transportation shall report to the appropriate con- gressional committees on the impacts of the closure, including economic impacts and effects on regional transportation and transit. The report will also identify solutions to mitigate these impacts. Inspectors’ Training and Qualifications.• The secre- tary shall expand the bridge inspection training pro- gram to ensure that all persons inspecting highway bridges receive appropriate training and certifica- tion. Program managers of state inspection programs shall be licensed professional engineers. Team leaders engaged in inspecting complex bridges or bridges that have generated a critical finding must be licensed pro- fessional engineers. Team leaders inspecting all other bridges must either be licensed professional engineers or have at least 10 years of bridge inspection experi- ence. (A grandfather provision imposes these require- ments only on program managers and team leaders who are appointed after these revised regulations have been issued.) State Participation Requirements.• To be eligible for federal funding of bridge rehabilitation and replace- ment, states must take several actions, including inspections of bridges and calculations of bridge load ratings at appropriate intervals according to criteria that are specified in this legislation; development of a 5-year performance plan for bridge inspections and for rehabilitation or replacement of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges, with special consider- ations for historic bridges; and development and imple- mentation of a BMS. Funding Transfers.• States may transfer HBP funds to other federal aid programs “only if the state dem- onstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that there are not any bridges on the National Highway System located in the State that are eligible for replacement.” Reports to Congress.• The U.S. secretary of transpor- tation shall report annually to the House Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, on projects and activities performed under these provi- sions, information such as priorities for bridge rehabili- tation and replacement on a national and state-by-state basis for SD and FO bridges, identification of projects or actions by states that are inconsistent with these pri- orities, and suggestions for improvement of the HBP. GAO Studies.• Within 1 year after this bill has been enacted, the comptroller general shall conduct a study and report findings to the secretary of transportation regarding (1) factors that contribute to construction delays of bridge rehabilitation, and (2) any recom- mendations to simplify and expedite bridge rehabili- tation. The comptroller general shall conduct a study of the effectiveness of FHWA’s bridge rating system, including the use of the terms “structurally deficient” and “functionally obsolete” to describe the condition of U.S. highway bridges. The comptroller general shall also evaluate rating systems used by state DOTs and recommend how successful state methods can be incorporated within the FHWA’s rating system. Other Provisions. • Several other bridge-related provi- sions of the draft legislation relate to research studies and a pilot program for advanced condition assessment technology that can be applied to bridge inspections. A “Sense of Congress” section recommends that states prepare a corrosion prevention and mitigation plan for each project in bridge construction, rehabilitation, or replacement. Research-related provisions are discussed further in the section on Research Needs. Public Awareness and Understanding of Bridge Issues That the I-35W bridge had been rated structurally deficient focused considerable news attention on NBI ratings and reflected concern about a possible link between SD and potential failure. Public and political response grew with the realization that tens of thousands of other bridges nation- wide were likewise rated SD. Articles quoted knowledgeable experts explaining the meaning of “structural deficiency” as a programmatic rather than a safety distinction—a designa- tion that does not signal an imminent collapse (e.g., Heath 2007; Riccardi and Therolf 2007). The rapid response by states to reinspect their own structurally deficient bridges and to take quick remedial action where needed was also reported (Keen 2007). Some political leaders, however, wanted greater clarity regarding bridge safety. One Califor- nia state senator summarized his frustration as follows: I want to know what is safe and what is not and how we measure it and how we inspect it. [Proposed hearings] will focus on how California inspects bridges, why so many are classified as “structurally deficient,” and how to come up with money to upgrade aging spans (Bizjak 2007). Other experts also voiced concern about the ambiguity of the designation “structurally deficient.” A faculty member in bridge engineering asked why SD is not defined “the way most people see it. Why take so much pain explaining to people why it doesn’t mean what it seems?” (Bizjak 2007). More wide-ranging communication of the status of the nation’s bridges has begun with the establishment or expan- sion of informational websites and documents on bridge infrastructure by the following transportation or engineer- ing organizations:

63 AASHTO, • Meeting the Needs of America’s Bridges (2007a) and its bridge information website at http:// www.dot.state.ia.us /subcommittee /default.aspx (AASHTO 2007b) U.S.DOT and FHWA, I-35 • Bridge Collapse, Minneapolis, Minnesota at http://www.dot.gov/affairs/ factsheet080207.htm ASCE, 35-W • Bridge Collapse at http://content.asce. org/35BridgeCollapse_MainPage.html ENR (• Engineering News-Record), Bridge Collapse Update Center at http://enr.construction.com/news/ special/bridges/default.asp The House Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- ture has compiled all of the testimony during its hearings on structurally deficient bridges plus data on the distribution of SD bridges nationwide on its website at http://transportation. house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285 and http://transportation.house.gov/us%20bridgemap.shtml. State DOTs also engage in public communication and performance accountability, as described in chapter three and in an article focusing on bridge condition and safety fol- lowing the I-35W failure (Stidger 2007). ASSET MANAGEMENT AND BRIDGE PRESERVATION INITIATIVES Asset management was formally launched in the United States early in this decade with the publication of guidelines by the FHWA (1999) and AASHTO (Cambridge Systemat- ics, Inc. et al. 2002). These early references describe asset management as a strategic approach to managing trans- portation infrastructure that aims to get the best results or performance in the preservation, improvement, and opera- tion of infrastructure systems given the resources available. Good asset management practice is policy driven and perfor- mance based, considers alternatives or options in developing solutions to transportation problems, evaluates competing projects and services based on cost-effectiveness and the anticipated impact on system performance, considers trade- offs among programs, employs systematic and internally consistent business processes and decision criteria, and makes good use of quality information and analytic proce- dures (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. et al. 2002). Because of this initial work, asset management has been studied and implemented at the national, state, and local levels. Interna- tional scans have broadened U.S. understanding of relevant methods and management system capabilities. Bridge management is a prime candidate for application of asset management principles. Bridge assets are important, highly visible, and costly. Moreover, today’s BMSs are rela- tively sophisticated and are able to fulfill most of the analytic expectations of state-of-the-art asset management. It is rea- sonable to assume that future trends in bridge management will be influenced by evolving concepts and techniques of asset management, as well as other initiatives. Following are recent developments in these areas that relate to the scope of this synthesis. Peer Exchange: Asset Management in Planning and Operations Introduction The desire for strengthened asset management capabilities in bridge management as described in the first section of this chapter was echoed in a peer exchange that looked at DOT planning and operations more broadly (Hendren 2005). Many of the themes, noteworthy accomplishments, and cur- rent and future challenges that were identified in this peer exchange both reinforce the comments by agency respon- dents to the synthesis survey and indicate that a broader agency effort to improve management capability is possible, including bridge management as well as other key functions. The peer exchange participants included representatives of agencies with varying size, jurisdiction, and experience with asset management. The resulting themes, accomplishments, and challenges reflect the collective insights of multiple par- ticipants, suggesting a degree of consensus on basic themes and challenges, the value of lessons provided by agencies that have had success stories with asset management, and the likely applicability of these findings to bridge management across a wide spectrum of DOTs. Peer Exchange Findings: Key Themes and Accomplishments The key themes crystallized by peer exchange participants included the following partial list (Hendren 2005): Asset management encourages a performance-based • management approach, management accountability, and fact-based decision making. It has moved rapidly from its conceptual beginnings to practical implemen- tation in agencies at different levels of government. Asset management is best implemented incrementally, • beginning with one asset or function and gradually expanding to a broader set of agency operations. As one peer exchange participant noted, “[Asset man- agement] implementation began small and grew from budget development, through resource allocation, to project scope, and finally performance measures” (Hendren 2005, p. 39). Performance measurement is central to asset manage-• ment. However, data [to support performance measure development and comparison with targets] are expen- sive to obtain, and need to be selected carefully. Asset management has already enjoyed successes in • agencies’ abilities to improve their system condition,

64 to justify funding increases, and to sharpen their man- agement tools (e.g., applying historical trend data to extract useful new deterioration models that provided new insights into the surprisingly high rate of pave- ment deterioration early in life). Success stories need to be shared more widely. Agencies with more sophisticated asset management • systems that enable what-if and trade-off analyses obtain significant benefits from these capabilities. For example, one agency displays both economic and non- economic decision criteria in its trade-off analyses. These analyses can be conducted for a variety of assets (e.g., bridges, pavements, intelligent transportation sys- tems, and ferries), program objectives (e.g., improve- ment in physical condition, safety, or operations), and levels of analysis (e.g., network, region, corridor, and project). Peer Exchange Findings: Asset Management Challenges Although asset management has progressed rapidly in the past several years, the peer exchange participants identified several challenges that need to be addressed to promote suc- cessful implementation in a wider group of agencies (Hen- dren 2005). Systems and data challenges.• Several issues regard- ing management systems and data reinforce the responses to the synthesis survey described earlier. These include the lack of advanced capabilities such as scenario testing and trade-off analyses in legacy systems; the expense of collecting, processing, and maintaining quality data; and the need to integrate data across agency functions or disciplines, as through a geographic information system. Jurisdictional challenges.• Bridges within a state are owned by state DOTs, local governments, the federal government, and other parties, including the private sector. State DOT involvement in bridge management (including inspection and data collection) is generally limited to the state-owned and local bridges. Although states differ in their specific arrangements with local governments, typically the state DOT will have some involvement in inspection, reporting of NBI data to the FHWA, and possibly assistance in bridge management and project funding. Exactly how these local bridge responsibilities are allocated between state and local governments will influence the type of improvements in management practice and decision making within each state. From the perspective of customers, bridge serviceability and safety, not bridge ownership, are the key concerns. Institutional challenges.• The institutional environ- ment of state transportation programs presents many challenges to better management and resource alloca- tion. Among these are the “silos” into which agencies are forced by different modal and funding programs; the difficulty of maintaining a sustained, consistent, and strategic asset management direction in a shift- ing political environment; and how to continue to advance agency accountability for transportation sys- tem performance. Peer Exchange Findings: Next Steps The peer exchange participants identified several next steps to advance broader implementation of asset management: Research.• The challenges described earlier should be addressed through additional research to provide ana- lytic tools with more sophisticated capabilities, address the issues in maintaining and integrating databases, enable more effective communication among organi- zations involved in managing assets, and overcome jurisdictional and institutional impediments to better asset management. Education and training.• Existing programs of educa- tion and training in asset management should be contin- ued or expanded, including continuing peer exchanges, coordination with local governments through the Local Technical Assistance Program, expansion of the existing National Highway Institute training courses to include regional and local asset management con- tent, additional training within agencies (e.g., for new employees and for upper management), and migration of asset management to graduate school curricula. Communication.• Communication mechanisms and resources can spread the word and help agencies iden- tify how the potential benefits of asset management can be realized in their own organizations. These objec- tives can be met in several ways; for example, through documented case studies, adoption of more standard- ized nomenclature, examples of successful communi- cation tools and methods, compilation of an accurate directory of asset management contacts, and additional resources for local governments and MPOs. Peer Exchange: Information Assets to Support Transportation Decision Making Decision Making An earlier peer exchange focused on data and information as assets and their roles in agency decision making. The scope of the discussion was broad, encompassing the full range of transportation assets and DOT functions. The perspectives of participants were primarily in areas of planning, policy, and IT, although agency executives and engineering and sta- tistical professionals also participated. Although program management and resource allocation for bridges per se were not a focus of this exchange, its findings and recommenda-

65 tions nonetheless reinforced and gave broader context to the survey comments of DOT managers and engineers discussed at the beginning of this chapter. In particular, participating DOTs provided examples of a number of relevant data appli- cations (Schofer 2007): Use asset condition data across multiple jurisdictions • to develop deterioration models. Use an integrated state condition-performance data-• base to support investment programming and STIP development. Use data on system condition and unit replacement • costs for needs-based budgeting decisions. Use performance measures and targets to identify • needs and priorities. Use an asset management database with statutory • performance measures to guide resource allocation and provide decision support for the agency and the legislature. Apply an integrated project management database • to display multiple dashboard views of project status and progress, providing accountability for agency responsibilities. The peer exchange report provided an interesting obser- vation on these and the other example data applications: Each [data application] illustrates the use of objective measures of transportation system status to support resource allocation, management decisions, customer decisions, and accountability. Together they emphasize the high value of objective local condition and status measures for management. In contrast, no examples of forecasting were presented. During the peer exchange, although the usefulness of forecasts became clear, the reluctance of decision makers to rely on models was a contradictory theme, motivated by concerns about model complexity and obscurity and the risk of forecasting errors. … Together the data application patterns in this small sample underscore the key decision value of timely data describing current system conditions and performance (Schofer 2007, pp. 8–9). These points call to mind the apparent contradictions in managers’ perceptions of BMS features they would find desirable—particularly in “predictive” capabilities of sce- nario testing and trade-off analyses, as noted at the begin- ning of this chapter—versus the set of available capabilities they actually use (refer to the survey responses in chapter three). The report summarizes key implications of these examples of successful data application: greater efficiency through multiple uses of data, the advantage of data integra- tion and sharing within and among agencies in more consis- tent and useful analyses, and the significant value added by spatial referencing and display of data (Schofer 2007, p. 9). U.S. Domestic Scan: Best Practices in Asset Management Site visits were conducted in 2006 among U.S. transportation agencies at different levels of government to identify best practices in applying asset management principles and meth- ods. The scan team visited state DOTs in Florida, Michigan, Minnesota, Ohio, Oregon, and Utah, as well as three city and county transportation departments, two MPOs, a toll- way authority (Florida’s Turnpike Enterprise), and two state- wide asset management councils or user groups. Although the scope of the study related to transportation assets and management practices broadly, several findings echoed the positions of experts quoted earlier in attempting to advance bridge management practice. Scan findings included the fol- lowing, among other observations (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Meyer 2007): The most successful asset management processes had • enabled the agency to transition from a worst-first approach to one based on long-term cost-effectiveness, employing LCC principles. The existence and demonstrated application of an asset • management process could bolster an agency’s cred- ibility when seeking additional funding from the legis- lature. The information gathered in a well-functioning asset management approach signaled good stewardship of public assets and a willingness to assume account- ability, as well as serving to inform legislators and stakeholders of investment needs and the consequences of different budget scenarios. Performance measures and targets were part of the • normal business process at many of the agencies vis- ited, and also tended to characterize successful asset management implementations. Agencies that had suit- able management systems could answer with some precision how a change in investment would affect performance—that is, the basis of scenario analyses with respect to budget levels. Extending the point described earlier, agencies reported • scenario analyses showing the consequences of differ- ent budget levels on performance to be one of the most effective ways of communicating the importance and the outcomes of needed infrastructure investments. Scenario analyses were an effective way to translate engineering and cost information into a basis for politi- cal discussion of transportation funding. There was no single successful organizational model • for good asset management. Rather, agencies with effective asset management track records exhibited a number of organizational approaches to how and by whom asset management could be successfully institutionalized. A cross-disciplinary team effort in implementing their process, the skill of one or more champions in embedding asset management within standard operating procedures, and the backing of

66 agency leadership were the most critical organizational success factors. There was little evidence of risk assessment (also • referred to as risk analysis or risk management) among the agencies contacted. Risk assessment refers to a determination of the economic costs of infrastructure failure and the inclusion of these costs in analyses of infrastructure condition and investment needs. The scan team noted that other countries already apply for- mal procedures of risk assessment, and U.S. agencies may adopt these management techniques in the future. High-quality data and cost-effective methods of data • collection, processing, and use are other hallmarks of good asset management practice. In the best-case examples, “agencies become better consumers of data once they understand their asset management pro- cess” (Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and Meyer 2007, p. ES-4). Effective communication further serves to leverage the value of the data collected. Moreover, new technology has the potential to render data col- lection for infrastructure management more effective and efficient. FHWA Systemwide Bridge Preservation Initiative Although states such as Pennsylvania and Florida have prac- ticed systemwide bridge preservation for several years, this approach recently has been elevated to a national initiative by the FHWA. This program is motivated by the need to sustain the bridge inventory, cost-effectively given the com- bined pressures of increasing traffic demands, continuing bridge aging and deterioration, and financial constraints on transportation infrastructure programs. The addition of pre- ventive maintenance as an eligible activity for federal bridge funds in January 2002 provides an additional financial incentive to consider a preservation approach (FHWA 2002, 2007a). FHWA has proposed a roadmap of actions to assist agencies in understanding and applying bridge preservation strategies. These actions include establishment of a website dedicated to supporting agency efforts and addressing ques- tions regarding bridge preservation and maintenance; iden- tification and formation of a community of practice on this subject; identification of best practices and needs for fur- ther research and development; promotion of more effective use of maintenance and BMSs to encourage moving from a worst-first to a more systematic, proactive strategy of preven- tive maintenance and preservation; establishment of regional bridge working groups and a series of periodic workshops; and other organizational and institutional actions (FHWA 2007e). The first National Bridge Preservation Workshop was held in April 2007, focusing on roundtable discussions of current bridge preservation strategies reported by state DOTs across the country, coverage of specific technical and financial topics, and question-and-answer sessions (FHWA 2007a, c). Peer Exchange: Applications of Asset Management in Programming and Budgeting A peer exchange on Applications of Asset Management in Programming and Budgeting was held in 2007 under the sponsorship of the FHWA and AASHTO. Sessions addressed several topics relevant to the scope of this synthesis (Guerre et al. 2007): Experiences of several state DOTs, a turnpike author-• ity, and a regional planning authority in planning, pro- gramming, and budgeting Use of asset management systems to support planning • and programming Incorporating performance measures and targets in • programming and budgeting Incorporating risk analysis techniques in program-• ming and budgeting Cross-asset analysis and programming• Barriers to success and ways to overcome them• Potential research topics, education opportunities, and • follow-up activities. The common themes identified by peer exchange partici- pants included the following: Several agencies have implemented management sys-• tems that can predict infrastructure performance, and they use this information to inform budget decisions. However, final budget decisions consider other, quali- tative factors as well. Most technical analysis, budgeting, and programming • are done within organizational silos that are identi- fied with specific assets. Cross-asset analyses are done implicitly rather than explicitly. Although some agen- cies identified technical impediments to these analyses, the main barriers are organizational and institutional. All of the participating agencies described asset man-• agement efforts that included data collection, perfor- mance measurement and tracking, and application of analytic methods and procedures. However, a direct link between these capabilities and final programming decisions is less common. In all participating agencies, programming decisions • regarding asset preservation are made separately from those for system capacity expansion. Although these agencies could describe asset management principles and techniques applied to preservation, few could do so for capacity expansion. The reason cited most often was the importance of political considerations in the pri- oritization of capacity expansion projects. Participants believed that improved understanding of the impacts of capacity-project decisions on system performance could help promote a more asset-management-oriented approach.

67 All participating agencies had established performance • measures and had procedures to set performance tar- gets and track progress toward them. However, the approaches used to set targets vary widely, and the technical and road-user-related implications are not well understood. For example, “many agencies struggle with questions like: Is a target of 80% of the network in good condition the ‘right’ target?” The most often cited risk considered in programming and • budgeting is the possibility of project overruns. Labor and materials cost inflation have superseded scope creep as the primary cause in many agencies. Agencies use several strategies to deal with this risk, including apply- ing contingencies, tracking on-budget performance, improving cost-management accountability, implement- ing a risk mitigation program, and applying a financial plan rather than a detailed program-project plan in pro- gram out-years (i.e., specifying an overall program bud- get but not specific projects and their costs). Research opportunities identified by participants • focused on application of asset-management methods to other assets besides pavements and bridges, and to other types of work besides preservation (e.g., opera- tions and system expansion). RESEARCH NEEDS TO FILL GAPS IN KNOWLEDGE TRB Millennium Paper The TRB Millennium Paper on Bridge Maintenance and Management identified several research, development, and implementation needs that are relevant to this synthesis (Hearn et al. 2000): To exploit technology and processes to gather data more • cost-effectively and reliably (i.e., of higher quality). Candidate approaches include better visual inspection, nondestructive testing, and automated data collection. To develop improved data (e.g., regarding bridge dete-• rioration, costs, and impacts of maintenance) and algo- rithms (e.g., more powerful and flexible optimization procedures and economic analysis tools) to enable more comprehensive, detailed, and realistic analyses. To integrate bridge management within an agency’s • overall asset management program. To pursue fundamental advances in bridge-monitor-• ing technology (e.g., permanent sensors and wireless communication) to be able to shift from current visual inspections and condition ratings to completely auto- mated gathering of comprehensive, objective, quantita- tive data on bridge condition and performance. To emphasize bridge preventive maintenance actions • and integrate proactive, preventive strategies from the start of a bridge’s life. Topic 37-07 Survey Two questions in the survey of state and provincial DOTs probed respondents’ perceptions of needed improvements in bridge management processes or systems that would bet- ter serve upper management in resource-allocation decision making: What desired capabilities are • not now provided by the agency’s bridge management business processes or BMS? What desired capabilities either are unavailable in the • agency’s BMS or are available but not currently used? (This question was part of the budgeting component of the survey.) Responses to these questions focused on two broad topic areas: perceived gaps in existing knowledge and capabilities, and suggested ways to strengthen existing capabilities. Gaps in Existing Knowledge and Capabilities One set of responses pointed to shortcomings perceived by individual agencies in the following areas: Gaps in basic planning, programming, and budget-• ing information in agency business processes—for example, funding levels, district priorities, and local priorities; funding availability from various sources; and the level of funding authorization from the federal government for the federal HBP BMS information or capabilities that were lacking • within a particular responding agency. Examples of fea- tures that respondents said were not available or being used within their agencies included the following: Scenario analysis, trade-off analysis, and LCC – analysis Performance tracking and comparison with targets – Tracking of past and planned bridge work by orga- – nizational unit or geographic area. Although existing, full-featured BMSs provide several of these features, some respondents noted their agency’s inability to acquire such a BMS because of resource limita- tions. Other possible reasons for not using these BMS fea- tures include the need to train staff or to customize certain BMS features to produce results that better meet agencies’ expectations. Strengthening Existing Capabilities A second set of responses suggested ways to strengthen busi- ness processes, BMS capabilities, and information needed for sound, cost-effective investment decisions through advances such as the following:

68 Coordination of the bridge program with other pro-• grams and projects (e.g., roadways) across a broader set of policy objectives (e.g., preservation versus capacity). An ability to explore choices and trade-offs and to cal-• culate LCCs of each alternative. Long-term effects (benefits and other impacts) of pro-• posed expenditures on bridges. Comparisons of performance measures versus target • values and outcomes for alternative scenarios. Total project costs, not just those related to work on • the bridge structure proper. Additional items include, for example, the costs of right-of-way, detours, utilities, roadway approaches and embankments, and so forth. Socioeconomic and political considerations related to • bridge projects. A more complete bridge management package, able • to help evaluate achievement of performance targets, to generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints, to explore choices and trade-offs, and to calculate resulting road-user costs, which would be beneficial from a budgeting perspective. Information on key parameters (e.g., regarding condi-• tion, performance, and budget) that would facilitate delegating to lower-level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges on the network. BMS predictions of the funding levels needed to main-• tain structural condition, described by the respondent as a derivative of alternative scenario generation sub- ject to budget constraints. Just as important would be BMS estimates of bridge investments and their timing to be able to identify bridge network maintenance at the lowest LCC. Strengthened BMS algorithms in the calculation of • LCCs, scope of bridge performance analysis, and treatment selection. (These comments related to Pontis specifically.) There is a perception that BMS recommendations now lean toward selecting indefinite maintenance or repair strate- gies rather than eventual bridge replacement (two states made this comment; in one respondent’s opinion, this is owing to the way the BMS computes benefits). Another agency ques- tioned the current calculation of LCCs, and mentioned that its BMS lacks the capability to suggest projects driven by traffic capacity. One agency reinforced these points by noting that its BMS does not contain all information and capabilities needed for funding and programming decisions—other resources are consulted during decision making. Although these gaps were not specifically identified, they related generally to perfor- mance tracking, needs analysis, and resource allocation and trade-off analyses. The agency also noted that it applies other tools to the program development process, including a project management system that tracks pavement and bridge projects and the deficiencies that are removed by project work. The perceptions of bridge management practitioners regarding current BMS models are somewhat contradictory and present a complicated picture as to how to advance this aspect of the state of practice. Although some survey respon- dents noted the lack of certain BMS capabilities and sug- gested research to develop additional types of analyses, other respondents reported using these same features, which are readily available today in BMS products. Still others voiced concern about the “black box syndrome” and the usurping of managers’ decision-making prerogatives by high-level BMS operations. These contradictory feelings are not limited to bridge management. The proceedings of the peer exchange on information and decision making (discussed earlier in this chapter) observed a similar mix of reactions to the use of forecasting models to support decision-making in asset management generally. Blanket Responses Consider again the two questions posed at the beginning of this survey section: (1) What desired capabilities (of those listed in the survey questionnaire) are not now provided by the agency’s bridge management business processes or BMS? (2) What desired capabilities either are unavailable in the agency’s BMS or are available but not currently used? Almost one-third of responding agencies provided blanket affirmative or negative responses (evenly divided) to these survey questions. Those that responded simply “yes” might be thought to imply a need for strengthened BMS capability in their agency. Those that responded “no” might be thought to imply either that they already had these capabilities, or they did not believe that these BMS features were needed in their current business and decision processes. Congressional Legislation The pending congressional bridge legislation discussed ear- lier (H.R. 3999 and S. 3338) includes the following provi- sions for research: Existing provisions of federal law governing surface • transportation research are revised to (1) include enhanced bridge safety as a research objective in investigating new methods, materials, and testing techniques, and (2) call explicitly for research in non- destructive evaluation equipment to assess bridge structural integrity for existing as well as next-genera- tion facilities that use advanced materials. The draft legislation establishes a Bridge Advanced • Condition Assessment Pilot program to encour- age application of new technologies to bridge condi- tion evaluation. Examples of new technologies may

69 include, but are not limited to, fiber optic, vibrating wire, acoustical emissions, and peak-strain displace- ment. The technologies will perform real-time sens- ing to gather data for accurate assessments of critical bridge elements. The secretary of transportation shall conduct a study of • the costs and benefits of using carbon-fiber composites in lieu of traditional materials in bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction. Support of Government Accountability Office Recommendations Research may be needed to support GAO’s recent recom- mendations on the federal HBP. Research could potentially help in several areas: To define the specific national goals of, and federal • interests served by, the HBP To develop performance measures that respond to, • and reflect progress toward, these federal goals and interests To identify best-practice methods and tools that can • be incorporated within the HBP, drawing on existing approaches such as BMSs and leading-edge techniques applied by state DOTs To review and evaluate mechanisms that can align • HBP funding with performance to achieve a focused, sustainable federal bridge program.

70 CHAPTER FIVE CONCLUSIONS The objective of this synthesis has been to gather informa- tion on current practices that agency CEOs and senior deci- sion makers use to make network-level funding decisions for their bridges, and how they apply their agency’s bridge management capabilities to support these decisions. A better understanding of these issues could help agencies identify areas of improvement for their own bridge management pro- cess and their application to agency decision making. The study has considered the role of automated bridge manage- ment systems (BMSs) in planning, programming, resource allocation, and budgeting; increasing application of asset management principles, which could influence future bridge program management; implications of recent actions at the federal level that will affect bridge inspection, manage- ment, and research; impediments to applying BMSs more effectively; and research proposals to improve BMSs and practice. SYNOPSIS OF MAJOR FINDINGS The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), which were implemented in the 1970s, established a single, unified method of collecting data on the nation’s public-highway bridges. These data are submitted annually by state DOTs to the FHWA, which compiles them within the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. The NBIS have enabled the FHWA and state departments of transportation (DOTs) to monitor bridge condition and performance nationally on a consistent basis, identify bridge needs, define criteria of project eligibility for federal bridge funding, and thereby promote the public safety through better stewardship of bridge assets. Bridge Structural Deficiency (SD) and Func- tional Obsolescence (FO), two ratings defined by the NBIS, became key performance measures that agencies continue to monitor today. Similarly, the bridge Sufficiency Rating (SR) is embodied in the eligibility formula for federal bridge funding. Although some revisions to NBIS have occurred, the definition and application of these bridge ratings has remained essentially unchanged for more than 30 years. Considerable advances in U.S. bridge management have occurred since the implementation of the NBIS, with signifi- cant accomplishments at the federal and state levels. Today all state DOTs have a bridge management process. Most employ some type of automated BMS with an associated database. Bridge-related information tracked by DOTs typi- cally includes NBIS data and ratings, but often incorporates additional, more detailed data or customized data. Agencies that were addressed in this study appear to have integrated their bridge management procedures and systems well within their individual planning, resource allocation, pro- gramming, and budgeting processes. Philosophies of bridge management may differ across agencies (e.g., centralized versus decentralized decision making; use versus nonuse of predictive analytic models). Yet, in each example that was studied in this synthesis, the agency has configured its bridge program management to fit within its organizational, finan- cial, managerial, and technical modes of operation. It has tailored its internal communications of information and its institutional relationships with other agencies accordingly. This variability in bridge management and resource allo- cation practices among state DOTs is driven by several fac- tors, among them the following: Different philosophies of bridge management• Different approaches to planning, programming, and • budgeting The characteristics of each agency’s transportation • system and its infrastructure The policy, financial, technical, and institutional envi-• ronment in which the agency operates. These factors are not equal in their effects, however. For example, although the current condition of an agency’s bridge inventory obviously affects its investment priorities, it did not appear to be a strong driver of management approach in any of the states interviewed. Rather, important influencing factors that several agencies mentioned included the level, stability, flexibility, and predictability of bridge funding; the definition of bridge performance measures appropriate to the agency’s transportation system and geographic setting; and the need to maintain effective communication and buy-in up and down organizational levels, regardless of where ultimate decision-making responsibility lay. The role of bridge management in agency functions such as planning, programming, and resource allocation can be better understood when the characteristics of different BMSs are considered. BMSs vary in analytic capabilities and sophistication, ranging from straightforward repositories of

71 bridge data to full-fledged management systems, including forecasting models, comparative analyses, and optimization procedures or decision rules. Full-featured systems oper- ate at both the program level and at the level of individual bridges or projects. Agencies that have a full-featured BMS thus have the capability to apply higher-end analyses such as project planning, network-level budget scenarios, trade-off analyses, and economic analyses of agency and user costs and benefits. However, the actual use of these capabilities is by no means a given. A study of Pontis implementation among state DOTs indicated, for example, that half of these agencies limited the functionality of Pontis to managing bridge inspection data (see Figure 10). Moreover, the other half that did apply more advanced Pontis functionality often used only a subset of available features. These findings were reinforced in the current synthesis study. Although some individual agencies do use virtually the full set of Pontis features and might therefore be viewed at the leading edge of BMS practitioners (e.g., States D and E in Table 8), more generally, the characteristic use of bridge management for state DOT decision making is as follows: BMS results used in decision making are mainly tech-• nical (focusing on bridge condition and performance) rather than economic (e.g., benefit-cost) or social (e.g., impacts on different categories of road users on affected transportation corridors). BMS results are for near-term rather than long-term • analysis horizons. Recommended actions are reactive to current condi-• tions rather than proactive or anticipatory of future conditions. Recommended actions focus on a single strategy • rather than a comparative analysis of several options or scenarios. Calculated costs are solely those attributed to the • agency rather than including the costs borne by road users as well. Costs are calculated for near-term budgets rather than • for the bridge life cycle. The BMS functionality that is used entails well-defined, • basic management procedures (e.g., data management) rather than higher-level procedures such as predictive models, scenario analyses, trade-off analyses, and eco- nomic analyses. Again, these are general findings across the population of state DOTs that participated in this study (refer to Figures 12 and 14–16). They do not necessarily reflect the characteris- tics and practices of any single agency. The gap that exists between the state-of-the-art practice versus the general state of practice of BMSs has persisted for more than 10 years [see Neumann (1997) and subsequent studies in the first section of chapter three]. All of these studies show that the capabili- ties of BMS products are underutilized. These systems are applied most frequently for tasks such as database manage- ment and standard types of analyses. Higher-end applica- tions, such as those used to evaluate the costs and benefits of different network investment strategies, to evaluate long- term as well as near-term needs, or to apply BMS outputs in budgeting and Statewide Transportation Improvement Program development, are used by only a relatively small subset of DOTs. The ability to tailor bridge management practices and sys- tem outputs to individual agency needs, and to compensate for gaps and constraints in existing practice, helps to strengthen the relevance of bridge-related information to agency decision making. Several examples illustrate this point: Regardless of whether their BMS is simple or sophis-• ticated, many agencies have customized their own data and analytic procedures to reflect the particular characteristics of their road network, bridge structures, and vehicle loads, as well as their philosophy of bridge management. Among agencies that were interviewed in this study, these customizations are important to ensuring that bridge management information remains relevant to agency decisions across all affected organi- zational units and levels. In particular, customized performance measures such as • deficiency-point calculations and custom bridge condi- tion and health indexes in several cases were believed to be critical to advancing state-specific practices tech- nically, managerially, and procedurally. These indica- tors were entirely acceptable to upper management and served the bridge-office as well as executive-level infor- mational needs for investment planning, resource allo- cation, and budgeting. Some agencies saw customized bridge rating indexes as a way to get better guidance on bridge investment needs and benefits, to compensate for what they believed were shortcomings in the SR as a criterion for bridge replacement and rehabilitation. Some senior bridge managers have introduced broader • performance-based or asset management-related con- siderations. For example, they have asked their person- nel to think beyond BMS outputs and consider wider implications of different bridge investments, such as operational impacts and criticality of needs. Other respondents mentioned political and social impacts. In discussing the evaluation of project priorities, one man- ager noted that it is not sufficient to consider just the volume of traffic (average daily traffic) that is affected, or the associated cost-benefit totals. He encouraged his staff to consider highway operations more broadly in terms of the type of road usage (e.g., trip purposes and relationship to local economy), in addition to the stan- dard BMS results. Current bridge management practices reflect several characteristics of good asset management practice—for example, a reliance on a suite of both standard and custom

72 performance measures, a well-defined data structure founded in the NBI database, standardized and customized element-level data in many agencies, and a number of man- agement systems and other analytic tools, again with custom features in many cases. Agencies that apply more advanced features of the BMS are able to take advantage of economic as well as technical data and analyses, scenario and trade-off analyses, and decision support procedures. Successful asset management processes have enabled agencies to transition from a worst-first approach to one based on long-term cost- effectiveness, employing life-cycle cost principles. Impediments to greater use of BMS results that survey respondents mentioned included limited resources for imple- mentation and training, lack of credibility of the suggested actions and economic assumptions, results that did not reflect all factors that needed to be considered in decisions, a co- opting of managers’ prerogatives in reaching decisions, and reliability problems with software, data, and analyses. Some of these comments echoed responses in the Topic 27-09 sur- vey (NCHRP Synthesis 243) more than 10 years ago, includ- ing the expense of system development and implementation and limitations in the usefulness of management systems generally to the programming process. (It should be noted that the 27-09 survey responses applied to a number of man- agement systems, not just BMS.) FACTORS DRIVING POTENTIAL CHANGE IN BRIDGE MANAGEMENT The NBIS inventory data, ratings, and appraisals continue to have an important influence on bridge management after almost 40 years in service. They influence public perceptions of bridge condition and performance, determination of project eligibility for federal HBP funding, and project priority. The NBI database, which stores the bridge inventory, rating, and appraisal data collected by state DOTs, serves several impor- tant functions. It is the most comprehensive, up-to-date, uni- fied source of bridge information nationwide. It has amassed an almost 40-year history of bridge characteristics, condition, and performance. NBIS data contribute to the bridge portion of the biennial Conditions and Performance report submit- ted to Congress, and tabulations of deficiency and sufficiency ratings are widely known and consulted. The NBIS were originally established to protect public safety by developing information on bridge structural and operational integrity. Although they were not conceived as a stand-alone manage- ment tool, they exert a major influence on bridge investments, federal apportionments, and project funding eligibility. Several trends and events reviewed in this synthesis study point to potential changes in bridge management and in the NBIS specifically. Upcoming reviews of the NBIS may drive potential changes in (1) the composition and quality of NBI data; (2) the application of NBIS to bridge inspec- tion and management; (3) FHWA oversight of the NBIS; (4) identification and funding of remedial work on structurally deficient bridges nationwide; and (5) use of NBI deficiency and sufficiency ratings in administering the life-cycle cost HBP, as well as the introduction of a new program to address structurally deficient bridges. These trends and events that will influence bridge management in future years are sum- marized in the following subsections. State Department of Transportation Bridge Management System Improvements for Decision Making Several DOTs interviewed for this study described custom- ized BMS improvements in a number of areas that go beyond the NBIS requirements; for example, new bridge condition and performance measures or indexes, collection and pro- cessing of additional bridge data beyond that required by NBIS, and development of custom BMS models to estimate the near-term and long-term impacts of bridge investments. These state-specific initiatives, supplementing the NBI SR, were believed to provide the following: Better descriptors of state highway bridge condition• Better guidance for needed bridge investments• Better information on the benefits of bridge invest-• ments. Asset Management Peer Exchanges A series of peer exchanges involving state DOT personnel, TRB, and FHWA has considered several topics in asset man- agement pertinent to this synthesis: planning and operations, programming and budgeting, and data and information. Sev- eral issues identified at these sessions mirror those discussed for bridge management and decision making in chapter three—for example, a lack of advanced analytic capabili- ties such as scenario testing and trade-off analysis in legacy systems, contradictory feelings about the value versus the complexity and potential error of predictive modeling used for forecasts, and the expense of management systems and continuing data collection. Recommendations of these peer exchanges may suggest ways to improve bridge program management as well—for example, research to strengthen analytic capabilities within BMS where needed, the value of integrated data that have multiple uses, the significant added value of spatial referencing and display of data, the value of a solid asset management approach in building agency cred- ibility when justifying additional funding, and the desirabil- ity of moving from worst-first to more proactive, preventive investment strategies. U.S. Department of Transportation Office of Inspector General Review of National Bridge Inspection Standards U.S.DOT Secretary Mary Peters announced a comprehen- sive review of NBIS the day after the I-35W bridge collapse.

73 This review, now under way by the U.S.DOT’s Office of Inspector General,(OIG) comprises three phases: An assessment of the FHWA’s progress in responding 1. to recommendations of a prior OIG review in March 2006, which addressed FHWA oversight of structur- ally deficient bridges and its pursuit of risk-based, data-driven methods to guide its oversight efforts. A review of how efficiently and effectively state DOTs 2. have applied federal HBP funding and discretionary funding to correct bridge structural deficiencies. A review of FHWA’s oversight of the safety of National 3. Highway Safety-system bridges nationwide. Public Reaction to Bridge Collapse There was much public reaction following the I-35W bridge collapse. This synthesis study has reviewed those aspects of public reaction that bear on the scope of work. It has not addressed the cause of the bridge collapse or the subsequent completion of the bridge replacement project, topics that are not within the scope of work. Regarding NBIS ratings, news accounts reported confusion over the meaning and clarity of the term “structural deficiency,” reflecting the difficulty gen- eral audiences had in understanding what the designation means for bridge condition and public safety. Federal and state transportation agencies, professional organizations, and congressional committees set up websites to explain NBIS ratings and statistics and provide information on bridge proj- ects and programs. Changes Proposed in State Department of Transportation Congressional Testimony Changes in HBP procedures and criteria were proposed in congressional testimony following the I-35W bridge collapse. State DOT executives, some of whom represented both their respective departments and AASHTO, recommended that Congress and the FHWA allow state DOTs greater flexibil- ity to apply HBP funding according to bridge management principles, methods, and criteria. The federal government should remove (or at least relax) some of the arbitrary project eligibility thresholds associated with the SR. DOTs that were using systematic, data-driven, performance-based asset management techniques could then achieve more efficient preventive and corrective investment strategies that were superior to existing, worst-first methods. The DOT executives before Congress also addressed concerns regarding how state DOTs apply HBP funds. They noted that the total amount of investment in bridge programs exceeds what would be needed simply to match the federal HBP contribution. Moreover, the combined funding from all sources is managed to provide a degree of flexibility (e.g., through decisions on resource allocation and funding trans- fers) to better match available funds to eligible needs, and address needs better than would have been the case using solely the SR criterion. It was proposed that at a minimum, the federal government should update procedures and crite- ria by which NBI sufficiency and deficiency ratings influ- ence bridge program funding decisions. (Following this testimony, the FHWA did clarify policies allowing greater flexibility in funding bridge deck repairs, as permitted by SAFETEA-LU.) Other aspects of bridge management addressed in the congressional testimony included bridge inspection proce- dures and innovative inspection technologies; performance of bridge materials; use of inspection data for decision mak- ing; and needed research. The testimony sought to correct misimpressions regarding the designation of a bridge as structurally deficient. Executives also voiced support for newly proposed bridge funding to reduce structural deficien- cies nationwide. Government Accountability Office Report A recent Government Accountability Office (GAO) report and accompanying testimony before Congress raised sev- eral issues regarding the focus of the federal HBP, the data and techniques now available for bridge management, and results achieved to date in correcting structurally deficient bridges. The GAO recommended the following actions: Define the national goals of the HBP.• Determine HBP performance relative to goals.• Identify and evaluate bridge management best prac-• tices that can improve performance of the HBP, such as BMSs. Evaluate HBP funding mechanisms to identify how • funding can be aligned more closely with performance, supporting a more focused and sustainable federal bridge program. Federal Bridge Legislation Legislation now before Congress portends change in the future practice and technology of bridge management. The current bills before the House and Senate include the following provisions, subject to further congressional deliberation: BMS.• Each state shall develop and implement a BMS. Performance Plan and Risk-Based Priorities.• States shall develop a 5-year performance plan for bridge inspections and for rehabilitating or replacing struc- turally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. The secretary of transportation, in consultation with the states, shall establish a process for assessing risk- based priorities of bridge actions, and assign such a

74 risk-based priority to rehabilitating or replacing struc- turally deficient and functionally obsolete bridges. National Bridge Inspection Program and Critical • Deficiencies. Several aspects of the NBIS will be improved to promote greater uniformity of practices among states in areas of quality and compliance reviews. NBIS will include procedures for detecting, monitoring, correcting, and reporting on critical find- ings regarding bridge deficiencies, and provide for the use of state-of-the-art technology to detect fatigue damage. The secretary of transportation shall estab- lish regulations governing the training of inspectors regarding critical findings and state reporting of criti- cal findings to the U.S.DOT, with subsequent reports to Congress. The secretary shall expand the bridge inspection training program to ensure that all persons inspecting bridges receive appropriate training and certification. Required qualifications of bridge inspec- tion team leaders will be strengthened. Funding and State Participation Requirements.• To be eligible for federal funding of bridge rehabilitation and replacement, states must meet several require- ments spelled out in this legislation, including the use of a BMS, development and implementation of a 5-year performance plan, and bridge inspections that satisfy criteria specified in the legislation. States will be per- mitted to transfer HBP funds to other federal aid pro- grams as long as no NHS-system bridges are eligible for replacement. Independent Reviews and Research.• The legisla- tion calls for several studies by independent agencies and research groups. These studies include a review by the NAS of the risk-based priority approach for bridges discussed previously, and GAO studies of the effectiveness of the current FHWA bridge rating sys- tem, bridge rating approaches now used by state DOTs, and construction delivery-related issues that affect bridge rehabilitation. The legislation identifies several research needs and a pilot program regarding advanced technologies that could be applied to bridge inspection and condition assessment. Summary: Direction of Bridge Management and Its Use for Decision Making The several influences identified in the preceding subsec- tions will overlay the current practices and initiatives by state DOTs described at the beginning of this chapter. These com- bined effects will shape the future of bridge management and how its practices, systems, and information will be used in coming years to inform investment and resource allocation decisions. Although these interactions are just evolving and their outcome is not yet determined, it appears likely—based on the numerous and significant federal and state actions described previously—that changes will occur in state DOT bridge inspection and condition assessment, bridge program management, and application of the NBIS. It also appears likely that federal oversight of state DOT bridge inspection, program management, and treatment of deficient bridges and critical findings may be strengthened. If current federal legis- lation is passed substantially as now written, federal respon- sibilities for bridge program oversight may be backed in part by a greater focus on accountability to relate funding to per- formance, quality assurance, quality control, and increased compliance reporting among state DOTs, the FHWA and U.S.DOT, and Congress. This is the direction in which the state of practice in applying bridge management to state- agency decision making is proceeding as of the end of 2008. The following paragraphs provide conclusions on addi- tional, specific topics that were requested to be addressed in the scope of work. ORGANIzATIONAL UNITS MAKING PROGRAM DECISIONS Various offices and organizational levels are involved in different types of bridge-program decisions (see Table 9). Decisions often are made with joint or multiple-office par- ticipation. Generally speaking, an agency’s bridge office is significantly involved in all programming decisions that deal specifically with bridges, but this authority is shared with other groups within and outside the agency. For example, major bridge projects involve strong participation by agency executives and, in some states, the transportation board or commission. Regional and local officials will also be involved for major bridge projects in urban areas. Local bridge pro- grams engage local and regional bodies to work with the state agency’s local or municipal assistance office. Districts (or regions or divisions) generally have a strong say in decisions involving all categories of bridge projects within their juris- dictions: local, state-owned, and major bridges. Although the bridge unit plays a key role in establishing performance measures and targets for bridge programs, agency executives also have a clear interest in bridge condition and performance as an important dimension of agency performance statewide. Other state agency units are strongly involved in bridge pro- gram performance monitoring, including offices responsible for planning, development or investment management, policy and strategy, and asset management. One programming decision where the bridge unit does not have a dominant role among reporting agencies is in the alloca- tion of resources among competing agency programs: bridge versus pavement, safety, maintenance, and so on. Leadership on this decision is seen either as an executive-level function, with transportation board or commission involvement as well in several states, or as a broader departmental decision involv- ing units such as planning, investment management, policy and strategy, project management, and (in a Canadian prov- ince) the director of highway design and construction. In two

75 states, this decision is decentralized, with program alloca- tions made by districts. In some states, this decision may be moot if bridge funding is allocated “off the top” or is reserved in a noncompeting set-aside. However, even with off-the-top funding of the bridge program, there may be resource alloca- tion issues if the funding level has remained level over time and is now insufficient to meet bridge needs. Agencies range along the entire spectrum from highly cen- tralized to totally decentralized cultures, although many of the examples that were provided in interviews stress repeated consultation and agreement between central office and dis- trict personnel, regardless of approach. In many agencies, the management style is mixed, with centralized techniques often applying to bridge replacement and rehabilitation (i.e., projects that are eligible for federal HBP funding), and more decentralized responsibility typically applying to bridge maintenance and repair (i.e., projects that tend to be funded by state money). Decisions thus flow in both directions, top down and bottom up (see Figure 1). Even in decentralized organizations, the central office often handles major bridge projects and also may retain responsibility for bridges on “trunk line” or “backbone” networks that have statewide significance (e.g., refer to State B in Table 7). One state bridge maintenance engineer noted that his agency’s adoption of a BMS helped the bridge maintenance office to promote a stronger identity for its bridge program, which up to that time had been viewed more as an adjunct of the road investment program that addressed primarily pave- ments. With the support of a BMS and its data, the bridge maintenance unit was able to strengthen its role in bridge program leadership and decision making within the agency (refer to State D in Table 8). Its district involvement in bridge replacement decisions was strengthened as well. USE OF ECONOMIC METHODS Agencies use economic methods to varying degrees, but overall the practices do not represent wide use (see Figure 19). Common examples of use for individual structures are the application of methods such as benefit-cost to major bridge projects, or life-cycle cost comparisons of rehabili- tation versus replacement options for specific structures. Agencies that have full-featured BMS such as Pontis are more likely to employ economic analyses in network-level bridge management tasks, such as determining optimum investment strategies. These network analyses may include user costs as well as agency costs. Even in these cases, how- ever, there may be reservations about the transparency of the analytic procedures or disagreement with the methods’ assumptions (refer to Tables 7 and 8 for examples). Several agencies remarked in interviews that they are planning to apply economic analyses to a greater degree in bridge man- agement in the future. FHWA division offices have encour- aged the use of economic analysis techniques, together with better definition and documentation of programming and resource allocation procedures. STANDARD REPORTS The standard reports that are available on bridge manage- ment depend on the functionality of an agency’s BMS and the built-in reporting features and options. Two BMSs with quite different analytic capabilities that were described in chapter two are used as examples. The first example is the Alabama Bridge Information Management System (ABIMS), which is essentially a man- ager of bridge data. Its database is a repository of descrip- tive information on bridge structural characteristics, traffic loads, geographic and route location, functional class, age, and so forth, as well as current and historical records of inspection data. NBI data are included for annual report- ing to the FHWA, and custom data defined by the agency are likewise included. Standard reports therefore focus on breakouts of bridge characteristics, bridge condition, and information on related management tasks such as inspection and maintenance. The categories of reports that are available include lists of the bridge inventory and bridge character- istics in various formats, current and historic NBI ratings, bridges scheduled for inspection, bridge maintenance needs, bridge posting status, and bridge projects. The inclusion of custom data often creates the need for a corresponding set of reports. The ABIMS thus provides a list of bridges by prior- ity in terms of several categories of Deficiency Points, which is Alabama’s custom measure of bridge condition. A manager can tailor all of these reports to focus on par- ticular areas of interest as appropriate to the report structure. These selections include geographic jurisdictions, specific bridge structures, responsibility codes for inspections and for maintenance, specific types of inspections or of mainte- nance to be displayed, the years to be displayed in historical reports, and so forth. Some categories of reports, such as those related to identified bridge needs and actual mainte- nance work performed or to explanations of bridge engineer- ing characteristics, may be available in both summary and detailed formats. All reports in ABIMS represent current or historical snapshots of bridge status. Because the BMS has no predictive models, it offers no forecasts, scenario analy- ses, or other future-oriented reports. The second example is Pontis, a full-featured BMS in use in more than 40 state DOTs. Pontis presents a broader selec- tion of standard reports, reflecting its more extensive fea- tures and functionality. The reports are organized by Pontis system modules, examples of which are listed here. Reports are available in metric or English measurement units. If a report pertains to a given structure (as opposed, for example,

76 to summaries for a bridge network), the bridge(s) may be selected by district, county, owner agency, custodian agency, function class, NHS or non-NHS, defined administrative area, defined bridge grouping, or inspector responsibility. The categories of standard reports are as follows: Inspection Reports• present information on the bridge inventory, current and historical information on bridge condition and performance, and inspection schedules. Bridge Preservation Needs and Projected Work• are presented in a series of network-level reports covering unconstrained and constrained needs, details on rec- ommended preservation actions and their cost and per- formance implications, and tabulations of programmed and unmet needs and related performance measures. Project Reports• produce information on needs, work candidates, projects, estimated costs versus available budget, and funding sources and amounts as applying to proposed work on individual bridge structures. RESEARCH NEEDS Recommendations by industry experts, responses to the sur- vey conducted in this synthesis, provisions of congressio- nal legislation defining research needs, and research-related implications of the recommendations of the recent GAO HBP review are consolidated and summarized in the fol- lowing research topics. To improve management practices and their capa-• bility to support agency decision making, research is needed. To attain more comprehensive, detailed, and real- – istic analyses of bridge condition and performance through better data and analytic procedures; and To create a more risk-based, data-driven approach – to bridge management and resource allocation, advancing beyond the current limitations of relying solely on NBIS-based investment criteria for bridge rehabilitation and replacement. To seek fundamental advances in bridge inspection • and condition- and performance-monitoring tech- nology. This research need has been identified by sev- eral sources, among them state DOT executives, other industry experts, and Congress in its draft legislation. The stated goals of this research range from more reliable and cost-effective gathering of bridge condi- tion and performance data to a completely automated method of gathering such quantitative data comprehen- sively and objectively. As examples, the current House and Senate bills, H.R. 3999 and S. 3338, mandate the following technological research studies: To investigate nondestructive evaluation equipment – that can assess bridge structural integrity for facili- ties that use advanced materials; To study the costs and benefits of using carbon-fiber – composites in lieu of traditional materials in bridge rehabilitation and reconstruction; and To study establishing a Bridge Advanced Condition – Assessment Pilot program to encourage application of new, real-time technologies to bridge condition evaluation, particularly for critical bridge elements. These technologies will include fiber optic, vibrat- ing wire, acoustical emissions, and peak-strain displacement. To respond as needed to other provisions of H.R. • 3999 and S. 3338. If these provisions are passed into law substantially in their current form, specific research efforts may be needed to assist the FHWA and U.S.DOT in responding to the following congressional requirements: To develop an analytic method to assign risk-based – priorities for rehabilitating or replacing SD and FO bridges; To define procedures and approval criteria for 5-year – performance plans by state DOTs covering bridge inspections and rehabilitation or replacement of SD and FO bridges; To design procedures and criteria for the annual – compliance reviews of state DOT bridge inspec- tions, quality assurance and quality control pro- cedures, load ratings, and weight-limit postings of structurally deficient bridges; To define “critical findings” regarding bridge defi- – ciencies and establish the procedures, materials, and criteria for reporting such critical findings and monitoring and correcting these deficiencies; and To develop a training program for inspectors on – critical findings To provide research that may be needed to support • GAO’s recent recommendations on the federal HBP (see chapter four). Research could potentially help in the following areas: To define the specific national goals of, and federal – interests served by, the HBP; To develop performance measures that respond to, – and reflect progress toward, these federal goals and interests; To identify best-practice methods and tools that can – be incorporated within the HBP, drawing on exist- ing approaches such as BMSs and leading-edge techniques applied by state DOTs; and To review and evaluate mechanisms that can – align HBP funding with performance to achieve a focused, sustainable federal bridge program.

77 REFERENCES AASHTO, AASHTO Guide for Commonly Recognized (CoRe) Structural Elements, Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, Standing Committee on Highways, American Association of State Highway and Transporta- tion Officials, Washington, D.C., 1997. AASHTO, “AASHTO Provides Bridge Information Web- site,” Subcommittee on Bridges and Administrative Sub- committee on Public Affairs, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washing- ton, D.C., 2007a. AASHTO, Meeting the Needs of America’s Bridges, MNAB-1, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2007b. Alabama DOT, ABIMS User Guide, Maintenance Bureau, Alabama Department of Transportation, Montgomery, 2006. American Society of Civil Engineers, “35-W Bridge Col- lapse,” 2007 [Online]. Available: http://content.asce. org/35BridgeCollapse_MainPage.html (accessed Sep. 25, 2008). Andersen, B., Testimony of Bridge Inspector, Minnesota Department of Transportation and Council 5 of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- ture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Oct. 23, 2007. Bizjak, T., “Simpler Bridge Safety Labeling Sought: Senate Transportation Panel Chairman Will Hold Hearing on State’s System,” Sacramento Bee, Aug. 9, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/ 316403.html (accessed Oct. 7, 2008). Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade & Douglas, Inc.; Roy Jorgensen Associates, Inc.; and Paul D. Thompson, Transportation Asset Management Guide, RP-TAMG-1, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2002. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., “Pontis Modeling Approach Overview,” Slide presentation, May 2004. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Pontis Release 4.4 Technical Manual, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2005a. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., Pontis Release 4.4 User’s Manual, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, D.C., 2006b. Cambridge Systematics, Inc.; PB Consult; and System Met- rics Group, Inc., NCHRP Report 545: Analytical Tools for Asset Management, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005c. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. and M.D. Meyer, U.S. Domes- tic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset Management, Scan Tour Report for the American Asso- ciation of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Federal Highway Administration, and National Coopera- tive Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2007. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Non-Regula- tory Supplement,” Washington, D.C., n.d. [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/legsregs/directives/ fapg/0650dsup.htm (accessed Sep. 15, 2008). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges, Report FHWA-PD-96-001, Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 1995. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), Asset Manage- ment Primer, Office of Asset Management, Federal High- way Administration, Washington, D.C., 1999. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Bridge Study Analyzes Accuracy of Visual Inspections,” Focus, McLean, Va., 2001 [Online]. Available at http://www. tfhrc.gov/focus/Jan01/bridge_study.htm (accessed Sep. 8, 2007). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), Managing High- way Assets: Bridge Preservation. FHWA-IF-02-033, Office of Bridge Technology, Washington, D.C., 2002. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), National Bridge Inspection Standards, Docket No. FHWA-2001-8954, Fed- eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Federal Register 69, No. 239, Dec. 14, 2004, pp. 74419–74439. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Eligibility Cri- teria for Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilita- tion Program (HBRRP) Funds,” Washington, D.C., 2006 [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/indiv/hbr- rpeli.htm (accessed Sep. 15, 2007). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “A National Call for Bridge Preservation,” Focus, Report FHWA-HRT-07- 014, Turner–Fairbank Highway Research Center, McLean, Va., 2007a [Online]. Available: http://www. tfhrc.gov/focus/june07/02.htm (accessed Oct. 1, 2007). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Deficient Bridges by State and Highway System,” U.S. Department

78 of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2007b [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/britab.htm (accessed Mar. 5, 2008). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Final Agenda: National Bridge Preservation Workshop (NBPW),” Theme: Sharing Bridge Preservation Strategies, Wash- ington, D.C., Apr. 17–18, 2007c [Online]. Available: http:// www.fhwa.dot.gov/bridge/preservation/2007agenda.pdf (accessed Oct. 1, 2007). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “Referentia for Pontis: eLearning System,” Washington, D.C., 2007d [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infra- structure/asstmgmt/pontis/course.cfm?outLine=yes (Jan. 1, 2008). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration), “The Bridge Preservation and Maintenance (BPAM) Roadmap,” draft, Mar. 28, 2007e [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa. dot.gov/bridge/preservation/roadmap2007.cfm (accessed Oct. 1, 2007). FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and FTA (Fed- eral Transit Administration), Status of the Nation’s High- ways, Bridges, and Transit: 2002 Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., 2002. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and FTA (Fed- eral Transit Administration), Status of the Nation’s High- ways, Bridges, and Transit: 2004 Conditions and Performance, Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., 2004. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration) and FTA (Fed- eral Transit Administration), 2006 Status of the Nation’s Highways, Bridges, and Transit: Conditions and Perfor- mance, Report to Congress, Washington, D.C., 2006. GAO (Government Accountability Office), Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable Program, GAO-08-1043, Washington, D.C., 2008. Garrett, M.L., Testimony of the Director, Oregon Depart- ment of Transportation, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washing- ton, D.C., Oct. 23, 2007. Gee, K.W. and G. Henderson, Testimony of the Associate Administrator for Infrastructure and the Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and Development, Federal Highway Administration, before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washing- ton, D.C., Oct. 23, 2007. Guerre, J., M. Gaudet, and K. Leonard, Applications of Asset Management in Programming and Budgeting, Report by Cambridge Systematics, Inc., to Office of Acquisition Management, Federal Highway Administration, Wash- ington, D.C., 2007. Hearn, G., R.L. Purvis, P. Thompson, W.H. Bushman, K.K. McGhee, and W.T. McKeel, Jr., “Bridge Maintenance and Management: A Look to the Future,” TRB Millennium Paper, Committee A3C06: Committee on Structures Maintenance and Management, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000. Heath, B., “Scores of Bridges ‘Deficient’ since ‘80s,” USA TODAY, Aug. 29, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www. usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-08-29-bridges_N. htm?csp=34 (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Hendren, P., Transportation Research Circular E-C076: Asset Management in Planning and Operations: A Peer Exchange, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005. Herrmann, A., Testimony of Board Member, American Society of Civil Engineers and Managing Partner, Hard- esty & Hanover, LLP, before the Committee on Transpor- tation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sept. 5, 2007 [Online]. Available at http://www.asce.org/files/pdf/pressroom/ASCE-T&I_ Committee_Sept_5_2007_bridges.pdf (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Hyde, K., Audit of Oversight of Load Ratings and Postings on Structurally Deficient Bridges on the National High- way System, MH-2006-043, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2006. James, H.L., Testimony of the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi Department of Trans- portation, and Member, Standing Committee on High- ways, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, before the Committee on Sci- ence and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 19, 2007. Johnson, M., “Bridge Management Update,” AASHTO Sub- committee on Bridges and Structures, Annual Meeting, Omaha, Neb., May 2008. Juntunen, D.A., “Improving the Condition of Bridge Net- works: Michigan Crafts a Preservation Program,” TR News, no. 228, Sep.-Oct. 2003, pp. 26–30. Keen, J., “States Act Swiftly on Bridge Repairs,” USA TODAY, Sep. 3, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www. usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-09-03-bridges_N.htm (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Kerley, M.T., Testimony of the Chair, Highway Subcommit- tee on Bridges and Structures, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, before the

79 Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 5., 2007 [Online]. Available: http://transportation.house. gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285 (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Library of Congress, THOMAS Website, 110th Congress, 2009 [Online]. Available: http://thomas.loc.gov/home/ c110bills.html (accessed Jan. 22, 2009). Lwin, M.M., “Action: Rehabilitation and Replacement of Bridge Decks,” memorandum from Director, Office of Bridge Technology to Division Administrators, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., Nov. 1, 2007. Neumann, L.A., NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming and Project Selection, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997. Peters, M.E., Statement of the Secretary of Transportation before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastruc- ture, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 5, 2007 [Online]. Available at http://transportation. house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285 (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Phares, B.M., B.A. Graybeal, D.D. Rolander, M.E. Moore, and G.A. Washer, “Reliability and Accuracy of Routine Inspection of Highway Bridges,” Transportation Research Record, No. 1749, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 82–92. Riccardi, N. and G. Therolf, “Minneapolis Bridge Was Rated ‘Structurally Deficient’,” Los Angeles Times, Aug. 3, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.latimes.com/news/ nationworld/nation/la-na-bridge3aug03,1,4360166. story?coll=la-headlines-nation (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Robert, W.E., A.R. Marshall, R.W. Shepard, and J. Aldayuz, “Pontis Bridge Management System: State of the Prac- tice in Implementation and Development,” 9th Interna- tional Bridge Management Conference, Orlando, Fla., Apr. 28–30, 2003. Schofer, J.L., Transportation Research Circular E-C121: Information Assets to Support Transportation Decision Making: Report of a Peer Exchange of State Transporta- tion Organizations, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007. Scovel, C.L., III, “Inspector General Audit of the National Bridge Inspection Program,” memorandum from the Inspector General to the Secretary, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., Aug. 3, 2007. Scovel, C.L., III, Statement of the Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Repre- sentatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 5, 2007 [Online]. Available at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/ hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285 (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Siggerud, K., “Highway Bridge Program: Clearer Goals and Performance Measures Needed for a More Focused and Sustainable Program,” Testimony of the Managing Direc- tor, Physical Infrastructure Issues, before the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, GAO-08- 1127T, General Accountability Office, Washington, D.C., Sep. 10, 2008. Small, E.P., T. Philbin, M. Fraher, and G.P. Romack, “Cur- rent Status of Bridge Management System Implementa- tion in the United States,” Eighth International Bridge Management Conference, Denver, Colo., Apr. 26–28, 1999, Transportation Research Circular, No. 498, Vol. I, Section A-1, 1–16, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C. Sobanjo, J.O. and P.D. Thompson, Decision Support for Bridge Programming and Budgeting, State Maintenance Office, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahas- see, 2007. Steudle, K., Testimony of the Director and Chief Executive Officer, Michigan Department of Transportation, before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 5, 2007 [Online]. Available at http://transportation.house. gov/hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285 (Sep. 25, 2007). Steudle, K., Testimony of the Director, Michigan Depart- ment of Transportation, and Member, American Associa- tion of State Highway and Transportation Officials, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Com- mittee, Washington, D.C., Sep. 20, 2007. Stidger, R.W., “A Closer Look at the 2007 Bridge Inventory,” Better Roads, Vol. 77, No. 11, Nov. 2007, pp. 42–61. Sun, X., R. Wang, and Z. Zhang, Analysis of Past NBI Rat- ings to Determine Future Bridge Preservation Needs, FHWA/LA 03/377, Civil Engineering Dept. and Louisi- ana Transportation Center, University of Louisiana at Lafayette, Lafayette, LA, Jan. 2004. U.S.DOT, Audit of Oversight of Load Ratings and Postings on Structurally Deficient Bridges on the National High- way System, MH-2006-043, Office of Inspector General, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2006. U.S.DOT, “Secretary Peters Asks Inspector General to Review the National Bridge Inspection Program,” DOT 75-07, Office of Public Affairs, U.S. Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 2007 [Online]. Avail- able: http://www.dot.gov/affairs/dot7507.htm (accessed Sep. 25, 2007).

80 U.S. House of Representatives, “Oberstar Announces National Bridge Plan,” News from the T&I Committee, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., 2007. Washer, G., Testimony of the American Society of Civil Engi- neers before the Subcommittee on Highways and Transit, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Oct. 23, 2007.

81 BIBLIOGRAPHY “A Guide to Federal-Aid Programs and Projects: All Pro- grams and Projects (Printable Version),” Federal High- way Administration, Washington, D.C., 2007 [Online]. Available: http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/federalaid/projects. cfm?progProj=prnt (accessed Apr. 25, 2007). AASHTO, “Bridge Hearing Addresses Inspections,” AASHTO Journal, Vol. 107, No. 43, Oct. 26, 2007, pp. 1–2. AASHTO, “Hearing Examines Bridge Needs, Safety,” AASHTO Journal, Vol. 107, No. 36, Sep. 2007, pp. 1–4. AASHTO, “Officials Discuss Bridge Safety, I-35W Col- lapse,” AASHTO Journal, Vol. 107, No. 40, Oct. 5, 2007, pp. 3–4. AASHTO, “Rescissions Eroding State DOT Flexibility,” AASHTO Journal, Vol. 107, No. 41, Oct. 12, 2007, pp. 1–2. AASHTO, “State DOTs Outline Bridge Programs,” AASHTO Journal, Vol. 107, No. 36, Sep. 7, 2007, pp. 4–6. Becker, S.M., W.T. McDaniel, and E. Baeverstad, “Develop- ment and Implementation of Highway Structures Infor- mation System for Wisconsin Department of Transportation,” In Transportation Research Record: Journal of the Transportation Research Board, No. 1958, Transportation Research Board of the National Acade- mies, Washington, D.C., 2006, pp. 3–12. Bridge Management: Experiences of California, Florida, and South Dakota, Report FHWA IF-05-040, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2005. Chase, S.B. and G. Washer, “Nondestructive Evaluation for Bridge Management in the Next Century,” Public Roads, Vol. 61, No. 1, July/Aug. 1997 [Online].Available: http:// www/tfhrc.gov/pubrds/july97/ndejuly.htm (accessed May 16, 2007). Culvert Management Systems: Alabama, Maryland, Minne- sota, and Shelby County, Report FHWA IF-07-032, Fed- eral Highway Administration, Washington, D.C., 2007. Fanous, F., L. Greimann, and A. Soni, “Automated Methods for Collecting Bridge Inspection Data in the Pontis For- mat,” Proceedings, Semisesquicentennial Transportation Conference, Center for Transportation Research and Education, Iowa State University, Ames, May 1996 [Online]. Available: http://www.ctre.iastate.edu/pubs/ semisesq/session5/fanous/ (accessed May 19, 2007). Hamm, S., “The Bridge to Smart Technology,” Business- Week, Feb. 19, 2009 [Online]. Available: www.business- w e e k . c o m / p r i n t / m a g a z i n e / c o n t e n t / 0 9 _ 0 9 / b4121042656141.htm (accessed Feb. 26, 2009). Johnson, B., T. Powell, and C. Queiroz, “Economic Analysis of Bridge Rehabilitation Options Considering Life-Cycle Costs,” Transportation Research Record 1624, Transpor- tation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1998, pp. 8–15. Kerr, M., “Statement of the Honorable James Oberstar from Today’s Hearing on ‘Structurally Deficient Bridges’,” press release, Transportation and Infrastructure Commit- tee, U.S. House of Representatives, Washington, D.C., Sep. 5, 2007 [Online]. Available: http://transportation. house.gov/news/PRArticle.aspx?NewsID=299 (accessed Sep. 25, 2007). Moore, M., D. Rolander, B. Graybeal, B. Phares, and G. Washer, Highway Bridge Inspection: State-of-the-Prac- tice Survey, Report FHWA-RD-01-033, NDE Validation Center, Office of Infrastructure Research and Develop- ment, Federal Highway Administration, McLean, Va., Feb. 2000. Patidar, V., S. Labi, K.C. Sinha, and P. Thompson, NCHRP Report 590: Multi-Objective Optimization for Bridge Management Systems, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2007. Phares, B.M., D.D. Rolander, B.A. Graybeal, and G.A. Washer, “Studying the Reliability of Bridge Inspection,” Public Roads, Vol. 64, No. 3, Nov./Dec. 2000 [Online]. Available: http://www.tfhrc.gov/pubrds/nov00/bridge. htm (accessed May 15, 2007). Rolander, D.D., B.M. Phares, B.A. Graybeal, M.E. Moore, and G.A. Washer, “Highway Bridge Inspection: State-of- the-Practice Survey,” Transportation Research Record 1749, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2001, pp. 73–81. Scheinberg, P.F., “Transportation Infrastructure: States’ Implementation of Transportation Management Sys- tems,” GAO/T-RCED-97-79, General Accounting Office, statement for the record of testimony before the Subcom- mittee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on Environment and Public Works, U.S. Senate, Wash- ington, D.C., Feb. 26, 1997. Sivakumar, B., C.M. Minvervino, and W. Edberg, “New Bridge Performance Measures for Prioritizing Bridges,” Ninth International Bridge Management Conference, Orlando, Fla., Apr. 2003.Thompson, P.D. and M.J. Markow, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 227: Collecting and Managing Cost Data for Bridge Manage- ment Systems, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.

82 APPENDIX A SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE QUESTIONNAIRE NCHRP Project 20-5 Synthesis Topic 37-07 Use of Bridge Management for Transportation Agency Decision making All state departments of transportation (DOTs) have a bridge management process or system in place and in use. The extent to which these processes are used in network level planning and programming decisions may vary significantly from one agency to another. It will be beneficial for state transportation agencies to know how other agencies use and benefit from their bridge management processes in making resource allocation decisions relating to bridges. This synthesis is gathering information on current practices that agency senior decision makers use to make network level funding decisions for their bridges, and the use they make of their bridge management processes for these decisions. Also, information is being collected on future plans for upgrading and better utilizing bridge management processes. The focus is on both funding allocations for bridges within the overall agency programs, and allocations within the bridge program for replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs. This is a three part questionnaire to elicit different perspectives regarding the bridge management process: Part I. To be completed by the Chief Bridge Engineer responsible for the bridge management process within the State. If the Chief Bridge Engineer or the person(s) he or she delegates can complete all three parts, please do so, otherwise have the following individuals complete the remaining two parts concerning budgeting and planning. Part II. Head of budgeting with significant responsibility in helping the CEO make decisions concerning the allocation of funds across different programs including bridges. Part III. Head of State transportation planning. Please return all three parts of the completed questionnaire by April 10, 2006 to: William Hyman Principal Investigator Applied Research Associates, Inc. 7184 Troy Hill Drive, Suite N Elkridge, MD 21075 E-mail: bhyman@ara.com Phone: 410-540-9949 Cell: 301-593-7842 Fax: 410-540-9288

83 QUESTIONS FOR THE CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER Respondent Information Bridge Engineer Name: Title: Agency: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: e-mail: To make effective decisions regarding the bridge program, to your knowledge does the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) and his or her management team use each of the following types of information with regard to bridges throughout the State? Please respond by using the following rating scale: 1 – Currently uses 2 – Uses with significant data manipulation 3 – Would like to use, but limited by the capabilities of the Bridge Management System 4 – Does not or is unlikely to use. Information on Bridge Condition and Performance 1. An overall measure of the current condition or health of bridges. Rating: 2. A measure of the condition of key components of bridges that involve significant expenditures (e.g., bridge decks). Rating: 3. Key bridge safety problems that should be addressed such as piers subject to scour, bridges that could be exposed to hurricane storm surges, and bridges potentially affected by seismic activity. Rating: 4. The number of bridges that are currently structurally deficient. Rating: 5. The number of bridges that are currently functionally obsolete. Rating: 6. Progress in achieving bridge condition performance targets set in the prior year. Rating: 7. A measure of the future condition or health of bridges. Rating: 8. The target level of maintenance required that would be consistent with the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Rating:

84 Programming and Budgeting 9. Future bridge expenditure needs for bridge preservation and improvement over the forthcoming budget cycle assuming no budget constraints. Rating: 10. Short-term (1–5 year) projections of future bridge expenditure needs under alternative budget assumptions. Rating: 11. Mid-term (6–10 year) projections of future bridge expenditure needs under alternative budget assumptions. Rating: 12. Long-term (11–50 year) projections of future bridge needs under alternative budget assumptions. Rating: 13. A single recommended bridge budget for the forthcoming budget cycle. Rating: 14. Analysis of choices and tradeoffs regarding expenditures within the recommended bridge budget or program—maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement, and major projects. Rating: 15. A breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by main or important types of structures. Rating: 16. Breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by in-house work versus contract work. Rating: 17. Descriptions, locations, and costs of candidate and recommended major bridge projects. Rating: 18. A breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by political jurisdiction or administrative unit. Rating: 19. A breakdown of major bridge projects in the recommended budget presented by political jurisdiction or administrative unit. Rating: 20. Reports and graphics showing the results of changing the resource allocation between the bridge program and other program areas such as pavements and operations. Rating: Economic Criteria Used in Resource Allocation 21. Network level benefit-cost ratios for alternative bridge programs. Rating: 22. Network level estimates of life-cycle costs. Rating: 23. Network level estimates of avoidable road user costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs). Rating: 24. Benefit-cost ratios of major bridge project alternatives. Rating:

85 District-Level Information 25. Does the CEO and management team generally use the same type of district-level analysis and information as you checked above for the state? Check a box: Yes No. If no, please explain: For each of the following identify the organizational unit, level, or decision maker(s) where bridge program decisions are made: 26. The allocation of funds among different assets (e.g., pavements, bridges, maintenance appurtenances, transit) 27. What the performance measures will be. 28. What the performance targets will be. 29. The split of funds for bridge preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement. 30. The major bridge projects that will be funded. 31. Who picks the state-owned bridges that will receive some action in a certain year? 32. Local bridges outside metropolitan areas that will receive funding. 33. Bridges in metropolitan areas that will be funded and which are included in a metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program.

86 In regards to each of the following statements, describe how your agency uses your computerized bridge management system. Please use the following rating scale: 1. Based primarily on the Bridge Management System 2. Manipulation of BMS data occurs outside the BMS 3. Not used or seldom used Performance Measures for Needs Assessment and Resource Allocation 34. Calculates a measure of the current condition of each bridge (e.g., condition rating, sufficiency rating, health index). Rating: 35. Identifies current condition of each bridge on the network and key sub-networks such as districts or Interstate bridges (composite index, health index). Rating: 36. Projects into the future the condition of each bridge in the inventory. Rating: 37. Calculates a composite index of the projected network level condition of all bridges in the state (e.g., network-level health index). Rating: 38. Determines the depreciated value of the bridge inventory or uses the modified procedure for public reporting under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34. Rating: Needs Analysis 39. Identifies bridge needs (maintenance, rehabilitation, improvement and replacement) that can be used as input to the statewide budgeting and programming process by using engineering judgment and basic bridge data (e.g., inventory and inspection data, condition ratings, sufficiency ratings, whether a bridge is structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete, and safety or other serious problems that are flagged in the data base). Rating: 40. Identifies major project needs. Rating: 41. Uses project level analysis to identify options (candidates) as input to the network level analysis. In other words, analysis of network level needs is derived from project options for each bridge stored in the bridge management system data base. Rating: 42. Determines network level needs unconstrained by budgets by using benefit-cost analysis or other similar techniques. Rating: 43. Determines multi-year, network level bridge needs subject to annual budget constraints by using benefit-cost analysis, optimization, or other procedures. Rating: 44. Produces reports useful for building a recommended bridge budget for each organizational unit responsible for some portion of the bridge inventory (e.g., districts). Rating:

87 Resource Allocation and Tradeoff Analysis 45. Has a network level dashboard for communicating the effects of different budget levels on various factors of concern to bridge managers (e.g., a health index for bridges on the network, the benefits in relationship to the costs that can be achieved for a given budget levels). Rating: 46. Has a project level dashboard for communicating the effects of deferring bridge work on the condition of bridge elements, life-cycle costs, etc. Rating: 47. Provides network-level analysis to help allocate funds for all agency bridges. Rating: 48. Provides network-level analysis to help allocate funds among organizational units within your agency (e.g., districts and possibly lower levels of the organization). Rating: 49. Provides network analysis to help allocate bridge funds by functional class, corridors, or other sub-networks of the highway system. Rating: 50. Produces reports useful for allocating the bridge portion of the budget approved by the governor and legislature to each organizational unit responsible for some portion of the bridge inventory (e.g., districts). Rating: 51. If your bridge management system has most of the capabilities listed above, do you use them to help the CEO and top management team do planning, programming, and budgeting, especially resource allocation within the bridge program? Yes No If your answer is no, check each box that provides part of the explanation: 52. The recommended actions from the bridge management system are too different from the actions our bridge inspectors and engineers recommend. 53. The bridge management system gives too much emphasis to economic considerations relative to other considerations, especially conditions we observe in the field. 54. The economic assumptions are not accurate. 55. The bridge management system is perceived by too many managers as a black box—it uses analytic procedures we really do not understand 56. Management’s capabilities include the ability to assess current and future needs. A bridge management system detracts from the bridge manager’s prerogatives. 57. We have found it difficult to implement a bridge management system, train personnel, and obtain buy-in from managers that must depend upon it. 58. We have had problems with reliability (software, data, and/or analysis) 59. Other:

88 Additional Questions 60. Is there anything—perhaps something distinctive or unique— about your bridge management process or your computerized bridge management system that significantly helps, hinders or constrains bridge decision making in regards to the following: a) Choices and tradeoffs within the bridge program concerning expenditures on maintenance activities, rehabilitation, and replacement. b) Choices and tradeoffs between the bridge program and other programs such as pavements, operations, and the broader set of maintenance activities. 61. Do you have any future plans to upgrade and allow top management to better utilize the bridge management process (including analysis from the computerized bridge management system)? 62. Please provide examples of the most useful reports, tables, charts, maps, PowerPoint presentations, screenshots, or other material you provide to the CEO and management team for purposes of bridge decision making. (Mail them to William Hyman, the Principal Investigator, at the address shown on the first page) 63. OPTIONAL BUT DESIRABLE. Please provide documentation on your bridge management business process. How resource allocation decisions are made within the bridge program area and between the bridge and other program areas is of primary interest. You can satisfy this request in one of two ways, the first being much simpler than the second: c) Provide existing documentation that is already available within your agency. This documentation may be descriptive material or flow charts and may be found in published papers, reports, policies and procedures, various types of plans, and completed requirements

89 analysis that documents existing business processes for bridge decision making or resource allocation within and across different types of assets such as bridges and pavements. Your Information Technology group may have this type of system documentation. d) Begin from scratch and develop a flow chart or list of steps that describes how key bridge decisions are made. Identify the title of the person or organizational unit responsible for each step. Identify which steps involve the use of a computerized bridge management system. In a flow chart, show key decision points and decision branches. Whether you provide existing documentation or document the bridge management process from scratch, please try to address each of the following bridge related decisions:. x Establishing performance measures and targets x Determining which bridges warrant some action based upon condition, safety, functional obsolescence, or economics (i.e. benefits exceed costs) x Determining those bridges for which actions must be deferred or down-scoped due to insufficient funds. x Recommending a funding level for bridges to be incorporated into the budget to the governor and legislature x Determining the allocation of the recommended and approved budgets among maintenance, rehabilitation, and capital expenditures including replacement, new construction, and major projects x Determining the allocation of the recommended and/or approved budget between bridges and other program areas (e.g. pavements and operations) x Determining local and metropolitan bridges that will be funded. x Adjusting performance targets based on periodic review and feedback (Please mail your documentation of the bridge management process to William Hyman, the Principal Investigator, at the address shown on the first page) 64. What information do top decision makers require for funding and programming decisions that are not being provided by your bridge management process? 65. Other comments:

90 QUESTIONS FOR HEAD OF BUDGETING (IF NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER) BACKGROUND All state departments of transportation (DOTs) have a bridge management process or system in place and in use. The extent to which these processes are used in network level planning and programming decisions may vary significantly from one agency to another. There may also be great variation in the familiarity of senior decision makers with the basic assumptions underlying the bridge management process and with its potential to produce useful reports regarding bridge condition, performance, and resource allocation needs. It will be beneficial to all transportation agencies to know how other agencies use and benefit from their bridge management processes in making resource allocation decisions relating to bridges. This synthesis is gathering information on current practices that agency CEO’s and senior decision makers use to make network level funding decisions for their bridges, and the use they make of their bridge management processes for these decisions. Also, information is being collected on future plans for upgrading and better utilizing bridge management processes. The focus is on both funding allocations for bridges within the overall agency programs, and allocations within the bridge program for replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs. This is a three part questionnaire to elicit different perspectives regarding the bridge management process: Part I. To be completed by the Chief Bridge Engineer responsible for the bridge management process within the State. If the Chief Bridge Engineer or the person(s) he or she delegates can complete all three parts, please do so, otherwise have the following individuals complete the remaining two parts concerning budgeting and planning. Part II. Head of budgeting with significant responsibility in helping the CEO make decisions concerning the allocation of funds across different programs including bridges. Part III. Head of State transportation planning. Respondent Information Head of Budgeting (if not completed within the Office of the Chief Bridge Engineer) Name: Title: Agency: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: e-mail:

91 PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION OF THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOUR AGENCY’S CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER WHO WILL SEND IT TO THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, WILLIAM HYMAN, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC. 1. Please rate on a scale from 1(unimportant) to 5(very important) the importance of each of the following factors in the budgeting process: a) The budget level for the previous budget cycle. Rating: b) The budget level for the previous fiscal year. Rating: c) Giving first priority to bridge preservation projects. Rating: d) Giving first priority to capital expenditures for bridges – replacement and major projects. Rating: e) Giving first priority to major bridge projects, with the balance of bridge funds going to the rest of the bridge program. Rating: f) The political jurisdictions in which bridge replacement work and major bridge projects occur. Rating: g) Bridge needs determined at the district and/or lower levels of the organization, possibly with input from local government or Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Rating: h) Documented bridge needs, tempered by engineering judgment, based on results of the computerized bridge management system. Rating: i) Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoffs from the bridge management system regarding the allocation of funds among bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement work. Rating: j) Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoff from one or more computerized management systems regarding the allocation of funds between the bridge program and other programs such as pavements and operations. Rating: k) Subjective analysis of top managers and professionals concerning the choices and tradeoffs within the bridge program and between the bridge program and other programs such as pavements. Rating: l) An analysis of bridge work that should be performed by in-house staff versus contractors. Rating:

92 2. Does your budget office use your agency’s computerized bridge management system to help support the budgeting process? Yes No If yes, which of the following features are used? a) Generate summary information about the inventory, condition, structural deficiency, functional obsolescence at the network and district level b) Identify safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture critical elements or seismic vulnerability c) Produce information that can be compared with performance targets set by management d) Generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints for planning, programming, budgeting and resource allocation e) Explore choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge program (maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement) f) Calculate bridge life-cycle costs and/or minimum component life-cycle costs g) Calculate avoidable road user-costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs) as a function of alternative budget levels h) Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board i) Provide information helpful in setting parameters (performance targets, budget levels by organizational unit, other guidelines) to effectively delegate to lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges on the network j) Past and planned bridge work by organizational unit or geographic area 3. Of the items you did not check in response to Question 2, would any be useful to you for budgeting?

93 4. Please check which of the following organizational units in the department play a key role in making decisions regarding the allocation of resources within the bridge program and between the bridge program and other programs in the department. Note that some of these functions, such as budget and finance, may be found within the same organizational unit. a) Office of the CEO b) Budget c) Finance d) Planning e) Programming f) Construction g) Bridge Construction h) Maintenance i) Bridge Maintenance j) Operations k) Computer Services l) Office of the District Director, District Engineer or similar district head m) District Office of Planning n) District Office of Programming/Budgeting o) District Office of Construction p) District Office of Maintenance q) Areas r) Shops/Garages s) Other: t) Other: u) Other: 5. Please provide examples of the most useful tables, charts, maps, slide presentations, or other material you provide to the CEO and management team for purposes of budget development and resource allocation within the bridge program and between the bridge and other program areas (Please return these materials to the Chief Bridge Engineer to be mailed to William Hyman, the Principal Investigator) 6. Other Comments:

94 QUESTIONS FOR HEAD OF PLANNING (IF NOT COMPLETED WITHIN THE OFFICE OF THE CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER) BACKGROUND All state departments of transportation (DOTs) have a bridge management process or system in place and in use. The extent to which these processes are used in network level planning and programming decisions may vary significantly from one agency to another. There may also be great variation in the familiarity of senior decision makers with the basic assumptions underlying the bridge management process and with its potential to produce useful reports regarding bridge condition, performance, and resource allocation needs. It will be beneficial to all transportation agencies to know how other agencies use and benefit from their bridge management processes in making resource allocation decisions relating to bridges. This synthesis is gathering information on current practices that agency CEO’s and senior decision makers use to make network level funding decisions for their bridges, and the use they make of their bridge management processes for these decisions. Also, information is being collected on future plans for upgrading and better utilizing bridge management processes. The focus is on both funding allocations for bridges within the overall agency programs, and allocations within the bridge program for replacement, rehabilitation, and maintenance needs. This is a three part questionnaire to elicit different perspectives regarding the bridge management process: Part I. To be completed by the Chief Bridge Engineer responsible for the bridge management process within the State. If the Chief Bridge Engineer or the person(s) he or she delegates can complete all three parts, please do so, otherwise have the following individuals complete the remaining two parts concerning budgeting and planning. Part II. Head of budgeting with significant responsibility in helping the CEO make decisions concerning the allocation of funds across different programs including bridges. Part III. Head of State transportation planning. Respondent Information Head of Planning (if not completed within the Office of the Chief Bridge Engineer) Name: Title: Agency: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: e-mail: WOULD THE HEAD OF PLANNING PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION OF THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOUR AGENCY’S CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER WHO WILL SEND IT TO THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, WILLIAM HYMAN, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.

95 1. Please indicate which of the following capabilities of a computerized bridge management system your department uses to help support the planning process? For each item that applies, place a check in the box. a) Provide summary reports on the inventory and condition of bridges for the state and the districts. b) Provide statewide and district reports on the number of bridges that structurally deficient and functionally obsolete c) Identify or flag safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture critical elements or seismic vulnerability d) Provide an overall network and district level condition or health index e) Provide information that can be compared with performance targets set by management f) Explore alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints for planning, programming, budgeting and resource allocation g) Identify choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge program (replacement, rehabilitation, maintenance) h) Identify life-cycle costs of bridges i) Identify avoidable road user costs as a function of alternative budget levels j) Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board k) Provide the CEO and other top managers recommended parameters (performance targets, budget levels by organizational unit, other guidelines) to effectively delegate to lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges l) Identify past and planned bridge work by organizational unit or geographic area m) Identify past and planned bridge work by political jurisdiction 2. Please provide examples of the most useful tables, charts, maps, slide presentations, or other material you provide to the CEO and management team for purposes of making planning decisions regarding bridges. (Please give this information to the Chief Bridge Engineer to be mailed to the Principal Investigator, William Hyman).

96 3. Please describe any recent trends in planning that are likely to help top management make improved decision making regarding bridges. These trends may concern management theory, systems, technology, research, organizational development, communications, etc. 4. Other Comments:

97 APPENDIX B INTERVIEW GUIDES Two interview guides follow: x One in interviews with ten chief engineers; and x The second, in interviews with five bridge unit engineers. NCHRP SYNTHESIS PROJECT 37-07 ROLE OF BRIDGE MANAGEMENT IN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY DECISION MAKING Guide for Interviewing Chief Engineers PRINCIPLES x Conduct in-person or telephone interviews x Interview a representative set of Chief Engineers from 10 to 15 states x Explain that we wish to know what key bridge-related decisions the CEO and Chief Engineer makes, what information is used to make those decisions, and what additional information would be helpful. x Focus on resource allocation within the bridge program and between the bridge and other program areas. x Promote an open discussion to elicit what is important to the top management team; use the key decisions below as a catalyst for discussion x Learn what bridge decisions top management delegates to lower levels x Find out how the bridge management process (including the BMS) informs bridge related decision making. KEY DECISIONS x Ensuring accountability x Setting goals and objectives for bridges x Establishing performance measures and targets for bridges x Making commitments to meet future needs in different time frames based on projected deterioration of different types of bridges or important bridge components (e.g., decks) x Establishing resource levels for bridges in the budget process x Allocating the bridge budget among capital expenditures, rehabilitation, maintenance, and operations (e.g., automated anti-icing, electronic toll collection, movable bridges) x Allocating the department budget between the bridge program and other program areas such as pavements, maintenance appurtenances, operations, and transit. x Allocating the bridge budget among districts and other subunits of the DOTs

98 x Other allocations of bridge funds to support specific bridge programs such as homeland security, scour prevention, and protection and mitigation of storm surge in hurricane prone states. x Determining how different types of bridges will be funded (federal, state, local, tolls as a part of a public/private partnership) x Determining which bridges will receive various treatments each year. NCHRP Synthesis Topic 37-07 Use of Bridge Management in Transportation Agency Decision making INTERVIEW GUIDE—DISCUSSION ITEMS August 2007 1. Current BMS(s) used by agency x Central Office x Districts/Regions 2. What rating systems are used in bridge management x NBI: SD and FO (percent of inventory? trends?) x Other? 3. Executive decision criteria for evaluating and deciding bridge investment and resource allocation x What do they ask for? x What does the bridge unit provide them? 4. Resource allocation/project programming and selection process—who makes decisions and on what basis in each of these areas? x Setting policy objectives and performance targets x Resource allocation between Bridge and Other Programs x Within the Bridge Program, allocations among districts/regions x Bridge project prioritization (statewide? by district/region?) 5. Are methods of economic evaluation (e.g., benefit-cost, life-cycle cost) used at any organizational level? 6. Does your agency have a defined program of performance measurement, established performance targets, and management accountability for meeting targets? 7. Does your agency have a regular program of communication of Bridge Program information to external stakeholders (e.g., legislature, executive branch, public at large)?

99 APPENDIX C SURVEY AND INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS Survey Respondents Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities P.O. Box 112500 Juneau, AK 99811 Arizona Department of Transportation 205 S. 17th Ave. Phoenix, AZ 85007 Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department P.O. Box 2261 Little Rock, AR 72203 California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) 1120 N Street Sacramento, CA 95814 Florida Department of Transportation 605 Suwannee Street MS 52 Tallahassee, FL 32399 Hawaii Department of Transportation 601 Kamokila Blvd., Room 611 Kapolei, HI 96707 Illinois Department of Transportation 2300 South Dirksen Parkway Springfield, IL 62764 Kansas Department of Transportation 700 SW Harrison Street Topeka, KS 66603-3754 Maine Department of Transportation 16 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333 Michigan Department of Transportation 8885 Ricks Road Lansing, MI 48909 Minnesota Department of Transportation 3485 Hadley Ave. North Oakdale, MN 55128

100 New Mexico Department of Transportation PO Box 1149, Room 214 Santa Fe, NM 87504 New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, POD 4-3 Albany, NY 01232 Ohio Dept. of Transportation 1980 West Broad St. 3rd Floor Columbus, OH 43223 Oklahoma Department of Transportation 200 N.E. 21st Oklahoma City, OK 73105 Oregon Department of Transportation 355 Capitol St., NE Room 301 Salem, OR 97301 Tennessee Department of Transportation Suite 1100, James K. Polk Building, 505 Deaderick Street Nashville, TN 37243 Texas Department of Transportation 125 East 11th Street Austin, TX 78701 Virginia Department of Transportation 1401 East Broad Street Richmond, VA 23219 Washington State Department of Transportation PO Box 47341 Olympia, WA 98504 Alberta Infrastructure & Transportation Twin Atria Building, 4999 - 98 Avenue Edmonton T6J 0J6, Alberta Manitoba Transportation and Government Services 600-215 Garry Street Winnipeg R3C 3Z1, Manitoba Department of Transportation and Works, Provincial Government of Newfoundland and Labrador 6th floor Confederation Building, West Block St. John's A1L 1Y2, Newfoundland

101 Transport Quebec 930 Chemin Sainte-foy 7th Floor Quebec GIS 4X9, Quebec Interviewees Chief Engineer or Representative Bob Walters, Chief Engineer, Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department Ananth Prasad, Chief Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation Jerry Younger, Assistant Secretary and State Transportation Engineer, Kansas Department of Transportation Ken Sweeney, Director, Bureau of Project Development, Maine Department of Transportation Doug Differt, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Max Valerio, Deputy Chief Engineer and Division Manager, Program Delivery and Support Division, New Mexico Department of Transportation Kathy Nelson, Chief Engineer, Oregon Department of Transportation Paul Degges, Chief Engineer, Tennessee Department of Transportation Mal Kerley, Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation John Conrad, Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Regional Operations, Washington State Department of Transportation Bridge Unit Managers George Conner, Assistant State Maintenance Engineer-Bridges, Alabama Department of Transportation Paul Jensen, Bridge Management System Coordinator, Montana Department of Transportation R. Lee Floyd, Bridge Maintenance Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation Finn Hubbard, State Bridge Engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation George Fredrick, State Bridge Engineer, Wyoming Department of Transportation

102 APPENDIX D RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS TABLE D1 Questions 1-8: Use of the Following Condition and Performance Data by CEO and Top Management Team? Currently Uses R: 1 Uses with Significantly Manipulated Data R: 2 Doesn’t Use Due To BMS Limitations R: 3 Does Not or Unlikely to Use R: 4 Overall measure of the current condition or health of bridges 18 (75%) 2 (8%) 3 (12%) 1 (4%) Measure of the condition of key components of bridges that involve significant expenditures 18 (75%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 2 (8%) Key bridge safety problems (i.e., bridges exposed to hurricane storm surges, etc.) 14 (58%) 4 (16%) 6 (25%) 0 (0%) Number of bridges that are currently structurally deficient 21 (87%) 0 (0%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%0 Number of bridges that are currently functionally obsolete 17 (70%) 4 (16%) 0 (0%) 3 (12%) Progress in achieving bridge condition performance targets sent in prior year. 10 (41%) 6 (25%) 4 (16%) 4 (16%) Measure of the future condition or health of bridges 4 (16%) 5 (20%) 12 (50%) 3 (12%) Target level of maintenance required that would be consistent with the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standard Board 2 (8%) 4 (16%) 9 (37%) 9 (37%)

103 TABLE D2 Questions 9–20: Use of the Following Analyses and Information by the CEO and Top Management Team? Currently Uses R: 1 Uses with Significantly Manipulated Data R: 2 Doesn’t Use Due To BMS Limitations R: 3 Does Not or Unlikely to Use R: 4 Future bridge expenditure needs for bridge preservation and improvement over the forthcoming budget cycle assuming no budget constraints 8 (33%) 9 (37%) 3 (12%) 4 (16%) Short-term (1–5 year) projections of future bridge expenditure needs under alternative budget assumptions 9 (37%) 10 (41%) 4 (16%) 1 (4%) Mid-tern (6–10 year) projections of future bridge expenditure needs under alternative budget assumptions 4 (16%) 10 (41%) 7 (29%) 3 (12%) Long-term (11–50 year) projection of future bridge needs under alternative budget assumptions 1 (4%) 6 (25%) 10 (41%) 7 (29%) A single recommended bridge budget for the forthcoming budget cycle 12 (50%) 9 (37%) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) Analysis of choices and tradeoffs regarding expenditures within the recommended bridge budget or program- maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement and major projects 6 (25%) 4 (16%) 13 (54%) 1 (4%) A breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by main or important types of structures 7 (29%) 5 (20%) 6 (25%) 6 (25%) Breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by in-house work versus contract work 5 (20%) 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 11 (45%) Descriptions, locations, and costs of candidate and recommended major bridge projects 16 (66%) 5 (20%) 2 (8%) 1 (4%) A breakdown of the recommended bridge budget by political jurisdiction or administrative unit 13 (54%) 3 (12%) 2 (8%) 6 (25%)

104 Questions 9–20: Use of the Following Analyses and Information by the CEO and Top Management Team? Currently Uses R: 1 Uses with Significantly Manipulated Data R: 2 Doesn’t Use Due To BMS Limitations R: 3 Does Not or Unlikely to Use R: 4 A breakdown of major bridge projects in the recommended budget presented by political jurisdiction or administrative unit 11 (45%) 4 (16%) 2 (8%) 7 (29%) Reports and graphics showing the results of changing the resource allocation between the bridge program and other program areas such as pavements and operations 3 (12%) 5 (20%) 11 (45%) 5 (20%) TABLE D3 Questions 21–24: Use of Economic Analysis by the CEO and Top Management Team? Currently Uses R: 1 Uses with Significantly Manipulated Data R: 2 Doesn’t Use Due To BMS Limitations R: 3 Does Not or Unlikely to Use R: 4 Network level benefit-cost ratios for alternative bridge programs 3 (12%) 1 (4%) 15 (62%) 5 (20%) Network level estimates of life-cycle costs 2 (8%) 2 (8%) 15 (62%) 5 (20%) Network level estimates of avoidable road user costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs) 1 (4%) 2 (8%) 13 (54%) 7 (29%) Benefit-cost ratios of major bridge project alternatives 5 (20%) 3 (12%) 11 (45%) 4 (16%)

105 TABLE D4 State or Province Question 26: Organizational Unit(s) That Allocate(s) Funds Among Different Assets (e.g., Pavements, Bridges, Maintenance Appurtenances, Transit)? Alaska Headquarters, Planning Arizona Agency upper management Arkansas Highway Commission California The Executive SHOPP (State Highway Operational Protection Plan) Committee Florida The Executive Board (made up of the Secretary, assistants secretaries, and district secretaries) Hawaii Highways Project Management Staff Kansas Priority & Optimization for funding is Statewide and is developed by Planning with input from others: PMS, Materials and Research; BMS, State Bridge Office Maine Bureau of Planning/Executive Office Michigan Planning Division Minnesota Office of Investment Management (OIM) New Mexico Districts New York Policy and Strategy Ohio Majority of decisions are made at the District level Oklahoma CEO Oregon Statewide Transportation Commission Tennessee Department of Administration Texas TxDOT administration Virginia Asset Management; Operations Planning; Programming; Fiscal Washington Headquarters Program Management Office Newfoundland and Labrador Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Works Quebec Deputy Minister

106 TABLE D5 State or Province Question 27: Organizational Units That Establish What Are the Bridge Performance Measures? Alaska Not applicable Arizona Bridge Program Manager Arkansas Chief Engineer California Bridge Program Manager Florida Executive Board Hawaii Bridge Design Section Kansas Information provided not applicable Maine Bridge Management Section (BMS)—located within the Bureau of Planning Michigan Combined, planning division development delivery, transportation commission Minnesota Jointly: Bridge and Office of Investment Management New Mexico Upper Management, Districts, and Design Groups New York Policy and Strategy Ohio Performance measures are established and monitored both at the Central Office and the District level Oklahoma Bridge Division Oregon Director of Highway Division Tennessee Division or Unit Texas Texas DOT Administration Virginia Asset Management; Bridge Newfoundland and Labrador No formalized system of "performance measurement" used.

107 TABLE D6 State or Province Question 28: Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) What Are the Bridge Performance Targets? Alaska Not applicable Arkansas Chief Engineer California Bridge Program Manager Florida Executive Board Hawaii Bridge Design Section Kansas PMS: Materials and Research; BMS: State Bridge Office Maine Suggested by BMS Michigan Combined, planning division development delivery, transportation commission Minnesota Bridge New Mexico Upper Management New York Policy and Strategy Ohio Performance targets are set at the Central office level in consultation with the District teams Oklahoma Bridge Division Oregon Director of Highway Division Tennessee Division or Unit Texas Texas Transportation Commission Virginia Asset Management; Bridge Quebec 55% of bridges in good condition Newfoundland and Labrador No formalized system of “performance measurement” used

108 TABLE D7 State or Province Question 29 Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) Funding Split Among Bridge Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement? Alaska Regions and Bridge Section Arizona Line item allocation Arkansas Director/Chief Engineer California Bridge Program Manager Florida Executive Board Hawaii Bridge Design Section Kansas State System: BMS is used for maintenance set-asides. Priority & Optimization Formula is used to determine funding for replacements. New bridges/enhancements are by DOT formula and management selection Maine Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design) Engineer Michigan Combined, planning division development delivery. Minnesota Jointly: Districts, Bridge, Office of Investment Management New Mexico Districts New York Region Offices, Policy and Strategy Ohio Central office, initially determines the need in each category. Districts can change the allocations. Oklahoma Field Division (District) Oregon State Bridge Engineer Tennessee Division or Unit Texas District level Virginia Fiscal: Programming; Operations Planning: Districts Quebec Regional Administration Alberta Division Executive Committee with input from representatives from the Programming Section

109 State or Province Question 29 Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) Funding Split Among Bridge Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement? Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction TABLE D8 State or Province Question 30: Organizational Unit(s) That Determine(s) the Major Bridge Projects to be Funded? Alaska HQ Planning and Region using the STIP Process Arizona Five year program item Arkansas Director/Highway Commission California Bridge Program Manager Florida Executive Board Hawaii Project Management Staff with Bridge Section recommendations. Kansas Priority & Optimization for funding is statewide Maine Executive Office/Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design) Engineer Michigan Combined bridge operations and Regions Minnesota Districts New Mexico Upper Management New York Region Offices Ohio Major bridge projects are primarily funded at the Central office level Oklahoma CEO Oregon State Bridge Engineer Tennessee Department Administration Texas Texas Transportation Commission Virginia Commonwealth Transportation Board (CTB) Quebec Deputy Minister

110 State or Province Question 30: Organizational Unit(s) That Determine(s) the Major Bridge Projects to be Funded? Alberta Division Executive Committee with input from representatives from the Programming Section Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Dept. of Transportation and Work Manitoba Combination of Bridge Branch, Regional, and political requirements. TABLE D9 State or Province Question 31: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) State-Owned Bridges to Receive Some Treatment in a Given Year? Alaska HQ Planning and Regions—Using the STIP Process Arizona State Bridge Engineer Arkansas District Engineers Programs and Contracts Engineer California District Office Florida District Bridge Maintenance Office Hawaii Project Management Staff with Bridge Section Recommendation Kansas Priority & Optimization for funding is Statewide is Statewide Replacements. Maintenance Repair & Rehabilitation determined by State Bridge Office & Construction & Maintenance Maine Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design) Engineer Michigan Combined bridge operations and Regions Minnesota Jointly: Districts, Bridge New Mexico Districts New York Region Offices Ohio Decisions are generally made at the District Level Oklahoma Field Division Oregon State Bridge Engineer Tennessee Repair-Unit Level Replacement—Department and Division with FHWA concurrence

111 State or Province Question 31: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) State-Owned Bridges to Receive Some Treatment in a Given Year? Texas Jointly—District/Bridge Division/Transportation Planning & Programming Division Virginia For maintenance actions-the districts decide; for improvement actions, rehabilitation and replacement actions, the districts and bridge division Quebec Assistant Deputy Minister (ADM) Alberta Bridge Managers Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Dept. of Transportation and Work Manitoba Generally Bridge Branch requirements TABLE D10 State or Province Question 32: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) Local Bridges Outside Metropolitan Area to Receive Funding? Alaska STIP Process Arizona Local Government Section appropriations procedure. Arkansas County Judges State Aid Engineer California Local Agencies (cities and counties) Florida Work Program Office from those nominated by the districts with the consent of the local owner. Hawaii Planning Branch Kansas Local system bridges are not included in the DOT formula or selection process, this is a local funding issue only. Local authorities submit candidates through Bureau of Local Projects for selection. Maine Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design) Engineer. Michigan Local bridge working under local agency bridge program process Minnesota Jointly: State Aid Division and local agencies New Mexico Regional Planning Organizations New York Region Offices, Local Government

112 State or Province Question 32: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) Local Bridges Outside Metropolitan Area to Receive Funding? Ohio ODOT provides funds for county bridges. We contract with the County Engineers Association of Ohio (CEAO) to act as a program Manger, which includes making funding decisions. We use a criteria-driven selection process Oklahoma Local government Oregon Statewide Local Bridge Selection Committee Tennessee Repair—Local Government; Replacement—Department with concurrence of local Government and FHWA Texas Jointly—Local Governments/District/Bridge Division/Texas Transportation Commission Virginia For maintenance actions—the districts decide; for improvement actions, rehabilitations and replacement action—local government, districts, and bridge division. Quebec Regional Directors Alberta Bridge Managers Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Dept. of Transportation and Work TABLE D11 State or Province Question 33: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) Bridges in Metropolitan Areas to Receive Funding and Be Included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? Alaska Unknown Arizona Regional Transportation System (RTS) appropriation committee Arkansas Metropolitan Planning Organizations/Programs and Contracts Engineer California Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program. District offices. Florida Work Program Office from those nominated by the districts with the consent of the local owner. Hawaii Planning Branches with input from Project Management Staff & Bridge Design Section Kansas Priority & Optimization for funding is statewide or Local Authorities through Bureau of Local projects both work with MPO

113 State or Province Question 33: Organizational Unit(s) That Select(s) Bridges in Metropolitan Areas to Receive Funding and Be Included in the Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)? Maine Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design) Engineer Michigan Local bridge working under local agency bridge program process Minnesota Jointly: Mn/DOT Metro District and the Metropolitan Transportation Planning Agency New Mexico Upper Management, Districts & Regional Planning Organizations New York Region offices Ohio ODOT maintains a Municipal Bridge Program in which any municipality can apply to our office for funding for bridges that meet the Federal definition. We use a criteria- driven selection process. ODOT allocates funds to Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPOs) who make their own funding decisions. Oklahoma State budget by field division. City budget by MPO Oregon Statewide Local Bridge Selection Committee Tennessee Repair—Local Government Replacement—Department with concurrence of local government and FHWA Texas Jointly—Districts/Metropolitan Planning Organizations/Bridge Division Virginia For maintenance actions—the districts decide; For improvement actions, Rehabilitation and replacement actions—local government, districts, and bridge division Alberta Divisional Executive Committee based on recommendations of Bridge Manager Newfoundland and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Work

114 TABLE D12 Questions 34–38: Use of BMS in Generating Following Performance Measure(s)? Based Primarily on BMS R: 1 BMS Data Plus Additional Processing R: 2 Seldom or Never Used R: 3 Calculates a measure of the current condition of each bridge (e.g., condition rating, sufficiency rating, health index) 18 (75%) 5 (20%) 1 (4%) Identifies current condition of each bridge on the network and key sub-networks such as districts or Interstate bridges (composite index, health index) 13 (54%) 6 (25%) 5 (20%) Projects into the future the condition of each bridge in the inventory 9 (37%) 6 (25%) 9 (37%) Calculates a composite index of the projected network level condition of all bridges in the Stat (e.g., network-level health index) 8 (33%) 7 (29%) 9 (37%) Determines the depreciated value of the bridge inventory or uses the modified procedure for public reporting under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 4 (17%) 9 (39%) 10 (43%) TABLE D13 Questions 39–44: Use of BMS in Estimating the Following Bridge Needs? Based Primarily on BMS R: 1 BMS Data Plus Additional Processing R: 2 Seldom or Never Used R: 3 Identifies bridge needs that can be used as input to the statewide budgeting and programming process by using engineering judgment and basic bridge data 13 (54%) 9 (37%) 2 (8%) Identifies major project needs 7(29%) 14 (58%) 3 (12%) Uses project level analysis to identify options (candidates) as input to the network level analysis 4 (16%) 9 (37%) 11 (45%) Determines network level needs unconstrained by budgets by using benefit-cost analysis or other similar techniques 6 (25%) 8 ( 33%) 10 (41%) Determines multi-year, network level bridge needs subject to annual budget constraints by using benefit-cost analysis, optimization, or other procedures 3 (12%) 10 (41%) 11 (45%)

115 Produces reports useful for building a recommended bridge budget for each organizational unit responsible for some portion of the bridge inventory 7 (29%) 11 (45%) 6 (25%) TABLE D14 Questions 45–50: Use of BMS in Resource Allocation and Tradeoff Analyses? Based Primarily on BMS R: 1 BMS Data Plus Additional Processing R: 2 Seldom or Never Used R: 3 Has a network level dashboard for communicating the effects of different budget levels on a various factors of concern to bridge managers 0 (0%) 6 (31%) 13 (68%) Has a project level dashboard for communicating the effects of deferring bridge work on the condition of bridge elements, life-cycle costs, etc. 3 (12%) 8 (33%) 13 (54%) Provides network level analysis to help allocate funds for all agency bridges 8 (33%) 8 (33%) 8 (33%) Provides network-level analysis to help allocate funds among organizational units within your agency 1 (4%) 12 (57%) 8 (38%) Provides network analysis to help allocate bridge funds by functional class, corridors or other sub-networks of the highway system 4 (16%) 12 (57%) 8 (38%) Produces reports useful for allocating the bridge portion of the budget approved by the governor and legislature to each organizational unit responsible for some portion of the bridge inventory 5 (20%) 11 (45%) 8 (38%) TABLE D15 Questions 51, 52–59: If Your BMS Has the Capabilities to Help Support Performance Measurement, Needs Analysis, Resource Allocation, and Tradeoff Analyses, Do the CEO and Upper Management Use BMS Information for Planning, Programming, and Budgeting? Number of Respondents YES NO 12 10 If Your Answer Above Was NO: What Are Reasons Why the BMS Is Not Used to Help the CEO and Top Management Team Do Planning, Programming, and Budgeting? Number of Respondents

116 The recommended actions from the bridge management system are too different from the actions our bridge inspectors and engineers recommend 2 The bridge management system gives too much emphasis to economic considerations relative to other considerations, especially conditions we observe in the field 1 The economic assumptions are not accurate 2 The bridge management system is perceived by too many managers as a black box—it uses analytic procedures we really do not understand 1 Management’s capabilities include the ability to assess current and future needs. A bridge management system detracts from the bridge manager’s prerogatives 1 We have found it difficult to implement a bridge management system, train personnel, and obtain buy-in from managers that must depend upon it 2 We have has problems with reliability (software, data, an/or analysis) 1

117 Budget-Related Survey Questions TABLE D16 Question 1: Importance of the Following Factors in Budgeting? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3 R: 4 R: 5 The budget level for the previous budget cycle 0 (0%) 4 (22%) 7 (38%) 6 (33%) 1 (5%) The budget level for the previous fiscal year 1 (5%) 3 (16%) 5 (27%) 5 (27%) 4 (22%) Giving fist priority to bridge preservation projects 2 (11%) 2 (11%) 5 (27%) 7 (38%) 2 (11%) Giving first priority to capital expenditures for bridge replacement and major projects 1 (5%) 0 (0%) 6 (33%) 8 (44%) 3 (16%) Giving first priority to major bridge projects with the balance of bridge funds going to the rest of the bridge program 3 (16%) 6 (33%) 4 (22%) 4 (22%) 1 (5%) The political jurisdictions in which bridge replacement work and major bridge projects occur 7 (35%) 5 (25%) 6 (30%) 0 (0%) 2 (10%) Bridge needs determined at the district and/or lower levels of the organization, possibly with input from local government or Metropolitan Planning Organization 3 (14%) 1 (4%) 4 (19%) 7 (33%) 6 (28%) Documented bridge needs, tempered by engineering judgment, based on results of the computerized bridge management system 2 (10%) 1 (5%) 2 (10%) 5 (26%) 9 (47%) Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoffs from the bridge management system regarding the allocation of funds among bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement work 3 (16%) 5 (27%) 4 (22%) 4 (22%) 2 (11%) Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoff from one or more computerized management systems regarding the allocation of funds between the bridge program and other programs such as pavements and operations 3 (17%) 6 (35%) 5 (29%) 1 (5%) 2 (11%) Subjective analysis of top managers and professionals concerning the choices and tradeoffs within the bridge program and between the bridge program and other programs such as pavements 1 (4%) 0 (0%) 6 (28%) 10 (47%) 4 (19%) An analysis of bridge work that should be performed by in- house staff versus contractors 9 (47%) 4 (21%) 2 (10%) 3 (15%) 1 (5%)

118 TABLE D17 Question 2: BMS Features and Capabilities Used by DOTs? Yes No Generate summary information about the inventory, condition, structural deficiency, functional obsolescence at the network and district level 14 (63%) 8 (36%) Identify safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture critical elements or seismic vulnerability 9 (40%) 13 (59%) Produce information that can be compared with performance targets set by management 10 (45%) 12 (54%) Generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints for planning, programming, budgeting and resource allocation 5 (22%) 17 (77%) Explore choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge program (maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement) 3 (13%) 19 (86%) Calculate bridge life-cycle costs and/or minimum component life-cycle costs 3(13%) 19 (86%) Calculate avoidable road user-costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs) as a function of alternative budget levels 2 (9%) 20 (90%) Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 9 (40%) 13 (59%) Provide information helpful in setting parameters to effectively delegate to lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges on the network 7 (31%) 15 (68%) Past and planned bridge work by organizational unit or geographical area 7(31%) 15 (68%)

119 TABLE D18 State Question 3: BMS Features Potentially Useful for Budgeting That Are Not Currently Used? Arkansas Yes California No Maine Yes Minnesota Both being able explore choices and tradeoffs and being able to calculate life-cycle costs would be particularly useful in making sound, cost-effective investment decisions. Most useful would be a derivative of alternative scenario generation subject to budget constraints for purposes of planning, programming, and budgeting. Here at Mn/DOT we would like to be able to use our BMS to predict funding levels needed to attain performance targets for structural condition. Just as important would be to have a BMS that produced bridge investments and their timing so that we could maintain our bridges at the lowest life-cycle cost. New Mexico Don’t believe they would be New York Information on parameters that would facilitate delegation to lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges on the network. Oklahoma Yes Tennessee No Virginia All of the unchecked items will be useful. Newfoundland I certainly feel that a more complete bridge management program would be a benefit. A system which was able to help evaluate achievement of performance targets, generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints, explore choices and tradeoffs, and calculate road user costs, would be beneficial from a budgeting perspective. Quebec No

120 TABLE D19 Question 4: Organizational Unit(s) Involved in Resource Allocation? Number and Percent of Respondents a) Office of the CEO 16 (73%) b) Budget 10 (45%) c) Finance 8 (36%) d) Planning 14 (63%) e) Programming 1 (4%) f) Construction 5 (22%) g) Bridge Construction 7 (31%) h) Maintenance 9 (40%) i) Bridge Maintenance 15 (68%) j) Operations 9 (40%) k) Computer Services 1 (4%) l) Office of the District Director, District Engineer or similar district head 14 (63%) m) District Office of Planning 8 (36%) n) District Office of Programming/Budgeting 7 (31%) o) District Office of Construction 3 (13%) p) District Office of Maintenance 8 (36%) q) Areas 1 (4%) r) Shops/Garages 0 (0%) s) Other 4 (18%)

121 Planning-Related Survey Question TABLE D20 Question 1: Use of the Following BMS Features to Support the Planning Process? Number and Percent of Respondents a) Provide summary reports on the inventory and condition of bridges for the state and districts 14 (82%) b) Provide statewide and district reports on the number of bridges that structurally deficient and functionally obsolete 12 (70%) c) Identify or flag safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture critical elements or seismic vulnerability 11 (64%) d) Provide an overall network and district level condition or health index 10 (58%) e) Provide information that can be compared with performance targets set by management 10 (58%) f) Explore alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints for planning, programming, budgeting and resource allocation 6 (35%) g) Identify choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge program (replacement, rehabilitation, maintenance) 6 (35%) h) Identify life-cycle costs of bridges 1 (5%) i) Identify avoidable road user-costs as a function of alternative budget levels 2 (11%) j) Provide information to satisfy public reporting Governmental Accounting Standards Board 9 (52%) k) Provide the CEO and other top managers recommended parameters to effectively delegate to lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on specific bridges 7 (41%) l) Identify past and planned bridge work by organizational unit or geographic area 10 (58%) m) Identify past and planned bridge work by political jurisdiction 5 (29%)

122 APPENDIX E SURVEY RESPONSES: FACTORS AFFECTING BUDGETING The budgeting component of the study survey elicited agency responses on the importance of several factors to budget development. These factors included the following: x Importance of previous budgets on the current budgeting cycle: the budget in the previous cycle, and the budget in the previous fiscal year. x Importance of “top-priority” designations to the budgeting process: first priority given to preservation, first priority to bridge replacement and major bridge capital projects, and first priority to major bridge projects with the balance to the remainder of the bridge program. x Importance to budgeting of methods of determining needs or identifying projects: needs determined by BMS-assisted estimates tempered by engineering judgment; needs determined by districts, MPOs, or others through a bottom-up process; and needs analyzed in terms of the political jurisdictions in which major bridge projects or replacement projects occur. x Importance of different tradeoff analyses to budgeting: tradeoffs based on subjective executive and managerial judgments; tradeoffs analyzed across bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement needs; and tradeoffs between the bridge program and other transportation programs. x Importance of project delivery method to budgeting: performance of bridge work by in-house forces versus contract forces. Respondents rated the importance of each factor on a scale of 1 (unimportant) to 5 (very important). Results are presented in a series of histograms that allow for easy comparison. For each budgeting factor, its histogram shows the numbers of responses by degree of importance, 1 through 5. The histograms are drawn compactly so several can be viewed at a time; the horizontal and vertical scales in each histogram are identical so they can be readily compared to one another “by eye.” Up to 21 respondents participated in this survey component; the exact numbers that answered each question varied from 17 to 21, however, which also affects the heights of the histogram bars. The basic shape of a given histogram enables one to get a quick impression of the overall importance of that budgeting factor as judged collectively by the survey respondents. For example, a histogram skewed to the right (value of 5 on the horizontal scale) indicates consensus on the high importance of that factor to budgeting. A skew to the left (value of 1 on the horizontal scale) reflects agreement that it is unimportant. A distribution with a central peak (i.e., many ratings at or around 3 on the horizontal scale) indicates relative indifference to that factor in budgeting. A uniform distribution (equal numbers of responses for each rating 1 through 5) indicates the absence of consensus on the importance of that factor—for every agency that claims the factor to be significant, there is another indicating its lack of significance. Of course, a given histogram may combine more than one of these simple patterns. The results of this budgeting survey component reinforce in several ways the findings in chapter three on agency bridge management approaches and organizational roles in bridge decision making. The budgeting results are presented below in a series of figures displaying the histograms for each factor that was evaluated by the survey participants.

123 Figure E1 compares the factors representing previous budget levels, whether the amount submitted in the prior budgeting cycle or as expended in the last fiscal year. Results likely reflect the degree to which budgeting is based on some prior level plus adjustments such as for inflation or updated revenue projections or splits. Opinions in both examples in Figure E1 are divided, with the previous fiscal year receiving a somewhat greater vote of importance. These varying opinions may be driven by the mix of federal versus state dollars that are funding an agency’s bridge program, and how the state dollars are allocated. Federal bridge program dollars are dedicated and the apportionment is known beforehand. State funding depends on variable revenue projections and may be subject to competition with other state programs, although some states report taking bridge funds “off the top” or using set-asides. The inconclusive results displayed in Figure E1 likely reflect differing state situations and practices regarding funding mix and allocation in budgeting. 1 2 3 4 5 Budget level in previous cycle 1 2 3 4 5 Budget level in previous fiscal year FIGURE E1 Importance of previous budgets on current budgeting cycle. Figure E2 addresses the influence of different top-priority activities or projects on budgeting. Of the three options shown, replacement projects and major bridge projects were reported to have the strongest influence on budgeting. Bridge preservation as a first priority was judged to be moderately important, although some agencies rated this factor as minimally important. This difference of opinion may be due to varying composition and condition of agencies’ bridge inventories. The third option, giving first priority to major bridge projects solely, received comparatively little support as an influence on budgeting, probably because major bridge projects are relatively few. Rather, bridge replacement work tends to drive the application of federal (and matching state) dollars in budgeting, according to the interviews with DOT bridge managers.

124 1 2 3 4 5 First priority to bridge preservation 1 2 3 4 5 First priority to bridge replacement and major capital projects 1 2 3 4 5 First priority to major bridge projects with balance to rest of bridge program FIGURE E2 Importance of “top-priority” designations to the budgeting process. The importance of different methods of compiling and expressing bridge needs is illustrated in Figure E3. The use of a BMS combined with professional judgment is unambiguously felt by respondents to be of paramount importance to budgeting. The interviews with bridge managers affirm that both elements of this statement are relevant: an agency’s bridge management system irrespective of its analytic design, condition and performance measures, and decision-support algorithms; and the professional judgments of the agency’s executives and managers, which are applied to evaluate and refine the BMS results. The second graphic in Figure E3 reflects the importance of DOT field offices, regional and metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and other stakeholders in prioritization and project selection under new planning and programming guidelines initiated in ISTEA. The third graphic in Figure E3 demonstrates the relative unimportance of the jurisdictional distribution of major bridge projects and bridge replacement projects to statewide budgeting. Major projects are relatively few in number and, unless mandated by law, are judged on their individual merits. Bridge replacement is typically driven by NBI and other findings on structural or functional deficiency. Because they are costly, bridge replacements and major projects are often funded using federal bridge program monies, unless other mechanisms such as bonds backed by toll revenues or public-private partnerships are used. In any case, the jurisdictions in which these projects are located are not the main drivers of programming and budgeting.

125 1 2 3 4 5 BMS-assisted estimates of bridge needs tempered by engineering judgment f 1 2 3 4 5 Political jurisdictions in which major bridge projects or replacement projects occur FIGURE E3 Importance to budgeting of methods of determining needs or identifying projects. MPOs = Metropolitan Planning Organizations. Agencies have different perspectives on tradeoff analyses, and the variability in survey ratings of the importance of these analyses to budgeting reflects this diversity. One point agencies do agree on is the key role of professional judgment in assessing tradeoffs (first graphic in Figure E4), reinforcing the findings in Figure E3 regarding subjective managerial judgments in needs estimates as well. Surveyed opinion on tradeoffs among bridge treatments is very mixed (second graphic, Figure E4), probably due to the variety of programming methods and criteria used among agencies and the different ways in which budget constraints are dealt with. The third aspect of tradeoff analyses in the survey—to evaluate resource allocation between the bridge program and other programs—was not rated highly in importance by the respondents. The reasons very likely are as follows: x Bridge projects involving replacement, substantial rehabilitation, and major structures typically involve federal bridge program funding, which is a dedicated source and not subject to tradeoffs. Matching state money, which might be subject to tradeoffs, is often (according to interviews) taken off the top or from set-asides. Even if this portion of state funding is theoretically subject to competition and, therefore, tradeoff analysis, many agencies regard a full state match of available federal funding as a high priority in itself. x This type of program-level tradeoff is high-level, involves several executive and organizational units within a DOT, and may occur early in the resource allocation process. It may therefore be viewed as somewhat removed from the nuts-and-bolts of subsequent budgetary decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 Bridge needs determined in districts, MPOs, etc. -- "bottom-up" process

126 1 2 3 4 5 Tradeoff analysis based on subjective judgments of top managers and professionals f 1 2 3 4 5 Tradeoff analysis among bridge maintenance, rehabilitation, and replacement needs f 1 2 3 4 5 Tradeoff analysis between bridge and other transportation programs f FIGURE E4 Importance of different tradeoff analyses to budgeting. The final factor that was evaluated by budget survey respondents is the proposed method of bridge project delivery: in-house forces versus contracted forces. Results in Figure E.5 indicate a very strong rejection of the importance of this factor to budget decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis of bridge work by delivery method -- in-house vs. contract f FIGURE E5 Importance of project delivery method to budgeting. A more general way to assess the overall relative importance of these factors to budgeting is to identify those that received the greatest number of responses in categories 4 and 5. The four factors that were judged most important according to these criteria are listed below, with the percentages of total responses they each received: x BMS-assisted estimates of bridge needs tempered by engineering judgment (67%). x Tradeoff analyses based on subjective judgments of top managers and professionals (67%). x Bridge needs determined in districts, MPOs, etc.—i.e., a “bottom-up” process involving other stakeholders (62%). x First priority to bridge replacement and major capital projects (52%). Other factors received votes from less than a majority of the respondents.

Next: Standard Abbreviations »
Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making Get This Book
×
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

TRB’s National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Synthesis 397: Bridge Manangement Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making explores how bridge management systems are employed by transportation agencies in making network-level decisions on resource allocations for their bridge programs.

  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!