Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter.
Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.
OCR for page 102
102
APPENDIX D
RESPONSES TO SELECTED SURVEY QUESTIONS
TABLE D1
Uses with
Questions 1-8: Significantly Doesn't Use Does Not or
Currently Manipulated Due To BMS Unlikely to
Use of the Following Condition and
Uses Data Limitations Use
Performance Data by CEO and Top
Management Team? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3 R: 4
Overall measure of the current condition 18 2 3 1
or health of bridges (75%) (8%) (12%) (4%)
Measure of the condition of key
components of bridges that involve 18 2 2 2
significant expenditures (75%) (8%) (8%) (8%)
Key bridge safety problems (i.e., bridges 14 4 6 0
exposed to hurricane storm surges, etc.) (58%) (16%) (25%) (0%)
Number of bridges that are currently 21 0 1 2
structurally deficient (87%) (0%) (4%) (8%0
Number of bridges that are currently 17 4 0 3
functionally obsolete (70%) (16%) (0%) (12%)
Progress in achieving bridge condition 10 6 4 4
performance targets sent in prior year. (41%) (25%) (16%) (16%)
Measure of the future condition or health 4 5 12 3
of bridges (16%) (20%) (50%) (12%)
Target level of maintenance required that
would be consistent with the requirements 2 4 9 9
of the Governmental Accounting (8%) (16%) (37%) (37%)
Standard Board
OCR for page 103
103
TABLE D2
Uses with
Questions 920: Significantly Doesn't Use Does Not or
Currently Manipulated Due To BMS Unlikely to
Use of the Following Analyses and
Uses Data Limitations Use
Information by the CEO and Top
Management Team? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3 R: 4
Future bridge expenditure needs for
bridge preservation and improvement 8 9 3 4
over the forthcoming budget cycle (33%) (37%) (12%) (16%)
assuming no budget constraints
Short-term (15 year) projections of
9 10 4 1
future bridge expenditure needs under
(37%) (41%) (16%) (4%)
alternative budget assumptions
Mid-tern (610 year) projections of future
4 10 7 3
bridge expenditure needs under
(16%) (41%) (29%) (12%)
alternative budget assumptions
Long-term (1150 year) projection of
1 6 10 7
future bridge needs under alternative
(4%) (25%) (41%) (29%)
budget assumptions
A single recommended bridge budget for 12 9 1 2
the forthcoming budget cycle (50%) (37%) (4%) (8%)
Analysis of choices and tradeoffs
regarding expenditures within the
6 4 13 1
recommended bridge budget or program-
(25%) (16%) (54%) (4%)
maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement
and major projects
A breakdown of the recommended bridge
7 5 6 6
budget by main or important types of
(29%) (20%) (25%) (25%)
structures
Breakdown of the recommended bridge
5 3 5 11
budget by in-house work versus contract
(20%) (12%) (20%) (45%)
work
Descriptions, locations, and costs of
16 5 2 1
candidate and recommended major bridge
(66%) (20%) (8%) (4%)
projects
A breakdown of the recommended
13 3 2 6
bridge budget by political jurisdiction
(54%) (12%) (8%) (25%)
or administrative unit
OCR for page 104
104
Uses with
Questions 920: Significantly Doesn't Use Does Not or
Currently Manipulated Due To BMS Unlikely to
Use of the Following Analyses and
Uses Data Limitations Use
Information by the CEO and Top
Management Team? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3 R: 4
A breakdown of major bridge projects in
the recommended budget presented by 11 4 2 7
political jurisdiction or administrative (45%) (16%) (8%) (29%)
unit
Reports and graphics showing the results
of changing the resource allocation
3 5 11 5
between the bridge program and other
(12%) (20%) (45%) (20%)
program areas such as pavements and
operations
TABLE D3
Uses with
Significantly Doesn't Use Does Not or
Questions 2124: Currently Manipulated Due To BMS Unlikely to
Uses Data Limitations Use
Use of Economic Analysis by the CEO
and Top Management Team? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3 R: 4
Network level benefit-cost ratios for 3 1 15 5
alternative bridge programs (12%) (4%) (62%) (20%)
Network level estimates of life-cycle 2 2 15 5
costs (8%) (8%) (62%) (20%)
Network level estimates of avoidable road
1 2 13 7
user costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle
(4%) (8%) (54%) (29%)
operating costs)
Benefit-cost ratios of major bridge project 5 3 11 4
alternatives (20%) (12%) (45%) (16%)
OCR for page 105
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 Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister
and Labrador and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Works
Quebec Deputy Minister
OCR for page 106
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 No formalized system of "performance measurement" used.
and Labrador
OCR for page 107
107
TABLE D6
State or Question 28: Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) What Are the Bridge
Province 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 No formalized system of "performance measurement" used
and Labrador
OCR for page 108
108
TABLE D7
State or Question 29 Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) Funding Split Among
Province 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
OCR for page 109
109
State or Question 29 Organizational Unit(s) That Establish(es) Funding Split Among
Province Bridge Repair, Rehabilitation, and Replacement?
Newfoundland Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction
and Labrador
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
OCR for page 110
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 Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy
and Labrador 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
OCR for page 111
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 Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy
and Labrador 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
OCR for page 112
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 Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy
and Labrador 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
OCR for page 113
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 Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy
and Labrador Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Work
OCR for page 114
114
TABLE D12
BMS Data
Based Plus
Questions 3438: Primarily on Additional Seldom or
BMS Processing Never Used
Use of BMS in Generating Following Performance
Measure(s)? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3
Calculates a measure of the current condition of each bridge 18 5 1
(e.g., condition rating, sufficiency rating, health index) (75%) (20%) (4%)
Identifies current condition of each bridge on the network
13 6 5
and key sub-networks such as districts or Interstate bridges
(54%) (25%) (20%)
(composite index, health index)
Projects into the future the condition of each bridge in the 9 6 9
inventory (37%) (25%) (37%)
Calculates a composite index of the projected network level
8 7 9
condition of all bridges in the Stat (e.g., network-level
(33%) (29%) (37%)
health index)
Determines the depreciated value of the bridge inventory or
4 9 10
uses the modified procedure for public reporting under the
(17%) (39%) (43%)
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34
TABLE D13
BMS Data
Based Plus
Primarily on Additional Seldom or
Questions 3944: BMS Processing Never Used
Use of BMS in Estimating the Following Bridge Needs? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3
Identifies bridge needs that can be used as input to the
13 9 2
statewide budgeting and programming process by using
(54%) (37%) (8%)
engineering judgment and basic bridge data
7 14 3
Identifies major project needs
(29%) (58%) (12%)
Uses project level analysis to identify options (candidates) 4 9 11
as input to the network level analysis (16%) (37%) (45%)
Determines network level needs unconstrained by budgets 6 8 10
by using benefit-cost analysis or other similar techniques (25%) ( 33%) (41%)
Determines multi-year, network level bridge needs subject
3 10 11
to annual budget constraints by using benefit-cost analysis,
(12%) (41%) (45%)
optimization, or other procedures
OCR for page 115
115
Produces reports useful for building a recommended bridge
7 11 6
budget for each organizational unit responsible for some
(29%) (45%) (25%)
portion of the bridge inventory
TABLE D14
BMS Data
Based Plus
Questions 4550: Primarily on Additional Seldom or
BMS Processing Never Used
Use of BMS in Resource Allocation and Tradeoff
Analyses? R: 1 R: 2 R: 3
Has a network level dashboard for communicating the
0 6 13
effects of different budget levels on a various factors of
(0%) (31%) (68%)
concern to bridge managers
Has a project level dashboard for communicating the effects
3 8 13
of deferring bridge work on the condition of bridge
(12%) (33%) (54%)
elements, life-cycle costs, etc.
Provides network level analysis to help allocate funds for 8 8 8
all agency bridges (33%) (33%) (33%)
Provides network-level analysis to help allocate funds 1 12 8
among organizational units within your agency (4%) (57%) (38%)
Provides network analysis to help allocate bridge funds by
4 12 8
functional class, corridors or other sub-networks of the
(16%) (57%) (38%)
highway system
Produces reports useful for allocating the bridge portion of
the budget approved by the governor and legislature to each 5 11 8
organizational unit responsible for some portion of the (20%) (45%) (38%)
bridge inventory
TABLE D15
Questions 51, 5259:
If Your BMS Has the Capabilities to Help Support Performance Measurement, Needs
Analysis, Resource Allocation, and Tradeoff Analyses, Do the CEO and Upper Number of
Management Use BMS Information for Planning, Programming, and Budgeting? Respondents
YES 12
NO 10
If Your Answer Above Was NO: What Are Reasons Why the BMS Is Not Used to Help Number of
the CEO and Top Management Team Do Planning, Programming, and Budgeting? Respondents
OCR for page 116
116
The recommended actions from the bridge management system are too different from the
2
actions our bridge inspectors and engineers recommend
The bridge management system gives too much emphasis to economic considerations relative
1
to other considerations, especially conditions we observe in the field
The economic assumptions are not accurate 2
The bridge management system is perceived by too many managers as a black box--it uses
1
analytic procedures we really do not understand
Management's capabilities include the ability to assess current and future needs. A bridge
1
management system detracts from the bridge manager's prerogatives
We have found it difficult to implement a bridge management system, train personnel, and
2
obtain buy-in from managers that must depend upon it
We have has problems with reliability (software, data, an/or analysis) 1
OCR for page 117
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 4 7 6 1
(0%) (22%) (38%) (33%) (5%)
The budget level for the previous fiscal year 1 3 5 5 4
(5%) (16%) (27%) (27%) (22%)
Giving fist priority to bridge preservation projects 2 2 5 7 2
(11%) (11%) (27%) (38%) (11%)
Giving first priority to capital expenditures for bridge 1 0 6 8 3
replacement and major projects (5%) (0%) (33%) (44%) (16%)
Giving first priority to major bridge projects with the
3 6 4 4 1
balance of bridge funds going to the rest of the bridge
(16%) (33%) (22%) (22%) (5%)
program
The political jurisdictions in which bridge replacement work 7 5 6 0 2
and major bridge projects occur (35%) (25%) (30%) (0%) (10%)
Bridge needs determined at the district and/or lower levels of
3 1 4 7 6
the organization, possibly with input from local government
(14%) (4%) (19%) (33%) (28%)
or Metropolitan Planning Organization
Documented bridge needs, tempered by engineering
2 1 2 5 9
judgment, based on results of the computerized bridge
(10%) (5%) (10%) (26%) (47%)
management system
Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoffs from the
bridge management system regarding the allocation of funds 3 5 4 4 2
among bridge maintenance, rehabilitation and replacement (16%) (27%) (22%) (22%) (11%)
work
Quantitative analysis of choices and tradeoff from one or
more computerized management systems regarding the 3 6 5 1 2
allocation of funds between the bridge program and other (17%) (35%) (29%) (5%) (11%)
programs such as pavements and operations
Subjective analysis of top managers and professionals
concerning the choices and tradeoffs within the bridge 1 0 6 10 4
program and between the bridge program and other (4%) (0%) (28%) (47%) (19%)
programs such as pavements
An analysis of bridge work that should be performed by in- 9 4 2 3 1
house staff versus contractors (47%) (21%) (10%) (15%) (5%)
OCR for page 118
118
TABLE D17
Question 2: BMS Features and Capabilities Used by DOTs? Yes No
Generate summary information about the inventory, condition, structural 14 8
deficiency, functional obsolescence at the network and district level (63%) (36%)
Identify safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture 9 13
critical elements or seismic vulnerability (40%) (59%)
Produce information that can be compared with performance targets set by 10 12
management (45%) (54%)
Generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints for planning, 5 17
programming, budgeting and resource allocation (22%) (77%)
Explore choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge 3 19
program (maintenance, rehabilitation, replacement) (13%) (86%)
3 19
Calculate bridge life-cycle costs and/or minimum component life-cycle costs
(13%) (86%)
Calculate avoidable road user-costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating 2 20
costs) as a function of alternative budget levels (9%) (90%)
Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the 9 13
Governmental Accounting Standards Board (40%) (59%)
Provide information helpful in setting parameters to effectively delegate to
7 15
lower level managers the responsibility for selecting what work to do on
(31%) (68%)
specific bridges on the network
7 15
Past and planned bridge work by organizational unit or geographical area
(31%) (68%)
OCR for page 119
119
TABLE D18
Question 3: BMS Features Potentially Useful for Budgeting That Are Not
State 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
OCR for page 120
120
TABLE D19
Number and
Percent of
Question 4: Organizational Unit(s) Involved in Resource Allocation? 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%)
OCR for page 121
121
Planning-Related Survey Question
TABLE D20
Number and
Percent of
Question 1: Use of the Following BMS Features to Support the Planning Process? 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
12 (70%)
functionally obsolete
c) Identify or flag safety or other serious problems such as scour, presence of fracture critical
11 (64%)
elements or seismic vulnerability
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,
6 (35%)
budgeting and resource allocation
g) Identify choices and tradeoffs for allocation of resources within the bridge program
6 (35%)
(replacement, rehabilitation, maintenance)
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
7 (41%)
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 10 (58%)
m) Identify past and planned bridge work by political jurisdiction 5 (29%)
