Click for next page ( 103


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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 102
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%)