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 70
70
CHAPTER FIVE
Conclusions
The objective of this synthesis has been to gather informa- database. Bridge-related information tracked by DOTs typi-
tion on current practices that agency CEOs and senior deci- cally includes NBIS data and ratings, but often incorporates
sion makers use to make network-level funding decisions additional, more detailed data or customized data. Agencies
for their bridges, and how they apply their agency's bridge that were addressed in this study appear to have integrated
management capabilities to support these decisions. A better their bridge management procedures and systems well
understanding of these issues could help agencies identify within their individual planning, resource allocation, pro-
areas of improvement for their own bridge management pro- gramming, and budgeting processes. Philosophies of bridge
cess and their application to agency decision making. The management may differ across agencies (e.g., centralized
study has considered the role of automated bridge manage- versus decentralized decision making; use versus nonuse of
ment systems (BMSs) in planning, programming, resource predictive analytic models). Yet, in each example that was
allocation, and budgeting; increasing application of asset studied in this synthesis, the agency has configured its bridge
management principles, which could influence future bridge program management to fit within its organizational, finan-
program management; implications of recent actions at the cial, managerial, and technical modes of operation. It has
federal level that will affect bridge inspection, manage- tailored its internal communications of information and its
ment, and research; impediments to applying BMSs more institutional relationships with other agencies accordingly.
effectively; and research proposals to improve BMSs and
practice. This variability in bridge management and resource allo-
cation practices among state DOTs is driven by several fac-
tors, among them the following:
Synopsis Of Major Findings
· Different philosophies of bridge management
The National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS), which · Different approaches to planning, programming, and
were implemented in the 1970s, established a single, unified budgeting
method of collecting data on the nation's public-highway · The characteristics of each agency's transportation
bridges. These data are submitted annually by state DOTs system and its infrastructure
to the FHWA, which compiles them within the National · The policy, financial, technical, and institutional envi-
Bridge Inventory (NBI) database. The NBIS have enabled ronment in which the agency operates.
the FHWA and state departments of transportation (DOTs)
to monitor bridge condition and performance nationally on These factors are not equal in their effects, however. For
a consistent basis, identify bridge needs, define criteria of example, although the current condition of an agency's bridge
project eligibility for federal bridge funding, and thereby inventory obviously affects its investment priorities, it did
promote the public safety through better stewardship of not appear to be a strong driver of management approach in
bridge assets. Bridge Structural Deficiency (SD) and Func- any of the states interviewed. Rather, important influencing
tional Obsolescence (FO), two ratings defined by the NBIS, factors that several agencies mentioned included the level,
became key performance measures that agencies continue stability, flexibility, and predictability of bridge funding; the
to monitor today. Similarly, the bridge Sufficiency Rating definition of bridge performance measures appropriate to the
(SR) is embodied in the eligibility formula for federal bridge agency's transportation system and geographic setting; and
funding. Although some revisions to NBIS have occurred, the need to maintain effective communication and buy-in up
the definition and application of these bridge ratings has and down organizational levels, regardless of where ultimate
remained essentially unchanged for more than 30 years. decision-making responsibility lay.
Considerable advances in U.S. bridge management have The role of bridge management in agency functions such
occurred since the implementation of the NBIS, with signifi- as planning, programming, and resource allocation can
cant accomplishments at the federal and state levels. Today be better understood when the characteristics of different
all state DOTs have a bridge management process. Most BMSs are considered. BMSs vary in analytic capabilities and
employ some type of automated BMS with an associated sophistication, ranging from straightforward repositories of
OCR for page 71
71
bridge data to full-fledged management systems, including ment and standard types of analyses. Higher-end applica-
forecasting models, comparative analyses, and optimization tions, such as those used to evaluate the costs and benefits
procedures or decision rules. Full-featured systems oper- of different network investment strategies, to evaluate long-
ate at both the program level and at the level of individual term as well as near-term needs, or to apply BMS outputs
bridges or projects. Agencies that have a full-featured BMS in budgeting and Statewide Transportation Improvement
thus have the capability to apply higher-end analyses such as Program development, are used by only a relatively small
project planning, network-level budget scenarios, trade-off subset of DOTs.
analyses, and economic analyses of agency and user costs
and benefits. However, the actual use of these capabilities The ability to tailor bridge management practices and sys-
is by no means a given. A study of Pontis implementation tem outputs to individual agency needs, and to compensate for
among state DOTs indicated, for example, that half of these gaps and constraints in existing practice, helps to strengthen
agencies limited the functionality of Pontis to managing the relevance of bridge-related information to agency decision
bridge inspection data (see Figure 10). Moreover, the other making. Several examples illustrate this point:
half that did apply more advanced Pontis functionality often
used only a subset of available features. These findings were · Regardless of whether their BMS is simple or sophis-
reinforced in the current synthesis study. Although some ticated, many agencies have customized their own
individual agencies do use virtually the full set of Pontis data and analytic procedures to reflect the particular
features and might therefore be viewed at the leading edge characteristics of their road network, bridge structures,
of BMS practitioners (e.g., States D and E in Table 8), more and vehicle loads, as well as their philosophy of bridge
generally, the characteristic use of bridge management for management. Among agencies that were interviewed
state DOT decision making is as follows: in this study, these customizations are important to
ensuring that bridge management information remains
· BMS results used in decision making are mainly tech- relevant to agency decisions across all affected organi-
nical (focusing on bridge condition and performance) zational units and levels.
rather than economic (e.g., benefit-cost) or social · In particular, customized performance measures such as
(e.g., impacts on different categories of road users on deficiency-point calculations and custom bridge condi-
affected transportation corridors). tion and health indexes in several cases were believed
· BMS results are for near-term rather than long-term to be critical to advancing state-specific practices tech-
analysis horizons. nically, managerially, and procedurally. These indica-
· Recommended actions are reactive to current condi- tors were entirely acceptable to upper management and
tions rather than proactive or anticipatory of future served the bridge-office as well as executive-level infor-
conditions. mational needs for investment planning, resource allo-
· Recommended actions focus on a single strategy cation, and budgeting. Some agencies saw customized
rather than a comparative analysis of several options bridge rating indexes as a way to get better guidance
or scenarios. on bridge investment needs and benefits, to compensate
· Calculated costs are solely those attributed to the for what they believed were shortcomings in the SR as a
agency rather than including the costs borne by road criterion for bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
users as well. · Some senior bridge managers have introduced broader
· Costs are calculated for near-term budgets rather than performance-based or asset management-related con-
for the bridge life cycle. siderations. For example, they have asked their person-
· The BMS functionality that is used entails well-defined, nel to think beyond BMS outputs and consider wider
basic management procedures (e.g., data management) implications of different bridge investments, such as
rather than higher-level procedures such as predictive operational impacts and criticality of needs. Other
models, scenario analyses, trade-off analyses, and eco- respondents mentioned political and social impacts. In
nomic analyses. discussing the evaluation of project priorities, one man-
ager noted that it is not sufficient to consider just the
Again, these are general findings across the population of volume of traffic (average daily traffic) that is affected,
state DOTs that participated in this study (refer to Figures 12 or the associated cost-benefit totals. He encouraged his
and 1416). They do not necessarily reflect the characteris- staff to consider highway operations more broadly in
tics and practices of any single agency. The gap that exists terms of the type of road usage (e.g., trip purposes and
between the state-of-the-art practice versus the general state relationship to local economy), in addition to the stan-
of practice of BMSs has persisted for more than 10 years [see dard BMS results.
Neumann (1997) and subsequent studies in the first section
of chapter three]. All of these studies show that the capabili- Current bridge management practices reflect several
ties of BMS products are underutilized. These systems are characteristics of good asset management practice--for
applied most frequently for tasks such as database manage- example, a reliance on a suite of both standard and c
ustom
