Common Airport Pavement Maintenance Practices (2011)

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.

37 More than 80% of airport agencies surveyed already operate or are developing an APMS. The average age of the existing APMS for those airports responding to the questionnaire was approximately 9 years. The challenge for most of the agen- cies is not to establish an APMS, but to sustain and enhance its operation. The focus of this chapter is on sustainability and enhancements of APMS operations rather than on pro- cedures for establishing APMS. AIRPORT PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS OPERATION AND SUSTAINABILITY The existing APMS operations and the sustainability of the APMS are closely linked; a successful operation of the system is one of the best guarantees of its sustainability. Long-term sustainability of the APMS is an on-going process that should be considered during the initial implementation (Broten and Wade 2004). The following factors contribute to the success- ful operation and sustainability of the APMS: • Long-term commitment. Long-term commitment to the operation of the APMS and adequate financial sup- port by the decision makers are essential. Benefits obtained from the APMS increase with the length of time the system is in operation. For example, it takes several years of pavement condition monitoring to ascer- tain which pavement M&R treatments work best on the local level, and to establish pavement deterioration rates. An acceptance of the APMS across the organization also requires time. • Data integrity and timeliness. The APMS database is the source for obtaining pavement-related data. Current and objective pavement condition data are catalogued here for the preparation and updating of CIPs. • Periodic reporting. The manager of an APMS typi- cally provides periodic reports to decision makers on the condition of airport pavements and on the antici- pated pavement preservation needs. Different versions of the reports, with different levels of detail and presen- tation styles, may be desirable for each audience. In addition to periodic reporting, special reports address- ing pavement-related issues such as experience with new M&R treatments are developed and made avail- able. Regular reporting is essential for documenting the benefits of operating an APMS. • Documentation of the APMS process. A user manual documents the APMS process. Documentation ensures sustainability and continuity of operation during un- expected staff changes and facilitates the transfer of responsibilities between staff members and/or between consultants. Based on the survey, 20% of all APMSs are operated primarily by outside staff, and 48% of these sys- tems are operated jointly by in-house and outside staff (see Figure 22). • Meeting user needs. Universal user needs are moni- tored and include user-friendly software and the provi- sion for sharing of data and results. • Permanent APMS committee. Operation of a perma- nent APMS committee, with representation from all user groups, can be instrumental in the sustainability and enhancement of the system (Broten and Wade 2004). One of the tasks of the committee is to monitor user needs. • Ongoing improvements. The monitoring of user needs and follow-up to implement improvements enhances the system over time. Recent enhancements of APMS developed to meet user needs discovered during proac- tive monitoring include: – Graphical presentation and mapping of data and results using computer-assisted drafting and GIS, – Automating pavement condition surveys and using digital images to document pavement distresses, – Improving the linkage between an APMS and the preparation of CIPs, – Incorporating preventive pavement maintenance programs, – Addition of pavement structural analysis to APMS software, and. – Providing access to APMS database and software through the Internet. • Providing training. Initial APMS implementation includes staff training. However, staff training, together with succession planning is part of the ongoing opera- tions. Training, including proficiency testing, is partic- ularly critical for personnel who carry out periodic PCI surveys. SYSTEM ENHANCEMENT In addition to ongoing system enhancements there are situa- tions where a structured comprehensive review of the APMS operation is beneficial for improving the current practice and CHAPTER EIGHT OPERATION, SUSTAINABILITY, AND ENHANCEMENT

ensuring sustainability. The objectives of the review are twofold: 1. To determine enhancements based on identified user needs. 2. To determine enhancements that may be beneficial based on the best appropriate practice (BAP). The BAP is the desired state of practice that meets the particular agency’s needs in the most appropriate and efficient way. The common methodology used for the systematic assess- ment of the APMS is the gap analysis. As the name suggests the analysis is concerned with identifying the difference between the existing management process and the future desirable process defined as the BAP. The gap analysis con- sists of three basic steps: 1. Assessment of the existing APMS activities against the BAP. 2. Identification of activities where the agency has already achieved the BAP. 3. Identification of activities and an implementation guide to improvements to reach the BAP. The APMS activities that are the subject of the gap analy- sis can encompass all the main areas of a PMS shown in as Fig- ure 3 or they may focus on specific “weak” areas of the APMS operation. Formal reviews of PMS operation for highway net- works, done by either an outside agency or in-house, are quite common. For example, Zimmerman (2004) developed a self- assessment tool that helps highway agency personnel to sys- tematically evaluate PMS operations and identify areas for improvement. The process includes a self-assessment ques- 38 tionnaire, interviews with the stakeholders, and a technical review. Smith at al. (2004) used gap analysis to carry out a number of structured reviews of pavement and highway man- agement systems in several countries. The systematic review of APMS operations is less common than the reviews of road- way PMS; however, its potential to improve the operations, introduce needed changes, and sustain the operation is similar to the roadway PMS. Another method that can help airports to improve their pavement management practices is benchmarking. Bench- marking is similar to gap analysis in the sense that it provides a method for agencies to move from an internal focus to an external focus in the search for best management practices. However, as the name suggests, benchmarking seeks to com- pare the operation of different organizations using objective, agreed-upon measures. In the airport context, the bench- marking measures include outcomes (e.g., average PCI for runways) and recourses (e.g., annualized pavement preserva- tion cost per square yard of pavements). A primer and a guide on benchmarking for highway maintenance were developed by Booz Allen Hamilton (2003). The application of bench- marking as the means to improve airport pavement mainte- nance practices can be used as part of the gap analysis. In the context of airport pavement management, the information on the use of gap analysis and benchmarking is lacking. It is expected that the new FAA APMS software, AIRPAVE, now under development, will enhance APMS technology in two significant ways: (1) it will make the PMS data readily available to users through the Internet, and (2) it will be a linchpin linking all main FAA pavement soft- ware applications.