Click for next page ( 16


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 15
16 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 83% 86% 81% 70% 68% 30% 20% 10% 0% Prepare appeal for Assess Estimate current Project Future SGR Determine more funding infrastructure needs SGR backlog Backlog investment priorities FIGURE 12 Use of age/condition data (n = 37). Furthermore, no responding agency provided information expansion and other commitments, so as not to take away in the survey that suggests that agencies are making projec- funding from SGR." tions of impacts of underinvestment besides the measure of "Condition Assessment Studies conducted to assess the SGR backlog. These projections might address impacts such condition of the revenue fleet and signal system led to a as increased operating costs or reduced reliability. determination to replace revenue fleet and signal systems in tandem rather than alternatives such as service life Age and condition data can be used to support the pro- extensions or deferred action." gramming of cost-effective investments when available "The level of need for maintenance facilities is very funding is constrained and not sufficient to support the large; the total picture of our asset condition has been implementation of all needed projects. More than 80% of used to justify investment in non-customer facing the respondents stated that their agencies use these data to assets." determine investment priorities. "First the agency identifies what assets are no longer in a state of good repair using condition information, age, The survey asked respondents to describe how the transit whether or not the assets meet certain performance stan- asset condition system has been used to change capital invest- dards, and other measures. We then direct our capital dol- ment priorities to improve the SGR of the agency. The follow- lars to eliminate the backlog of conditions relating to that ing are selected responses: asset type. Example: 25+ years of a station rehabilitation program had only addressed about half of the stations. A "Calculating the SGR backlog (about $2.7 billion in detailed survey of components was undertaken (part of a 2006) more clearly showed policy-makers that the condition survey), and now a targeted component invest- agency needed to invest its limited dollars in SGR ment program is proposed to address deficient conditions projects, and the future impact if maintenance was not on a component level." funded at sufficient levels. The state also agreed to fund The responses suggest that the transit agencies used the transit 70% asset condition data as another qualitative factor to be consid- ered in the determination of investment priorities and devel- 60% opment of capital programs. None of the responding agencies 50% provided examples of how the data were used quantitatively to set investment priorities. 40% 30% 61% SUMMARY 20% 31% The survey revealed some key findings about the state of prac- 10% tice of the use of asset tracking and condition assessment data 0% at large transit agencies. Estimate replacement, Provided replacement backlog & renewal backlog estimates Most of the responding agencies use the age and condi- FIGURE 13 Comparison of stated SGR planning versus tion data to make an assessment of their infrastructure provision of SGR estimates (n = 36). needs and to support appeals for more funding.

OCR for page 15
17 Most of the respondents stated that their agencies use The responses suggest that the transit agencies used the inventory and condition assessment data to estimate transit asset condition data as another qualitative factor to both current and future SGR backlogs. The majority of be considered in the determination of investment priori- the responding agencies stated that their asset condition ties and the development of capital programs. None of system was used to change capital funding priorities to the responding agencies provided examples of how the improve their SGR. data were used quantitatively to set investment priorities.