Transit Asset Condition Reporting (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.

15 Age and condition data can provide help for transit agencies in several ways. It can help establish the level of need for infrastructure investments in terms of ongoing asset replace- ment and rehabilitation needs. This estimate and supporting documentation can provide a compelling argument and sup- port for increased funding. It can also support the program- ming of cost-effective investment when available funding is constrained and not sufficient to support the implementation of all needed projects. AGE AND CONDITION DATA USE Questions were asked in the survey about how the responding agencies use the age and condition data. Specific choices were provided in a yes/no format. The respondents were also given the opportunity to provide information on other uses. An ongoing need for most transit agencies is more capital funding. More than 83% of the respondents reported that their agencies use the age and condition data to support appeals for more funding (Figure 12). The analysis of infrastructure needs can provide support for funding appeals and can also help transit agencies manage their assets and capital programming more effectively. More than 85% of the respondents reported that their agencies assess their infrastructure needs. The survey did not include follow-up questions about the types of assessments that were performed. Many transit analysts believe that the the analysis of unfunded replacement and renewal needs (often termed SGR backlog) is an important part of infrastructure needs assess- ment. The analysis helps agencies identify assets that are not in SGR and determine how much funding is needed to address this problem. This analysis can also project future backlogs and needs for increased funding. More than two-thirds of respondents reported that their agencies use inventory and condition assessment data to esti- mate SGR backlogs. Similar percentages of agencies reported making estimates of current backlogs and projected future backlogs (see Figure 12). These responses may suggest that assessing the SGR backlog is important to many transit agencies. Conversely, approximately one-third of the responding agencies do not use condition data for any type of current or future SGR analysis. The survey did not include follow-up questions for these agencies. It may be that assessing SGR backlogs is not a priority for these agencies. It may also be that these agencies do not have personnel with the technical skills or knowledge to perform this analysis. There may also be other reasons as well. The survey revealed that the analyses of SGR backlog were beneficial to the transit agencies. Nineteen agencies (nearly 60%) reported that their asset condition system was used to change capital funding priorities to improve their SGR. The examples of the use of the data ranged from a detailed use for a pin replacement in rolling stock to address- ing larger strategic issues such as changing a station capital investment strategy from station rehabilitation to station com- ponent replacement. Although the majority of the respondents reported that their agencies estimate replacement and renewal (SGR) back- logs, the responses to two specific questions raised concerns about the quality and detail of these estimates. More than two- thirds of the respondents reported that their agencies use inventory and condition assessment data to estimate replace- ment and renewal (SGR) backlogs (Figure 13). Based on these responses, it might be expected that these agencies could provide estimates of the current replacement value of the agencies’ assets and of the values of SGR backlogs. How- ever, only 31% of the respondents (11 agencies) provided val- ues for these estimates. There may be several explanations for the low response. Some respondents may not have provided the estimates for reasons of confidentiality. Other respondents may have not had access to the values that resided in other departments in their agencies. A less favorable explanation is that the respondents inad- vertently overstated the level and detail of the SGR analysis being performed by their agencies. For example, the respon- dents may have believed that having a count of assets that are operating beyond their useful lives is a good estimate of SGR backlog. Regardless of the possible explanations, the responses to these two questions were disappointing and may suggest that very few large transit agencies are performing rigorous analy- ses of current SGR backlogs. CHAPTER FOUR AGENCY USE OF ASSET TRACKING AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT DATA

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

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