Bridge Management Systems for Transportation Agency Decision Making (2009) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 1-128
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 1... ...
Methods of allocation among districts and selection and prioritization of projects• The role of automated bridge management systems (BMS) in planning, program-• ming, resource allocation, and budgeting Use of economic methods in bridge management• Methods to promote accountability and communication of the status of the bridge • inventory and the bridge program.
|
From page 2... ...
Even in decentralized organizations, the central office often handles major bridge projects and may retain responsibility for bridges on "trunk line" or "backbone" networks that have statewide significance. Further insight into the decision-influencing role of bridge management may be gained by considering how agencies use their BMS.
|
From page 3... ...
These new indicators were supported and used by upper management and served bridge-office as well as executive-level informational needs for investment planning, resource allocation, and budgeting. Some agencies also saw customized bridge rating indexes as a way to get better guidance on bridge investment needs and benefits, to compensate for what they believed were shortcomings in the Sufficiency Rating as a criterion for bridge replacement and rehabilitation.
|
From page 4... ...
FHWA division offices have encouraged greater use of economic analyses in bridge management, and several agencies interviewed in this study plan to apply such analyses to a greater degree in the future. Several factors that have been identified in this synthesis project point to coming changes in bridge program management, including likely revisions to the NBIS specifically.
|
From page 5... ...
to investigate ways to align HBP funding more closely with performance, supporting a more focused and sustainable federal bridge program. Legislation now before Congress that will affect the future practice and technol-• ogy of bridge management.
|
From page 6... ...
MANAGEMENT PERSPECTIVES A DOT's upper management and its bridge managers are involved in bridge program decisions. However, these two groups bring different responsibilities, perspectives, and criteria to their respective roles regarding resource allocation as it affects the bridge program.
|
From page 7... ...
All of these processes and information flows take place within the context of federal and state funding availability, governing regulations, agency procedural requirements, interagency coordination, and public and stakeholder demands on the quality and level of service of their transportation system. STUDY OBJECTIVE AND FOCUS The objective of this synthesis is to document how bridge management -- its processes, analytic tools, and information -- meets the needs of upper management regarding their planning, programming, and resource allocation decisions.
|
From page 8... ...
Field Bridge Offices Bridge Inspections Bridge Management Tasks (vary by agency) Other, Parallel Programs: Pavement Safety Maintenance Operations System Improvements and-Expansion Other Programs Support Activities MPOs' Proposed Programs – TIPS Rural Planning Organization Inputs FIGURE 1 Interactions between the bridge unit and upper-management decision makers.
|
From page 9... ...
Ten chief engineers were interviewed to obtain an • executive perspective on bridge management and provide insights on bridge program funding decisions as part of planning, programming, and budgeting. Five engineers in the bridge unit (e.g., state bridge engineers and bridge maintenance engineers)
|
From page 10... ...
Definition of bridge program objectives and performance tracking against targets are also covered. Chapter four considers emerging trends that will affect bridge management practice, and potential research that could strengthen the application of bridge management to funding decisions.
|
From page 11... ...
. NBI ratings are described in some detail here because they play a key role in federal bridge funding and state DOT tracking of bridge condition and performance.
|
From page 12... ...
Structural Deficiency and Functional Obsolescence The NBI ratings are used to compute two measures of deficiency in bridge condition and performance: Structural Deficiency (SD) and Functional Obsolescence (FO)
|
From page 13... ...
Functional Obsolescence An inspected bridge is functionally obsolete if -- it is • not already structurally deficient; and it is deficient in terms of its geometry, clearance, or • load capacity. The NBI rating items that are considered when determining FO and the criteria used to determine whether an item is deficient are shown in Table 5.
|
From page 14... ...
If a bridge's ratings are such that it is both structurally deficient and functionally obsolete, it is reported in the NBI database as structurally deficient. SD takes precedence over FO in reporting bridge status.
|
From page 15... ...
Relevant bridge items are: Item 19, Detour length; – Item 36, Traffic safety features; and – Item 43, Structure type, main. – The rating components S1 through S4 are computed by a set of analytic procedures in the NBI database as a function of the respective NBI ratings listed earlier (FHWA 1995)
|
From page 16... ...
16 TABLE 6 NBI STATISTICS ON BRIDGE DEFICIENCY, 2007 No. of Bridges No.
|
From page 17... ...
Lacking such deterioration or performance models, agencies cannot forecast trends in deterioration of SD, FO, and SR. The lack of such models precludes using NBI ratings to predict future bridge needs; quantify the benefits of future bridge investments; analyze different scenarios regarding infrastructure policy, performance, and cost; and assess resource allocation trade-offs.
|
From page 18... ...
. In other cases, yet newer models are being estimated for uniquely defined bridge indexes that individual
|
From page 19... ...
A report relating • bridge projects to road projects identified in the agency's construction project management system, identifying bridge replacement projects and other types of projects (e.g., bridge painting)
|
From page 20... ...
Pontis' analytic approach is built around structural elements. A brief discussion helps to illustrate the difference between element-level descriptions of bridge condition versus the NBI ratings described earlier.
|
From page 21... ...
For example, the condition states for element 152, Painted Steel Floor Beam, and element 313, Fixed Bearing, are as follows (condition states are identified using a CS number convention) : Painted Steel Floor Beam: CS-1, no corrosion; CS-2, – paint distress; CS-3, rust formation; CS-4, active corrosion; CS-5, section loss Fixed Bearing: CS-1, no deterioration; CS-2, minor – deterioration; CS-3, advanced corrosion Up to 10 preservation treatments or actions may be • defined at the condition state level for each element.
|
From page 22... ...
as compared with the total value of all elements (assuming all are in their best condition state) Benefits to both agency and road users as the result • of preservation and improvement actions; for example, monetized benefits owing to improvements in the Health Index, and road-user benefits in terms of reduced travel time, vehicle operating, and accidentrelated costs as the result of bridge improvements NBI condition ratings for deck, superstructure, sub-• structure, and culvert; deficiency status (SD, FO)
|
From page 23... ...
The • Bridge Condition Summary shows, for each selected facility, the most recent inspection date, the SD and FO rating, the SR, and NBI ratings for the deck, superstructure, substructure, culvert, and channel rating items. The • Network Element Summary shows the networkwide distribution of bridge elements by environment and condition state.
|
From page 24... ...
. The • Pontis Priority List displays Pontis-generated work candidates for a selected scenario and one or more selected years.
|
From page 25... ...
The section on current practices describes today's • bridge management processes relating to condition and performance measures and targets, analysis of bridge needs in the context of available funding, resource allocation and prioritization, use of economic methods, and accountability and public communication. The next section on BMSs and their application to deci-• sion making presents additional information on current practices, focusing on the application of current BMS capabilities and information to planning, programming, and resource allocation.
|
From page 26... ...
, by 38%. Five agencies also mentioned general highway system condition ratings, with no particular asset specified.
|
From page 27... ...
The key question that the NCHRP Synthesis 243 study wanted to address, however, was the extent to which these systems were actually being used in capital programming and project selection. The survey for the 1997 report therefore asked DOTs which management systems they had and, of these, which were used in the following programming decisions: Developing goals; that is, desired system condition or • service levels Establishing program funding levels• Identifying specific projects and setting project priorities• Evaluating capital maintenance allocations.• Of the 39 survey respondents, 38 reported having at least one management system operational or under development.
|
From page 28... ...
State DOTs were asked about their quantitative methods of priority-setting and to which programs or projects these applied. Methods potentially relevant to the current bridge management study included sufficiency or deficiency ratings, benefit-cost analysis, priority given to particular programs or their economic benefit (among other factors)
|
From page 29... ...
Bridge management activities were either concentrated in a single organizational unit or dispersed across several DOT offices. The primary users of BMS information were bridge engineers and bridge maintenance engineers.
|
From page 30... ...
Among the 24 Pontis states: FIGURE 9 Priority methods reported by state DOTs (Source: Neumann 1997)
|
From page 31... ...
However, only four agencies reported using their BMS for STIP development. Three of these agencies applied their BMS to develop lists of bridge replacement projects, although one agency used its BMS to estimate costs and budget levels for various bridge actions.
|
From page 32... ...
. This ability to customize the default features and functions within Pontis was important, because agency bridge management philosophies, business processes, and decision criteria could vary considerably.
|
From page 33... ...
These changes included six new tables in the Pontis database and new forms for entering and editing these data. Other enhancements included customized database security, a custom desktop layout, and several new procedures to facilitate and manage data exchanges between the Pontis database and the DOT's mainframe system, and between central office and field office bridge databases.
|
From page 34... ...
to express policy goals and objectives Procedures to identify funding levels available for • bridge work Procedures to determine bridge investment needs• Methods of resource allocation and prioritization, con-• sidering (as applicable) allocations between the bridge program and other programs, allocations to districts (or regions or divisions)
|
From page 35... ...
35 T A B L E 7 B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T W O N O N -P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te A S ta te B In te rv ie w W it h A ss is ta nt S ta te M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r -- B ri dg es S ta te B ri dg e E ng in ee r; H ea d of th e A ge nc y' s D iv is io n of T ra ns po rt at io n In ve st m en t M an ag em en t ( D T IM , r es po ns ib le f or p la nn in g, p ro gr am m in g, an d m ul ti m od al in ve st m en t d ec is io ns )
|
From page 36... ...
36 T A B L E 7 ( C on ti nu ed )
|
From page 37... ...
37 T A B L E 8 B R ID G E D E C IS IO N P R O C E S S E S I N T H R E E P O N T IS S T A T E S It em o r P ro ce ss S ta te C S ta te D S ta te E In te rv ie w W it h S ta te B ri dg e E ng in ee r S ta te B ri dg e M ai nt en an ce E ng in ee r B ri dg e M an ag em en t S ys te m C oo rd in at or G E N E R A L P on ti s co nt ai ns a ll b ri dg e da ta f or s ta te a nd lo ca l br id ge s.
|
From page 38... ...
38 T A B L E 8 ( C on ti nu ed )
|
From page 39... ...
39 T A B L E 8 ( C on ti nu ed )
|
From page 40... ...
General The five DOTs represented in Tables 7 and 8 were selected by the Topic 37-07 Panel as having exemplary bridge management practices that extended into planning, programming, and resource allocation. The interviews described business processes that are well integrated among technical, middle management, and executive levels, and that are consistent with the broader financial, policy, and programming environment in which the agency operates.
|
From page 41... ...
A caveat noted by even those states that had well-developed approaches to policy guidance and performance measurement, however, was that meeting transportation objectives and performance targets in a consistent manner required a stable, sustained, long-term trend in their program funding. Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 The measures used to define bridge program goals and targets and to monitor system condition and performance over time are shown in the second row of Tables 7 and 8.
|
From page 42... ...
State C State C is developing a new Bridge Index for use with Pontis that will provide a more granular description of its bridge condition and performance than the NBI rating approach now used, which involves the Select List (bridges eligible for federal HBP funding for rehabilitation or replacement) based on SR criteria (SR between 80 and 50 for rehabilitation, less than 50 for reconstruction)
|
From page 43... ...
Funding Availability and Needs Estimation Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 The five agencies included in Tables 7 and 8 all acknowledge the important role of federal HBP funding to meet bridge replacement and rehabilitation needs, and the use of state funding to meet preservation needs -- bridge repairs and corrective and preventive maintenance -- as well as to provide the required federal match. These agencies differ, however, in the magnitude of their federal HBP apportionments, the ratio of their bridge replacement and rehabilitation needs to preservation needs, and the relative split between federal versus state dollars in their bridge programs.
|
From page 44... ...
Other DOTs have reported that their state funding for bridge programs is taken "off the top" or from set-asides for bridge use. A common way to assess needs is by having staff and upper management examine bridge condition, performance, and age distributions of bridges or of key components, such as decks.
|
From page 45... ...
Other agedependent needs may emerge as a result of individual problems with materials, workmanship, or other causes. Resource Allocation and Prioritization Five DOTs Represented in Tables 7 and 8 Resource allocation and prioritization are at the heart of infrastructure investment decision making.
|
From page 46... ...
State C reported that when its new Bridge Index performance measure is implemented, it will provide a clearer picture to the public regarding the overall condition of the state's bridge inventory. 10 Additional Agencies That Were Interviewed Several of the additional agencies that were interviewed have defined performance measures within a structured program of accountability, but the detail and level of sophistication vary.
|
From page 47... ...
More than half of the respondents reported using their BMS for planning-related information in the following areas: FIGURE 12 BMS support of agency planning processes. Note: FO = Functional Obsolescence; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board; SD = Structural Deficiency.
|
From page 48... ...
Note: BMS = bridge management system; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
|
From page 49... ...
Nevertheless, the agency applies the NBI Translator program to convert Pontis element-level bridge ratings to NBI ratings. The agency then uses these NBI ratings to estimate its coming bridge needs, even though the NBI data are less detailed and represent current rather than future bridge condition.
|
From page 50... ...
FIGURE 15 Agency use of BMS for resource allocation and trade-off analyses. Note: BMS = bridge management system.
|
From page 51... ...
Note: BMS = bridge management system; GASB = Governmental Accounting Standards Board.
|
From page 52... ...
Programming and Budgeting Information Senior management use of various categories of programming and budgeting information is shown in Figure 18. The greatest reported use is for items that are of immediate interest and most direct and unambiguous in their scope -- for example, a single recommended bridge program budget, estimates of short-term needs for different funding scenarios, and information on major bridge projects.
|
From page 53... ...
The implication is that the leadership of a relatively small number of agencies is able to use their BMS to gain a networklevel perspective of the economic issues relating to their bridge program. These issues include, for example, network-level benefit-cost ratios for alternative bridge program investments, network-level estimates of LCCs, and network-level estimates of avoidable road-user costs (accident, travel time, and vehicle operating costs)
|
From page 54... ...
TABLE 9 ORGANIZATIONAL UNITS MAKING BRIDGE PROGRAMMING DECISIONS Programming Decisions Board -- Commission Agency Executive Central Office -- Bridge Central Office -- Other Units Districts -- Regions Local -- Regional Program Allocations 4 7 1 10 2 0 Performance Measures 1 4 9 8 2 0 Performance Targets 2 3 7 5 1 0 Bridge Funding Split 0 3 9 7 9 0 Major Bridge Projects 3 8 8 4 5 0 Bridge Project Selection 0 3 13 6 11 0 Local Non-Metro Bridges 1 2 6 9 4 13 Metro TIP Bridges 2 3 6 7 8 12 Note: Data represent number of survey responses. Most frequently cited responses are in bold and underlined.
|
From page 55... ...
chief bridge engineer, chief bridge maintenance engineer, bridge program manager, bridge management engineer, and chief or head engineers of bridge design, construction, and operations Central Office -- Other Divisions:• Heads, directors, chiefs, and senior managers of other central-office divisions, offices, or units, including planning (and bridge management section if part of planning) , capital programming, policy and strategy, highways, design, construction, maintenance, operations, finance, budget, programs and contracts, and project management.
|
From page 56... ...
Following are the four groupings of organizational units in terms of frequency of response: FIGURE 20 Organizational units with key roles in bridge program decisions. Note: CEO = chief executive officer.
|
From page 57... ...
These two sets of results were provided by somewhat different pools of respondents (with a degree of overlap) , and the check-off list of organizational units underlying Figure 20 did not include all of the decision makers identified by respondents contributing to Table 9.
|
From page 58... ...
Potential changes that may result in both bridge management practices and agencies' high-level decision making regarding their bridge programs are relevant to this synthesis and are summarized in this chapter, which is organized as follows: The first section summarizes suggestions for action • regarding the NBIS, federal bridge program administration and funding guidelines, and communication and public awareness regarding the bridge program, which followed the I-35W bridge collapse. The second section provides an overview of general • findings and suggestions that have resulted from several peer exchanges and program initiatives in asset management and bridge preservation.
|
From page 59... ...
Additional federal bridge funding is needed, but should • be combined with long-term, data-driven management practices that give state DOTs more flexibility in their bridge maintenance programs. Taking Michigan's asset management approach as an • example, bridges are inspected more frequently and more thoroughly than required by federal law.
|
From page 60... ...
Available data indicate that state and local agencies spend more of their own funds on bridges than the amount needed for federal match. Although SAFETEA-LU allows federal HBP funds to • be used for preventive bridge maintenance so long as a state undertakes systematic bridge preservation, "that requirement has been applied inconsistently by federal officials in terms of what is required of the states" (Steudle 2007b, p.
|
From page 61... ...
Key provisions of the proposed legislation as now drafted are as follows: Definitions.• The legislation explicitly defines key terms relating to federal bridge program management, including structurally deficient, functionally obsolete, rehabilitation, and replacement. It defines "complex bridges" as highway bridges with "unusual characteristics, including movable, suspension, and cable-stayed highway bridges." It calls upon the U.S.
|
From page 62... ...
(A grandfather provision imposes these requirements only on program managers and team leaders who are appointed after these revised regulations have been issued.) State Participation Requirements.• To be eligible for federal funding of bridge rehabilitation and replacement, states must take several actions, including inspections of bridges and calculations of bridge load ratings at appropriate intervals according to criteria that are specified in this legislation; development of a 5-year performance plan for bridge inspections and for rehabilitation or replacement of structurally deficient or functionally obsolete bridges, with special considerations for historic bridges; and development and implementation of a BMS.
|
From page 63... ...
The peer exchange participants included representatives of agencies with varying size, jurisdiction, and experience with asset management. The resulting themes, accomplishments, and challenges reflect the collective insights of multiple participants, suggesting a degree of consensus on basic themes and challenges, the value of lessons provided by agencies that have had success stories with asset management, and the likely applicability of these findings to bridge management across a wide spectrum of DOTs.
|
From page 64... ...
Education and training.• Existing programs of education and training in asset management should be continued or expanded, including continuing peer exchanges, coordination with local governments through the Local Technical Assistance Program, expansion of the existing National Highway Institute training courses to include regional and local asset management content, additional training within agencies (e.g., for new employees and for upper management) , and migration of asset management to graduate school curricula.
|
From page 65... ...
Use an asset management database with statutory • performance measures to guide resource allocation and provide decision support for the agency and the legislature. Apply an integrated project management database • to display multiple dashboard views of project status and progress, providing accountability for agency responsibilities.
|
From page 66... ...
These actions include establishment of a website dedicated to supporting agency efforts and addressing questions regarding bridge preservation and maintenance; identification and formation of a community of practice on this subject; identification of best practices and needs for further research and development; promotion of more effective use of maintenance and BMSs to encourage moving from a worst-first to a more systematic, proactive strategy of preventive maintenance and preservation; establishment of regional bridge working groups and a series of periodic workshops; and other organizational and institutional actions (FHWA 2007e)
|
From page 67... ...
To emphasize bridge preventive maintenance actions • and integrate proactive, preventive strategies from the start of a bridge's life. Topic 37-07 Survey Two questions in the survey of state and provincial DOTs probed respondents' perceptions of needed improvements in bridge management processes or systems that would better serve upper management in resource-allocation decision making: What desired capabilities are • not now provided by the agency's bridge management business processes or BMS?
|
From page 68... ...
A more complete bridge management package, able • to help evaluate achievement of performance targets, to generate alternative scenarios subject to budget constraints, to explore choices and trade-offs, and to calculate resulting road-user costs, which would be beneficial from a budgeting perspective. Information on key parameters (e.g., regarding condi-• tion, performance, and budget)
|
From page 69... ...
Research could potentially help in several areas: To define the specific national goals of, and federal • interests served by, the HBP To develop performance measures that respond to, • and reflect progress toward, these federal goals and interests To identify best-practice methods and tools that can • be incorporated within the HBP, drawing on existing approaches such as BMSs and leading-edge techniques applied by state DOTs To review and evaluate mechanisms that can align • HBP funding with performance to achieve a focused, sustainable federal bridge program.
|
From page 70... ...
The study has considered the role of automated bridge management systems (BMSs) in planning, programming, resource allocation, and budgeting; increasing application of asset management principles, which could influence future bridge program management; implications of recent actions at the federal level that will affect bridge inspection, management, and research; impediments to applying BMSs more effectively; and research proposals to improve BMSs and practice.
|
From page 71... ...
Among agencies that were interviewed in this study, these customizations are important to ensuring that bridge management information remains relevant to agency decisions across all affected organizational units and levels. In particular, customized performance measures such as • deficiency-point calculations and custom bridge condition and health indexes in several cases were believed to be critical to advancing state-specific practices technically, managerially, and procedurally.
|
From page 72... ...
They influence public perceptions of bridge condition and performance, determination of project eligibility for federal HBP funding, and project priority. The NBI database, which stores the bridge inventory, rating, and appraisal data collected by state DOTs, serves several important functions.
|
From page 73... ...
Changes Proposed in State Department of Transportation Congressional Testimony Changes in HBP procedures and criteria were proposed in congressional testimony following the I-35W bridge collapse. State DOT executives, some of whom represented both their respective departments and AASHTO, recommended that Congress and the FHWA allow state DOTs greater flexibility to apply HBP funding according to bridge management principles, methods, and criteria.
|
From page 74... ...
Although the bridge unit plays a key role in establishing performance measures and targets for bridge programs, agency executives also have a clear interest in bridge condition and performance as an important dimension of agency performance statewide. Other state agency units are strongly involved in bridge program performance monitoring, including offices responsible for planning, development or investment management, policy and strategy, and asset management.
|
From page 75... ...
. One state bridge maintenance engineer noted that his agency's adoption of a BMS helped the bridge maintenance office to promote a stronger identity for its bridge program, which up to that time had been viewed more as an adjunct of the road investment program that addressed primarily pavements.
|
From page 76... ...
. Research could potentially help in the following areas: To define the specific national goals of, and federal – interests served by, the HBP; To develop performance measures that respond to, – and reflect progress toward, these federal goals and interests; To identify best-practice methods and tools that can – be incorporated within the HBP, drawing on existing approaches such as BMSs and leading-edge techniques applied by state DOTs; and To review and evaluate mechanisms that can – align HBP funding with performance to achieve a focused, sustainable federal bridge program.
|
From page 77... ...
Domestic Scan Program: Best Practices in Transportation Asset Management, Scan Tour Report for the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Federal Highway Administration, and National Cooperative Highway Research Program, Washington, D.C., 2007. FHWA (Federal Highway Administration)
|
From page 78... ...
. Hendren, P., Transportation Research Circular E-C076: Asset Management in Planning and Operations: A Peer Exchange, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005.
|
From page 79... ...
and P.D. Thompson, Decision Support for Bridge Programming and Budgeting, State Maintenance Office, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, 2007.
|
From page 80... ...
80 U.S. House of Representatives, "Oberstar Announces National Bridge Plan," News from the T&I Committee, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S.
|
From page 81... ...
and M.J. Markow, NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 227: Collecting and Managing Cost Data for Bridge Management Systems, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1996.
|
From page 82... ...
To be completed by the Chief Bridge Engineer responsible for the bridge management process within the State. If the Chief Bridge Engineer or the person(s)
|
From page 83... ...
The target level of maintenance required that would be consistent with the requirements of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Rating:
|
From page 84... ...
Network level estimates of avoidable road user costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs)
|
From page 85... ...
30. The major bridge projects that will be funded.
|
From page 86... ...
Identifies bridge needs (maintenance, rehabilitation, improvement and replacement) that can be used as input to the statewide budgeting and programming process by using engineering judgment and basic bridge data (e.g., inventory and inspection data, condition ratings, sufficiency ratings, whether a bridge is structurally deficient and/or functionally obsolete, and safety or other serious problems that are flagged in the data base)
|
From page 87... ...
Provides network-level analysis to help allocate funds among organizational units within your agency (e.g., districts and possibly lower levels of the organization)
|
From page 88... ...
61. Do you have any future plans to upgrade and allow top management to better utilize the bridge management process (including analysis from the computerized bridge management system)
|
From page 89... ...
x Adjusting performance targets based on periodic review and feedback (Please mail your documentation of the bridge management process to William Hyman, the Principal Investigator, at the address shown on the first page)
|
From page 90... ...
To be completed by the Chief Bridge Engineer responsible for the bridge management process within the State. If the Chief Bridge Engineer or the person(s)
|
From page 91... ...
Giving first priority to major bridge projects, with the balance of bridge funds going to the rest of the bridge program. Rating: f)
|
From page 92... ...
Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board i) Provide information helpful in setting parameters (performance targets, budget levels by organizational unit, other guidelines)
|
From page 93... ...
Please provide examples of the most useful tables, charts, maps, slide presentations, or other material you provide to the CEO and management team for purposes of budget development and resource allocation within the bridge program and between the bridge and other program areas (Please return these materials to the Chief Bridge Engineer to be mailed to William Hyman, the Principal Investigator)
|
From page 94... ...
Respondent Information Head of Planning (if not completed within the Office of the Chief Bridge Engineer) Name: Title: Agency: Address: City: State: Zip: Phone: Fax: e-mail: WOULD THE HEAD OF PLANNING PLEASE RETURN THIS PORTION OF THE COMPLETED QUESTIONNAIRE TO YOUR AGENCY'S CHIEF BRIDGE ENGINEER WHO WILL SEND IT TO THE PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR, WILLIAM HYMAN, APPLIED RESEARCH ASSOCIATES, INC.
|
From page 95... ...
Identify avoidable road user costs as a function of alternative budget levels j) Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board k)
|
From page 96... ...
96 3. Please describe any recent trends in planning that are likely to help top management make improved decision making regarding bridges.
|
From page 97... ...
x Focus on resource allocation within the bridge program and between the bridge and other program areas. x Promote an open discussion to elicit what is important to the top management team; use the key decisions below as a catalyst for discussion x Learn what bridge decisions top management delegates to lower levels x Find out how the bridge management process (including the BMS)
|
From page 98... ...
x Setting policy objectives and performance targets x Resource allocation between Bridge and Other Programs x Within the Bridge Program, allocations among districts/regions x Bridge project prioritization (statewide? by district/region?
|
From page 99... ...
99 APPENDIX C SURVEY AND INTERVIEW PARTICIPANTS Survey Respondents Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities P.O. Box 112500 Juneau, AK 99811 Arizona Department of Transportation 205 S
|
From page 100... ...
100 New Mexico Department of Transportation PO Box 1149, Room 214 Santa Fe, NM 87504 New York State Department of Transportation 50 Wolf Road, POD 4-3 Albany, NY 01232 Ohio Dept. of Transportation 1980 West Broad St.
|
From page 101... ...
101 Transport Quebec 930 Chemin Sainte-foy 7th Floor Quebec GIS 4X9, Quebec Interviewees Chief Engineer or Representative Bob Walters, Chief Engineer, Arkansas State Highway & Transportation Department Ananth Prasad, Chief Engineer, Florida Department of Transportation Jerry Younger, Assistant Secretary and State Transportation Engineer, Kansas Department of Transportation Ken Sweeney, Director, Bureau of Project Development, Maine Department of Transportation Doug Differt, Deputy Commissioner and Chief Engineer, Minnesota Department of Transportation Max Valerio, Deputy Chief Engineer and Division Manager, Program Delivery and Support Division, New Mexico Department of Transportation Kathy Nelson, Chief Engineer, Oregon Department of Transportation Paul Degges, Chief Engineer, Tennessee Department of Transportation Mal Kerley, Chief Engineer, Virginia Department of Transportation John Conrad, Assistant Secretary, Engineering and Regional Operations, Washington State Department of Transportation Bridge Unit Managers George Conner, Assistant State Maintenance Engineer-Bridges, Alabama Department of Transportation Paul Jensen, Bridge Management System Coordinator, Montana Department of Transportation R Lee Floyd, Bridge Maintenance Engineer, South Carolina Department of Transportation Finn Hubbard, State Bridge Engineer, Wisconsin Department of Transportation George Fredrick, State Bridge Engineer, Wyoming Department of Transportation
|
From page 102... ...
3 (12%) Progress in achieving bridge condition performance targets sent in prior year.
|
From page 103... ...
7 (29%) A single recommended bridge budget for the forthcoming budget cycle 12 (50%)
|
From page 104... ...
5 (20%) Network level estimates of avoidable road user costs (accidents, travel time, vehicle operating costs)
|
From page 105... ...
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 and Labrador Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Works Quebec Deputy Minister
|
From page 106... ...
-- 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 and Labrador No formalized system of "performance measurement" used.
|
From page 107... ...
What Are the Bridge 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 and Labrador No formalized system of "performance measurement" used
|
From page 108... ...
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.
|
From page 109... ...
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
|
From page 110... ...
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)
|
From page 111... ...
Local authorities submit candidates through Bureau of Local Projects for selection. Maine Bridge Management Engineer, Assistant Bridge Maintenance Engineer, and Bridge Program (Design)
|
From page 112... ...
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 and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Dept.
|
From page 113... ...
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 and Labrador Chief Bridge Engineer, Director of Highway Design and Construction, Assistant Deputy Minister, Deputy Minister and Minister of the Department of Transportation and Work
|
From page 114... ...
9 (37%) Determines the depreciated value of the bridge inventory or uses the modified procedure for public reporting under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34 4 (17%)
|
From page 115... ...
13 (54%) Provides network level analysis to help allocate funds for all agency bridges 8 (33%)
|
From page 116... ...
116 The recommended actions from the bridge management system are too different from the actions our bridge inspectors and engineers recommend 2 The bridge management system gives too much emphasis to economic considerations relative to other considerations, especially conditions we observe in the field 1 The economic assumptions are not accurate 2 The bridge management system is perceived by too many managers as a black box -- it uses analytic procedures we really do not understand 1 Management's capabilities include the ability to assess current and future needs. A bridge management system detracts from the bridge manager's prerogatives 1 We have found it difficult to implement a bridge management system, train personnel, and obtain buy-in from managers that must depend upon it 2 We have has problems with reliability (software, data, an/or analysis)
|
From page 117... ...
3 (16%) Giving first priority to major bridge projects with the balance of bridge funds going to the rest of the bridge program 3 (16%)
|
From page 118... ...
20 (90%) Provide information to satisfy public reporting requirements under the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 9 (40%)
|
From page 119... ...
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.
|
From page 120... ...
i) Bridge Maintenance 15 (68%)
|
From page 121... ...
j) Provide information to satisfy public reporting Governmental Accounting Standards Board 9 (52%)
|
From page 122... ...
x Importance of "top-priority" designations to the budgeting process: first priority given to preservation, first priority to bridge replacement and major bridge capital projects, and first priority to major bridge projects with the balance to the remainder of the bridge program. x Importance to budgeting of methods of determining needs or identifying projects: needs determined by BMS-assisted estimates tempered by engineering judgment; needs determined by districts, MPOs, or others through a bottom-up process; and needs analyzed in terms of the political jurisdictions in which major bridge projects or replacement projects occur.
|
From page 123... ...
Federal bridge program dollars are dedicated and the apportionment is known beforehand. State funding depends on variable revenue projections and may be subject to competition with other state programs, although some states report taking bridge funds "off the top" or using set-asides.
|
From page 124... ...
The second graphic in Figure E3 reflects the importance of DOT field offices, regional and metropolitan planning organizations, local governments, and other stakeholders in prioritization and project selection under new planning and programming guidelines initiated in ISTEA. The third graphic in Figure E3 demonstrates the relative unimportance of the jurisdictional distribution of major bridge projects and bridge replacement projects to statewide budgeting.
|
From page 125... ...
The reasons very likely are as follows: x Bridge projects involving replacement, substantial rehabilitation, and major structures typically involve federal bridge program funding, which is a dedicated source and not subject to tradeoffs. Matching state money, which might be subject to tradeoffs, is often (according to interviews)
|
From page 126... ...
Results in Figure E.5 indicate a very strong rejection of the importance of this factor to budget decisions. 1 2 3 4 5 Analysis of bridge work by delivery method -- in-house vs.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.