Transportation Asset Management: Summary of the 11th National Conference (2016)

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.

11 CLOSING SESSION Overarching Topics and Research Needs In the closing session, the leaders for the track and cross-cutting virtual sessions highlighted examples from their sessions related to several overarching topics and summarized gaps identified in the sessions that would benefit from further research and technology transfer. SPEAKERS The session leaders were as follows: • Scott Richrath, Spy Pond Partners: “How-To”: Technical Sessions to Advance the State of Practice Track, • Matthew Hardy, American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials: Connecting Risk and Asset Management Track, • David Schrank, Texas A&M Transportation Institute: Data, Performance Measurement, and Target-Setting Track, • Brad Allen, Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.: Moving Beyond Map-21 Track, • Laura Zale, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority: Transportation Asset Management Implementation Track and Transit Asset Management Sessions, and • Rob Kafalenos, Federal Highway Administration: Improving Resilience to Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events Sessions. TOPICS Evidence That Asset Management Is Evolving Scott Richrath noted that speakers in the “How-To” track provided examples of the evolution of asset management. An initial application of asset management in many states focused on the idea of “worst to first” in addressing roads in the poorest condition first. Ranking individual projects was the next step in the progression of asset management. Single-year analysis or optimization of projects represents another step, followed by multiyear optimization. Richrath described the transit asset management gap assessment at the Connecticut DOT. A traditional practice is to focus on the largest gaps, but the

transportation asset management 12 process in Connecticut focused on reaching agreement among staff on the most important gaps. The New Mexico DOT is using an asset management plan to explain the evolution of asset management in New Mexico. One of the district engineers has become an advocate and a spokesperson for asset management within the department. Richrath noted that the district had evolved from using a very basic spreadsheet for their limited asset management plan to a more sophisticated process. Matthew Hardy provided examples from the “Connecting Risk and Asset Management” track. He suggested that the discussion of risk itself represents an evolution of asset management. Risk management adds another dimension to the asset management forecasting process. Further, risk needs to be considered as another element in the overall allocation process. He suggested that risk has evolved to encompass more than just threats (such as climate change and extreme weather events) and now includes aspects of uncertainty, variability, and opportunities. These ideas are included in the final report of NCHRP Project 8-93, Managing Risk Across the Enterprise: A Guide for State Departments of Transportation (http://onlinepubs .trb.org/onlinepubs/nchrp/docs/NCHRP08-93_FullGuide.pdf). David Schrank highlighted some of the common topics related to the evolution of asset management from the “Data, Performance Measurement, and Target-Setting” track. He described the evolving data collection technologies and methods used in asset management, including light detection and ranging (lidar), aerial photography, cloud computing, and hand-held devices. He noted that these technologies are now common in discussions of asset management data collection. Schrank noted that the increase in diverse stakeholders involved in asset management, including elected officials and agency decision makers, represented another example of the evolution of asset management. The focus on quality assurance and quality control with data from a wide range of sources also represented the evolving nature of asset management. He further suggested that the need to address the resilience of transportation investments is pushing asset management. Finally, he commented that analysis needs and wants are outpacing the ability to collect and analyze data. Brad Allen described some of the themes from the “Moving Beyond MAP-21” track. He noted that the need for communication within agencies, between agencies, and with external stakeholders was a leading theme. There is a changing focus from simply providing information to stakeholders to engaging them in ongoing dialogues and listening to their needs. Examples he cited of this change included the implementation by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission in the San Francisco Bay Area of customer-based performance measures for all aspects of the capital program. Condition data were linked to customer-based performance measures to calculate approximately $6.8 billion in user benefits from the investment in

13 Overarching TOpics and research needs preservation projects, an amount larger than the benefits realized by capacity projects. Allen also noted the dialogue occurring between Minnesota DOT and the Minnesota legislature to ensure that sustainable transportation funding is provided to maintain the state’s transportation infrastructure. Developing a framework linking project-level investments directly to the statewide transportation mission and goals and ensuring clearly defined objectives and measures are major parts of this process. Laura Zale commented that the evolving state of the practice was a common theme in the “Transportation Asset Management Implementation” track in the “Transit Asset Management” sessions. Speakers described numerous activities that were moving asset management forward. In comparison to the topics discussed at the conference 2 years ago, progress is being made quickly, both in the type of work being conducted and the diversity of the attendees at the conference. She suggested that regulatory compliance, although very important, was not the driving factor behind the development of asset management. She commented that many transit agencies and state DOTs were conducting similar activities 20 to 30 years ago as part of good business practices. These practices are evolving and becoming more sophisticated. Zale noted that one of the comments at the closing session at the 2014 conference was the need for a common vernacular with asset management and that this concern has been resolved with consensus on common terms. Zale reported that speakers provided examples of implementing asset management at their agencies and prioritizing projects based on customer values. Speakers described the changes made at transit agencies based on data from their asset management programs, including increasing state funding and maintaining assets in periods of limited funding. Rob Kafalenos suggested that linking asset management with climate change and extreme weather events is best described as a work in progress. He noted that many state DOTs, metropolitan planning organizations, and transit agencies have been examining risks tied to extreme weather events, and some are beginning to include that risk information in their transportation asset management plans. Examples from the North Central Texas Council of Governments, MARTA, and state DOTs in Michigan, Minnesota, Maryland, and New York were presented in the breakout sessions. He noted that FHWA and the Federal Transit Administration have sponsored vulnerability assessment projects in different areas and that the results of some studies are beginning to filter into asset management plans and asset management systems. Kafalenos highlighted the activities of the Michigan DOT, which included a vulnerability assessment project identifying critical roads, bridges, culverts, and pump stations. The vulnerability of these assets to future changes in temperature and precipitation patterns through the midcentury was examined. The potential impacts

transportation asset management 14 on maintenance, operations, and construction activities were analyzed. Maps were developed highlighting the location of vulnerable assets. The information is being examined for use in the Michigan DOT asset management system. Creation of Sustainable Asset Management Programs That Are Embedded in the Organizational Culture Matthew Hardy suggested that risk is being embedded not only in the asset management planning process, but also as a change agent to reorganize and change the culture of transportation agencies. He noted that risk-informed transportation asset management processes can minimize the recovery time when a threat is realized. Although a risk analysis does not eliminate a threat, it helps prepare an agency for different types of risks. He commented that risk management is creating a more overall resilient and sustainable transportation system that is able to minimize, and possibly eliminate, system downtime. It is important to remember that resilience relates to more than just extreme weather events. Other risks and threats include financing and funding, crude oil railcar derailments, and cyber attacks. Brad Allen highlighted that the requirements of MAP-21 and the FAST Act are being embedded into agencies. He described the development of four white papers and videos by the Asset Management Expert Task Group that were presented in one of the breakout sessions. One of the topics discussed was defining the elements to include in trade-off decisions. Different ways of making trade-off decisions to enhance transparency and credibility with external stakeholders were also discussed. Allen highlighted the implementation of standards at the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority and the Long Island Rail Road. Both agencies used standards from the transportation industry, as well as from other industries with strong asset management frameworks. The importance of executive leadership was stressed in these examples. Laura Zale discussed two sessions that addressed implementation and, more specifically, implementing asset management in a sustainable manner. She noted that a recurring theme in the sessions was the importance of establishing a framework for asset management. Speakers addressed the different framework models and the importance of examining the needs of internal and external customers in identifying the best approach. The development of a data governance strategy to ensure that data are collected, stored, and analyzed correctly emerged as another theme. Keeping the process simple, especially initially, represented still another common theme in many of the presentations. Piloting some of the asset management elements was suggested as an effective way to introduce new concepts and approaches. Zale agreed that identifying champions and key support personnel was important for embedding asset management into an agency’s culture.

15 Overarching TOpics and research needs Rob Kafalenos noted that speakers provided examples of how agencies are incorporating climate data into asset management programs and systems. One example presented, the Alaska Department of Transportation and Public Facilities geotech asset management program, focuses on rock and soil slopes, embankments and retaining walls, and material sites. The department maps the assets, conditions, and availability of materials near the National Highway System for upcoming projects. Future changes in the permafrost are also analyzed to assess possible long- term impacts on assets. He noted that the value of the geotech assets in Alaska is two or three times the value of bridges. Another example was the North Central Texas Council of Governments, which has assessed vulnerabilities linked to future temperature increases and more frequent and severe flooding in developing their long-range transportation plan. Concerns related to asset management and planning, resiliency, and sustainability are addressed. Asset management principles and performance data to rank projects are included. MARTA provides another example of using the asset management system to identify asset resilience concerns and to make investment and operation decisions based on those data. Kafalenos reviewed some of the lessons learned highlighted by speakers. A first step to understanding future vulnerabilities is to talk with staff with the best knowledge of the assets, including maintenance and operations personnel. The importance of institutional knowledge was also noted by many speakers, including communicating across disciplines and across silos. Scott Richrath suggested that one underlying theme was that change will occur and that agencies need to be prepared for change. One approach discussed was the use of a peer review process involving asset managers, project managers, traffic engineers, materials engineers, and deterioration experts to assess life-cycle costs and benefits. The importance of including stakeholders early in the process at Bay Area Rapid Transit was also highlighted, as was using change management to balance technical and organizational challenges at the Pennsylvania Turnpike and to instill an asset management philosophy. David Schrank noted that the data available today are much more robust than just a few years ago. As a result, they are being used for many more applications and analyses. At the same time, agencies are becoming much more dependent on those data. Speakers voiced the need for sustainable data sources. Influence of Technology on How Decisions Are Made David Schrank reported the theme of “collect data once and use them many times” was common at this conference and at other venues. He noted that collecting data is expensive, and ensuring that data will be used many times and fill many needs is

transportation asset management 16 important. At the same time, there is the need to invest wisely with data collection and to match the costs associated with data to the costs of the assets. He noted that the geographic information system (GIS) industry may be changing some elements to better respond to the needs of transportation agencies. Brad Allen noted that a scanning tour of different states on knowledge management was described in one session, and GIS as an emerging visualization communication tool was highlighted in another. He noted that participants discussed if simply integrating data and presenting them visually result in improved knowledge of the transportation system. A key takeaway, according to Allen, was that the relationships and communication among people within an organization are important for technology to be used to its fullest extent. He suggested that everyone within an organization is a decision maker. Ensuring that personnel understand their roles and the impact their jobs have on data quality or asset performance is important because it will contribute to their ability to make informed decisions. Communication from data collectors to analysts to managers to executives should be clear and provide an understanding of how their roles affect others’ work. Allen cited Minnesota DOT’s use of maps to present their statewide needs analysis to the legislature as a good example of communicating with stakeholders. The maps illustrated needs and projects by legislative districts, allowing senators and representatives to understand the benefits to their constituents that could be achieved by providing additional funds for transportation. Laura Zale suggested that technology and software applications represented one of the evolving areas of asset management. She noted that a few years ago the focus was on feeding data into software programs and getting an answer. Today, there is more thoughtful use of software as an enabler. She noted that speakers in the implementation and transit sessions provided examples of using technology to shape their processes and to communicate with stakeholders. Zale reported that some speakers highlighted the use of lidar to collect a wide range of data. Speakers noted that lidar provided more accurate data and eliminated the need for field data collection, increasing the safety of agency personnel. Other speakers described agency-developed computer, tablet, and smartphone applications. The Massachusetts DOT created a simple smartphone app to track roadway potholes. Data from the app are matched to pavement condition data to provide a more robust asset management data set. She noted that the success of the app helped gain support from other parts of the agency. Zale highlighted other topics addressed by speakers, including proper data collection and data archiving methods. Personnel from the Pennsylvania DOT illustrated an example of converting a closet full of boxes with data into an 80,000- line database that is used by the department and 1,200 municipalities in the state for

17 Overarching TOpics and research needs assessing pavement conditions. Given the cost of collecting and maintaining data, some speakers stressed the importance of understanding what information you need and why you need it. Rob Kafalenos noted that information on near-term and long-term changes in environmental conditions has become more available since the 2014 Asset Management Conference. This information can be used to help transportation agencies identify vulnerable assets and risks associated with different weather events. The results can be integrated into the decision-making process. He noted that available databases track changes in temperature and precipitation. The Army Corps of Engineers has a tool for estimating and plotting changes in sea level rise. Tools are also available for scoring and ranking vulnerabilities. Hydraulic engineering circulars provide assistance in understanding the potential impacts of future changes in precipitation. Scott Richrath suggested that the rapid evolution of technology is challenging for public agencies and for research projects because the technologies may be outdated soon after they are implemented. He highlighted the “Rapid-Fire Round Table” session, which included presentations on the use of different technologies to support asset management and much discussion about techniques for project prioritization and optimization. He suggested that although technology can better inform decisions, it does not replace the decision-making process. Matthew Hardy highlighted the risk analysis conducted by the Colorado DOT that evolved after the major floods a few years ago. The risk and vulnerability assessment is being applied along the length of the I-70 corridor to better inform future investment decisions. Evidence That Data and Information Are Being Used to Speak to Multiple Audiences Brad Allen described an example from the Indiana DOT of using technology to survey the public on the gasoline tax and other revenue sources for transportation. The survey results indicated that many people thought they were paying more in gasoline taxes than they actually were. This information was used by Indiana DOT to work with the state legislature to develop a long-term funding bill. The bill was built around taking care of existing facilities first by using available funding, and then funding additional projects by approaches identified through the survey. Scott Richrath suggested there is a desire for a more transparent, data-driven, and objective process. He further suggested the need to recognize that the communication

transportation asset management 18 and level of trust developed with stakeholders and partners through the process may be more valuable than the final ranked set of projects. As one speaker noted, “The journey is more important than the score.” Laura Zale reported that the discussion of using data to communicate with all audiences covered a variety of topics. Participants talked about dashboards and the extensive data and work needed to feed what appears to be a simple application. Agency representatives cautioned about overaggregating data, which may result in not being able to tell the full story and to set performance measures. Other agency representatives discussed structuring field data to articulate the need for additional infrastructure funding. Zale described a presentation on the ROI of asset management programs. The presentation covered the use of ROI for projects, but it was also noted that the life cycle of asset management systems may be shorter than the life cycle of the asset. She highlighted a Colorado DOT presentation on risk assessment of a retaining wall and geotechnical asset. That process was transferred to Minnesota DOT, highlighting the importance of sharing best practices and examples at conferences and through other mechanisms. Zale noted that transit agencies are sharing experiences on the development of asset hierarchies. Quantifying rail track and overhead catenary systems represents another topic of interest. She suggested there is an opportunity to leverage the strengths of different transit agencies working together as well as working with state DOTS. Rob Kafalenos noted that in the resilience field, practitioners are using data to communicate potential concerns to multiple audiences. Scientists use climate models to communicate future changes in environmental conditions. Planners and engineers use models and data to identify current and future vulnerabilities. Asset managers can use this information to identify and rank risks and to prioritize funding. He reported that most of the presentations on this topic included the use of maps to illustrate the location of vulnerable assets and to communicate this information with diverse audiences. Although different disciplines use information in different ways, the use of GIS and mapping vulnerabilities provides a powerful tool, according to Kafalenos. Brad Allen focused his comments on communicating with different audiences. He described the presentation of the Wyoming DOT that used safety data in asset management decisions. Another presentation focused on the four steps in data collection. The first step was understanding the need for the data, including who needs the data and how they will be used. Encouraging participation by the end users in developing the data collection plan was suggested. Allen reviewed the final session in the track, which focused on clear and simple approaches to present information to convey the bottom-line message on asset

19 Overarching TOpics and research needs management to diverse stakeholders. An Ohio DOT video provided one example of providing basic information on the department’s asset management program to the public. He stressed the importance of simple and clear communication and information that can be understood by more than just the transportation community. Matthew Hardy noted the need to improve the overall communication of risk data and cited the Colorado DOT risk analysis as an excellent example of a comprehensive process. He suggested that presenting the results in a way that different stakeholders can understand them was important, including the use of the triple bottom line, which was discussed in a different session. David Schrank suggested that the improved data from asset management programs are being used for multiple purposes, including planning, design, and operation. He noted that the focus on data-driven decision making is requiring more performance output variables. The importance of good data to tell a complete and accurate story was stressed by speakers. Schrank noted that the proliferation of agency websites with good information highlighted the trend of speaking to multiple audiences. Gaps That Would Benefit from Further Research or Technology Transfer Activities Scott Richrath identified three gaps from the “How-To” track. The first gap was that although many people think deterioration modeling is a difficult part of the asset management process, cost modeling is actually harder. He suggested that examining methods to enhance cost modeling would be beneficial. The second gap related to the importance of data and prioritizing data, analyzing the ROI of data, and conducting benefit–cost analyses on data. The third gap related to identifying the impact of maintenance and operational costs associated with major capital expansion projects. He noted that Minnesota DOT is currently piloting this approach. Matthew Hardy also identified three gaps from the “Connecting Risk and Asset Management” track. The first gap focused on how transportation agencies can take advantage of risk opportunities. He noted that identifying case study examples would be beneficial. The second gap was the need for data scientists at transportation agencies. The Seattle, Washington, DOT is one example of an agency with a data scientist. The third gap was examining risk analysis from a holistic perspective. He noted this approach is being used by some agencies and is documented in the final report of NCHRP Project 8-93, Managing Risk Across the Enterprise: A Guide for State Departments of Transportation. David Schrank identified communication techniques and breaking down internal barriers to data sharing as two gaps from the “Data, Performance Measurement, and

transportation asset management 20 Target-Setting” track. He noted that the extensive effort that goes into collecting and analyzing data is not always matched with an equally extensive effort to communicate the results effectively to diverse agencies and stakeholders. Second, he noted that working to break down barriers to sharing data across departments and groups is still needed at some agencies. Brad Allen described three gaps from the “Moving Beyond MAP-21” track. One gap was the advancement of performance measures to better link asset performance to customer or user benefits. Second, executive leadership was noted by many participants as a key element for successful asset management programs. He discussed the need to identify better methods to communicate the benefits of asset management to agency executives, to develop tools for promoting better internal alignment to support asset management, and to develop better communication strategies for use with stakeholders. A third gap was the need to develop a clearer vision among statewide visions, goals, transportation priorities, asset management plans, projects, and measures. Finally, Allen suggested that all these elements need to be expanded beyond public policy and law so they bear on projects and deliverable measures. Laura Zale added one gap from the “Transportation Asset Management Implementation” track and “Transit Asset Management” sessions. She suggested the need to improve the tools to collect and analyze life-cycle trending data for items beyond rolling stock, pavement, and bridges to assist in making better investment decisions. She also noted that participants expressed interest in having a session at the 2018 conference on the impact of the new rulemaking on the state of the practice. Rob Kafalenos described four gaps related to asset management and climate change and extreme weather events. First, he noted the need to improve methods to help asset managers integrate consideration of climate risk, along with other risks, into asset management. A second gap was the need for data on the resilience of assets. Making this information available electronically and seamlessly within and across agencies and jurisdictions was noted as important. Another gap was the need to track damages to transportation assets from extreme weather events. This information could be used to identify the impacts of different types of events for future planning and investments. The communication gap across state and city boundaries was discussed by speakers in some of the breakout groups. The need to improve communication across jurisdictional boundaries was identified as important by some participants, including those who noted that watersheds do not follow political boundaries. Finally, some participants suggested that not all state DOTs are comfortable discussing climate change risks. Finding ways to discuss changing conditions was suggested as important.