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.
29 Track 3: Implementation Implementing Performance Management This session, moderated by Michael Johnson (Caltrans), included a summary of Caltransâ experience in setting up its TAMP from both the headquarters and District 11 perspectives. It also included a presentation on the evolution of the Iowa DOTâs experience with asset management over 20 years. The session was well attended, with about 30% of the audience new to asset management. IMPLEMENTING A PERFORMANCE-BASED ASSET MANAGEMENT APPROACH IN CALIFORNIA Michael Johnson (Caltrans) reported that Caltransâ 10-year State Highway System Management Plan successfully integrates their 10-year rehabilitation and 5-year maintenance plans and is unprecedented in terms of the transparency and degree of integration in the plan. There are 34 objectives that help align the plan around the departmentâs strategic goals. During the planâs development, Caltrans estimated that its unconstrained need totaled $86 billion, but available funding was only $45 billion. To address its highest priorities, the agency developed a trade-off tool that would allow it to evaluate different options across assets to see whether statewide goals could be achieved. The districts are key to implementing the plan, so they received a summary of the stateâs 34 goals, a comparison of District 11âs performance in each goal area, and a list of pipelined and new projects. The information provided districts with the information needed to track projects and monitor their alignment with statewide objectives. SHOPPING FOR ASSETS Richard Estrada (Caltrans) followed the previous presentation with a discussion of District 11âs perspective on the new process. He indicated that when he thinks back on the process, there have been substantial changes in how project plans are communicated. They now have monthly calls across the state to figure out how to deliver their statewide Plan and they have much more interaction with local agencies. When the district receives its budget, it identifies which of the 34 objectives it is to address. The estimate from headquarters as to how the specific budget for the district was reached was helpful, but the district personnel also took into account unique challenges across their area, including economy and tourism, the environment, border crossings, and agriculture. From an organizational perspective, there was a disconnect between what people had been doing and the roles and responsibilities needed with TAM. In response to this, District 11 created a State Highway Operation and Protection Program nomination team with new members representing corridor management, planning, environmental, bike and pedestrian, and so on. It also established some new district business practices to support
30 its efforts. It is hoped that in the future, improvements in how the districts receive credit for the work they are doing will be able to be seen and that improved tools that support the new process will be obtained. TAM GOVERNANCE JOURNEY AT THE IOWA DOT Matt Haubrich (Iowa DOT) outlined the history of asset management at the Iowa DOT beginning in the 1990s, when the agency first started using asset management concepts. Its efforts were derailed by leadership until a TAM champion was appointed in 2011 at the director level with a vision to build a âworld-classâ asset management system. One of the first discoveries was that it was hard to find a home for asset management because of its cross-functional nature. As a result, the Iowa DOT recognized that implementing TAM would involve organizational change. The DOT formed the Performance and Technology Division in 2012 and visited four peer states in 2013 to identify success factors and challenges to avoid during TAM implementation. It continues to work on organizational issues and ways to engage agency personnel in helping to create an effective TAMP. KEY TAKEAWAYS â¢ Asset management often involves an agency reorganization and breaking down of silos. â¢ TAM maturity is growing, and implementation is getting stronger. â¢ Data are important, but it is not always good to be down in the weeds, especially when communicating with executives. Discussion Session: Our Initial TAMP Is DoneâWhat Now? This discussion session, which was cosponsored by the TAMP track, was facilitated by Heather Holsinger (FHWA) and provided an opportunity for practitioners to discuss issues related to developing their initial TAMPs and what they have planned for their future TAMPs. Participants were organized in five groups and were asked to discuss their responses to the six questions listed below. 1. What lessons did you learn from the development of your initial TAMP? How will those lessons shape your future TAMPs? 2. What data, information, or analyses do you need to work on to better set targets, plan investments, or manage risks? 3. What steps have you taken to address extreme weather resilience in your risk and LCP processes? 4. How did you address the 23 CFR Part 667 (Periodic Evaluation of Facilities Repeatedly Requiring Repair and Reconstruction Due to Emergency Events) requirements to develop a process for conducting statewide analyses to determine whether there are
31 reasonable alternatives to assets that have required repair and reconstruction activities on two or more occasions due to emergency events? 5. What steps have you taken (or are you taking) to integrate the TAMP into your transportation planning processes to ensure that you are able to meet your performance objectives? 6. How do you plan to demonstrate to FHWA that your TAMP investment strategies are being followed as part of the annual consistency review? An excerpt of the comments provided by the participants to each question is provided. QUESTION 1: WHAT LESSONS DID YOU LEARN AND HOW WILL THEY SHAPE FUTURE TAMPS? Lessons: A unified vision is still needed in many agencies. Agencies should begin with the goal of being clear about what they want to achieve. There is a need for improved communication, educational processes, obtaining buy-in from all of the parties involved, support from upper management, and clear explanation of the why and how of asset management. Initial TAMP development serves as a valuable experience in identifying the need to improve current processes and the need to document these established processes. Organizations may change as asset management evolves, so agencies need to remain flexible. The TAMP led to organizational development or started the conversation for the need to have a framework for it. The TAMP development process also helped agencies identify the need to have integrated systems that can communicate with one another. Another lesson learned is that it took more time than planned to develop the plan. Challenges: Agencies face a variety of challenges, including the need for local financial information and information regarding current planning practices, difficulties correlating federal metrics with state metrics and communicating this effectively, lack of clarity in how the TAMP fits within other state planning and business processes, and the nonrelevance of federal requirements and segmentation of the National Highway System (NHS) to decision-making. There were challenges in some agencies when they found that their initial TAMPs did not meet federal requirements. In some cases, there has been evidence of a lack of consistency between comments provided to state DOTs by FHWA division offices, or comments that addressed formatting rather than substance. Other challenges involve the lack of working bridge management systems and remaining confusion about requirements and how the agency should implement TAM. QUESTION 2: WHAT DO YOU NEED TO WORK ON? Top answers included bridge management systems and data, accurate life-cycle information, information about the local system (e.g., financial and current management processes), deterioration models, work type costs and impacts, and ancillary asset information.
32 QUESTION 3: WHAT STEPS HAVE YOU TAKEN TO ADDRESS EXTREME WEATHER RESILIENCE IN YOUR RISK AND TAM PLANNING PROCESSES? Steps taken: Agencies have identified events to date, considered new design standards after effects of previous events, set money aside for mitigation, considered relocating facilities in locations prone to coastal erosion, established a data-driven risk assessment to address extreme weather and climate change, assessed the vulnerability of large culverts, developed slope stability models, and supported a separate emergency fund. Challenges: Challenges include issues related to contingency planning for extreme events and how to design a system to predict extreme weather events and respond quickly to the events when they happen. QUESTION 4: HOW DID YOU ADDRESS PART 667 REQUIREMENTS? Addressing requirements: Agencies spoke directly with maintenance engineers to find out about events, looked at financial information to see where funds had gone to emergency events, correlated emergency federal funds into previous projects via a legacy project database, and developed GIS assessments and maps. Challenges: Challenges included finding records of information to respond to Part 667 requirements, in particular dating back to required year (because the tracking of data in this way has not been required in the past). Several state DOTs indicated that they do not collect this type of information on the local systems. QUESTION 5: WHAT STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN TO INTEGRATE THE TAMP INTO EXISTING PLANNING PROCESSES? Steps taken: Agencies have developed strong connections and iterative approaches to TAMP and state planning and business processes, involved personnel and encouraged different units to work closely, and established processes in which the central office approves projects to make sure they support targets and balance budgets. Challenges: These included the lack of safety performance measures for the NHS in some states, state DOTs not being ready to integrate TAMP with planning, balancing expansion and maintenance of the existing system, coordinating the TAMP with planning, and aligning all of the stakeholders involved. QUESTION 6: HOW WILL YOU DEMONSTRATE TO FHWA THAT YOUR TAMP INVESTMENT STRATEGIES ARE BEING IMPLEMENTED AS PART OF THE ANNUAL CONSISTENCY REVIEW? Participants indicated they would track investment levels versus strategies, stick to the plan, and align TAMP updates with current state planning process strategies.
33 KEY TAKEAWAYS â¢ The comments expressed the different levels of TAM maturity in the participating states, as well as common needs, as listed below. â¢ There is a need for improved and clear communication to get support from all parties involved. â¢ There is a need for better integration of management systems. â¢ There is a need for improved data, analytics, and information (e.g., what data, who is the audience, and how to use it). â¢ There are also challenges associated with the disconnect between the federal requirements and the way state DOTs manage their systems. Additionally, there have been inconsistencies regarding the TAMP review and certification process. â¢ Most states showed interest in using the TAMP to improve current management decisions and did not consider it just to be a compliance exercise. â¢ There were many challenges to address, but the required deadline prompted the conversation and got actions started. Incorporating Risk in Asset Management Practice This session with Niles Annelin (Michigan DOT) presiding included presentations highlighting the application of asset management techniques to geotechnical and environmental concerns. The speakers raised the point that geotechnical assets are important assets and observed that DOTs are starting to recognize the need to address them. ASSET MANAGEMENT FOR ROCK SLOPES IN MONTANA Darren Beckstrand (Landslide Technology) and Paul Thompson (Consultant) indicated that the Montana DOT was one of the first states to implement a rockfall hazard rating system, but, although the results were being used, the database had not been updated in 10 years. In 2015 an ArcGIS tool was developed to facilitate the update. Their approach used a rating system of 1 to 5, with 5 representing the worst condition. They applied a risk and economic analysis to the data to monetize risk and interviewed maintenance personnel to learn as much as possible about the frequency of rockfalls and their impacts, largely on the basis of anecdotal information. One district had very complete data that were used for statewide modeling. Mitigation costs were also estimated on the basis of interviews with maintenance personnel. Traditional asset management techniques were applied to predict needs and to put together mitigation strategies. GEOTECHNICAL ASSET MANAGEMENT IMPLEMENTATION PLANNING FOR TRANSPORTATION AGENCIES Mark Vessely (Shannon and Wilson, Inc.) emphasized that geotechnical assets are assets rather than risks. They are becoming increasingly important as more are being built.
34 Vessely reported on draft guidance that is expected to be published from NCHRP Project 24-46, Development of an Implementation Manual for Geotechnical Asset Management for Transportation Agencies.3 He discussed the types of geotechnical assets that agencies manage (e.g., walls, slopes, and embankments), the importance of managing these assets, and a simple workflow that can be adapted relatively easily. PRACTICAL STEPS TO MANAGE CLIMATE RISK THROUGH ASSET MANAGEMENT Beth Rodehorst (ICF) and Cassandra Bhat (ICF) presented the results of Airport Cooperative Research Program (ACRP) Project 02-74, Using Existing Airport Management Systems to Manage Climate Risk,4 which investigated how existing airport management systems and tools could be used to address climate risks. The guidance presents a comprehensive set of options for considering climate risk, and agencies can pick and choose the most applicable options for their situation. On the basis of the study, the presenters thought that asset management was a good response to climate risk and that the consideration of these risks as part of the asset management process provides opportunities to avoid change management costs and to better manage existing priorities. KEY TAKEAWAYS â¢ The practices in this area are evolving, but all of the presenters recognized that geotechnical assets and extreme weather events need to be incorporated into asset management and planning practices. â¢ Existing tools and practices can be readily adapted to these new focus areas. â¢ There are simple tools available, such as ArcGIS Online, which will make geotechnical and environmental data collection much more accessible and meaningful to decision-makers. Making Asset Management Decisions This well-attended session featured a variety of asset management software solutions to help agencies make TAM decisions. Brad Allen (Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.) presided. INTEGRATING NETWORK-LEVEL LIFE-CYCLE COST ANALYSIS INTO TAM WHILE ADDRESSING VARIABILITY AND UNCERTAINTY Richard Boadi (Wood Environment & Infrastructure Solutions, Inc.) began his presentation by suggesting that although LCP is a federal requirement, most state DOTs do not currently have an established process for it, and the quality of data for use in the 3 http://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4065. 4 http://www.trb.org/Main/Blurbs/178312.aspx.
35 analysis is uncertain. He introduced a framework for a network-level LCP analysis that involved setting goals, understanding the network context, estimating network-level life-cycle costs, analyzing results, and offering recommendations. Boadi stressed the importance of having clear goals, good cost data, and information about asset service lives and investment timing periods. He also pointed out that a network-level analysis relies on average values with data variability, so it is important to understand the impacts this may have on the results. He further suggested that variability and uncertainty can be incorporated into the analysis through either a sensitivity analysis or the use of a probabilistic analysis approach. USING TECHNOLOGY TO BETTER COMMUNICATE THE BENEFITS OF PROJECT AND PROGRAM LEVEL INVESTMENTS Donna Huey (Atkins) introduced the use of technology to improve decisions related to asset management, intelligent mobility, and engineering using real-time data. She used three case studies to illustrate how technology can be used. The first case study illustrated how data analytics could be used to provide insights into pavement movement and transportation utilization to better understand what interventions could be introduced to improve mobility options for a regional agency. The second case study illustrated how a web portal and data analytics engine could support the real-time management and communication of planned road closures and diversions to minimize travel disruption to three vital neighborhoods. The last case study illustrated the use of condition data and other information to justify investment decisions on an airport project. WATERLOO ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION Milos Posavljak (University of Waterloo) presented an example of an asset management plan that was being developed for the City of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, to illustrate how the effects of organizational silos could be eliminated without disturbing the existence of the silos. The project goal was to be able to generate asset performance graphs in a timely manner at any point with the cityâs existing information flow. As part of the study, he identified system constraints and looked at ways to exploit them. Using the application of constraint theory, the researchers applied lessons and processes learned from the manufacturing industry about supply chains. The results were used to determine how much information was needed to make decisions, which was less than what was currently being used. As a result, they were able to develop a process that tapped into existing silos (such as engineering, finance, and administration) before approaching the subject matter experts. The findings had a minimal impact on existing processes and resulted in only minor increases (0.6%) in staff resources to sustain the process.
36 PLANNING FOR SUCCESS: BEST PRACTICES IN SELECTING ACTIONABLE ASSET MANAGEMENT PERFORMANCE GOALS Don Hills (Parsons) focused on best practices in selecting actionable performance goals to successfully align performance requirements with defined goals and affordability. He offered the following thoughts on the keys to success: â¢ Know and understand the clientsâ/ownersâ expectations and desires: Identify their vision, their risk tolerance, any partners to the process, and roles and responsibilities. â¢ Define the assets and operations involved: Consider critical operational issues that should be included. â¢ Define the performance criteria and goals: Start with current practice and look at other similar measures. Focus on the results to be achieved, not how to do the work. â¢ Define the consequences: Identify what will happen if the asset or component is not maintained or fails. Will safety be jeopardized? Will it upset the public or elected officials? â¢ Price the action: Keep the price up to date throughout the process so there are no surprises at the end. â¢ Define who will measure: Develop training programs for implementation and establish a dispute resolution process. â¢ Be flexible: Conditions, goals, and priorities can change. Provide mechanisms for this. â¢ Recognize there will be multiple iterations: The process will evolve with time. KEY TAKEAWAYS Common topics within each presentation in the session included the following: â¢ Focusing on data collection and accuracyâpresenters advised starting with what is currently available and enhancing uses in the future. â¢ Defining the methodology that will be used, the approach, and any assumptions early on in a process. â¢ Staying flexible throughout the process. â¢ Communicating assumptions, risks, and any changes to the methodology as the process is under way. â¢ Keeping things as simple as possible and developing a clear, implementable approach to support TAM decisions. Cross-Asset Prioritization This was a very popular session with attendance estimated at about 80 people, primarily made up of representatives from state transportation agencies. The moderator, Loren Turner (Caltrans), opened the session by stating the need for tools that support decision-making and project prioritization in a data-driven, unbiased, and equitable way, accounting
37 for all aspects of maintenance and replacements while still having flexibility for environmental and political factors. CASE STUDIES IN IMPLEMENTATION OF CROSS-ASSET RESOURCE ALLOCATION TOOLS William Robert (Spy Pond Partners, LLC) provided an overview of a multiobjective decision analysis (MODA) and stressed the importance of defining the value functions so they align with the agencyâs goals and performance measures. He reported the advantage of MODA as breaking funding silos and leveraging funds to efficiently deliver projects while creating a fair and transparent framework for project selection. Robert reported that NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance5 was published in 2015 and provided a tool for use. NCHRP Project 08-103, Implementing NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance,6 is expected to be completed in 2018 and and the resultant NCHRP Research Report will provide guidance and enhancements to the original tool. Robert also summarized three case studies from the Arizona DOT, the Delaware Valley Regional Planning Commission, and the Maryland DOT. IMPLEMENTATION OF A MODA APPROACH FOR PRIORITIZATION OF ASSET INVESTMENTS FOR CALTRANS Michael Johnson (Caltrans) presented Caltransâ approach to MODA, which was undertaken because prior processes for funding allocations did not consider project effectiveness at a program level. The new process involves setting objectives and value functions, data compilation and analysis, weighting, scoring, and a sensitivity analysis. They are currently exploring data envelopment analysis as an optimizing approach and validating the logic to their process for implementation. MOVING TOWARD A STATEWIDE VIEW OF RESOURCE ALLOCATION Tammy Haas (New Mexico DOT) introduced her agencyâs approach to resource allocation. She indicated that since 2007, funds have been allocated to the districts on the basis of a formula and district targets were focused on implementing a fiscally constrained Statewide Transportation Improvement Program. After the recession, projects were preservation driven and it became more important to maintain assets in a state of good repair. The agency is currently undertaking steps to provide guidelines to the districts to ensure that priorities are aligned across programs to accomplish statewide objectives. At the same time, they are considering factors to balance additional capacity, preservation, and environmental goals. They are working on the development of criteria and a weighting process for project evaluation and establishing a committee for statewide initiatives and district target setting. Haas indicated that one of the biggest challenges they face is data 5 http://www.trb.org/Publications/Blurbs/172356.aspx. 6 https://apps.trb.org/cmsfeed/TRBNetProjectDisplay.asp?ProjectID=4031.
38 collection, but she expects to learn from practices in other agencies. She reported that her agency sees a perceived value in the MODA process. KEY TAKEAWAYS â¢ State DOTs continue to look for tools to help with decision-making. â¢ The MODA process assumes that asset-level treatments, life cycles, and management systems are already in place and have good reliability levels. â¢ Data issues are real and the subjective assumptions for lack of data undermine the quality of the MODA process. â¢ It is important to make up qualitative measures so existing data can be a tangible guide for an equitable measure across all types of projects. â¢ Assigning weights to value functions requires assumptions or the use of analytical hierarchy processes, but adjustments can be made on the basis of the results of a sensitivity analysis. â¢ The MODA tool is for guidance and not a complete measure for decision-making. An objective approach can help project prioritization, but in the end, it is influenced by the subjective ability to actually fund a project on the basis of external factors. â¢ TAM is feeding into decision-making analysis and is one of the objective criteria for MODA value functions. Building an Inventory and Assessing Condition Although asset inventory and condition assessment approaches have been established for pavement and bridge assets in many transportation agencies, there is still work to be done to collect data on other physical assets. This session, moderated by William Robert (Spy Pond Partners, LLC), included presentations describing the processes used to establish asset inventories and to assess asset conditions. ASSET MANAGEMENT PROCESS DRIVING A VISION FOR THE FUTURE John Benda (HNTB) discussed the steps the Florida DOT is taking to obtain data on motor carrier size and weight. The Florida DOTâs asset management data collection activities encompass multiple sources of data, including visual observation, record drawings and plans, aerial imagery, lidar, and on-site assessments. Benda discussed the data dictionary and the steps taken to collect geospatial data for major assets. The information is provided online to Florida DOT employees through the Esri ArcGIS software, which has enabled real-time access to information. Raters collecting condition information were trained, and an oversight program was established to ensure quality. Future efforts will be focused on non-Interstate weigh stations and improved methods to manage the asset inventory.
39 AGENCY-DRIVEN TRANSIT ASSET MANAGEMENT Herbert Higginbotham (Cambridge Systems, Inc.) described an approach to addressing transit asset management challenges through a collaborative process. Higginbotham grouped typical challenges in transit agencies into three categories: organizational challenges, planning challenges, and technology challenges. He described an FTA State of Good Repair grant that was commissioned by the Virginia and Pennsylvania DOTs to develop an asset management platform that was federally compliant and that addressed capital planning needs. He introduced software developed to address the needs of these agencies and illustrated how it was used. He then described how the Massachusetts transit agencies spearheaded the implementation of the software to find a single source that would provide statewide reporting and FTA reporting. ENTERPRISE DATA COLLECTIONâITâS NOT JUST AN ASSET ANYMORE John Puente (Ohio DOT) discussed lessons learned from the Ohio DOTâs enterprise data collection efforts. He first provided background information, stating that the Ohio DOT spends 90% of its funding taking care of existing assets. The agencyâs TAMP outlines goals and preservation strategies that will enable it to achieve its long-term objectives. From a data collection perspective, Puente stressed the importance of standards developed by the Ohio DOTâs TAM Audit Group and the role of District TAM Coordinators to enable more consistency across districts to support the work plan development. A TAM Coordinator dashboard was established to support the work of the TAM coordinators, and improved business processes have been developed. One of the tools Puente discussed was the automated GIS functionality provided to the districts. These tools allow data visualization to support district decisions. Puente also discussed the results of the Ohio DOTâs asset prioritization process and the development of tools to support data collection activities. The results of the data collection process are available through a data analytics tool and with the Transportation Information Mapping System. Many benefits have been realized by these efforts, including improved communication and stewardship. WHAT NEXT? PRIORITIZING ASSET CLASSES FOR INCLUSION IN AN ASSET MANAGEMENT PROGRAM Brad Allen (Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.) discussed a three-step process that was introduced in federal guidance on prioritizing assets for inclusion in an asset management program. He introduced an asset prioritization process that included getting organized, selecting criteria, establishing a rating system, establishing relative weights, setting rating values, calculating scores, and setting priority tiers. The process is being documented in an FHWA report that should be published soon. KEY TAKEAWAYS â¢ Agencies have well-established inventories for pavements and bridges but less-established inventories for other assets.
40 â¢ Agencies are establishing processes for data accessibility that make use of GIS, dashboards, and other visualization tools. â¢ Data are valuable assets that should be managed through collection protocols, data definitions and standards, storage protocols, and other forms of data governance. â¢ Rater training and oversight are important to maintaining data quality.