Audio will be broadcast through the conference call information. Video (slides) will be broadcast through the web link.
Once the webinar is completed, the presentations and a recording of the webinar will be available at http://tam.transportation.org.
|Introduction||Sponsors' Non-technical Introduction||Steve Gaj
|1||Capturing the Impact of Geotechnical Assets on System Performance||Discuss corridor concept and role of geotechnical assets in supporting corridor performance for transportation systems. Map21 focus on NHS (pavement and bridges) and implications for non-NHS system and for under-served geotechnical assets. Advocate for supporting role of geotechnical assets for the assets on which MAP21 focuses for NHS.||Scott Anderson||Federal Highway Administration||15|
|2||Geotechnical Asset Management Implementation - Getting from Awakening to Best Practices||Moving beyond introduction to geotechnical asset management. Discuss need to learn and conduct research about the essential characteristics of geotechnical assets - condition state through lifecycle, means of utilizing condition state, level of service and performance of geotechnical assets to support prediction of future condition. Layout the road map to development and implementation of Geotechnical Asset Management Plans that will support TAM programs for states, based on on-going AKDOT research by Paul Thompson.||Dave Stanley||Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities||15|
|3||Risk Based Methods for Management of Geotechnical Features in Transportation Infrastructure||Describe what Risk Management is for geotechnical asset management and how it can be developed and implemented for geotechnical assets and TAM programs as part of MAP21 requirements to support NHS focused assets - bridges and pavements as well as non-NHS roads and assets other than bridges and pavement.||Mark Vessely||Shannon and Wilson, Inc.||15|
|4||WSDOT Unstable Slope Management Program - 20 Years of Asset Management of Slopes - Lessons Learned||A look backwards at the success of a long-term state DOT asset management program for slopes. Lessons learned and value received for correcting slope conditions to reduce risk and improve corridor and system performance. A view to the future for alterations to the program for increased utility in reducing risk and enhancing performance.||Tom Badger||Washington Department of Transportation||15|
|Discussion and Q/A||All||20|
|Introduction||Recap of Webinar 1 and Introduction of Case Studies||Scott Richrath||Colorado DOT||10|
|1||Colorado DOT Rockfall Management - Managing Under-served Assets||A case study view of a program level effort by a state DOT to address safety and functionality/mobility concerns to address rockfall issues across a broad area of the state and NHS road system for assets (slopes, mitigation devices, etc.) considered "under-served" by DOT management and thus eligible for programmatic funding.||Ty Ortiz||Colorado Department of Transportation||15|
|2||Yosemite National Park Unstable Slope Management||A case study look at the problems associated with working in national parks to solve slope problems with limitations on mitigation methods and budgets. Yosemite National Parks project level mitigation for unstable slopes which demonstrates successful risk reduction and preservation of corridor function in spite of limitations.||Matt DeMarco||FHWA Central Federal Lands||15|
|3||Retaining Wall Management Programs - Development of Principles of Management and Deployment of Programs||A review of three federal/state agency retaining wall management programs. A presentation of both successes and failures in development and deployment for retaining wall programs.||Matt DeMarco
|FHWA Central Federal Lands
|4||Geotechnical Asset Management of MSE walls using Performance Data from MSE Steel Reinforcements||Case study presentation of Dr. Fishman's research (NCHRP Report 675 and NCHRP Synthesis 437) showing the extent of deterioration of MSE wall reinforcement and estimates of "remaining service life" of reinforcements and walls. This is a critical step forward in establishing lifecycle of retaining walls and efforts to predict future condition of wall assets in the decision-making support process.||Ken Fishman||McMahon & Mann||15|
|Discussion and Q/A||All||20|