Integrating Asset Management into the Metropolitan Planning Process: A Peer Exchange

• The Colorado Transportation Commission allocates funds according to investment categories, and programs, consistent with its adopted investment level performance objectives.
• The policy decisions are led by the Asset Management Task Force
• CDOT has set up an Investment Strategy Framework to ensure that investments are consistent with policy objectives.

One of the guiding principles in the Maryland State Highway Administration's (MSHA) Asset Management program is to recognize the primacy of the goals and objectives outlined in the State Highway Administration's (SHA) Business Plan. SHA and the DOT lack a formal cross-class Asset Management program to assess the effects of tradeoffs in resource allocations and their impact on goals.

Maintaining designated service levels is a key feature of Maryland's Asset Management program. The goal is to get to the point where all of system preservation fund managers can tell us what effect a change in budget levels will have on service levels for the asset this year and at least 5 years into the future.

The Baltimore Metropolitan Council's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) is financially constrained. Almost 75% of the funding in the LRTP is allocated to system preservation and maintenance, which is determined in coordination with Maryland DOT. Since needs are generally greater than funding, it is valuable to ensure funding choices are consistent with policy objectives.

MDOT is using Asset Management for project selection in the context of overall program goals. It also uses Asset Management to improve cost efficiency in project execution. Projects are solicited to fulfill stated goals.

The Southeast Michigan Council of Governments (SEMCOG) encourages the allocations of agency resources to be consistent with regional transportation plans. Currently, regional processes are being revised to emphasize the use of Asset Management principles.

Federal aid is distributed to regions based on the extent and the condition of their systems. Regions then allocate those funds to the MPO or MPOs in that region. State highway funds are distributed based on extent of the system

Use of performance measures is an important element for the NYSDOT system. Network-level, corridor-level and project-level data collection and analysis tools are kept separate. Only data that is needed to support decisions is collected.

NYSDOT is careful to incrementally change existing tools rather than create new tools from scratch, unless a major change in technology occurs. Even when transitioning to new performance measures, NYSDOT continues to report on old measures until decision-makers become accustomed to and comfortable with the new measures.

The Capital District Transportation Committee (CDTC) takes a holistic view of transportation in its broader context. This ensures the integration of transportation, land use, economic development and environmental plans. CDTC makes a strong connection between plans and implementation programs, which is continually refined. Asset management is integrated into CDTC's activities; system preservation, operation and management are a priority over expansion and other improvements. CDTC's long-range plan includes a comprehensive budget for system preservation, operations, maintenance, rehab and reconstruction / replacement for all public roads, transit systems and intermodal facilities.

The Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) has a number of written documents that provide policy guidance. The Asset Management philosophies are congruent with the strategic plan and top-level goals. The biennial business plan filed with the State Legislature also helps to keep agency career professionals focused on key goals. In addition, the long range Access Ohio plan supports Asset Management practices.

Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency's (NOACA) Asset Management program is based in its Regional Transportation Investment Policy. As a rule, preservation is a board priority per the following guiding principle: "Prioritize funding for projects based on replacing and maintaining existing facilities in preference to building new ones".

In Washington, the state transportation plan dictates policies, priorities and long term goals. Individual system plans are then based on this. In addition, state law and the transportation commission also provide guidance.

Resource Allocation decisions are made based on the information from the CDOT Management Systems as well as the Performance Measures program. Discussions are largely based on information developed through the management systems for pavement, maintenance, bridge, safety, and congestion.

The Maryland State Highway Administration (MSHA) wants to use Asset Management to evaluate tradeoffs between maintenance and capital investment decisions. Over the past twenty years, system preservation has grown dramatically at the expense of capital expansion.

The Council is working to integrate operations into the planning process, as currently most of the planning process is devoted to capacity expansion. Asset Management can be useful in making prioritizations within the long range transportation plan, such as highway vs. transit tradeoffs.

Current activities relating to Asset Management include:

• Some "hot spot" analysis comparing highway versus transit solutions
• Developing and collecting performance measure data on a regional basis
• Looking at performance measures from a user perspective, including a recent user satisfaction survey

Asset Management principles applied to individual projects and programs to achieve program outcomes and stretch scarce dollar resources.

Asset categories create silos, and Asset Management procedures are used to evaluate tradeoffs between silos. This is done in order to achieve several policy goals over time.

Asset Management allows SEMCOG to analyze regional needs within and among each "stovepipe" of asset classes. Through increased use of Asset Management techniques, the region is shifting from qualitative to quantitative goals.

A panel of regional technical experts conducts qualitative multi-objective trade-off analysis. NYSDOT assets are divided into asset classes, with safety and mobility as additional categories. Tradeoffs are analyzed across asset classes – pavements, bridges, safety, and mobility - and within them. Each investment candidate follows a similar process and is analyzed according to the quantitative trade-off model as described in Transportation Research Record #1848. (This model is still considered a prototype.)

CDTC has adopted planning & investment principles which maintain integrity, equity and objectivity while building credibility. TIP programming choices are guided by Plan budgets for 17 project categories, allowing the program to reflect the balance (and Asset Management emphasis) of the Plan. Additionally, CDTC is active in "big picture" explorations that relate to stewardship and visit. For example, the Committee is engaged in a cooperative effort with the regional business group, the regional planning commission and the state university in a fiscal analysis of the impacts of alternative growth (amount) and development (location and form) futures. The analysis covers both costs for system preservation and reconstruction and system expansion for road, transit, school, sewer, water, utilities, etc.

The Transportation Review Council, a multidisciplinary group of people from the DOT, businesses, and other areas of government to ensure large scale capacity and economic development projects get completed. This process insulates system preservation activities from controversial projects.

The department relies on an enterprise project delivery information system called "Elllis" to track the progress of all capital improvement projects, their cost as well as impact on pavement and bridge asset conditions. Monthly performance reports are managed through the organizational performance index, alerting managers of current progress and performance trends.

The Regional Pavement Management system is being used to allocate resources. The system identifies current and future Pavement Condition Ratings "PCRs", on a scale of 0-100. This applies to various types of pavement and identifies the severity and extent of different distress types.

By using this system, NOACA can identify the greatest need on a region-wide basis for eligible pavements. It allows staff to provide NOACA's Governing Board with information showing greatest needs, best use of funds, etc. The staff can evaluate different scenario analyses and examine the results.

Existing conditions and future conditions based on various investment levels analyzed and decision for investment are determined by selecting an alternative that provides a future condition consistent with statewide plan goals.

• Cross functional teams can work together to see how key processes can meet stated goals and objectives. Organized by KEY PROCESS (Roadside Mgt., Roadway Mgt., Snow & Ice Mgt., System Operations, Project Delivery) , not organizational division.
• ERP / SAP software to bring together data from different software.

MSHA had the following systems in place:

• Very sophisticated pavement management system.
• Another system for bridges and retaining walls.
• Strict pollution and drainage Asset Management programs. Maryland has the most stringent runoff restrictions in the country due to the Chesapeake Bay and this has caused an increased emphasis on applying Asset Management principles to drainage structures.
• Maryland is now implementing an Asset Management program for sidewalks to support Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliance.

In addition, MSHA formed an Asset Management steering committee with members from various disciplines. Their goal is to guide the expansion of Asset Management beyond pavement and bridges. Under the auspices of the steering committee, Maryland has significantly expanded its Asset Management program to include a variety of asset classes and is evaluating others to add.

The Baltimore Metropolitan Council doesn't have an Asset Management program per se, but has travel demand forecasting tools and a LRTP project prioritization process used to select projects.

Road Quality Forecasting System and Bridge Condition Forecasting System

SEMCOG is just starting the process of implementing an Asset Management program. We are following the lead of Michigan's statewide Asset Management Council.

As part of the state Asset Management Council, there is an internet reporting tool which transportation agencies are mandated to use. This allows for consistent data collection throughout the state.

SEMCOG uses Paser and Roadsoft systems for collecting and analyzing data. Paser is a system developed by the University of Wisconsin. It includes a windshield survey and rates roads on a 10 point scale. Ratings are based on the type and the extent of defects. The Paser system allows for different ratings for different surface types.

The Roadsoft system is SEMCOG's strategic analysis model. It analyzes current and forecasts conditions by functional class. Using this model, SEMCOG is able to identify trends within road conditions.

The NYSDOT has the following systems in place:

• Bridge inspection, program worksheet and forecasting model
• Pavement visual rating (includes selected dominant distresses), quantitative profilometer ratings (IRI, rutting) and forecasting model
• Safety data is collected for performance measurement; crash reduction factors are estimated for candidate investment evaluation purposes; system-level performance is not yet forecast
• Mobility and reliability analyses are by the MPOs, and, therefore, vary
• Recurring and non-recurring excess delay for vehicles, persons and trucks and the economic losses attributable to congestion are calculated statewide using a technical tool

CDTC has the following data systems in place:

• NYSDOT annual bridge inventory (850 bridges)
• NYSDOT annual scoring of touring route system (2500 lane miles)
• CDTC biennial scoring of non-state FA system (1400 lane miles) since 1983
• CDTC quadrennial sample scoring of local roads (9400 lane miles) since 1984
• CDTC supplemental 100% scoring of Albany county roads
• CDTC supplemental 100% scoring of Albany city roads
• Transit system infrastructure age, rehab/replacement plans
• Vehicles, stations
• Facilities
• ITS
• Signal system, ITS capital needs estimates
• Sidewalk inventories, "ped friendliness"
• Operations and maintenance
• State
• Non-state
• Thruway
• Transit

Regarding software, CDTC uses a highway condition prediction model developed as an extension of NYSDOT's model. CDTC's model is run separately for state and non-state federal aid roads, and for local system roads, using differing repair strategies, costs, budgets and deterioration rates to determine the long-range budget needs of the road system.

For other systems, spreadsheet software is used to evaluate alternative transit system rehab / replacement strategies and to approximate long-term annualized costs for capital replacement on rail and air intermodal facilities.

ODOT has the following Asset Management programs in place:

• Pavement Condition Rating System
• Bridge Management System
• Safety and Congestion tracking systems
• Maintenance and Equipment management systems

• ESRI – ArcMap 9.1
• ESRI – ArcIMS
• VHB's Proprietary "RoadManager" software to analyze data
• Web component to Pavement Management System

The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) has separate management systems for each asset class. Many of these applications are custom-built using various software such as Microsoft Sequel, Power Builder, Access, and Cold Fusion.

Data is shared with MPOs. Management systems are open to public evaluation. MPOs and other planning partners formally advise the Transportation Commission on resource allocation decisions.

Information from management systems is not formally shared. The MPO TIPs contain area wide project category line items for system preservation activities like resurfacing, bridge rehabilitation, traffic control devices, etc., and the DOT selects specific projects to implement. The Baltimore and Washington MPOs do not seek to micro-manage the selection of preservation projects but want to have confidence in the prioritization process.

We are currently working with modal administrations to refine which types of data would be valuable to enhance our process. To date, the council has not asked for the state's Asset Management data.

There have been few requests from MPOs to get access to the non-project information, except through any planning studies that may require it.

Because Michigan's Asset Management program is centralized through the state's Asset Management council, the council is able to make information available to all of the MPOs and to the DOT.

Information is shared with the MPOs and is generally transferred by CD-ROM or FTP transfer. Next generation data systems currently being migrated into production are web-based and, therefore, capable of providing remote secure access for MPO direct use.

NYSDOT has a "high view" of MPOs, so it does not interfere with programs and celebrates CDTC's success. To date, the state's systems have concentrated on its own highways, allowing CDTC to fill in the gaps with comparable analysis of non-state highways, local roads and str

ODOT shares local pavement condition data with MPOs through written reports, asset datasets and GIS products including road inventory attributes.

Ohio DOT's Division of Planning, Office of Pavement Engineering collects pavement data by visible inspection. Data is collected yearly on Interstate, U.S. and State Highways and every other year on non-state roads, with a federal functional classification higher than a local road on both the urban and rural systems.

Data is transferred to NOACA either via e-mail (*.zip file) or copied onto a CD. The format of the data so far has been either a Microsoft Access Database or geographic shape files.

NOACA manages the data and outputs in the Regional Pavement Management System. The input "raw" data is received from the Ohio DOT. This data is not available to NOACA staff; it is maintained by the Ohio DOT and is only available to ODOT employees. However, ODOT furnishes data to NOACA upon request in a timely manner.

NOACA also collects data from ODOT on area bridges and uses it in short and long range planning. In the short run, when bridge projects go through the project selection and prioritization process, NOACA provides the data to the relevant committees and to the board to help them prioritize the projects. From the long range perspective, NOACA uses the bridge data to provide an overall assessment of the system in the 20-year Transportation Plan.

Information is shared at the summary level in WSDOT planning documents; MPOs do not have access to WSDOT management systems.

Executive Management and Policy Board

Yes

Through the Governor-appointed policy board

Minimal

Staff level engineers and program managers use condition information, expected project benefits and management objectives to recommend the programming of specific infrastructure improvements

At the Director level staff recommendations for specific improvement / remediation projects are reviewed in the context of performance objectives and available budgets, and concurrence is given on whether to proceed with the proposed project.

MDOT uses Asset Management as a way to educate elected officials on the importance of asset preservation in order to secure additional funding.

Our agency's business plan includes objectives for attaining desired performance standards for a number of our assets, e.g. 83% of pavements in acceptable condition, no weight-restricted structures on the National Highway System (NHS), 98% of signs functioning as intended, etc.

Council staff uses the systems for LRTP project prioritization and for the TIP.

Not Applicable.

The system can provide useful information

The system can provide useful information.

Asset Management program mostly by staff responsible for various "silos" in the organization. They collect and analyze data and then run various funding scenarios.

Upper management agrees on goals and funding levels for the overall Asset Management program.

Asset Management information is used to support higher level policy documents and to prepare reports that are used by elected officials.

The general public is aware of the results of the Asset Management process, but less involved in the process itself.

On the staff level, Asset Management resources are used to organize collected data

Within SEMCOG, staff at the director level uses the data for project selection in some limited situations.

By using the Asset Management program, SEMCOG is able to provide elected officials with options and choices between needs.

The Asset Management program will give SEMCOG tools with which it can better explain its decisions to the public.

Staff at the NYSDOT uses the Asset Management programs to provide transportation management systems, for program development, condition & performance assessments and longer-term needs studies.

Those at the director level use the Asset Management programs for goals, policies, budgets & allocations, program review and approval and performance monitoring.

Elected officials can use Asset Management programs for authorization of resources and to ensure agency accountability.

The general public would use the Asset Management program primarily for bond authorization.

Staff uses the system for highway infrastructure 20-year modeling. They use this for state and non-state highways as well as other types of streets. The Asset Management program is also used in transit system replacement planning. This includes life-cycle analysis for selection of vendor, smoothing out replacement cycles and flex funding.

Director is integral with staff in using the data to offer policy issues and choices to decision-makers.

Information is critical element to both long-range planning and short-ranged programming. The central most important issue in the current long-range plan update is the emerging information on budgetary needs for long-term pavement and bridge rehab and reconstruction; escalating costs and the emerging need for Interstate reconstruction will dominate the budget discussions in the plan update.

Asset management is directly related to some prominent public concerns such as sustainability. System preservation and revitalization of older urban areas is accepted across the region as a higher priority than system expansion.

Program managers – primary users

Deputy Directors and executive leadership

Biennial budgeting process before the state legislature

State of the transportation system reporting and long range planning. Decision criteria for project selection

To analyze and make recommendations.

Data is used for decision-making.

Both appointed and elected officials can use the data.

Communities use the data for their own needs. Limited information is available on the website.

Staff in headquarters planning and programming working with technical experts uses the information from the management systems to develop proposed long range and short range plans and investment alternatives for presentation to agency executives.

Summary level data prepared by staff for decision making, as well as summary level data for performance measurement on program effectiveness, are used by the director.

Summary level data from reports and presentations prepared by agency staff are used to support decision making and communication with the public.

Summary data is presented in the agency public reports for accountability and information sharing.

Training is mainly provided to CDOT staff. Some information presentations have been given to planning partners (MPOs, the State Transportation Advisory Committee, Transportation Planning Regions, etc.)

Currently no formal training programs are in place; training occurs on an ad hoc basis.

No.

There are several training opportunities for staff level participators in the Asset Management programs. First, staff members are put on teams in their subject area where they are trained informally.

Some staff members participate in a formal Asset Management course offered by Michigan State University called Pavement Preservation Applied Asset Management.

Many staff members attended the National Highway Institutes training course in Asset Management. For smaller agencies within Michigan, the Asset Management Council rewrote the National Highway Institute course to gear it toward local governments and smaller agencies. Several Michigan counties and cities have been trained through this course.

The State Asset Management council provides the following training:

• Training on PASER and ROADSOFT
• Training on data collection
• Training on overall benefits of Asset Management
• Training on how to get started – biggest challenge

Not currently. Each region has a part time Asset Management leader who may require future training.

Staff is trained in the related software. The general public is informed of how Asset Management works through outreach activities. These activities always reinforce the priority of Asset Management.

Internal training for managers and users of various decision support systems. External communication strategy to inform transportation constituents and general public.

Education and training is for key users.

Staff training is done on an informal basis as assignments require. Senior management is provided with overviews of asset condition and forecasted future conditions. Legislative staff provide overviews to legislative members as needed.

a. How has your team improved the planning and programming process through the use of Asset Management principles and data?

b. Has the composition of the program changed as a result (e.g., increased emphasis on preservation)?

There is a clearer ability to better use assets to meet Department Goals and Objectives. Progress has resulted in developing performance objectives based on quantitative data.

Policy priority is on preservation of the current system, based largely on information from the management systems.

MDOT's management systems for pavements and bridges (our first and second highest funded preservation categories by asset type) have existed for the longest period of time. As a consequence, management systems for these asset classes are more evolved than management systems for other asset classes. Efforts have been undertaken to improve these management tools and new management system tools have or are being developed for assets categories like drainage assets, lighting assets and sidewalks. The agency is pursuing a concerted effort to develop management tools that provide information to make more data driven decisions for all asset classes.

Over the past 20 years the mix of capital expansion projects compared to system preservation projects has shifted dramatically toward a system preservation first philosophy. In 1982, a transportation revenue program focused on preservation and the elected leadership of the state has accepted that priority ever since. Non capacity expansion projects now account for more than half our agency's capital program.

Transportation planning process has included more input from local and state operators (Department of Public Works, DOT). An Asset Management program could allow a focus on operations to enter the planning process.

It is too early to tell.

MDOT has noticed the following improvements through its Asset Management implementation:

• Gave some accountability.
• Solidified condition goals as policy
• Focused on ‘Mix of Fixes' approach
• Pavements in "poor" condition down to 9% from 36% ten years ago

Asset Management implementation caused a complete re-write/re-thinking of how transportation programs were developed and resulting projects were selected. Programs now explicitly include preservations strategies.

SEMCOG has found the following benefits from its Asset Management implementation:

• Identified assets, as many communities don't know what they have.
• Developed projects
• Created a uniform rating method
• Provided decision-makers with information
• Enhanced confidence with the public
• Reduced political influence on programs
• Secured additional funding

The program was in the process of changing, and implementing Asset Management at the same time facilitated this transition.

The NYSDOT has noticed the following improvements:

• Use limited resources more efficiently
• Continuously improve performance
• Set performance targets
• Improve customer satisfaction
• Demonstrate needs for increased funding
• Quantitatively evaluate alternative scenarios and program tradeoffs
• Provide financial valuation of assets

The following program changes indicate the effects of the NYSDOT Asset Management program:

• The MPO for the New York City Metropolitan area, which includes 65 percent of the state's population, has reduced the share of their allocation used for mobility to increase the shares for preservation, maintenance, safety and other investment purposes.
• The other four transportation management area (TMA) MPOs have decreased preservation from 67% to 51% to emphasize safety, maintenance, mobility and other investment purposes.
• The eight non-TMA MPOs have made dramatic changes in their allocation of funds, increasing maintenance, safety and mobility by decreasing preservation.

CDTC has noticed the following improvements through its implementation of Asset Management:

• Direct implementation funds to implement plan
• Address budget priorities at plan level
• Select projects at program level
• Review plan's budget priorities against program's spending priorities
• Steer funds to project categories that help program reflect the plan

The composition of the program has changed. The complete articulation of Asset Management budgetary requirements and the use of Plan budgets in TIP development have excluded capacity projects from consideration in TIP development for nearly a decade. Preservation and renewal projects get significant attention, both on and off the state system.

ODOT has had a number of successes using Asset Management, including:

• Reduced pavement deficiencies
• Reduced bridge deficiencies
• Normalization of system conditions between districts and counties
• Identifying and achieving sustainable conditions levels

ODOT has set a goal of achieving a steady state in asset conditions to preserve existing infrastructure and achieve consistent levels of service across the state. This includes keeping up with rate of degradation. To make this happen, ODOT has allocated investment dollars. In addition, there has been a focus on safety and congestion improvements for major investment projects.

By using Asset Management, the investment process is based more on data and policies. This caused a shift in perceptions by local governments, which is very beneficial to NOACA. Since NOACA can't mandate a local government to make improvements, the system helps with communication and understanding.

While there has always been an emphasis on preservation at NOACA, the Asset Management program helps deal with political issues.

Improvements to projects selection and projects cost effectiveness have improved as a result of taking a management approach to the system. Overall system conditions have improved as a result of these processes.

The current plan is significantly more data-intensive than previous plans. Therefore, it is more realistic and feasible. For example, with seismic strengthening for bridges WSDOT initially had a poor strategy – replace hinges, then single columns, then multi-columns regardless of risk or population densities. Now we invest based on highest risk zones (which also have highest population densities). Based on this improved strategy, WSDOT was able to obtain an additional $80 million for this project.

a. Problems with collection and integration of data?

b. Interagency cooperation?

c. Understanding the benefits (especially with decision-makers and the public)?

Collecting data for performance measures and tradeoff analysis on a consistent and statewide basis is a huge undertaking.

Data sharing and policy consultation with planning partners on appropriate trade offs.

Yes

Given the volatile costs of materials such as steel, asphalt, etc., it is hard to do predictive analysis with costs.

One of the biggest hurdles in implementing Asset Management approaches is data collection. While it is important to collect data on asset attributes needed for decision-making, there is a tendency to collect unnecessary information as well. This leads to more expensive data collection and a feed the [data] machine mentality.

Many current initiatives are emphasizing the involvement of non-owner/operators in the management of transportation infrastructure. The management systems tools, e.g. pavements, require specialized expertise from working within a specific field to fully understand the consequences of decisions; this is not easily transferable to others who do not have direct ownership/operator responsibilities. The most appropriate area for interagency cooperation is in setting appropriate performance level standards for assets.

Performance trend data in comparison to desired service level standards is often an effective way to communicate agency performance and resource needs. However, there is difficulty in convening the effort/resources needed to obtain better information for decision-making and lack of quantifiable examples illustrating how an Asset Management approach results in tangible savings.

We do not collect or integrate Asset Management data.

Since MPOs don't really own assets, interagency cooperation is a necessity.

Since current process is based on capacity expansion, a focus on Asset Management would be a large shift.

While data integration is not an issue for MDOT, data collection is always an issue. There are large costs to collect, analyze, process, forecast, and store the data. This takes financial and non-financial resources.

One specific challenge is capturing work as it's performed. Currently, financial information about work performed is captured but actual work details are not captured.

MDOT has not found barriers from interagency cooperation. It successfully cooperates with a large number of local agencies.

In marketing the benefits of Asset Management, there is some ambiguity as to whether we sell the process of Asset Management, the products or the results.

Data collection on the federal-aid system is funded; off-system data collection is a problem yet to be addressed. Also, high staff turnover is a challenge on the data collection and integration side, given the high level of expertise that is necessary.

Since SEMCOG works with a number of local communities, it is a challenge to integrate their many different data systems and different processes.

Since there is no ribbon-cutting ceremony within Asset Management programs, it is hard to get elected officials involved. Additionally, it is difficult to educate the public and communities on the benefits.

The risks and complexities of the data systems and technology projects are numerous. The databases and programs are large and complex, bringing risks and schedule overruns. Furthermore, programs are expensive due to limited market.

Electronic data collection for safety is a work in progress with the potential for next-day reporting of incidents an objective. Currently, much of the reporting is still paper-based.

Barriers due to interagency cooperation include former delays in enactment of SAFETEA-LU, federal obligation authority caps and legislative project selection. In addition, local fund sources may become less feasible in the future.

Minimum life-cycle investment scenarios at the program level generally require extremely large investments early in the program (to address backlog of needs and invest in more costly but longer lasting materials) to achieve savings later in the life-cycle of assets. Thus far, elected leaders have not been willing appropriate enough funds soon enough to quickly achieve the long-term efficiencies attributable to implementation of Asset Management principles.

None of any particular concern.

Only in the reluctance of NYSDOT to incorporate the results of our non-state analyses into official NYSDOT estimates of statewide transportation needs.

Resources: There is a shortage of resources for maintaining the existing systems, including a $50-$80 M annual gap for pavement rehabilitation on all systems and in all jurisdictions.

Labor: Succession planning is a challenge for CDTC, as is recruitment and retention, especially within the transit realm.

Other issues include stability and global issues such as fuel consumption and sustainability.

The organization is constrained in terms of resources for system preservation and maintenance, but also limited in the resources available to even do the planning and policy development to support such an integrated approach. Projects to build new facilities and services often obtain political and financial commitment at the expense of basic system preservation work since they are more visible to the electorate.

• Data integration – data from different sources may not line up in a GIS system
• Data maintenance
• Temporal data challenges

Ohio Geographically Referenced Information Program provides statewide leadership for facilitating local government implementation of GIS. Location Based Referencing System project identifies local assets to facilitate emergency response. Statewide program to provide updated imagery to all counties.

Through Asset Management, ODOT has seen improved management of assets by local governments and improved operation of transportation systems.

So far, there have been no major roadblocks from data collection/integration. Data is collected yearly on the state system and every other year on the non-state system by Ohio DOT's office of pavement engineering. Currently, plans call for transfer of data by MS Access table format.

NOACA's, consultant, VHB, is planning to have data import routines to automatically import data into the RPM system. The mapping base for the NOACA RPMS is the Ohio DOT linear referencing system (LRS). Importing data into this system from other data sources has been difficult.

Overall, cooperation has been good. The NOACA Governing Board is comprised of locally elected officials from the NOACA Region. The Board has appointed a RPM Taskforce comprised of representatives from many public agencies to guide the development of this project.

NOACA staff and staff from Ohio DOT's central office and District 3 and 12 offices have been working closely on the day-to-day development of the pavement management system.

There is an educational process, which is repeated often due to turnover of elected officials. In addition, the public also requires education.

• Technical experts being protective of data
• Lack of predictive modal for timing of concrete pavement failure

Border bridges with Oregon cause budget surprises for both states.

• Identified needs were for short planning horizons leading to inefficient projects and higher costs
• Plan was developed from a investment target
• Incorporation of system preservation work into capacity projects needs additional emphasis (but improving)
• Prioritization processes that include benefit/cost or other data driven approach including non-preservation benefits
• Lowest Life Cycle Approach not well understood by staff
• Resource allocation methods were not strategic
• Approach initially not well supported by leadership
• Design standards and resulting environmental mitigation driving up cost of preservation
• Resistance to change
• Ensuring that most cost-effective pavement type is selected

This is not applicable since in Colorado, other modes do not fall under the purview of the state DOT.

The State Highway Administration is the main highway modal agency of a multi-modal DOT (transit, ports, airports, Motor Vehicle Adminstration). At the department level, an Asset Management steering committee has recently been formed to push Asset Management approaches to managing the assets of all the modes.

We are not using Asset Management for non-highway modes currently.

Within MDOT, there is a concerted effort to apply Asset Management processes to all modes. Within modes, optimal strategies are identified for various funding levels.

Currently, IT systems do not apply to all modes. However, MDOT is in the process of bringing Aeronautics and Public Transportation into the system as it migrates systems to the web.

However, MDOT has little influence over non-highway modes, as each mode has its own funding. Furthermore, legislation prevents movement across modal boundaries. Therefore integration has to be on the operational side along with an attempt to coordinate activities and facilities.

Not at this time.

At the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) Asset Management is used across modes including highways, tunnels, bridges, bus transit, subway transit, commuter rail, ports, port terminals, airports and aviation terminals. A uniform four-point condition rating scale is used across MTA agencies for all asset classes. Investment candidates are analyzed according to uniform standards across MTA agencies and asset classes.

CDTA (the transit authority) recently selected a vendor for fleet replacement based on lifecycle costs. Port, rail station and airport infrastructure have need estimates incorporated into the long-range plan.

Asset management principles have been applied to aviation, building and rest area planning.

Somewhat. NOACA is encouraging use of Asset Management in other modes. The Project Planning Review (PPR) process used in all modes and involves staff, committee, public and intergovernmental consultation. Bigger agencies, like the transit agency, have developed systems to encourage this type of approach.

The Washington State Ferry System has an extensive management approach driven by lifecycle costing that has proven to be very effective. Other modes are just beginning to produce management plans at the direction of the Washington state legislature, which requires review by the Washington State Transportation Commission.

a. Aspects that require improvement?

b. Topics for future research?

• Better communication
• Improved trade off analysis/optimization tools
• Better global understanding of Asset Management by various levels of management

For example, topics could be covered with engineers at various American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) and Transportation Research Board (TRB), etc. conferences.

Improved trade off analysis/optimization tools

Broader definitions of asset categories

• Lighting, signs and traffic signals
• Facilities for the disabled – pedestrian facilities, etc.
• Environmental liabilities – underground storage tanks, drainage facilities, etc.
• Integrate capacity expansion with pavement management

• How to assess the tradeoffs of allocating resources across various asset classes.
• Quantifying the benefits of Asset Management approaches in terms of dollars saved.
• How to effectively incorporate user perspectives into setting asset class performance standards, e.g., what does an International Roughness Index (IRI) of ‘x' really mean to a motorist?

following aspects could facilitate the use of Asset Management:

• Coordination and information sharing between state/local and MPO, assets owned by state and local
• Delineating Asset Management or operations-related projects in the LRTP/TIP
• Since capital projects don't include O&M costs, it is hard to compare capital projects and operating improvements
• Asset Management could be better integrated into the planning projects with the following improvements:
• Developing regional performance measures
• By comparing anticipated operational improvements to capacity improvements
• By drawing public works and transportation operators into the process to provide input to planners and enhance the consistency of investment decision-making.
• Integrating Asset Management into corridor planning
• Developing analytic tools to assess cost/benefit, return on investment, performance measures

Future research could include additional options regarding private sector involvement in Asset Management and an Asset Management approach to safety.

MDOT recommends the following improvements:

• Develop an effective combination of process, software, and culture
• Deal with staff turnover
• How to alter reporting to capture details about maintenance work performed in addition to aspects necessary for financial reporting
• Minimize separate data collection issues and ease workflow
• Make data collection a part of a job, not an unpleasant add-on

Further research in the practical application of global positioning systems for Asset Management would be useful.

More training courses aimed at smaller communities would be beneficial.

Further research on data collection would be useful. For example, how often data needs to be collected and the minimum amounts necessary.

• NYSDOT recommends the following improvements:
• Review the recommendations of the AASHTO Asset Management Guide
• Review the recommendations of National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP) Report 545 "Asset Management Tools"
• Implement the AASHTO Strategic Plan

Continue FHWA research, technical guidance, and training.

Support for serious transportation Asset Management is hampered at the federal level because of the absence of a vision comparable to that which led to construction of the Interstate system. Our governance structure is fragmented, leaving many gaps in the cracks. For example, funding for locally-owned streets and highways is often overlooked by State DOTs.

TIP/STIP relationships between State DOTs and MPOs; the degree of integration of non-state Asset Management into MPO and statewide plans.

• Improve integration of asset data collected from various sources, including local governments and private entities.
• Deal effectively with a changing system. This will require handling of spatial and temporal changes.
• Communicate effectively about all aspects of transportation Asset Management such as funding needs, customers and best practices.

• Simple tools for dynamically segmenting asset data collected at different locations.
• Processes for extracting transportation Asset Management features from remote sensing information such as high resolution. photography, Lidar or data collection vehicles.
• Integration and maintenance of state transportation asset data with local government data for comprehensive network coverage.
• Communicating Asset Management needs and benefits to local governments and legislators.
• Identifying effective transportation Asset Management practices.

The process took much longer to set up than anticipated. Technical, process and institutional complexities arose due to large number of players and high rates of staff turnover. At the next Asset Management peer review we may have a better idea of specific improvements.

None at the moment.

Additional asset classes can be integrated, such as rental property, right-of-ways, utility permits.

• Development of improved trade-off approaches
• Development of user cost impacts of poor system management that are easily understood by non-economists.