Skip to contentUnited States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration FHWA Home
Research Home
Report
This report is an archived publication and may contain dated technical, contact, and link information
Publication Number: FHWA-HRT-05-073
Date: October 2005

Roadway Safety Hardware Asset Management Systems Case Studies

PDF Version (1.17 MB)

PDF files can be viewed with the Acrobat® Reader®

Alternative Text

Figure 1. Photo. Data Collection Van.

The photograph shows an extended white van equipped with four cameras mounted on support bars on the roof. Two cameras are on each side at the front of the van and two are at the rear of the van. A custom bumper the width of the van is mounted across the front of the vehicle parallel to the road. The piece of equipment contains lasers to capture pavement conditions and road geometry.

Return to Figure 1

Figure 2. Screen capture. Sample Image of New Mexico RFI.

This screen shot of a window in a computer application shows information collected as part of the New Mexico Road Feature Inventory (RFI), an extensive database on its entire roadway system. The screen is titled “Sign Demographic Data,” and it contains several dropdown menus and text boxes for data entry to characterize assets such as materials, colors, location, size, and orientation.

Return to Figure 2

Figure 3. Screen capture. A sample image of New Mexico RFI Virtual Drive application.

This screenshot of a window in the computer application, Virtual Drive, shows menu tabs across the top that allow users to switch between data screens. The selected tab shows a list of descriptive information on the upper left, a toolbar with buttons across the center, and characteristics of X, Y, and Z axes for two video images that appear in a split screen beneath the information. The side-by-side video images show a four-lane highway stretching into the distance with an onramp on the right. The shots reflect small differences between the video on the left taken by the camera mounted above the driver-side door and the video on the right taken by the camera mounted above the passenger-side door.

Return to Figure 3

Figure 4. Screen capture. Sample RFI image showing roadside guardrail.

This screenshot of a window in the New Mexico RFI Virtual Drive application displays information titled “The Road Features Inventory” in the title bar. The left two-thirds of the screen contains a photograph that shows a two-lane highway bordered by a guardrail. On the right third of the screen are information boxes for route, mile point, and direction of the photo.

Return to Figure 4

Figure 5. Photo. Sample RFI image showing interstate sign.

This photograph collected as part of the New Mexico RFI shows an Interstate sign beside the roadway outside of Santa Fe. The photo was taken from a vehicle traveling in the right lane of a two-lane highway.

Return to Figure 5

Figure 6. Screen capture. Sample RFI application thumbnail.

This screenshot shows a window of information in the Road Features Inventory application. On the left of the screen is a hierarchical tree with the subcategory “guardrail” highlighted. To the right of the hierarchical tree is a box containing detailed route characteristics and data about the image of the guardrail shown in figure 5. The image of the guardrail appears in a small box in the middle of the screen.

Return to Figure 6

Figure 7. Screen capture. Sample New Mexico RFI spatial map with assets.

This screenshot shows a window in Microsoft Internet Explorer. The window contains several elements. A table across the top of the screen contains information about one specific asset type, guardrails, on New Mexico Route 9. Below the table is a graphic divided into three side-by-side areas. The area to the left contains a rectangular spatial map of RFI assets. To the right of the map area is the map legend and, on the far right, is a theme list. The list contains a number of geographical and asset items, which are all selected with a check mark.

Return to Figure 7

Figure 8. Chart. Sample flow chart of RFI QA/QC checks.

This flow chart displays steps in a quality assurance process. The process begins at the top of the chart with “data extracted from analyst.” Next in the process is “data formatter processing,” followed by a “pass or fail” decision diamond. If data format is unsuccessful, the process flow branches to the left for “return to analyst for reformatting,” then loops back to the “data formatter processing” and the “pass or fail” decision diamond. If the result is “successful data format,” the process proceeds to “submit data to PM for QA/QC. Another “pass or fail” decision diamond follows. If the result is “fails,” then the process is to identify issues and return data packet to analyst. If the QA/QC “passes,” the next point in the process is “forward data to field for QA/QC.” Again, the process proceeds to a “pass or fail” decision diamond. If the result is “fail,” the process goes to the “identify issues and return data packet” step. If the result is “pass,” the process proceeds to “load data to software.” Another “pass or fail” decision diamond follows. If the result is “fail because of data issues,” the process returns to “identify issues and return data packet to analyst.” If the result is “fail” because of record issues, then the process is to “resolve record issues and reload records to software.” Next, the process is to either “resolve record issues and reload records to software,” and “provide copy of verification data and reload” or “resolve records issues and reload records to software.” When the process reaches “pass,” it passes to “proceed with client field verification.” At the final “pass or fail” decision diamond, if the result is “fail,” the process loop is repeated. If the result is “pass,” the process is complete with “accept data and invoice.”

Return to Figure 8

Figure 9. Screen capture. Georgia DOT HSMS sample data screen.

This screenshot shows the introductory screen used for a Roadside inventory application titled “Roadside Inventory: Assembly Detail.” Across the top of the figure is a horizontal box designated “Assembly Location.” It contains geographical data about an asset. Below the Assembly Location box is a vertical column of tool icons along the left side of the screen. To the right of the tool icons is a large box containing several rows of data elements with either a text box or dropdown menu to the right of each data element for data entry.

Return to Figure 9

Figure 10. Graph. Geographic map showing States that responded to AASHTO survey.

This graph is a map of the United States with color-coding to designate States that did and did not participate in the AASHTO survey. All States participated except Alabama, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Louisiana, Mississippi, Montana, Nebraska, New Jersey, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

Return to Figure 10

Figure 11. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question # 1: Do you inventory?

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. Each stacked bar is divided into two sections: the number of “yes” responses and the number of “no” responses. On the x-axis is the number of States, and on the y-axis is a list of inventory items. The graph indicates that of the 39 responses received, 24 States inventory signs, 27 States inventory signals, 15 States inventory lighting, 19 States inventory supports, 19 States inventory guardrails, 21 States inventory pavement markings, and 17 States inventory detectors.

Return to Figure 11

Figure 12. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #2: Percentage of assets in inventory.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates the number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the percentage of roadway assets they maintain in an inventory. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that indicated they inventory all roadside assets of a type, the number of States that indicated they keep a partial inventory of assets of a type, the number of States that do not inventory assets of a type, and the number of States that did not respond to the question for that asset type. The graph indicates that of the 39 States that responded to the survey, 8 States inventory all signs, 13 States maintain a partial inventory of signs, 15 have no inventory of signs, and 3 States did not respond. 16 States inventory all signals, 10 States maintain a partial inventory of signals, 12 have no inventory of signals, and 1 State did not respond. 9 States inventory all lighting, 5 States maintain a partial inventory of lighting, 24 have no inventory of lighting, and 1 State did not respond. 7 States inventory all supports, 11 States maintain a partial inventory of supports, and 21 have no inventory of supports. 13 States inventory all guardrails, 6 States maintain a partial inventory of guardrails, and 20 have no inventory of guardrails. 9 States inventory all pavement markings, 11 States maintain a partial inventory of pavement markings, 18 have no inventory of pavement markings, and 1 State did not respond. 14 States inventory all detectors, 2 States maintain a partial inventory of detectors, 22 have no inventory of detectors, and 1 State did not respond.

Return to Figure 12

Figure 13. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #3: Does inventory track location?

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates the number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked, if they inventory assets of a type, does that inventory system also track location. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that said their inventory system tracks all locations for assets of a type, the number of States that said their system tracks some locations for assets of a type, and the number of States whose inventory does not track location for assets of a type. 15 States track all sign locations, 7 States track some sign locations, and 3 States track none. 24 States track all signal locations, 2 States track some signal locations. 9 States track all lighting locations, 3 States track some lighting locations, and 2 States track none. 9 States track all support locations, 9 States track some support locations, and 1 State tracks none. 13 States track all guardrail locations, 2 States track some guardrail locations, and 4 track none. 9 States track all pavement marking locations, 19 track some pavement marking locations, and 2 track none. 12 States track all detector locations, 3 States track some detector locations, and 2 track none.

Figure 14. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #4: Inventory cycle.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates the number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the inventory cycle for each asset of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that described their inventory cycles as being ongoing, the number of States that described their inventory cycles as occurring every 0 to 5 years, the number of States that described their inventory cycles as occurring every 5 to 10 years, and the number of States that described their inventory cycles as occurring on an as-needed basis. 4 States update their signs inventory on an ongoing basis, 9 States update their signs inventory every 0 to 5 years, 1 State updates their sign inventory once every 5 to 10 years, and 4 States update their signs inventory on an as-needed basis. 5 States update their signals inventory on an ongoing basis, 12 States update their signals inventory every 0 to 5 years, 1 State updates its signals inventory once every 5 to 10 years, and 1 State updates its signals inventory on an as-needed basis. 3 States update their lighting inventory on an ongoing basis, 7 States update their lighting inventory every 0 to 5 years, and 4 States update their signs inventory on an as-needed basis. 2 States update their supports inventory on an ongoing basis, 6 States update their supports inventory every 0 to 5 years, and 6 States update their supports inventory on an as-needed basis. 1 State updates its pavement markings on an ongoing basis, 14 States update their pavement markings inventory every 0 to 5 years, and 2 States update their signs inventory on an as-needed basis. 3 States update their detectors inventory on an ongoing basis, 8 States update their detectors inventory every 0 to 5 years, and 2 States update their detectors inventory on an as-needed basis.

Return to Figure 14

Figure 15. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 1): Method used for original inventory.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the method they used for their original inventory of assets of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that described their original inventory method as manual, the number of States that described their original inventory method as semi-automated, the number of States that described their original inventory method as automated, and the number of States that described their original inventory method as other. 20 States used a manual survey to inventory signs, 8 States used a semi-automated method to inventory signs, 4 used an automated method to inventory signs, and 1 used an “other” method to inventory signs. 23 States used a manual survey to inventory signals, 4 States used a semi-automated method to inventory signals, and 1 used an “other” method to inventory signals. 12 States used a manual survey to inventory lighting, 1 State used a semi-automated method to inventory lighting, and 3 used an “other” method to inventory lighting. 16 States used a manual survey to inventory supports, 7 States used a semi-automated method to inventory supports, 3 used an automated method to inventory supports, and 2 used an “other” method to inventory supports. 17 States used a manual survey to inventory guardrails, 2 States used a semi-automated method to inventory guardrails, 1 used an automated method to inventory guardrails, and 1 used an “other” method to inventory guardrails. 19 States used a manual survey to inventory pavement markings, 3 States used a semi-automated method to inventory pavement markings, 1 used an automated method to inventory pavement markings, and 3 used an “other” method to inventory pavement markings. 14 States used a manual survey to inventory detectors, 3 States used a semi-automated method to inventory detectors, 2 used an automated method to inventory detectors, and 2 used an “other” method to inventory detectors.

Return to Figure 15

Figure 16. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 2): Method used for inventory updates.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates the number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the method they used for their original inventory of assets of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that described their inventory update method as manual, the number of States that described their inventory update method as semi-automated, the number of States that described their inventory update method as automated, and the number of States that described their inventory update method as “other.” 19 States used a manual survey to update their signs inventory, 10 States used a semi-automated method to update their signs inventory, 3 used an automated method to update their signs inventory, and 1 used an “other” method to update its signs inventory. 17 States used a manual survey to update their signals inventory, 4 States used a semi-automated method to update their signals inventory, 2 States used an automated method to update their signals inventory, and 2 used an “other” method to update their signals inventory. 12 States used a manual survey to update their lighting inventory, 1 State used a semi-automated method to update their lighting inventory, and 4 used an “other” method to update their lighting inventory. 16 States used a manual survey to update their supports inventory, 4 States used a semi-automated method to update their supports inventory, 1 used an automated method to update its supports inventory, and 1 used an “other” method to update its supports inventory. 17 States used a manual survey to update their guardrails inventory, 3 States used a semi-automated method to update their guardrails inventory, and 1 used an automated method to update their guardrails inventory. 17 States used a manual survey to update their pavement markings inventory, 4 States used a semi-automated method to update their pavement markings inventory, and 3 used an “other” method to update their pavement markings inventory. 10 States used a manual survey to inventory their detectors, 3 States used a semi-automated method to inventory their detectors, 3 used an automated method to inventory their detectors, and 2 used an “other” method to inventory their detectors.

Return to Figure 16

Figure 17. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #6: Funding allocated on inventory.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe if their funding was allocated on inventory for assets of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that responded “yes” and the number of States that responded “no” by asset type. The graph indicates that of the 39 States that responded to the survey, 10 States said funding was allocated on inventory for signs, 11 said funding was allocated on inventory for signals, 7 said funding was allocated on inventory for lighting, 6 said funding was allocated on inventory for supports, 7 said funding was allocated on inventory for guardrails, 9 said funding was allocated on inventory for pavement markings, and 7 said funding was allocated on inventory for detectors.

Return to Figure 17

Figure 18. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #7: Budget line item for maintenance.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to indicate if their budget contained a line item for maintenance. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that responded “yes” and the number of States that responded “no” by asset type. The graph indicates that of the 39 States that responded to the survey, 23 States said there is a budget line item for signs maintenance, 21 said there is a budget line item for signals maintenance, 17 said there is a budget line item for lighting maintenance, 8 said there is a budget line item for supports maintenance, 20 said there is a budget line item for guardrails maintenance, 28 said there is a budget line item for pavement markings maintenance, and 11 said there is a budget line item for detectors maintenance.

Return to Figure 18

Figure 19. Graph. AASHTO survey results to questions #8 and 8b: Monitor condition.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked about monitoring the condition of their assets. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that indicated they currently monitor the condition of their assets, the number of States that would use a system that monitored condition, and the number of States that would not use a system that monitored condition. Out of the 39 States that responded to this question, 24 States currently monitor sign condition, 12 States would use a system that monitored sign condition, and 2 States would not use a system that monitored sign condition. 28 States currently monitor signal condition, 8 States would use a system that monitored signal condition, and 3 States would not use a system that monitored signal condition. 21 States currently monitor lighting condition, 8 States would use a system that monitored lighting condition, and 3 States would not use a system that monitored lighting condition. 25 States currently monitor supports condition, 10 States would use a system that monitored supports condition, and 4 States would not use a system that monitored supports condition. 23 States currently monitor guardrail condition, 7 States would use a system that monitored guardrail condition, and 9 States would not use a system that monitored guardrail condition. 26 States currently monitor pavement markings condition, 10 States would use a system that monitored pavement markings condition, and 3 States would not use a system that monitored pavement markings condition. 25 States currently monitor detectors condition, 9 States would use a system that detectors condition, and 5 States would not use a system that monitored detectors condition.

Return to Figure 19

Figure 20. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #9: Coverage of condition monitored.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to characterize their coverage of the condition of monitored assets. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that indicated they currently monitor the condition of all assets of a type, the number of States that monitor the condition of some assets of a type, and the number of States that monitor the condition of no assets of a type. 8 States currently monitor the condition of all signs, 13 States monitor the condition of some signs, and 15 monitor the condition of no signs. 16 States currently monitor the condition of all signals, 9 States monitor the condition of some signals, and 13 monitor the condition of no signals. 9 States currently monitor the condition of all lighting, 5 States monitor the condition of some lighting, and 24 monitor the condition of no lighting. 6 States currently monitor the condition of all supports, 12 States monitor the condition of some supports, and 21 monitor the condition of no supports. 13 States currently monitor the condition of all guardrails, 6 States monitor the condition of some guardrails, and 20 monitor the condition of no guardrails. 8 States currently monitor the condition of all pavement markings, 12 States monitor the condition of some pavement markings, and 18 monitor the condition of no pavement markings. 14 States currently monitor the condition of all detectors, 2 States monitor the condition of some detectors, and 22 monitor the condition of no detectors.

Return to Figure 20

Figure 21. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #10: Frequency of condition surveys.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the frequency of condition surveys for each asset of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that described the frequency of condition surveys as being ongoing, the number of States that described the frequency of condition surveys as occurring every 0 to 5 years, the number of States that described the frequency of condition surveys as occurring every 5 to 10 years, and the number of States that described the frequency of condition surveys as occurring on an as-needed basis. 8 States survey signs condition on an ongoing basis, 15 States survey signs condition every 0 to 5 years, and 1 State surveys signs condition on an as-needed basis. 6 States survey signals condition on an ongoing basis, 15 States survey signals condition every 0 to 5 years, 2 States survey signals condition every 5 to 10 years, and 1 State surveys signals condition on an as-needed basis. 2 States survey lighting condition on an ongoing basis, 12 States survey lighting condition every 0 to 5 years, and 5 States survey lighting condition on an as-needed basis. 9 States survey supports condition on an ongoing basis, and 9 States survey supports condition every 0 to 5 years. 3 States survey guardrails condition on an ongoing basis, 9 States survey guardrails condition every 0 to 5 years, 1 State surveys guardrails condition every 5 to 10 years, and 4 States survey guardrails condition on an as-needed basis. 2 States survey pavement markings condition on an ongoing basis, and 25 States survey pavement markings condition every 0 to 5 years. 1 State surveys detectors condition on an ongoing basis, 14 States survey detectors condition every 0 to 5 years, 2 States survey detectors condition every 5 to 10 years, and 2 States survey detectors condition on an as-needed basis.

Return to Figure 21

Figure 22. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #11: Methods of monitoring condition.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked to describe the method they used for monitoring the condition of assets of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that described their method of monitoring asset condition as manual, the number of States that described their method of monitoring asset condition as semi-automated, and the number of States that described their method as more than one. 23 States used a manual survey to monitor signs, and 3 States used more than one method to monitor their signs. 24 States used a manual survey to monitor signals, and 2 States used more than one method to monitor signals. 22 States used a manual survey to monitor lighting, and 1 State used more than one method to monitor lighting. 20 States used a manual survey to monitor supports, 1 State used a semi-automated method to monitor supports, and 3 used more than one method to monitor supports. 20 States used a manual survey to monitor guardrails, and 1 State used a semi-automated method to monitor guardrails. 22 States used a manual survey to monitor pavement markings, 1 State used an automated method to monitor pavement markings, and 3 used more than one method to monitor pavement markings. 15 States used a manual survey to monitor detectors, 1 State used a semi-automated method to monitor detectors, 4 used an automated method to monitor detectors, and 4 used more than one method to monitor detectors.

Return to Figure 22

Figure 23. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #13: Funding allocated on condition.

This is a horizontal stacked bar graph. The x-axis indicates the number of States and the y-axis depicts the types of inventory items that were specified when States were asked whether their funding was allocated based on condition for assets of a type. Each stacked bar shows the number of States that responded “yes” and the number of States that responded “no” by asset type. The graph indicates that of the 39 States that responded to the survey, 13 States said funding is allocated based on signs condition, 15 said funding is allocated based on signals condition, 10 said funding is allocated based on lighting condition, 11 said funding is allocated based on supports condition, 11 said funding is allocated based on guardrails condition, 11 said funding is allocated based on pavement markings condition, and 8 said funding is allocated based on detectors condition.

Return to Figure 23

ResearchFHWA
FHWA
United States Department of Transportation - Federal Highway Administration