Transportation Asset Management Webinar Series Webinar 36 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Transportation Asset Management Webinar Series

Webinar 36

Preliminary Findings from Initial TAMP Assessment

Sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO Webinar 36 – February 13, 2018

FHWA-AASHTO Asset Management Webinar Series

• This is the 36th in a webinar series that has been running

since 2012

• Webinars are held every two months, on topics such as off-

system assets, asset management plans, asset management and risk management, and more

• We welcome ideas for future webinar topics and

presentations

• Submit your questions using the webinar’s Q&A feature

1

Review of the Initial TAMPs

2

Today

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

2019 2018 Initial TAMP Complete TAMP

Learning Objectives

3

– Introduce the key findings of the review of initial TAMPs – Highlight some of the opportunities for improvement in preparing final TAMPs – Share your questions on this process – SHARE LESSONS LEARNED, IDEAS, KNOWLEDGE!!!

4

Webinar Agenda

2:00 Webinar Introduction and Project Objectives Steve Gaj (FHWA) Hyun-A Park (Spy Pond Partners, LLC) 2:10 Overview of Project and Initial Findings Shobna Varma (StarIsis Corporation) 2:40 Areas of Future Focus Gordon Proctor (Proctor Associates) 3:10 Q&A and Wrap Up

Welcome

5

• FHWA and the AASHTO Sub-Committee on Asset Management are

pleased to sponsor this webinar

• Sharing knowledge is a critical component of advancing asset

management practice

Project Objectives

6

• Assist State DOTs to enhance their initial risk-based asset

management plans

– Processes used to address the minimum plan contents could vary from one State to another – This variation could provide an enormous opportunity to advance the state of practice

• The FHWA is taking advantage of this rare opportunity by identifying

best practices

....and identifying the areas that could improve through additional guidance

– Technical support and best practice case studies also will be provided

What this Project Does Not Do

7

• It does not influence plan certification or consistency determinations

– Those remain with FHWA divisions

• All plans reviewed were already certified
• This project will not influence consistency reviews

Project Overview and Initial Findings Shobna Varma Starisis Corporation

5

The Review Process

• Reviews are partially based upon the asset management

regulation 23 CFR Sec. 515

• Deconstructed the regulation into 95 separate issues or

questions

• 42 of them reflect the minimum requirements
• The remaining 53 represent the “should” or advanced

practices

• In the advanced practices, we looked particularly for

evidence that the TAM practice influenced decisions, investments, or processes

6

The Review Process

7

• Any process not in the

TAMP was not reviewed

• Good practices exist
• utside the TAMP but if

so they are not captured in this review

• Only what is in the TAMP

was considered

Highlights from the Initial TAMPs

8

Highlights (continued)

• Widespread understanding of asset management
• Ability to document a return on investment using asset

management

• Life-cycle strategies apparent in many TAMPs
• State of good repair often identified
• Condition gaps and trends clearly illustrated
• Modeling demonstrates future outcomes of current

actions

• Risks are acknowledged

9

Widespread Understanding

• TAMPs expressed a

good understanding

• f asset

management

• Described as a

comprehensive process to manage assets for a reasonable life-cycle costs

“ intends to incorporate life cycle planning to shift the focus from “worst-first” methodology to strategic preservation, to avoid or delay major rehabilitation and replacement costs.”

• One example statement

10

Documenting ROI

• Some TAMPs

quantified the benefits generated by asset management

11

.

Right Treatments, Right Time

12

LCP Sentiment

• The objective is to minimize the life cycle cost of the

infrastructure while maximizing its value with constrained fiscal funding.

• A state asset management plan

13

Monitoring the Implementation of the LCP

• Set targets
• Model optimum

program

• Districts select projects

from model program

• Project delivery

tracked

• Results compared to

model recommendations

14

Value of Preservation

15

LCP Benefits Documented

16

• One state estimates

more than $150,000 in annual savings per bridge with a life-cycle approach

• Annual cost under an

LCP approach is $366,000 compared to $507,000 under a worst-first approach

State’s LCP Savings

• LCP

reduces backlog by 53% compared to worst- first

17

LCP Benefits Documented

18

Bridge LCP Benefits

• % Poor

bridges to be reduced 47% more than in worst-first scenario

19

Modeled LCP Treatments

20

TAM Ingrained in Policies, Structures

• Objective A: Sustain a Desired State of Good Repair over the

Life Cycle of Assets

• Objective B: Achieve the Lowest Practical Life-Cycle Cost for

Assets

• Finalize and implement asset inventories, condition

assessments and corridor management and develop short and long-range asset management funding strategies (AMFS) for each asset type to minimize life-cycle costs.

• Annually develop Resource Allocation Goals (RAGS) on a

network-level basis, consider benefits and risks of each asset type and balance with the AMFS.

21

TAM Structures, Policies

• Some noted new
• rganizational

structures, policies

• TAM coordinating

councils

• Enhanced data policies,

structures

• Ties to performance

management

22

Shortfalls Clarified

23

Explaining Inventories, Trends

18.0% 18.3% 18.8% 19.6% 20.9% 20.9% 19.1% 18.2% 17.7% 17.1% 15.4% 13.6% 11.7% 10.2% 9.0% 8.2% 7.1% 6.5%

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25%

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

State NHS Bridge Trends

24

Forecasting Gaps

25

Sustainability Indices Used

• Pavement assets

depreciate at 2.0 percent per year. The average investment was below 1.0 percent

• f current value—less

than the level that is required to maintain pavements at the desired state of good repair.

26

Future Sustainability Ratios

• Asset Sustainability Ratio (ASR) indicates the replenishment
• f useful life relative to its consumption.
• The Asset Sustainability Ratio can also be expressed as the

dollar amount invested to the total depreciated value over a time period.

• Remaining Service Life (RSL) is often communicated as the

percentage of the remaining useful life of an asset relative to the expected useful life.

• The Deferred Preservation Liability (DPL) is the estimated cost

to perform all past-due preservation or rehabilitation work in

• rder to manage the network in a State of Good Repair.

27

Modeling Consequences

28

Implementing BrM for LCP

Deck Decision Tree

29

Risks Acknowledged

• TAMPs warned of

highest risks

• Inflation
• Funding
• Climate
• Political sentiment

30

At-Risk Assets Noted

• 50% of concrete pavement structures - more than 40

years old (1,000 lane miles)

• 246 bridges that are 80 years old or older
• 23 scour-critical bridges need mitigation
• Lane miles on the verge of rapid deterioration
• Decks more than 20 years old

31

In Conclusion

• Overall good understanding of asset management
• States are looking at return on investment using asset

management

• Life-cycle strategies apparent in many TAMPs
• State of good repair often identified
• Condition gaps and trends clearly illustrated
• Modeling used to reflect future outcomes of current

actions

• Future condition based on asset management versus

“worst first” strategies

• Risks are acknowledged

32

Areas of Future Focus Gordon Proctor Gordon Proctor & Associates

33

Incomplete List of Future Focus Areas

• By no means exhaustive list but initially
• Management systems, particularly for bridges
• Programming unconnected to TAM
• Work types unclear
• Risk management not integrated
• Extreme events not integrated
• Asset valuation not catalytic
• Local NHS coordination is a work in progress

34

Management Systems

• Some robust,

mature

• Used to estimate

program needs, forecast gaps

• Others only under

development

• Some said will be

2020 or later before are operational

• BMS particularly rare

for modeling, scenarios

35

Management System Summary

26 11

36

• TAMPs that say they have

fully compliant pavement management systems or which appear to have

• TAMPs that say they have

fully compliant bridge management system or which appear to have

Link to Programming Unclear

• Some TAMPs showed line-of-sight link to

programming

• Others
• Said districts pick projects on local priorities
• Several still rely on historical program splits
• Several just didn’t say how programming

decisions were made

37

Unclear Work Types

• Many lack details on investments in
• Initial construction
• Maintenance
• Preservation
• Rehabilitation
• Replacement
• Single line items for pavements, bridges didn’t split
• ut treatment amounts

38

Risk Not Integrated

• For most, risk appears to be a stand alone activity
• Held a workshop
• Identified and assessed risks
• Noncommittal on who and how risks are managed
• Extreme events not often mentioned as risk, factors

in forecasting

39

Asset Valuation

• Only few states

indicated it was a decision factor

• Others listed

replacement value but didn’t elaborate on it

• For some, it was only a

paragraph or table

40

Local NHS Outreach, Coordination

• Varies by state
• Large, locally owned NHS amounts led to
• Coordination with locals
• More extensive outreach
• Data sharing
• In one case, revenue sharing

41

Percent Locally Owned NHS

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% California Massachusetts New Jersey New York Washington Oklahoma Michigan New Hampshire Maryland Virginia Indiana Pennsylvania Arizona Wisconsin Ohio Colorado Illinois

• Dist. of Columbia

Texas Hawaii Maine Rhode Island Vermont Mississippi Kansas New Mexico Florida Idaho Nevada Oregon Georgia West Virginia Missouri Nebraska Louisiana Connecticut Tennessee Alabama Minnesota Wyoming Utah Iowa North Carolina North Dakota Arkansas Alaska South Dakota Kentucky Puerto Rico (4) South Carolina Montana Delaware

Average 10.95% High = 38.4% Low = 0 Source: FHWA Statistics Table HM 40

42

Center Lane Miles Locally Owned

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 California New York Texas Michigan New Jersey Massachusetts Washington Oklahoma Pennsylvania Virginia Illinois Indiana Ohio Wisconsin Florida Colorado Maryland Georgia Arizona Kansas Missouri Oregon Mississippi New Mexico Idaho New Hampshire Nebraska Nevada Tennessee Minnesota Louisiana Alabama Maine Iowa West Virginia Utah Wyoming North Carolina Vermont Connecticut North Dakota Rhode Island Hawaii Arkansas South Dakota Kentucky Alaska

• Dist. of

South Carolina Montana Puerto Rico (4) Delaware

75% of local NHS in 13 states 1st quartile = 1399 local miles 2nd quartile = 344 local miles 3rd quartile = 112 local miles 4th quartile = 25 local miles Average = 470 local miles Source: FHWA Statistics Table HM 40

43

Largest Examples

• Caltrans
• 1629 locally owned NHS bridges
• 19,427 local NHS lane miles
• 11,658 Southern California Association
• NYSDOT
• 1172 locally owned NHS bridges
• 6967 locally owned NHS lane miles

Sources: Caltrans and NYSDOT TAMPs

44

Smallest Local NHS Segments

Connecticut 50 North Dakota 47 Rhode Island 46 Hawaii 43 Arkansas 36 South Dakota 33 Kentucky 26 Alaska 21

• Dist. of Columbia

13 South Carolina 4 Montana 2 Puerto Rico 1 Delaware

• Smallest 13 states

in terms of local NHS centerline miles average 25 miles locally owned

45

Source: FHWA Statistics Table HM 40

Local NHS Focus Area

• Perhaps an issue for future focus is how to engage these

local NHS owners into the asset management process

• In 13 states, local NHS ownership varies between 700 CL

miles and 5455

• Achieving long-term NHS sustainability may not be

possible in those states without local engagement

• Less of an issue for the other 75 percent of the states

46

Questions?

• Submit your questions using the webinar’s Q&A feature

8

Questions/Feedback

Steve Gaj, FHWA Stephen.Gaj@dot.gov Nastaran Saadatmand Nastaran.Saadatmand@dot.gov Shobna Varma, Starisis corp. svarma@starisis.com Gordon Proctor, Gordon Proctor & Assoc. gordon@proctorassociates.com

48

All webinars available online:

http://www.tam-portal.com/event/

Next Webinar Communicating TAMP and Stakeholder Engagement

Wednesday, April 10, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

TAMP Implementation

Wednesday, June 12, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

Advanced Technologies and TAM

Wednesday, August 14, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

TRB Performance and Data in Decision Making Conference Highlights

Wednesday, October 9, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

Consistency Review Process

Wednesday, December 11, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

More to follow!

http://www.tam-portal.com/event/