Transportation Asset Management Webinar Series

Webinar 36Preliminary 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

20192018

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 ObjectivesSteve Gaj (FHWA)Hyun-A Park (Spy Pond Partners, LLC)

2:10 Overview of Project and Initial FindingsShobna Varma (StarIsis Corporation)

2:40 Areas of Future FocusGordon 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 FindingsShobna 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

outside 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 of 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 organizational 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 of 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 of 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 order 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 FocusGordon 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 out 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%

Cal

iforn

iaM

assa

chus

etts

New

Jer

sey

New

Yor

kW

ashi

ngto

nO

klah

oma

Mic

higa

nN

ew H

amps

hire

Mar

ylan

dV

irgin

iaIn

dian

aP

enns

ylva

nia

Ariz

ona

Wis

cons

inO

hio

Col

orad

oIll

inoi

sD

ist.

of C

olum

bia

Texa

sH

awai

iM

aine

Rho

de Is

land

Ver

mon

tM

issi

ssip

piK

ansa

sN

ew M

exic

oFl

orid

aId

aho

Nev

ada

Ore

gon

Geo

rgia

Wes

t Virg

inia

Mis

sour

iN

ebra

ska

Loui

sian

aC

onne

ctic

utTe

nnes

see

Ala

bam

aM

inne

sota

Wyo

min

gU

tah

Iow

aN

orth

Car

olin

aN

orth

Dak

ota

Ark

ansa

sA

lask

aS

outh

Dak

ota

Ken

tuck

yP

uerto

Ric

o (4

)S

outh

Car

olin

aM

onta

naD

elaw

are

Average 10.95%

High = 38.4% Low = 0

Source: FHWA Statistics Table HM 40 42

Center Lane Miles Locally Owned

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

Cal

iforn

iaN

ew Y

ork

Texa

sM

ichi

gan

New

Jer

sey

Mas

sach

uset

tsW

ashi

ngto

nO

klah

oma

Penn

sylv

ania

Virg

inia

Illin

ois

Indi

ana

Ohi

oW

isco

nsin

Flor

ida

Col

orad

oM

aryl

and

Geo

rgia

Ariz

ona

Kan

sas

Mis

sour

iO

rego

nM

issi

ssip

piN

ew M

exic

oId

aho

New

Ham

pshi

reN

ebra

ska

Nev

ada

Tenn

esse

eM

inne

sota

Loui

sian

aA

laba

ma

Mai

neIo

wa

Wes

t Virg

inia

Uta

hW

yom

ing

Nor

th C

arol

ina

Verm

ont

Con

nect

icut

Nor

th D

akot

aR

hode

Isla

ndH

awai

iA

rkan

sas

Sout

h D

akot

aK

entu

cky

Ala

ska

Dis

t. of

So

uth

Car

olin

aM

onta

naPu

erto

Ric

o (4

)D

elaw

are

75% of local NHS in 13 states

1st quartile = 1399 local miles2nd quartile = 344 local miles3rd quartile = 112 local miles4th 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 50North Dakota 47Rhode Island 46Hawaii 43Arkansas 36South Dakota 33Kentucky 26Alaska 21Dist. of Columbia 13South Carolina 4Montana 2Puerto Rico 1Delaware 0

• Smallest 13 states in terms of local NHS centerline miles average 25 miles locally owned

45Source: 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, FHWAStephen.Gaj@dot.gov

Nastaran SaadatmandNastaran.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 WebinarCommunicating TAMP and Stakeholder EngagementWednesday, April 10, 2019 – 2:00 PM ESTTAMP ImplementationWednesday, June 12, 2019 – 2:00 PM EST

Advanced Technologies and TAMWednesday, August 14, 2019 – 2:00 PM ESTTRB Performance and Data in Decision Making Conference HighlightsWednesday, October 9, 2019 – 2:00 PM ESTConsistency Review ProcessWednesday, December 11, 2019 – 2:00 PM ESTMore to follow!

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