transportation asset management webinar series · fhwa-aashto asset management webinar series...
TRANSCRIPT
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, [email protected]
Nastaran [email protected]
Shobna Varma, Starisis corp. [email protected]
Gordon Proctor, Gordon Proctor & [email protected]
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/