Transit Asset Condition Reporting (2011)

Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

5The purpose of this synthesis is to examine and document the current state of the practice in transit asset management for transit agencies and other stakeholders. Transit asset manage- ment is defined as a strategic planning process that supports informed capital investment planning and programming. It is said that “good” transit asset management can provide critical support in two key areas: Establishing the level of need for infrastructure invest- ments. A comprehensive analysis of infrastructure needs can produce an estimate of the funding needed to address: (1) ongoing asset replacement and rehabilita- tion needs, and (2) past unfunded infrastructure needs (often termed backlog needs). This funding estimate and supporting documentation can provide a compelling argument and support for increased funding. Programming of cost-effective investments. A systematic approach that is based on good quality data and clear organizational objectives can help prioritize the program- ming of investment projects when available funding is constrained and not sufficient to support the implementa- tion of all needed projects. The use of this approach will help maximize the effectiveness of local, state, and fed- eral funding investments. The condition of public transit infrastructure is a current and important national topic. Much has been written about the importance of maintaining the nation’s bus and rail systems in a “State of Good Repair” (SGR). A 2008 FTA report, Transit State of Good Repair—Beginning the Dialogue, estimated that approximately 25% of public transit infrastructure is in marginal or poor condition. This report suggests that this decline is because nationally current infrastructure funding is inadequate and is estimated to address 60% to 80% of what is required to provide for ongoing replacement needs and to eliminate the backlog of past unfunded infrastructure needs. The underinvestment in public transit infrastructure has significant consequences. Operating costs are higher because of the increased costs of maintaining assets that are required to perform beyond their useful lives. Service reliability suf- fers as more buses and rail cars break down in service. The quality and appearance of passenger amenities declines as sta- tions and shelters age and escalators have more frequent fail- ures. In addition, public safety becomes a greater concern when aging assets fail at critical times, such as the recent acci- dents in Boston and Chicago demonstrate. Ultimately, these consequences make transit service less attractive and result in the lower use of transit services by potential passengers. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The focus of this TCRP synthesis project is to document the state of current asset management system practices. The project addresses transit asset condition inventorying and condition tracking and the use of the resulting data to guide short-term (5-year) priority-setting and budgeting, and long- term (10- to 20-year) investment strategies. The project objective is to provide transit agencies and their federal, state, and local funding partners a review of the state of the practice of current asset management system prac- tices. It is hoped that this review will encourage an industry- wide discussion on the standards and data needed to measure asset conditions and the use of this information for making effective investment decisions. Improving the understanding of infrastructure conditions can support the articulation of a compelling argument for increased funding and systematic management of investments. PROJECT SCOPE The scope of this synthesis project was designed to obtain information on current transit asset management system prac- tices using three different information collection approaches: 1. A literature review, 2. An industry survey, and 3. Case studies of innovative practices at local transit authorities. The objective of the literature review was to identify key publications that described current transit management prac- tices in the transit industry. The transit industry not only includes transit agencies, but also their local, state, and federal funding partners. These partners also have the need to employ good transit asset management systems to monitor the impacts of their funding investments in local transit agencies and to report these findings to their senior managers and political leaders. It was hoped that the literature review would identify innovative practices that had potential or were beginning to be adopted by transit agencies. CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION

The objective of the industry survey was to develop a pic- ture of the state of the practice in the transit industry—what is the range of techniques being used and how many transit agen- cies are using them. The topics covered in the survey were: • How transit agencies are measuring asset conditions and determining asset funding needs. • How the condition of transit assets is communicated to transit agency decision makers (management and gov- erning boards); state, local, and federal funding partners (agency staff and elected officials); and the general public. • How the asset condition data are used to make invest- ment and capital programming decisions. The nation’s 50 largest transit agencies in terms of opera- tions size were surveyed. These transit agencies are primarily multi-modal transit agencies that typically operate heavy, light, or commuter rail services and bus services. The survey focused on these agencies because it was expected that they would likely have the most advanced asset management sys- tems because of the complexity of their operations. The conduct of case studies was the third element of the project scope. It provided the opportunity to review in depth the experiences at innovative transit agencies in terms of innovations, lessons learned, and gaps in methods and infor- mation. The results of the case studies could help identify opportunities and challenges for upgrading and increasing the consistency of transit asset condition reporting. TECHNICAL APPROACH TO PROJECT The project involved three parallel streams of activity as out- lined in the project scope: 1. A literature review, 2. An industry survey, and 3. Case studies of innovative practices at local transit agencies. Literature Review The literature review examined eight articles, papers, or reports that were judged important to this synthesis project. The limited availability of literature may suggest that the active use of asset management systems for more than data collection and manipulation of asset inventory data is not common. 6 The results of the literature review are discussed in chap- ter two, Literature Review, and selected titles are provided in the References and in the form of an annotated bibliography in Appendix D. Survey A survey was carried out in early 2010. The nation’s 50 largest transit agencies in terms of operations size were polled. The survey focused on these agencies because it was expected that they would have the most advanced asset management sys- tems because of the complexity of their operations. The survey included a set of 37 questions regarding current asset management systems practices. The questions addressed the scope of the agency asset inventory, the agency human resources used, the determination of asset condition and its use, and details of the agency’s capital programming. Of the 50 agencies from which responses were solicited, 41 or 82% responded to the survey. A total of 37 agencies pro- vided responses to the more detailed questions in the survey, and complete responses to the questions on state of good repair were provided by 11 agencies. Case Studies Detailed case studies of two of the 50 largest transit agencies— the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority (MBTA) and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCT) were under- taken as part of this synthesis. The case studies describe the origin of each agency’s asset management system, how it is used, and how it has evolved over time. The two agencies chosen represent two distinct SGR sys- tems that represent different approaches. They are both, how- ever, considered state of the art and examples of best practices. REPORT ORGANIZATION This report contains the following chapters and related find- ings. A summary of the findings from the survey are provided in chapter three, Survey Results: Transit Capital Programming and Asset Tracking Systems, and chapter four, Agency Use of Asset Tracking and Condition Assessment Data. A copy of the survey questions is provided in Appendix A, a detailed sum- mary of survey responses is presented in Appendix B, and Appendix C lists the agencies who participated in the survey.