National Academies Press: OpenBook

Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan (2023)

Chapter: Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge

« Previous: Chapter 1 Introduction
Page 7
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 7
Page 8
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 8
Page 9
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 9
Page 10
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 10
Page 11
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 11
Page 12
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 12
Page 13
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 13
Page 14
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 14
Page 15
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 15
Page 16
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 16
Page 17
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 17
Page 18
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 18
Page 19
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 19
Page 20
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 20
Page 21
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 21
Page 22
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 22
Page 23
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 23
Page 24
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 24
Page 25
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 25
Page 26
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 26
Page 27
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 27
Page 28
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 28
Page 29
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 29
Page 30
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 30
Page 31
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 31
Page 32
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 32
Page 33
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 33
Page 34
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 34
Page 35
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 35
Page 36
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 36
Page 37
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 37
Page 38
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 38
Page 39
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 39
Page 40
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge." National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2023. Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press. doi: 10.17226/27290.
×
Page 40

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.

7 C H A P T E R 2 Summary of Current Knowledge The Guide’s development included several efforts to gather information and document current practices related to incorporating maintenance costs into a TAMP. A literature search was conducted to review relevant publications. Four virtual peer exchanges were held with participants from state and county DOTs to discuss current practices and barriers to integrating maintenance with asset management. Finally, in- depth case studies were conducted with eight transportation agencies to identify noteworthy practices for overcoming the identified barriers. Literature Search The project team conducted a review of published research reports, guidance, regulations, and statutes related to the incorporation of maintenance costs in TAMPs. This search included a review of titles identified in the Transportation Research International Documentation database, as well as Google, and the general knowledge of the research team. The following presents a summary of the relevant information identified through this search. The results are organized into four categories. • Statutes and Regulations • General TAM Guidance • General Maintenance Management Guidance • Guidance on Maintenance Costs • Maintenance Terms and Definitions The findings from the search are summarized below and have been incorporated into the draft framework, described in Chapter 3. General TAM Guidance The first category of literature that the research team reviewed as part of the literature search for the NCHRP 23-08 project included general transportation asset management (TAM) guidance documents. These documents provided existing guidance on the different TAM processes such as financial plans, risk management, and LCP, as well as tools and processes to support different TAM activities. These documents provided a foundational understanding of how maintenance can ideally be incorporated into the various TAM processes. The documents that the team found most relevant and useful for this project are listed below. Transportation Asset Management Guide (AASHTO 2020) The Transportation Asset Management Guide (TAM Guide) presents several definitions for TAM and asset management, all of which recognize asset management as a whole-life process that incorporates maintenance. The TAM Guide also incorporates relevant maintenance processes, systems, and data into each chapter. However, the TAM Guide provides a high-level view of asset management and does not provide specific guidance related to maintenance management, capturing maintenance costs, or developing TAMP financial plans. The framework and guidance for incorporating maintenance relate to the framework used to organize the TAM Guide, including the following:

8 • Defining TAM. • Elements of a TAM. • Transportation asset management strategy and planning. • Performance management framework. • Life cycle management. • Resource allocation. • Monitoring and adjustment. Developing TAMP Financial Plans (FHWA 2017a) Developing TAMP Financial Plans (FHWA 2017a) provides guidance on how state DOTs can develop 10-year financial plans to support the development of TAMPs. The FHWA defines a TAMP financial plan as “a long-term plan spanning 10 years or longer, presenting a state DOT’s estimates of projected available financial resources and predicted expenditures in major asset categories that can be used to achieve state DOT targets for asset condition during the plan period, and highlighting how resources are expected to be allocated based on asset strategies, needs, shortfalls, and agency policies” (FHWA 2017a). The source credits the TAMP financial plan with describing the financial environment in which the agency expects to operate on an annual basis over the full-time period covered by the TAMP. It notes that maintenance plays a critical role in reducing life-cycle costs, managing risks, and keeping the highway system operating safely. Therefore, it stresses the important of including maintenance costs in TAMPs to provide a complete picture of the agency’s financial situation and planned investment strategies. The guidance indicates that a TAMP financial plan typically identifies available revenue, funding sources, funding uses, and funding gaps that can be used to develop investment scenarios to meet performance goals and reduce performance gaps. Therefore, guidance from this document was used closely in developing approaches for incorporating maintenance in TAMP financial plans. NCHRP Research Report 898: Developing Financial Plans and Performance Measures for Transportation Asset Management (SPP et al. 2019) NCHRP Research Report 898: A Guide to Developing Financial Plans and Performance Measures for Transportation Asset Management provides information on the financial analyses conducted by agencies in the development of their TAMP financial plans. The report details information on funding constraints typical for both federal and state funding, asset valuation, forecasting available revenue, allocating funding to asset management needs, establishing financial targets, and accounting requirements related to highway infrastructure. The processes described in the report were used as guidance for incorporating maintenance into financial plans and investment strategies of TAMPs. In particular, the following ideas were incorporated into the framework: • Identifying capital versus non-capital expenses in the context of TAM. • Documenting sources and uses of funding in the TAMP financial plan. • Developing investment strategies and scenarios. Using a Life Cycle Planning Process to Support Asset Management (FHWA 2017c) Guidance from the document Using a Life Cycle Planning Process to Support Asset Management (FHWA 2017c) was used for incorporating maintenance into TAMP life-cycle planning. While FHWA presents a high-level 5-step process for LCP analysis in TAMPs, maintenance management or maintenance quality assurance data is not specifically addressed in the LCP analysis. Therefore, the 5-step process was used as a reference for the inclusion of maintenance into the LCP analysis.

9 Using an LCP Process to Support Transportation Asset Management: A Handbook on Putting the Federal Guidance into Practice (Zimmerman, et. al. 2019) The document Using an LCP (Life Cycle Planning) Process to Support Transportation Asset Management: A Handbook on Putting the Federal Guidance into Practice (Zimmerman, et. al. 2019) was also used as guidance in this effort. Specifically, the following ideas were captured while developing the framework and the guidance: • Enhanced LCP tools can lead to cost savings for the following – routine and operational maintenance, preventive maintenance, repairs, unit or major component replacement, and organizational strengthening. • Capturing, tracking, and forecasting maintenance and capital costs could be challenging depending on several factors. FHWA-HIF-19-068: Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs (Allen et. al., 2019) FHWA’s Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs (Allen et. al., 2019) was used as a reference to identify current approaches to establishing maintenance strategies to support asset management. The types of maintenance strategies provided in the reference allow agencies to understand how and when specific activities best support asset conditions and system performance while minimizing the risk or impact of asset failure. It emphasizes that maintenance can be applied at all stages of an asset’s life cycle, and therefore, establishing life-cycle strategies that consider maintenance allows agencies to better understand how to extend asset service lives while minimizing long- term costs. Incorporating Risk Management into Transportation Asset Management Plans (FHWA 2017b) Guidance from Incorporating Risk Management into Transportation Asset Management Plans (FHWA 2017b) was used to identify considerations for incorporating maintenance into a TAMP risk analysis. This document defines risk and provides a guide on how the risk element can be applied to meet the requirements of a risk-based TAMP. In this document, FHWA defines risk as “the processes and framework for managing potential risks including identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and addressing the risks to assets and system performance.” It suggests a risk-based TAMP identifies, assesses, and prioritizes the uncertainties, variability, and threats that could impede the agency’s goals and objectives. Maintenance resources are commonly relied upon to mitigate risks to the transportation infrastructure. Hence, philosophies from this document were used in identifying approaches to tie maintenance to TAMP risk management. NCHRP Research Report 956: Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management (SPP and Atkins, 2021) NCHRP Research Report 956: Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management was included as a reference to guide suggestions for data management strategies that support incorporating maintenance into TAMPs. These strategies are important since maintenance requires data input and sharing by multiple parties, likely from multiple organizations, both within and separate from the asset owner agency. Due to the number of individuals and systems with responsibility for inputting, managing, and accessing the data, data security is a major concern and the reference included approaches for this that were considered in developing this Guide.

10 NCHRP Report 814: Assessing Data Readiness (SPP et. al., 2015) NCHRP Report 814: Data to Support Transportation Agency Business Needs: A Self-Assessment Guide and its implementation project conducted under NCHRP Project 20-44 (12), “Building Capacity for Self- Assessment of Data Effectiveness for Agency Business Needs” were included as resources to help shape the methodology for helping agencies evaluate whether they have the right data to support incorporating maintenance into TAMPs. The approach described in NCHRP Report 814 helps agencies determine the data required for meeting expected business needs and its approaches for evaluating data costs, benefits, and priorities were useful. Maintenance Management Guidance The following documents feature several relevant published research reports, guidance documents, regulations, and statutes describing the use of maintenance for highway assets. The topics covered in these documents include maintenance quality assurance (MQA) programs, performance-based maintenance planning, target-setting approaches, and the use of maintenance cost data in performance-based planning. These documents were reviewed by the research team to ensure the framework for incorporating maintenance into a TAMP took a comprehensive approach to maintenance management and its relationship with transportation asset management. NCHRP Report 677: Development of Levels of Service for Interstate Highway System (Dye Management Group 2010) NCHRP Report 677: Development of Levels of Service for the Interstate Highway System provides information on the sampling approach used for asset inventory data collection and the process for analyzing asset condition. It was an important reference for ensuring the framework addresses the typical inventory and condition data needs for supporting a MQA approach. NCHRP Report 422: Maintenance QA Program Implementation Manual (Stivers et al., 1999) NCHRP Report 422: Maintenance QA Program Implementation Manual serves as the benchmark for the majority of modern MQA programs, so it was referred to for guidance on incorporating maintenance costs in a TAMP. The report includes a process with 24 components that serve as a framework for developing a MQA program. Among these components #21, Activity Cost Determination, #22, Estimate to Achieve Target LOS, and #23, Distribution of Resources, were directly relevant to the effort of incorporating maintenance costs in a TAMP. NCHRP Synthesis 426: Performance-Based Highway Maintenance and Operations Management (Markow 2012) NCHRP Synthesis 426: Performance-Based Highway Maintenance and Operations Management was investigated for an understanding of the state of MQA practices at state DOTs to manage maintenance and operations (M&O) efforts. The report documents how states were applying the principles established in NCHRP Report 422, using inventory, condition, level of service, and other performance data to model the relationship between investment and performance. The report provides an understanding of the breadth and sophistication of MQA programs in place at the time of its publication. For example, when surveyed 31 agencies reported they were employing a performance-based approach to M&O. However, only eight of those states identified their approaches as “mature” (Markow 2012). Similarly, the inclusion of MQA data in a TAMP requires release of that data to the public. According to the synthesis, only 19 states shared their results with other internal stakeholders and the majority of states did not report results to any external

11 stakeholders (Markow 2012). This was an important observation in developing suggestions for the types of maintenance data to feature in a TAMP. NCHRP Synthesis 470: Maintenance Quality Assurance Field Inspection Practices (Zimmerman 2015) NCHRP Synthesis 470: Maintenance Quality Assurance Field Inspection Practices evaluated practices used by state transportation agencies to support maintenance investments. The synthesis indicates that agencies are using the results of MQA programs to estimate the cost of providing different maintenance service levels to users, as well as to document state DOTs’ efforts to collect data on a wide range of highway assets in the categories of drainage, roadside, pavements, bridges, traffic control, and specialty facilities. The findings were used to ensure that the most common data was considered in the framework developed under this research. NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 10-03: Best Practices in Performance Measurement for Highway Maintenance and Preservation (Capers et al., 2012) NCHRP Project 20-68A (Scan 10-03): Best Practices in Performance Measurement for Highway Maintenance and Preservation provided a review of practices related to performance-based management of maintenance and preservation activities for highway assets. The report documents strong practices found in state DOTs related to the use of performance data to support maintenance and preservation efforts. These practices helped identify potential case study agencies and helped highlight mature practices that could be considered in the framework described in the next chapter. NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 11-01: Leading Practices in Large-Scale Outsourcing and Privatization of Maintenance Functions (Capers et al., 2014) NCHRP Project 20-68A (Scan 11-01): Leading Practices in Large-Scale Outsourcing and Privatization of Maintenance Functions was included as a reference in identifying best practices in building agencies’ capacity for contracting maintenance work. Guide to LOS Target Setting for Highway Assets (Adams et al., 2014) The Guide to Level of Service (LOS) Target Setting for Highway Assets was developed as the final report to NCHRP Research Project 14-25. The research identified gaps in existing practice and established recommended practices for target setting and target management. The target-setting process described in the guidance is dependent on establishing unit costs for relevant maintenance work activities and modeling activity outputs to resulting performance. It suggests an approach for target setting that relies on modeling the anticipated performance outcomes based on the expected level of investment. The process presented in the guide was useful for the portion of the research methodology related to target-setting maintenance investments and performance outcomes. NCHRP Synthesis 371: Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Sidewalks (Markow 2007) NCHRP Synthesis 371: Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Sidewalks was reviewed to investigate asset management practices related to specific ancillary assets, including existing guidance, budgeting practices, common treatments, data collection practices, and assigned responsibilities within transportation agencies. However, given that this research predated the publication of the current AASHTO TAM Guide and the prior AASHTO Guide to

12 Transportation Asset Management: A Focus on Implementation, which was replaced by the current one, this synthesis study was found to have little relevance to the NCHRP 23-08 project. NCHRP Report 08-36, Task 114: Transportation Asset Management for Ancillary Structures (Rose et al., 2014) NCHRP Report 08-36, Task 114: Transportation Asset Management for Ancillary Structures provides information on applying asset management principles to ancillary assets, including structures, retaining walls, traffic control devices, drainage systems, safety features, and roadside features. However, the report does not include specific information on collecting or using treatment cost data related to maintenance or any other work type, and therefore, the report did not have any relevance to the NCHRP 23-08 project. NCHRP Research Report 859: Consequences of Delayed Maintenance on Highway Assets (Chang et al., 2017) NCHRP Research Report 859: Consequences of Delayed Maintenance of Highway Assets documents a methodology for helping agencies quantify the consequences of delayed maintenance on their assets. The main steps highlighted in the report to achieve this objective are: • Establishing the agency’s performance measures and targets for all the assets. • Analyzing current asset condition and forecasting future condition. • Determining maintenance needs and budget and investment needs to achieve the agency’s goals. • Performing delayed maintenance scenarios analyses and comparing with the baseline (“all needs”) scenario to estimate the costs of the delay for the different scenarios. The information presented in the report was useful in developing strategies for appropriately capturing maintenance costs. NCHRP Report 688: Determining Highway Maintenance Costs (Cambridge Systematics et al., 2011) NCHRP Report 688: Determining Highway Maintenance Costs developed a process for determining an agency’s full costs for delivering highway maintenance. The process is not specific to any type of maintenance activity or delivery method and was then applied to several maintenance activities across several state DOTs to evaluate its real-world applicability. The process considered total costs allocated to both line and support activities for delivering maintenance. The process was reviewed for a comprehensive understanding of highway maintenance costs for the NCHRP 23-08 project. NCHRP Project 20-68A, Scan 14-01: Leading Management Practices in Determining Funding Levels for Maintenance and Preservation (Capers et al., 2018) NCHRP Project 20-68A (Scan 14-01): Leading Management Practices in Determining Funding Levels for Maintenance and Preservation summarized successful practices that have led to reliable and adequate funding levels to support maintenance programs. The scan also identified DOTs that were “using performance data to set performance targets, allocate funding to districts/regions, and establish maintenance priorities” (Capers et al., 2018). States with promising practices were grouped into two categories: • Category 1—Maintenance performance-based needs (Washington State and Utah). • Category 2—Maintenance data was being used “to allocate funding at the regional/district level and/or to improve fiscal accountability” (Arkansas, Arizona, Colorado, Mississippi, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Wisconsin). The report includes several case studies from the peer exchanges that provide insights into the maintenance practices at agencies with mature maintenance management programs. These insights helped

13 support the development of the NCHRP 23-08 framework for incorporating maintenance costs into a TAMP. NCHRP Report 736: Resource Allocation Logic Framework to Meet Highway Asset Preservation (Wiegmann et al., 2012) NCHRP Report 736: Resource Allocation Logic Framework to Meet Highway Asset Preservation proposes a framework for state DOTs to use appropriate highway asset resources to maximize system preservation. The report also presents a spreadsheet-based computational tool that implements the framework. The framework serves as a guide to determine preservation needs and allocation adjustments for user-specified activity/asset groupings (AAG) beyond bridges and pavements and by district/region. The framework’s model is based on linear optimization and can allocate resources across AAGs, subject to constraints considered in such decision-making efforts, to achieve target asset performance or condition levels. The model provides a framework for allocating resources on a need basis. As a result, the model connects preservation investments directly to expected performance results and allows for the results to be revised if deemed necessary. The model supports optimization of resource allocations using asset inventory, condition, deterioration rates, and preservation treatment unit costs, considering statewide goals and objectives and funding constraints. The report included key conclusions and guidance drawn from testing the framework with real state DOT data and validating the framework with two state DOT case applications. The key conclusions that are relevant to NCHRP 23-08 include: • Inventory, performance/condition, deterioration, and preservation unit cost data for non-bridge and pavement assets are scarce among DOTs. Thus, it is difficult to use a completely analytical approach for allocating resources without many assumptions. • The framework is applicable to a wide range of AAG definitions and performance standards to account for agency practices and variance in definitions. • Deterioration is a strong driver of preservation needs. Therefore, when deterioration-based preservation needs exceed funding allocations for an AAG, performance improvement is impossible; instead, performance can be expected to regress. In these cases, optimized allocation of available funds would seek to minimize the regression across AAGs. • The nonlinear aspects of asset deterioration can be reasonably represented as first-order (straight line) equations when aggregated as average rates across entire AAG inventories. The guidance to support and enhance the framework that is relevant to NCHRP 23-08 includes: • Better methods for determining deterioration rates for various AAGs will significantly increase the effectiveness of the model framework. • Improved inventory and condition assessment management practices for non-bridge and pavement assets will enhance this framework’s resulting resource allocation and enhance other asset management practices. • The development of objective functions for optimizing resource allocation via peer agency efforts would minimize the number of calibrations needed for each DOT user. • There is potential benefit from applying the framework logic to maintenance and infrastructure improvement programs.

14 Vulnerability Assessment and Adaptation Framework, 3rd Edition. (FHWA 2020) Federal statute (23 USC 119(e)(4)(D)) and regulation (23 CFR 515.7(c)(6) and 515.9 (d)(6)) require state DOTs to incorporate resilience into their TAMPs to address risks associated with extreme weather. FHWA defines resilience as “the ability to anticipate, prepare for, and adapt to changing conditions and withstand, respond to, and recover rapidly from disruptions” (FHWA 2020). Maintenance plays a key role in asset resilience before, during, and after extreme weather events. Maintenance activities performed before events ensure assets are functioning as designed. Maintenance forces are among first responders acting during events to assess conditions, address emergency needs, and facilitate safe highway operations. Following events, maintenance crews, and contractors support recovery efforts. Six state DOTs including Arizona, Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, and Texas have partnered with FHWA under the Asset Management, Extreme Weather and Proxy Indicators pilot program to incorporate extreme weather and climate risk into asset management planning and to evaluate methodologies to incorporate extreme weather and environmental risk into life-cycle planning processes of assets (FHWA, 2020). Examples from the Maryland Department of Transportation State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA) and Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) were included to highlight the connection between maintenance and enhancing resilience through the inclusion of climate risks in TAMPs. These examples were useful in developing strategies for addressing risk management in the research framework. Maintenance Terms and Definitions The following documents provide useful definitions for maintenance topics and present examples showing how various agencies identify activities that they consider maintenance in the context of transportation assets. Through the peer exchange discussions conducted during Phase 1 of NCHRP 23-08, the research team found that one of the main challenges to incorporating maintenance costs into TAMPs was the lack of consistency among various agencies in defining maintenance. This lack of consistency could be attributed to several factors such as the immediacy of work, applicability of certain activities in specific climatic locations, budget category from which an expenditure is funded, or the organizational unit that oversees specific work types. Therefore, the team investigated the existing literature to find examples showing how agencies define maintenance. This was important for identifying a common definition of maintenance that would help in developing the framework for incorporating maintenance costs into TAMPs. Guidance on Highway Preservation and Maintenance (FHWA 2016) This FHWA memorandum, published in February 2016, served as updated guidance on highway preservation and maintenance activities to be consistent with the FAST Act. The memorandum consists of a series of questions and answers that are summarized below, as they pertain to this project effort. What Is Preservation? Preservation consists of work that is planned and performed to improve or sustain the condition of the transportation facility in a SOGR. Preservation activities generally do not add capacity or structural value but do restore the overall condition of the transportation facility. What Is Maintenance? Maintenance describes work that is performed to maintain the condition of the transportation system or to respond to specific conditions or events that restore the highway system to a functional state of operation. Maintenance is a critical component of an agency's asset management plan that is comprised of both routine and preventive maintenance.

15 What Is Routine Maintenance? Routine maintenance (RM) encompasses work that is performed in reaction to an event, season, or overall deterioration of the transportation asset. This work requires regular reoccurring attention. What Is Preventive Maintenance? Preventive maintenance (PM) is a cost-effective means of extending the useful life of the Federal-aid highway (23 U.S.C. § 116 (e)). Preventive Maintenance Agreement (FHWA 2018a) The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) and the FHWA Missouri Division Office developed a PM agreement that was published in September 2018. The agreement identifies activities that MoDOT and the FHWA Missouri Division Office categorize as PM. The agreement also details MoDOT’s PM plan, which has a systematic approach to identifying PM activities. The relevant maintenance definitions from the PM agreement are summarized below. Preventive Maintenance PM is “a planned strategy of cost-effective treatments to an existing roadway system and its appurtenances that preserves the system, retards future deterioration, and maintains or improves the functional condition of the system (without significantly increasing the structural capacity).” PM is typically applied to pavements in good condition that have significant remaining service life. As a major component of pavement preservation, PM is a strategy of extending the service life by applying cost- effective treatments to the surface or near-surface of structurally sound pavements. Routine Maintenance RM “consists of work that is planned and performed on a routine basis to maintain and preserve the condition of the highway system or to respond to specific conditions and events that restore the highway system to an adequate level of service.” RM consists of day-to-day activities that are scheduled by maintenance personnel to maintain and preserve the condition of the highway system at a satisfactory level of service. Corrective Maintenance Corrective maintenance (CM) encompasses work that is performed in reaction to an event, season, or overall deterioration of the transportation asset. CM work may be reoccurring as necessary until the asset can be otherwise preserved, rehabilitated, or reconstructed. Bridge Preservation Guide: Maintaining a Resilient Infrastructure to Preserve Mobility (FHWA 2018b) The Bridge Preservation Guide was developed to define bridge preservation terms and to identify commonly practiced bridge preservation activities. The guide can also support agency efforts to establish or improve asset management bridge preservation programs. The following maintenance-related definitions were obtained from the guide.

16 Preventive Maintenance PM is a cost-effective means of extending the service life of highway bridges. PM for highway bridges is a strategy for extending service life by applying cost-effective treatments to bridge elements. PM activities retard future deterioration and avoid large expenses in bridge rehabilitation or replacements. Cyclical Preventive Maintenance Activities Cyclical PM activities are performed on pre-determined intervals that aim to preserve and delay the deterioration of bridge elements or component conditions. The frequency of cyclical PM activities can change as a result of environmental or condition changes. For example, superstructure cleaning that was occurring at a 3-year interval based on past accumulation of debris buildup could change if pigeons start routinely nesting on superstructure elements. Condition-Based Maintenance Activities Condition-based maintenance activities are performed on bridge components or elements in response to known defects. Condition-based maintenance improves the condition of that portion of the element but may or may not result in an increase in the component condition rating. Condition-based maintenance activities are identified through an inspection process. Condition ratings may be improved by a condition-based PM activity. One example is a substructure element that was once rated fair due to spalled concrete and exposed reinforcement. Corrective Maintenance and Repairs CM actions are repairs. Elements needing CM are those that have failed or are anticipated to fail. Guidelines for Transportation Management Systems Maintenance Concept and Plans (FHWA Accessed March 2021) This online document provides practitioners guidance on, “… defining a system’s maintenance concept, determining the elements to include in the concept, and integrating the maintenance concept into all phases of the system life cycle.” The introductory chapter (Chapter 1) provides several definitions and concepts. The pertinent definitions and concepts are summarized below. Maintenance Activity The sequence of actions needed to conduct preventive, periodic, or repair maintenance on a device or subsystem. Typically refers to a specific component (e.g., camera) or subsystem (e.g., computer network). Maintenance Concept Defines the level of effort necessary to maintain system availability, reliability, and the functionality necessary to fulfill the operational concept. Responsive Maintenance The repair or replacement of failed equipment and its restoration to safe, normal operation. Typically unscheduled, it is in response to an unexpected failure or damage.

17 Preventive Maintenance Also called “routine” maintenance, it is the activity performed at regularly scheduled intervals for the upkeep of equipment. Includes checking, testing and inspecting, recordkeeping, cleaning, and periodic replacement when called for in the PM schedule. Emergency Maintenance Emergency maintenance is like responsive maintenance in that it is initiated by a fault or trouble report. However, in this case, the fault is more serious and requires immediate action. Events such as knockdowns, spills, exposed electrical wires, road blockages, etc. are examples of event reports that may require emergency maintenance. Of course, there can also be operational emergencies — e.g., stuck barriers on dedicated high-occupancy vehicle (HOV) lanes or failed lane control signs — that need to be dealt with quickly to minimize hazardous circumstances. AASHTO Maintenance Manual for Roadways (AASHTO 2007) This manual is a culmination of research from highway transportation literature on maintenance, field visits, and interviews with practitioners. The manual is intended to support various processes, methods, and materials that are applied to maintain bridge and highway systems effectively. The manual provides a discussion on PM roadway activities that is summarized below: • PM prevents the intrusion of water into the pavement structure—for example, with seal coats, joint seals, crack seals, and thin overlays. • PM provides for the removal of water from the pavement structure—for example, with underdrains and restoration of drainage systems. • PM restores pavement rideability—for example, with profiling and milling. • PM prevents deterioration of bridges—for example, with cleaning and painting, scour countermeasures, deck rehabilitation, and deck drain cleaning. The manual provides several examples of maintenance activities on various assets that are summarized below. Traveled Way Physical Maintenance Scarifying, reshaping, applying dust palliatives, and restoring material losses; patching, mudjacking, joint filing, crack sealing, surface treating, etc. Resurfacing of hard surfaces with bituminous material less than ¾-in. thick. Replacement of traveled way in kind for less than 500 continuous feet. Replacement of unsuitable base materials in patching operations. Traffic Services Removal of snow and ice and related operations such as sanding, chemical applications, etc. Restoring pavement stripes and markings and replacing raised pavement markers. Shoulders and Side Road All work incidental to the above. Restoring material losses. Replacement of shoulder in kind. Reseeding and resodding.

18 Roadsides Physical Maintenance Restoration of erosion controls. Removing slides, reshaping drainage channels and side slopes, mowing, and tree trimming. Replacing topsoil, sod, shrubs, etc. Chemical spraying. Traffic Services Erection of snow fences. Opening of inlets clogged with snow and ice. Removal of litter. Drainage Physical Maintenance Replacement (using approximately the same design) of curb, gutter, riprap, underdrain, and culverts. Cleaning and repairing culverts, inlets, etc. Wisconsin DOT Highway Maintenance Manual (WsDOT 2017) The Wisconsin DOT’s (WSDOT) Highway Maintenance Manual details the maintenance activities WSDOT utilizes to preserve its highway assets. The manual includes several relevant detailed discussions on various maintenance activities that are summarized below. Routine Maintenance This category consists of work that is planned, scheduled, and performed on a regular, often annual, basis to maintain and preserve the condition of the highway system or to respond to specific conditions and events that restore the highway system to an adequate level of service. It consists of day-to-day activities typically scheduled on a short time horizon, up to a month in advance, by maintenance personnel to maintain — not enhance — the current condition or level of service on the highway system. If an immediate repair is involved, they are small-scale or isolated distresses where the remedy retards further deterioration or restores a safe condition. More specifically, the general nature of RM is to address distress conditions that are very limited both in terms of cost and extent (e.g., density or frequency). For example, RM activities on the highway system’s traveled way would most often be random or isolated spot repairs rather than continual or stretches of traveled way repair. Common roadway repairs include crack sealing and routing, joint repair, patching, and lane-shoulder drop-off repair. County forces are the preferred RM service providers for work needed on the state trunk highway system. Corrective Maintenance These maintenance activities cannot be anticipated with any certainty in advance. It is in response to unplanned or unforeseen events or conditions of accelerated deterioration. CM actions are only performed on an as-needed basis. County forces may perform CM operations if the repair costs are not prohibitively high and the nature of the necessary repair work allows. Since the performance of this CM work is always time sensitive and sometimes specialized, it may involve both immediate action and a subsequent permanent repair. The immediate action might be a reactive treatment to restore an adequate or minimal level of service by repairing isolated problems that are compromising the safe and efficient operations of the state facility.

19 Preventive Maintenance These are planned asset management strategies that add system service life by retarding future deterioration and are delivered as programmed or scheduled projects. Because the work is scheduled and eligible for federal funding, it is primarily let to private contractors. Pavement PM efforts are typically lower in cost than full-fledged improvements. They are intended to: (a) slow a highway’s deterioration, (b) maintain its functional condition, and (c) extend pavement life up to 10 years. To be eligible for federal funding, PM pavement preservation strategies typically must occur while the pavement is in good to very good condition. Restorative Maintenance These maintenance activities restore a pavement section to an acceptable service level by removing or repairing existing distresses with 100 percent state funding from either the improvement program under a let contract or from the maintenance program. Restorative maintenance work is not considered preventive because it is performed on pavements already in a degraded condition, often much less than good condition. Degraded pavements have significant distress manifestations already present, so it is too late to “prevent” them; hence, the maintenance action simply restores serviceability. Candidates that provide 4 or more years of life extension are either eligible to be let as restorative maintenance improvement projects or addressed through maintenance program agreements. Term of the Road Dictionary (PIARC Accessed, March 2021a) The PIARC website has a dictionary of roadway terms. One of the relevant terms for this project effort is provided below. Extraordinary Maintenance All the operations required for restoring a road to its initial state when damage has been caused either by unforeseeable factors and phenomena or by an abnormal lack of maintenance. Road Network Operations & Intelligent Transport Systems (PIARC Accessed March 2021b) The road network operations and intelligent transport systems webpage discusses two types of typical maintenance: PM and responsive maintenance. The two types of maintenance are summarized below. Preventive Maintenance PM is regularly scheduled maintenance designed to pre-empt device failure that would render the device unserviceable. PM will extend the active life of devices and subsystems. It can use past experience to anticipate when devices should receive attention. PM can be as simple as cleaning cabinets and cable runs/conduits or securing wiring and printed circuit board connections to scheduled pre-emptive repair. Alternatively, it can entail replacement of components or entire devices. Responsive Maintenance Responsive maintenance (or reactive maintenance) concerns the repair or replacement of a component or system following failure or damage caused by a collision or other incident.

20 Peer Exchange Findings The four peer exchange sessions held virtually between the dates of November 12 and December 8, 2020, generated useful conversations and raised questions that the research team addressed in the framework and final guidance. This was a useful exercise that helped shape the work in the next phase of the project, beginning with the case studies. Session 1 Summary Overview On November 12, 2020, the first peer exchange session was held virtually. The objective of Session 1 was to review different approaches for collecting and managing the necessary data related to asset inventory, condition, and maintenance costs. Three state DOTs shared their practices related to specific sub-topics as follows: • Collecting Inventory and Condition Data (Alabama DOT). • Collecting Cost Data using the Agency’s Workforce (Utah DOT). • Collecting Cost Data Using Contractors (Texas DOT). Each state DOT was allotted 20 minutes to present its information, followed by a thirty-minute discussion. The discussion, facilitated by the research team, focused on identifying challenges related to collecting maintenance cost data, learning about ways to address these challenges from agencies who have previously done so, and sharing any relevant existing documentation, reports, and guidance. Participants were able to post questions during and after the three state DOT presentations. Following the DOT presentations and discussion, the meeting facilitators invited people to stay for an additional 30 minutes to continue the discussion. Session 1 was attended by 36 participants from 22 state DOTs, one county DOT, and two authorities. Session 1 Discussion The research team led a facilitated discussion, focusing on the questions: • What assets and associated maintenance activities were included in your TAMP? • What is your greatest challenge for obtaining cost data? The following bullets summarize the key discussion points. • One topic raised multiple times during these discussions was the difficulty of coming up with one standard definition of maintenance. The lack of a common set of actions that comprise maintenance work was cited as a significant challenge to incorporating maintenance costs in a TAMP. Agencies Participating in Session 1 • Alabama DOT • Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) • Arkansas DOT • Delaware DOT • Florida DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • Kentucky Transportation Cabinet (KYTC) • Maricopa County DOT • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT • Missouri DOT • Nevada DOT • New Mexico DOT • New Jersey DOT • New Jersey Sports & Exposition Authority • New York Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) • New York State DOT • Pennsylvania DOT • South Carolina DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT • Vermont Agency of Transportation (VTrans) • Washington State DOT

21 • Participants noted several pavement and bridge-related maintenance activities considered in their TAMPs, but there was considerable misalignment between agencies. For instance: • Pavement maintenance examples included: pavement overlays, chip seals, fog sealing, mill and fill, pothole patching, and thin patching for asphalt and concrete. • For bridges, participants listed preservation activities such as cleaning and resealing, scour prevention, deck overlays, and joint repair. • Some DOTs included Intelligent Transportation System (ITS) assets, such as ramp meters and Road Weather Information Systems (RWIS), and the associated maintenance activities in their TAMP. • Participants noted that, for any assets included in the TAMP, the following data is required: inventory, condition, revenue, and life-cycle planning information such as cost and potential investment strategies. • Participants noted the following challenges to obtaining cost data. – Integrating data from various management and accounting systems. One agency mentioned the challenge of having only one-way communication between its MMS and financial system, resulting in dual data entry. Additionally, inputting contracts into the current MMS was reported to be cumbersome. Another DOT mentioned difficulty capturing material costs in their MMS as well as difficulty reporting contracted work in the MMS. – Integrating data from a variety of field data collection tools and processes. One agency has been focused on asset management planning for a diversity of assets. The reported it has been challenging to identify the appropriate field tools to capture the maintenance portion of the life cycle for these different assets. For example, the owners of different assets capture the information using a variety of tools in the field. The speaker noted it would be helpful to their agency to have a single source or tool. – Capturing maintenance costs from different budgets or programs. In many cases, the costs associated with maintenance work are paid for through RM funds, but in some cases, these activities are paid for through other programs or budgets. – Capturing costs for assets that are managed differently (e.g., pavements, guardrails, and signs). Some assets receive multiple maintenance treatments during their life cycle, while other assets are installed and replaced cyclically or only when they fail. • Participants identified several questions that they felt this project should address, including: • Should agencies tie certain assets to the paving cycle? For example, should an agency replace drainage assets, pave the roadway, then replace safety appurtenances? • Should agencies manage assets on a corridor basis? • What about asset replacements? Are replacements considered maintenance? In some cases, such as with ITS assets, the maintenance activity is actually a replacement of the asset. Session 2 Summary Overview Session 2, held on November 19, 2020, explored the topics discussed in Session 1 in greater detail. Session 1 focused on different approaches for collecting and managing necessary data related to asset inventory, condition, and maintenance costs, and identified some of the challenges state DOTs are facing. Session 2 included a review of Session 1 highlights, a review of the participant survey results from Session 1, three breakout discussion groups, and a final full group discussion. The breakout groups each explored one area of major challenges to obtaining and managing maintenance cost data. These discussions provided additional detail on the challenges and identified potential ways that the guidance could support agencies in overcoming them. The group discussion allowed each breakout group to present its findings and ask for input from the larger group. The session was attended by 24 participants, representing 18 agencies. For this session, the participants were divided into three breakout groups to address the following topics:

22 1. General Data Collection Issues. 2. Collecting Maintenance Contract Costs. 3. System and Process Integration. Each breakout group was asked to address its respective topic areas with the following objectives. • Identify topics to address in the guidance to support the effective collection of maintenance cost data. • Discuss how the guidance can best address these topics. • Identify major barriers or data gaps. • Identify examples of good practice. Session 2 - Breakout Group 1 Discussion on General Data Collection Participants in group 1 indicated they were not fully confident in their maintenance cost data but were confident in some aspects of the process to collect costs. In many cases, their confidence level was related to their processes for entering data into their software systems and system interfaces. One agency expressed confidence in its labor costs due to the interface with the accounting system and the payroll data. However, fringe benefits, such as health benefits, had to be preprogrammed and were not reconciled in real time. The agency was less confident in equipment costs, which rely on an interface between its MMS and accounting system. They are the least confident in materials, for which they rely on manual data entry into the MMS. Multiple agencies described challenges related to their MMS. One agency explained that its current MMS does not interface with the payroll system and that data must be entered manually into the MMS. Another agency recently implemented a new software system that it is using to track labor, equipment, and materials for maintenance activities. Agencies discussed their abilities to differentiate between maintenance costs that contribute to condition/LOS and those that do not. One agency discussed its ability to connect capital projects and LOS but is currently using that only for pavement assets. Its MMS estimates the impact on LOS based on the type of treatment. Other agencies explained that capital projects could not easily be connected to LOS. Agencies described gaps in the data that they collect for incorporating maintenance costs into asset management systems. Participants again referred to the lack of interfaces between the MMS and other systems such as the pavement management system (PMS), and the Bridge Management System (BMS). They indicated it is difficult to combine the data and conduct the necessary analysis. One agency described a desire to link the roadway surface treatment maintenance costs as they apply to the overall PMS and the impact on condition. The group identified the following items as necessary for helping them predict costs: • A reliable source of cost information (in-house and contractor). • A comprehensive inventory and condition assessments of assets. • A reliable deterioration model for assets to predict how they will perform over time given a particular funding scenario and the impacts of the treatments. Agencies Participating in Session 2 • Alabama DOT • Alaska Department of Transportation & Public Facilities (DOT&PF) • Arkansas DOT • Delaware DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • Maricopa County DOT • Michigan DOT • Minnesota DOT • Nevada DOT • New Mexico DOT • New York State DOT • Oklahoma DOT • South Carolina DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT • Washington State DOT

23 Session 2 - Breakout Group 2 Discussion on Collecting Maintenance Contract Data Participants in this group discussed how their agencies identify maintenance work done by contract in the financial management or capital program management system. One agency described codes in the financial system that differentiate between contract and in-house work. Another reported all the projects in the Betterment Program as “maintenance.” This includes seal coats, bridge maintenance, and other activities. At a third agency, work by both state forces and contractors is charged to a project number in its financial management system. Another example was to assign an account number that designates certain contracts as maintenance contracts in the financial management software. The MMS then differentiates between in-house and contracted maintenance work based on the account number. Several agencies explained how they separate costs by activity or asset class. Agencies had varying capabilities in this area. One agency explained that it can separate work by activity but not by individual asset. Another noted that they use location to help identify to which asset the costs relate. One agency stated it assigns pay items to a function code from the daily work reports, and inspectors track their time in the MMS. Costs are then broken down to the highway section level based on the inspectors’ locations. Other agencies described difficulty in aligning pay items with in-house maintenance activities or function codes. Agencies identified several other issues related to capturing maintenance contract costs that they felt were important to be included in the guidance. These included: • Capturing in-house maintenance labor, equipment, and materials costs associated with TAM/TAMP functions. • Capturing capital expenditures on smaller operating items such as crack sealing. • Capturing and reporting maintenance on ancillary assets, such as ITS, work in more detail, e.g., at the component level. Session 2 - Breakout Group 3 Discussion on System and Process Integration The third breakout group discussed the integration of maintenance data and processes with other business areas. Only three agencies described their MMS as integrated or soon to be integrated with the payroll or financial system. One of these was a legacy “home-grown” system that has an interface with payroll and inventory, as well as the purchasing division. This allows the system to provide actual labor, materials, and equipment costs. Other agencies described the need to perform double data entry. One agency has a one-way interface. It receives bi-weekly updates from the financial system to update labor rates for maintenance workers and is working with its financial system to be able to push the hours logged in the MMS to the financial system. Agencies also described varying degrees of integration between the MMS, PMS, and BMS. In most cases, the MMS interfaces with one of the other systems, but not both. One agency described its plan to implement a set of applications using geographical information system (GIS) technology to provide pavement and bridge viewers within the MMS. This will allow users to see pavement inventory, cracking, maintenance history, and other information. While it is not a true integration, it is expected to be helpful. The group also discussed which assets are managed cyclically or based on condition. Agencies commonly managed activities such as mowing and guardrail inspection on a cyclical basis. However, the group generally agreed that maintenance work was more often triggered by condition because cyclical maintenance was commonly a lower priority than reacting to failures or emergencies.

24 Session 2 - Large Group Discussion Following the breakouts, attendees participated in a large group discussion in which the groups reported highlights, and people could pose additional questions or issues. The following points were raised: • Maintenance covers a broad array of work types, some of which impact an asset’s service life and some of which do not. To help with this challenge, the guidance should identify categories of maintenance treatments to address how the costs for each work type can be incorporated into a TAMP. Example categories include PM, corrective repairs, or operations. • Typically, maintenance does not change an asset’s overall condition rating. This may provide one way to categorize maintenance actions and an understanding of the needed maintenance strategy. • Maintenance strategies should dovetail with TAM strategies, not only because it is good practice, but also because it can help manage risk. If the TAM investment strategies lead to a high percentage of assets in good condition, then maintenance needs will be mostly preventive. However, if an agency anticipates a growing number of poor assets, then maintenance will be needed to keep the assets in poor condition safe and operational. The agency then needs to understand which resources are available to deliver the needed maintenance and which delivery option provides the best value. This helps manage the risks of assets in good condition dropping to fair too soon and the risk of assets in poor condition becoming unsafe or unserviceable. • The TAMP needs to incorporate all types of maintenance costs, but not all maintenance costs will be incorporated in the same way. States are free to define maintenance as they would like. This guidance should help them decide how to incorporate their data regardless of how they define maintenance. • It is important for an agency to have a strategy for delivering maintenance that explains what the agency expects to deliver and how they expect to deliver it. This can be helpful for both planning and dealing with setbacks. If the maintenance budget is cut, even by a relatively small amount, this could affect the agency’s ability to deliver its maintenance strategy. In this scenario, a documented strategy becomes a communication tool to explain why the agency will have to lower its expectations about what type of maintenance it can provide.

25 Session 3 Summary Overview The third peer exchange session was held virtually on December 1, 2020, focusing on incorporating maintenance data into life-cycle planning, investment/financial planning, and investment strategy development. The session objectives included a review of practices for incorporating maintenance costs in TAMP analyses and identifying challenges to adopting these practices. Representatives from three states shared their practices. The team has identified the following topic/state combinations for this session: • Incorporating Maintenance Data into Asset Management Plans (WSDOT). • Incorporating Maintenance Costs for Bridges in a TAMP (NYSDOT). • Incorporating Maintenance Data into a TAMP with a Focus on Ancillary Assets (Minnesota DOT). Each state DOT was allotted 20 minutes to present its information, followed by a thirty-minute interactive discussion. The discussion, facilitated by the research team, focused on identifying challenges related to the agencies’ experiences with life-cycle planning, financial planning, and investment strategy development. The discussions focused on how to address these challenges from agencies who have done so and what relevant existing documentation and guidance are available. The summary that follows includes themes and challenges shared during the entire 2.5-hour session. The session was attended by 22 participants, representing 17 agencies. Session 3 Discussion Agencies agreed that there is a strong connection between maintenance and preservation since without sufficient preservation funding, maintenance cannot preserve the network indefinitely. However, participants noted challenges related to forecasting maintenance activities and costs because the activities are often reactive in nature. Another noted challenge is funding. Many PM activities do not occur due to a lack of preservation funding. When preservation is not funded to the necessary level, the condition of the assets degrades. There are challenges with maintenance data quality and consistency as well. One challenge is old data. Often, the maintenance data is at least one year behind. Additionally, data does not fully capture the activities and backlog. User input errors also contribute to data quality issues. It is a challenge to communicate specific unfunded maintenance needs. Some mistake maintenance as a less expensive option compared to preservation. The group also discussed maintenance costs in life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA). A typical LCCA incorporates maintenance and capital treatments. One state described its effort in this area, which resulted in the determination that the needed maintenance cost data was poor quality or non-existent. That led to a maintenance costing effort and the creation of the agency’s Asset Management office. The agency has been developing LCCA spreadsheets for small culverts, life-cycle planning scenarios for culverts including typical costs for specific activities, and complex decision trees for culvert repair. This process resulted in a list of prioritized projects. Takeaways from this process include the understanding that this is a high-level process that requires assumptions and that using a data-driven process is preferred. Agencies Participating in Session 3 • Alabama DOT • Delaware DOT • Florida DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • KYTC • Maricopa County DOT • Minnesota DOT • Nevada DOT • New York State DOT • Oklahoma DOT • South Carolina DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT • VTrans • Washington State DOT

26 The participants discussed how their agencies’ maintenance priorities have changed based on a change in asset conditions. One agency discussed challenges with incorporating maintenance costs for bridges in a TAMP. More than half of the state-owned bridges exceeded their 50-year design life and the DOT is trying to keep them functional. To accomplish this, the agency shifted its focus from PM to corrective repair as the need for more major work on bridges has increased. Due to the high cost of contract bridge maintenance work, the agency shifted corrective repair activities to in-house forces. As part of this shift, the agency refocused the bridge program and trained in-house forces in skills needed for corrective repairs such as welding, pouring concrete, and constructing scaffolding. They also procured new equipment because these repairs required workers to gain substructure access. The agency tracks performance in terms of bridge maintenance activities and cost. To maintain its bridges cost- effectively, the state must invest in state forces materials stock. An additional benefit of this work is that it has extended the service life of the state’s bridges and had a positive impact on the agency’s Capital Program and TAMP. Other agencies described increased spending on inspection as a result of deteriorating conditions. At least one agency is engaging in a statewide inspection of culverts. Another agency has begun to focus on a rockslide mitigation program, which includes inspecting and prioritizing rockslide locations for mitigation projects. This is in response to significant rainfall events that occurred, resulting in 10 individual slides across the state. During these events, the actual roadbed slid away rather than rocks falling on the surface, resulting in significant damage. The agency is developing a strategy for rating the slopes and performing mitigation activities such as soil nails and horizontal drains. Plans were changed due to a change in funding needs as a result of the natural disaster. One agency described using risk assessments to steer maintenance activities toward assets with more significant consequences of failure. The agency realized that the maintenance program spends a lot of time maintaining sections that do not need maintaining, such as ditching performed on unwarranted locations. The agency is trying to make changes to the drainage program that include moving away from cleaning ditches and increasing activities such as slip lining culverts. This is being done in coordination with an effort to increase the hydraulic capacity of culverts because increased flooding has caused a loss of materials in cross culverts. Agencies mentioned new areas of condition measurement changing their areas of focus. One example is an increased focus on pedestrian infrastructure to become 100 percent compliant with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). ADA compliance is becoming a part of both maintenance planning and TAMP development. Participants agreed that the annual consistency determination reviews, in which they categorize the amount of money spent on the five work types as defined in FHWA guidance (i.e., preservation, resurfacing, reconstruction, rehabilitation, and new construction), show that most funding is spent on the “heavier” activities, not maintenance. One agency explained that the state has prioritized activities that will help maintain the transportation system. This includes preserving and replacing bridges and maintaining pavements through its resurfacing program. The DOT has developed quantitative measures to evaluate the maintenance program and the process is described in its TAMP. In one district, a bridge engineer grew concerned about the vulnerability of bridges that connect to a nearby barrier island. He worried a bad storm could damage them all at once and they would be costly to replace. As a result, those bridges were then added to a high-priority list. Another agency described how it looks at expenditures by cost, lane-mile, and bridge deck area. This agency also looks at life-cycle planning and compares how much is spent annually. For each asset type, the agency looks at the amount of annual spending on the PM approach and compares that to a minimum maintenance-only approach. The annual cost makes a large impact throughout the life of the asset. The

27 comparison shows that the cost savings from a PM approach is significant and shows the importance of being proactive rather than reactive. Another agency looks at all the treatments that need to be done and the available funding. That agency then checks the application cycle and determines resources available and the accomplishments achieved. It then conducts an analysis to determine which activities need to be performed between state forces and contractors. Once that is done, the agency identifies the gaps and makes budget arguments. One participant made the point that maintaining non-pavement and bridge assets requires a smaller budget compared to preservation investments. The challenge is communicating the priority and the need compared to the larger investments. Another participant mentioned the struggle with the definitions for maintenance, preservation, and PM. Generally, maintenance activities are considered those that do not add life to the asset and are distinguished from preservation activities. However, the terms have different meanings in different conversations. Participants then discussed the relationship between emergency response and maintenance. One participant noted that emergency response ranges from accident response to incident response. Historically, that agency responded only during major emergencies; now emergency activities are smaller but taking more time. The agency responded to the COVID-19 pandemic by setting up parking lots for testing and delivering testing kits. A large part of their maintenance program is moving toward addressing nontraditional emergencies. A question on the difference between maintenance and preservation led to a discussion about emergency events, resiliency, and funding. The agency that had previously discussed its unstable slope program described its experience performing pavement and bridge asset work at the locations of major slope failures. The cost involved in replacing the asset and rebuilding the underlying layer is significant, which will result in significant redirection of funds from the original funding plans. While an emergency event that is significant enough to be declared a disaster may be eligible for Federal Emergency Relief or Public Assistance, those programs are reimbursements. This means the initial expenditures need to come from existing budgets and can have a significant impact on other work. The group did not establish a clear distinction between preservation and maintenance, but the discussion did agree that maintenance activities generally do not improve the overall condition of a facility, while preservation may. Session 4 Summary Overview Session 4 took place virtually on December 8, 2020. Thirteen participants attended this session, representing 11 agencies. The session included a review of Session 3 highlights and a full group discussion, with a focus on the following questions: 1. What topics should be addressed in the guidance to best incorporate maintenance costs in a TAMP? 2. How can the guidance best address these topics? 3. What major barriers will need to be overcome to develop the guidance? 4. Which agencies can provide practice examples or serve as case study agencies? Agencies Participating in Session 4 • Alabama DOT • Delaware DOT • Iowa DOT • Kansas DOT • Minnesota DOT • Nevada DOT • New Mexico DOT • New York State DOT • South Dakota DOT • Tennessee DOT • Texas DOT

28 Session 4 - Breakout Group 1 Discussion on Risk and Resiliency This breakout group focused on three questions related to risk and resiliency. Does your TAMP describe how maintenance is involved in mitigating risks in the risk register? Two participants discussed developing risk registers that described risks at a high level but did not document specific actions for how they would mitigate each risk. The participants agreed that their TAMPs largely did not provide a great level of detail about how maintenance is involved in mitigating risks. Maintenance managers in the group expressed that they would like to vet that information first before adding it to the TAMP. Participants described various ways that maintenance management is tied to risk management, although these connections are not described in their TAMPs. Examples included: • Initial emergency response is conducted via maintenance, followed by a “triage,” in which an agency determines which efforts go to contract and which ones can be performed with in-house maintenance forces. • Risks are not directly tied to maintenance activities in the TAMP. One agency identified its priority risks in the TAMP, which include flooding, rockslides, and culvert failures. However, contingency plans are identified for responding to natural disasters, separate from the TAMP. • An agency identified seven risk factors in its TAMP. Its district staff focus on tasks such as patching potholes and fixing guardrails during routine operations and after risk events. If the goal is to identify all the maintenance activities associated with identified risks, the agency will have to better connect the risk events with the maintenance activities performed and the risk register in the TAMP needs to be more specific. The participants felt guidance on how maintenance activities can work to mitigate risks would be beneficial, but none indicated they had done so at the time of the peer exchange. What activities does maintenance perform that can mitigate risk or enhance resiliency? The following activities were listed by the group: • Cleaning culverts. • Prepositioning (including renting) equipment to expedite emergency response. • Conducting a rigorous bridge maintenance process. • Snow/ice operations. Other actions that are not necessarily maintenance activities but can contribute to risk mitigation include training, recruitment, and retention efforts. For example, one participant mentioned that its agency experienced issues in retaining maintenance staff because they were not able to offer compensation competitive with the private sector or other local agencies. They identified that as a risk and increased entry- level salaries as a mitigation strategy. Collaboration was also mentioned by another participant whose agency has bridge crews throughout each of its four maintenance districts that work closely with its bridge management section. How can the Guidance help you better coordinate between TAMP risk management and maintenance planning and delivery? Participants identified the following ways that the Guide could support the connection between risk management and maintenance management. • A few agencies indicated they are developing “vulnerable asset” lists related mostly to environmental, weather, and seismic events. They would like to see studies and examples of how other states are identifying maintenance activities to support preservation and other capital programs in the guidance.

29 • Several agencies mentioned they are having trouble retaining experienced, qualified technical maintenance staff due to salary. As a result of this, they are funding a lot of work through capital contracts being managed by maintenance personnel. They would like the guidance to provide different options depending upon the agency’s personnel situation. Maintenance is being asked to take on more work because of the long lead times to get designs and construction in place, so multimillion-dollar open-ended contracts are designed to be as versatile as possible. Maintenance staff need to be trained to understand when to approve things and when to ask for help from design, construction, support, and other groups. • Some agencies indicated they are supplementing their maintenance budgets with capital funds to make sure they can respond to the DOT’s needs with the necessary materials and equipment. They are reducing the amount of pavement maintenance delivered by state forces and funding that work in the capital budget. For bridge maintenance, one agency is focusing state-forces maintenance work on corrective repairs more than PM. Session 4 - Breakout Group 2: Financial Planning and Investment Strategies This breakout group focused on financial planning and investment strategies. The questions posed and the resulting discussions are summarized below. What maintenance costs are included in your TAMP? Responses to this question by five state DOT representatives indicate multiple approaches were used to include maintenance costs into their TAMPs. • Agency 1 - The TAMP included only the capital program budget. This includes contract maintenance. They discussed the work types assigned to each capital project, but they only include maintenance work done by contract. • Agency 2 - The TAMP identifies costs for all of its program areas and aligned those areas to the work activities. The maintenance category is split by pavements and bridges but can also be split by route classification. • Agency 3 - The TAMP includes all state-force maintenance work, which includes mowing, plowing, and some other activities. This agency believed that decisions between maintenance and preservation are better made at the program level and viewed the financial plan as a high-level perspective. • Agency 4 - The TAMP only includes pavements and bridges. Maintenance is reported differently across each asset. This respondent indicated the DOT has better information on what has been done in the past than future projections so they do not have confidence forecasting future maintenance needs. • Agency 5 - The TAMP provides a 10-year average for maintenance work conducted by contract forces. Does your TAMP forecast maintenance needs and/or expenditures by asset class and network (e.g., interstate and non-interstate NHS)? Participants from five agencies described their approaches to forecasting maintenance costs in their TAMPs, • Agency 1 - RM can be predicted, but reactive maintenance, such as snow removal, is less predictable. They have a budget for contract maintenance, so they know what is available to spend. Determining needs is a challenge. The DOT must evaluate what should be performed by contract and in-house forces. This is influenced by factors that do not relate to finance, such as safety. • Agency 2 has a 5-year work program that includes preservation (RM, resurfacing, bridge repair & replacement). Assets are rated annually and a target condition is established for the overall inventory. During workshops with field crews, supervisors discuss performance accomplishments and identify

30 funding needed to bring the inventory up to the target. The work plan covers all maintenance activities with unit costs for each to develop the budget. Future-year budgets are inflated by 3 percent each year. For resurfacing, they have a forecasting tool that looks at which pavements will be impacted. They had one model that worked well for years but had trouble with it last year, so they developed a new model. For bridges, the process is similar. They budget so that 90 percent of the assets meet state targets. They inspect bridges every other year and use the results to estimate how much repair work is needed each year. They plan bridge replacements 5 years out. If repair costs exceed replacement costs, they advance the replacement. • Agency 3 analyzed 10 years’ worth of maintenance data and developed trend lines to forecast future funding for the 10 years included in the TAMP. • Agency 4 used past expenditures from seven districts to estimate future maintenance needs in the TAMP. This is difficult because districts can program this money to meet all their needs, and the allocation changes each year. An added challenge is that they must do this for nine asset classes, including state-owned pavements and bridges, in the state TAMP. This agency utilizes a corridor approach to include all asset costs that are used to forecast expected needs. This allows them to reduce the impact of fluctuations in cost for a single asset. It also supports their efforts to manage the network as a system. • Agency 5’s pavement network optimization program assumes that maintenance is performed. The maintenance accounting system provides actual maintenance activity information for pavements that could be analyzed separately in future TAMPs. The DOT is in the process of implementing a BMS, which includes maintenance activities and may also serve as a source of maintenance cost data for future TAMPs. How can this Guidance help you better incorporate maintenance revenue and expenditures in your TAMP financial plan? Participants indicated they would like to know how to better predict RM needs and how to report reactive maintenance. For example, they would like to know the best way to report traffic costs. In particular, they indicated they would like to know if traffic control costs should be separated out since they can impact the total expense associated with an activity. Session 4 - Breakout Group 3: Life Cycle Planning This breakout group focused on life-cycle planning. The questions posed and the resulting discussions are summarized below. Do you know which maintenance activities impact an asset’s life cycle? The group discussed which maintenance activities do not impact the life cycle of an asset, using striping and snow and ice activities as examples of maintenance work that does not extend the life cycle. One participant mentioned that most maintenance activities can have an impact on an asset’s life cycle. For example, landscape assets can impact slope. There are many ways to look at it. The challenge is to make the guidance general enough while recognizing the complexity of some assets compared to others. The group discussed the scope of this project and its intended outcomes. They questioned whether the guidance will include only pavement and bridge maintenance or whether it will be more comprehensive. They also wondered whether all maintenance costs, whether performed by contract or in-house forces should be included in the guidance. The group agreed it would be best to make the guidance “asset agnostic,” so it could be applied to any asset class an agency wishes to include in its TAMP.

31 What is needed to guide decisions on the maintenance side? Participants mentioned that the information needed to guide maintenance decisions depends on the particular asset. For instance, pavement maintenance decisions depend in part on how you rate the pavement and whether that data indicates the need for maintenance activities. The example of crack sealing was presented. One agency views crack sealing as a maintenance activity that adds a high value for a relatively low cost, and it is also included in the LCCA. The goal is to implement a uniform process across the state and institute a performance measure for crack sealing to track this information. It is a relatively simple Geographic Information System exercise to calculate the measure for planning purposes. An example of culverts was also offered. This same agency has several culvert activities that are triggered primarily by inspections. The agency records maintenance data from work orders and tracks inspection results in its database. Both current conditions and condition trends can be used to trigger actions. Participants mentioned that an activity might affect only one aspect of an asset, which complicates efforts to determine work needs. It was suggested that agencies focus on which activities impact asset performance and condition, such as those that prevent deterioration. Do your life-cycle strategies or other factors drive what maintenance activities are planned or delivered? Participants identified several factors that influence maintenance planning, including: • The level of investment for an asset class and the expected need for work activities. • Employee retention, particularly within maintenance. Maintenance employees are generally hired at a low pay rate and then leave after a short time as a result. Thus, the maintenance work force is split between those who have been employed long enough to have institutional knowledge and familiarity with technology tools and those who do not. Agencies are faced with deciding whether it is worth it to train state forces or pay for contractors to do the work instead. • The COVID-19 pandemic. Fewer contracts are active right now due to the pandemic, yet agencies still need to meet the performance measures in their business plan. Several agencies are reconsidering their goals to ensure they are attainable. Session 4 Large Group Discussion The following ideas were discussed after the breakout groups: • Some states included snow, ice, and similar costs in the TAMP, while some consider those outside of the asset life cycle. • Traditional programming and planning do not consider maintenance. Agencies expressed the importance of considering the risk of inadequate maintenance in planning and programming processes. • The group discussed the connection between maintenance and Transportation Systems Operations Management (TSMO). The group indicated that maintenance and TSMO, along with TAM, should be the focus of programming decisions, as opposed to the historical division of maintenance versus capital. • Generally, M&O are connected when the operations budget is exceeded and funding needs to come out of the maintenance budget; however, this was not considered an effective long-term solution. • Some agencies can obtain additional funds for operational needs like heavy snow. The bigger concern is that an extended snow and ice season often cuts into the funding for the summer maintenance work season, so maintenance and preservation work often does not get done. • It is a challenge to direct funding toward goals with a weak performance management linkage and a decentralized programming process.

32 • Several participants suggested the guidance should help show states how to deliver good TAM even if that means not achieving targets (e.g., percent poor) that drive worst-first thinking. • Some indicated that some agencies consider maintenance to be about addressing the gaps left by the capital strategy to make sure the whole system is safe and operational rather than a life-cycle strategy. • One participant indicated there are two ways to think about this topic: strategically and tactically. The strategic side addresses the asset preservation goals, resource constraints, and priorities for addressing needs. It describes the risk that maintenance needs to address. The tactical side addresses the maintenance costs agencies incur and how to prepare agencies to address those risks. Key Peer Exchange Takeaways The key takeaways from the peer exchange are as follows: • Defining Maintenance: Many agencies struggle to define maintenance and, therefore, maintenance costs. Some believe that there should not be one standard maintenance definition across all states. The research team designed the guidance to include sufficient assistance as to how each agency can establish a maintenance definition that works for them. • Obtaining Cost Data: Discussions in the first two sessions helped identify the major challenges agencies face in obtaining maintenance cost data, as follows: • Integrating data from various management and accounting systems. • Integrating data from a variety of field collection tools and processes. • Capturing maintenance costs from different budgets or programs. • Capturing costs for assets that are managed differently (e.g., pavements, guardrails, and signs). • Impact on Asset Service Life: Maintenance covers a broad array of work types, some of which impact an asset’s service life and some of which do not. The guidance was designed to identify categories of maintenance activities to address how the costs in each category can be incorporated into a TAMP. Example categories include PM, corrective repairs, and operations. • Maintenance and TAM Connection: It was emphasized that maintenance strategies should dovetail with TAM strategies, not only because it is good practice, but also because it can help manage risk. If the TAM investment strategies lead to a high percentage of assets in good condition, then maintenance needs should be mostly preventive. However, if TAM analyses anticipate a growing number of poor assets, then maintenance will be needed to keep the assets in poor condition safe and operational. The agency then needs to understand what resources are available to deliver the needed maintenance and which delivery option provides the best value. This helps manage the risk of assets in good condition dropping to fair too soon and the risk of assets in poor condition becoming unsafe or unserviceable. • Maintenance and Preservation Connection: There is a strong connection between maintenance and preservation. Without sufficient preservation funding, maintenance cannot preserve the network indefinitely. Forecasting maintenance activities and costs is challenging because maintenance work is often reactive in nature. • Maintenance, Risk, and Resilience: Questions about resilience were raised in multiple sessions. The cost of work in response to natural disasters can be significant, which could result in significant redirection of funds from original budgets. The participants indicated that the guidance should address this issue. They also indicated the guidance should help agencies consider the cost of recurring maintenance activities related to resilience. By addressing these issues, participants felt the guidance would illustrate how the incorporation of maintenance in a TAMP provides practical strategies for DOTs for mitigating risks. • Tactical and Strategic Thinking: The strategic side of TAM addresses how assets are maintained and how resource constraints, risks, and needs will be addressed. The tactical side addresses the maintenance costs an agency incurs and how to prepare the agency to address those risks. The

33 guidance was designed to address both the strategic and tactical issues related to maintenance cost considerations. • New Ways of Thinking: During the development of the guidance, the project team looked for opportunities to help states adopt enhanced TAM practices. Traditional programming and planning approaches do not consider maintenance. Ideally, the guidance informs agencies about the risk associated with providing inadequate maintenance funding. Case Study Findings The research team conducted eight case study reviews, documenting the current practices and process improvements underway at state and local DOTs. The eight case studies document practices from the selected DOTs to identify and evaluate the data requirements, availability, opportunities, and constraints associated with current practices. As part of this assessment, the research team identified the types of assets that are currently being included in agencies’ MMS and TAMPs, the activities and costs defined as maintenance by each agency, as well as the methodologies used to track maintenance costs related both to internal staff and contracted work. The project team selected the case study candidate agencies based on the findings from task 1 and deliberations with the project panel. The case study agencies were selected using the following selection criteria: • Mature Processes – The agency must have relatively mature Maintenance Management or Pavement Management processes or be actively working on improving these processes. • Peer Exchange Participation – Agencies that participated in the Peer Exchanges were given preference over those who did not participate. • Geographic or Size Diversity – An effort was made to select agencies of varying sizes from different geographic regions. Using the selection criteria and process, the project team identified nine agencies as candidates for case studies: Alabama DOT (ALDOT), Florida DOT (FDOT), Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT), Maryland DOT State Highway Administration (MDOT SHA), Minnesota DOT (MnDOT), Nevada DOT (NDOT), New York State DOT (NYSDOT), and Tennessee DOT (TDOT), and Washington State DOT (WSDOT). The project team defined Tier 1 and Tier 2 process maturity levels to show a broad range of perspectives. Tier 1 agencies refer to those with very mature processes in maintenance management or pavement management. ALDOT, MDOT SHA, MnDOT, and NDOT were identified as Tier 1 agencies. Tier 2 agencies are those that are working toward maturity in either of those areas. FDOT, MCDOT, NYSDOT, and TDOT were identified as Tier 2 agencies. After reaching out to all nine agencies, WSDOT was unable to participate. Case studies were developed for the other eight. Case study reports were developed for all eight agencies. These reports were submitted separately to the project panel. They provide significant detail on the practices, tools, and resources used by each agency related to incorporating maintenance costs in their respective TAMPs. The case studies identified relevant policies, tools, organizational structures, and activities that can serve to inform and explain the proposed framework for incorporating maintenance costs in a TAMP. These findings include items that have not been incorporated into TAMPs or other public documents. The aspects of each state agency's practices presented in this report are summarized from the case study reports and are focused on pertinent information related to the development of the guidance framework.

34 Alabama Alabama DOT (ALDOT) was selected to participate in this effort due to its robust asset inventory and asset condition data collection processes. ALDOT also has a well-established MQA program used to develop maintenance budgets. Key Takeaways ALDOT is currently working to improve its predictive modeling capabilities for pavement and bridge management systems. The following list summarizes the key findings from the ALDOT case study. • Historically, ALDOT did not categorize its costs according to the five work types required by the TAMP regulations, so it required some effort to establish a process for summarizing the information in that manner. Now that the process has been established, the participants indicate it will be easier in the future. • Preparing the initial identification of facilities damaged by multiple emergency events (under 23 CFR 667) took some effort but helped ALDOT establish an internal process that can more easily be replicated in the future; this was helpful for risk assessment and planning purposes. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of ALDOT’s practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. • ALDOT has established definitions for maintenance and preservation. • ALDOT has a well-established MQA program. Data is collected using a sample-based approach with a 95 percent confidence level on Interstates and a 90 percent confidence level on non-Interstate routes. Data collection is completed using Survey123 on ArcGIS Collector. ALDOT uses the MQA results to establish maintenance budgets. The agency builds its budgets using a combination of performance- based budgeting and a bottom-up/top-down approach based on need and historical spending. • ALDOT has an established approach to categorizing each project into one of the five federal work types. Florida FDOT was selected to participate in this project effort because its legislative requirement to receive maintenance funding to achieve asset performance targets reflects a strong example of how performance- based planning efforts can be used to support maintenance funding. As a result of its efforts to meet targets, the agency has developed a robust maintenance contracting program with an ability to link costs to performance. FDOT was also an active participant in the peer exchange sessions, sending two participants. Key Takeaways FDOT’s Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) ties funding to asset condition and performance targets. Legislation requires that the Maintenance Division is funded at levels necessary to achieve performance targets. This is unique among the agencies interviewed for this study. The following list summarizes the key findings from the FDOT case study. • FDOT utilizes a decentralized maintenance program and considers RM and minor repair as PM work. • FDOT delivers most maintenance services by contract and tracks costs as part of routine contract management. • MRP evaluation and funding are tied to asset condition and performance targets.

35 • FDOT’s Maintenance Division is responsible for delivering or managing mitigation strategies for risks in the TAMP risk register, including strategies to address facilities damaged by multiple emergency events. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of FDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. • The MRP evaluation ties funding to asset condition and performance targets as desired in a performance-based planning framework. This links the MRP evaluations to the strategic level in the organization. • The results of the MRP evaluations are used to establish maintenance needs, budgets, and work plans. This links the MRP evaluation to the tactical budgeting activities. • FDOT’s practices for tracking maintenance contract costs could provide insights that benefit other agencies. Maricopa County Maricopa County DOT (MCDOT) was selected to participate in this effort because the agency functions like a state agency and has an asset inventory similar to a small state agency. MCDOT is responsible for maintaining roadway assets within the county right-of-way across 9,000 square miles. Assets include roadways belonging to the local, collector, and arterial functional classes as well as park roads. Key Takeaways MCDOT has established an effective process for inputting maintenance costs into its maintenance and asset management system for pavements and bridges. The following list summarizes the key findings from the MCDOT case study. • The agency is working to become more mature in reporting work on assets other than pavements and bridges. Their experiences were considered in developing the framework for NCHRP 23-08. • MCDOT’s TAM financial documentation focused on inventory and life-cycle costs with less emphasis on planning, but there is some support within the organization to shift toward more planned work. A cultural shift is necessary to implement a more robust work planning process, along with an effort to prioritize data collection across the agency. The factors driving this change provided important information to the research team. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of MCDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. First, MCDOT utilizes an MQA program and reports asset condition data in ArcGIS Collector and then generates LOS report cards to be utilized as part of annual maintenance work planning. This approach is reflected in the guidance. Second, MCDOT’s maintenance and asset management system allows users to flag work orders related to a specific event type such as “FEMA” or “COVID.” This is useful because it allows MCDOT to analyze that data and determine if COVID-related work has influenced productivity or LOS. Third, MCDOT has developed a special approach for priority assets that involves collecting data via a statistically significant sample size for each asset class. They have also created a field manual that includes special criteria developed by subject matter experts that those conducting the assessments must follow; this

36 creates a consistent approach and builds confidence in the process and results. Their approach may be useful for other agencies interested in a sampling approach. Maryland MDOT SHA was selected to participate in this project because the agency manages 14 asset classes on a corridor basis with supporting life-cycle assessments, has implemented financial systems that track contract and state-forces maintenance work, and has established a TAM organization that focuses on all work types. Key Takeaways MDOT SHA uses innovative tools and maintenance data collection processes to effectively manage transportation assets. MDOT SHA's practices showcase how integrative MMS and a quantitative risk management framework can result in effective maintenance management practices. The following list summarizes the key findings from the MDOT SHA case study. • MDOT SHA uses its maintenance shops, indefinite delivery/indefinite quantity (IDIQ) contracts, and frequent communications between the central and district offices to identify maintenance needs optimally. It minimizes costs by doing as much work by state forces as viable. Their experiences may benefit other agencies. • MDOT SHA uses various funding sources and contract delivery mechanisms to address maintenance needs, especially reactive needs that arise due to emergency events. This addressed a need identified during the peer exchanges. • MDOT SHA has implemented a strong, continued effort to utilize software to apply performance- based planning concepts to a range of assets, including those other than pavements and bridges. • MDOT SHA's LCP approach and use of remaining service life (RSL) principles emphasize the benefits of maintenance in developing the lowest practicable life-cycle cost strategies. These benefits could be captured to persuade other agencies to adopt performance-based planning concepts. • MDOT SHA is developing a GIS-based asset management software that will minimize management costs and significantly improve the DOT's cross-asset tradeoff processes for multiple asset classes. • MDOT SHA has incorporated several qualitative risk considerations in its TAMP development processes. The agency is currently developing a quantitative risk-based approach that considers social, environmental, and financial factors in the decision-making processes. This approach was of interest to the research team for consideration in the framework. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of MDOT SHA's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. Namely, MDOT SHA uses software to effectively collect, manage, and track maintenance data; implements RSL principles in LCP practices; and uses the quantitative risk-based approach in development efforts. The following briefly describes each aspect and how it can impact the framework. The MDOT SHA uses the Maryland Condition Assessment Reporting System (MCARS) to conduct the annual condition data collection efforts for roadside assets. QlikView is a system MDOT SHA uses to aggregate work activities, cost data, and MCARS data. Qlik View utilizes project cost activity (PCA) codes, which are consistent between data sets that track contract and in-house costs. To maximize the benefits of enhanced management software, MDOT SHA is also developing enterprise asset management software (EAMS) to coordinate asset management across multiple transportation business units. MCARS, QlikView,

37 and the GIS-based EAMS illustrate effective management systems and how agencies can effectively and systematically collect data on, manage, and analyze ancillary assets. MDOT SHA's PMS is based on RSL principles, which means the PMS associates RSL improvements with different treatment options and maximizes the use of these treatments based on the desired objective function. This approach allows MDOT SHA to demonstrate the results from a robust life-cycle cost analyses and illustrates the effectiveness of long-term strategies that include maintenance treatments. MDOT SHA is currently developing a quantitative risk framework that uses a triple bottom line (e.g., social, environmental, and financial) for risk considerations in the decision-making process. This framework may encourage more proactive maintenance at both the network- and project-level for all asset classes. MDOT SHA's quantitative, enterprise-wide risk management framework illustrates the benefits associated with proactive maintenance efforts, not just on life-cycle costs but on achieving an agency's asset performance goals and targets. These benefits influenced the approach used in the resulting framework. Minnesota MnDOT was selected to participate in this effort because the agency includes 10 assets, other than pavements and bridges, in its TAMP. In addition to including multiple asset types, MnDOT has established strong connections between its TAMP development process, asset management systems, and the agency's financial planning efforts. MnDOT's 2019 TAMP goals to promote cost-effective strategies and better understand capital investments’ impact on maintenance workloads make the agency a strong example of incorporating maintenance in a TAMP through a data-driven process. Key Takeaways MnDOT demonstrates strong asset management practices in the way c maintenance costs and treatments for ancillary assets are connected. MnDOT's practices show how incorporating powerful tools and software, coupled with well-defined procedures, can result in effective maintenance management practices. The following list summarizes the key findings from the MnDOT case study. • MnDOT has a clear understanding of the needs and expenditures included in each TAMP maintenance work type and has incorporated those costs into each section of the TAMP in a logical manner. • The Transportation Asset Management System (TAMS) is an integrated system that enables MnDOT to develop maintenance cost data for various assets. However, due to varying levels of data availability, MnDOT has adopted different approaches for each asset. • MnDOT has established models to associate asset condition with maintenance costs for assets where such a relationship exists. However, for some ancillary assets, MnDOT has yet to develop models due to the challenge of determining a strong connection between asset condition and maintenance costs (e.g., signs and guardrails). • MnDOT is implementing or enhancing several computerized tools to further support the integration of maintenance into its TAMP. • MnDOT has developed several risk- and finance-based mitigation strategies that involve maintenance. Impact on the Framework The project team identified two aspects of MnDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. Namely, MnDOT’s use of management software to effectively collect, manage, and track maintenance data illustrates how these tools support the analyses needed to include maintenance costs

38 in a TAMP. Their maintenance cost models also demonstrated an approach for capturing maintenance funding needs to plan future investments. TAMS is MnDOT's primary work management system for the Office of Maintenance and is used to track all work performed by MnDOT maintenance field staff. Although the current MnDOT TAMP includes 10 ancillary assets, MnDOT manages several other assets in TAMS. MnDOT uses TAMS to develop maintenance cost data and track asset treatments, needs, and materials for state forces activities. TAMS can be used to illustrate the benefit of this information. At MnDOT, the varying levels of data availability and clear definitions of maintenance resulted in the agency's ability to develop management approaches specific to each asset class. MnDOT's maintenance cost models have been calibrated to conditions. MnDOT has used these models to develop PMS runs based on costs, predicted conditions, and funding. During the interview for developing the case study, MnDOT presented an example of how the cost models for pavement patching could support the framework being developed under this study. These models could potentially support the justification for pavement funding needs and enhance pavement target-setting efforts. Nevada Nevada DOT (NDOT) was selected to participate in this project effort because the agency recently implemented new maintenance management software to track maintenance costs, which was expected to provide beneficial lessons learned to support the research. NDOT also included its entire state-maintained roadway system in its TAMP and, in addition to pavement and bridges, also included ITS assets such as closed-circuit televisions, digital message signs, flow detectors, ramp meters, and RWIS. Their experiences in estimating the future needs for these assets were considered to be beneficial in developing the framework. Key Takeaways NDOT is currently implementing an enterprise asset management system to include maintenance, pavement, and bridge management functionality. As part of this process, NDOT is undertaking a significant effort to formalize work and data flows and update manual data entry and analysis processes. The following list summarizes the key findings from the NDOT case study. • NDOT is working to increase its preservation activities, particularly on bridges. • NDOT would benefit from FHWA guidance on how to connect pavement and bridge cost data to life-cycle planning. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of NDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. First, NDOT hired a full-time employee to manage its MQA program, which involves collecting asset condition data on 1,000 roadway survey samples. This employee also analyzes the condition data and develops LOS scorecards. The benefits associated with this strategy were useful in developing strategies to entice agencies to advance their practices. Second, NDOT developed pavement performance models based on the presumption that regular maintenance is performed. The impact of this decision was useful to the research team. Third, in addition to pavement and bridge assets, NDOT included ITS assets in its TAMP, which includes six individual asset types. The agency developed a simplified subjective performance metric based on the manufacturers’ recommended service life for each device. While NDOT has not formally adopted the ITS performance measures reported in the TAMP, they are looking to adopt a performance-based approach for ITS assets and their early experiences proved beneficial to the research team.

39 New York NYSDOT was selected to participate in this effort because it revised its bridge maintenance practices to address current and future needs and the motivations for these changes were thought to be important. Also, NYSDOT maximizes its state-force activities in maintenance work so the agency had strong practices to showcase in this area. Its recent work to enhance its bridge contracts and data collection efforts to minimize costs also presented interesting lessons learned. Key Takeaways NYSDOT has strong practices for developing improved maintenance treatment strategies to cost- effectively maintain bridges that have exceeded their design lives while preventing the bridges from being unsafe. The following list summarizes the key findings from the NYSDOT case study. • NYSDOT has a unique bridge maintenance approach that seeks to extend the service life of its aging system through the use of preventive and reactive maintenance treatments. • NYSDOT uses a vertical down strategy to cost-effectively develop treatment strategies by selecting treatments that address the root cause of bridge deterioration. The strategy is called vertical down because a leading cause of distress is caused from deicing chemicals that penetrate vertically from the bridge deck surface. Addressing cracks and leaks prevents further distresses from forming. • NYSDOT enhanced its bridge contracting mechanisms to attract specialized contractors, reduce bridge unit costs, and lower contracted bridge work costs. • NYSDOT has invested resources to maximize the amount and type of work the state forces lead. These resources include training efforts, equipment purchases, and enhanced project patterning efforts. Impact on the Framework The project team identified three aspects of NYSDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. Namely, NYSDOT's vertical-down bridge inspection approach, bridge job order contracting mechanism, and state forces training efforts. NYSDOT's vertical-down bridge inspection approach helps NYSDOT identify and address the root cause of a bridge's deterioration in a cost-effective manner. These repairs are performed to address deterioration caused by water and salt intrusion through cracks in the deck or leaky joints. NYSDOT's vertical-down bridge inspection approach illustrates an approach to showcase the cost-effective benefits of coordinating maintenance strategies with inspection data and life-cycle planning. NYSDOT's innovative maintenance contracting mechanisms illustrate how maintenance contract costs can be minimized on emergency projects, thus stretching limited agency funds further. Since funding for emergency projects was identified by the peer exchange participants as an important topic to be addressed in the framework, NYSDOT’s experience was instrumental in developing the framework. NYSDOT's growth in bridge repair needs, coupled with exponentially higher costs for delivering that work via contracts rather than in-house by state forces, led NYSDOT to decide to enhance the bridge maintenance program to deliver as much work as possible in-house. Consequently, NYSDOT has invested maintenance funding in training and is equipping staff forces so that they are able to focus their efforts on the tasks where they are the most cost competitive with maintenance contracts. These efforts were important considerations in the framework’s implementation. Tennessee TDOT was selected to participate in this effort because the agency coordinates maintenance and capital work activities, which reflects a high degree of maturity. TDOT also made several strides to improve both its

40 MQA practices and data and has enhanced its rockslide risk programs to better mitigate risks. These additional efforts provided lessons learned that were incorporated into the framework. Key Takeaways TDOT is using innovative tools and work activity coordination efforts to manage transportation assets effectively. TDOT's practices showcase how strong and clear organizational structures, the use of integrative maintenance management dashboards, and enhanced risk management practices can result in effective maintenance management practices. The following list summarizes the key findings from the TDOT case study. • TDOT has strong coordinative efforts across its districts, regions, maintenance, safety, and operations staff that enable TDOT to effectively develop treatment timing and selection strategies across various asset types and efficiently and fairly allocate resources throughout the state. • TDOT has plans to develop a 3-tier asset system that incorporates asset conditions into its management systems and LCP practices. These efforts will significantly improve the accuracy of its performance models, asset condition assessments, and investment needs projections. • TDOT is developing a strategic approach to managing, monitoring, and tracking culvert maintenance needs and uses this approach to enhance coordination efforts with work activities on pavements and bridges. • In response to unprecedented rainfall and rockslide events, TDOT is strengthening its risk mitigation practices to incorporate, manage, and maintain rockfall catchment areas as a separate asset category. Impact on the Framework The project team identified two aspects of TDOT's practices that could be incorporated into the guidance framework. Namely, TDOT's coordination efforts across multiple business units and the development of culvert management dashboards to more effectively collect, manage, and track maintenance data. The following briefly describes each aspect and how it can impact the framework. TDOT developed a strategic approach that integrates maintenance and safety needs with preservation and rehabilitation. The approach ensures that TDOT's activity timings maximize an asset's life cycle while minimizing agency costs, resources, and labor. The integrated strategic approach hinges on improved communications between maintenance, safety, and operations staff to better coordinate asset treatment and safety activities. TDOT accomplished the enhanced communication by standardizing approaches and practices statewide and by forming a pavement management section at the central office, along with appointing a pavement manager in each region. TDOT's strategic approach to enhance coordination efforts across maintenance, safety, and operations staff illustrates the benefits of treatment and safety activity coordination and serves as guidance for other agencies to learn how to advance their practices. TDOT is currently developing ArcGIS-based culvert management dashboards that allow its state forces to collect, manage, and track data and locations of all culverts less than 4 feet long. The dashboards will enable TDOT to enhance management practices and its ability to present asset data in an automated fashion. The dashboards also enable TDOT to visually communicate the culvert inspection schedule and accomplishments at the district, regional, or statewide level. TDOT uses the culvert data to support its 3-year resurfacing program for state forces and contract work activities. TDOT’s ArcGIS-based culvert management dashboard development process highlights the benefits of incorporating state-of-the-art technology to monitor, track, and manage asset conditions in a cost-effective manner. It also illustrates an easy approach for communicating with decision-makers and the public.

Next: Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP »
Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan Get This Book
×
 Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan
MyNAP members save 10% online.
Login or Register to save!
Download Free PDF

Since 2018, state departments of transportation (DOTs) have been required to develop risk-based transportation asset management plans (TAMPs) and to update these plans every four years. However, the absence of maintenance cost data in a TAMP prevents agencies from fully capturing the total investment made to preserve and improve highway infrastructure assets.

NCHRP Web-Only Document 372: Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan, from TRB's National Cooperative Highway Research Program, documents research conducted to develop a framework that state DOTs and other transportation agencies can use to incorporate maintenance costs into their TAMP.

The document is supplemental to NCHRP Research Report 1076: A Guide to Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a Transportation Asset Management Plan.

READ FREE ONLINE

  1. ×

    Welcome to OpenBook!

    You're looking at OpenBook, NAP.edu's online reading room since 1999. Based on feedback from you, our users, we've made some improvements that make it easier than ever to read thousands of publications on our website.

    Do you want to take a quick tour of the OpenBook's features?

    No Thanks Take a Tour »
  2. ×

    Show this book's table of contents, where you can jump to any chapter by name.

    « Back Next »
  3. ×

    ...or use these buttons to go back to the previous chapter or skip to the next one.

    « Back Next »
  4. ×

    Jump up to the previous page or down to the next one. Also, you can type in a page number and press Enter to go directly to that page in the book.

    « Back Next »
  5. ×

    To search the entire text of this book, type in your search term here and press Enter.

    « Back Next »
  6. ×

    Share a link to this book page on your preferred social network or via email.

    « Back Next »
  7. ×

    View our suggested citation for this chapter.

    « Back Next »
  8. ×

    Ready to take your reading offline? Click here to buy this book in print or download it as a free PDF, if available.

    « Back Next »
Stay Connected!