National Academies Press: OpenBook

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

Chapter: Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP

« Previous: Chapter 2 Summary of Current Knowledge
Page 41
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 41
Page 42
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 42
Page 43
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 43
Page 44
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 44
Page 45
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 45
Page 46
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 46
Page 47
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 47
Page 48
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 48
Page 49
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 49
Page 50
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 50
Page 51
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 51
Page 52
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 52
Page 53
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 53
Page 54
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 54
Page 55
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 55
Page 56
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 56
Page 57
Suggested Citation:"Chapter 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP." 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 57

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.

41 C H A P T E R 3 A Framework for Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP Every agency participating in the peer exchange, described in Chapter 2, noted significant challenges that kept them from incorporating maintenance into their TAMP to the degree desired. This framework has been developed to help agencies identify and develop strategies for overcoming the specific barriers that prevent them from quantifying and incorporating maintenance costs into their TAMPs. Challenges to Incorporating Maintenance Costs in a TAMP Through the literature search, peer exchanges, and case study development, it was evident that very few state DOTs have incorporated maintenance costs into their TAMPs in a comprehensive way. The research team did not find a single example of a state that had comprehensively integrated maintenance into all TAMP analyses, i.e., performance gap analysis, LCP, risk management, financial planning, and investment strategy development. In many cases, maintenance costs are included in investment strategies, but they represent historical figures rather than estimates based on maintenance needs. In other cases, maintenance investments are included in TAMPs as assumptions or are combined with other work types, e.g., preservation. Additionally, the peer exchanges and review of state TAMPs revealed a lack of common definitions for maintenance. This inconsistency was further supported by a supplemental literature search, summarized in Chapter 2 of this report. Framework Overview Addressing the challenges described above was central to developing a framework that can be implemented across agencies that vary in their approaches to asset management and TAMP development. The guidance was expected to address the full spectrum of activities that could be considered maintenance and describe how each of those activity types can be integrated into the different TAMP processes. The framework was also expected to provide a means for agencies to routinely perform self-assessments and continually refine their procedures and documentation to enhance their overall TAM maturity. Figure shows an overview of the proposed framework for the guidance developed in Phase II of this research. The framework includes six steps followed by an opportunity to implement, monitor, and improve Challenges to Incorporating Maintenance Costs into a TAMP – Lack of common definitions for Maintenance. – Limited understanding of how to model the impact maintenance activities have on the asset life cycle. – Insufficient maintenance considerations in risk mitigation. – Differences in planned and actual maintenance and capital expenditures. – Different planning periods for maintenance and capital.

42 the practices identified through those steps. The following sections of this chapter elaborate on each step and describe how each is addressed in the Guide. Figure 1. Framework for incorporating maintenance costs into a TAMP Defining Maintenance The peer exchanges, literature searches, and case studies all revealed that there is very little consistency between agencies when it comes to the definition of maintenance. For example, Kansas DOT considers pavement overlays of up to 1.5 inches to be maintenance. Conversely, Florida DOT considers pavement maintenance to consist only of repairing localized surface distresses such as potholes to improve the serviceability and ensure the safety of the traveling public throughout the service life of a pavement section. Another option for differentiating maintenance is by budget or delivery mechanism. Iowa DOT, for example, includes only work funded through their field maintenance budget in the TAMP investment strategy maintenance work type. This results in similar work being included as maintenance or preservation, depending on whether the work is delivered by state crews or contract. The variability for what is considered bridge repair is even more complicated than it is for pavements. For bridges, the amount or number of similar repairs may be what differentiates work between maintenance, preservation, or rehabilitation. An example of this is Nevada DOT, which identified “minor structure repair” to be maintenance and “major structure repair” to be rehabilitation. The line between minor and major repairs can depend both on the type of repair and the amount of overall repair. Since assets could receive maintenance at all stages of their life cycle, the project team considered incorporating maintenance activities as an integral part of life-cycle strategies. The team identified four maintenance strategies listed in Table 1.

43 Table 1. Maintenance Strategies Maintenance Strategy Description Condition-Based Management Requires collection of reliable inventory and condition data over the asset’s service life, used to develop models to estimate asset deterioration and predict future asset conditions to evaluate the type and timing of maintenance actions. Reactive Management Provides maintenance after the asset’s condition has deteriorated below an acceptable level, usually unexpectedly. Interval-or Age-Based Management Maintenance is delivered at specific times based on a suggested interval and does not require collection of asset condition data. Risk-Based Management Maintenance is planned when the potential impact to system performance from a failure of the asset, rather than the asset condition drives the identification and prioritization of work. The research team identified that the data needs for supporting maintenance decisions would be driven by the selected management strategy for addressing asset needs (e.g., condition-based, cyclical, reactive). Furthermore, certain data elements are essential whereas other data elements are not required but may be beneficial. The project team recommended the FHWA’s Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in Transportation Asset Management Programs (Allen, et. al. 2019) to obtain recommendations on the types of data needed to manage assets based on the selected maintenance approach. During the peer exchanges, several participants commented that standardization of maintenance work types would allow states to better understand how to incorporate those activities and their related costs into a TAMP. However, other participants noted that standardization would limit an agency’s flexibility to describe the specifics of its maintenance program since it would be forced to describe specific activities. The research team felt the latter argument was convincing and decided that including or creating a specific definition of what is and is not maintenance would likely reduce the usefulness of the resulting Guide. To address the issue, the research team investigated national definitions of maintenance and preservation. The results of that research were presented earlier in Chapter 2. As can be seen from these results, there is more of an agreement between national organizations than there is among states regarding what activities constitute maintenance and how those activities should be grouped. Instead of establishing a new set of definitions, the research team opted to define activities in terms of their impact on the following TAMP processes required under 23 CFR Part 515: • Performance gap analysis (23 CFR Part 515(a)). • Life-cycle planning (23 CFR Part 515(b)). • Risk management (23 CFR Part 515(c)). • Financial planning (23 CFR Part 515(d)). • Investment strategies (23 CFR Part 515(e)). The team determined that the primary factor for how an activity impacts these processes is based on its effect on an asset’s condition and service life. Therefore, the team established a set of maintenance activity categories that are based on a description of how an activity impacts asset condition and service life, as shown in Table . These categories represent the range of activities that are considered to be maintenance, as defined in the literature search results and the peer exchange findings. They are integral to developing an integrated approach for analyzing costs in life-cycle planning, performance gap analysis, and risk management processes.

44 Table 2. Maintenance activity categories. Maintenance Activity Category Impact on Asset Conditions & Risk Operations & Routine Maintenance Restores or sustains functionality but does not impact asset conditions (e.g., cleaning, mowing, S&I control). Preventive Maintenance Prevents or addresses deterioration to delay a decline in measured conditions but does not significantly improve conditions. Repairs Improves measurable condition and function but does not restore or improve structure or capacity. Unit or Component Replacement Replaces one or more individual asset components, restoring functionality for that component (e.g., sign panel replacement, striping, traffic signal component replacement). Organizational Strengthening Training, administrative, and IT − might mitigate risk or improve organizational capacity. Data to Support Integrating Maintenance into a TAMP Incorporating maintenance costs in a TAMP requires more than cost data. For cost data to be useful in a TAMP analysis, the costs need to be associated with the asset inventory, maintenance activities, accomplishments, and performance improvement. While not a maintenance cost, asset inventories are key inputs for maintenance budgeting and incorporating maintenance costs into a TAMP. Other key inputs include accurate historical work history data. This work history data may come from work orders or contracts and should include labor, equipment, and materials costs, as well as work units accomplished. This type of work order data is necessary to develop unit cost factors for maintenance work. Modern MMS enables an agency to better record and track maintenance work order history, including mobile functionality, to gather data in the field. Each of the case study agencies described having robust MMS cost and accomplishment data for in-house forces. In addition to costs related to in-house delivery of maintenance, all agencies deliver some maintenance activities through contracts. Capturing costs from contracts requires accessing data sets that are commonly formatted differently from the in-house maintenance cost data. As a result, there is a need to corollate the contract cost data to the activity or task definitions used to track in-house costs. This process is critical to being able to account for all maintenance costs in a similar way, related to asset performance. The Texas DOT and Maryland DOT SHA present different examples of how agencies have approached the challenge of aligning in-house and contract maintenance cost data. Based on information provided at the peer exchanges, Texas DOT (TxDOT)has developed a process for contractors to enter their cost and accomplishment data into the maintenance management system in the same way the in-house crews report their work, ensuring that all data is recorded in the same format. Contracted work is interfaced into TxDOT’s MMS in two ways: from its enterprise resource planning software and from its construction contract management software. The contract maintenance cost capturing and reporting process is shown below in Figure .

45 MDOT SHA enters labor, equipment, and materials costs for state-forces work into the electronic team activity cards (eTAC) system. These costs are captured by asset or unit. MDOT SHA enters contract data into the FHWA Financial Management Information System and other contract management software. The contract systems and eTAC assign a PCA code for each expense. The PCA codes allow the costs from similar work, delivered by different means, to be aggregated. The PCA codes are linked to the 21 MCARS elements to align costs with asset performance. MDOT SHA uses a system called QlikView to aggregate the work output, cost data, and MCARS data and associate each to the appropriate PCA code for the work activity accomplished (see Error! Reference source not found., a screenshot of QlikView provided by MDOT SHA). Data aggregation with QlikView works well, as long as everyone entering data is accurate with the PCA codes, costs, and accomplishments. Figure 2. TxDOT contract purchase order data collection process (data source: TxDOT) Figure 3. Screenshot of QlikView (source: Maryland DOT).

46 Connecting Maintenance Costs to Performance Using costs in TAMP analyses such as LCP, performance gap analysis, and risk management, requires agencies to develop a relationship between investments and future performance. For maintenance activities, the relationship is often established through MQA programs. However, some agencies have managed to connect investment levels to performance through other means. Connecting Maintenance Costs to Performance with MQA Programs Asset inventories are key components to an effective MQA approach. Inventory estimates can be used if inventories are incomplete; however, the planning and budgeting processes are better supported with accurate inventory data. At a minimum, an effective MQA approach includes annual condition assessments to evaluate asset performance and identify gaps between actual and desired conditions. Since it may be cost-prohibitive to rate each individual asset on a statewide basis, many states use a survey process whereby a statistically significant sample of roadway assets is inspected to provide the condition data necessary to support performance-based budgeting. NCHRP Report 677: Development of Levels of Service for the Interstate Highway System, provides guidelines on the sampling approach as well as data collection and analyzing processes (Dye Management Group 2010). An agency may also develop standards to identify asset deficiencies and measures. For example, an agency may deem a drainage pipe that is greater than 25 percent full as deficient. Another may not rate a drainage pipe deficient until it is greater than 50 percent blocked. A quantitative LOS evaluation approach is recommended for performance-based budgeting. In this approach, LOS evaluators record the total number of assets and their condition in each survey segment. For example, an LOS evaluator identifies and records 1,000 linear feet of guardrail in a survey segment and identifies and records 150 linear feet (15 percent) of guardrail as deficient. The advantage of this approach is that all deficiencies are counted or measured, regardless of extent. Additionally, the results can immediately be converted into a work quantity for maintenance forces. When the percent deficient of each asset is aggregated at the district/regional or statewide level, managers can then estimate the level of effort (LOE) required to address those deficiencies. A second method, the pass/fail approach, is utilized by several state DOTs. However, there are limitations to this approach as it applies to performance-based budgeting. Pass/fail generally results in replacement rates that are higher than actual deficiency rates. For example, if the threshold for a guardrail is 10 percent deficiency and 12 percent of the guardrail is deficient, then according to the standard, the entire length of guardrail in the survey segment is considered deficient instead of simply the 12 percent deficient portion. This does not provide accurate measures for performance-based budget development, as these results cannot reliably be used for maintenance planning and budgeting. In this example, there is no indication of the quantity of guardrail work that may be needed to address deficiencies and achieve the target LOS. It is only known that the amount of deficiency is greater than 10 percent. These deficiency thresholds and measures, as well as evaluation and reporting approaches and processes, should be documented in an MQA manual to ensure consistent processes. These manuals can be used to train data collection teams, either in-house or contracted. In the past, agencies used paper forms to report data collection. As mobile applications, such as ArcCollector, and applications from a modern MMS become more widespread, agencies have been moving to electronic collection and reporting of the data. After data collection teams perform condition assessments, the agency identifies approximately 10 percent of the roadway samples for quality assurance/quality control checks. LOS results can then be conveyed in a scorecard or report card-type format, which is a convenient way to express LOS in terms that are useful to program managers for planning and budgeting and that non- technical people and the public can readily understand.

47 Historic work order data provide inputs for estimating the LOE, as well as required resources and funding, to achieve performance targets. Statewide LOS targets can be developed from agency priorities and goals or customer surveys. ALDOT has a very robust MQA program that involves an annual data collection, evaluation, and work planning process. ALDOT evaluates 38 asset features during its condition assessment process. These 38 features are grouped by asset class, such as asphalt/concrete pavement, drainage, traffic, etc. ALDOT builds its budgets using a combination of performance-based budgeting and a bottom-up/top-down approach based on need and historical spending. ALDOT developed its MQA program several years ago and has enhanced it over time. The agency currently collects asset condition data using in-house forces but has also utilized contractors over the program’s history. The steps in their condition assessment process are shown in Figure . ALDOT samples between 5% and 8% of its system, with a confidence level of 95% on Interstate roadways and 90% on the remainder of its system. ALDOT utilizes a Microsoft Access random sample- generating tool to identify survey segments. ALDOT also developed a data collection application using GIS applications. ALDOT performs quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) processes of the data collection procedure. This process and the results develop an LOS report card, including trend analysis. Using a consistent scorecard format enables the comparison of the performance of asset condition over time and across organizational units. ALDOT uses a combination of performance-based budgeting and a bottom-up/top- down approach. Budgeting is a multi-step process in which districts submit budget requests based on the LOE to achieve agency performance targets. Requests are then reviewed and amended at higher levels of the organization based upon need and historical spending, and the final budget allocations are allocated back to the districts. Figure 4. ALDOT condition assessment process (data source: ALDOT).

48 Connecting Maintenance Costs to Performance without an MQA Program MQA programs provide a structure for tracking conditions and performance in relation to a wide range of maintenance activities. However, even without an MQA program, states have developed means for associating asset performance with maintenance needs. MnDOT’s MQA program implementation may not be as mature as ALDOT’s, but maintenance accomplishment data and asset performance data from the MQA have been used to collect and forecast maintenance costs based on asset conditions. MnDOT has developed separate processes for capturing pavement maintenance cost data for contract work and state forces work. For contract work, MnDOT has an estimating section that determines statewide costs per lane-mile based on contract costs detailed in the project lettings. For state-forces maintenance work, MnDOT uses data from work orders and day cards incorporated into TAMS. In both cases, the cost data is collected with specific locations. Using this combination of cost and location data, MnDOT can develop models that indicate the relationship between pothole patching costs and the condition of pavements in those locations during the prior inspection cycle. MnDOT can apply this relationship of condition versus cost to determine the statewide need for pothole patching in each year of any scenario analysis performed using their PMS. An example of this type of analysis is provided in Figure . In this example, MnDOT has graphed the costs for pothole patching in each year based on different pavement investment scenarios: PL0, PL1, PL2, PL-1, and PL-2. Each scenario represents a different level of investments in annual paving and results in different annual pavement conditions. Those forecasted annual pavement conditions are then used to model annual patching costs, which are shown in Figure . Incorporating Maintenance into Performance Predictions: Life-Cycle Planning, Gap Analysis, and Scenario Analysis Although there are many definitions for what constitutes a maintenance treatment and what does not, one of the common threads in each definition is that a maintenance treatment enhances an asset’s functionality. Therefore, it is critical to an agency's TAM implementation to accurately capture and incorporate Figure 5. MnDOT pavement patching models

49 maintenance costs to optimize its LCP analysis results. As defined in Table , different categories of maintenance activities will have different types of impacts on asset conditions and will, therefore, be incorporated differently into LCP analyses. The Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs in a TAMP has been developed to address the impacts of each treatment type across different asset classes. In doing so, it does not seek to define which maintenance actions apply to each asset class. There is existing guidance from FHWA and AASHTO to support agencies in determining which assets to include in their TAMPs as well as determining the types of maintenance strategies that are applicable to those assets. Some assets, such as pavements and most structures, lend themselves to preventive or CM actions, while other assets lend themselves to cyclical or reactive maintenance approaches. The AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide (AASHTO 2019) and FHWA’s Handbook for Including Ancillary Assets in a TAM Program (Allen et. al. 2019) both describe how the reliability-centered maintenance (RCM) approach can be used to support these decisions. The Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs in a TAMP does not expand further on this subject but instead focuses on how each category of maintenance activities can effectively be incorporated into LCP and risk management processes. In this approach, The Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs in a TAMP expands on existing guidance in helping agencies identify needed data as well as describing how that data best be integrated into LCP and risk management analysis. Operations and Routine Maintenance Activities classified as Operations and Routine Maintenance serve to sustain or restore functionality to the highway facility but do not impact measurable asset conditions. As such, these activities do not play a significant role in life-cycle planning other than the appropriate budgeting for their costs. Examples of operations activities include work zone traffic control and snow and ice control. RM includes a range of activities both on the roadside and in travel lanes, such as mowing and pothole patching. In some cases, such as pothole patching, the cost of RM may be tied to asset conditions. In other examples, the cost of the activity can be tied to the quality of the activity outcome, as is the case with mowing. For activities with costs tied to asset conditions, it is important that forecasts of these costs be integrated with life-cycle planning for the asset in question. However, since these costs do not typically change the life-cycle plans, they are not essential to LCP activities. Instead, these activities are best addressed through financial planning as a factor influencing the amount of funding available for activities that improve asset conditions. Preventive Maintenance Preventive maintenance prevents or addresses deterioration to delay a future decline in measured conditions. However, preventive maintenance often does not have an immediate impact on measured conditions since it is designed to prevent or slow future deterioration. For example, many cleaning and sealing activities can be described as preventive maintenance. Since preventive maintenance has an impact on asset conditions, it should be incorporated into LCP and the performance models used to support LCP analysis. Currently, some agencies do not specifically include preventive maintenance activities in their pavement and bridge management systems. Even agencies that include preventive maintenance treatments face challenges since they do not always know where in-house crews have applied preventive maintenance treatments. A second challenge with modeling the performance of these treatments occurs because these treatments can be used in both a preventive and a reactive manner. Therefore, the same treatment has

50 distinctively different performance depending on the asset condition immediately prior to repair. These factors influence the types of data required to adequately consider preventive maintenance in LCP. Typically, these activities are listed as maintenance or preservation work types and accounted for as maintenance or capital improvement costs. Incorporating preventive maintenance treatment costs in an LCP analysis depends on whether the assets have analysis tools in place (such as pavement and bridge management systems) so that preventive maintenance treatments and costs can be incorporated into the decision trees or policies that define the types of treatments considered in the analysis. If this is not the case and the assets are without analysis tools in place, preventive maintenance costs can be estimated based on the expected application cycle with some knowledge about the assets. For both scenarios, the Guide discusses in detail the incorporation of maintenance costs in an LCP analysis. For example, Nevada DOT’s 2019 TAMP included ITS assets because the number of ITS assets on the system was growing and the agency wanted to estimate future maintenance needs to ensure they remained in operational condition. Although an extensive inventory of the ITS assets had not been conducted, NDOT had sufficient information to estimate the number of assets in the inventory and the distribution of those assets into condition categories using the recommended service life provided by each device’s manufacturer. NDOT then created deterioration models for each ITS asset that were based on the average amount of time the asset takes to deteriorate from one condition state to another. The matrices were used to model the deterioration of these assets based upon expert opinion provided by NDOT. NDOT defined the maintenance activities that need to be performed on ITS assets including inspections, minor repair, major repair, and replacement. NDOT also created a matrix that shows the impact of each activity on asset condition. Furthermore, The LCP analysis evaluated two different strategies. One reflected the preservation approach adopted by NDOT and the other was a “worst-first” strategy in which the devices received no minor repairs or maintenance and would be replaced when they failed. The analysis showed that the long- term cost of employing NDOT’s maintenance strategy was much lower than the worst-first approach and provided an estimate of annual maintenance costs for maintaining these assets. Repairs Maintenance repairs address specific defects to improve measurable condition and restore function, but they do not improve structure or capacity. Repairs are the category of maintenance activity that most overlaps with preservation and rehabilitation. Often it is the quantity of repair, rather than the type, that will qualify the activity as maintenance. In general, maintenance repairs are smaller and more localized than preservation or rehabilitation treatments. For pavements and bridges, repairs are generally included in capital improvements that are normally considered in a pavement or BMS, and the costs of these repairs are usually already incorporated in the LCP analysis as minor rehabilitation or preservation treatments. For assets without analysis tools in place, a similar approach should be followed as the steps outlined for preventive maintenance activities. It is not the intention of the research team to guide how states should differentiate between maintenance repairs and other work types. Instead, the guidance addresses how repairs should be incorporated into an LCP analysis should the user agency decide to classify them as maintenance. Unit or Component Replacement Unit or component replacement recognizes that not all replacement activities rise to the level of reconstruction. With some assets, such as ITS and signal components, the entire asset may be replaced under a maintenance action because of the mechanism by which the replacement is delivered or funded.

51 In the case of unit or component replacement, the LCP analysis should be handled in the same way as reconstruction activities. It is essential that the models and management systems used to perform LCP analysis are integrated with data regarding the cost of replacement by any delivery mechanism. This benefits from the integration of data from maintenance management and construction inspection systems. For pavements and bridges, replacements are considered at the end of an asset’s service life. This treatment type is normally considered in a pavement or BMS as a capital improvement. Therefore, the costs associated with replacements are typically already incorporated into the LCP analysis. For example, the NYSDOT recognized that the number of bridges requiring replacement was increasing faster than replacements could be scheduled. To address this issue, the agency initiated a structural repair program that changed the LCP strategy by extending bridge service lives and slowing the rate at which bridge replacements were needed. For assets without analysis tools in place, the estimated cost of needed replacements can be found using the Manufacturer’s Estimated Service Life or as part of the analysis described for preventive maintenance activities. Incorporating Maintenance into Life-Cycle Plans to Improve Resilience The research team investigated how incorporating maintenance into life-cycle plans could improve resilience. Specifically, the team looked at previous and ongoing programs and case studies undertaken by agencies aimed at improving resilience by addressing extreme weather events. Extreme weather events are identified as stressors such as increased precipitation, extreme heat, flooding, storm surge, wildfires, drought resulting from climate change, and rising sea levels. The agencies reported that incorporating extreme event effects in maintenance planning is expected to mitigate risks and enhance network resiliency. To incorporate climate risks into their TAMPs, agencies have explored updating their PMS and BMS to account for the accelerated deterioration of pavement and bridge conditions and failure due to extreme weather events, as well as updating their risk registers to account for climate risks. These changes would bring about additional maintenance needs for the assets. The guidance provides examples of the efforts of MDOT SHA and KYTC toward improving resilience. Incorporating Maintenance into Risk Management RM budgets are typically set at the beginning of the fiscal year and, for performance-based agencies, are developed using the necessary expenditures to achieve target levels of service for each asset. To some extent, risk likelihood and impact can be developed into a maintenance budget. One approach for this is to look at unplanned event costs over a period of time and use an average annual cost as a baseline for future years. This approach, however, does not address the potential for more severe or frequent unplanned events. A common example showing how unplanned events can impact budgets involves snow and ice removal. While an annual average approach can help set a baseline budget for this winter maintenance activity, a severe season increases the portion of the maintenance budget that must be spent on this activity. Snow and ice removal is typically considered a mandatory maintenance activity, so there is no option to defer this maintenance. Some states can request additional funding if they experience a harsher-than-expected winter and higher-than-anticipated snow and ice removal costs. However, these funds are not guaranteed. If these additional funds are not provided it can negatively impact the agency’s planned asset performance targets, as the agency has fewer dollars available in the non-winter months to address specific assets or maintenance activity backlogs. Maintenance costs primarily go toward either managing condition or managing risk. For example, operations activities such as incident response and winter maintenance are primarily aimed at managing asset risk and do not impact asset condition. Emergency response, including unplanned repairs and replacement of failed or damaged asset components, is also directed toward managing risk. Maintenance

52 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. Maintenance divisions and offices within several state DOTs have been engaged in identifying assets addressed by 23 CFR Part 667. Going forward, maintenance personnel will play a pivotal role in tracking and reporting data from emergency repair projects after the occurrence of qualifying events. These data will help in developing unit costs, forecasting future maintenance needs and budgets, and updating the agency’s MMS. Also, reports for qualifying maintenance activities could be submitted to FHWA for reimbursement. MDOT SHA's 2019 TAMP documents a wide variety of risks but does not quantitatively consider maintenance risks. Instead, since a large percentage of MDOT SHA's maintenance work is reactionary, MDOT SHA qualitatively considers maintenance risks in the asset treatment prioritization process. For instance, MDOT SHA used the risk of the slow and sometimes insufficient capital funding allocation process as justification to allocate more contract authority to the district maintenance offices for highway lighting maintenance. Also, MDOT SHA used the sight distance reduction caused by overgrown grass on some medians as justification to decrease the mowing budget to mow frequently only on routes that had unsafe reductions in sight distance. This provided cost savings to offset budget reductions from the COVID- 19 pandemic response while delivering this necessary operations and RM activity. Although MDOT SHA has some qualitative processes in place, the Asset Management Office plans on implementing more robust risk management practices to enhance the agency’s practice. Figure illustrates one of the practices currently under implementation: incorporating triple bottom line (i.e., social, environmental, and financial) risk considerations into the decision-making process. Figure illustrates that based on the resulting risk score from asset condition and criticality, the risk-based outcome may encourage the use of proactive maintenance. Figure 6. MDOT SHA's triple bottom line risk-based decision-making approach (MDOT SHA 2021)

53 MDOT SHA has yet to have enterprise-wide quantified risk management processes. These are currently underway for each asset class at both the network- and project-levels. Instead, MDOT SHA is working to identify the best long-term and immediate fixes for each vulnerable asset. Using this, along with criticality, MDOT SHA hopes to prioritize maintenance and capital work to address vulnerabilities. Other risk-related events that can affect maintenance costs include natural events such as rockslides, hurricanes, tornadoes, or pandemics that require DOT-related personnel to be involved with response and recovery. These unplanned events pull maintenance personnel from planned work to unplanned work, which increases maintenance backlogs. Even if these costs are reimbursable, the time spent addressing the event prevents other work from being conducted. Additionally, there exist non-event related risks that affect maintenance costs, including: • Funding - Decreased department revenue and the resulting lower RM budgets hamper an agency’s ability to address asset performance. As a result, prioritization of asset performance must occur, and lower priority assets continue to stay in a low-performing category. • Aging Infrastructure - As assets age, the cost to maintain them increases. Keeping budgets steady does not address this cost increase, which results in lower-performing assets. • Staffing - As the current workforce retires, many agencies are facing an issue with retaining institutional knowledge. This can affect maintenance costs as work is performed less efficiently. • New Infrastructure - As many agencies deliver expanded transportation networks, the necessary funds to maintain those newly constructed assets are not always included in future budgets. While newer assets do not often require extensive preservation or maintenance, many routine activities are performed immediately after maintenance takes ownership of the asset. Incorporating Maintenance into Financial Plans The process for developing TAMP financial plans and investment strategies has been established through several major guidance documents including the Transportation Asset Management Guide (AASHTO 2019), Developing TAMP Financial Plans (FHWA 2017a), and NCHRP Research Report 898: A Guide to Developing Financial Plans and Performance Measures for Transportation Asset Management (SPP et al. 2019). These documents were used as a starting point for developing the steps to incorporate maintenance costs into a TAMP financial plan. However, the project team modified the steps described in NCHRP Research Report 898 to account for the fact that the scope of this effort only includes maintenance costs within the broader process presented in NCHRP Research Report 898. The financial plan development steps are shown in Figure . Figure 7. Financial plan development process for maintenance costs.

54 Forecasting Maintenance Costs The research team identified that forecasting maintenance costs would include forecasting fixed costs that tend to support RM, emergency response, and organizational strengthening activities that are not easily tied to asset management performance measures. It would also include forecasting performance-driven variable costs that are typically related to asset performance and are programmed based on distributing funds to achieve specific performance goals. The guidance describes the process of building a maintenance work plan by aggregating maintenance activity quantities for both fixed, set aside costs and variable costs for supporting TAM investment strategies. Incorporating Maintenance into Investment Strategies The process for developing TAMP investment strategies has been well documented through past research from the FHWA (FHWA 2017a) and NCHRP (TRB 2019). Through Phase I of this project, the research team did not uncover any significant reason to vary from past guidance. NCHRP Research Report 898: A Guide to Developing Financial Plans and Performance Measures for Transportation Asset Management, was used as the starting point for this effort. However, the process described in NCHRP Research Report 898 was further refined to address the challenges of maintenance costs, as described in the prior sections of this chapter. The processes presented in NCHRP Research Report 898 and the FHWA Guidance are largely focused on capital program strategies (SPP et al. 2019). However, maintenance can be performed through projects, maintenance by contract, or delivery of services from maintenance field crews. While the overall process presented in NCHRP Research Report 898 is applicable to maintenance costs, it does not directly address the need to account for maintenance costs across multiple programming and budget allocation processes. Therefore, to address these challenges, the process was adjusted for maintenance activities that are not delivered through construction projects. This is usually done with data from MQA programs that are stored in an MMS. This will allow users to fully utilize both guides in tandem to address their needs. The adjusted process is shown in Figure . One aspect of maintenance investment strategies that is not directly addressed in current TAM guidance is the use of maintenance performance-based budgeting to support overall asset management investment strategies. The MQA performance-based budgeting practice, as described earlier in this chapter, is the primary means for connecting maintenance budget expenditures to asset and system performance and is, therefore, essential to the process of including maintenance costs in TAMP investment strategies. This connection has been drawn out through guidance and examples in the Guide. Figure 8. Adjusted Steps for Investment Strategies

55 Implementation, Monitoring, and Continual Improvement As agencies implement process improvements to their maintenance management and TAMP development practices, they will develop further insights into asset performance, needs, risks, and delivery options that should lead to continual improvement. The Guide for Incorporating Maintenance Costs in a TAMP includes information to help states repeat the steps to continually increase their TAM maturity. Following the maintenance management life cycle, shown in Figure , provides an agency with opportunities to implement, monitor, and continually improve its maintenance program and support TAMP implementation. Maintenance management is a continual, and often annual, process. The reporting and evaluating phases feed back into the work planning and budgeting phases. This enables performance targets to be set over a multiyear time frame. By assessing planned versus actual accomplishment, managers can track progress towards goals and review and revise as necessary. Coordinating Between Programs Coordination between capital programming and maintenance management practices will be key for the successful implementation of a TAMP to ensure that planned costs match actual expenditures. This includes the ability to perform tradeoff analysis between the asset programs. Identifying and quantifying the impact Figure 9. Maintenance management lifecycle

56 of maintenance activities on pavement, bridge, and other asset performance is also critical. Additionally, coordination of projects and efforts across these areas will help ensure routine pavement maintenance projects are not completed shortly before a major rehabilitation project. Coordination of these efforts can also more effectively address projects in a STIP. Capturing accurate maintenance work order data by both in-house and contract forces will enable a more refined planning and budgeting process. ALDOT and TxDOT provide examples showing the benefits to capturing maintenance costs using in-house and contracted forces, respectively. This coordination should include conducting tradeoff analysis between asset programs and ultimately result in reduced life-cycle costs and improved asset performance. Implementing TAM Investment Strategies Through a Maintenance Program Including maintenance costs in TAMP investment strategies will place an expectation on agencies to follow through on those strategies. This will require an integrated process of managing maintenance delivery to achieve performance goals through agency forces and contracts, as applicable for each agency. Which activities to perform in-house and contract should be based on the cost and effectiveness of each approach, as well as internal resource availability. IDIQ, standby, or on-call contracts can be effective tools to deliver the maintenance program, particularly for specialized work or when additional funds become available. ALDOT provides an example of the importance of annual work planning. In a previous budget cycle, ALDOT’s Maintenance Bureau received a budget increase for RM to improve asset levels of service. However, ALDOT was also in the middle of a hiring freeze for new employees. As such, by using the results of its MQA process, ALDOT was able to identify the types of work to be performed and develop maintenance contracts for those services. This process was enabled due to the ability to evaluate current asset condition and leverage agency performance targets. Effective and ongoing training on maintenance best practices is also key. Knowledge management and succession planning are important considerations, particularly for management and supervisory positions to ensure smooth transitions as people move in and out of the department. Maintenance forces must also have access to the necessary equipment resources to deliver the maintenance program. Additionally, agencies can determine if it’s more cost-effective to train their internal workforce to perform specialized work or to use contracted resources as needed. Effective life-cycle cost strategies help ensure that the right maintenance treatment is applied at the right time and in the right place. This will reduce life-cycle costs and improve asset performance. For example, the Washington State DOT (WSDOT) implemented a “One-Touch Maintenance Policy” to support the implementation of strategic maintenance. The policy influences the timing of future pavement rehabilitation projects to ensure that pavement life is maximized by RM activities, leveraging the lowest life-cycle cost approach to WSDOT’s pavement chip seal program. Assessing Resources for Delivering Maintenance In most agencies, maintenance is delivered both through in-house crews and by contract. This unique aspect of maintenance delivery adds complexity both to assessing maintenance costs and integrating them into TAMP processes. For an agency to include costs for a maintenance activity in its TAMP, it must know how that activity is expected to be delivered. Since resources are limited for each delivery mechanism, this process requires coordination between organizational units responsible for planning and delivering work by in-house crews and contracts. In some cases, these two delivery mechanisms are controlled by the same managers, generally within the agency’s maintenance organization. However, maintenance activities may also be delivered by contacts that use “capital” funds, i.e., funds that may also be used for non-maintenance work.

57 Since unit costs will vary between delivery mechanism (i.e., in-house crews versus contract), the delivery mechanism must be selected before the costs can be estimated and incorporated into TAMP processes. The following questions are intended to help agencies determine which mechanism is feasible for each activity. Questions identified through Phase I of this project include: • Are in-house crews sufficiently staffed to deliver the activity? • Do in-house crews have sufficient knowledge and experience? • Can in-house crews properly be equipped? • Do contract specifications exist for this activity? • Does the contracting industry have sufficient skills and capacity to deliver the activity? • Can contractors provide adequate response time? Once an agency has determined the delivery mechanism for each activity, it can proceed with assessing the cost to deliver the activity. The agency may also assess the cost of addressing any delivery gaps for each activity. For instance, an agency may determine that they do not have sufficient staffing or knowledge with in-house crews to deliver bridge repairs. As described in the New York DOT case study in Chapter 2, an agency may calculate the cost of increasing their staffing or training existing staff to deliver the necessary activities. Similarly, agencies may determine there is a need to develop new contracting specifications or mechanisms to enhance their ability to contract out maintenance work. In Phase II, the research team developed a process for assessing an agency’s current capacity for delivering different types of maintenance activities. The process includes actions an agency can take to increase capacity, as well as demonstrates how outputs from the TAMP processes can be used to support decisions related to maintenance funding and capacity building. Data Management and Security Both maintenance management and asset management are data- and analysis-intensive. NCHRP Research Report 956: Guidebook for Data and Information Systems for Transportation Asset Management, provides a framework for advancing TAM systems and data management through benchmarking, improvement identification, and improvement evaluation. Both maintenance and asset management require 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. Data access and security are most easily managed early on, during system development (i.e., when the system and associated data models can be structured to support the assignment and enforcement of data access or security levels). With proper consideration, data access and security can be controlled at the system level, the application level, or even the database level. (SPP and Atkins, 2021). Data collection and access, particularly for maintenance management, relies heavily on the use of connected mobile devices such as laptops, smartphones, or tablets. Important security considerations discussed in the Guide for these devices include: • Security protocols and technical programming that are required to make data and/or tools available. • Data that are required in the field versus data that are desired or useful only in the office. • Agency policies and practices relating to mobile device procurement and personal cell phone use. (SPP and Atkins, 2021).

Next: Chapter 4 Implementation and Further Research »
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!