Analytical Tools for Asset Management (2005) / Chapter Skim
Currently Skimming:
Pages 9-22
The Chapter Skim interface presents what we've algorithmically identified as the most significant single chunk of text within every page in the chapter.
Select key terms on the right to highlight them within pages of the chapter.
From page 9... ...
Each of these activities is described in the following paragraphs. Literature Review and Summary Recent research efforts have involved surveys of state DOT personnel on issues related to the use of decision support tools for asset management.
|
From page 10... ...
These questions addressed whether the agency's current business processes would easily fit with the kinds of functions envisioned for the analytical tools to be developed in this project. For example, if an agency is not analyzing tradeoffs across categories and has no flexibility to reallocate funds across categories based on expected performance, a tool that performs such tradeoff analysis would not be expected to have a high degree of impact on resource allocation decisions.
|
From page 11... ...
• At the joint summer meeting of the AASHTO Task Force on Asset Management and the TRB Committee on Asset Management held in conjunction with the meeting of the TRB Planning and Management Committees in Providence, Rhode Island (July 2002) , informal discussions on needs for analytical tools were held with attendees.
|
From page 12... ...
A Colorado DOT effort to establish a customer-oriented, performancebased investment category structure was noted for its support for effective tradeoff analysis and resource allocation. Investment categories were organized by policy objective as opposed to asset or project type: mobility, system quality, safety, strategic projects, and program delivery.
|
From page 13... ...
• Many tools -- such as management systems, travel forecasting tools, and benefit/cost techniques -- can support multimodal tradeoff analysis, but these tools have not yet been integrated in a manner that would support programlevel modal tradeoffs that reflect a broad range of policy objectives. • Significant work has been accomplished in developing specific impact analysis tools and piecing together information for specific corridor studies, modal needs studies, statewide plan development efforts, and so forth; however, no state has developed a strategic, top-level, ongoing view of major tradeoffs around core agency objectives.
|
From page 14... ...
. The authors summarize the results of this survey by stating, "There are more state DOTs that are uninterested in developing a multimodal program analysis tool than there are states that are interested." Specific conclusions of the survey follow: • Many states lack interest in analyzing multimodal tradeoffs because dedicated funding is used to support specific program areas; therefore, there is no cross-modal competition to provide the motivation for tradeoff analysis.
|
From page 15... ...
Meta-manager Project/ strategy evaluation California Life-Cycle/ Benefit/Cost Analysis Model (Cal-B/C) ITMS MicroBENCOST for construction office Present worth spreadsheet for pavement analysis In-house tools for pavement and safety B/C analysis SMS In house B/C analysis tools High-hazard safety projects B/C analysis Highway Investment Analysis Package (HIAP)
|
From page 16... ...
Prototype tool for crossproject prioritization based on excess user costs District multiyear work plan PMS BMS MMS SMS PMS BMS CMS Life-cycle cost (LCC) Spreadsheet analysis for pavements Value engineering (for projects > $20 million)
|
From page 17... ...
Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Investment level versus predicted performance within a program category 5: Maintenance 3 3: Maintenance 4: Congestion 3: Bridges, drainage 1/2: Others 5: Other than pavements or bridges 4: Safety 1: Bridges, pavements 1 4/5 4 1 Performance tradeoffs for different budget allocations across program categories 5 3 4 5 5 5 4/5 5 5 1 Predicted impacts on system condition, safety, mobility, economic growth, etc., for a set of proposed projects 5: Maintenance 3: Others 3 4/5 4/5 5: If includes more than roads and bridges 4 4 5 5: Bridges 1: Pavements 5 Impacts of alternative policies/standards for project scope, timing, and design 2 4 1 5 1 4 4/5 4/5: Bridges 1: Pavements 4 Project/strategy evaluation 4: Maintenance 3 4: Safety, Maintenance 5: Congestion, Drainage 3: Bridges 1: Others 5: Safety 2: Others 1 4 4/5 5 2 Project Prioritization within or across project types 5: Across asset types 1 5: For MPOs – within project types 1: Across project types 5: Congestion 4: Across asset types 3: Bridges 2: Others 1 1 5: Across asset types 1: Within asset type 4/5 4/5: Safety 1: Pavements, bridges 5 TABLE 4 Level of interest in new analytical tools (continued on next page)
|
From page 18... ...
Type of Analysis California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Life-cycle cost 5: "Important" assets 3: Others 5 3 3/4 5 4: Bridges 1: Pavements 2 1 5: Bridges 3: Safety 1: Pavements 1 Monitoring actual project costs and effectiveness (to provide feedback into management systems) 5 4 1 5 5 5 5 5 5: Bridges, pavements 2: Safety 4/5 Other (e.g., customer feedback analysis)
|
From page 19... ...
TABLE 5 Preferences for implementation platforms Platform California Florida Massachusetts Maryland Michigan Montana New York Ohio South Carolina Wisconsin Stand-alone web-based tool Y Y Y Y Y N 1 Y Y Y N Stand-alone spreadsheet-based tool N Y Y N Y N 1 D2 N Y Y Stand-alone GIS-based tool Y N 3 Y3 Y N 3 N 3 D2 N Y3 Y Plug-in module for integration with existing systems Y Y Y Y Y Y D 2 Y Y Y Guideline/specification (as opposed to software) Y Y N N Y Y N Y Y D4 Other (specify)
|
From page 20... ...
Seven of the ten states indicated a high level of interest in new tools for project prioritization. Three of these states specifically indicated an interest in new tools for prioritization across project types.
|
From page 21... ...
A couple of states noted that the tool must be compatible with a client/server architecture. Four of the ten states felt that the product of this NCHRP project should be operating software (at least in prototype form)
|
From page 22... ...
An FHWA representative suggested that the biggest transportation issue today is costly congestion delays and that intelligent transportation systems (ITS) were the key to making progress in this area.
|
Key Terms
This material may be derived from roughly machine-read images, and so is provided only to facilitate research.
More
information on Chapter Skim is available.