LONG-TERM COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS OF PAVEMENT MANAGEMENT SYSTEM IMPLEMENTATION

Many agencies in the United States, Canada, and other countries have implemented pavement management systems (PMSs) over the past two decades. Although the technology and implementation have developed rapidly, the costs and benefits of pavement management have generally been assessed only on a qualitative basis. A major reason for this is the difficulty of quantifying benefits to both authorities and users. The qualitative costs and benefits of developing and implementing a PMS, including those of a general and specific nature, are defined and classified. General benefits include better chances of making correct decisions, improved intraagency coordination, and better use of technology; specific benefits, such as justification of programs, would accrue primarily to elected representatives and senior management. It is suggested that the true, quantitatively based indicators of PMS cost-effectiveness involve the ultimate savings in real highway expenditures plus user cost savings. If these "secondary benefits" of user cost savings can be quantified and if they indicate a substantial degree of PMS cost-effectiveness by themselves, then the basis exists for quantitative justification of the PMS. On the basis of data from pavement management implementation in the province of Alberta, it is demonstrated how user cost savings can be calculated for an increase that actually occurred in average network serviceability, even though the budget remained constant. (In real terms it decreased. Consequently, the analysis was conservative.) The ratio of these user cost savings to PMS costs [i.e., cost-benefit (C/B) ratio] ranged up to about 100:1 or more for a variety of scenarios and assumptions. Although it does not represent an exhaustive economic analysis, the case application illustrates that it is a quite sound way in which to look at the value of a PMS. Moreover, it has been found to be a very effective tool for senior administrators with which to justify implementation of a PMS. A second state-level evaluation was carried out on the Arizona PMS on the basis of available data. It was intended for comparison and for verification of the approach used. The C/B ratios are not as high as those for Alberta (partly because of differences in the data and because of the assumptions that had to be used), but they are still substantial and support the general principle of the analysis techniques used.