Comprehensive Transportation Asset Management: Making a Business Case and Prioritizing Assets for Inclusion in Formal Asset Management Programs

Several agencies are applying asset management principles as a business tool and paradigm to help them define goals and prioritize agency resources in decision making. Previously, transportation asset management (TAM) has focused more on “big ticket” assets such as roadways and bridges, and less on lower-cost assets such as traffic signs and guardrails. The purpose of this study is to assess the state of the practice in managing ancillary transportation assets, and develop a benefit-cost-risk framework and supporting tool that can be used to evaluate and prioritize assets for systematic management. The project focuses on ten main ancillary assets: culverts, earth retaining structures, guardrails, mitigation features, pavement markings, sidewalks (and curbs), street lighting, traffic signals, traffic signs and utilities and manholes, and one information asset: data. A literature review and targeted survey were conducted to determine the state of the practice in ancillary TAM and collect data for the development of the evaluation framework. The results of the literature review indicate that a growing number of agencies are making notable efforts to systematically manage the assets under consideration. Based on the literature, methods and practices vary from agency to agency; however, very little was found on data collection costs. A survey conducted targeting 41 state and municipal agencies with reported activity in the literature (with 44% response rate), showed varied agency practices, with more agencies beginning to manage roadway safety assets. It was difficult to obtain specific estimates of data collection costs and cost savings from the TAM systems implementation. The study findings indicate that making a business case for formal asset management programs is more meaningful when approached as an ongoing activity rather than a snapshot action because asset management programs are evolving and at different levels of maturity. At present, the data available for several programs is not adequate enough to conduct a comprehensive benefit-cost analysis of such programs. Thus, the study recommends collecting the necessary data to periodically evaluate the benefits and costs of asset management programs to ensure that they are becoming more cost effective as they are evolved to higher levels of maturity. A benefit-cost framework is provided and data collection needs are outlined to enable such an analysis to be conducted adequately. With regard to prioritizing assets for inclusion in a formal asset management program, the study recommends that the prioritization must be tied to the strategic goals of the agency, and the objective of the prioritization should be risk reduction relative to agency strategic goals. A risk framework is provided and data needs are outlined for conducting such an analysis adequately. Another caution that results from the study is that ancillary assets cannot properly be considered in isolation and prioritized one against another but must also be considered as complementary units, with synergistic effects, that are part of the overall system.

[1]  A. Boardman,et al.  Cost-Benefit Analysis: Concepts and Practice , 1996 .

[2]  Deborah Kraus,et al.  THE BENEFITS OF ASSET MANAGEMENT AND GASB 34 , 2004 .

[3]  Ben Williamson,et al.  VIEWPOINTS , 2008 .

[4]  Y. Haimes,et al.  Leontief-Based Model of Risk in Complex Interconnected Infrastructures , 2001 .

[5]  Michael J Markow.  Managing Selected Transportation Assets: Signals, Lighting, Signs, Pavement Markings, Culverts, and Sidewalks , 2007 .

[6]  Sue McNeil,et al.  Generic Methodology for Evaluating Net Benefit of Asset Management System Implementation , 2009 .

[7]  David C. Wyant.  Assessment and rehabilitation of existing culverts , 2002 .

[8]  M. Elisabeth Paté-Cornell,et al.  Uncertainties in risk analysis: Six levels of treatment , 1996 .

[9]  Karen Haas,et al.  Why Your Agency Should Consider Asset Management Systems for Roadway Safety , 2005 .

[10]  Y. Haimes,et al.  RISK-BASED ASSET MANAGEMENT METHODOLOGY FOR HIGHWAY INFRASTRUCTURE SYSTEMS , 2004 .

[11]  David J Hensing,et al.  Roadway Safety Hardware Asset Management Systems Case Studies , 2005 .

[12]  Edward T. Harrigan,et al.  NAtioNAl CooperAtive HigHwAy reseArCH progrAm , 2013 .

[13]  Leah Wansley,et al.  Mission and Values , 2013 .

[14]  Tarek Zayed,et al.  Hierarchical Fuzzy Expert System for Risk of Failure of Water Mains , 2010 .

[15]  P E Irick,et al.  The Pavement Serviceability-Performance Concept , 1960 .

[16]  C. Starr.  Social benefit versus technological risk. , 1969, Science.

[17]  Sue McNeil,et al.  CAPTURING DATA AND MODEL UNCERTAINTIES IN HIGHWAY PERFORMANCE ESTIMATION , 2000 .

[18]  M. Meyer,et al.  Best Practices in Selecting Performance Measures and Standards for Effective Asset Management , 2011 .

[19]  Amit Armstrong,et al.  Retaining Walls Are Assets Too , 2009 .

[20]  James S Davidson,et al.  Culvert Management System Implementation and Seminar , 2006 .

[21]  Robert Ritter,et al.  Transportation Asset Management in Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand , 2005 .

[22]  Sam Salem,et al.  An Asset Management Approach for Drainage Infrastructure and Culverts , 2008 .

[23]  Daniel Alzamora,et al.  Asset Management Systems for Retaining Walls , 2008 .

[24]  S. Kaplan,et al.  On The Quantitative Definition of Risk , 1981 .

[25]  Zongzhi Li,et al.  A Methodology for Integrating Roadway Safety Hardware Management into the Overall Highway Asset Management Program , 2008 .

[26]  E. Lindquist,et al.  ASSESSING EFFECTIVENESS MEASURES IN THE ISTEA MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS , 1999 .