January 26, 2017

SHA/MTA Asset Management –Regional Collaborative

Panel

Nicole KatsikidesMaryland State Highway Administration

Holly ArnoldMaryland Transit Administration

Randy PaughMontgomery County DOT

Bimal Devkota, PEBaltimore City DOT

Nicole Katsikides

Career Highlights

• Currently: Deputy Director, MSHA, OPPE

• Previously: Freight Performance Program Manager at FHWA and Director, MDOT Office of Freight

Education

• Masters degree in Policy Study from JHU

• Working on dissertation for Ph.D. in Public Policy, UM

January 26, 2017

MDOT Asset ManagementNicole Katsikides (MDOT SHA)

Holly Arnold (MDOT MTA)

One MDOT Approach

• MDOT TBUs manage various assets

• MDOT currently engaged in gap analysis and tool development for One MDOT approach, coordination

• Working with MPOs and partners

• Ensuring federal compliance

Highway Asset Management

Asset Management

• Federal TAMP development

• Comprehensive TAMP

• Asset data warehouse updates

• Mobile LiDAR

• New decisional tools

• Next generation maintenance management

Asset Management ProgramA

sse

t M

an

ag

em

en

t P

rog

ram

Federal TAMP (bridge and pavement)

All Assets (bridge, pavement,

lighting, guard rail, signs, IT)

Data Collection

Mobile LiDAR

Probe Data/Physical

Data

Automated Vehicle Optics

and LiDAR

Data Management

Asset Data Warehouse

Data Governance and Policy

Data Analysis, Planning and Programming, Maintenance

Spatial Analysis, Dashboards, Performance

Based Programming, Maintenance

Mgt.

Senior Management

TAMP/Strategic Planning

Data Collection/LiDAR

Policy and Data Governance

Maintenance

Asset Management

Steering Committee

Asset Management Steering Committee

Asset Management Planning

• Asset Owner maintenance and planning• Sophisticated bridge and pavement activities

• Data collection for other assets

• Asset Data Warehouse system, next generation in work

• Data Governance Division

• Coordination with MDTA and other Transportation Business Units

• Data Collection and Analysis modernization in work

• Supporting Operations and Maintenance, new management systems

Asset Data Warehousing

Federal Requirements

• MAP-21 establishes requirement for asset management planning

• Surface transportation law is moving to performance-based federal-aid program

• FAST Act focuses on performance based planning, freight assets planning

Federal TAMP Required in MAP-21

Map 21 provides:

• TAMP content and implementation requirements

• Requires incorporation of other MAP-21 rules for bridge and pavement measures, but these rules are NOT the same.

• Bridge and pavement management systems standards

• Requirements for periodic evaluation of roads, highways, and bridges that have repeatedly required repair and reconstruction activities requirements

TAMP Progress

• State DOTs must develop processes used in

development of TAMP, which is what will be certified

by FHWA – not the outcomes.

• State DOTs must use BEST AVAILABLE DATA.

• For NON-state-owned NHS: State DOTs are required to

work collaboratively and cooperatively with other

owners to obtain data needed for development of

TAMP.

Non-SHA NHS Owners

CountiesState Highway

State Toll Authority County

Military Resv/Corp of Eng Municipal

National Park Service

Other Public

Grand Total

ALLEGANY 88.294 2.586 90.88ANNE ARUNDEL 162.807 7.77 7.247 0.86 1.32 6.2 186.204BALTIMORE 210.834 21.329 24.325 0.02 256.508BALTIMORE CITY 25.116 183.369 208.485CALVERT 42.3 42.3CAROLINE 17.37 17.37CARROLL 74.441 74.441CECIL 42.24 19.68 61.92CHARLES 55.833 2.17 58.003DORCHESTER 22.35 22.35FREDERICK 118.42 4.25 122.67GARRETT 74.751 0.06 74.811HARFORD 79.675 19.11 98.785HOWARD 99.74 1.02 2.893 103.653KENT 8.715 8.715MONTGOMERY 202.751 14.668 23.122 0.97 5.91 1.453 248.874PRINCE GEORGE'S 235.847 2.965 7.965 0.615 18.76 266.152QUEEN ANNE'S 55.02 2.53 57.55SOMERSET 20.28 20.28ST. MARY'S 34.56 34.56TALBOT 40.57 1.26 41.83WASHINGTON 92.863 0.73 9.705 103.298WICOMICO 64.741 0.95 65.691WORCESTER 79.34 79.34Grand Total 1923.742 116.358 66.282 0.86 205.085 30.87 1.473 2344.67Percent Distribution 82.0% 5.0% 2.8% 0.0% 8.7% 1.3% 0.1%

MAP-21 Bridge Performance Management

• Good/fair/poor measure based on NBI ratings• Use minimum of deck,

superstructure, and substructure ratings to evaluate (single rating for culverts)

• If >1 metric is poor the combined measure is poor

• Need to report conditions and targets for % good and poor for NHS bridges

• Additional goal of <10% of the NHS bridge deck area structurally deficient

MAP-21 Pavement Performance Management

• Good/fair/poor measure determined based on 4 metrics• If all are good the combined

measure is good

• If >2 metrics are poor the combined measure is poor

• Need to report conditions and targets for % good and poor for Interstate and non-Interstate NHS

• Rule sets an additionalgoal of <5% poor forInterstates

Visualization

• Dashboards• maps.roads.maryland.gov/Mobility

• TOSTADA

• Analysis

Next Steps….

Complete federally-required TAMP

Development of SHA-wide TAMP

• Data collection/storage

• Data analysis tools

• Ops and maintenance systems

• TSMO, ICM

• New Policies to help achieve overall goals

• Partnership and resource sharing opportunities

Transit Asset Management

Holly Arnold

Career Highlights

• Capital Program Manager at MTA

• Leading the MTA Transit Asset Management Program

• Asset Inventory

• Transit Management Plan

• Modal Lifecycle Management Plans

Education

• Masters in Public Admin., Urban and Regional Affairs, University of Pittsburgh

• Bachelors Degree from Duquesne University

• General Organizational

Strengths & Weaknesses

• Recommendations

• Agencywide TAM Vision

• SGR Analysis

• Objectives

• Performance Measures

• Strategies

• Prioritized Actions

• Modal SGR Analysis

• Objectives

• Performance Measures

• Strategies

• Actionable Projects

• $800,000 FTA Grant

• PMOC Assigned

Oct. 2012MAP-21

Legislation

Oct. 2013MTA’s TAM

Project Initiated

Jun. 2014TAM Capability

Assessment Complete

Nov. 2015Inventory & Draft TAMP Complete

Nov. 2016All Modal LMPs

Complete

Project Timeline Thus Far

MTA’s TAM Document Hierarchy

Assets Included in Scope of TAMP

Asset Inventory Analysis

• Initial analysis completed in November 2015, updated in October 2016

• $8 billion asset portfolio

• $1+ billion SGR backlog

Age-Based Asset Condition Estimates

Category & Sub-CategoryAvg.

Condition

Facilities 2.69

Equipment 2.76

Buildings 2.69

Central Control 4.54

Storage Yard 3.68

Systems 3.03

Communications 2.93

Revenue Collection 3.59

Electrification 3.11

Train Control 2.88

UPS 4.37

Misc. 4.15

ITS 4.23

Utilities 3.69

Vehicles 3.65

Revenue Vehicles 3.67

Non-Revenue Vehicles 2.41

Equipment/Parts 2.67

Stations 3.25

Complete Station 4.15

Access 3.12

Building 3.28

Signage & Graphics 2.60

Platform 3.41

Guideway Elements 3.66

Guideway 3.82

Trackwork 3.30

Special Structures 3.46

All assets rated on the TERM 1-5 Condition Scale

Anything 2.5 or above is considered to be in a State of Good Repair

FTA Performance Measures

Revenue Vehicles

% of assets at or past their useful life

Equipment (Including Non-Revenue Vehicles)

% of assets at or past their useful life

Facilities

% of assets rated below condition “3” on the TERM scale

Guideway

% of guideway directional route miles with performance restrictions

• Automobile• Bus• Cutaway Bus• Ferryboat• Van

For each asset class

• Truck• OtherFor each asset class

• Admin Facility• Maint Facility• Passenger

Facility

For each asset class

• Heavy Rail• Light Rail• Commuter Rail

For each asset class

Initial Performance Targets

Mode Asset

Class

(NTD)

BASELINE

% Past

Useful Life*

Initial

Target

Bus Bus (60 ‘

Artic.)

0% 0%

Bus Bus (40’) 4.7% 4.7%

Metro Heavy

Rail

88.9% 88.9%

Light Rail Light Rail 0% 0%

MARC Locomoti

ve

0% 0%

MARC Passenge

r Coach

0% 0%

Mobility Cutaway 0% 0%

Mobility Automob

ile

4.4% 4.4%

Mobility Van 0% 0%

Asset Class

(NTD)

BASELINE

% Past Useful

Life*

Initial

Target

Steel Wheel Vehicles 61.1% 61.1%

Other Rubber Tire

Vehicles (Service)54.4% 54.4%

Asset Class

(NTD)

BASELINE

% Below “3” on

TERM Scale*

Initial

Target

Administrative

Facility

21% 21%

Maintenance

Facility

65% 65%

Passenger

Facility

17% 17%

Parking Lot 58% 58%

Mode Asset Class

(NTD)

BASELINE

% Slow

Zones*

Initial

Target

Metro Heavy Rail 3.5% 3.5%

Light Rail Light Rail 5.8% 5.8%

MARC* Commuter

Rail

5.8% 5.8%

Final Asset Management Policy & Plan

Continuous Improvement

TAM Plan

Asset Inventory

Condition Assessment

Investment Scenarios

Category & Sub-CategoryAvg.

Condition

Facilities 3.48

Equipment 2.74

Buildings 3.57

Systems 2.60

Communications 2.78

Electrification 2.66

Train Control 2.51

UPS 4.37

Utilities 3.01

Vehicles 2.43

Revenue Vehicles 2.43

Non-Revenue Vehicles 2.29

Stations 3.16

Complete Station 3.02

Access 2.76

Building 3.24

Signage & Graphics 2.41

Platform 2.82

Guideway Elements 3.58

Guideway 3.75

Trackwork 2.46

Special Structures 2.86

Grand Total 3.18

1.

2.

3.

Start

Year

New Federal Deadlines

January 26, 2017

Montgomery County Metropolitan Region

Collaboration – Asset ManagementRandy Paugh

Randy Paugh

Career Highlights

• Chief, Pavement Management, Montgomery County DOT

• 30-years MSHA in Construction and Maintenance

Education

• MSHA Management Development Program

• Penn State Executive Program

• University of Maryland Leadership Development Program

Montgomery CountyDepartment of Transportation

Vision

• A seamless transportation system for people of all ages, incomes and abilities that supports a vibrant and sustainable community.

Mission

• To move people and connect places with the best transportation choices and services.

Montgomery CountyMetropolitan Region Collaboration

Examples of coordination between agencies

• Data sharing • MCDOT annual updates to roadway mileage report to MDOT-SHA

• MCDOT posts all Capital Improvement Projects on website

• Data Montgomery – Open Government; Transparency of all data for private consumption

• MCDOT and WSSC developed and implemented Agency Project Coordination (APC) Tool. Next version will include conflict alerts

• Collaboration activities• MCDOT meets monthly with SHA to review capital project

development and coordination

• MCDOT inspects 51 municipality bridges

• Efforts under way• Transportation system condition assessments

• Storm drain culvert inventory/condition assessments

Asset Management and Collaboration

Agenda

• Pavement conditions

• Bridges

• Storm drains

• Right-of-way trees

• Water Quality Protection Fund (TDML-MS4)

• GIS/GPS Program Proliferation

Asset ManagementPavement

• MCDOT instituted pavement management in early 2000’s

• MCDOT system: 5,200 lane miles of combined arterial/ residential

• Data collection using Laser Crack Measurement System (LCMS)

• Data management and QA/QC of data

• ASTM data analysis provides network level and segment level PCI values

Asset ManagementPavement

• Allows for network-level planning and budgeting (top-down approach)

• Results in project level development (bottom-up exercise)

• Life cycle planning for pavement inventory and systems preservation

• Objective data for budget lobbying (Office of Management and Budget, County Executive, County Council)

• Development of goals and program performance measures

Project Planning Process

Repair Strategy

Assignment

Performance

Modeling

Budget

Optimization

Data Roadway Inventory

Pavement Types Maint. Schedule

Pavement Condition

Construction History Cost

Benefits

Constraints

Planning

(Network Level)

Implementation

(Project Level)

Performance

Constraints

• Set budget limits

• Find optimum plan

w/ best performance

Budget

Constraints

•Set condition goals

•Find optimum plan

with least cost

• Generate prediction

models

• Determine budget

needs

• Define improvement

goals

• Optimize use of

resources

• Create project list

• Select repair strategy

• Estimate costs

• Produce work plans

• Implement projects

Project Selection

Traffic

Condition

Structure

Repair

Strategy

Project A Project B

1 4 5 72 3 6

Optimum Maintenance and Rehabilitation Plan

Traffic Information

Asset InventoryCondition Analysis Reporting

Excellent

Very Good

Good

Fair

Poor

Very Poor

Failed

72.6 72.7 73.1 73.6 74.2

70.268.6

67.1 66.164.7

72.169.2

66.1

63.0

59.9

56.7

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21 FY22

PCI Average Based on Budget ToReach 80 PCI over 15yrs ($9,129,745per yr)

PCI Average Based on Budget ToMaintain FY17 PCI over 15yrs($7,905,713 per yr)

PCI Average Based on Current Budget

PCI Average Based on No Budget

Ad

eq

ua

teD

eg

rad

ed

Un

acce

pta

ble

Goal of 80 PCI

ASTM Scale MCDOT Scale

Average

Primary/Arterial PCI

and Funding Trends

2016 Pavement Conditions

Asset ManagementBridges

• Responsible for 383 bridges (245 long span; 138 short span)

• Assist MC municipalities, inspects 51 municipal bridges

• Inspections and sufficiency ratings follow federal and state requirements

• Collaborates through MDOT-administered information and document management system “Structures Asset Management (SAM)”

• All County information input in SAM for reporting to MDOT and FHWA

• All county bridges geospatially-located and mapped in GIS

• Information used for annual budgeting and program level planning

• Facilitates project level planning

Montgomery CountyBridges

Asset ManagementInventory Storm Drains

• Countywide storm drain inventory data recorded in numerous locations and in different formats:

• Hand drafted plans

• Developer plans

• CADD drawings

• Department of Permitting Services (DPS)

• Department of Transportation (DOT)

• Department of Environmental Protection (DEP)

• Compiling is a labor-intensive effort and is underway

• Field data collection underway

• Use of GPS enable tablets on GIS platform

• Data acquisition (x,y,z), geospatial photos, condition analysis

Asset Management Inventory Street Trees

• MCDOT maintains >400,000 street trees located in ROW

• Inventory collection over the past 12-years and continues as ongoing

• Inventory (data) housed in asset inventory software

• Attributes include: location, species, size, complete history, target values

• Inventory allows risk factor ratings based on target values (low, medium, high)

• Inventory allows for network level budgeting and network level resourcing

• Allows for the development of performance measures

• Inventory is objective (measured/counted) not anecdotal

GIS Mapping of Sediment Cleanup Efforts

• GIS/GPS used to map and locate storm drain cleanout efforts

• Maintenance crews equipped with GPS/GIS enabled tablets

• Cleanout efforts are captured geospatially, digital photos, debris identification, condition, drop-down menus

• Sediment/debris quantity (CY, lbs.) measured and recorded in GIS

• Information used in support of Water Quality Program (TDML and MS4) funding and performance measures

• Information is rolled-up and shared with MC DEP and MDE

Asset Management Organizational View

• Advent of portable tablets assisting overall data collection efforts

• “Boots on the ground” personnel facilitate data collection

• Maintenance forces and technicians add significant value

• Organizational goals of asset management, inventories, and data collection must be shared top-down to bottom-up within the organization

• GIS/GPS data collection technology must permeate the organization

• Asset inventory and condition analysis has enhanced our management of life cycle elements for publicly-funded infrastructure

• We have made major advancements

• Much more to do!

January 26, 2017

Asset Management – Condition ofRoads and Bridges in Baltimore City

Bimal Devkota, PE

Bimal Devkota, PE

Career Highlights

• Registered Professional Engineer

• 37-years of Engineering Experience

• Chief of Engineering and Construction, Baltimore City DOT

• Manages BC Capital Projects

• Data collection of Roads and Bridges

• Planning and Performance Management

Education

• M.S. Civil Engineering, Southern Illinois University

Asset Management

• Federal Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP)

• MDOT is working on the approach and coordination in Maryland

• Baltimore City is coordinating with MDOT and BMC for the uniform policy and schedule

• Goal is to meet federal compliance

• Baltimore City’s bridge and pavement data collection follows FHWA and MD-SHA guidelines

Pavement Network Inventory

• 4,745 lane miles, 14 Council Districts

• 4 pavement types – Flexible, Composite, Rigid, Bricks/Unpaved

• 3 roadway classes – Primary, Secondary, Tertiary

614 Lane

Miles (13%)

1,161 Lane

Miles (24%)

2,970 Lane

Miles (63%)

Network Distribution by Road Class

(by Lane Mile)

Primary Secondary Tertiary

2,811 Lane

Miles

(59%)

1,478 Lane

Miles

(31%)

420 Lane

Miles

(9%)36 Lane Miles

(1%)

Network Distribution by Pavement Type

(by Lane Mile)

Flexible Composite Rigid Bricks/Unpaved

What is Pavement Management?

Data Collection Pavement Assessment

• Custom condition rating survey developed in 2008

• GIS software utilized for current positioning and identification of the pavement block being surveyed

Pavement Condition Index (PCI)

Very Good

Good

Fair

Mediocre

Poor

Condition State

90 - 100

80 - 89

70 - 79

55 - 69

< 55

PCI

Substandard

Acceptable

Distress Type Severity Extent

PCI

Network Condition – 2008 vs. 2013

56.7%

43.3%

62.0%

38.0%

0.0%

10.0%

20.0%

30.0%

40.0%

50.0%

60.0%

70.0%

Acceptable Substandard

2008 vs 2013 Network Condition Distribution(by pavement area)

20132008

2008 2013

Future Planning – Budget Analysis

Pavement Condition

Data

Mathematical Deterioration

Models

Decision TreesCost and Benefit

Data

Implementation Plan

Budget Analysis

Funding Need

• In order to sustain current condition of 62% acceptable, City needs $49 m/year for 10 years

• In order to improve network condition to *0% acceptable, City needs $78m/year for 10 years

Bridge Overview

DOT is responsible for 298 bridges, including:

2 bascule (movable) bridges

14 pedestrian bridges

1 bridge in Carroll County

1 bridge in Harford County

23 bridges in Baltimore County

Bridge Network Inventory

• BCDOT is partnering with MDOT-SHA for bridge inspection

• Follows the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) Ratings

MAP-21 Bridge Performance Management

• Good/Fair/Poor measures based on NBI ratings

• Use Minimum of Deck, Superstructure, and Sub-Structure to evaluate rating

Funding Need

• Structurally deficient bridges = 34

• BSR less than 50 = 24

• City needs $75 m/ year

Bridge Management Program Summary

Routine Maintenance

Preventive Maintenance

+ Innovative

Ideas

Rehabilitation

Total Reconstruction

Tomorrow's Bridge Program

Today’s Bridge Program

Preventative Maintenance Program

• BMS/cost benefit analysis/investment scenarios

• Eligible preservation activities:• Joints

• Decks overlays

• Scour/stream repair

Questions?