Systematic Planning and Management of Assets

Ananth Prasad, P.E.

Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation

Best Practices in North America

• Performance management defined; and why it is important now

• Relationship with asset management • State of the practice at the state department

of transportation level and a Michigan (MI) case example

• Comparative performance measures • Toward a national set of measures • Worldwide lessons

Outline

2

Performance Management Framework

3

Why Measure Performance? … Why Now?

• AASHTO believes a national performance measurement program would: – Focus needed attention on key national goals – Provide more transparency and accountability

for the Federal program – Build on the considerable performance

measurement/m4anagement work already occurring in individual state DOTs

4

Why Measure Performance? Why Now? (Cont’d.)

• Help make the case for sustaining and increasing the funding levels for infrastructure

• Help state DOTs advance their own efforts thru peer to peer work sessions and data exchange

5

Common Themes of Asset Management (AM) and Performance Management (PM)

• Core principles of AM and PM are the same • Clarifying the relationship is important

– Key difference is application of core principles 1. Asset Management: Managing physical assets 2. Performance Management: All performance areas of

concern

• Asset Management and PM are needed to support Strategic Resource Allocation Process

6

Strategic Resource Allocation: Process

Policy Goals and ObjectivesPerformance Measures and Targets

Preservation/State of Good Repair

Operations/Reliability

Resource Allocation Decisions

Financial Staff Equipment Other

Program and Service Delivery

System Conditions and Service Levels

Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs

Preservation/State of Good

Repair

Least life-cycle cost to maintain physical assets at condition level

required to deliver service

desired

Congestion Relief/

System Capacity

Best mix of capital

investments to provide desired

service over time

Operations/Reliability

Best mix of strategies to

deliver real-time service desired

Congestion Relief/System Capacity Environment

Safety

Best mix of engineering, enforcement,

education, and emergency response

strategies to reduce

fatalities/injuries

Environment

Effective environmental

stewardship including wetlands

protection, energy

conservation, etc.

Safety

7

Key Points on Asset Management and Performance Management

• Asset Management is the application of Performance Management principles to physical asset management

• Asset Management must be long-term • Performance Management is concerned with

long and short-term aspects – Long range transportation plans for new capacity – Short-term aspects

• Real-time system operations • Incident management • Agency performance (e.g., customer service)

8

State of the Practice at the State DOT Level

• All state DOTs collect asset condition data and highway fatality data

• The majority of state DOTs also provide comprehensive performance data to both increase accountability and to achieve the best system performance

9

Michigan Case Example • The MI DOT has been using asset

management framework for twenty years and has aided local governments in this effort for ten years

• Transportation Asset Management task force created which led to the legislature creating an Asset Management Council

• Council oversees a comprehensive data collection process

10

Michigan

• MDOT established an Asset Management Division

• The MDOT transportation commission approved measurable performance targets for pavements and bridges on the state’s freeways and non-freeways

11

Michigan’s Dashboard

12

Florida Case Example

• Policies preserve roads and bridges • Buy-in from Governor, Legislature,

local officials • Condition of the system has been

fully evaluated since 1987 • Funds are first allocated to meet

goals and objectives • Florida Transportation Commission

established by Legislature to oversee Departments performance.

13

Florida Program Allocation Process FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION PLAN Goals and Objectives Preservation Economic Competitiveness Mobility

EXECUTIVE BOARD Policy and Funding Decisions

STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS for example 15% Public Transportation

NEEDS ASSESSMENT for example 90% of bridges meet standard

PROGRAM AND RESOURCE PLAN Plan of Commitments Guides Program and Funding

LEGISLATIVE BUDGET REQUEST Annual Request for Operating and Work Program Budget

LEGISLATIVE PROCESS

FIVE-YEAR TENTATIVE WORK PROGRAM Program of Specific Projects

PERFORMANCE MONITORING Maintenance Rating Program Deficient Bridge List Pavement Condition Survey

ADOPTED WORK PROGRAM Tentative Work Program General Appropriations Act Prior Year Roll-Forward

FINANCIAL UPDATE Revenue Forecast Finance Plan Cash to Commitments

14

Florida Overview

Florida Transportation Plan is the blueprint that sets the policy framework for the allocation of financial resources by FDOT (s. 339.155)

Prevailing Principles to Guide Investment - Safety and Preservation - Economic Competitiveness - Mobility

15

Florida Mission, Goals and Objectives (F.S. 334.046)

- Ensuring that 80% of the pavement on the State Highway System meets department standards

- Ensuring that 90% of the department-maintained bridges meet department standards

- Ensuring that the department achieves 100% of the acceptable maintenance standard on the State Highway System

16

Florida Resurfacing Program

Incd Incd Incd Incd Incd Incd

Incd

Incd

Incd Incd

7.7% 6.3% 6.2% 6.4% 6.7% 6.7%

5.1% 6.6%

4.9%

6.7%

19% 20% 20% 20%

18% 17% 17%

14%

12% 11%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Perc

ent o

f Sys

tem

Lan

e M

iles

STATE HIGHWAY SYSTEM HISTORY Percent Deficient and Percent Resurfaced

Percent of SHS Resurfaced

Percent Deficient

Additional resurfacing performed incidental to other construction project work Incd

17

Florida Resurfacing Program

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

7000

8000

9000

10000

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

2021

2022

2023

2024

2025

2026

2027

2028

2029

2030

2031

2032

2033

2034

Previous Resurfacing Lane Miles Programmed

Current Resurfacing Lane Miles Programmed

Estimated % Meeting Standards w/Previous Resurfacing LMs Programmed

Forecasted % Meeting Standards w/Current Resurfacing LMs Programmed

Forecast of Percent of State Highway System Lane MilesMeeting Department Pavement Standards

Fiscal Year

Perc

ent

ofSt

ate

High

way

Sys

tem

Lane Miles

5.4% 5.3% 5.3%5.2% 5.3%

6.1% 5.8%

4.6%

6%

4.8% 4.8%4.2%

4.4%5%

5.5%5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.6% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.5% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7% 5.7%

Lane Mile Reductions in Resurfacing Program

Current Year

18

Michigan

19

Transportation demands and expectations steadily are increasing MDOT Trunkline Road and Bridge Condition

Actual 1998-2010, Projected 2011-2020

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

2013

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Perc

ent G

ood/

Fair

PavementProjected pavement: match all federal aidBridge Projected bridge: match all federal aid

Michigan

20

Florida Bridge Replacement Policy

• Strength Replacements – Structurally Deficient or Weight Posted Bridges must be programmed for replacement or repair within 6 years

• Economy Replacements – Bridges more economic to replace than repair must be programmed for replacement within 9 years

21

Florida Bridge Replacement Program

3440 44

49 5054 59 58 49

42

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 12/13 13/14 14/15 15/16

Num

ber o

f Brid

ges

Bridge Work PlanReplacement Program at Year End

FDOT Maintains 6,241 Bridges

FY 2011 42 (<1%)

Bridges Needing Replacement

22

Michigan’s Dashboard Deficient Bridges

23

Florida Maintenance Rating Program • Maintenance Rating Program (MRP) evaluates and rates

actual field conditions - Roadway, Roadside, Traffic Services, Drainage and

Vegetation Aesthetics • Objective: 100% of roads on the State Highway System

achieve the maintenance standard • Operating Policy: Provide full funding required to achieve

a MRP of 80 or above which is equivalent to attaining 100% of the department’s objectives

• Currently the statewide Maintenance Rating Program has a score of 87 for fiscal year 2010/2011.

24

Florida Maintenance Rating Program

• The MRP scores are compared with work efforts from the maintenance areas captured in the Maintenance Management System (MMS)

• A report is generated to compare the work efforts to a planned score of 80

25

Florida Summary

• Preservation has been a top priority in Florida Statutes since 1999 and within FDOT well before that.

• The investment in a preservation program that includes accountability thru performance measures is a sound investment with solid returns.

26

Standards: Minimum 90% of bridges meet standard 100% of system meet standard MRP of 80 Minimum 80% of pavements meet standard

Florida What gets measured gets done!

98/99 99/00 00/01 01/02 02/03 03/04 04/05 05/06 06/07 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 Bridge 91% 92% 95% 94% 94% 95% 94% 94% 94% 94% 95% 95% 95% Maintenance 82% 82% 84% 85% 85% 84% 83% 83% 83% 86% 87% 86% 87% Pavement 78.0% 78.8% 78.8% 79.3% 80.2% 80.1% 79.7% 82.1% 83.5% 83.5% 85.6% 87.6% 88.9%

75%

80%

85%

90%

95%

100%

27

National Performance Measurement Program: AASHTO’s Reauthorization Proposal

Performance targets set in cooperation

w/partners & stakeholders

Key elements of the program include:

and NOT include:

National Goals by Congress &

Secretary of Transportation

PMs established through a

collaborative process

For each state – build on the work already done on PMs

Consistent monitoring & reporting of

actual results

Performance measures or

targets established in

legislation

Tying PMs and/or

targets to funding

Disincentives that penalizes

states

28

Share information on

practices of better

performing states

Understand current state of the data – work towards

common definitions and measurement

practices

Provide states with

comparative view of

performance relative to

peers

Useful practices and

sharing of knowledge and self -

improvement is the goal -

not punishment

Get buy-in from states,

agree on guidelines or standards for comparability

– qualify measures for Tier 1 status

Comparative Performance

Measures Objectives

29

Comparative Performance Measurement Projects

Framework & functional description for comparative performance database & analysis infrastructure

Tier 1 Measure definitions, calculation methods, reporting formats; action needed to progress Tiers 2&3

16

30

AASHTO Candidate Initial Set of Performance Measures

31

Goal Area Initial Measures – Ready for Deployment

Safety Multiple year moving average of the number of fatalities

Pavement Preservation NHS IRI

Bridge Preservation Deck Area of structurally deficient bridges on NHS

Congestion/Operations No initial measures Connectivity No initial measures Environment No initial measures

Freight/Economic Competitiveness

Speed/travel time on significant freight corridors (SFC) Reliability on SFCs

Transit No initial measures Livability No initial measures

31

Worldwide Lessons for Highway Performance Management

• Start with asset management elements-pavement and bridge condition and roadside safety and traffic control features

• Set national goals and targets for a small number of items

• Solid comparative data is a must for international comparisons and for subunits of government

• It takes a long time to get the measures and data right

32

Thank you!

33