Systematic Planning and Management of Assets Best Practices...
Transcript of Systematic Planning and Management of Assets Best Practices...
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