Issuu on Google+

Utah Transportation Asset Management Plan Utah TAMP 6/3/2014


Table of Contents List of Figures ........................................................................................................................................... iii List of Tables ............................................................................................................................................ iii Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 1 Asset Management Committee Structure .................................................................................................... 3 Asset Management Steering Committee.................................................................................................. 3 Asset Advisory Committee ........................................................................................................................ 4 Evaluation and Results .................................................................................................................................. 5 Self-Assessment and Gap Analysis ............................................................................................................ 5 Gap Analysis Results ................................................................................................................................. 7 Asset Management Goal and Objectives ...................................................................................................... 8 Goal and Objectives .................................................................................................................................. 8 Program Alignment ............................................................................................................................... 9 Assets and Performance ....................................................................................................................... 9 Organized and Accessible Data ............................................................................................................. 9 Plan by the year .................................................................................................................................... 9 Implementation Plan and Risk Assessment ................................................................................................ 10 Implementation Tasks and Programmatic Risks ..................................................................................... 10 Systemic Risk Register ............................................................................................................................. 16 Management Plans ..................................................................................................................................... 17 Financial Plan .............................................................................................................................................. 18 Asset Values ............................................................................................................................................ 19 Appendix A - Policy 07-13 Committee Structure ...................................................................................... A-1 Appendix B - Committee Comments, July 2013 ........................................................................................B-1 Appendix C - 2013 Gap Analysis................................................................................................................. C-1 Appendix D - Gap Analysis Voting Results ................................................................................................ D-1 Appendix E - Implementation Plan by Year ............................................................................................... E-1 Appendix F - Management Plans ............................................................................................................... F-1 Pavement Management ........................................................................................................................ F-1 Maintenance Management ................................................................................................................... F-3 Utah TAMP

i


Information Management ..................................................................................................................... F-6

Utah TAMP

ii


List of Figures Figure 1 - Strategic Goals ...............................................................................................................................................1 Figure 2 - UDOT Responsibilities ....................................................................................................................................1 Figure 3 - AMSC Membership ........................................................................................................................................3 Figure 4 - AAC Membership ...........................................................................................................................................4 Figure 5 - Gap Analysis Flow Chart ................................................................................................................................5 Figure 6 – Comment Categorization ..............................................................................................................................6 Figure 7 - Gap Analysis Results ......................................................................................................................................7 Figure 8 - Asset Management Roadmap .......................................................................................................................8 Figure 9 - Program Alignment .......................................................................................................................................9 Figure 10 - Assets & Performance..................................................................................................................................9 Figure 11 - Organized & Accessible Data .......................................................................................................................9 Figure 12 - Federal Program Funding 2014 .................................................................................................................18 Figure 13 - Distribution of Funding ..............................................................................................................................19 Figure 14 - State Transportation Funds .......................................................................................................................19

List of Tables

Table 1 - Program Alignment Tasks ______________________________________________________________ 10 Table 2 - Program Alignment Risks _______________________________________________________________ 11 Table 3 -Assets and Performance Tasks ___________________________________________________________ 12 Table 4 - Assets and Performance Risks ___________________________________________________________ 13 Table 5 - Organized and Accessible Data Tasks _____________________________________________________ 14 Table 6 - Organized and Accessible Data Risks ______________________________________________________ 15 Table 7 - Systematic Risks ______________________________________________________________________ 16 Table 8 - Current Quantified Asset Values _________________________________________________________ 20

Utah TAMP

iii


Introduction Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) is focused on preserving Utah's existing transportation infrastructure; the state's multi-billion dollar investment in roads, bridges and other assets must be maintained for future generations. Keeping Utah's assets in good condition is the most effective way to extend the life of the transportation system. Expanding and preserving the transportation system requires improved efficiency, careful use of resources and close partnering with decision makers. By focusing on the Strategic Goals, UDOT will meet the challenges of an ever growing and changing state. The “UDOT 2014 Strategic Direction and Performance Measures” details how UDOT will focus on the four goals this year and can be found at: UDOT 2014 Strategic Direction

Strategic Goals 1 2 3 4

Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Zero Fatalities Strengthen the Economy Figure 1 - Strategic Goals

Asset Management is a crucial element of achieving these Strategic Goals. The Asset Management process helps UDOT to be accountable to the public by: • Minimizing lifecycle costs • Maximizing system performance • Supporting an objective decision making process • Balancing public expectations with limited funding UDOT is moving toward a unified approach regarding investment decisions to meet the current trends and to comply with the requirements of MAP-21 and maximize resources. UDOT has well established processes in place for managing pavement and bridge preservation and plan to expand these efforts to other assets. Up to this time, recommendations for the investment of UDOT’s resources have been based on each asset funding category and program. To improve the strong efforts already made with bridges and pavement, UDOT is reconfirming existing asset management strategies and providing a comprehensive view of the asset management process by evaluating needs in the following areas: • Performance-based approach for allocating funds, • Organizational structure for asset management, • Data storage and accessibility, • Asset management ties to the long range plan, • Lifecycle cost analysis, and • Risk management.

UDOT is responsible for: • maintaining 6,000 miles of highways, • preserving 2000 bridges, • adding capacity, • implementing innovative lane use and intersections, • providing automated traffic information, • decreasing traffic fatalities, and • removing snow. All of these efforts help Utah's economic growth and prosperity. Figure 2 - UDOT Responsibilities

1


Development of the 2014-2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) provides UDOT with an integrated, comprehensive and strategic approach to meet transportation needs while keeping the current system in good condition. The strength of this data-driven plan is that it demonstrates results, accountability, and transparency. Decisions are supported by the data generated in UDOT processes, sound engineering judgment and evaluation of transportation needs across Utah. The Utah TAMP provides a systematic framework and answers resource management questions such as: • • •

How should each asset be managed and what are the risks involved? What is the funding and performance relationship between different assets? What are the long term implications of asset related decisions made today?

2


Asset Management Committee Structure To address Utah’s infrastructure challenges and embrace opportunities, this TAMP updates the Asset Management Strategic Plan that has been in place since 2001. The updated version includes redefining the asset management committees that oversee the program funding and implementation of the strategic plan. The purpose of these committees is to provide recommendations to the Transportation Commission for approval that maximize system performance and funding. These committees create new cross-sectional collaboration between traditionally separate functions of planning, design, construction, maintenance, traffic, and information technology. Collaboration will result in unified program recommendations based on a transparent, data-driven decision-making process. These committees assist UDOT in careful management of each asset throughout each phase of the asset’s life by utilizing program alignment, organized and accessible data, and risk-based asset performance.

Asset Management Steering Committee The Transportation Systems Management Team (TRANSMAT) has been reformed and renamed the Asset Management Steering Committee (AMSC). The reformed AMSC is chaired by the Deputy Director and consists of seven members.

Figure 3 - AMSC Membership

Specific objectives of the AMSC include: • Ensuring horizontal and vertical communication and integration across the organization relative to asset management, • Providing direction and approving effective policies, programs, and processes, to ensure ongoing improvement of asset management, • Evaluating the direction of asset management annually, and • Reporting the results of UDOT’s Transportation Program measurements. 3


Asset Advisory Committee The Asset Advisory Committee (AAC) has been formed to enhance the communication flow between the strategic work of the AMSC and the “boots on the ground” technical experts. This committee will implement strategies in a coordinated manner to continually improve the asset management process. The AAC is chaired by the Asset Management Director and consists of designated division leaders.

Figure 4 - AAC Membership

Specific objectives of the AAC include: • Recommending modifications to policies and processes to improve asset management practices to the AMSC, • Working together across department boundaries to develop and recommend a unified program to the AMSC that maximizes system performance and funding, and

• Aligning programs to determine the most cost effective method of addressing asset needs. The enhanced collaboration across functions is expected to lead to synergistic improvements for individual asset performance beyond the level that any one division could achieve. UDOT has shown great success due to collaboration while preparing for the 2002 Olympics, embracing Design/Build and other alternative contracting methods, initiating the use of Accelerated Bridge Construction (ABC), etc. This committee organization engages UDOT leaders to make strategic decisions and also informs and educates employees throughout UDOT regarding the direction of asset management and their critical involvement.

4


Evaluation and Results In order to begin the process of evaluating the current situation of Asset Management, the Asset Management Implementation Plan (developed in June 2004 and updated in April 2006) was reviewed. It was noted that many of the actions identified in the plan had been achieved, and UDOT has had great success in regards to managing assets especially bridges and pavements. The document also identified that many of the divisions within UDOT were working towards the overall four goals set forth as a strategic direction by senior leaders at the time. Over the past 8 years, there have been great technological advances and some change in direction in the strategic plan. These events have created new challenges and opportunities that are addressed in this TAMP. In order to identify the steps taken to raise asset management to a gold standard, self-assessments were completed. The assessments were handled through brainstorming sessions, surveys, and interviews specific to divisions.

Self-Assessment and Gap Analysis The following activities were taken to understand the gaps associated with Asset Management.

Figure 5 - Gap Analysis Flow Chart

Activity 1.

Activity 2.

The Asset Management Steering Committee participated in a facilitated discussion of the purpose of a five year strategic plan and issues currently faced by committee members. This discussion in July, 2013 resulted in a collection of comments and questions written on post-it notes by voting and non-voting committee members. The discussion facilitators, RiversQuest Consulting and V-I-A Consulting, organized the comments and questions from the July meeting into major categories. The results of the 5


categorization are shown in Figure 5. The percentages presented are based on 79 total post-it notes collected. The actual comments are included in Appendix B.

Comment Categorization

Funding Management Plans

14%

38%

10%

Performance Measures 13%

15%

Prioritization Risks

8% Systems / Data Education

9% 2%

29%

Systems / Data Integration Systems / Data Management

Figure 6 – Comment Categorization

Activity 3.

Activity 4.

Questions were developed from the comments gathered in Activity 1 and incorporated into a Gap Analysis Survey. The initial questions were fine-tuned and minimized based on individual discussions with senior UDOT leaders. Eleven questions were presented to the TRANSMAT Committee during the November 2013 meeting (See Appendix C). Each statement was rated in two ways. a. The statement was rated on level of importance to the UDOT program on a scale of 1-5. The scale was defined as 1-very important to 5-unimportant. b. Next each statement was rated on a scale of 1-5 relative to UDOT’s current level of performance with 1-excellent and 5-poor. Twenty-three meeting participants recorded their answers with a handheld device and results which were immediately available for each statement.

The meeting facilitators analyzed the results and incorporated the information into a report for consideration. Senior leaders elected to reorganize TRANSMAT into the Asset Management Committee Structure noted above.

6


Gap Analysis Results The gap between the importance of each statement and the current status of UDOT performance as rated by the TRANSMAT Committee members is depicted in Figure 7. Appendix D contains the details of the voting results. The results show the biggest gaps are in areas related to information technology. As technology rapidly advances much more data is gathered and the challenge comes in gathering the knowledge from each function and making it available to others. Information systems support a coordinated, seamless approach to Asset Management.

Figure 7 - Gap Analysis Results

Further discussion of the gap analysis results led to the identification of three major areas of focus. • The three questions related to data show the largest gaps and the highest importance of all the questions. These questions focus on the organization and accessibility of data for business systems across UDOT. • Three questions related to asset performance and identified a need to focus on performance measures and different levels of management plans for assets. • The remaining questions relate to aligning programs within UDOT and with partners to ensure transparent and data driven decision processes are in place to build and maintain public trust. These major areas of focus became objectives for the five year plan and led to defining the asset management goal. 7


Asset Management Goal and Objectives The overall goal for the Asset Management Team is to work collaboratively to develop a unified program that maximizes system performance and funding within the next five years. The reorganized AMSC and AAC committees identified and approved goals and objectives for the purpose of continuous improvement of asset management within UDOT. Objectives for 1, 3, and 5 year timeframes in each of the three major categories have been identified to reach this goal. The objectives and categories are shown in Figure 8.

Asset Management Roadmap

Figure 8 - Asset Management Roadmap

Goal and Objectives To effectively manage UDOT’s assets, the Asset Advisory Committee established a goal to create a unified program that maximizes system performance and funding. Evaluation of the gap analysis results and categorization of comments resulted in the identification of three areas of focus; program alignment, assets and performance, and organized and accessible data. These areas create the framework for the Utah TAMP.

8


Program Alignment Consolidating many data collection efforts into one bi-annual effort of a single contractor was the kick-off to program alignment. Further collaboration between UDOT departments is planned and required to develop the ability to prioritize projects irrespective of specific funding categories. This collaboration involves establishing the replacement value of each asset and developing a financial model with life cycle costs for specific asset programs. It also involves completing the information loop of project planning, design, construction and maintenance. Closing the loop will improve the accuracy and efficiency of each separate process and thereby the overall UDOT program. It will also tie the Long Range Plan process and results to Project Development and the Region’s Three Year Plans.

Figure 9 - Program Alignment

Assets and Performance Management plans currently exist for pavement and bridges and a variety of assets within the Maintenance Management Quality Assurance (MMQA) program. The wealth of additional data now available due to the unified collection process allows UDOT to evaluate conditions and develop management plans for assets at a level appropriate to the value and risk associated with each. Within the five years of the TAMP UDOT will identify risks, performance measures and life cycle costs for numerous assets to create the ability to prioritize funding across all funding categories. Figure 10 - Assets & Performance

Organized and Accessible Data The recent influx of data and information provides an opportunity and urgency for UDOT to develop a systematic approach and structure for data storage and access. The ability to import and export data to all existing and future business systems will lead to the ability to create interactive dashboards. Dashboards will be used by decision-makers at multiple levels to maximize system performance and funding. Plan by the year During Year 1, teams will identify performance measures, define data needs, and initiate development of measures and information required for cross-asset analysis.

Figure 11 - Organized & Accessible Data

By the end of Year 3, models and processes for all programs will be developed and refined to promote collaboration. This will allow decision makers to make data driven decisions that are necessary to prioritize resources across categories. Year 5 will include the full automation of processes that exchange information from multiple sources and refinement of value definitions that support cross asset analysis. 9


Implementation Plan and Risk Assessment Each division is responsible for completing a variety of tasks specifically focused on ensuring successful completion of the objectives in the roadmap. The tasks are divided into 1, 3, and 5 year sections for each of the three objectives shown on Tables 1-6. Risks and the associated risk mitigation are identified for each of the tasks by the responsible division. An assessment of each risk has been estimated as a combination of the probability and impact, see legend on Table 5.

Implementation Tasks and Programmatic Risks Category Program Alignment Program Program

Year Responsibility Task Description 1 1 1

OBJECTIVE Planning Planning

Program Program Program Program Program

1 1 1 1 1

Planning Planning Proj. Dev T&S Maintenance

Develop department plans to support unified program Publish 2015 UDOT Statewide Long Range Plan Support MPOs in publishing 2015 Regional Transportation Plans Initiate I-15 integrated corridor study to inform Wasatch Front area RTP's 2019 update Work with Regions to enhance intermediate range planning processes Put out 3D plans on selected projects Complete safety investment plan system Refine performance level budget distribution

Program Program Alignment Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Program Alignment

1

Asset Mgt.

Develop a value matrix for tangible assets

3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

OBJECTIVE Planning Proj. Dev Proj. Dev Asset Mgt. Asset Mgt. TOC TOC T&S T&S T&S

Improve/Develop models for specific programs Work with MPO partners and UTA to enhance long range planning process Modify Asset Management Guidelines as needed to reflect program changes Unify Region 3 year plans and complete projects from asset management Develop deterioration curves for pavement condition Relate program funding to performance goals Develop asset management program for ATMS assets Create and fine tune performance goals Leverage safety funding across all projects Integrate safety analysis into Project Development processes Integrate science-based crash analysis into all functional areas

5

OBJECTIVE

Program Program Program

5 5 5

Planning Asset Mgt. T&S

Prioritize projects across all categories Publish 2019 "Performance Based" Statewide Long Range Plan and regional plans Engage multiple departments in collaborative decision making Include science-based crash analysis in funding prioritization Table 1 - Program Alignment Tasks

10


Risk Description

Risk Mitigation

WFRC acknowledgment of long-term I-15 corridor need in RTP and achieving agreement on project phasing priorities

Engage UDOT and WFRC leadership in dialogue about how best to articulate the need. Use UDOT priority models to assess project phasing, actively engage regions in decision making process, Partner dialogue about importance of objectivity, tight scope, proper decision making structure, hire right consultant tem Actively work with regions to develop a process that fits their needs

Unbiased evaluation of potential strategies Articulating need and importance of consistent process

Risk Assessment

4

6 6

System shows unexpected results

Testing during development

1

Difficulty in quantifying value of one program vs. another may stop or lengthen efforts

Several workshops scheduled this summer with Executives

3

Agreement on scope of process, joint goals & objectives, joint performance measures, and process for jointly assessing needs and developing strategies to meet identified needs.

On-going partner engagement and discussion about process and collectively working to improve the process

Lack of quality data may produce inaccurate pavement analysis Limited ability to explain how funding is allocated between programs

Culture unable to adapt, can't reach consensus on value decisions Culture unable to adapt, negative impact to safety funding Methodology appears too complex or burdensome

Re-establish PEFS after 2016 data collection Explore different vendor products

Engage senior leaders in process

"Silos of excellence" culture prevent development of a Explore common goals, make it valuable to Unified Plan all Appears too complex and burdensome to overall process Table 2 - Program Alignment Risks

7

7 7

2 6 7

6 4

11


Category Assets & Perf

Year Responsibility Task Description 1

OBJECTIVE

Refine performance plans for individual assets

Performance

1

Structures

Define good/fair/poor performance levels

Performance Performance Performance

1 3 1

Structures Structures TOC

Evaluate funding needs based on established performance levels Create a plan for every structure Automate congestion reporting

Performance Performance Assets & Perf

1 1

Asset Mgt. Asset Mgt.

Develop a financial plan with value and risk for tangible assets Add deterioration curves to Plan for Every Section analysis

3

OBJECTIVE

Establish data driven performance measures and individual program goals

Performance

3

Structures

Performance Performance Performance Assets & Perf Performance Performance Performance

3 3 3

Planning Asset Mgt. Planning

Define bridge needs and establish funding Initiate Performance Based Planning Process for statewide & regional plans 2019 update Refine performance measures to include risk and life-cycle costs Implement performance based planning process

5 5 5 5

OBJECTIVE TOC Structures Asset Mgt.

Prioritize funding across all categories Include mobility in funding prioritization Define benefits of work completed Create unified plan with funding recommendations Table 3 -Assets and Performance Tasks

12


Risk Description

Risk Mitigation

Misconception of definition of terms

Create clear definitions; communicate performance measures in correct context

Setting justifiable performance levels that maintains the integrity of the system Inadequate resources to complete

Establish appropriate performance levels and track funding levels to maintain performance level Establish a plan to complete and obtain necessary resources

Inability to accurately quantify/articulate future financial requirements Small sample size may produce inaccurate curves

Link PDBS/Asset data Link pavement distress data to sections

Inability to identify optimal treatments and variability in bridge conditions Internal consensus on meaning of integrated transportation emphasis area and implications for needs assessment and strategy development; agreement on planning performance measures Incomplete information skews reporting on performance measures

Work to gain consistency in defining bridge condition data; review past bridge conditions with past funding to develop a trend Engage UDOT leadership and regions in dialogue about meaning and implications of emphasis area and performance measures

Integrate business systems and data

Perform research to understand the treatment Insufficient measurement of treatment impacts impacts Limited ability to explain how funding is allocated Several workshops scheduled this summer with between programs AAC Table 4 - Assets and Performance Risks

Risk Assessment

2 2

6

7

6

13


Year 1 1 1

Responsibility OBJECTIVE Proj. Dev Proj. Dev

Data Data Data Data Data

1 1 1 1 1

Proj. Dev Maintenance Maintenance Maintenance TOC

Task Description Identify needs and establish framework to integrate data Develop push button concept report data collection Add maintenance projects into GIS displays Develop data warehouse from which departmental financial results can be displayed Finish integration of OMS & dTMS to establish system feedback loop Understand Mandli data input process to automate incorporation with OMS Hire business analyst to enable full use of OMS system Incorporate traffic asset information into UPlan

Data

1

Asset Mgt.

Update asset data with Phase 2 data collection

Data Data Data Data

1 3 3 3

T&S OBJECTIVE Planning Maintenance

Data Data Data Data Data Data Data

3 3 3 5 5 5 5

Asset Mgt. Proj. Dev Proj. Dev OBJECTIVE Maintenance Proj. Dev Proj. Dev

Complete GIS crash data analysis system Establish processes for accurate and up-to-date data Improve recording and reporting of funding & construction of LRP projects Implement refined OMS system Ensure asset management business systems share data with other business systems Create electronic 3D plans for all projects Develop data governance plan Automate dashboard reports Complete integration of OMS system Automatically load 3-D as-builts into system Integrate all business systems with data warehouse

Legend:

Probability

Category Data Data Data

H M L

Impact H M 9 7 8 6 5 3

L 4 2 1

Table 5 - Organized and Accessible Data Tasks

14

Comment [Ma1]: Looks like this was added or deleted from Lisa’s sheet. I have put in the risks from Lisa and Jeff. There are no numbers for structures and a few others missing.


Risk Description

Risk Mitigation

This has been set up and regions are testing--risk is that they don't use it.

Continue to work with the regions on improvements to make sure they are comfortable using the tool.

Funding and internal resource availability Workforce availability Workforce availability Funding availability Lack of business system integration - OMS/Ugate limits access to historical data System is not used due to perceived low value, required updating is neglected Accurate, complete recording of long range plan information and project information in ePM

Workforce availability Business systems unable to share data and produce consistent results Unintelligent designs and lost efficiency Funding availability Funding availability Struggle to maintain as-built information

Work with PMT and UDOT divisions to secure funding and make sure resources can be dedicated to the effort. Hire contractors and interns

Risk Assessment

1

6

Obtain leadership support

Continue to work together on OMS Communicate value and make continual updating a priority and automated Work with Project Development and DTS to enhance ePM to enable LRP cross reference and develop communication process with regions to assess whether project scope meets intent of LRP project Hire contractors Develop data warehouse and fully implement integration process Create implementation plan and provide training Continue to work with the PMT Maintain leadership support Develop 3D CADD database and require contractors to submit models that conform with standards

9 5

4

8 2 6

6

Table 6 - Organized and Accessible Data Risks

15


Systemic Risk Register Risks broader than program level tasks were identified during the process of developing the implementation plan by the AAC and AMSC. These system level risks will continue to be identified and will be addressed by the AMSC over the life of the TAMP.

Probability

Senior leaders do not clearly articulate vision

Probability

Sufficient resources are not allocated to make change happen

Probability

1.3

UDOT not able to Culture slow to adapt to comply with MAP21 change in processes requirements

Risk Assessment

Probability

1.2

Risk Mitigation Overarching Risks

Probability

1.1

Risk Impact

Probability

Ref Risk Description

Impact H M L H M L Impact H M L H M L

X Impact H M L

H M L Impact H M L H M L Impact H M L H M L Impact H M L H M L

Table 7 - Systematic Risks

16


Management Plans The division responsible for the management of each specific asset is responsible for developing a management plan with an appropriate level of detail. A section of these plans will focus on the collaboration and will assist in communicating necessary information to other divisions. Plans for pavement, structures and several assets managed by Maintenance have fully developed plans. An information management plan is also in place to identify how the information from all divisions will be shared. Detailed management plans for Pavements, Structures and Maintenance can be found ont eh UDOT website. A summary of plans for Pavements, Maintenance and Information are available in Appendix F. Plans for additional assets managed by Safety and other departments are under development and will be completed as part of the TAMP Implementation Plan.

17


Financial Plan Currently UDOT from 34 separate state

manages its program and federal funding

Federal Program Funding 2014

Figure 12 - Federal Program Funding 2014

sources. Over 50% of dedicated to pavement rehabilitation.

the federal funding is preservation and

UDOT has a robust state funding program for transportation needs. The largest percentage (94%) of the state money comes from the Transportation Investment Fund. The remaining money supports 13 specific programs for signals, signs, communication, spot improvements, and others. The majority of state funds are derived from sales tax sources and bonds.

18


Signals Maintenance & Operations Traffic Management Barrier Treatments Small Area Lighting Sign Modification & Replacement

Figure 13 - Distribution of Funding

State Transportation Funding 2014

Figure 14 - State Transportation Funds

A product of this five year plan will be a unified program with a financial plan to maximize resources across all funding categories. The value of each asset, quality of data available and asset specific collaboration teams have been established as a first step to develop a financial plan.

Asset Values UDOT Asset Management assesses the value of current assets (roadways, culverts, bridges, etc) by answering two simple questions: 1) How much of each asset does UDOT own? 19


2) What is the current value of each asset? UDOT maintains registers of many assets through routine high-tech LIDAR scanning and maintenance inventories of the state highways. These registers are used to track the quantity of each UDOT asset. UDOT maintains an extensive database of current unit bid item costs compiled from the advertisement of new construction projects. This database is used to establish the replacement value of the quantified assets. Additional sources of information, such as RS Means, are referenced to establish a value for specialty items that are not in the database. A contingency amount is added to each asset value to account for design, construction oversight, traffic control, and mobilization costs. A list of the current quantified assets and the value is located in Table 8. The values in the list are based on current construction costs.

Table 8 - Current Quantified Asset Values ASSET Pavement Bridges Walls Culverts Barrier Signs Fences Signal Cabinets Pavement marking paint Cattle Guards Paint Messages Rumble Strips Power Ped

VALUE $24 B $5 B $3.4 B $1 B $450 M $265 M $70 M* $35.5 M $33 M $20 M* $8.8 M $6 M $3 M

* Used maintenance database NOT Mandlii data

20


Appendix A - Policy 07-13 Committee Structure

Asset Management Committee Structure Effective:

UDOT 07-13 Revised: June 4, 2014

Purpose To outline the responsibilities of the Utah Department of Transportation (Department) Asset Management Steering Committee (AMSC) and the Asset Advisory Committee (AAC). These responsibilities include providing recommendations to the Transportation Commission pertaining to planning, developing, and preserving the investment in Utah’s Transportation System and obtaining maximum cost effectiveness from transportation construction, rehabilitation, and maintenance programs. AMSC and AAC activities support the Department strategic goals: 1. 2. 3. 4.

Preserve Infrastructure Optimize Mobility Improve Safety Strengthen the Economy

Policy The AMSC and AAC provide recommendations to preserve the large investment in the State’s roadway and transportation systems and provide a strategy to obtain an enhanced system of highways and related transportation modes that continue to meet the needs of Transportation System users. The teams assist the Department in obtaining cost effective solutions for system needs by using program alignment, organized and accessible data and risk-based asset performance. These committees ensure all divisions of the Department are working together to present a unified program recommendation based on a transparent decisionmaking process. ASSET MANAGEMENT STEERING COMMITTEE MEMBERS Deputy Director – Chair Program Development Director Project Development Director Operations Engineer Region 1 Director Region 2 Director Region 3 Director Region 4 Director Asset Management Director (Secretary) Various divisions, sections, and regions provide needed staff support and input to AMSC. AAC members may be invited to participate in AMSC meetings at the chairman’s discretion. A-1


AMSC is authorized to establish pro tem teams and task forces to assist in accomplishing its responsibilities.

Definitions A Transportation Systems Management Process provides a set of various tools or methods to assist decision makers in finding optimum strategies for providing and maintaining the transportation systems in an acceptable condition over a planned period. The process includes analysis programs and related data to include but not limited to the following transportation areas: Pavements, Safety, Structures, Mobility, Design, Construction, Maintenance, and Planning.

Responsibility AMSC will consider strategic level Transportation Systems Management activities within the Department; make recommendations to the Transportation Commission;; improve efficiency of the decision making process; and assure consistent transportation systems management practices at all supervisory levels. Specific responsibilities include: 1.

Recommend Department transportation strategies to the Transportation Commission to implement and achieve the Department transportation policies.

2.

Recommend policies and resource levels that support ongoing improvement of asset management and a unified transportation program.

3.

Ensure horizontal and vertical communication and integration across the Department relative to asset management.

4.

Review and report the results of the Department’s Annual Transportation Program to the Transportation Commission and public.

5.

Evaluate the direction of asset management annually in a joint meeting with AAC.

ASSET ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Asset Management Director – Chair Planning Director Traffic Management Engineer Traffic and Safety Engineer Engineering Services Director Structures Chief Engineer Maintenance Director Region 1 Representative Region 2 Representative Region 3 Representative Region 4 Representative A-2


Responsibility AAC oversees implementation of the Department’s Transportation Systems Management Process. Specific responsibilities include: 1.

Recommend to the AMSC modifications to policies and processes to improve asset management practices.

2.

Work together across department boundaries to develop and recommend a unified program to the AMSC that maximizes system performance and funding.

3.

Align programs to determine the most cost effective way of addressing asset needs.

4.

Determine the appropriate management level for each asset.

A-3


Appendix B - Committee Comments, July 2013 TRANSMAT Committee Comments Regarding Asset Management Plan Comment Provided By NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member FHWA NonVoting Member NonVoting Member

Ideas This group determines how well funding is set / prioritized We should improve how we sweep the corners for money left on projects What can be done to maximize the use of the public’s money? If we recapture money more quickly does that help? Need: Enhance the ability to quickly evaluate program balances and delivery Need: to define what is intended in fund types that Transmat approves. Agree to update “Fund Fact Sheets” yearly. Need: To consider Active Transportation Policy in funding decisions. Definition documentation for funding types and processes. Basically setting the rules for when funds can be used, combined, etc. When does it require Commission action? Need: To identify what can be spent on bridges using Purple and Orange Book projects if it is allowed. Life cycle replacement plan for ATMS / Signal systems Need to put culverts in our program. Need to track them and see where we are at Capacity is an asset. Public trust is an asset. How can we manage these non-tangible assets? Is congestion or capacity throughout a tangible asset? (Time to get to work, speed, volume, ridership) Mobility is an asset. How do we manage? We should consider safety, choke, Pt, capacity as an asset

Responsibility

Category

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Steering Committee

Funding

Structures T&S

Funding Management Plan - Other

Asset Management

Management Plans - Other

T&S

Management Plans - Other Management Plans - Other

T&S

Management Plans - Other

T&S

Management Plans - Other

Steering Committee

B-1


Comment Provided By

Ideas

NonVoting Member

Need to show target level for concrete pavements. Big dollars coming at UDOT for older sections.

NonVoting Member

Bridge: We need a plan for every structure on every road

NonVoting Member

Bridge: Define / plan for off system bridge, develop a strategy, preservation, funding

NonVoting Member

Need: A plan for every bridge

FHWA NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member

Have you checked out the FHWA’s INVEST tool to examine a projects sustainability of the sustainability of our planning process? Need: to establish asset performance measures with FHWA so UDOT isn’t reporting by project then we can deliver project by asset needs instead of project specific inventories. Need: Quarterly reports on each asset and accomplishment. How do we measure success in asset management? Do these measure change by asset type? What impact does design, concept, development have on asset management ATMS devices need performance standards Safety: How do we measure performance? Plan for every road: Cost/Benefit ratio should be calculated to see if it’s worth it to develop a plan. Develop asset priority list Develop a process and prioritize our assets for analysis and recommendation Due to constraints, we should evaluate those assets of highest value and cover those of greatest need. Can’t do them all. Different levels of asset management are available – we need to identify what level is needed for each asset – maybe B/C? Need: to move to Statewide Prioritization Process based on strategic goal (UDOT and MAG Process). Project Delivery – Implications of TRANSMAT decisions should be considered

Responsibility

Category

Asset Management

Management Plans Pavements

Structures

Management Plans Structures

Structures

Management Plans Structures

Structures

Management Plans Structures

Planning

Performance Measures

Steering Committee

Performance Measures

Steering Committee

Performance Measures

Steering Committee

Performance Measures

T&S

Performance Measures

T&S Asset Management Asset Management Asset Management Asset Management Asset Management

Performance Measures Prioritization Prioritization Prioritization Prioritization Prioritization

Planning

Prioritization

Project Delivery

Prioritization B-2


Comment Provided By NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member

Ideas Communicating the prioritization process

Responsibility

Category

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Define assets to be managed, Rank Assets

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Use Engineer / Business Decision for maintaining assets

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Steering Committee

Prioritization

Steering Committee

Prioritization

What added methods can be used to prioritize other assets and projects types? Where are we on financial cross asset management? How to value work on asset to another, comparing apples to oranges.

Asset prioritization – which assets should we focus on first? What can we afford to do now? Improve how recommendations are made to Commission progress / process We need 3 year program by region to do the right project at the right time Are there best practices defined that can help guide our program? Use data to rank projects (based on need) Safety: How do we measure working with other projects (bridge, pavement) Choke Pt projects make it data derived not even distribution Need: Three year plan for safety projects When balancing project cost against minimal decrease in safety, how is minimal defined? What is an acceptable decrease & how do you quantify cost to safety? Safety: Identify how we prioritize safety projects Use crash data to prioritize safety projects Continue down the path of sign replacement. More reflective not necessarily changing the sign bridges. (Not as critical as culverts)

Steering Committee Steering Committee

Prioritization Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

T&S

Prioritization

Asset Management

Prioritization B-3


Comment Provided By Voting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member

Ideas

Responsibility Asset Management

Risks

Project Delivery

Risks

Asset Management

Systems/Data Education

UPlan is the tool to Use!!! One stop shop = Efficiency

Steering Committee

Systems/Data Education

Employees need education and training on UPlan and UGate

Steering Committee

Systems/Data Education

Communication

Steering Committee

Systems/Data Education

Steering Committee Steering Committee Steering Committee

Systems/Data Education Systems/Data Education Systems/Data Education

Asset Management

Systems/Data Integration

IT

Systems/Data Integration

Incorporate risk analysis into asset management processes Better define our risk analysis / factors What is the program for minor rehab and preservation? Where can it be found? Does it state the treatment type?

Low trust in the data in UPlan and UGate. Need to know the source of the data. We need to educate stakeholders about assets data and UPlan Educate department on what data is available. Consolidate and build systems to make it readily available. What level of integration is enough to feed asset management? We do a good job with pavement and fund allocation but the data and allocation is about 2 years behind. Example: Core project has made pavement good in Utah County but won’t see funding levels change for 2 to 3 years. Can we get data change faster? Need data collection that is recent and relevant IE: Traffic data needs to be newer then 3 years old Continue building business systems that share and integrate data The TMD has data that other groups / regions need to make better decisions Can we afford to do cross asset analysis? Can we afford to not do cross asset analysis? Like to see us focus on cross assets analysis for pavement and bridges Integrations of our data systems is poor. Information is siloed, Communication is siloed

Category

IT

Systems/Data Integration Systems/Data Integration

Planning

Systems/Data Integration

Steering Committee Asset Management

Systems/Data Integration Systems/Data Integration

IT

Systems/Data Integration

IT

B-4


Comment Provided By NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member Voting Member NonVoting Member Voting Member Legend:

Ideas What do we know about our current assets? How can big data help us drive asset decisions? Need: Widen data collection by gathering other data from stakeholders (InRix, Freight, Events) Bridge: Can we begin showing bridge data on UPlan / UGate Do we have enough data to do asset analysis? Deterioration process? Current condition? Last modification? Would improved systems improve our ability to manage our assets? Collect data for additional assets Our systems are assets we need to manage and some of our systems are inhibiting our abilities. Asset also includes system improvement to optimize use of funding (ePm, Database, New PDBS) Data Quality: Should a QIT be established for management? Identify priority systems and where the data should reside. Where is our system money best spent? Improve systems to better manage our money (Free up contingences) Increase data quality management Data quality: is there a lack of credibility? Shouldn’t our systems (technology) be another asset we should manage?

Responsibility

Category

IT

Systems/Data Integration

IT

Systems / Data - Integration

Structures

Systems / Data - Integration

Asset Management

Systems / Data - Management

Asset Management Asset Management

Systems / Data - Management Systems / Data - Management

IT

Systems / Data - Management

IT

Systems / Data - Management

IT IT IT IT IT IT

Incorporate highway safety manual in standards process – as well as early project involvement T&S 79 Voting Member Comment Non-Voting Member Comment FHWA Member Comment

Systems / Data - Management Systems / Data - Management Systems / Data - Management Systems / Data - Management Systems / Data - Management Systems/DataIntegration Systems/DataIntegration

B-5


Appendix C - 2013 Gap Analysis

UDOT Asset Management Steering Committee Gap Analysis Questions November 12, 2013 UDOT Systems / Data  UDOT has established a quality data information architecture to promote the integration of business systems for unified asset management. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

 Business systems are treated as a strategic asset to help make data driven decisions. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

 Necessary data is easily accessible to make data driven cost/benefit decisions. 1. 2. 3. 4.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance

5.

Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

UDOT Project Prioritization  A clear, well documented state-wide prioritization process is in place. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

C-1


 Management plans have been / are being developed for pavements including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

 Management plans have been / are being developed for bridges including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

 Management plans have been / are being developed for other assets including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

UDOT Funding  The types of funding, the uses of funding, and the process to fund projects is transparent. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

UDOT Performance Measures  Asset management performance measures are consistent with the UDOT strategic direction and with the criteria used to set program priorities, select projects, and allocate resources. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor C-2


UDOT Risk Assessment ď‚— Resource allocation includes assessment of probability and severity of risk associated with each asset. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

Collaboration ď‚— UDOT liaison's with local governments share information and knowledge to further the development of asset management in Utah. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Very Important Important Somewhat Important Of Little Importance Unimportant

1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Excellent Above Average Average Below Average Poor

C-3


Appendix D - Gap Analysis Voting Results UDOT Systems / Data Information Architecture #1 Survey Results: UDOT has established a quality data information architecture to promote the integration of business systems for unified asset management.

Gap Analysis:

Importance

Gap = 1.6

Current Status 0

1

2

3

4

5

#2 Survey Results: Business systems are treated as a strategic asset to help make data driven decisions.

Gap Analysis:

Current Status

3.04

Importance

4.35 0

1

2

3

4

5

D-1


Necessary Data Available #3 Survey Results: Necessary data is easily accessible to make data driven cost/benefit decisions.

Gap Analysis Current Status Importance 0

1

2

3

4

5

UDOT Project Prioritization Prioritization Process #4 Survey Results: A clear, well documented state-wide prioritization process is in place.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

D-2


Management Plans for Pavements #5 Survey Results: Management plans have been / are being developed for pavements including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

Management Plans for Bridges #6 Survey Results: Management plans have been / are being developed for bridges including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

D-3


Management Plans for Other Assets #7 Survey Results: Management plans have been / are being developed for other assets including lifecycle analysis, identification of performance measures, and data required for cross analysis.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

UDOT Funding Funding Transparency #8 Survey Results: The types of funding, the uses of funding, and the process to fund projects is transparent.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 3.20

3.40

3.60

3.80

4.00

4.20

4.40

D-4


UDOT Performance Measures Alignment of Performance Measures #9 Survey Results: Asset management performance measures are consistent with the UDOT strategic direction and with the criteria used to set program priorities, select projects, and allocate resources.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

UDOT Risk Assessment Risk Assessment #10 Survey Results: Resource allocation includes assessment of probability and severity of risk associated with each asset.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

D-5


Collaboration Local Government Collaboration #11 Survey Results: UDOT liaison's with local governments share information and knowledge to further the development of asset management in Utah.

Gap Analysis:

Importance Current Status 0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

D-6


Appendix E - Implementation Plan by Year Category Program Program Program Program Program Program Program

Year Responsibility Task Description 1 Planning Publish 2015 UDOT Statewide Long Range Plan 1 Planning Support MPOs in publishing 2015 Regional Transportation Plans Initiate I-15 integrated corridor study to inform Wasatch Front area RTP's 1 Planning 2019 update 1 Planning Work with Regions to enhance intermediate range planning processes 1 Proj Dev Put out 3D plans on selected projects 1 T&S Complete safety investment plan system 1 Maintenance Refine performance level budget distribution

Program Performance

1 1

Asset Mgt TOC

Develop a value matrix for tangible assets Automate congestion reporting

Performance Performance

1 1

Asset Mgt Asset Mgt

Develop a financial plan with value and risk for tangible assets Add deterioration curves to Plan for Every Section analysis

Performance

1

Structures

Define good/fair/poor performance levels

Performance Data Data

1 1 1

Structures Proj Dev Proj Dev

Data Data

1 1

Proj Dev Maintenance

Data Data Data

1 1 1

Maintenance Maintenance TOC

Evaluate funding needs based on established performance levels Develop push button concept report data collection Add maintenance projects into GIS displays Develop data warehouse from which departmental financial results can be displayed Finish integration of OMS & dTMS to establish system feedback loop Understand Mandli data input process to automate incorporation with OMS Hire business analyst to enable full use of OMS system Incorporate traffic asset information into UPlan

Data

1

Asset Mgt

Update asset data with Phase 2 data collection

Data

1

T&S

Complete GIS crash data analysis system Table E-1 Year One Tasks

E-1


Risk Assessment

Risk Description

Risk Mitigation

System shows unexpected results

Testing during development

1

Difficulty in quantifying value of one program vs. another may stop or lengthen efforts

Several workshops scheduled this summer with Executives

3

Inability to accurately quantify/articulate future financial requirements Small sample size may produce inaccurate curves Misconception of definition of terms

Link PDBS/Asset data Link pavement distress data to sections Create clear definitions; communicate performance measures in correct context

Setting justifiable performance levels that maintains the integrity of the system

Establish appropriate performance levels and track funding levels to maintain performance level

Workforce availability Workforce availability Funding availability

2 2

Hire contractors and interns Obtain leadership support

Lack of business system integration - OMS/Ugate limits access to historical data System is not used due to perceived low value, required updating is neglected

Continue to work together on OMS Communicate value and make continual updating a priority and automated

9 5

Table E-1A Year One Risks

E-2


Category

Year Responsibility Task Description

Performance

3

Structures

Create a plan for every structure

Performance

3

Structures

Performance

3

Planning

Define bridge needs and establish funding Initiate Performance Based Planning Process for statewide & regional plans 2019 update

Performance Performance Program

3 3 3

Asset Mgt Planning Planning

Program Program

3 3

Proj Dev Proj Dev

Refine performance measures to include risk and life-cycle costs Implement performance based planning process Work with MPO partners and UTA to enhance long range planning process Modify Asset Management Guidelines as needed to reflect program changes Unify Region 3 year plans and complete projects from asset management

Program

3

Asset Mgt

Develop deterioration curves for pavement condition

Program Program Program

3 3 3

Asset Mgt TOC TOC

Relate program funding to performance goals Develop asset management program for ATMS assets Create and fine tune performance goals

Program

3

T&S

Leverage safety funding across all projects

Program Program Data Data

3 3 3 3

T&S T&S Planning Maintenance

Data Data Data

3 3 3

Asset Mgt Proj Dev Proj Dev

Integrate safety analysis into Project Development processes Integrate science-based crash analysis into all functional areas Improve recording and reporting of funding & construction of LRP projects Implement refined OMS system Ensure asset management business systems share data with other business systems Create electronic 3D plans for all projects Develop data governance plan Table E-2 Year Three Tasks

E-3


Risk Description Inadequate resources to complete

Risk Mitigation Establish a plan to complete and obtain necessary resources

Inability to identify optimal treatments and variability in bridge conditions

Work to gain consistency in defining bridge condition data; review past bridge conditions with past funding to develop a trend

Incomplete information skews reporting on performance measures

Integrate business systems and data

Lack of quality data may produce inaccurate pavement analysis Limited ability to explain how funding is allocated between programs

Culture unable to adapt, can't reach consensus on value decisions Culture unable to adapt, negative impact to safety funding Methodology appears too complex or burdensome Workforce availability Business systems unable to share data and produce consistent results

Re-establish PEFS after 2016 data collection Explore different vendor products

Engage senior leaders in process

Risk Assessment

7

7 7

2 6 7

Hire contractors Develop data warehouse and fully implement integration process

8

Table E-2A Year Three Risks

E-4


Category Performance

Year Responsibility Task Description 5 TOC Include mobility in funding prioritization 5

Structures

Define benefits of work completed

Performance

5

Asset Mgt

Program

5

Planning

Create unified plan with funding recommendations Publish 2019 "Performance Based" Statewide Long Range Plan and regional plans

Program

5

Asset Mgt

Engage multiple departments in collaborative decision making

Program Data Data Data

5 5 5 5

T&S Maintenance Proj Dev Proj Dev

Include science-based crash analysis in funding prioritization Complete integration of OMS system Automatically load 3-D as-builts into system Integrate all business systems with data warehouse

Legend:

Probability

Performance

H M L

Impact H M 9 7 8 6 5 3

L 4 2 1

Table E-3 Year Five Tasks

E-5


Risk Description

Risk Mitigation

Insufficient measurement of treatment impacts Limited ability to explain how funding is allocated between programs

Perform research to understand the treatment impacts Several workshops scheduled this summer with AAC

"Silos of excellence" culture prevent development Explore common goals, make it valuable to of a Unified Plan all Appears too complex and burdensome to overall process Funding availability Maintain leadership support

Risk Assessment

6

6 4

Table E-3A Year Five Risks

E-6


Appendix F - Management Plans Pavement Management – “Good Roads Cost Less” Introduction UDOT manages and preserves approximately 16,000 lane miles on 243 state highways from multi-lane urban concrete interstates to rural two lane asphalt low volume roads. Pavement is a $25B asset. UDOT’s pavement management philosophy is “Good Roads Cost Less.” The philosophy can be defined as - applying timely cost effect treatments that minimize cost while achieving the greatest long term benefit. “Good Roads Cost Less”

Pavement Condition Surveys Biannually UDOT’s contractors measure the pavement health of each mile of the state highway system. Starting in 2012 Contractors driving at highway speeds, using state of the art technologies continuously measure • each crack, • the depth of each rut, • roadway roughness, and • concrete faulting. Distress Survey

Using advanced computer algorithms, line lasers, high speed cameras, and global positioning satellites (GPS) distress is calculated and quantified into a rating between 0 and 100, 0 being brand new pavement. The State highways are divided into 2,446 individual 12’ wide sections of varying length. Using 3rd party pavement optimization software UDOT generates “A Plan for Every Section”. The plans specify the best preservation, rehabilitation and replacement strategies for each section. Risk Assessment and Management Pavement risk management is focused on developing a program that schedules treatments, not as “worst first” but rather based on the treatment that provides the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. This approach is the best practice for managing risks of: • • •

vacillating funding levels unanticipated loading on pavement sections continually changing pavement inventory

F-1


Performance Metrics The Department created a three tier system of highways to prioritize resources and minimize risk. Each pavement section is rated as good, fair, or poor based on the section’s International Roughness Index (IRI). The Department set performance metrics for each tier to achieve a percentage rated better than poor: • 95-98% of Interstate lane miles • 90-95% of Level 1 (Average Annual Daily Traffic, AADT > 1,000) • 80-90% of Level 2 (Average Annual Daily Traffic, AADT < 1,000) An annual expenditure $188M a year optimizes the maintenance and preserves the condition of the entire state highway system within the performance metrics for the 10 year forecast period. This funding level provides the greatest benefit at the lowest cost. During the past several years available funding has been limited to $210M per year. Due to the funding limitation UDOT actively maintains only roads that have volumes of greater than 1,000 vehicles a day.

16

17

20

19

20

21

24

25

27

28

% of Miles

60%

20% 0%

Level 2 System (1,990 miles) Ride Quality - Forecasted with 50 million / yr 16

17

60

60

59

60

24

23

21

21

20

19

20

21

59

58

53

21

21

23

22

22

20

51

47

46

27

31

34

22

80%

80%

40%

100%

60%

Estimated

Historica 60

60

59

60

59

59

56

56

56

55

24

23

21

21

21

20

20

19

17

17

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

% Good: IRI < 95

% Fair

% Poor: IRI > 170

40% 20% % of Miles

100%

Level 2 System (1,990 miles) Ride Quality - Forecasted with 10 million / yr

0%

Estimated

Historic

2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017

% Good: IRI < 95

% Fair

% Poor: IRI > 170

Five Year Plan • Complete all preservation and rehabilitation projects on time and within budget. • Continue modeling to determine the proper funding mix between maintenance management levels; Interstate, Level 1 and Level 2. • Develop preservation and rehabilitation projects in collaboration with other departments to maximize funding. • Reverse or slow the pavement condition decline of Level 2 roads to achieve 80-90% of lane miles in better than poor condition – requires an on-going additional $40M investment.

F-2


Maintenance Management Introduction UDOT’s Central Maintenance Division currently tracks the condition of sixteen specific state highway assets through the Maintenance Management Quality Assurance Plus (MMQA+) Program. These assets include tangible assets such as pavement striping, drainage features, and shoulders in addition to operational performance items such as snow and ice removal and litter control. According to the MMQA+ Inspection Manual as revised in July, 2012, MMQA+ has purposes at the statewide level, at the region or area level, and at the station level. At the statewide level, MMQA+ is used to communicate how well we are “Preserving the Infrastructure,” which is UDOT’s highest priority strategic goal, to our key customers – the Legislature, Transportation Commission, Department Senior Leaders, and program users. It is also used at the statewide level as a tool in the budget development process, and to show where more resources could be valuable or where resources could be reduced. Reports from MMQA+ are also used at the statewide level to help establish targets for future levels of maintenance in consideration of available budget and resources. At the station level, MMQA+ is used to prioritize and schedule work activities. Station personnel can review MMQA+ reports to determine which activities in their station should receive either more focus or less focus given current conditions, established targets, and available budgets. Station supervisors can also compare budgets to current conditions, and request that money be moved from one activity to another to best meet MMQA+ targets. At the region or area level, purposes include both those described at the statewide level and those described at the station level. MMQA+ information is used at the region or area level to both report levels of maintenance achieved, and to manage resources and budgets to meet targets.

Asset Condition Targets A target for a particular maintenance activity is determined by taking into account • the Department’s strategic goals, • the current Level Of Maintenance (LOM) for that activity, • available resources such as funding, labor, equipment, and materials, • input from the public in the form of customer survey results, and • input from District Engineers and other Department leaders. Maintenance activities are tracked against the target semiannually except for Rest Areas which are measured monthly and Snow and Ice Removal which is measured by event. Risk Assessment and Management Risk is assessed for each activity and safety sensitive activities target LOM are generally set at “A” as shown in the Table. A policy is in place to define route priorities and guidelines for roadway maintenance during winter storm events to mitigate risks due to winter weather. UDOT also uses software and tools to optimize plow routes for

F-3


added efficiency in meeting snow and ice removal policy and measures. At all levels (statewide, region, or station), resources are managed such that they are diverted toward activities that are falling short of their targets, and away from activities whose targets are being exceeded.

Five Year Plan • • • •

Continue tracking LOM to determine appropriate resource allocation Continue to maintain safety sensitive activities at an “A level. Institute mobile data collection to improve efficiency, accuracy, and reporting at station level. Develop feedback loop between OMS and dTMS for more efficient funding allocation and project recommendations as well as tracking at Region level. F-4


â&#x20AC;˘

Automate input of completed work to create a process to close feedback loop to planning activities.

F-5


Information Management UDOT has initiated the Information Management (IM) project to adopt industry recommended data maturity practices from the Data Management Body of Knowledge and to develop a “google” type search environment. The IM project focuses on the following major areas: • • • • • • •

Data Governance Data Architecture Management Data Integration Data Warehouse Business Intelligence Management Data Quality Management Data Security

By recapturing efficiencies from data management and redirecting those funds to other projects, UDOT is able to extend how far the public’s money can go. The IM project has an overarching mission of increasing awareness, increasing transparency, improving access to data and increasing the quality of data utilized by all major divisions at UDOT. The current application environment that supports UDOT’s business including construction projects and all associated data has grown organically over time and has created an increasingly complex data and IT environment. Below is the current state visualization that illustrates the complexity along with pains identified during interviews with various divisions across UDOT.

Figure 1 – Current System

F-6


UDOT’s Information Management project is directed at the acquisition and implementation of an enterprise-class information management environment to facilitate the maturity of our data management practices. The specific areas of opportunity and possible improvement are outlined below: 1. Data Governance – improved authority and control over the management of important data assets. 2. Data Architecture Management – define specifications to provide business vocabulary and express strategic data requirements. 3. Data Integration – reduce the need for periodic gathering and reconciliation of data across multiple data bases and informal systems. 4. Data Warehouse – provide integrated storage of required current and historical data, organized by subject area. 5. Business Intelligence Management – provide an enterprise focal point for data delivery in support of decisions, policies, procedures, definitions, and standards. 6. Data Quality Management – ensure credible, quality data for all appropriate access capabilities. 7. Data Security – effective data security policies and procedures to ensure that the right team members can use and update data to comply with confidentiality needs of stakeholders. 8. Improved Transparency – provide access to real-time project information and enable all parties to share information with stakeholders.

Figure 2 – System Under Development

F-7


Utah TAMP