Development of Guidance Material for Roadway Hardware Asset Management

1
Development of Guidance Material for Roadway
HardwareAsset Management

• AASHTO Maintenance Subcommittee
• July 2003
• Principal Investigator
• David J. Hensing, P.E.
• SAIC

2
Broad Project Goals

• Find and analyze effective Roadway Hardware Asset
  Management Systems now in use by the states
• Identify and document features and
  characteristics constituting best practices
• Work closely with AASHTO Committees and Staff
• Roadside Hardware Asset Management Task Force
• SCOH Subcommittees on Traffic Engineering and
  Maintenance
• Possibly SCOR and other AASHTO Committees

3
Asset Types Selected by FHWA

• Roadway Signs
• Signals
• Roadway Lighting
• Supports Structures for Signs, Signals, and
  Lighting
• Guardrails, Barriers, Crash Cushions
• Pavement Markings Treatments
• Detectors

4
Expected Products

• Annotated Bibliography
• Criteria for selecting Best Practice states
• Five to ten documented case studies
• Non-judgmental tool catalogue
• Asset Management System Marketing Plan
• Easily read Primer (synthesis)

5
Approach to Selection Criteria for Candidate
States

• Started with States that responded to the AASHTO
  2000 Survey (42 of 52)
• No additional information from FHWA Division
  Offices from 10/31/02 request for update
• Contacted potential candidates based on survey
  results
• Pursued new leads generated from contacts with
  states
• Pursued selected states that did not respond to
  the survey
• Conducting follow up contacts with potential
  candidate states

6
Selection Criteria for Candidate States

• States that have implemented any integrated
  roadway hardware asset management system
• States that have initiated a prototype asset
  management system
• States with semi or fully automated method of
  inventory and monitoring of a partial number of
  assets
• States willing to share information on their
  lessons learned from their systems that are not
  fully successful
• States that have outsourced an integrated asset
  management system
• Quality and innovation of roadway hardware asset
  management systems

7
AASHTO Roadway Hardware Asset Management Task
Force

• Region 1
• Len Schultz, MD
• Vacant
• Region 2
• Lacy Love, NC
• Vacant

Region 3 Mike Crow, KS (Chair) Jim Brocksmith,
MO Region 4 Jim Dorre, AZ Vacant

• Commitment
• 18 month term
• 3-4 conference calls
• One in-person meeting (Minimum travel required)
• Review documents

8
AASHTO Subcommittee Meeting Presentations

• Status report and update from state visits
• Subcommittees on Traffic Engineering
• June 10, Savanna, GA
• Subcommittees on Maintenance
• July 14, Duluth, MN

9
State Visits

• Meet with senior management and technical
  managers
• Chief Engineer
• Office Directors
• State Maintenance Engineer
• State Traffic Engineer
• System Project Managers and Technical staff
• IT Department Staff
• Conduct interviews and view brief system
  demonstrations
• Collect any available documentation

10
Candidate States

• States already visited
• California (visited in March)
• Maryland (visited in April)
• Tennessee (visited in April)
• Georgia (visited in May)
• New Mexico (visited in June)
• Other planned visits (July- August)
• Minnesota (July 15)
• Florida
• Virginia
• Other?

11
Other Candidate States

• States researched by phone interviews e-mail
• (States with non-integrated asset management
  systems)
• Connecticut
• Maine
• North Carolina
• Oregon
• New Jersey
• Wisconsin

12
Preliminary Findings

• The majority of states have not implemented a
  roadway hardware asset management system
• The majority of states are collecting data on
  roadway hardware assets manually
• Developing asset management systems for these
  asset categories appears to be a lower priority
  activity for senior management in the DOTs
• Obstacles include lack of funding and personnel
• There is a need for broader information sharing
  among DOTs regarding roadway hardware asset
  management systems

13
Preliminary Findings

• One DOT with a mostly integrated Asset Management
  system has been identified so far
• Several states are implementing the Highway
  Maintenance Management System (HMMS), a
  proprietary system
• The HMMS is the most widely system used for
  maintenance activity tracking and crew daily work
  tracking
• There appears to be little integration among
  systems reflecting individual asset categories

14
Preliminary FindingsNew Mexico

• The Road Feature Inventory (RFI)
• The one DOT identified so far with a fully
  integrated asset management system
• A video based system
• Video of each lane is recorded at 50 intervals
• Asset data (and other data) extracted from the
  video
• Asset data along with the video imported to an
  Oracle Database
• QC performed at Districts (95 accuracy achieved)
• System planned to go live on DOT Intranet by
  January 2004

15
Preliminary FindingsNew Mexico

• Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS)
• A separate, proprietary, database than the Road
  Feature Inventory
• Used for daily work reports and tracking
  maintenance activities (Patrol reports)
• One of the first states to launch the system
• Fully operational since 1998
• DOT staff members interviewed are satisfied with
  system performance
• The need for integration of HMMS with RFI and
  system upgrade is recognized but not currently
  planned

16
Preliminary FindingsTennessee

• Conducted a national survey of maintenance
  management systems in February 2000
• Selected the HMMS for implementation
• Tennessee uses several separate systems for AM
• Tennessee Road Information Management System
  (TRIMS)
• Includes an inventory system for signs
• Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS)
• Project initiated in 2002 to be completed in 2004
• Other systems
• Bridge Inventory DB (overhead structures)
• GIS
• Some integration through IT Dept. is planned

17
Preliminary FindingsGeorgia

• Georgia uses several separate systems for roadway
  hardware asset management
• Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS)
• A proprietary system being developed based on the
  NM model as a central daily work reports and
  budget and cost tracking system
• Key DOT staffs are satisfied with HMMS
  performance
• Sign Management System
• System completed but not populated
• No funding or plans for populating the system
• Other Systems
• RFP for Digital video log System is out
• Road Characteristics Database
• The need for integration of various systems is
  recognized but not currently planned

18
Preliminary FindingsMaryland

• Maryland has several separate systems
• Signal Database
• An online system in place through the State
  Intranet
• Road Inventory System
• Traffic Structural Inspection Inventory
  Management Systems (TSIM)
• New system under development
• Other databases are under consideration
• Although the need for roadway hardware asset
  management systems has been recognized, it has
  had lower priority compared to bridge and
  pavement management systems

19
Preliminary FindingsCalifornia

• Inventory Maintenance Management System (IMMS)
• Includes signal, lighting, some overhead
  structures
• A system to record crew time, material, and
  equipment information in the field
• Mostly used for budget tracking purposes
• The system has capability of adding more assets
• System not fully populated with all the data
• Further development is not currently planned due
  to lack of funding
• The state used a commercial off the shelf (COTS)
  model to develop the system

20
Preliminary FindingsOther States

• North Carolina
• Maintenance Management System
• Oregon
• Traffic Signal Information System (TSIS)
• Sign Management System (R2Sign Database)
• Wisconsin
• Sign Inventory Management System
• Traffic Signal System Inventory
• Marking Management System

21
Preliminary Recommendations

• Separate systems developed by DOTs may not be the
  most cost effective method for roadway hardware
  asset management
• Many states can benefit from a National Model
  to enhance their process for planning, funding,
  and implementing roadway hardware asset
  management systems
• Development of these systems through multi-state
  pooled funds might be considered (e.g., AASHTO-
  ware)

22
Preliminary Recommendations

• States should consider a video based data
  collection systems as an effective method for
  integration of roadway hardware assets into a
  single system
• Integration of separate systems within states
  maintenance and traffic departments should be
  addressed
• Better coordination of transportation
  professionals with IT Departments is suggested

23

• Please address any questions and comments to
• David J. Hensing, P.E.
• Principal Investigator
• Tel [phone]
• david.j.hensing_at_saic.com
• Or
• Shahed Rowshan, Ph.D., P.E.
• Tel [phone]
• shahed.rowshan_at_saic.com