Asset Management and Performance in the Next Highway Program Potential Paradigm Shifts in Transportation SASHTO - Biloxi, Mississippi September 1, 2009 King W. Gee Associate Administrator for Infrastructure Federal Highway Administration

Historical Context Continually Evolving – Shifting Paradigms Changed View on Highway Safety Engineers Built Structures to Stand! Problem: People Were Dying 1960’s – Saw & Owned the Problem Flexibility in Highway Design  CSD Engineering: Plan, Design & Build “Well” “Decide, Announce, Defend” 1980’s – Road was More than A Road Balancing of Other Societal Goals with Transportation Changed View on Highway Safety Previously: Engineers built structures to withstand impact Never mind people were dying on roads 1960’s recognition of problem and we took responsibility to reduce fatalities Adopted design concept of “clear zones” to allow errant drivers opportunity to recover before hitting something Adopted break-away sign posts and utility poles to be more “forgiving” of driver errors Flexibility in Highway Design  Context Sensitive Design  CSS Previously: Engineering Mission – designed & built well technically Planned, Mitigated, Built & Operated according to system plan and standards; period! Hal Kassoff gives me credit for term “Decide, Announce & Defend” 1980’s Recognition that a Road was more than a road That Engineering standards were means to an end – transportation, AND that There are other societal goals that needed to be balanced with transportation: like goals of community, history, environment

Clear Zones Forgiving Highways Impact Attenuators Break-Away Posts

Historical Context Continually Evolving Changed View on Highway Safety Engineers Built Structures to Stand! Problem: People Were Dying 1960’s – Saw & Owned the Problem Flexibility in Highway Design  CSD Engineering: Plan, Design & Build “Well” “Decide, Announce, Defend” 1980’s – Road was More than A Road Balancing of Other Societal Goals with Transportation Changed View on Highway Safety Previously: Engineers built structures to withstand impact Never mind people were dying on roads 1960’s recognition of problem and we took responsibility to reduce fatalities Adopted design concept of “clear zones” to allow errant drivers opportunity to recover before hitting something Adopted break-away sign posts and utility poles to be more “forgiving” of driver errors Flexibility in Highway Design  Context Sensitive Design  CSS Previously: Engineering Mission – designed & built well technically Planned, Mitigated, Built & Operated according to system plan and standards; period! Hal Kassoff gives me credit for term “Decide, Announce & Defend” 1980’s Recognition that a Road was more than a road That Engineering standards were means to an end – transportation, AND that There are other societal goals that needed to be balanced with transportation: like goals of community, history, environment

Hal Kasssoff will be speaking more about where CSD  CSS has come

Asset Management & Performance Two Inter-related Concepts  Next Highway Program Start: PMS in 1980’s New Motivations Funding Shortfall Good Stewardship Aging Infrastructure: Huge Needs “Worst First” approach won’t do it Accountability for Use of Funds, including Reporting Asset Management - Began with Pavement Management Systems in 1980’s Multiple management system mandates in ISTEA (1991) Mandate repealed in NHS Designation Act (1995) New Motivations Insufficient Funds Good Stewardship Aging Infrastructure – burgeoning needs “Worst First” approach won’t do it Accountability for Use of Funds, including Reporting Definition of Asset Management New Applications Not Merely to Inventory What is There and its Condition To inform programming decisions To forecast conditions and needs To develop & compare investment scenarios Analysis of Different Optimal Points for Projects & Programs Levels of Service Benefit Cost Look at Facility from a Life Cycle Perspective Support Cross-Silo Program Management Preservation of Bridges & Roadways Capacity Needs Safety Needs More Direct Linkage of “Cause & Effect” of different project types  What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? From Building and Reconstructing the Interstate Highway System as infrastructure network (IHS Map) to looking ahead to know what’s coming at us (Bridge Age & Condition Chart) (IRI RSL)

What is Transportation Asset Management? “Transportation Asset Management is a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their lifecycle. It focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision making based upon quality information and well defined objectives.” AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management What is Transportation Asset Management? In simpler terms, Its about operating, maintaining, and preserving the transportation system in the most cost effective manner to achieve desired service objectives. “Transportation Asset Management is a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, upgrading and expanding physical assets effectively throughout their lifecycle. It focuses on business and engineering practices for resource allocation and utilization, with the objective of better decision making based upon quality information and well defined objectives.” as approved by the AASHTO Subcommittee on Asset Management What is important about a definition? Is it really the guiding light for our processes? For Asset Management, the answer to the latter question is yes and no. Yes to the concepts of using strategic, long-term, well thought out programs but no to any suggestion that it is prescriptive. Asset Management is viewed as a set of best practices for a particular situation. As an example, it’s not likely that the program of best practices for a large State will match the best program for a smaller State. But the concepts endure and effective management is important for everyone. It is about operating, maintaining, and preserving the transportation system in the most cost effective manner to achieve desired service objectives. Each of us needs to ask the question: “If I had one dollar, where would I spend it to get the best return on my investment”. It is important to know where to make the best investments and why those decisions are made.

Asset Management & Performance Two Inter-related Concepts  Next Highway Program New Applications Not Merely An Inventory To inform programming decisions To forecast conditions and needs Analysis of Different Investment Options Levels of Service Benefit Cost Life Cycle Perspective Cross-Silo Program Management Preservation, Capacity, Safety Linkage of “Cause & Effect” Asset Management - Began with Pavement Management Systems in 1980’s Multiple management system mandates in ISTEA (1991) Mandate repealed in NHS Designation Act (1995) New Motivations Insufficient Funds Good Stewardship Aging Infrastructure – burgeoning needs “Worst First” approach won’t do it Accountability for Use of Funds, including Reporting Definition of Asset Management New Applications Not Merely to Inventory What is There and its Condition To inform programming decisions To forecast conditions and needs To develop & compare investment scenarios Analysis of Different Optimal Points for Projects & Programs Levels of Service Benefit Cost Look at Facility from a Life Cycle Perspective Support Cross-Silo Program Management Preservation of Bridges & Roadways Capacity Needs Safety Needs More Direct Linkage of “Cause & Effect” of different project types  What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? From Building and Reconstructing the Interstate Highway System as infrastructure network (IHS Map) to looking ahead to know what’s coming at us (Bridge Age & Condition Chart) (IRI RSL)

Asset Management -  What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? From Building and Reconstructing the Interstate Highway System as infrastructure network (IHS Map) to looking ahead to know what’s coming at us (Bridge Age & Condition Chart) (IRI RSL)

600,000 Bridges National Bridge Inventory gives us Bridge age & Bridge condition Until recent times, bridge design life was 50 years Not “retirement” age, but design year traffic volumes Average bridge age ~43 years Getting close to 50, but Not “unsafe” Not end of service life 3.9 Million Miles of Roads No age or condition data base like NBI Average age of pavements ~35 years Varied design life Data on Pavement Smoothness Not equivalent to service ife Service life depends on traffic volume & weight

Snapshot in Time of Age & Condition Red is “Structurally Deficient” [13%] Blue is ”Functionally Obsolete” [13%] Neither necessarily means a bridge is unsafe Some 100+ year old bridges are very functional & safe So the key is not to replace “aged” bridges But to manage the safe operation of bridges Asset Management -  What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? From Building and Reconstructing the Interstate Highway System as infrastructure network (IHS Map) to looking ahead to know what’s coming at us (Bridge Age & Condition Chart) (IRI RSL)

Asset Management & Performance Two Inter-related Concepts  Next Highway Program Start: Highway Capacity Manual (LOS) : On-Time, On-Budget, & Quality New Motivations System Basically In-place with Congestion Growing Accountability for Investments Seeing Beyond Engineering Performance – Talked about for the past many years, now reflected in Congressman Oberstar’s House T&I draft bill and Senator Rockefeller & Lautenberg’s bill Earliest notions: Highway Capacity Manual’s Levels of Service (LOS) Project Performance: on-time, on-budget & quality New Motivations: System that is already in-place with Congestion growing Accountability for vast amounts invested Seeing beyond engineering factors New Applications: Growing number of areas of performance & measurement Safety – Measures the quality of transportation service in terms of crashes or incidents that are harmful to people, goods, and property. Performance considers asset conditions that contribute to or detract from safety. System Preservation – Measures the condition of the transportation system and actions to keep the system in a state of good repair. The performance focus in this area encompasses the physical condition of pavement and bridges as well as the process (e.g., asset management) for developing cost effective strategies to deliver a desired condition and performance. Mobility/Congestion – Measures the efficient movement of people and goods. Performance focuses on the time and cost of making a trip and the relative ease or difficulty and predictability with which a trip is made. Congestion will be a key focus of this goal area. Freight/Economic Growth – This goal area focuses on freight transportation and its contribution to national economic productivity and competitiveness. Direct impacts are typically related to the time and cost of transportation experienced by users and shippers. Environment and Community – Measures transportation program and project effects on the environment and quality of life, including concerns related to emissions, energy consumption, ecosystems, and livability. Setting of Performance Targets Accountability & Reporting Linking of Funding to Performance

Asset Management & Performance Two Inter-related Concepts  Next Highway Program New Applications Performance & Measurement Areas Safety System Preservation Mobility/Congestion Freight/Economic Growth Environment and Community Setting of Performance Targets Accountability & Reporting Linking of Funding to Performance Performance – Talked about for the past many years, now reflected in Congressman Oberstar’s House T&I draft bill and Senator Rockefeller & Lautenberg’s bill Earliest notions: Highway Capacity Manual’s Levels of Service (LOS) Project Performance: on-time, on-budget & quality New Motivations: System that is already in-place with Congestion growing Accountability for vast amounts invested Seeing beyond engineering factors New Applications: Growing number of areas of performance & measurement Safety – Measures the quality of transportation service in terms of crashes or incidents that are harmful to people, goods, and property. Performance considers asset conditions that contribute to or detract from safety. System Preservation – Measures the condition of the transportation system and actions to keep the system in a state of good repair. The performance focus in this area encompasses the physical condition of pavement and bridges as well as the process (e.g., asset management) for developing cost effective strategies to deliver a desired condition and performance. Mobility/Congestion – Measures the efficient movement of people and goods. Performance focuses on the time and cost of making a trip and the relative ease or difficulty and predictability with which a trip is made. Congestion will be a key focus of this goal area. Freight/Economic Growth – This goal area focuses on freight transportation and its contribution to national economic productivity and competitiveness. Direct impacts are typically related to the time and cost of transportation experienced by users and shippers. Environment and Community – Measures transportation program and project effects on the environment and quality of life, including concerns related to emissions, energy consumption, ecosystems, and livability. Setting of Performance Targets Accountability & Reporting Linking of Funding to Performance

Thank You!  What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? Being held accountable NOT JUST for delivering projects (bottleneck elimination, rehab, overlays) or a program of projects, AND performance of the system in moving people and goods (inter-modally) Even as we add capacity, we need to preserve & operate the existing facilities Actually three bridges in photo  also need to learn from the past Thank you all for your perseverance and for not being too distracted here on Bourbon Street We have made substantial progress, and we have much to do yet FHWA is committed to collaborating with states, locals, academia & industry to advance asset management practice

 What is the BIG DIFFERENCE? Being held accountable NOT JUST for delivering projects (bottleneck elimination, rehab, overlays) or a program of projects, AND performance of the system in moving people and goods (inter-modally)

Evolving & Contrasting Focus Program Management vs. Project Delivery Performance Measures vs. Program of Capital Needs Asset Management vs. “Find-It & Fix-It” Context Sensitive Solutions vs. The Engineered-Preferred Solution “Transportation” vs. “Construction Projects” Risk Management vs. Total Control

Closing Thoughts Reconnecting Highways with Popular Aspirations Past Support for Highways Never Based on Engineering Interest, but Defense, Connecting People and Places “Coast to Coast without a stop” Importance of Transportation Must Reconnect with Popular Aspirations Safe & Efficient Movement of People & Goods Performance in Meaningful Lay Terms Paradigm Shifts Change Our Business Conclusion – Reconnecting Engineering with Popular Aspirations Support for Highways was never based on Engineering interest, not things like super-elevation, strength of concrete, but Defense Connecting People and Places “Coast to Coast without a stop” (no red lights) Regaining Popular Understanding & Support for Importance of Transportation Must Reconnect with Popular Aspirations Safe & Efficient Movement of People & Goods Managing to Performance that means something to the people Reporting on those different measures built on Asset Management & Beyond Paradigm Shifts Change How We Do Business Stay Tuned Contribute to the Changes Positively Thank you for your attention

An engineering accomplishment we can all be proud of.

4500 South over I-215 Construction Time (Traditional): 6-9 Months Construction time (SPMT): 4 Months Traffic Impact (Traditional): 4500 So. Closure: 5 months I-215 land reduction and closures: 4 months Traffic Impact (SPMT): 4500 So. Closure: 10 days I-215 Closure: One weekend (From Friday night to Monday morning) User Cost due to traffic impact $33,500 a day. (About one million per month) SPMT Savings: Over $4,000,000. Benefits for using SPMT: 1, Improve Safety. 2. Reduce Congestion. 3. Save Money.

Thank You