FHWA-AASHTO Asset Management Webinar Series

Transcription

1 10/12/16 Transportation Asset Management Webinar Series Webinar 23: Tradeoffs and Cross Asset Resource Allocation Sponsored by FHWA and AASHTO Webinar 23 October 12, 2016 FHWA-AASHTO Asset Management Webinar Series This is the 23rd in a webinar series that has been running since 2012 Webinars are held every two months, on topics such as off-system assets, asset management plans, asset management and risk management, and more We welcome ideas for future webinar topics and presentations Submit your questions using the webinar s Q&A feature Next webinar December 14, :00 PM EST Lifecycle Planning in Transportation Asset Management Plans 1 1

2 Welcome FHWA and the AASHTO Sub-Committee on Asset Management are pleased to sponsor this webinar Sharing knowledge is a critical component of advancing asset management practice This webinar provides information from state DOT, private sector, and national-level research perspectives 2 Tradeoffs and Cross Asset Resource Allocation Cross asset resource allocation is a relatively new area of activity Few agencies currently implementing Standard practice still formative Implementation requires resources, commitment It is important to learn about the benefits and limitations that practitioners at the leading edge of implementation have observed Visit FHWA s Asset Management homepage to learn more: 3 2

3 Webinar Overview Today s presentation includes three perspectives on tradeoffs and cross asset resource allocation from those inside or working with agencies at the forefront of this emerging topic area We will hear about the experiences of transportation agencies already engaged in taking on these challenges We will also hear from presenters who have been supporting agencies in these efforts Presentations will highlight both successful approaches and some important lessons learned 4 Learning Objectives Building working knowledge of key concepts and definitions relevant to tradeoffs and cross asset resource allocation Understanding specific models applications of tradeoffs and cross asset resource allocation Beginning to apply this knowledge in order to answer: How can agencies apply cross asset resource allocation in their TAM programs What benefits can states expect by addressing tradeoffs and cross asset resource allocation in their TAM programs? What are the key lessons-learned for agencies seeking to integrate cross asset resource allocation as part of their TAM programs? SHARE LESSONS LEARNED, IDEAS, KNOWLEDGE!!! 5 3

4 Webinar Agenda 2:00 Webinar Introduction and Overview Steve Gaj (FHWA), and Hyun-A Park (Spy Pond Partners, LLC) 2:15 NCHRP / Tradeoffs and Cross Asset Resource Allocation Steve Guenther (California Department of Transportation) 2:35 TAM Investment Decision Making William Johnson (Colorado Department of Transportation) 2:55 Risk Based Strategic Investment Decisions Martin Gordon (OPUS International Consultants) 3:15 Q&A and Wrap Up 6 NCHRP Implementing NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross- Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance FHWA AASHTO TAM Webinar October 12,

5 Investment Decision-Making Factors 8 Investment Decision-Making Factors 9 5

6 NCHRP NCHRP Implementing NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross- Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance to demonstrate the implementation of the prototype cross-asset resource allocation tool developed in NCHRP Report 806: Guide to Cross-Asset Resource Allocation and the Impact on Transportation System Performance 11 6

7 NCHRP Project Purpose & Activities Developing criteria for evaluating the value of implementing the prototype tool Perform case studies and compile lessons learned Developing a self-assessment method to use when considering adoption of the tool 12 Research Questions and Products! Source: NCHRP Report

8 Case Study Approach 14 Enhanced Prototype Tool 15 8

9 Self Assessment Topics Performance Metrics. Use of performance metrics within investment types (e.g. International Roughness Index for pavement investment) and among investment types (Anticipated Reduced Crashes for any type of investment) MAP-21 / FAST Compliance. Progress toward the Transportation Asset Management Plan and reporting on known and anticipate national performance measures. Constraints. Executive-level support with resources available to implement prototype. Project Impact Assessment. Processes for scoring projects today (e.g. Highway Safety Manual s process for scoring safety benefits of Highway Safety Improvement Program candidates) and for evaluating project benefits after completion. Data. Accessibility to accurate, timely project, program, system performance information 16 Self Assessment Sample Questions for Self Assessment 2015 AASHTO Annual Meeting 17 9

10 Sample Evaluation Criteria for Prototype Implementation 18 Sample Evaluation Criteria for Prototype Implementation 19 10

11 Phase II: Execution Figure - Framework for Tool Implementation 20 Project Schedule PHASE RESEARCH(TASK I 1. Project Kickoff J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J 2. Alpha Test 3. Interim Report II 4. Panel Meeting & Beta Test 5. Coordinate Case Studies 6. Conduct Case Studies 7. Final Deliverables 21 11

12 10/12/16 Project Contacts Steve Guenther (Panel Chair) William Rogers(TRB Manager) Scott Richrath and William Robert (Principal Investigators) 22 TAM Investment Decision Making October

13 $1.43 BILLION BUDGET 24 healthy 25 13

14 1991 vs THEN AND NOW per capita spending population 3.3 million 5.4 million 27.7 billion vehicles miles traveled $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $125.70/person vehicle miles traveled dollars spent/person All dollar figures adjusted for inflation $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ $$$$ $68.94/person 49.3 billion vehicle miles traveled PAVEMENT CONDITION SCALE: BEST to WORST nd rd (2014) 32 nd Source: Highway Statistics FHWA 2015 NV UT FL SC KY MO MT WY KS AL ND AZ GA SD TN NM WV ME NC OR VT NE MN ID MS NH AR DE VA IL TX CO IN OK PA OH IA MI WI CT WA LA MD NY AK CA HI NJ MA RI DC (2015) 18 th th th BRIDGE CONDITION UT TX HI NV FL GA MD AL AZ KS OR MN WI OH DC VA KY CO DE TN NM MS VT SC IN ID AR ND NJ MT WA NE ME CA MI WV LA AK OK NH MO NC IL IA SD PA NY WY MA CT RI Source: National Bridge Inventory Data USDOT FHWA th th (2014) Denver 28 th out of th th WHERE DOES COLORADO RANK? SYSTEM RELIABILITY (2014) C. Springs 14 th out of th th (2014) Boulder 12 th out of 22 Salem Little Rock Pensacola Spokane Source: Urban Mobility Scorecard TTI 2015 Richmond Salt Lake City Cleveland Jacksonville St. Louis MO San Antonio Nashville Virginia Beach Las Vegas Orlando Baltimore Minneapolis Philadelphia DENVER Oklahoma City New York San Francisco Los Angeles Washington DC Bakersfield Provo Fresno Raleigh CO SPRINGS Knoxville Wichita Tucson Bridgeport Honolulu Indio CA Lancaster CA Laredo Eugene Beaumont TX BOULDER Large Cities Medium Cities Small Cities FATALITIES (2014) 22 nd rd th MA VT MN DC RI NH NJ MD CT WA NY WI VA IL OH ME CA MI UT HI IN CO IA OR GA MO NV NE ID NC PA AZ FL AL KS DE ND TN AR KY OK WV TX SD AK NM LA MS MT WY SC Source: Highway Statistics FHWA 2015 BIKE FRIENDLY WA MN DE MA UT OR (2015) 7 th CO CA WI MD NJ PA VA th IL ME nd OH VT MI AZ TN ID CT NC FL GA RI NH IA NY TX NV MS LA MO WY AR IN SD ND NM AK WV HI SC OK MT NE KS KY AL Source: The League of American Bicyclists 2015 TRANSIT UTILIZATION (2014) 17 th th th Source: National Transit Database 2015 NY MA DC PA IL HI CA NV OR NJ GA MD RI AZ WA LA CO WI MN CT FL UT OH TX VA MO NM MI IA IN NC WV AK NE DE SC WY KS NH TN MT KY ND AL ME SD AR OK ID VT MS 14

15 OUR CHALLENGE continued growth 28 ASSET MANAGEMENT Budget Setting Process *Wideband Delphi Methodology + = Asset Investment Management System Performance Scenarios Planning Budget 15

16 Asset Management Available Budget vs. Need DRAFT FY14-FY20 Asset Management Planning Budgets vs. Need Estimated Average Yearly Need to Reach Target by Asset Class FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY * Surface Treatment $238.8 $235.2 $235.9 $242.1 $231.4 $225.4 $222.0 $260.0 Bridge, BE & Bridge Fixed Costs $173.9 $168.2 $164.1 $163.2 $155.4 $142.5 $151.2 Target Currently Achieved MLOS $249.0 $251.3 $254.4 $262.6 $263.5 $272.8 $265.7 $295.4 in % annually Road Equipment $20.9 $20.9 $18.4 $26.4 $23.0 $26.8 $22.1 $23.8 ITS* $21.5 $27.6 $21.4 $24.5 $23.0 $23.5 $29.2 $41.0 Geohazards $9.0 $9.1 $9.2 $10.0 $8.5 $8.4 $9.7 $30.0 Buildings $11.3 $20.8 $12.9 $21.4 $17.5 $20.2 $17.6 $50.0 Tunnels $7.4 $12.4 $5.2 $7.6 $6.4 $8.4 $10.3 Target Currently Achieved Culverts $11.5 $9.6 $8.2 $11.0 $9.1 $7.6 $7.5 $10.0 Walls $0.0 $0.0 $2.4 $5.8 $4.6 $4.6 $5.1 $9.0 Traffic Signals $0.0 $0.0 $5.7 $16.9 $12.6 $14.8 $14.6 $90.0 TOTAL $743.3 $755.1 $738.0 $791.5 $755.0 $755.0 $755.0 $953.2 The Future MODA 16

17 10/12/16 MODA Swing Rating Swing Rating Procedure: 1. Assess how much value you would receive if you could swing each objective from its worst possible outcome to its best possible outcome 2. Rank criteria according to the swing in value when moving from the worst feasible outcome to the best 3. Weight criteria 4. Once you have weights for each objective, review them for consistency and validity MODA Swing Rating in Action 17

18 MODA Goal Areas and Criteria Table 3 CDOT Project Prioritization and Selection Common Criteria: Suggested Starting Point for Evaluations Staff Workshop Table 2 CDOT Project Prioritization and Selection Criteria and Performance Measure Library Goal Area and Criteria Relatively "Quantitative" Measure Relatively "Qualitative" Measure A. Safety 1. Fatalities reduced change in crash rate over x years, Existing crash rate converted to dollar measure 2. Serious injuries reduced change in crash rate over x years, converted to dollar measure 3. Property damage reduced change in crash rate over x years, converted to dollar measure 4a. Other considerations or Addresses a LOSS 3 or 4 location; safety measures measures such as >2 foot paved shoulders 4b. Other considerations or Consider ranking by need as well as potential for reduction in crashes. Need could measures be qualified by relative severity index, potential for safety improvement, etc. 4c. Other considerations or measures Consider evaluating by differing roadway types, etc. Do not try to compare/rank same across all types. 4d. Other considerations or Removes an at-grade rail crossing measures B. Maintaining the System 1. Pavement Drivability Life Index Model outputs improvement 2. Bridge rating improvement Model outputs Improvement in bridge-deck area that is Not Structurally Deficient Vertical clearance Load restrictions 3. Bridge historic significance Could be a yes/no 4. Age Extent to which asset is near or past design life 102 Candidate Criteria Identified Goal Area and Criteria Measurement Scale 1. Safety 1.1 Fatalities reduced Number of fatalities reduced per year 1.2 Serious injuries reduced Number of serious injuries reduced per year 1.3 Property damage only reduced Dollars of property damage only reduced per year 2. Maintaining the System 2.1 Pavement Drivability Life Index Model outputs improvement 2.2 Bridge rating improvement Model outputs GIS-based analysis that considers average concentration of 2.3 Redundancy alternate routes, alternate route concentration and endpoints, and length of road segment 2.4 Other asset improvement Developed on a case-by-case basis 3. Mobility Buffer index improvement (ratio between the difference of the 95th 3.1 Reliability percentile travel time and the average travel time divided by the average travel time) GIS/population based calculation of number of people that receive 3.2 Modal choice access to other modes, perhaps multiplied by "accessibility factor" GIS/population based calculation of number of people that have 3.3 Connectivity connectivity improved - perhaps multiplied by "connectivity factor" 4. Economic Vitality 4.1 Income (value added) created TREDIS estimate 4.2 Jobs created TREDIS estimate 4.3 Operating cost savings Dollars 4.4 Freight-relevant corridor Freight corridor economic importance score (scale might reflect economics NHS, congressional priority, and energy corridors) 4.5 Access to other regionally significant facilities or destinations A yes/no scale or develop a qualitative scale with gradations (job centers, agriculture, tourism, etc) 4.6. Intermodal connections A yes/no scale or develop a qualitative scale with gradations 5. Other Considerations 5.1 Project readiness Qualitative scale reflecting stage of readiness Qualitative scale using plans where projects or corridors are 5.2 Region priority ranked in importance 5.3 Innovative Financing and Percent of local match financing or financing from other sources Partnerships that leverages CDOT funds Project cost (the denominator in Value-Cost Long-term life cycle cost (capital, long-term O&M, and replacement) calculation used as basis for prioritization) net of any revenues Common Criteria reduced from candidate criteria MODA How it Could Work 18

19 MODA How it Could Work Contact William Johnson Performance and Asset Management Branch Manager Colorado Department of Transportation

20 RISK BASED STRATEGIC INVESTMENT DECISIONS MARTIN GORDON AASHTO Webinar #23 - Trade-offs and Cross Asset Resource AASHTO Allocation Webinar #23 - Trade-offs and Cross Asset Resource Allocation Agenda Risk Initial Thoughts Slide 39 Strategic Decisions How To Allocate Funding With Risk Thoughts To Take Away 20

21 RISK INITIAL THOUGHTS Everyone is talking about it, Few are doing it, we all want to do it 41 Risk means different things to people. Employed at an operational, tactical and strategic level The equation is familiar C*L=Risk, the challenge lies in the detail Makes for very few good practice examples, despite the interest. 21

22 Slide 42 Risk Perception Factors We over-estimate with Dread Natural risks Children Novelty Publicity It directly affecting me When we don t trust the messenger We under-estimate when We have some control It is human-made risk We have choices There is a risk benefit trade-off When we trust the messenger Slide 43 The Problem How to allocate funds across multiple service areas and infrastructure portfolios? 22

23 10/12/16 44 Risk Has Utility at Multiple Levels Community Outcomes Strategic Asset Outcomes Service Levels Vertical Integration e.g. Funding Allocation, performance monitoring Tactical e.g. - Criticality, Project Risk Intervention Levels Work Instructions Operational Physical Work e.g. Procurement, Safety, Contract Risk Slide 45 Balancing Delivery Investment Service/ Performance Outcome Information 10 0 Inventory Condition/Function Resilience 0 Organization 10 $ $ Risk Consequence of Failure 23

24 STRATEGIC DECISIONS Investment Decisions for Infrastructure Alignment with goals and objectives of the agency Mission Vision Goals, Objectives Slide 47 Funding allocation in each bucket can be challenging Elected officials and decision-makers often don t respond to the technical language well enough to get the allocation right Rehab of Existing Network Eliminate Assets Adding New Assets 24

25 Slide 48 Example: Triple Bottom Line Multi-Criteria Analysis to assess investment alternatives Investment alignment to agency goals Transparent, objective, and allows for an assessment of different asset types Weightings and criteria can change as government priorities change. Slide 49 Renewal Decision-Making Agencies use a variety of analytics for renewal decisions Typically a variety of investment / treatment types are considered Objectives can be varied to assess the impacts of different investment alternatives Hold Budget, Hold Condition Target State / Service Level Some clients starting to use risk as the primary objective function for strategic, long term funding allocation 25

26 HOW TO ALLOCATE FUNDING WITH RISK Slide 51 Achieving Service Levels Roads exist to provide a service: Mobility and Land Access Service levels are customer focussed Travel time / delay Safety Reliability Availability Rideability / Comfort Technical proxies have predominated IRI, SDI, BCI, Rut Depth 26

27 Slide 52 Evolution of the Methodology Consequence: Asset importance to agency goals, i.e. service delivery failure s effect of achieving mandate TBL used to assess of importance of that asset and represent risk consequence or performance importance / a form of criticality When actual probability in unknown, technical measures like condition can be used as a proxy for likelihood In this way, a target risk level can be the objective function for investment analytics Municipal Application Slide 53 Multiple services to deliver and asset portfolios Funding allocation between service/asset groups Mechanism hinges on risk levels being traded-off against investment 27

28 Slide 54 Mechanism Funding Allocation Process Model allocates funds incrementally to maximize risk reduction benefit Not necessarily the most risky Allocation to reduce risk as much as possible within constrained budgets, over time Buildings Parks Other Key Condition Age / Performance Model Other Key Condition Age / Indicators Performance Model Other Key Condition Age / Indicators Performance Model Treatment Inventory Indicators Other Key Condition Age / Strategies Performance Treatment Inventory Model Indicators Other Key Condition Age / Strategies Treatment Performance Inventory Model Strategies Indicators Treatment Inventory Strategies Treatment Inventory Strategies Rate Sources Base (Minimum) Base Risk (Minimum) Base Risk (Minimum) Base Risk (Minimum) Base Risk (Maximum) Risk Transportation Risk (TBL Value) Risk (TBL Value) Risk Likelyhood (TBL Value) of Failure Risk Likelyhood (TBL Value) of Failure Risk Likelyhood (TBL of Value) Failure Likelyhood of Failure Likelihood of Failure Cross Asset Optimization (Goal Programming) using Risk with constraints on Budget Sources Waste Water / Storm Water Buildings Parks LOS LOS LOS LOS LOS Mitigated or Optimal Mitigated Riskor Optimal Mitigated Riskor Optimal Mitigated Riskor Optimal Mitigated Riskor Optimal (LLC) Risk Water Transportation Optimized Least Life-cycle Waste Water Optimized Cost /Storm Water Least Life-cycle Determination Optimized Water Cost Least Life-cycle Determination Optimized Cost Determination Least Life-cycle Optimized Cost Determination Least Life-cycle Cost Determination Tax Funding Slide 55 Benefits Elected decision-makers readily respond to risk Common language to communicate and evaluate financial investment choices Consequence / goal alignment is the most difficult aspect to consistently apply. Triple Bottom Line is the best way to evaluate portfolio assets relative importance 28

29 How well does your organisation define it s goals and objectives? Slide 56 A few stones need to be laid before you can employ risk in this way Slide 57 Cross Asset, Risk Based Funding Allocation 29

30 Slide 58 Thoughts to take away Risk can help allocate funds Method requires a good definition of agency goals and objectives that are translated to an objective MCA framework Optimized funding is important when funding is limited. Complex problems require powerful tools, ODM is a one you may have in your toolkit Build your foundation QUESTIONS? 30

31 Questions? Submit your questions using the webinar s Q&A feature 60 All webinars available online: Webinar 24 Life Cycle Planning in Transportation Asset Management Plans Wednesday, December 14, :00 PM EST Webinar 25 TAM Communications Wednesday, February 8, :00 PM EST 31