Upload
sydney-blake
View
216
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
The Request
• Based on:– Program status and progress– “Bumps” encountered
• Want to:– Garner support
• Maintain and sustain efforts• Appropriately augment existing resources
– Prep for next budget cycle– Move to institutionalize program and learning
• Reduce dependency upon the ”whos”
Strategic/Implementation Plan
• Four Goals:– Integrated Decision-Making
• Weaving data into processes for optimum decisions
– Inventory• Sustain or establish
appropriately reliable statewide inventories
– Integrated Data Systems• TransInfo integrated with
other key systems such as Pontis
– Integrated Tools• Supporting efficient updates
and use of data
Why?
• To build ODOT’s capacities for better informed decisions – Supporting optimum results via methodology
for proactively managing infrastructure assets by providing:
The right information…to the right people…
at the right time
Asset Management Principles
Managed Data and Systems
Standards and Tools
Projected Throughout ODOT – How We Do Business
Governance
TransCOIRE: Systems
HMTRE: Policies
AMSCRE: Plans, Priorities
ADMCRE: Standards
Chief EngineerTDD Administrator
State Maintenance
Engineer
AMSC: Asset Management Steering CommitteeADMC: Asset Data Management Committee
AMI Role in These Efforts
• Facilitate and coordinate program structure
• Serve as liaison for enterprise progress
We don’t do “inventory”, we aren’t making the decision; we enable it and ensure it is done in accordance with ODOT standards and goals
Program Structure
AMI CoreFunction
Integrated Decision Making
• Better positioned, but “a la carte” programs exist – Bridge, pavement, ITS, bike/ped, etc.
• FACS-STIP Tool and other tools provide “cafeteria” for asset data
• Corridor Management Strategy pilot guides some steps to take– Corridor-based design exceptions– Asset reports
• FACS-STIP can evolve to provide
Inventory – HighwayWhere we started: Where we are now:
Asset
Statewide data
available in 2005?
Bridges YesTunnels
ITS YesPavement Yes
Right of Way YesSigns
Traffic BarriersSidewalks
ADA RampsBike Facilities
Culverts 6ft and over NBICulverts under 6ft
WIM SitesSound Barriers
Wetland Mitigation SitesMaterial Sources
Signals and Beacons Tri-color onlyRetaining WallsUnstable Slopes
ApproachesMajor Traffic Support
Storm Water FacilitiesIllumination
Asset Type
Statewide Data Available
Bridges Yes6 ft + Yes> 6 ft Fall 2014
Pavement YesTunnels YesSignals Tri-colorRetaining Walls NoTraffi c Barriers Yes
Bridges YesTraffic Structures NoAll the Rest No
Signs YesTraffi c Structures NoStorm Water NoUnstable Slopes ProgressRight of Way YesSidewalks YesADA Ramps YesBike Facilities YesITS YesMaterial Sources YesApproaches MostlyIllumination NoWetland Mitigation Sites YesWeigh-in-Motion Sites YesSound Barriers Mostly
Culverts
Vertical Clearance
Prio
rity
Tier
1Pr
iorit
y Ti
er 2
Prio
rity
Tier
3Pr
iori
ty
Tier
4
AssetStatewide data
available in 2005?
Statewide data available now?
Included in 1R Roadside
Inventory
Bridges X X XTunnels X
ITS X XPavement X X
Right of Way X XSigns X X
Traffic Barriers X XSidewalks X X
ADA Ramps X XBike Facilities X X
Culverts 6ft and over NBI in progress XCulverts under 6ft in progress X
WIM Sites XSound Barriers X
Wetland Mitigation Sites XMaterial Sources X
Signals and Beacons Tri-color only Tri-color onlyRetaining Walls in progressUnstable Slopes in progress
Approaches in progressMajor Traffic Support just startingStorm Water Facilities just starting
Illumination
AssetStatewide data
available in 2005?
Statewide data available now?
Included in 1R Roadside
Inventory
Bridges X X XTunnels X
ITS X XPavement X X
Right of Way X XSigns X X
Traffic Barriers X XSidewalks X X
ADA Ramps X XBike Facilities X X
Culverts 6ft and over NBI in progress XCulverts under 6ft in progress X
WIM Sites XSound Barriers X
Wetland Mitigation Sites XMaterial Sources X
Signals and Beacons Tri-color only Tri-color onlyRetaining Walls in progressUnstable Slopes in progress
Approaches in progressMajor Traffic Support just startingStorm Water Facilities just starting
Illumination
As of 2010:
Note: GREEN is an indication of progress, but not an ability to maintain that progress
Integrated Data Systems
• Integration Systems– Data Warehouse– GIS
• Key Systems/Platforms– TransInfo
Integrated Tools
• FACS-STIP Tool• Toughbooks for signs• “Apps” (forms) for 1R data collection using mobile
GPS– Culvert apps in use
• Pilots– Integrating mobile scanner data– Other mobile GPS tools
TSB Initiatives $5,490,000
TSB AM Maintenance $21,148,091
IS Systems Maintenance $300,000
TDD (TransInfo) $1,237,000
2013-15 Expenditure Estimates
2013-15 Expenditure Estimate Details
Group of Asset Type Asset Group Asset Type SourceMaintenance Enhancements Maintenance Enhancements Maintenance Enhancements Maintenance Enhancements Budget
Initiatives RITS Initiative 1,464,000$ 1,464,000$ Culverts-HMT Priority Routes 2,026,000$ Champs Initiative 2,000,000$ 2,000,000$ Road Approaches Iventory Reconciliation $ ??? -$
2,026,000$ 3,464,000$ 5,490,000$ Standard Asset Management Bridge Structures 2,125,000$ 7,287,191$ 300,000$ 300,000$ 10,012,191$
Tunnels 202,400$ 202,400$ Local Bridge Program 300,000$ 4,134,000$ 4,434,000$ Storm Water 50,000$ 25,000$ 75,000$ Culverts 30,000$ 30,000$ Hydraulics 4,000$ 4,000$ Retaining Walls 100,000$ 100,000$ Traffic Structures; Sign Bridges 14,000$ 10,000$ 24,000$ Right of Way 50,000$ 2,755,000$ 60,000$ 2,865,000$ Mitigation Banks 20,000$ 100,000$ 400,000$ 520,000$ Unstable Slopes 30,000$ 27,000$ 57,000$
Roadway Pavement 180,000$ 710,000$ 180,000$ 1,070,000$ Road Approaches $ ??? $ ??? $ ??? -$ Sidewalks 15,000$ 30,000$ 45,000$ ADA Ramps 15,000$ 5,000$ 5,000$ 25,000$ Bicycle Facilities 15,000$ 30,000$ 45,000$ Traffic Barriers 50,000$ 50,000$ Sound Barriers 14,700$ 2,800$ 17,500$ Material Sources 30,000$ 140,000$ 170,000$ Natural Resource Mitigation Sites (SMAs) 58,000$ 1,167,000$ 1,225,000$ Signals 18,000$ 28,000$ Signs 84,000$ 115,000$ 199,000$
Standard Asset Management AMI 770,000$ 100,000$ 100,000$ 165,000$ 350,000$ 1,485,000$
2,939,000$ 16,876,291$ 477,800$ 370,000$ -$ 485,000$ 21,148,091$
2,939,000$ 16,876,291$ 2,503,800$ 370,000$ 3,464,000$ 485,000$ 26,638,091$
Standard Asset Management IS Systems Maintenance 300,000$ 300,000$
300,000$ 300,000$
AM Platform System TransInfo 124,000$ 750,000$ Paid thru 2014 273,000$ 90,000$ 1,237,000$
124,000$ 750,000$ -$ -$ 273,000$ 90,000$ -$ 1,237,000$
Does not include approx. $1,000,000 in Bentley/Exor E-credits
3,063,000$ 17,626,291$ 2,503,800$ 370,000$ 3,737,000$ 575,000$ 28,175,091$
Total without Major Initiatives: 22,685,091$
TD
D
Total
IS Systems Maintenance Total
TS
B
IS
Inventory Budget Analysis/Tools BudgetSystems Budget
Major InitiativesTotal
Prgrm Mgmt/Decision Support
Highway Structures
Drainage
Traffic - Hwy Equip 10,000$
TDD Total
Grand Total
Technical Services Total
Maintenance & Minor Enhancements Total
Bridges & Structures
Land
Special
Levels of Capacity
• Decisions– Program-level– Basic
• Tools– Analysis– Data collection
• Databases– Optimal– Basic
• Inventory– Optimal– Basic
How Far We’ve Come (& Going)
Program Decisions
Basic Decisions
Tools for Analysis
Tools for Inventory
Optimal Database
Basic Database
Optimal Inventory
Basic Inventory
6 Ft & Over
Under 6 Ft
BridgesTraffic
StructuresAll the Rest
Sound BarriersUnstable Slopes Right of Way Sidewalks ADA Ramps Bike Facilities ITS Material Sources Approaches IlluminationWetland
Mitigation SitesWeigh-in-
Motion SitesStorm Water2015 Bridges
Culverts
Pavements Tunnels Signals Retaining Walls Traffi c Barriers
Vertical Clearance
Signs Traffi c Structures
Program Decisions
Basic Decisions
Tools for Analysis
Tools for Inventory
Optimal Database
Basic Database
Optimal Inventory
Basic Inventory
6 Ft & Over
Under 6 Ft
BridgesTraffic
StructuresAll the Rest
Sound BarriersUnstable Slopes Right of Way Sidewalks ADA Ramps Bike Facilities ITS Material Sources Approaches IlluminationWetland
Mitigation SitesWeigh-in-
Motion SitesStorm Water2010 Bridges
Culverts
Pavements Tunnels Signals Retaining Walls Traffi c Barriers
Vertical Clearance
Signs Traffi c Structures
Program Decisions
Basic Decisions
Tools for Analysis
Tools for Inventory
Optimal Database
Basic Database
Optimal Inventory
Basic Inventory
6 Ft & Over
Under 6 Ft
BridgesTraffic
StructuresAll the Rest
IlluminationWetland
Mitigation SitesWeigh-in-
Motion SitesSound Barriers2005 Sidewalks ADA Ramps Bike Facilities ITS Material Sources ApproachesBridges Signs Traffi c Structures Storm Water Unstable Slopes Right of Way
Culverts Vertical Clearance
Traffi c BarriersRetaining WallsSignalsTunnelsPavements
Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4Note: GREEN is an indication of progress, but not an ability to maintain that progress
Over-Arching Issue
• We’ve “striped all the easy bike lanes”
– Is ODOT serious about maintaining and
continuing progress?
Managing Data as an Asset• Like managing highways
– Support for users• Plan• Maintain and operate• Scope, survey• Standards• Preserve, modernize
Data Alignment and Management Key to Efficiency
• Data, like transportation assets– Can surprise us over and over again with “failures” if not
managed
• Alignment and management of data means significant efficiency gains– Less waste of ODOT resources
• Finding data• Maintaining systems and data
– Significant reductions in untold cost of thousands of Access databases • Staff could do other things by relying on enterprise
data
Impacts from Mismanagement
• Case Study: Approaches– Data Misaligned
• CHAMPS• OPALS• Inventory collected with mobile GPS and mobile
scanner
Impacts from Mismanagement
• Case Study: Approaches, continued– Analysis not informed by reliable data– Decisions not supported by this same data– Trust eroded due to lack of transparency– Early warning signs from legislature – In the end, legislation that dynamically changed ODOT
business• Also derailed other initiatives
Many Other Similar Stories
• Districts “maintaining” ADA data– Too much to reconcile variances so new statewide data
collected (ODOT SOP)• Portland Harbor
– Costly to build dataset, but now costly to repair dataset• DFMS
– Significant systems effort is now a “step-”database in TransInfo
• And so on….25,000+ Access databases are telling us something
Recovery is Costly
• Case Study: Approaches, continued– Begin the laborious process of reconciliation 1000’s
and 1000’s of records– Permit specialists and RAMEs
• CHAMPS, OPALs, GPS inventory
…and this one we can’t start over
Data and Systems Management is Like Land Use Planning
• Efficient maintenance and support• Requires thoughtful new
development
• Inefficient for maintenance and support
• Few constraints on new development
Efficiency Through Knowledge
• Lessons learned from these experiences should be documented in ODOT policy so we avoid repeating the same costly mistakes
Key Challenges – Growing Pains• System needs vs capacities
– Absence of ODOT IS system master plan– Lack of true business readiness– IS resource constraints
• Magnitude and volume of asset data needs• Communication across ODOT• “Squirrel” syndrome
– Pace of external change vs. pace of internal, coupled with organizational challenge of keeping eye “on the ball”
AMI Project List
• Decisions: Waiting for resources• Inventory: Culverts-On track, budget & time• Systems: TransInfo (Signs & Reporting Database)-
Analysis Phase• Tools:
– FACS-STIP-Maintenance and Discovery Mode– 1R Apps-In Process, on track– Toughbooks (Signs)-Completed– Culvert (Advanced App)-Completed– Trimble Yuma (testing)-Not yet started– Mobile scanner pilots-In Process
Lots of Work Left to Do – State of the Assets – a Work in Progress
Capacity Status/Needs Decisions - Programmatic Inventory System Tools Performance Measures Risk Mgmt
Asset Priority Tiers Status Needs Comments Status Needs Comments Estimated Value Status Needs Comments Status Needs Comments Status Needs Comments Managed Needs
Tier 1
Bridges Bridge Program 1R Roadside Inventory
98% Maintain Stable in PONTIS
Maintain Low Risk Few Tools Analysis Bridge PM Comply with MAP-21
Yes
Culverts Developing 1R Roadside
Inventory <50% 98%Gap = High Risk; Current Initiative -
HMT Priority Routes
Stable in DFMS/
TransInfoMaintain
Mobile Data Collection Maintain None Develop Developing
Pavement Pavement Program Sample Only 100% $ 8,030,000,000
Unstable/ unsecure in
Excel/ TransInfo
Stable, Secure System High Risk Few Tools Analysis Pavement PM
Comply with MAP-21 Partially
Tunnels 100% Maintain Stable in OneDOT
Maintain None None Develop Partially
Traffic Signals Insufficient in TSIS
Migrate Laptops None Develop Partially
Tier 2
Retaining Walls None 98% Maintain Initial DB- Access
Migrate None None Develop No
Traffic Barriers$6 Million
Program/ 10 yr Plan
1R Roadside
Inventory 98% Maintain $ 225,000,000 Stable in TransInfo Maintain
Mobile Data Collection Maintain 1R PM
Comply with 1R
requirements Yes
Vertical Clearance None <50% 98% No System
Excel-Bridges only
Create Pilot
Tool for VC measurement of all
assets/ features over the highway
None Develop No
Signs None 1R Roadside
Inventory 98% Maintain Unstable/
unsecure in 63 Access DB
Migrate TransInfo #2Mobile Data Collection Maintain None
Comply with FHWA
requirements Partially
Traffic Structures None <50% 98% No Single
System - parts in several
Create Pilot
Tool for VC measurement of all
assets/ features over the highway
None Develop No
Storm water None <50% 98% N/A Partial in TransInfo
Expand None None Develop Initial Effort
Unstable Slopes None <50% 98% N/A Access Migrate None None Develop Partially
Right of Way None 100% Maintain New System: RITS - Beg to
End ProcessesMaintain None None Develop Yes
Sidewalks Multiple Programs
1R Roadside Inventory
98% Maintain Stable in TransInfo
Maintain Mobile Data Collection
Maintain Bike/Ped PM Partially
ADA Ramps $1 Million Program
1R Roadside Inventory
98% Maintain Stable in TransInfo
Maintain Mobile Data Collection
Maintain Draft PM Partially
Bike Facilities Bike Program 1R Roadside Inventory
98% Maintain Stable in TransInfo
Maintain Mobile Data Collection
Maintain Bike/Ped PM Partially
Tier 3
ITS ITS Program 100% Maintain Stable in MicroMain
Maintain None Field Data Collection
None Develop Yes
Material Sources >50% 98% Stable in ASIS Maintain Mobile Data Collection
Maintain None Develop Partially
Approaches Access Mgmt OPAL 98% Maintain N/A Unstable in old
system: CHAMPS
Replace Mobile Data Collection Maintain None Develop No
Illumination None 0% 98% None - Paper Files
Create None Field Data Collection
None Develop No
Tier 4
Wetland Mitigation Sites 98% Maintain Mobile Data Collection
Maintain Draft PM Partially
Weigh-in-Motion Sites 100% Maintain Temporary
System: Excel Migrate NoneField Data Collection Draft PM Partially
Sound Barriers 98% Maintain Temporary System: Access
Migrate None Field Data Collection
None Develop No
DRAFT
Priorities
In general:• MAP-21• Intermodal Oregon
– MAP-21 requirements for transit fleet– Other asset work
• Pop-up Park & Rides, for example• Program governance structure• FACS-STIP Tool
Priorities, continued
Related to goals:• Decisions
– Asset Summary Reporting– Corridor-based processes
• Inventory– Culvert Initiative– Traffic structures/vertical clearance– Pavement business process analysis
Priorities, continued
Related to goals, continued:• Systems
– TransInfo• Reporting Database• Signs• Position it to be asset database
– Traffic Structures?
– CHAMPS• Tools
– Data collection applications (1R) – R & D for best ODOT enterprise options– Standards for data management
Key Factors for Success
• Continued strong emphasis on coordination• Strong, steadfast executive sponsorship• Continued movement of ODOT culture
– Built on foundation and principles of Asset Management
– Enterprise data– Alignment and education of data management and
governance best practices• Transparent and inclusive communications
MAP-21 Considerations
• ODOT must have a plan– Rules in 2014– Requirements in 2015– ODOT has been participating as observer state
• FHWA Pilot involving three states – Development of Asset Management Plan
» State of the Assets
Continued collective efforts potentially position ODOT to be proactive as well as comply with
MAP-21 requirements, but this could change with MAP-21 requirements
Key Program Risks
• No succession planning• Resource constraints
– But “they” will do something if we don’t respond• Contentious and competing business drivers
– Drive to “engineer” vs. resources• AMI influencing with limited authority
– Previous restructuring diluted perceptions of Asset Management and effectiveness of AMI
– Voids in decision processes – who decides?
In Conclusion
• Significant benefits – efficiency and effectiveness - to continued AM efforts
• Asset management and monitoring more critical when funding limited– Sustained and appropriately augmented efforts
• Bumps, challenges and inefficiencies can be mitigated by additional program structure– Build on existing based on lessons learned
• Must chart our course in preparation for next budget cycle