Making Tradeoffs in Investment Decision-making:

Lessons learned from Oregon DOT TAMP Development

Sam Haffner, ODOT TAMP Coordinator2018 TAM Peer Exchange, San Diego, CA

July 15, 2018

Alternate title:

2

Making tradeoffs in Investment Decision-making:

Lessons learned from ODOT TAMP Development

Tradeoffs between work

types

(preservation $ vs. maintenance $)

Tradeoffs between projects

($ for bridge A vs. $ for bridge B)

Tradeoffs between assets

($ for bridge vs. $ for pavement vs. $ for other assets)

3

Investment Tradeoffs

Tradeoffs between work

types

(preservation $ vs. maintenance $)

Tradeoffs between projects

($ for bridge A vs. $ for bridge B)

Tradeoffs between assets

($ for bridge vs. $ for pavement vs. $ for other assets)

4

Investment Tradeoffs

ODOT is confident in its use of data collection and management systems to optimize tradeoffs within individual major asset categories

Single asset

Tradeoffs between work

types

(preservation $ vs. maintenance $)

Tradeoffs between projects

($ for bridge A vs. $ for bridge B)

Tradeoffs between assets

($ for bridge vs. $ for pavement vs. $ for other assets)

5

Investment Tradeoffs

Oregon’s TAMP drew attention to the need for asset management that supports data-informed cross-asset decision-making…

Multi-asset

Tradeoffs between work

types

(preservation $ vs. maintenance $)

Tradeoffs between projects

($ for bridge A vs. $ for bridge B)

Tradeoffs between assets

($ for bridge vs. $ for pavement vs. $ for other assets)

6

Investment Tradeoffs

Tradeoff decisions between assets are less data-driven and rely on expertise and professional judgement

Multi-asset

Pavement Investment TradeoffsPart I

7

Friction

Contractor Images & Ratings

Good Fair

PoorVery Poor

Windshield Surveys

Smoothness & Rut Depth

Pavement Investment TradeoffsCondition Assessment/Data Sources

9

Pavement Investment TradeoffsState Performance Measures

Route StrategyLevel of Importance

1. Interstate*2. Fix-it Priority Corridors*3. Other State Level NHS Routes4. State Highway (non-NHS)

*Fix-it Priority Corridors are all part of the NHS and SHSNote: figure not to scale

Interstate System

(IS)

State Highway SystemODOT

Fix-it Priority

Corridors*

Local (non-state)System

city, county, other agency

National Highway System

(NHS)

Local NHS

Pavement Investment TradeoffsHighway System Priority

1. Conditions forecast by Region

2. Compare forecast to target (by Hwy. class)

3. Determine $ needs in each Region to reach target

4. Allocate funding proportional to need

Pavement Investment TradeoffsRegional Allocation

Bridge Investment TradeoffsPart II

12

Bridge Investment TradeoffsCondition Assessment/Data Sources

Bridge Program

initial Needs List creation

BrM DatabaseNBI condition, paint,

scour, restricted bridges, vertical clearance, etc.

MaintenanceRegion Bridge Crews and MBM Engineer

provides input

InspectorsBridge inspectors

provide input on bridge conditions

PreservationBridge Preservation

Engineer provides list of painting and CP

needs

14

Bridge Investment TradeoffsState Performance Measures

ODOT Categories of Distressed Bridges

Structurally Deficient (FHWA)

Condition:Deteriorated condition of deck, substructure, or superstructure

Other Deficiencies (ODOT)

Freight Mobility:Load capacity,

vertical clearance

Bridge safety:Scour and rail deficiencies

Serviceability:Painting, cathodict protection, movable

bridge repairs, low service life

Route StrategyLevel of Importance

1. Interstate*2. Fix-it Priority Corridors*3. Other State Level NHS Routes4. State Highway (non-NHS)

*Fix-it Priority Corridors are all part of the NHS and SHSNote: figure not to scale

Interstate System

(IS)

State Highway SystemODOT

Fix-it Priority

Corridors*

Local (non-state)System

city, county, other agency

National Highway System

(NHS)

Local NHS

Bridge Investment TradeoffsHighway System Priority

Bridge Investment TradeoffsAdditional prioritization factors

State Bridge Program Priorities• Protection of high value coastal,

historic and major river and border crossings

• Replacement of bridges beyond point of cost effective preservation

• Address safety issues

• Projects that extend the service life of deck and other structural components.

• Critical maintenance activities beyond funding capabilities of the Major Bridge Maintenance Program

Regional Priorities• Maintenance Impacts

• Community Impacts (economics, travel time, freight & modal impacts, etc.)

• Safety Impact

• Detour or alternative route availability

• Project Delivery Staffing implications

• Community and political priorities

Cross-Asset Investment Tradeoffs: Governance

Part III

17

18

Oregon Transportation

Plan

Transportation Commission, KPMs

State Legislature

TAMP Investment Strategies

Cross-asset investment decisions

Subject matter expertsprofessional judgement

Pavement and bridge management systemsdata analysis

Policy guidance

Technical guidance

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsGovernance Framework

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsLessons learned through TAMP Development

We have iterative approach with

input from a large number of SME’s, regions,

etc. but…

Need for clear communication

on the governance of

investment decisions

Concern that over-reliance on

data tools for decision-making

could create “black-box”

19

Cross-Asset Investment Tradeoffs: Improvement Efforts

Part IV

20

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsMoving toward a priority-corridor approach

21*Fix-it Priority Corridors are all part of the NHS and SHS

Note: figure not to scale

Interstate System

(IS)

State Highway SystemODOT

Fix-it Priority Corridors*

Local (non-state)System

city, county, other agency

National Highway System

(NHS)

Local NHS

Revenue

Bridge Program

Corridor A

Corridor B

Pavement Program

Corridor A

Corridor B

Other Assets

Corridor A

Corridor B

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsMoving toward a priority-corridor approach

22

Revenue

Corridor A

Pavement Needs

Bridge Needs

Other Asset Needs

Corridor B

Pavement Needs

Bridge Needs

Other Asset Needs

Old approach: Moving toward new approach:

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsBridge/Pavement Split (18-21 STIP)

Pilot effort to integrate pavement and bridge project selection for STIP

Corridor prioritization approach

Beyond asset condition: risk factors, lifecycle cost, etc.

23

24

Criteria for Pavement and Bridge Projects (scored 1-5) Scoring

1. Highway Classification (Interstate, Priority Corridor, NHS, Regional) 1 2 3 4 5

2. Average Daily Traffic (ADT) 1 2 3 4 5

3. Average Daily Truck Traffic (ADTT) 1 2 3 4 5

4. Unit cost of projects and years of service provided (using BPI for bridge and cost per lane mile per year for pavement)

1 2 3 4 5

5. Opportunity Costs (based on maintenance cost risk factors and delayed preservation risk factors)

1 2 3 4 5

6. Bridge and Pavement Program-specific priorities (multiple factors incl. PM impact, safety needs, impact on maintenance cost, etc.)

1 2 3 4 5

7. Regional Priorities (multiple factors incl. community considerations, safety impact, economic impact)

1 2 3 4 5

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsBridge/Pavement Split (18-21 STIP)

25

Bridge $218m

Major Bridge Maint. $39m

Interstate Maint.

(Pavement)$93m

Regional Pavement

$179m

40 Pavement

Projects

44 Bridge Projects

Regional Pavement Distrib.Region 1Region 2Region 3Region 4Region 5

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsBridge/Pavement Split Results

26

Limited to pavement and

bridge-Other assets need to be

included

Further buy-in from asset managers needed to

formalize and expand process

Ensure process remains

transparent, collaborative, and includes regional input

Issues and lessons learned:

Cross-Asset Investment TradeoffsBridge/Pavement Split (18-21 STIP)

Thank you