TAM ETG Webinar SeriesWebinar 2: TAM 101 for MPOs

Sponsored by the TAM Expert Task GroupChris Evilla, TAM ETG Member

Submit questions and comments using the webinar’s Q&A feature

Webinar 2 — May 13 2015

Welcome

2

• The TAM ETG is pleased to sponsor this webinar on Target Setting in Asset Management Plans

• Since 2012, FHWA and AASHTO have been hosting these types of webinars to provide an opportunity to connect with the asset management community and to bring people together around a series of important topics

• Sharing knowledge is a critical component of advancing asset management practice

• All of the webinars in the series can be accessed online at:http://tam.transportation.org/Pages/Webinars.aspx

Agenda

• MAP-21 Performance Management Requirements: What it means for MPOsFrancine Shaw-Whitson, FHWASpencer Stevens, FHWA

• Puget Sound Regional CouncilBenjamin Brackett

• North Central Texas Council of GovernmentsJeffrey Neal

• Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating AgencyKathy Sarli

• Question and AnswerChris Evilla, Moderator

3

TAM ETGOverview

• Established to serve as a forum to discuss changes in the way highway agencies are managing assets

• Activities include:– Identifying strategies for advancing asset management practice and influencing

change within state DOTs/MPOs– Providing input to FHWA, AASHTO, and TRB– Developing and implementing a plan for communicating the work of the TAM ETG

to the transportation community.

• Meetings– In-Person Meetings are open to the public

• October 2016, St. Paul MN• http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/etg/

• Membership– Public sector representing federal, state and local agencies

4

TAM ETGMembership

• Members– Tim Henkel (Chair), Minnesota DOT– Brad Allen, New York State DOT– Jennifer Brandenburg, North Carolina

DOT– Chris Champion, IPWEA (International)– Chris Evilla, Waco MPO– Moh Lali, Alberta, Canada

(International)– Laura Mester, Michigan DOT– Randy Park, Utah DOT– Omar Smadi, Iowa State University

(Research)

• Liaisons– Steve Gaj, FHWA Office of Infrastructure– DeLania Hardy, AMPO– Matt Hardy, AASHTO– Tom Palmerlee, TRB– Neil Pedersen, TRB– Nastaran Saadatmand, FHWA Office of

Infrastructure– Francine Shaw-Whitson, FHWA Office of

Transportation Performance Management– Egan Smith, FHWA Office of Planning

5

TAM ETGWebinars Overview

1. March 11: Target Setting and TAMPs2. May 13: TAM 101 for MPOs3. July 8: Network Life Cycle Cost Analysis Part 14. September 9: Network Life Cycle Cost Analysis Part 25. November 11: Optimization and Cross-Asset Allocation6. January 13, 2016: Integrating TAM into Agency Processes

6

FHWA

7

TitleSubtitle

MeetingDate

Office of Transportation Performance Management

MAP-21 Performance Management Requirements

What it means for MPOsMay 13, 2015

Francine Shaw Whitson and Spencer StevensFederal Highway Administration

Transportation Performance Management

9

Performance Areas NPRM Comments

DueAnticipated Final Rule

Safety Performance Measures March 11, 2014 Closed June 30,

2014 September 2015

Highway Safety Improvement Program March 28, 2014 Closed June 30,

2014 August 2015

Statewide and Metro Planning; Non-Metro Planning

June 2, 2014 Closed October 2, 2014

September 2015

Pavement and Bridge Performance Measures

January 5, 2015 Closed May 8, 2015 n/a

Highway Asset Management Plan

February 20, 2015

Open until May 29 2015 n/a

System PerformanceMeasures

ProjectedAugust 2015 90 days n/a

Transportation Performance Management

Relationship between Planning & Performance Management Rules MAP-21 requires a transition to performance

driven, outcome-based approaches for the federal highway programs. (23USC 150)

The proposed Planning Rule provides for the implementation of performance management within the planning process.

The proposed performance measure rules generally provide the required performance measures and the process for States and MPOs to set targets and report performance.

Transportation Performance Management

Planning Rule– Increase transparency and accountability– Performance-based approach – Linking investment decisionmaking– Emphasizes the nonmetropolitan transportation

planning process• Higher level of involvement with nonmetropolitan local

officials • Creation of RTPOs

11

Transportation Performance Management

Proposed Performance Management Measures

Safety (4)– Number of fatalities – Rate of fatalities– Number of serious injuries– Rate of serious injuries

Pavement/Bridge Performance (6)– Pavement Condition - Percentage of pavements on the:

• Interstate System in Good condition• Interstate System in Poor condition• Non-Interstate NHS in Good condition• Non-Interstate NHS in Poor condition.

– Bridge Condition– Percentage of NHS Bridges: • Classified as in Good condition • Classified as in Poor condition.

Transportation Performance Management

Performance Management Measures

3rd NPRM will cover measures to assess:– Performance of the Interstate System.– Performance of the non-Interstate National

Highway System (NHS).– National freight movement on the Interstate

System.– Traffic congestion.– On-road mobile source emissions.

Transportation Performance Management

• States & MPOs would work together• States & MPOs would use existing 3-C process• States & MPOs would decide what works for

them

14

Coordination Efforts

Transportation Performance Management

States Target Establishment – FHWA’s proposals• Establish targets not later than 1 year after the effective date

of rule establishing measures (23 USC 150(d))– Statewide targets would be required.– States would have the option to set any number of

additional targets for urbanized areas and non-urbanized areas.

– State DOTs shall coordinate with relevant MPOs on the selection of targets to ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable (23 U.S.C. 134(h)(2)(D)).

15

Transportation Performance Management

MPOs Target Establishment – FHWA’s proposals• Establish targets no later than 180 days after the respective State DOT(s)

establishes their targets (23 USC 134(h)(2)(C))– Targets would be established for MPA area – Propose only 4-year targets– Coordinate with relevant State DOT(s) on the selection of targets to

ensure consistency, to the maximum extent practicable (23 USC 134(h)(2)(B))

• Proposed 2 Target establishment options – agree to plan a program of projects so that they contribute to the

adjusted State DOT target; or– commit to a new quantifiable target for the metropolitan planning

area.

16

Transportation Performance Management

Integration Opportunity in the Planning Process

Transportation Performance Management

State Reporting Requirements and Proposals

Report on Performance Progress (23 USC 150(e))– Required initially by October 1, 2016– Report includes:

• Condition and performance of NHS• Effectiveness of investment strategy in State asset

management plan for the NHS• Progress in achieving State performance targets• Ways in which congestion at freight bottlenecks, including

those in National Freight Plan, are being addressed

– Every two years after that

18

Transportation Performance Management

MPO Reporting Requirements and Proposals

MPO would report established targets to State Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Long Range

Transportation Plan to include: (23 USC 134(i)(2))– Performance targets, – System Performance Report

• baseline condition/performance• progress toward the achievement of their targets

Transportation Improvement Program– To the maximum extent practicable, describe the

anticipated effects of investment priorities in achieving the targets and link investment priorities to performance targets (23 USC 134(j)(2)(D))

19

Transportation Performance Management

MPO Targets and Reporting – Additional Information

• 23 USC 150(e) requires State reporting on progress in achieving State established targets.

• Additional guidance:– Achieving targets should be a collaborative

process.– MPOs would report progress to State as agreed

upon– MPOs should coordinate with State on what

achievement means and how it is measured.

20

Transportation Performance Management

USDOT Reporting Requirements (23 USC 134(l) & 135(h)(2))Reports on Performance-based Planning Process

– Submit to Congress within 5 years after date of enactment of MAP-21.

– FHWA to evaluate several items, including:• Effectiveness of the performance-based planning

process in each State and MPO• Overall effectiveness of performance-based planning as

a tool to guide transportation investments

21

Transportation Performance Management

Proposed Reporting Periods & Reporting

Transportation Performance Management

Reviewing and Commenting on NPRM

www.regulations.gov23

Transportation Performance Management

Upcoming Exchanges/Webinars

Let’s Talk Performance • Fundamentals of Transportation Data

Part 2: Data Analysis and Usability–6/9/15, 2:00-3:30 (EDT)

• Telling the Performance Story–9/8/15, 2:00-3:30 (EDT)

• Register at www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm

24

Transportation Performance Management

25

Francine Shaw WhitsonLeader, TPM Programs

FHWA, Office of Transportation Performance

Managementfrancine.shaw@dot.gov

Spencer StevensTransportation PlannerFHWA, Office of PlanningSpencer.Stevens@dot.gov

PSRC

26

Asset Management 101 for MPOs

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

May 13, 201

28

Presentation OverviewRegional Asset Management Planning

• PSRC, MAP-21 & Asset Management

• Asset Management Program Scoping Project

• Peer MPO Asset Management Program Overview

• Next Steps

29

PSRC and Asset ManagementRegional Asset Management Program Peer Review

• Transportation 2040 (2010) • Pavement preservation

• 2014 T2040 Update• Pavement preservation• Stormwater• Local operations/ITS• Transit service costs

• Federal Funding• $45m in 2012 • $65m in 2014

30

MAP-21 and Asset ManagementRegional Asset Management Program Peer Review

• Performance-based planning• Pavement & bridge condition measures• Establishing condition targets• Monitoring & progress assessment• Reporting

• Enhanced National Highway System

• Transit asset management

31

Regional Asset Management Planning

MAP-21 Implications for MPOs• Develop performance measures for bridges and

pavements (in progress)

• Incorporate pavement and bridge condition performance targets into planning process

• Understand how level of investment in long-range plan impacts future pavement and bridge conditions

• Data collection (direct or indirect)

• Tracking of current conditions in relation to targets

• Integration of transit asset management plans with long-range planning process

32

Asset Mgmt. Program Scoping Project

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

• Funded by FHWA INVEST grant

• Scope a “value added” regional asset management program• What do other agencies do?• Establish regional goals• How can we partner with local agencies in

support of a regional program?• What tools do we need to carry out vision?

• Support development of the 2018 regional transportation plan

33

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

Peer RegionsMetropolitan

Transportation Commission,

San Francisco, CA

Regional Transportati

on Commission, Reno, NV

Grand Valley Metropolitan

Council, Grand

Rapids, MISEMCOG, the

Southeast Michigan Council of Governments,

Detroit, MI

34

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

Common Features• Links to regional goals• Stakeholder buy-in• Focus on pavements & condition

standards• Consistent and comprehensive data

gathering• Inventory & analysis software used by

partner agencies• Minimum lifecycle cost & scenario

analyses• Allocation of funding based on roadway

diti

35

Unique Aspects – General• Integration of goals with other efforts –

“complete streets”, bus routes etc.• Requirements for local participation -

Federal funding• Oversight • Sources of funding (local, state, Federal)• Scope of program (Federal-Aid, local)• Data collection methods – direct or

incentivized • Software

36

Unique Aspects – Funding

Formula allocation

(less control)

Direct projectselection

(more control)

37

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

Key Findings & Takeaways• Value proposition and stakeholder

support• Program vision and goals• Consistent and comprehensive data is

a critical foundation• Dedicated program funding• Compatible data systems is imperative• Avoid “worst first” funding allocation• Unique program models fill different

roles within a region

38

Regional Asset Management Program Peer Review

Top 3 Tips

1. Start simple with capacity to grow (both breadth and depth)

2. Maintain a consistent data structure and system

3. Develop dedicated revenue sources through a systematic process

39

Next Steps

• Final MAP-21 rule expected in Fall 2015

• Build off MAP-21 requirements to establish regional goals for program

• Continue to build stakeholder support • Identify local capabilities to support

regional program• Identify software and data tools• Broadly define program

40

Information and Contacts

PSRC State of Good Repair Webpagehttp://www.psrc.org/transportation/sgr/

Benjamin BrackettSenior Planner(206) 971-3280bbrackett@psrc.org

Robin Mayhew, AICPProgram Manager(206) 464-7537rmayhew@psrc.org

NCTCOG

41

Climate Change/Extreme WeatherInfrastructure Vulnerability Assessment:

Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)Pilot Study for the Dallas-Fort Worth Region

May 13, 2015 Transportation Asset Management ETG Webinar #2“Asset Management for MPO’s”

43

Population and employment in the Dallas-Fort Worth region expected to grow by nearly 50% between now and 2035

Vehicle miles of travel and annual cost of congestion projected to increase at greater rates

Mobility 2035 – 2014 Amendment identifies just 1/4th funding necessary to eliminate the worst congestion by 2035

Existing system burdens remain: Increasing age and wear Damage from accidents Impacts to reliability/level of service Redevelopment and access needs Changes in environmental conditions

NCTCOG Vulnerability Assessment Pilot StudyProject Background – “The Big Picture”

44

NCTCOG Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Study (cont.)Climate/Weather Challenges to Mobility and Functionality

Palo Pinto County

Frisco

Fort Worth Euless

45

NCTCOG Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Study (cont.)Project Overview

Conduct multi-modal risk analysis for critical transportation facilities based on FHWA Vulnerability Assessment Framework

Geographic Area: Dallas & Tarrant Counties

Climate Stressors Periods of extreme heat Drought conditions Heavy rain/flooding events

Identify uses/benefits for risk incorporation into data collection & the traditional planning process

46

NCTCOG Vulnerability Assessment Pilot Study (cont.)Project Partners and Roles

City of Dallas (Streets & Emergency Management Departments) Provide jurisdictional performance data and reference historical

weather-related reports at vulnerable roadway locations

Fort Worth Transportation Authority Provide transit service maintenance data/reports

University of Texas at Arlington (College of Geosciences) Retrieve/analyze regional climate data Examine regional heat island intensity and effects

Texas Department of Transportation Identify/define potential exposure thresholds and ranges of

facility effects

Continuous Agency Involvem

ent

47

Notable Project FindingsClimate Change/Extreme Weather is a Current Problem

Eight of the DFW top-ten warmest years have occurred after 1998 #1 – 2006; #2 – 2012; #3 – 2008/2011 Summer 2011:

71 days = High temperatures > 100 degrees 55 days = Low temperatures > 80 degrees

2014 Precipitation Total = 21.32 inches Lowest annual total since 2005 12th lowest annual total over 115 years

Since 2010, period-to-date rainfall deficits exceed 40 inches at many sites

Reservoir storage at 60% capacity with record-low levels at multiple lakes Rowlett

48

Notable Project Findings (cont.)Intensity of Urban Heat Island Effects

Recent studies indicate correlation between urban heat island intensity and drought severity

Local zones/areas of influence based on wind patterns and sprawl features

Summer 2011: Maximum temperature variations

exceeded ten degrees at times Strong differences in effects to

precipitation events and drainage characteristics

Cumulative effect to diminish soil moisture across DFW region July 2011 – 9:00pm July 2011 – 3:00am

Winguth and Clark, 2013

49

Notable Project Findings (cont.)Future Projections Indicate Significant Climate Change

“Business-as-Usual” emissions scenario translates to substantial temperature rises and soil moisture reduction in DFW region: Mean temperature increases of eight degrees

(extremes > thirteen degrees) by century end Lower annual rainfall but punctuated by more

single-storm events of greater intensity

Winguth and Kelp, 2014

Increased transportation impacts: Pavement rutting/cracking and

joint failures Stresses on bridges/culverts Reduced mobility and access Enhanced financial constraints

50

Notable Project Findings (cont.)Critical Roadway Segments in the 100-Year Floodplain

Tarrant County Dallas County

Many critical roadway segments cross the 100-year floodplain and/or exist in flood-prone areas

Additional information needed (surface elevation, engineering/ design details, etc.) to determine overall vulnerability

51

Notable Project Findings (cont.)Critical Roadways Vulnerable to Heat Risks

2050 Average Temperature 2100 Average Temperature

Significant mean temperature increases suggest greater extreme temperatures that will impact pavement degradation

Enhanced heat island will amplify moisture losses which can affect stabilization/shifting of soils

52

Lessons LearnedData Retrieval/Availability vs. Application/Purpose

Local governments collect numerous forms of asset data Data can address specific questions, but not all vital questions

53

Lesson Learned (cont.)Criticality and Scope Limitations

Parameters for criticality measures limited study scope to major transportation assets: Limited-access roadway facilities Select primary thoroughfares Rail lines (transit and freight)

Regional size and system complexity presented challenges: Twelve-county metropolitan planning

area (2nd largest in the nation) More than 230 local government units Multiple transportation providers Differences in asset record-keeping

Dallas

Carrollton

54

Lesson Learned (cont.)More Engineering Applications for Vulnerability Measures

Various applications available to address high-plasticity soils and other risks Regional frequency of use, impacts, and budget effects not readily apparent

55

Next StepsInform, Discuss, and Involve

Seek discussion opportunities with partner agency policy committees

Follow-up actions from Building Extreme Weather Resiliency for Transportation Infrastructure Symposium (Dec. 18th – Austin, TX)

Study presented at the Climate Resiliency & Adaptation Symposium (Feb. 6th – Arlington, TX)

Texas Application for the National Disaster Resiliency Competition

Faculty assistance in Earth to Sky Partnership education activities

56

Next Steps (cont.)Integration Into Transportation Planning and Practice

Vulnerability Assessment process to be incorporated into ongoing Asset Management Pilot Studies

Through INVEST, evaluation of locally-relevant resiliency strategies will be performed

Merging of MAP-21 guidance for performance measures

Regional planning context can present competing challenges: Continued strong growth Funding priorities and shortfalls Air quality non-attainment

57

Future Needs/ActionsAddressing Cumulative Challenges to Transportation

Configure asset databases to show direct influence of climate change/extreme weather on performance measures

Create improved modeling to simulate hydrologic effects to transportation outside of typical floodplain areas

Identify future opportunities to conduct a similar assessment for the remainder of the 12-county Metropolitan Planning Area

Develop provider partnerships to update design methods and maintenance practices with improved focus on infrastructure resiliency (Centers of Development Excellence – UT Arlington)

Identify and/or improve best practices/measures in the monitoring and evaluation of vulnerability factors

Investigate climate change and weather-related impacts among various transportation system investment strategies

NCTCOG Contact Information:

Jeffrey C. NealProgram Manager

(817) 608-2345jneal@nctcog.org

May 13, 2015 Transportation Asset Management ETG Webinar #2“Asset Management for MPO’s”

Northeast Ohio AreawideCoordinating Agency

59

TAM ETG Webinar #2; Transportation Asset Management 101 for MPOsMay 13, 2015

What is NOACA … and what does it do?

NOACA is the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for northeast Ohio Conducts multi-modal transportation & environmental

planning for a five-county region Determines how federal transportation dollars are spent Conducts transportation-related air quality planning and

public education activities

Functions as the “areawide” water quality planning agency for the region

Partners Local Government

Elected Officials Project Sponsors

Municipal Planning

Municipal Public Works

County Engineers

County Planning Commissions

Transit Agencies

State Government OEPA ODOT Delegation to the

Ohio General Assembly

Federal Government FHWA FTA U.S. EPA Congressional

Delegation

Business Community Non-profits Neighboring MPOs BUGC CDCs

Federal Requirements: Transportation 3C planning processComprehensive, cooperative & continuing process for

transportation Air quality (Transportation-related) Major planning effortsLong-range transportation plan (LRTP)Transportation Improvement Program (TIP)Overall Work Program (OWP)

Public involvement Project programming & funds management

Board Composition 45- Member Board Principal membersCuyahoga CountyGeauga CountyLake CountyLorain CountyMedina County

Cities, Villages and Townships Regional Governmental Authorities and Districts Ohio EPA (non-voting)

Vision Statement NOACA will STRENGTHEN regional cohesion,

PRESERVE existing infrastructure, and BUILD a sustainable multi-modal transportation system to SUPPORT economic development and ENHANCE quality of life in Northeast Ohio

Why do we need Transportation Asset Management? Valuable assets are not

receiving the attention or funding needed to achieve a state of good repair.

Allocates funding where it will provide the greatest return.

Improves performance, cost-effectiveness, communication, accountability and credibility.

The NOACA Region Counties - 5 Cities, Villages and Townships - 166 Population – 2.1 Million Ohio Department of Transportation Districts - 2 Transit Agencies - 6

Current Assets 670,795,906 sq.ft., of

federal aid roadways 1,755 lane miles of

freeways 5,547 lane miles of urban

roads 1,381 lane miles of rural

roads 55 miles of bike lanes 260 miles of shared use

paths 3,053 bridges

Current Condition of Assets 33% of pavements are not in a

state of good repair

Estimated cost to bring pavements into a state of good repair approximately $1.0 B

11% of bridges are not in a state of good repair

Estimated cost to bring bridges into a state of good repair is $96M annually

The Cost of Doing Nothing

SFY Future Value/Buying PowerCompound Inflation Rate

* PCR Degradation Cost of Waiting2015 $20,000,000.002016 $19,380,000.00 3.1% -3 $620,000.002017 $18,620,000.00 6.9% -6 $1,380,000.002018 $17,880,000.00 10.6% -9 $2,120,000.002019 $17,100,000.00 14.5% -12 $2,900,000.002020 $16,300,000.00 18.5% -15 $3,700,000.002021 $15,480,000.00 22.6% -18 $4,520,000.002022 $14,620,000.00 26.9% -21 $5,380,000.002023 $13,720,000.00 31.4% -24 $6,280,000.002024 $12,800,000.00 36.0% -27 $7,200,000.002025 $11,900,000.00 40.5% -30 $8,100,000.002026 $11,000,000.00 45.0% -33 $9,000,000.00

* From ODOT's Business PlanInflation Calculator; rate is

based on the first day of each fiscal year (July 1).

Decision With a surface transportation program (STP) annual

allocation of only $27.5 M, NOACA needed a strategic framework for making cost effective decisions about allocating resources and managing infrastructure

TAMP Development NOACA is committed to developing a comprehensive

transportation asset management program to improve and sustain the condition of the highway infrastructure toward a state of good repair.

While the TAMP is under development, NOACA has developed a Provisional Transportation Asset Management Program to address the regions critical pavement needs

Not only will this policy allow the region’s roads to be maintained in a state of good repair, it will also furnish critical information and experience that can be used in developing the long term policy

What is the Provisional Transportation Asset Management Policy?

Eligibility: Every community in

NOACA’s five County region that maintains local federal aid roadways.

Plan elements directly related to pavement resurfacing are eligible for funding through this policy.

What is the Provisional Transportation Asset Management Policy? Project Selection:

NOACA’s Regional Pavement Management System (RPMS) was used to prioritize projects based on a benefit analysis using pavement condition rating (PCR), average daily traffic (ADT), functional classification of the roadways and connectivity value

ODOT maintained routes were not included Only roadways with a PCR less than 75 were considered NOACA partnered with the affected communities to establish a

final project list Selected projects are following the normal NOACA process

What is the Provisional Transportation Asset Management Policy? Funding:

Not to exceed $40 m over a two year period Restructuring or reorganizing the Transportation

Improvement Program (TIP) (rightsizing) Resulted in fully funding the FY 2015 projects, totaling over

$12.5 m Although insufficient to fully fund the FY 2016 projects, the

remaining balance is adequate for debt service.

What is the Provisional Transportation Asset Management Policy? Sponsor Responsibilities:

Preliminary development and detailed design phase activities

Development of the Plans, Specifications and Estimate (PS&E) package

20% local funding match requirement for construction and construction engineering related activities.

Projects are expected to move to construction prior to the close of SFY 2016 or will not be eligible for this funding

Development of a Comprehensive, Long Term TAMP RFP Released April 2014 Project divided into two parts

Part I: lays the foundation by completing an accurate Asset Inventory and Condition Assessment and recommending a Pavement Management System

Part II: focuses on the development of the overall TAMP and explores the strategic efforts necessary to ensure its adoption and implementation

Development of a Comprehensive, Long Term TAMP Key Principles:

Strategic & proactive in approach Places a premium on data, information and collaboration A long term and comprehensive view of infrastructure

performance and cost An explicit, visible, and transparent approach requiring

effective communication among all stakeholders Investment choices that are policy driven with trade-offs

among competing priorities

Development of a Comprehensive, Long Term TAMP Transportation Asset Management Steering

Committee formed Engineers and Planners from City and County

Government, ODOT and FHWA Consultant selection Guide the development of the TAMP Provide expertise

Development of a Comprehensive, Long Term TAMP Cambridge Systematics selected and approved by

the Board of Directors July 2014 Project Team:

Cambridge Systematics, Inc. (CS): Samuel Van Hecke – Project Manager Joseph Guerre, P.E. – Principal-in-Charge Jason Bittner, MPA – Deputy Project Manager Hugh Louch Erik Cempel, AICP Erika Witzke, P.E. David Baumgartner, EIT Jason Hyde

Applied Pavement Technology, Inc.: Mark P. Gardner, P.E. Kathryn A. Zimmerman, P.E. Prashant V. Ram, EIT

Deighton Associates Ltd.: Robert Piane, P. Eng. Daniel Roberts, P.E. Jeff Zavitski

Development of a Comprehensive, Long Term TAMP Applied for Accelerated

Innovation Deployment (AID) Demonstration Grant July 2014

U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx awarded the Ohio Department of Transportation (ODOT) and Northeast Ohio Areawide Coordinating Agency (NOACA) $600,000 to develop a comprehensive Transportation Asset Management Program in December 2014

TAMP Progress Status Project Management Plan complete Asset Management Self-Assessment complete Draft Asset Register and Condition Assessment

Submitted Gap Analysis Workshop complete Continue to investigate Pavement Management Systems

Challenges Diverse region

Urban Suburban Rural

Funding Pavement Management Software

Successes Partnering with ODOT and FHWA Receiving the AID grant Head start on MAP-21 performance planning

requirements Board of Directors’ commitment to preserving

existing infrastructure

NOACA will STRENGTHEN regional cohesion, PRESERVE existing infrastructure, and BUILD a sustainable multimodal transportation system to SUPPORT economic development and ENHANCE quality of life in Northeast Ohio.

Questions?

• Submit your questions using the webinar’s Q&A feature

86