Reporting Results and Developing the Plan
BENCHMARK PERFORMANCE GOALS
1. All Minor Arterial Roads will have a benchmark rating of 8 within 2 years.
2. All Major Collector Roads with a rating of 4–5 will be slated for resurfacing within the next 3 years.
3. All Major Collector Roads with a rating of 6–9 will be slated for preventive mainte-nance within 1 year.
4. All Minor Collector roads with a rating of 4–5 will be slated for resurfacing within the next 3 years.
5. All Minor Collector roads with a rating of 6–9 will be slated for preventive mainte-nance within 1 year.
6. All local roads with a rating of 0–3 or less will be slated for resurfacing within the next five years.
7. All local roads with a rating of 6–9 will be slated for preventive maintenance within the next five years.
8. A quarter of the roads with a rating of 5 will be slated for preventive maintenance and selected resurfacing.
70
Reporting Results and Developing the PlanD E V E L O P I N G A B R I D G E A S S E T M A N A G E M E N T P L A N
The minimum requirements for the bridge asset man-agement plan are presented in Appendix C, along with an example of the format that may be used for present-ing the information. The biggest difference between the development of the bridge asset management plan and the pavement asset management plan is that the inventory and condition information that is included in the plan comes from the INDOT bridge database. INDOT also provides guidance to local agencies in develop-ing work plans in a document, Asset Management for Local Public Agency Bridges, published by the INDOT Local Public Agency Program in April 2016.
In 2017, a new template for the Bridge Asset Management Plan was developed. It is described in Appendix C.
E X A M P L E S F R O M L O C A L A G E N C Y B R I D G E A S S E T M A N A G E M E N T P L A N S
The information extracted from the INDOT database is used to produce the summary of bridge inventory, condition assessment results, and treatment needs.
Several examples of different formats that are used for presenting the information, from local agencies in Indiana, are provided below. The first example provid-ed in figure 7-11 is from Henry County.
Fulton County produces a report that uses col-or coding to provide a visual representation of bridge conditions in addition to the NBI ratings. The example provided in figure 7-12 is an extract from the full table that is provided in the Plan. It was modified to better fit within the pages of this document. A second exam-ple from Fulton County, presented as figure 7-13, ex-pands on the information in the first table, showing the sufficiency rating, work needs, and treatment costs for each bridge shown in figure 7-12.
HENRY COUNTY — BRIDGE ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN — 2016
Bridge Number NBI # Deck Rating 058 Superstructure Rating-059 Gen. Paint Condition-59.01 Substructure Rating-060 Channel Rating-061 Culvert Rating-062 Sufficiency Rating Structurally Deficient Functionally Obsolete Work Type Planned Repair Year Estimated Cost
33-00003 3300002 3 4 0 5 5 N 15.0 ≤ Replacement 2017 $1,291,000
33-00004 3300187 N N N N 6 5 59.7 ≤ Replacement 2024 $487,500
33-00005 3300004 7 7 N 7 7 N 95.1
33-00006 3300005 7 7 N 7 8 N 89.0
33-00007 3300006 6 6 N 6 5 N 91.5 Preventive
Maintenance 2021 $7,000 Figure 7-11. A portion of the summary table included in the Henry County Bridge Asset Management Plan.
Figure 7-12. A portion of the NBI condition rating summary from the Fulton County Bridge Asset Management Plan.
72
Reporting Results and Developing the PlanFigure 7-13. Sufficiency ratings and work plan activities included in the Fulton County Bridge Asset Management Plan for the bridges shown in figure 7-12.
A portion of a table showing the planned projects Noble County included in its asset management plan is included as figure 7-14, illustrating both funding sources and planned treatment years.
YEAR 2016 2017 2018
LOCAL PROJECTS
Bridge 82 Bridge 33
Bridge 16 Bridge 16
Bridge 24 Bridge 24
Bridge 6
LOCAL PROJECTS
Bridge 147 Bridge 147 Bridge 147
Bridge 136 Bridge 136 Bridge 136
Bridge 134 Bridge 134 Bridge 134
Bridge 135
Removal Bridge 55 Bridge 55
Bridge 44
Figure 7-14. A portion of the Noble County bridge replacement plan.
The bridge asset management plan template is included in Appendix C.
Funding Application
Design
LEGEND
Utilities Permits
Right of Way
Construction Right of Way and Utilities
Design &
Permits
74
Reporting Results and Developing the PlanO T H E R I N F O R M A T I O N P R E S E N T E D I N A S S E T M A N A G E M E N T P L A N S
In its Pavement Asset Management Plan, Fulton County describes the importance of early and systematic in-terventions to get the most benefit out of investments in the road network. They include figure 7-15 in their plan to illustrate this concept. It shows that a $2 invest-ment in a road still in Good condition will cost $6 to $8 if the work does not get done until the road is in Fair or Poor condition.
T I P S A N D T R I C K S F R O M L O C A L A G E N C Y E X P E R I E N C E S I N I N D I A N A
As a follow-up to the survey of local agencies in Indiana that was conducted during the development of this Guide, several agencies were asked to provide feed-back on the amount of time required to build their
inventory and conduct the PASER surveys, the big-gest challenges they faced in developing their plans, and any benefits they have realized from the process.
These individuals were also asked to describe any les-sons they’ve learned from their experiences that might benefit other local agencies. Their responses to each of the questions are provided below.
Time Required to Build the Inventory and Conduct PASER Ratings
When asked to describe the amount of time required to build the road inventory and conduct PASER ratings, the following comments were offered by local agencies in the state:
• One city was able to use its street centerline maps from its GIS in a tablet interface for collect-ing PASER ratcollect-ings. Their process was considered to be very efficient, with three teams able to col-lect the road ratings for 34 centerline miles over a 4-day period.
Figure 7-15. Fulton County illustration showing the cost-effectiveness of early intervention
• A city with just over 100 miles in its network was able to collect the data at a rate of about 2 to 3 miles per hour in the field.
• One county with approximately 780 centerline miles was able to collect PASER ratings for all roads, except the subdivision roads, in about 2 to 3 weeks. The subdivision roads usually take approximately 2 more weeks to complete. All of the data is loaded into a spreadsheet in one morning and it takes about one day to put to-gether the priorities.
Biggest Challenges in Developing Pavement and Bridge Asset Management Plans
Asset management relies on good, quality data for managing the pavement and bridge networks. For many agencies, this represents a change in the way work plans had been developed in the past. Several local agencies were asked to identify the challenges they realized in developing their plans. Their responses identified the challenges listed below.
• Coordinating the training, people, and equip-ment for this effort.
• Building consistency among raters. It involved getting everything set up and going through the training.
• Maintaining consistency in ratings from one year to the next.
• Assigning costs to maintenance activities be-cause of the variability in costs from one year to the next.
• Starting with nothing and having to build all the data sets needed to create the inventory and the plan.
Benefits Realized From Collecting Inventory and Condition Data or Putting Together a Plan
Although there were challenges in putting together the plans, all of the agencies questioned recognized that they had already realized some important bene-fits from the availability of the data. The benebene-fits these agencies identified are listed below.
• In the past, county records were incomplete or did not exist. This process allowed the agency to improve their records. They now have a better understanding of road conditions, which is help-ing them set priorities and develop work plans.
• The process was considered a good first step in asset management and it motivated one city to begin a citywide asset management plan.
• Comparisons of road conditions from one year to the next have been helpful for monitoring deterioration.
• One city has used its asset management plan to identify the projects for the past 2 years.
• The results allowed one agency to describe actual needs to maintain operability at prescribed levels.
• One streets department was very happy to have the road ratings to justify their paving program.
• The information helped one agency identify its backlog so resources could be allocated to ad-dress this unfunded need.
• It was a lot of work, but one county was able to get $1 M in funding for 2 years because of the data.
76
Reporting Results and Developing the Plan Lessons LearnedRepresentatives from these agencies were also asked to list any lessons learned from the experience that might help other local agencies in Indiana. Their suggestions are listed below.
Don’t be afraid to jump right in and get started. You’ll find that the process goes quickly once you take the first steps.
Maintain a system that is simple, manageable, and not too data intensive or the quality of the information will be lost.
Work on the accuracy of the ratings and build consistency from one year to the next.
Don’t worry about being perfect. Get a plan together so your municipality can start using it as a planning tool. ■