Two trends that are now under way may influence the way in which bridge management information is applied to agency decision making in the future: (a) the growing application of asset management principles and methods; and (b) the current review of the NBIS by the U.S. DOT Inspector General.
Growing Application of Asset Management Principles
Asset management encourages a policy-driven and performance-based management approach. It has moved rapidly from its conceptual beginnings to practical implementation. Asset
management has already enjoyed successes in agencies’ abilities to improve notably
transportation system condition, to develop information on infrastructure investment needs and the consequences of different budget scenarios that is reported to legislators and other
stakeholders, to thereby increase agency credibility and accountability, and to sharpen the
management acumen of agency personnel and the capabilities of supporting information systems. Successful asset management processes have enabled agencies to transition from a worst-first approach to one based upon long-term cost effectiveness, employing life-cycle-cost principles.
Current bridge management practices reflect several characteristics of good asset management practice, e.g., a reliance on a suite of both standard and custom performance measures, a well-defined data structure founded in the NBI database, standardized and
-100% 0% 100%
Network-level dashboard shows impacts of different budget
scenarios
Project-level dashboard shows impacts of bridge work (or
deferral) BMS helps in bridge resource allocation among organizational
units or levels BMS helps in bridge resource allocation by functional class,
corridor, sub-network BMS produces reports for budgeting by all organizational units/levels that manage bridges BMS helps in resource allocation
among bridges statewide
Seldom or Never Used BMS + Additional Processing Based Primarily on BMS Percent of Agencies That Use These BMS Capabilities Percent of Agencies That
Do NOT Use These BMS Capabilities
Markow 41 customized element-level data in many agencies, and a number of management systems and other analytic tools, again with custom features in many cases. Those agencies that apply more advanced features of BMS also are able to take advantage of economic as well as technical data and analyses, scenario and trade-off analyses, and decision-support procedures. These analytic capabilities, and the bridge management business processes that rely on them, almost always typify good asset management practice.
Within this framework, however, some characteristics of current bridge management that were described in Chapters 2 and 3 and do not conform to asset management best practice could be strengthened to improve agency decision making:
• Current policy direction and objectives of the bridge program are often informally stated and loosely tracked. Monitoring of accomplishments is often based on looking at general trends. The process lacks specific time frames and stated levels of accomplishment. Stronger policy statements could provide additional benefits besides greater clarity of an agency’s
commitment to bridge infrastructure, e.g., they would establish more clearly high-level priorities among competing bridge needs; they could guide definition and use of more precise performance measures; and they could help ensure consistency in the measures and criteria used in planning, programming, resource allocation, and budgeting.
• Several elements of current bridge program management are inconsistent with one another, and detract from more effective agency decisions and uses of available funding. These inconsistencies derive primarily from the different ways of thinking that underlie the formulation of the NBIS versus more recent bridge management concepts and techniques. Specific examples will be given in further conclusions below regarding the current NBIS review.
• The perceptions of bridge management practitioners regarding current BMS models are, when taken together, somewhat contradictory and present a confused picture as to how to advance this aspect of the state of practice. While some survey respondents noted the lack of certain BMS capabilities and suggested research to develop additional types of analyses, other respondents reported using these same features, which are readily available today in BMS products, while still others voiced concern about the “black box syndrome” and the usurping of managers’ decision-making prerogatives by such high-level BMS operations.
Implications of the Current NBIS Review
After more than 30 years in service, the NBIS inventory data, ratings, and appraisals continue to be an important influence on perceptions of bridge condition and performance, determination of bridge eligibility for federal HBP funding, and project priority. This situation may change with the complete review of the NBIS by the U.S. DOT Inspector General that was ordered by the Secretary of Transportation immediately following the I-35W bridge collapse. While the causes of the collapse and the ongoing bridge replacement project are outside the scope of this study, selected reactions to the catastrophe and related congressional testimony by state DOT CEOs and other senior managers (some representing AASHTO) are highly relevant to the subject of this paper (10–13). The discussion of the NBIS and NBI ratings earlier in the paper provides relevant background information.
• The NBI database serves several important functions. It is unequaled as the most comprehensive, up-to-date, unified source of bridge information nationwide. It has amassed an
almost 40-year history of bridge characteristics, condition, and performance. NBIS data are the basis of the bridge portion of the biennial conditions and performance report submitted to Congress, and tabulations of deficiency and sufficiency ratings are widely known and consulted.
• The NBIS was originally established to protect public safety by preserving bridge structural and operational integrity. It was not conceived as a management tool, although it exerts a major influence on bridge investments, federal apportionments, and project funding eligibility.
• Key aspects of the NBIS are inconsistent with the current state of bridge
management. State DOTs have recognized this shortcoming of NBIS for some time. While they cannot change statutory and regulatory provisions of how NBI data are collected and applied, agency managers have adapted their bridge management processes and systems to compensate for certain weaknesses, using a variety of approaches, e.g., by increasing the detail and frequency of bridge inspections, defining custom bridge condition and performance measures and indexes, developing custom models to estimate the near-term and longer-term impacts of bridge
investments, and applying funds from different sources (e.g., through transfers and resource allocations) essentially to impose more flexible and economically efficient investment criteria than those provided by the SR.
• Announcement of the NBIS review that followed the I-35W bridge collapse has catalyzed proposals to revise ways in which NBI data are used in federal bridge program funding and investment criteria and in public communication. State DOT executives, appearing before U.S. House and Senate committees, outlined several issues with the current NBIS, e.g., inconsistencies between SD and SR that tended to reduce funding priority for deck repairs, arbitrary and nonoptimal funding criteria attached to the SR, and the 10-year rule that inhibits more economically efficient preventive maintenance strategies.
• The recommendation of DOT executives to Congress was to remove (or at least relax) these impediments to better management from federal bridge program administration and allow state DOTs to take advantage of modern bridge management approaches, which could guide bridge investments according to data-driven analyses of long-term performance and costs. Several agencies have developed these newer types of approaches as part of their asset
management implementation.
• More general public reaction regarding the NBIS has raised questions about the clarity of the term “structural deficiency” and the difficulty nontechnical audiences have in understanding what this means for bridge condition and public safety (14).
The review of the NBIS was just begun as the material for this paper was being prepared, so no definitive information or results were available to include in this paper.
CONCLUSIONS
Most state DOTs employ some type of bridge management system to assist, at a minimum, in monitoring bridge condition and performance, and identifying needs for work. Many agencies also use BMS information for more advanced or specialized management functions. The extent, however, to which BMS processes and information are used in higher-level decision making— e.g., network-level planning and programming, economic evaluation of project alternatives, budgeting and resource allocation, and tracking system performance against targets—varies from one agency to another.
Markow 43 The objective of NCHRP Synthesis Topic 37-07, Use of Bridge Management in
Transportation Agency Decision-Making, has been to gather information on current practices that agency CEOs and senior decision makers use to make network-level funding decisions for their bridges, and how they apply their agency’s bridge management capabilities to support these decisions. This paper summarizes the key findings of this study. Among the findings are the following conclusions.
Bridge management information is used in resource allocation decision making in all transportation agencies reporting in this study. However, the specific management practices, analytic models, and performance measures differ, in some cases significantly. While a common element among virtually all DOT BMS processes is information on bridge inventory and
condition appraisal, BMS approaches vary widely in how they support other management
functions, e.g., prediction of future needs, use of economic analyses, and consideration of project or funding options and trade-offs. While some agencies apply these advanced BMS features and capabilities, the overall thrust of BMS applications nationwide is toward relatively
straightforward analyses of short-term bridge needs based on current condition and performance, and use of bridge age as a surrogate for longer-term needs estimates. More comprehensive or longer-term analyses are reserved for major bridge projects, or are the purview of those agencies that routinely employ more advanced BMS features involving predictive models, optimization or other decision-support procedures, economic analyses, and trade-off analyses.
While resource allocation decisions with budget constraints are ideally policy-driven and performance-based, agencies with limited BMS capabilities employ other mechanisms such as off-the-top funding (or set-asides) for certain bridge needs. In cases involving simple as well as sophisticated BMS, agencies have elected to customize their data and analytic procedures. These tailored approaches are felt to better reflect the particular characteristics of statewide road
networks, bridge structures, and legal-load vehicles, as well as the agency’s philosophy and culture of bridge management.
Notwithstanding the variability in practices, agencies reportedly have adapted their bridge management approaches to both internal agency operating practices and external funding and institutional relationships. While bridge management practices reportedly serve upper management acceptably given current procedures for federal bridge program funding and administration, two emerging trends may influence how bridge information and management techniques may inform agency decisions in the future. These trends are (a) the growing use of asset management techniques, and (b) the review of the NBIS that has been set in motion by the U.S. DOT following the I-35W tragedy in August 2007.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
The results reported in this paper draw upon material developed in the NCHRP Synthesis Topic 37-07 study. The author wishes to acknowledge the helpful advice and support provided by Jon Williams, NCHRP Manager of Synthesis Studies, the topic panel members, and the agencies that participated in the study through survey responses and interviews. Sincere thanks to all. While the study’s factual findings have been summarized as accurately as possible for this paper, the author takes responsibility for the statements that assess their implications and the resulting conclusions.
REFERENCES
1. Recording and Coding Guide for the Structure Inventory and Appraisal of the Nation’s Bridges. Publication FHWA-PD-96-001. Bridge Division, Office of Engineering, FHWA, U.S. Department of Transportation, December 1995.
2. Small, E. P., T. Philbin, M. Fraher, and G. P. Romack. Current Status of Bridge Management System Implementation in the United States. In Transportation Research Circular 498: 8th International
Bridge Management Conference, TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2000, pp. 1–
16.
3. ABIMS User Guide. Alabama Department of Transportation, Maintenance Bureau, Montgomery, September 1, 2006.
4. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Pontis Release 4.4 User’s Manual. AASHTO, Washington, D.C., 2005. 5. Cambridge Systematics, Inc. Pontis Release 4.4 Technical Manual. AASHTO, Washington, D.C.,
2005.
6. Referentia for Pontis: eLearning System. FHWA, Washington, D.C., Apr. 6, 2007.
http://www.fhwa.dot.gov/infrastructure/asstmgmt/pontis/course.cfm?outLine=yes. Accessed Jan. 1, 2008.
7. Neumann, L.A. NCHRP Synthesis of Highway Practice 243: Methods for Capital Programming and
Project Selection. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 1997.
8. Robert, W. E., A. R. Marshall, R. W. Shepard, and J. Aldayuz. Pontis Bridge Management System: State of the Practice in Implementation and Development. In Transportation Research Circular E-
C049: 9th International Bridge Management Conference. Orlando, FL, TRB, National Research
Council, Washington, D.C., 2003, pp. 49–60.
9. Cambridge Systematics, Inc., PB Consult, and System Metrics Group, Inc. NCHRP Report 545:
Analytical Tools for Asset Management. TRB, National Research Council, Washington, D.C., 2005.
10. Steudle, K. Testimony of the Director and Chief Executive Officer, Michigan Department of Transportation, before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C., September 5, 2007. http://transportation.house.gov/ hearings/hearingdetail.aspx?NewsID=285. Accessed Sept. 25, 2007.
11. Steudle, K. Testimony of the Director, Michigan Department of Transportation, and Member, AASHTO, before the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee. Washington, D.C., September 20, 2007.
12. Kerley, M.T. Testimony of the Chair, Highway Subcommittee on Bridges and Structures, AASHTO, before the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of Representatives.
Washington, D.C., Sep. 5, 2007. Available at http://transportation.house.gov/hearings/hearingdetail. aspx?NewsID=285. Accessed Sept. 25, 2007.
13. James, H. L. Testimony of the Deputy Executive Director and Chief Engineer, Mississippi
Department of Transportation, and Member, Standing Committee on Highways, AASHTO, before the Committee on Science and Technology, U.S. House of Representatives. Washington, D.C., Sept. 19, 2007.
14. Bizjak, T. Simpler Bridge Safety Labeling Sought: Senate Transportation Panel Chairman Will Hold Hearing on State’s System. Sacramento Bee. Sacramento, Calif., August 9, 2007. Available at http://www.sacbee.com/101/v-print/story/316403.html. Accessed Oct. 7, 2007.