CHAPTER 5
Asset Management and Condition Assessment

5.1 Proactive Versus Reactive Management

Management requirements for structural assets and vegetation assets, including roadside vegetation safety features, have similarities and differences. Regardless of the asset type, state DOTs manage them to prolong the assetʼs life and ensure traveler safety.

Proactive management can extend the life of assets and ensure traveler safety. Proactive management is when managers—and the entire staff—prepare for future asset management needs as opposed to responding to issues only when they arise. By completing work under proactive management, state DOTs can work through all areas equitably, rather than only having time to respond to areas with customer service tickets. Proactive management

• Minimizes disruptions to crew schedules and allows crews to work methodically through areas (resulting in a more efficient workflow) as opposed to skipping around to different geographic areas to complete work using the same or different equipment.
• Can reduce how frequently daily work plans must be updated to ensure all high-priority work is completed.
• Enables staff to plan for equipment and personnel to be available as needed and indicated by the work plan.
• Can enable customer service agents to resolve nonemergency complaints quickly by looking at the schedule and providing callers with a timeline for the scheduled work.

To facilitate adoption of a proactive management approach, all state DOT assets can be mapped on a statewide mapping layer available to local staff and updated every time maintenance is completed. The type of maintenance recommended to be documented includes, but is not limited to

• Mowing
• String trimming
• Brush hogging
• Herbicide application (including the type of application)
• Asset condition assessment

Giving local staff access to mapping and tracking tools and technology helps ensure that all assets are mapped as needed. If IT restrictions or the cost of hardware restrict field staff from accessing mapping tools, at minimum, local staff managers need to have access to this hardware to complete all mapping. As an example, ODOTʼs local managers drive the entire county right-of-way every 2 weeks to ensure any issues along the roadside are mapped within the system. Managers then provide local field staff with their work assignments. WSDOT local staff have assigned tablets to access the mapping systems to ensure they can document any deficiencies seen along the right-of-way within HATS. While ODOT and WSDOT processes and systems may not be replicated in their entirety, at a minimum, state DOTs can have staff members drive

the entirety of the right-of-way at least once per year. This yearly assessment will ensure that any large-scale items needing maintenance are in the district work plan and that local staff who are actively working on the right-of-way are documenting the deficiencies they encounter.

5.2 Asset Management

Although structural assets and vegetation assets both require regular inspections and maintenance, structural assets often require less frequent inspections and management. This is because vegetation assets change in size and shape through seasons and life cycles and are more numerous than structural assets. The tools and technology used for structural assets and infrequent inspections allow a state DOT to easily document the number of structural assets within a state as well as the conditions, with many state DOTs including the total number of bridges and the total lane miles on their website.

The important information to be collected includes the following items:

• Access issues
• Asset condition
• Asset location
• Asset type
• Asset size
• Traffic control planning
• Type of maintenance needed

This type of information will allow local field staff to determine:

• The number of staff members needed to complete a maintenance task
• The type of precautions needed to support staff and public safety
• The presence and location of dangers surrounding the management area
• The type of equipment needed to complete the maintenance task

Structural assets degrade over time, and state DOTs maintain these assets when the asset conditions do not meet state DOT guidelines. State DOTs expressed during the case studies that their inspectors review assets such as bridges every 2 to 3 years and culverts every 3 years. Vegetation, however, is inspected multiple times per year to ensure compliance with sight distance requirements and confirm that slope failure is not evident. State DOTs stated that roadside vegetation asset management work is completed year-round, but the specific time of year varies depending on the vegetation type, climate, and the environmental restrictions in place to protect T&E species. State DOT staff stated that the extended time for completing roadside vegetation asset management work often leads to it having a lower priority. Some state DOTs find they miss critical windows for completing vegetation management tasks due to staff and equipment schedule conflicts and weather constraints, which leads to delaying vegetation management tasks until the next year. State DOTs can benefit from establishing specific timeframes to complete specific tasks. Providing timeframes for specific types of vegetation management work can help ensure these tasks are completed when needed. Practicing proactive rather than reactive roadside vegetation asset management can help accomplish this.

5.3 Asset Condition Assessment

Assessing the condition of a living organism is more difficult than assessing that of an inanimate object, so many case study state DOTs lack a process to determine vegetation asset condition. With structural assets and, to an extent, safety features, deterioration is why the assetʼs appearance changes. Once the deterioration reaches a certain point, the asset is replaced or repaired, following

state DOT specifications. For instance, a guardrail looks the same throughout its lifespan until damage is visible. However, a deciduous tree changes multiple times throughout its life cycle, losing its leaves during the fall and growing new ones in the spring while maintaining its purpose and existing within the state DOTʼs allowable conditions throughout the year. The changing conditions throughout the year or the life cycles of different types of vegetation make it more difficult for AI to determine which vegetation assets require maintenance. AI cannot yet detect all vegetation species and conditions accurately. Instead, for specific assets identified as important to track, staff can enter additional maintenance information with tools and technology used to map areas as appropriate for each state DOT.

Ideally, each type of vegetation asset and safety feature has its own condition rating scale. The condition ratings for vegetation assets can be developed with help from the environmental department (such staff may have experience rating vegetation assets). For items such as invasive plant species and turfgrass, the rating system can be a percentage of area covered by these species and vegetation types. For assets such as pollinator habitat, the condition system can include the number of flowering species or the percentage of the area actively flowering. For roadside safety features, some states may have an official rating system in use; other states are developing rating systems for vegetation assets and safety features. Ideally, rating systems should be developed and approved by the appropriate staff at each state DOT. The rating system can include all aspects of these safety features. For example, the rating for a sound wall can include information on the sound wall itself as well as information about the vegetation surrounding it (e.g., the percentage of the wall covered by vegetation and any trees or other woody vegetation that can affect the sound wallʼs performance). Asset condition ratings can be reviewed and updated to ensure the information being requested is the most appropriate method for determining the condition of the asset. Updating asset condition ratings and the assets tracked by the DOT would also allow states to ensure the software systems in place are meeting the needs of staff. Figure 1 presents an example of an asset rating system for noxious weeds.

Preferably, staff receive training when a state DOT first initiates asset condition assessments as well as annual refresher training. Such training ensures all staff rate the roadside vegetation and related safety features consistently. Ideally, the initial training will be completed at an in-person training session, but the annual refresher training can be done either remotely or through in-person training sessions. Training staff in person initially enables staff to meet with subject matter experts who can ensure that staff understand aspects of vegetation assets and related safety features. As state DOT staff complete work on a wide range of tasks, annual refresher training will enable staff to assess vegetation and related safety features accurately. State DOTs may include training on roadside vegetation asset management tasks at the same time as the asset condition rating training.

State DOTs will want to progress incrementally when adding tools and technology to the stateʼs inventory of software and hardware for the purpose of asset condition rating. Adding vegetation assets to systems that are operational for structural assets included in the TAMP (e.g., bridges and pavement) can help reduce the amount of training that will be required. If a state does not use tools and technology to rate asset conditions of bridges and pavement, vegetation assets and related safety features can be incorporated into the current system. After including these assets in the current system, a state DOT can then develop or purchase access to tools and technology for asset condition ratings. Separating these items will allow staff to train on one aspect of the system before moving on to the next.