CHAPTER 3

State of the Practice

Introduction

This chapter presents current practices, tools, and resources used by DOTs for managing ancillary transportation assets. To collect the most up-to-date information on current practices and guidelines, including levels of maturity and variabilities across DOTs for managing selected ancillary transportation assets, a web-based survey was distributed to the Transportation Asset Management Community of the AASHTO Committee on Performance-Based Management, which includes representatives from the DOTs from all 50 states, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico. The findings presented in this chapter are based on respondents from 43 DOTs (an 83% response rate). In addition, the analysis of relevant documents obtained from the survey is also included to support the findings.

The chapter begins by reporting the general findings of ancillary TAM and then presents policies and guidance for managing ancillary transportation assets. Next, the chapter discusses the evaluation process and performance measures used by DOTs for ancillary TAM. The chapter concludes by presenting the future plans of DOTs to include the management of ancillary assets in their state asset management program.

Figure 3.1 presents a map of the DOTs providing a survey response. However, it is important to note that the 43 DOT respondents were not required to respond to all questions in the survey. As a result, the sample size (n) for each question varies. Appendix A provides the complete survey questionnaire, and Appendix B provides individual DOT responses to each survey question. The following sections discuss the findings from the survey in detail.

Overview of Ancillary TAM

The survey result indicates that ancillary asset management practices vary among DOTs. DOTs were asked which of their business units managed ancillary assets (noting that they could select multiple business units). Figure 3.2 shows that more than half of 43 DOT respondents have ancillary assets managed by their maintenance unit (34 of 43 respondents, 79%), traffic engineering unit (27 of 43 respondents, 63%), or asset management unit (23 of 43 respondents, 53%). Ancillary transportation assets are also managed through operations divisions (21 of 43 respondents, 49%), structures divisions (19 of 43 respondents, 44%), planning divisions (12 of 43 respondents, 28%), and design divisions (8 of 43 respondents, 19%).

Additionally, 13 respondents noted ancillary asset management in “other” business units. One DOT noted that it manages ancillary assets based on the types of assets and when they are added to their program. Another DOT mentioned that it uses regional or district offices to manage ancillary assets. Other business units that were mentioned for managing ancillary assets include bridge divisions, materials and research units, engineering divisions, and stormwater units.

Figure 3.3 summarizes the survey results regarding the established (formal or informal) approach to managing ancillary assets at their DOTs. A formal approach is defined as a documented and formalized management process in policy or guidance, whereas an informal approach is defined as a practice of managing ancillary assets without documentation. Out of 43 DOT responses, 30 DOTs (70%) indicated that they have established a formal or informal approach to managing ancillary assets.

The survey respondents with established (formal or informal) approaches for managing their ancillary assets (30 DOTs) were then asked to identify selected ancillary assets included in DOT asset management programs. With 27 of these 30 DOTs providing responses, Figure 3.4 summarizes the result of this question. The five types of ancillary assets most frequently included in DOT asset management programs were:

1. Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (25 of 27 DOTs, 93%).
2. Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (22 of 27 DOTs, 81%).
3. Sign panels and supports (20 of 27 DOTs, 74%).
4. ITS and communications infrastructure (20 DOTs, 74%).
5. Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (18 of 27 DOTs, 67%).

Nearly half (13 out of 27 DOT) of respondents have included building facilities, ERS, and bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure in their DOT’s TAM program. Additionally, the ten “other” responses by DOTs for managed ancillary assets included noise barrier walls; drainage pump plants; weigh-in-motion scales; rest areas; tunnels; fleets; geohazards; maintenance levels of service (MLOS) (further explained in the Colorado DOT case example in Chapter 4), wetlands;

stormwater best management practices, such as silt fence or sediment basins; and railroad crossings.

A similar study published in 2014 conducted a survey and literature review including 18 of the DOTs presented the results seen in Figure 3.5 (Akofio-Sowah et al. 2014). Figure 3.6 presents data from the two studies, where there could be a comparison drawn between similar assets that were included in both the 2014 study and this synthesis. This comparison indicates growth in the number of ancillary assets managed by DOTs over the past decade. The management of culverts increased from 69% to 93%, lighting increased from 50% to 59%, and traffic signs and barriers remained at similar percentages.

Policy and Guidance of Ancillary Asset Management

State DOTs have used different resources, including formal or informal policies and guidance or certified TAMPs, to manage ancillary transportation assets. Figure 3.7 summarizes these three types of policies or guidance associated with different ancillary transportation assets.

Figure 3.7 shows DOT responses that have used a formal policy or guidance for the following ancillary assets. The four assets for which DOTs most frequently reported using a formal policy or guidance are:

• Sign panels and supports (13 of 27 DOTs, 46%).
• Pavement markings (i.e., striping) (13 of 27 DOTs, 46%).
• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (12 of 27 DOTs, 43%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (11 of 27 DOTs, 39%).

The four assets for which DOTs most frequently reported using an informal policy or guidance are:

• Earth retaining structures (13 of 27 DOTs, 46%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (12 of 27 DOTs, 43%).
• Intelligent transportation systems and communications infrastructure (12 of 27 DOTs, 43%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (11 of 27 DOTs, 39%).

Not many DOTs have used their recently completed and certified TAMPs to manage ancillary transportation assets. Figure 3.7 shows that out of 27 DOT responses, only six state DOTs (22%) have used TAMPs for managing hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) and intelligent transportation systems and communications infrastructure; only four state DOTs (14%)

have used TAMPs for managing building facilities and overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems.

The survey respondents were then asked to identify the maturity levels of their DOT ancillary asset management program. Table 3.1 summarizes the survey results of this question. Five maturity levels based on the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide are used for the assessment as follows (AASHTO 2013):

• Initial – There is no effective support from strategy, processes, or tools due to a lack of motivation to improve.
• Awakening – There is recognition of a need and basic data collection that typically relies on individual effort.
• Structured – There is shared understanding, motivation, and coordination for the development of processes and tools.
• Proficient – The expectations and accountability are drawn from asset management strategy, processes, and tools.
• Best Practice – Asset management strategies, processes, and tools are routinely evaluated and improved.

Table 3.1 presents a heatmap showing the density of maturity levels indicated for the listed ancillary assets. The order of the listed ancillary assets is according to a weighted average

Table 3.1. DOT maturity levels of ancillary asset management approaches (n = 27).

calculation, and therefore, assets more frequently managed that are at higher maturity levels are toward the top of the table.

As indicated in Table 3.1, the awakening level of maturity was more common than other levels for the following ancillary assets:

• Pavement markings (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Pavement markers (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• ERS (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).

The structured level of maturity is more common than other levels for the following ancillary assets:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (14 of 27 DOTs, 52%).
• Sign panels and supports (13 of 27 DOTs, 48%).
• High mast and highway light poles (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%.)
• Traffic barriers (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Hydraulic structures (8 of 27 DOTs, 30%).

There were no assets for which the proficient level of maturity was more common than the other maturity levels. The assets that respondents most frequently identified as having a proficient level of maturity included:

• Hydraulic structures (5 of 27 DOTs, 19%).
• Pavement markings (4 of 27 DOTs, 15%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (4 of 27 DOTs, 15%).
• Traffic barriers (4 of 27 DOTs, 15%).
• Sign panels and supports (4 of 27 DOTs, 15%).

Similarly, the best practice maturity level was not more common than other maturity levels for any of the ancillary assets. The assets that respondents most frequently identified as having a best practice level of maturity included hydraulic structures (7 of 27 DOTs, 26%) and ITS and communications infrastructure (4 of 27 DOTs, 15%).

Out of 27 DOT responses, 19 DOTs (70%) have written resources or tools (e.g., spreadsheets, templates, guidance) for assisting with the management of ancillary assets (Figure 3.8). Where the DOTs provided hyperlinks to webpages where their resources and tools can be downloaded, those URLs are shared in Appendix B, in the table for Question 8.

For example, the Michigan Ancillary Structures Inspection Manual (MiASIM) provides guidance to administrative, engineering, and technical staff for managing ancillary assets (Michigan DOT 2023). MiASIM includes 15 types of ancillary assets as follows (MDOT 2023):

• Culvert less than 10-foot span.
• Retaining wall.
• Cantilever structure.
• Truss structure.
• Embedded pole (includes wood pole).

• Spun concrete pole
• Steel strain pole
• Noise wall
• Mast arm
• Dynamic message sign support structure
• Frangible pole structure
• Non-frangible pole structure
• High mast lighting tower (HMLT)
• Communication tower
• Environmental sensor station tower

The Delaware DOT has developed state of good repair (SGR) summaries to describe inventory conditions, financial investment scenarios, and a list of potential risks of its main ancillary assets, including overhead sign structures, pavement markings, and railroad crossings (DelDOT 2023). Figure 3.9 summarizes the inventory and conditions of the overhead sign and high mast lighting

structures. DelDOT (2023) notes that overhead sign structures consist of any structure supporting signage or toll sensors, and the high mast lighting structures include all highway/rest stop lighting and CCTV (closed-circuit television) camera structures with a height greater than 60 feet. The rating is based on the National Bridge Inspection Standards (NBIS) condition rating system with some modifications. The good condition is defined as a rating of 6 or higher, fair condition is a rating of 5, and poor condition is a rating of 4 or less. This is dissimilar to the NBIS system, where 7 or higher is a good rating, and 5 or 6 is a fair rating.

Figure 3.10 illustrates the historical performance trends and forecasted performance projections of overhead signs and high mast lighting structures. The 3-year condition forecast is based on the current programmed overhead sign and high mast lighting replacement projects (DelDOT 2023).

California DOT has developed an asset management guide for its transportation management systems (TMS). This guide provides a consistent approach to the inventory data of TMS assets. The core asset types of Caltrans’ TMS include the following (Caltrans 2023):

• Traffic signals.
• Freeway ramp meters.
• Changeable message signs.
• Extinguishable message signs (message boards tied to ITS that may be left blank).
• Closed-circuit televisions.
• Traffic monitoring detection stations.
• Traffic census stations.
• Roadway weather information systems.
• Highway advisory radios.

Figure 3.11 illustrates a TMS dashboard of the asset conditions in 2023. Caltrans noted several challenges in managing inventory data for TMS assets, including (1) ensuring databases are in sync, (2) duplicating data stored across databases, and (3) updating systems required to match evolving needs (Caltrans 2023).

Ancillary Asset Management Performance Measures

The survey respondents were asked to identify the performance measures used to evaluate ancillary assets. Eight performance measures adapted from the AASHTO Transportation Asset Management Guide: A Focus on Implementation are used for these assessments, including (AASHTO 2013):

• Safety – Measuring and tracking the effectiveness of safety features related to assets.
• Condition (Con.) – The structural integrity of an asset.
• Mobility (Mob.) – Assessments related to origin-destination travel time.
• Reliability (Reliab.) – The standard deviation of origin-destination travel time. Reliability can be improved by adding capacity, by responding more effectively to incidents, and by improving system operations management.
• Life-cycle cost – Including all of the costs that an agency incurs in managing assets from their creation to their ultimate disposal.
• Customer measures (Cust. Meas.) – The degree of customer satisfaction when an asset is placed in the transportation system.
• Risk – The threat to transportation operations caused by extreme events, other external hazards, and asset failure arising from any cause.
• Externalities (Exter.) – The effects of transportation facilities and operations on non-users of the system.

Table 3.2 shows that there were four performance metrics more frequently cited to measure ancillary asset performance than the rest of the above list. These included safety, condition, life-cycle cost, and risk. Table 3.2 presents a heatmap showing the density of usage among the

Table 3.2. Types of performance measures for ancillary transportation assets (n = 27).

Con. = Condition, Mob. = Mobility, Reliab. = Reliability, Cust. Meas. = Customer measures, Exter. = Externalities

performance measures. The table is organized such that the assets cited with more total performance measures are toward the top.

From 27 DOT responses, and with respondents able to select multiple performance measures for a single asset, the ancillary assets more commonly citing the use of safety performance measures were:

• Pavement markings (14 of 27 DOTs, 52%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Traffic barriers (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Hydraulic structures (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Pavement markers (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).

The 27 DOT respondents more commonly cited the use of condition performance measures for the listed ancillary assets as follows:

• Hydraulic structures (26 of 27 DOTs, 96%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (22 of 27 DOTs, 81%).
• High mast and highway light poles (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• Sign panels and supports (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (16 DOTs, 59%).
• Pavement markings (15 of 27 DOTs, 56%).
• Traffic barriers (15 of 27 DOTs, 56%).

Likewise, responses for use of life-cycle cost performance measures for the listed ancillary assets were:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).
• Hydraulic structures (8 of 27 DOTs, 30%).
• High mast and highway light poles (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).
• Sign panels and supports (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).
• Building facilities (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).

Responses citing the use of risk performance measures for the listed ancillary assets were:

• Hydraulic structures (16 of 27 DOTs, 59%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).
• ERS (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).
• Traffic barriers (8 of 27 DOTs, 30%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).
• High mast and highway light poles (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).

Finally, responses citing the use of reliability performance measures for the listed ancillary assets were:

• ITS and communications infrastructure (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Hydraulic structures (7 of 27 DOTs, 26%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).

Additionally, 12 of 27 DOTs (44%) have used mobility performance measures for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure, and 6 of 27 DOTs (22%) have used mobility performance measures for ITS and communications infrastructure. For the customer measure, 7 of 27 DOTs (26%) have used it for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and curb ramps); 5 of 27 DOTs (19%) have used it for building facilities and ITS and communications infrastructure. Finally,

5 of 27 DOTs (19%) have used externalities performance measures for bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and curb ramps) (Table 3.2).

Figure 3.12 summarizes the assessment methods for evaluating performance measures of ancillary assets. Respondents were provided the ability to select a single method or a combination of methods for each asset. The methods to choose from were:

1. Inventoried: Condition/performance is determined.
2. Performance measured and compared to targets: Condition/performance compared to DOT goals with consideration of short-range planning.
3. Performance measured and forecast for trends: Conditions/needs are projected for long-range planning.

The inventoried assessment method (i.e., determining the condition and performance of an asset) is the most cited method for evaluating ancillary asset performance.

DOT responses cited the use of the inventoried assessment method for the following ancillary assets as follows:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (21 of 26 DOTs, 81%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (21 of 26 DOTs, 81%).

• Hydraulic structures (20 of 26 DOTs, 77%).
• Sign panels and supports (20 of 26 DOTs, 77%).
• Pavement markings (17 of 26 DOTs, 65%).
• High mast and highway light poles (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).
• Traffic barriers (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (14 of 26 DOTs, 54%).
• Building facilities (14 of 26 DOTs, 54%).
• ERS (13 of 26 DOTs, 50%).

Figure 3.12 also shows the 26 DOT responses regarding the “performance measured and compared to targets” approach (i.e., asset condition is determined and compared to DOT goals with consideration of short-range planning) for the following ancillary assets:

• Hydraulic structures (12 of 26 DOTs, 46%).
• Traffic barriers (16 of 26 DOTs, 31%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (7 of 26 DOTs, 27%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (7 of 26 DOTs, 27%).
• Sign panels and supports (7 of 26 DOTs, 27%).

DOT responses that have used the “performance measured and forecast for trends” approach (e.g., asset conditions and needs are projected for long-range planning) for the following ancillary assets:

• Hydraulic structures (5 of 26 DOTs, 19%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).
• Building facilities (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).

Evaluation of Ancillary Assets

The evaluation frequency of ancillary transportation assets varies among DOTs. Table 3.3 presents a heatmap showing the density of the frequency of evaluations for the listed assets. The table is organized such that the assets that have more feedback regarding evaluation frequency are toward the top. DOTs most often reported having an ongoing or as-needed approach to evaluating the following ancillary transportation assets:

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (15 of 26 DOTs, 58%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (14 of 26 DOTs, 54%).
• Traffic barriers (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• Sign panels and supports (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• Building facilities (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• Hydraulic structures (8 of 26 DOTs, 31%).
• ERS (8 of 26 DOTs, 31%).
• Pavement markings (7 of 26 DOTs, 27%).
• Pavement markers (7 of 26 DOTs, 27%).

Table 3.3 also shows that the ancillary assets most frequently reported by DOTs as being evaluated every year include:

• Pavement markings (10 of 26 DOTs, 38%).
• Pavement markers (5 of 26 DOTs, 19%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (4 of 26 DOTs, 15%).

Table 3.3. Frequency of evaluating ancillary asset conditions (n = 26).

• Sign panels and supports (4 of 26 DOTs, 15%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (3 DOTs, 12%).
• Traffic barriers (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).

The ancillary assets that DOTs most frequently reported as being evaluated every 2 years include:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (6 of 26 DOTs, 23%).
• Sign panels and supports (6 of 26 DOTs, 23%).
• Hydraulic structures (5 of 26 DOTs, 19%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (4 of 26 DOTs, 15%).
• High mast and highway light poles (4 of 26 DOTs, 15%).
• Traffic barriers (4 of 26 DOTs, 15%).

The ancillary assets that DOTs most frequently reported as being evaluated every 3 to 5 years include:

• Hydraulic structures (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• ERS (6 of 26 DOTs, 23%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (5 of 26 DOTs, 19%).
• High mast and highway light poles (5 of 26 DOTs, 19%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).
• Traffic barriers (3 of 26 DOTs, 12%).

Figure 3.13 shows how ancillary asset data are used for programming decisions. The top five programming decisions to involve ancillary asset data include:

• Evaluation and reporting current conditions (25 of 27 DOTs, 93%).
• Planning repair cycles (18 of 27 DOTs, 67%).

• Planning replacement cycles (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• Risk assessment/mitigation (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• Short-term budgeting/investment planning of 1 to 5 years (14 of 27 DOTs, 52%).

The survey respondents were then asked to identify the benefits of managing ancillary assets. Figure 3.14 summarizes the result of this question based on 26 DOT responses. The top five cited benefits of managing ancillary transportation assets include:

• Accessible condition reporting (19 of 26 DOTs, 73%).
• Accessible inventories (19 of 26 DOTs, 73%).

• Reduction in risk (17 of 26 DOTs, 65%).
• Efficiency in budgetary planning, such as planning for funding requests (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).
• Improved safety (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).

Planning for Ancillary Asset Management

The survey results indicate that out of 40 DOT responses, 25 DOTs (62%) plan to initiate or expand an ancillary asset management program (Figure 3.15). Notably, there may be several reasons that DOTs would not initiate or expand their ancillary asset management program, such as already having a mature program in place and not desiring to expand it at the time of the survey. Of the 25 DOTs seeking to initiate or expand their ancillary asset management program, the survey asked for the priority levels (i.e., low, medium, and high) of including ancillary assets in the DOT asset management program. Table 3.4 summarizes the 23 responses to this question using a heat map. Table 3.4 is organized using a weighted average to list the most cited ancillary to add combined with the higher priority of adding them.

DOT responses that indicate a high priority level to add the following ancillary transportation assets to their asset management program are as follows:

• Hydraulic structures (7 of 23 DOTs, 30%).
• ERS (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).
• Traffic barriers (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).

Table 3.4. Priority levels of adding ancillary assets in the state DOT asset management program (n = 23).

DOT responses that indicated a medium priority level to add the following ancillary transportation assets to their DOT asset management program are as follows:

• Pavement markings (7 of 23 DOTs, 30%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (7 of 23 DOTs, 30%).
• Pavement markers (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).
• Traffic barriers (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).
• ERS (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).

DOT responses that indicated a low priority level to add the following ancillary transportation assets to their DOT asset management program are as follows:

• Sign panels and supports (7 of 23 DOTs, 30%).
• ERS (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).
• High mast and highway light poles (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).

The assets that were most frequently reported by DOTs as already being included in their asset management programs include:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (9 of 23 DOTs, 39%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (7 of 23 DOTs, 30%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).
• High mast and highway light poles (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).
• Building facilities (6 of 23 DOTs, 26%).

• Hydraulic structures (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).
• Sign panels and supports (5 of 23 DOTs, 22%).

Finally, the survey respondents were asked about the plan to add any ancillary assets in the next version of their TAMP. Figure 3.16 summarizes the results of this question based on 35 DOT responses.

Figure 3.16 shows that out of 35 DOT responses, 28 DOTs (80%) do not plan to include ancillary assets in the next version of their TAMP, while seven DOTs (20%) plan to include hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) and four DOTs (11%) plan to include ITS and communications infrastructure in the next version of their TAMP. Notably, DOTs may have multiple reasons not to include these various ancillary assets in their TAMPs. As gathered from the literature review and case example interview feedback, the only required assets to be included in the TAMP are pavements and bridges. The inclusion of ancillary assets in the TAMP may involve additional efforts, but not including them does not infer DOTs do not value their management. To further detail the considerations of DOTs in managing their ancillary assets, Table 3.5 presents a compilation of feedback to several survey questions. This feedback illustrates that more DOTs manage or plan to manage the listed ancillary assets than the number of DOTs including or planning to include them in their TAMPs.

Summary

This chapter describes the current practices in use by DOTs for managing selected ancillary transportation assets by analyzing 43 DOT responses from a national survey distributed to 50 state DOTs and the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico. The following summarizes the collected

Table 3.5. DOT feedback on managing ancillary assets.

feedback and loosely follows the flow of the survey. This information is summarized by asset type in Chapter 5, and individual DOT responses are presented in Appendix B.

DOT respondents indicated that they include the following ancillary assets in their TAM programs:

• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (25 of 27 DOTs, 93%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (22 of 27 DOTs, 81%).
• Sign panels and supports (20 of 27 DOTs, 74%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (20 of 27 DOTs, 74%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (18 of 27 DOTs, 67%).
• Pavement markings (i.e., striping) (16 of 27 DOTs, 59%).
• High mast and highway light poles (16 of 27 DOTs, 59%).

DOT respondents indicated that they have formal policy or guidance for managing the following ancillary assets:

• Sign panels and supports (13 of 27 DOTs, 48%).
• Pavement markings (i.e., striping) (13 of 27 DOTs, 48%).
• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (11 of 27 DOTs, 41%).

DOT respondents that indicated they have informal policy or guidance for managing the following ancillary assets are as follows:

• ERS (13 of 27 DOTs, 46%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (11 of 27 DOTs, 41%).

The structured level of maturity was more common for the following ancillary assets:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (14 of 27 DOTs, 52%).
• Sign panels and supports (13 of 27 DOTs, 48%).
• High mast and highway light poles (12 of 27 DOTs, 44%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (8 of 27 DOTs, 30%).
• Building facilities (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).

The awakening level of maturity was more common for the following ancillary assets:

• Pavement markings (i.e., striping) (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Pavement markers (e.g., embedded or mounted reflectors) (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and curb ramps) (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (10 of 27 DOTs, 37%).
• ERS (9 of 27 DOTs, 33%).
• Building facilities (6 of 27 DOTs, 22%).

Condition evaluation is the common type of performance measure used for ancillary transportation assets. DOT respondents have used condition performance measures for the following ancillary assets:

• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (26 of 27 DOTs, 96%).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (22 of 27 DOTs, 81%).
• High mast and highway light poles (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• Sign panels and supports (17 of 27 DOTs, 63%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (16 of 27 DOTs, 59%).
• Pavement markings (i.e., striping) (15 of 27 DOTs, 56%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (15 of 27 DOTs, 56%).

The inventoried assessment method is the common approach to assess and evaluate ancillary transportation assets. DOT respondents have used the inventoried assessment method for the following ancillary assets:

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems (21 of 26 DOTs, 81%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (21 of 26 DOTs, 81%).
• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems) (20 of 26 DOTs, 77%).
• Sign panels and supports (20 of 26 DOTs, 77%).

Respondent DOTs commonly used ongoing or as-needed approaches for evaluating ancillary transportation assets. DOT respondents have used this approach for evaluating the following ancillary transportation assets:

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and curb ramps) (15 of 26 DOTs, 58%).
• ITS and communications infrastructure (14 of 26 DOTs, 54%).
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• Sign panels and supports (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).
• Building facilities (9 of 26 DOTs, 35%).

Based on 26 DOT respondents, the top five benefits of managing ancillary transportation assets include:

• Accessible condition reporting (19 of 26 DOTs, 73%).
• Accessible inventories (19 of 26 DOTs, 73%).
• Reduction in risk (17 of 26 DOTs, 65%).

• Efficiency in budgetary planning (i.e., planning for funding requests) (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).
• Improved safety (16 of 26 DOTs, 62%).

Finally, of 23 DOT respondents, 7 (30%) indicated having a high priority to add hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems), 5 (22%) indicated having a high priority to add ERS, and 5 (22%) indicated having a high priority to add traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail) to their DOT asset management program. However, many DOTs (28 out of 35 DOT respondents or 80%) do not plan to formally include ancillary assets in the next version of their TAMP.