CHAPTER 5

Summary of Findings

This synthesis investigates emerging practices and strategies employed by DOTs to manage ancillary assets in their TAMPs or through formal or informal practices. By examining the evolving field of asset management, this synthesis provides insights into the challenges, opportunities, and experiences associated with incorporating ancillary assets into asset management frameworks. It documents the practices used by DOTs for managing selected ancillary transportation assets, highlighting the levels of maturity and variability in these practices across different states.

Information for this synthesis was gathered through a literature review, a survey of DOTs, and case example interviews with representatives from California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee DOTs. The literature review revealed support and guidance for managing ancillary assets, although practices vary by state. While there are few academic references specifically addressing the management of ancillary assets, national guidance is available. Various reports, documents, manuals, and websites from DOTs, the FHWA, and the AASHTO were reviewed. The findings of the literature review are presented in Chapter 2. Based on this review and the scope of work for this synthesis, a survey questionnaire was developed.

State of the Practice Survey Summary

The selected ancillary assets for this synthesis were:

• Hydraulic structures (e.g., culverts, drainage systems).
• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems.
• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure (e.g., sidewalks and curb ramps).
• ITS and communications infrastructure.
• High mast and highway light poles.
• Traffic barriers (e.g., guardrail).
• ERS.
• Sign panels and supports.
• Building facilities.
• Pavement markings.
• Pavement markers.

The following summarizes survey findings according to each asset.

• Hydraulic structures:

  The survey results indicated that hydraulic structures were part of 25 out of 27 (93%) DOT TAM programs. Six out of 27 (22%) DOTs also included hydraulic structures in their TAMP. This meant this ancillary asset, along with ITS, was the most commonly included in TAMPs

• among survey respondents. With 5 out of 27 (18%) DOTs noting hydraulic structures were managed at a proficient maturity level, it also tended to be one of the most maturely managed assets by respondents. A high proportion of respondents noted hydraulic structures were inventoried (20 out of 26 DOTs, 77%). Some proportion noted their performance measures were compared to targets (12 out of 26 DOTs, 46%). Hydraulic structures also had the highest percentage of respondents, noting that performance for these assets was forecast (5 out of 26 DOTs, 19%). Hydraulic structures were one of the more common assets that respondents noted to be managed in their future approaches, with 13 out of 23 (57%) DOTs indicating they wanted to make this addition.

• Overhead sign and signal structures and signal systems:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 22 out of 27 (81%) DOT TAM programs. Four out of 27 (15%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 14 out of 27 (52%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Twenty-one out of 26 (81%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 7 out of 26 (27%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Three out of 26 (12%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 8 out of 23 (35%) DOT respondents.

• Bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 13 out of 27 (48%) DOT TAM programs. Three out of 27 (11%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 9 out of 27 (33%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Fourteen out of 26 (54%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 5 out of 26 (19%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Three out of 26 (12%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 8 out of 23 (35%) DOT respondents.

• ITS and communications infrastructure:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 20 out of 27 (74%) DOT TAM programs. Six out of 27 (22%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. This meant this ancillary asset, along with hydraulic structures, was the most commonly included in TAMPs among survey respondents. With 9 out of 27 (33%) DOTs noting this asset was managed at a structured maturity level, it also tended to be one of the more maturely managed assets by respondents. A proportion of respondents noted this asset was inventoried (21 out of 26 DOTs, 81%) and had their performance measures compared to targets (7 out of 26 DOTs, 27%). Three out of 26 (12%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 13 out of 23 (57%) DOT respondents.

• High mast and highway light poles:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 16 out of 27 (59%) DOT TAM programs. Three out of 27 (11%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 12 out of 27 (44%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Sixteen out of 26 (62%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 5 out of 26 (19%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Two out of 26 (8%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 10 out of 23 (43%) DOT respondents.

• Traffic barriers:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 18 out of 27 (67%) DOT TAM programs. One out of 27 (4%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 10 out of 27 (37%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Sixteen

• out of 26 (62%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 8 out of 26 (31%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. One out of 26 (4%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 13 out of 23 (57%) DOT respondents.

• ERS:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 13 out of 27 (48%) DOT TAM programs. Three out of 27 (11%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 5 out of 27 (19%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Thirteen out of 26 (50%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 4 out of 26 (15%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. One out of 26 (4%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 16 out of 23 (70%) DOT respondents.

• Sign panels and supports:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 20 out of 27 (74%) DOT TAM programs. One out of 27 (4%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 13 out of 27 (48%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Twenty out of 26 (77%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 7 out of 26 (27%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Two out of 26 (8%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 13 out of 23 (57%) DOT respondents.

• Building facilities:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 13 out of 27 (48%) DOT TAM programs. Four out of 27 (15%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 6 out of 27 (22%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Fourteen out of 26 (54%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 4 out of 26 (15%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Three out of 26 (12%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 9 out of 23 (39%) DOT respondents.

• Pavement markings:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 16 out of 27 (59%) DOT TAM programs. Two out of 27 (75%) DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 8 out of 27 (30%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Seventeen out of 26 (65%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 5 out of 26 (19%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Two out of 26 (8%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 13 out of 23 (57%) DOT respondents.

• Pavement markers:

  The survey results indicated that this asset was part of 8 out of 27 (30%) DOT TAM programs. One out of 27 DOTs also included this asset in their TAMP. From the survey, 2 out of 27 (7%) DOTs noted this asset was managed at a structured maturity level. Eleven out of 26 (42%) DOT respondents noted this asset was inventoried, and 3 out of 26 (12%) noted that performance measures were compared to targets for this asset. Zero out of 26 (0%) respondents noted that performance was forecast for this asset. This asset was also considered a potential addition to be managed in their future approaches by 11 out of 23 (48%) DOT respondents.

Additionally, according to 26 DOT responses, the top five benefits of managing ancillary transportation assets include:

• Accessible condition reporting (19 DOTs, 73%).
• Accessible inventories (19 DOTs, 73%).
• Reduction in risk (17 DOTs, 65%).
• Efficiency in budgetary planning (i.e., planning for funding requests) (16 DOTs, 62%).
• Improved safety (16 DOTs, 62%).

Case Example Summary

Again, the case example interviewees included California, Colorado, Maryland, Minnesota, and Tennessee DOTs. These cases present varied yet effective approaches for ancillary asset management. The cases were specifically intended to provide details regarding ancillary assets managed, the maturity of those management approaches, performance measures, metrics, and conditions models, among other information.

The consensus from the case example interviewees is that the details of ancillary asset management vary by DOT and by asset in each DOT. Four of the interviewees include ancillary assets in their TAMPs. Those who did not, still managed these assets, often according to their perceived value and risk. For instance, low-value assets were often inventoried and replaced as needed, while more critical or higher-value assets were inspected with some frequency and their performance assessed. One commonality among the interviews was that the value of managing their ancillary assets is in planning efficiency and decision-making. Transparency and efficiency are the key benefits noted.

The case examples also highlighted a desire for standardization in performance metrics and condition modeling approaches. All interviewees noted the value of managing ancillary assets in a structured manner, and a few highlighted a desire to learn from others in regard to condition prediction models and performance measures. This aspect of the synthesis scope was not deeply covered by survey or interview feedback. This gap indicates a potential need for additional research to develop standardized performance metrics for ancillary assets.

Potential Future Research

As mentioned, the synthesis scope included the desire to collect information on models for condition forecasting and performance measures, metrics, and targets. There was not a significant level of feedback or information collection regarding these topics. The case example interviews allude to these approaches being implemented in a piloting fashion to determine if the performance is as expected. There has been no formative reference or guide to support DOTs in selecting and implementing performance measures or condition forecasting approaches. Additionally, with the FHWA promoting performance-based management in literature and through legislation, guidance in this area would be helpful. There is a potential need for research around the implementation of emerging technologies as well as the impacts of advances such as BIM in managing ancillary assets. In addition, there is a potential need for research in guidance and standardization regarding condition and deterioration models and metrics.