Supporting North Dakota’s STIP Development Using Asset Management

1. Supporting North Dakota’s STIP Development Using Asset Management Jack Smith P.E.North Dakota Department of Transportation Assistant Planning/Asset Management Engineer

2. Overview • Factors That Influence STIP Development • North Dakota STIP Development Cycle • Expectations and Limitations of our Asset Management Tools • The Future

3. External Factors Geographical: • Short Construction Season (Approximately 120 Days) • Behavior of expansive soils during spring thaw and load restrictions.

4. External Factors Project Delivery: • Preliminary Project Concepts to Delivery of Bid Documents 18 to 12 months. • Many projects are not controversial from an environmental standpoint.

5. North Dakota STIP Development Cycle • Data Collection • Draft STIP • Highway Performance Classification System Report • Final STIP • District Priorities

6. Data Collection • Ride, rut, and distress data are collected in Summer and Fall. • The collected data is analyzed in the winter and early spring.

7. Example Pavement Management Analysis • Summary • The projected average network IRI resulting from the 2011-2014 Final STIP is comparable to the dTIMS optimized analysis projection. • Average Network IRI is projected to improve slightly from the current condition of 88 (Good) to 86 (Good) at the end of year 2014. • The projected percent miles meeting guidelines (Excel/Good) resulting from the 2011-2014 Final STIP is slightly less than the dTIMS optimized analysis. • Miles meeting guidelines is projected to remain steady at the current level of 77% between now and the end of year 2014. (The current network goal is 85%.) • The projected Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) meeting guidelines resulting from the 2011-2014 Draft STIP is on average about 6 percentage points lower than the dTIMS optimized analysis results. • VMT meeting guidelines is projected to remain steady at the current level of 85% between now and the end of year 2014. • A comparison of the dTIMS optimized project recommendations to the projects in the 2011-2014 Final STIP indicates the following approximate correlation by year: • 2011 66% 2013 62% • 2012 78% 2014 54%

8. Draft STIP • Compiled from previous year’s submitted priorities. • Takes into account an estimated budget. • dTIMS CT – List of Generated Projects • Presented to Executive Management and Districts for Comment • Submitted for public comment.

9. FINAL STIP • Updated pavement data • Constrained Budget dTIMS Predictions are compared with the STIP • (Hopefully) Clearer Federal Funding Picture • Responses to Public Comment

10. District Priorities • Submitted at the end of the year. • dTIMS suggested projects are compared with submitted priorities for District Engineer’s use. • Main input for next year’s Draft STIP.

11. Programming Constraints • Politics • Work Type Distribution • Geographical Distribution of Work • Funding Types • Level of Funding • Etc…

12. Expectations and Limitations • Straight Line Deterioration Curves • Traffic Projections • Quality of Construction and Maintenance • Environmental

13. Expectations and Limitations • Our asset management systems will not be “black box” systems. • Our asset management systems will not prescribe projects, but rather recommend projects. • The better we can make our recommendations, the more seriously people will take them.

14. The Future • Further Development of Asset Management Business Practices • Cross Asset Tradeoff Analysis • Bridges • Maintenance

15. The Future • Continual Improvement of our Pavement and Bridge Management Systems • Development of a Maintenance Management System • Investigation of future assets for Asset Management Development.

16. Thank You