Asset Management Study Recommendations and Move Forward Plan

1. Asset Management StudyRecommendations and Move Forward Plan Nicole Fleury, P.Eng.

2. Asset Management Study • Study commenced in February 2011 and was completed in April 2012 • Study included: • a gap analysis on MIT’s current highway capital programming process and asset management process • recommendations on overarching asset management software • implementation plan to address required improvements.

3. Scope • Roads and Bridges - with the possibility of expansion to other assets in the future.

4. Goals and Objectives • Improve our processes and decision making • Overarching Asset Management System • Tradeoff Analyses • Investment themes/Strategic Capital Planning • Report on different funding scenarios

5. Existing MIT Existing MIT Existing MIT Peer AM Processes and Tools Peer AM Processes and Tools Peer AM Processes and Tools AM Processes and Tools AM Processes and Tools AM Processes and Tools • • • Survey of Asset Management Survey of Asset Management Survey of Asset Management • • • Interviews Interviews Interviews Practices of Peer Agencies Practices of Peer Agencies Practices of Peer Agencies • • • Documentation review Documentation review Documentation review • • • Documentation review Documentation review Documentation review Evaluation of AM Software Evaluation of AM Software Evaluation of AM Software MIT Asset Management Needs MIT Asset Management Needs MIT Asset Management Needs • • • Documentation review Documentation review Documentation review Interviews Interviews Interviews • • • • • • Survey of Management Practices Survey of Management Practices Survey of Management Practices • • • User Needs Survey User Needs Survey User Needs Survey of Peer Agencies of Peer Agencies of Peer Agencies • • • Documentation review Documentation review Documentation review Gap Analysis Main AM functions that need upgrading Main AM functions that need upgrading Initial recommendations MIT Review and Endorsement Final Recommendations Recommended AM functions and Recommended AM functions and features and their benefits and costs features and their benefits and costs Implementation Plan for Implementation Plan for CCPF CCPF Functional Design Functional Design Project Overview

6. Highlights of Transportation Focused Asset Management Software Review • Software Reviewed: Agile Assets, Bentley/Exor, Stantec, DeightondTims, Cartêgraph and Vemax • Very wide range of capabilities, features and experience • Each provides a different perspective on asset management • Variety of data reporting and presentation tools • None provides the complete asset management optimization and trade off analysis solution we were looking for • All would require significant customization for use in Manitoba to integrate and use data from the existing systems

7. Main Findings of the Gap Analysis (1) • The goals and strategies used by MIT in their highway capital programming function are consistent with those of peer highway agencies • Agencies indicate that they are working towards an overall integrated asset management system but none are actually using such a system in practice • Pavement and bridge condition are primary focus of asset management systems (other features are mainly considered for inventory only)

8. Main Findings of the Gap Analysis (2) • Each agency has established capital programming functions • Typically include primary emphasis on maintenance and preservation • Programs such as system expansion, safety, operational and environmental related improvements are delivered within the context of available budgets • Most agencies establish needs based budgets: set performance targets for infrastructure, objectively monitor condition, and estimate budget requirements to meet performance targets • Agencies use provincial or state government priorities to develop agency-specific priorities and strategies • Translation of strategic priorities into specific programs is hindered by focus on tactical activities in delivering the best program with the available budget

9. Main Findings of the Gap Analysis (3) • Most agencies have ongoing large-scale projects to update their asset management software applications • Much emphasis is on developing a consistent inventory of all assets linked to a GIS system • MIT has the majority of the ‘systems’ in place to competently manage the transportation infrastructure • However..... they are somewhat fragmented, aging, not effectively integrated, and not very user friendly in their ability to provide required data and information to all stakeholders

10. Recommendation Highlights • The Move Forward Plan should be staged. • Stage 1 (1-3 years) includes closing the gaps in highway capital construction programming, acquiring, preparing and improving the required data and existing asset management systems. Proceeding with Stage 1 will improve MITs ability to manage their transportation infrastructure and ensure MIT is in a position to consider moving forward with Stage 2 • Stage 2 (3-5 years) - implementing a new overarching asset management system if a suitable software solution has been developed in 3-5 years and it is cost-effective to do so.

11. Stage 1 Asset Management Systems • Bridge Management System Implementation • Improve the Existing Pavement Management System • Prioritize preservation and rehabilitation projects for highways and bridges

12. Stage 1 Adopt a Simplified Project Rating Model • Evaluate and Prioritize System Expansion Projects • Rate using various engineering and planning factors to determine a project score used to prioritize proposed projects.

13. Stage 1 Data and Linear Referencing Improvements • Improving key data sources (e.g. traffic, collision, highway inventory) • Improve the data warehouse • Linear referencing System • GIS

14. Stage 1 Highway Capital Program Development • Together the BMS, Improved PMS, Project Rating Model and recommended data improvements provides MIT with a comprehensive, systematic, and defendable means of project selection.

15. Stage 2 Overarching Asset Management System • Proceeding immediately to stage 2 is not recommended: • Higher costs • No solution available to meet all MIT needs • When Stage 1 is nearing completion, scan available asset management software. • Have advances been made in asset management software? • Is it cost effective or desired to proceed?

16. Current Status • MIT is refining the Stage 1 plan and developing an Implementation Team

17. Questions