Effect of Web-Based Engineering Information on Asset Management
by
Thomas Austin Eckles, E.I.T.
B.S., Civil and Environmental Engineering (2002)
The Citadel, The Military College of South Carolina,
Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Science in Civil and Environmental Engineering
at the
Massachusetts Institute of Technology
May 2003
@ 2003 Massachusetts Institute of Technology
All Rights Reserved
Signature of Author_
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering
May 9, 2003
Certified by_
Fred Moavenzadeh
Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering
Thesis Supervisor
Accepted by
Oral Buyukozturk
Chairman, Department al Committee on Graduate Students
MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
BARKER
JUN 0 2 2003
LIBRARIES
Effect of Web-Based Engineering Information on Asset Management
By
Thomas Austin Eckles
Submitted to the Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering on May 9, 2003, in partial
fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Civil and Environmental
Engineering.
Abstract
For decades, infrastructure in the United States has been developed with little or no regard to the
long-term cost of its maintenance and operation. As of June 1999, state and local governments
in the United States are subject to new accounting measures contained in the Governmental
Accounting Standards Board's Statement 34. These new guidelines relate to the method that
infrastructure assets are accounted for in annual financial statements. In addition, with the
release of the American Bar Association's 2000 Model Procurement Code, these governments
are now authorized to explore the benefits of using alternate project delivery methods for capital
programs as well as maintenance and operation for infrastructure assets.
A variety of asset management tools have recently been developed to ease the passage into
GASB 34 compliance for local governments to include a web-based program called Barchan.
My goal as part of a two-person research team was to implement and test Barchan in a sample
town, Winchester, MA. During this process, and after research into the current project-delivery
environment, further applications for such programs were realized and discussed. Such programs
provide a public procurement agency with a wide variety of easily accessible and updateable
engineering information. This engineering information can be used to facilitate decisions to
utilize alternate project delivery methods and provide a benchmark to evaluate their
effectiveness.
Thesis Advisor: Fred Moavenzadeh
Title: Director of Center for Construction Research and Education
2
Table of Contents
CHAPTER 1
5
INTRODUCTION ..........................................................................................................................
1.1
B A C KG RO U N D .............................................................................................................................................
5
1.2
SUBJECT AND HYPOTHESIS OF THESIS .....................................................................................................
7
CHAPTER 2
HISTORY OF INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE AND INTRODUCTION OF
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD STATEMENT 34.............................................9
2.1
FIVE DECADES OF NEGLECTED INFRASTRUCTURE M AINTENANCE ..........................................................
2.2
GOVERNMENTAL ACCOUNTING STANDARDS BOARD.............................................................................
2.2.1
GASB Background...............................................................................................................................10
2.2.2
GASB Statement 34..............................................................................................................................
2.2.3
Requirements of GASB Statement 34.................................................................................................12
CHAPTER 3
10
11
INTRODUCTION TO BARCHAN.............................................................................................14
LAYOUT OF BARCHAN ..............................................................................................................................
3.1
9
14
3.1.1
BarchanAdministratorPage...............................................................................................................14
3.1.2
Prelim ina ries .......................................................................................................................................
14
3.1.3
A ssem blies ...........................................................................................................................................
15
3.1.4
A ssets ...................................................................................................................................................
15
3 .1.5
S cenarios:............................................................................................................................................16
3.1.6
A ctivities:.............................................................................................................................................16
3 .1 .7
R ep o rts.................................................................................................................................................1
CHAPTER 4
6
META SEGMENT CONFIGURATION AND CLASSIFICATION..................17
4.1
INITIAL INFORMATION GATHERING......................................................................................................
17
4.2
M ETA SEGMENT CONFIGURATION ............................................................................................................
18
4.2.1
M eta Segment ConfigurationProcess..............................................................................................
18
4.2.2
M eta Segment ConfigurationDiscussion .........................................................................................
19
4.2.3
M eta Segment ConfigurationRecommendations............................................................................
20
M ETA SEGMENT CLASSIFICATION.............................................................................................................21
4.3
4.3.1
M eta Segment ClassificationProcess..............................................................................................
21
4.3.2
M eta Segment ClassificationDiscussion..........................................................................................
24
4.3.3
M eta Segment ClassificationRecommendations..............................................................................
25
META DATA, MAINTENANCE, AND CONDITION ASSESSMENT ...............
26
CHAPTER 5
5.1
M ETA DATA CONFIGURATION ..................................................................................................................
26
3
5.1.1
Meta Data ConfigurationProcess...................................................................................................
5.1.2
Meta Data ConfigurationDiscussion:..............................................................................................28
5.1.3
Meta Data ConfigurationRecommendations:..................................................................................29
5.2
META SEGMENT M AINTENANCE:...........................................................................................................
26
30
5.2.1
Meta Segment Maintenance Data Input Process:...........................................................................
31
5.2.2
Meta Segment Maintenance Recommendations: .............................................................................
32
META SEGMENT CONDITION ASSESSMENT: ...........................................................................................
33
5.3
5.3.1
Meta Segment Condition Assessment Process:.................................................................................
34
5.3.2
Meta Segment ConditionAssessment Discussion............................................................................
36
5.3.3
Meta Segment ConditionAssessment Recommendations:..............................................................
37
CHAPTER 6
SCENARIO ANALYSIS..............................................................................................................38
6.1
SCENARIO ANALYSIS M ETHODOLOGY: ..................................................................................................
38
6.2
SCENARIO ANALYSIS PROCESS: ................................................................................................................
40
6.3
SCENARIO ANALYSIS CREATION AND DISCUSSION: ................................................................................
42
6.3.1
Reference Scenario I............................................................................................................................
42
6.3.2
Exclusion of PrivateRoads, Scenario II..........................................................................................
43
6.3.3
Effect of Choosing Certain Repair Methods, Scenarios III-VII......................................................
44
6.3 .4
Scena rio V III .......................................................................................................................................
46
6.3.5
OtherPossible Scenario Investigations:..........................................................................................
46
CHAPTER 7
ABA 2000 MODEL PROCUREMENT CODE DEVELOPMENTS AND BARCHAN
APPLICABILITY .....................................................................................................................................................
48
7.1
THE IMPACT OF FLEXIBLE PROCUREMENT OPTIONS AND GOOD ENGINEERING INFORMATION .................
50
7 .2
E XA M PL E S ................................................................................................................................................
50
7.2.1
Introductionof Operationsand Maintenance as an Accepted ProjectDelivery Method ................
50
7.2.2
BarchanApplicability to Example Situation One............................................................................
51
7.2.3
Benchmarking Strategies.....................................................................................................................52
7.2.4
Privatizationof Highway Maintenancein Virginia..........................................................................
52
BULK PURCHASING/COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AMONG GOVERNMENTS ............................................
53
7.3
7.3.1
The Implications of Good EngineeringInformation on Cooperative Purchasing...........................
7.3.2
Example Scenario................................................................................................................................55
CHAPTER 8
54
CONCLUSIONS...........................................................................................................................58
REFERENCES..........................................................................................................................................................59
4
Chapter 1 Introduction
1.1
Background
The United States has developed over ten (10) generations the most extensive collection of
infrastructure networks in the world.' A tremendous advantage to its economy, these networks
are under constant pressure - pressure that comes from heavy use and from obsolescence in both
physical and technological terms. How to maintain these networks is just a starting question
(that has plagued the US since its inception)?
ending rehabilitation
and improvement
How to institutionalize the steady and never-
of these networks
-
both economically
and
environmentally - is the unfortunate, but inevitable, heritage of today's generation of America's
infrastructure users. For decades, the federal and state funding of infrastructure systems has
occurred with little or no thought to the ongoing cost and the related resources needed to
maintain such assets.
Brilliantly conceived and executed infrastructure improvements have
deteriorated quickly, and many would argue, prematurely, for lack of dedicated maintenance,
preservation, and repair efforts. Rather than receiving incremental updates and repairs, the
condition of these assets is allowed to spiral downward until complete replacement is needed,
thereby qualifying, under existing federal and state grant programs, for "new construction"
money.
State and local governments are characteristically the agencies faced with making up
this increasing gap in funding and manpower in support of ongoing maintenance and
preservation of existing infrastructure assets. 2
Other developments, outside the narrow confines of public infrastructure funding and politics,
appear to be influencing this dynamic for the better.
First, the Governmental Accounting
Standards Board (GASB) approved new financial funding requirements in June 1999 that are
designed to encourage state and local governments to "become better stewards of their
infrastructure."
3
In short, these new standards will require state and local governments to
'Miller, John B., Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery, Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000,
Foreword, at page xix, and Chapter 1, at page 7.
2 Dorman, Daniel, Asset Management and GASB-34-Challenge or Opportunity?, Infrastructure Management
Group, Inc.
3 Dorman, Daniel, Asset Management and GASB-34-Challenge or Opportunity?, Infrastructure Management
Group, Inc.
5
account for both the value and condition of infrastructure assets located in their jurisdiction for
inclusion in annual financial statements.
Governments will be penalized in municipal bond
markets, through lower bond ratings, for infrastructure that is not maintained to self-determined
conditions. 4
Second, technology is steadily improving, and offering new management tools to attack the
problem of managing large, complex, infrastructure networks. In response to the new GASB
regulations, new asset management tools are being developed and released to ease the transition
of local governments toward compliance with these new accounting requirements. One such
program, Barchan, was in the final stages of Beta testing in Winchester and Milton,
Massachusetts at the time our research was conducted. To explore the effect of web-based
information tools on infrastructure managements, we were given permission by the Town of
Winchester to explore how their use of this tool in a real infrastructure planning and budgeting
context is helping to shape and change how complex infrastructure networks are being managed
in the United States.
Finally, the regulatory frameworks that control the expenditure of public funds on design,
construction, operation, and maintenance of American infrastructure networks are also changing,
again, for the better, and toward increased flexibility. The American Bar Association's 2000
update to its original 1979 Model Procurement Code for State and Local Government5 has
incorporated several new project delivery methods as authorized procurement strategies for local
and state governments. Included in this list, and of direct importance to the subject of this thesis,
are the identification of operations and maintenance as an accepted project delivery method and
the authorization of cooperative purchasing and staff sharing between government procurement
agencies.
4 Strayhorn, Carole Keeton, Are Governmental Entities That Report Under OCBOA (ie cash basis) Required to
Implement GASB 34? Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, November, 2000.
5 The 2000 Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments, American Bar Association, 2000,
Chicago, IL.
6
1.2
Subject and Hypothesis of Thesis
This thesis focuses on what I believe to be the most important precursor to the development or
deployment of any sound asset management strategy - reliable, current engineering information
as to the status, condition, extent, and cost of the various elements within an infrastructure
network. To explore this subject in a real context, two researchers from MIT's Master's program
in Construction Engineering and Management were allowed to assist with data input and analysis
in the completion of beta testing of the Barchan asset management system in a sample town,
Winchester, MA.6 The purpose of this research was to explore the environment and to draw
lessons that may be of more general application to the effective use of web-based engineering
information in public infrastructure asset management.
To set the stage for this exploration, this thesis will first briefly describe the history of
infrastructure management practices in the United States, and then discuss the specific new
requirements introduced by GASB.
Following a description of the required methodology to
enter the required information for a sample town into Barchan, the thesis then examines how
web-based engineering information can be effectively used in the new procurement environment
to improve best practices in asset management.
The working hypothesis of this research (when it commenced) was that reliable, current
information about infrastructure networks is, currently, the most significant barrier to better
infrastructure management. What we learned from the research is that web-based systems like
Barchan can be effectively used as a tool to develop, store, and quickly present the engineering
information needed to manage a local municipality's infrastructure. The Barchan system, and
others that will undoubtedly follow, have significant additional potential as providing the factual
foundation that can facilitate appropriate public and private sector combinations of contributions
to effective and efficient infrastructure preservation and maintenance, and the emergence, and
6 Winchester,
MA is a relatively small town about 10 miles northwest of downtown Boston, with a population
of approximately 18,000 and an annual operating budget of approximately $55M. The town is managed by a
professional Town Manager and staff, with a five member elected Board of Selectman, and elected representatives
that comprise a typical New England Town Meeting form of government.
7
adoption of consistently innovative practices that improve continued public maintenance of
infrastructure networks.
8
Chapter 2 History of Infrastructure Maintenance and Introduction of
Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statement 34
2.1
Five Decades of Neglected Infrastructure Maintenance
Over the past several decades, the bulk of funds budgeted for infrastructure systems has gone
towards the development of new construction rather than maintenance of current assets. This
phenomenon began during the mid 1950 when the federal government was most interested in
creating the Eisenhower System of Interstate and Defense Highways. During this period, the
federal government stipulated that the Highway Trust Fund be restricted to funding new
infrastructure construction, thereby leaving state and local governments to use their own
resources for maintenance.
The almost complete lack of federal funding allocated for
maintenance created an inherent bias towards capital projects and lead state and local
governments to neglect maintenance activities as a method of conserving local resources. 7 The
effects of federal funding limitations and the resulting bias towards new construction are that
many assets developed during the past few decades have since deteriorated prematurely and have
either been replaced or in dire need of severe overhaul.
Although this problem is readily discussed and noted, the imbalance of funding between new
construction and maintenance has improved very little. For the 2000 fiscal year, the Federal
Highway Administration reported that on average, government agencies of all levels spent
almost twice as much on capital projects as on operation and maintenance. Specifically, state
governments spent 60% of their highway funds on new construction while maintenance activities
received only 18% of the budget. In a positive light, local governments have begun to spend
larger percentages, almost 40%, of their annual infrastructure budget on maintenance.
The
following graph illustrates the disparity between capital and maintenance spending over the past
three decades. 8
7 Dorman, Daniel, Asset Management: Management Fad or Prerequisitefor Solving the Fiscal Challenges
Facing Highway Infrastructure?,Infrastructure Manaement Group, Inc
8 Federal
Highway Administration Office of Highway Policy Information, February, 2003.
9
0
2 50
Capital Outlay
(c urmo doilkirs)
0 40
i
-_(constantdollars)-CRpital -0uLtlay
---
130
-
~(consmant dollars,-
-
-
20
10
Maintance (turrent doflars)
0
1970
I
I
1975
199D
1906
1990
1995
2000
Year
Figure 1
2.2
Capital vs Maintenance Spending (Federal Highway Administration)
Governmental Accounting Standards Board
2.2.1 GASB Background
Facts about GASB:
.
Organized in 1984 by the Financial Accounting Foundation to establish standards
of financial accounting and reporting for state and local entities.
.
Develops standards that guide the preparation of external financial reports for
state and local municipalities
.
Mission: "To establish and improve standards of state and local governmental
accounting and financial reporting that will result in useful information for users
of financial reports and guide and educate the public, including issuers, auditors,
and users of those financial reports."
To accomplish its mission, GASB seeks to do the following:
10
.
Issue standards that improve the usefulness of financial reports based on the needs
of financial report users; the primary characteristics of understandability,
relevance, and reliability; and the qualities of comparability and consistency.
.
Keep standards current to reflect changes in the governmental environment.
.
Provide guidance on implementation of standards.
.
Consider significant areas of accounting and financial reporting that can be
improved through the standard-setting process.
.
Improve the common understanding of the nature and purposes of information
contained in financial reports.9
2.2.2 GASB Statement 34
The GASB released Statement 34 in June 1999 to address increasing demand by citizens and
private sector industry for better transparency and reporting by local governments relative to
infrastructure assets.
For example, the Governmental Research Association, a national
organization of citizen research and taxpayer groups, drafted a letter to the GASB which stated,
"As intensive users of financial information, we believe that infrastructure reporting is an
essential element in improving the accountability of governments to their citizens... [P]ossessing
information about capital asset costs or condition is important in helping policymakers and
citizens make better informed choices about the expenditures of public funds and appropriate
levels of taxation." Also, the National Federation of Municipal Analysts (NFMA), composed of
thousands of brokers, fund managers, insurers, and rating agencies, cites the importance of
infrastructure information to municipal credit analysis, saying, "By their nature, most municipal
bonds finance 'capital assets' and as such, the relevance of this information to public finance
professionals is paramount."10
9
www.gasb.com
10 www.gasb.com
11
The fact that current and future generations will be required to fund the construction and
maintenance of infrastructure projects dictates that accurate and transparent financial reports be
produced by local governments detailing capital and recurring costs for infrastructure assets. Of
primary importance is documentation that current infrastructure assets are being maintained such
that their useful life is maximized, reducing the financial burden on taxpayers in replacing these
assets.
2.2.3 Requirements of GASB Statement 34
Despite the significance of infrastructure asset costs in the long-term financial responsibilities of
local governments, current governmental accounting methods and financial statements omit the
costs of infrastructure-related services. Instead, government reporting is limited to short-term
considerations for capital investment. Statement 34 seeks to remedy this problem.
The long asset lives associated with infrastructure often make depreciating these assets
meaningless, since the annual depreciation amount would be negligible in many cases. The
guidelines of Statement 34 allow governments to report their expenses for maintaining and
preserving infrastructure assets instead of depreciating them, provided that the government can
demonstrate that infrastructure assets are maintained at some consistent level. In this case, local
governments are required to disclose the following information:
* The assessed physical condition of infrastructure assets
" Methodology used to assess and report asset condition
" The condition level at which the government intends to maintain the assets
" A 5-year comparison of the estimated annual dollar amount to maintain and preserve the
assets at the condition level established by the government and the actual expenditures
required to maintain the assets over that same 5-year period
The above described modified approach to GASB 34 compliance was championed by
AASHTO and state DOTs. Not only does the modified approach allow governments to avoid
having to incur depreciation costs, it also has the significant byproduct of fostering close
12
cooperation between finance/accounting and engineering/maintenance departments within an
agency via the common objective of GASB 34 compliance. 1 '
If governments elect to use this approach, these disclosures will give financial statement users
(and citizens in general) information that most have never had. The new information should help
the public better assess the job their governments have done building and maintaining
infrastructure. The users of this new information should then be able to communicate more
clearly to government officials the level of infrastructure investment, maintenance and condition
they prefer.
Although the standards developed by GASB in Statement 34 do not have the force of law,
governments must follow the standards to be eligible to receive clean audit opinions from their
certified public accountants. It is practically impossible for state or local governments to issue
bonds to finance infrastructure improvements without clean audit opinions. Thus, most state and
local governments are likely to follow the rules promulgated by GASB.
In addition, a poor
infrastructure condition rating will result in a lower bond rating.12 Those municipalities with low
bond ratings will have to pay a higher interest rate on bonds, resulting in increased debt-service
spending that will limit funds available for actual construction and maintenance.
Municipal
bonds are used extensively to fund infrastructure development and maintenance by local
governments.
Chicago, a characteristic municipality, reports that over 98% of its local
"Neighborhood Infrastructure" development and maintenance budget is created by the sale of
municipal bonds while state and federal contributions account for less than 2%.13
" Elliot, Bill, Meeting GASB 34: An Integrated Software Approach For Transportationand Public Works
Departments, Exor Corporation.
12 Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, New Accounting Rules Require States, Local Governments to Track Value
of
Their Infrastructure,June 1999.
13 Neighborhood Capital Budget Group, City of Chicago's 2002-2006 Capital Improvement Program,2002
13
Chapter 3
Introduction to Barchan
Barchan is a remote-hosted, web-based capital asset management tool developed to assist public
works officials and town and city managers in meeting the requirements of GASB Statement 34.
Though the research contained within this thesis is focused on beta-site testing for road and
4
highway management only, future production versions of Barchan1
will have the capability to
simultaneously manage multiple "layers" of infrastructure systems, such as water, sewer, and
stormwater networks. Barchan accesses local Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping
networks to display the most current infrastructure system layout available within the client's
specific planning area.
constructed.
Using the GIS network, meta segments of infrastructure assets are
Individual roadway segments can be grouped into meta segments based on a
number of criteria, including spatial layout, traffic flow/type, and maintenance schedules.
3.1
Layout of Barchan
Barchan directs the client to follow a logical path through data input and eventual reporting
mechanisms. A series of seven tabs are located across the top of the Barchan screen, labeled
Overview, Account, Assemblies, Assets, Scenarios, Activities, and Reports.
The order of these
tabs illustrates the chronological path of data input required by Barchan.
3.1.1 BarchanAdministratorPage
The Administrator page provides an overview of the process required to enter appropriate data
and generate reports in Barchan.
3.1.2 Preliminaries
The Preliminaries section of the Overview tab provides initial instruction and information for
new clients. Included is a list of the five types of users that Barchanrecognizes: Administrators,
Managers, Data Entry, Assessor, and Updater. By defining several types of users, the client is
able to limit access to the different aspects of the application.
Go to www.Barchan.net for more information on Barchan. The application can be launched by authorized
users from the web page.
14
14
3.1.3 Assemblies
The creation of a series of assemblies is the first stage of data entry.
A typical town road
network consists of a variety of road types with different widths, base construction, and surface
type. In addition, the presence of sidewalks, curbing, and medians also varies. An assembly
describing each applicable combination of these variables is created in Barchan for future
assignment to roadways. Cross Sections made here are assigned to GIS lines, turning them into
meta segments that represent 3-d physical objects in the real world.
3.1.4 Assets
The vast majority of data entry takes place under the Assets tab. Several different levels of entry
are required, as illustrated below. Here, separate GIS lines are grouped together and assigned an
appropriate assembly to form a meta segments. These meta segments are then assigned to a
group, generally be ownership -- either public, private, or state --and/or road type -either
improved or unimproved.
.
Assigning Assemblies to make meta segments: Individual GIS lines are grouped
together and assigned an appropriate assembly to form a meta segment
*
Group Assignments: Each meta segment is assigned to a group, generally by
ownership (either public, private, or state) and/or road type (either unimproved or
improved).
.
Placing into service: Once the client is satisfied with the assembly and group
assigned to a meta segment, it is placed into service whereby it can then be
assigned additional information.
.
Maintenance Activities: Barchan is informed of the maintenance activities (street
sweeping, centerline painting, catch basin cleaning, etc.) that each meta segment
regularly receives.
.
Meta Data Entry: Additional information about each meta segment is assigned,
including the road's initial service date and the number of manholes and storm
drains located in the pavement.
15
.
Condition Assessment: The current condition of each meta segment is entered
based on a 0-100% scale. Any recommended repairs and change activities are
noted for future use.
*
Maintenance Activities Stored and Reported:
A report detailing the necessary
maintenance activities for each meta segments is produced.
3.1.5 Scenarios:
Under the Scenarios tab, the client may develop a series of scenarios where he can vary the
allowable budget, target overall condition, or vary the recommended change activities.
These
scenarios can be used for budgeting and planning of future maintenance and repairs. Once the
client develops a scenario that he wishes to follow, it is committed, and becomes the basis for
future
3.1.6 Activities:
After the client commits a scenario, a list of required activities is created. When those activities
are completed, they can be checked off under the Activities tab and the current overall condition
of the town will be updated appropriately.
3.1.7 Reports
Barchan allows the client to produce a variety of reports for his own use as well as to create
GASB 34 compliant financial reports. Such reports include inventory lists and the status of
condition distribution.
As a remote hosted tool, Barchan allows local governments to satisfy the requirements of GASB
Statement 34 without expending large amounts of resources or time to implement an in-house
accounting and management system. This is particularly advantageous, given that Statement 34
has been openly criticized as a good intention with serious feasibility and cost-related
implementation hurdles.
16
Chapter 4 Meta Segment Configuration and Classification
The field work portion of our research described in Chapters 4, and 5was conducted jointly with James Steven
Gourley. Past thesis research by Thomas Messervey and others serves as backgroundresearchfor these chapters.
4.1
Initial Information Gathering
On March 12, 2003 researchers for this project met with Winchester DPW officials to discuss
expectations and requirements for Winchester's participation in beta-site testing for Barchan.
DPW officials confirmed that Winchester meta segments were to be classified as one of five
options: public (local) roads, improved private roads, unimproved private roads, state roads, or
Metropolitan District Commission roads. Researchers for this project also decided at this time to
name meta segments according to street name, corresponding house number, and state-assigned
Road Inventory Number (RIN). This strategy promotes efficiency and simplicity in system
management, as local street names and numbers are familiar to DPW staff, while also satisfying
state and GASB accounting standards by incorporating RINs into meta segment descriptions.
Researchers for this project also collected several documents at this meeting to be used in the
Barchan configuration and input stages for Winchester's infrastructure assets. These documents
have proven to be most helpful in configuring Winchester's infrastructure profile, and are noted
here in an attempt to foster similar efficiency in meeting future client needs. These documents
include:
.
Massachusetts Highway Department, Bureau of Transportation Planning and
Development, Road Inventory Printout, January 30, 1997, Town of Winchester
.
Massachusetts Highway Department, Bureau of Transportation Planning and
Development, Description of Road Inventory Printout, September 1996
.
Massachusetts Highway Department, Bureau of Transportation Planning and
Development, Alphabetical Street Listing, January 30, 1997, Town of Winchester
.
Massachusetts Highway Department, Bureau of Transportation Planning and
Development, Fully or Partially Unaccepted Street Listing, January 30, 1997,
Town of Winchester
17
.
RIN Checkplot (Plan-view drawing) for Winchester, Massachusetts, February 13,
1997, Executive Office of Transportation & Construction, Massachusetts
Highway Department, Bureau of Transportation Planning and Development
*
Plan-view utility map of Winchester, Massachusetts (utilized as named roadway
map)
4.2
Meta Segment Configuration
4.2.1 Meta Segment ConfigurationProcess
Barchan configuration and input procedures began on March 12, 2003. Researchers, unfamiliar
with Barchan commands and utilities, first practiced configuring the system and generating
maintenance scenarios until a general comfort level was achieved. It should be noted that the
system's user interface is quite straightforward and user-friendly.
System configuration and input for Winchester's infrastructure assets began March 13,
2003. The configuration process involves: selecting an area within the GIS mapping window in
which meta segments are to be built, scanning the roadway segments of the selected area in the
data columns below the mapping window, selecting those roadway segments to be grouped as
meta segments (which are highlighted in the GIS window when selected), and selecting the
"group as new meta segment" command from the right-click command list. Researchers utilized
the documents listed above to configure meta segments from the road inventory list. Meta
segments were decided upon by Barchan administrators and Winchester DPW officials, and
marked on a town roadway map. Researchers for this project utilized this map and town road
inventories to configure meta segments within Barchan, naming segments according to the
nomenclature discussed earlier. It was discovered that combined use of a roadway map listing
street names, the Mass Highway BTPD RIN checkplot drawing, and the roadway inventory list
resulted in the most efficient and effective configuration process. The GIS mapping window
within Barchan is not full-screen, and the GIS mapping network does not contain Road
Inventory Numbers. As such, caution must be exercised in selecting roadway segments to be
grouped and transferring RIN's into Barchan when configuring meta segments. Problems and
issues of note relative to the configuration process are further discussed below. An example
18
screenshot displaying the GIS window on the left and a corresponding list of configured meta
segments on the right follows. The light blue dotted square denotes the area of the town under
investigation. The dark blue streets are those that are already grouped into meta segments and
listed on the right of the screen. The red street illustrates the meta segment that has been selected
from the list on the right side of the screen. The data listed below the GIS window consists of
segments that have not yet been grouped into meta segments.
rng
ppcloHe0
taacides
Orgaizaan
wcheterUser
overview&
AS1ourl
j1'
soets I
Apbes
0
M89 Sogmonto
OerAIewvMAp
?
PG
"opgCt99180010On
Name
DR 0329
AM 7ooSERW
A.ERVOOD DR
Lerg0h
(1-239.2 m
ID329 (179443
41 VARICIA LN ID425 (1-99)
?AZALEA RDID325(1-87)
0
1
AZALEA RD
S
Sag
Group
I
Improved Private Road
Improved Private Road
.
1807
Pubic Road
192.6m
Public Rood
Improved Private Road
ID328 (1-99) 335 7 m
Improved Private Road
Public
mma
±
[0
K
o-
226957 oY
911646 m
[I
374963462 jENDERSON
NCHIN
3749830
37474105NHN
.-
379003207 vALTHAM
A40
A40
_OR
----378544721 i'USiSLL
8AL
i
054722
RD
FCC
!RD
!9§0320
ST
NC-ESTIR
1705447258l0NCHES TERPR
01801
31801
0101.
01801
j420
2
A40
3101A
A30
A30
ZO-Right
1801
1001
40
R
Z-Left
2420
LeO-Fr
00
04
.
9
1 93
109
02420
70
124 20.b2420.b9.
0
70
|20
01001
.30
.1.0
0420
018
Loft-To
183
195
02
05
ht-To
Rigt-Pr
85
01
19
00 '
9
190
9
70
2
08
4.
62
04
1
23
to 26 Foot
Local & GOr CurbG3 to 26 Foot Local
23 to
26 Foot
Local &Or
23 to
26 Foot
Local
to Foot Local
27 30
Separated
15M6
ID319 (1-99)
823.6
Pubic Road
23 to 26 Foot Local &
135.7.
Public Road
23
Public Road
23 to 26 Foot Local
GOr
40 Foot Local
& GOr
ID424 (1-933 M
i-HIGH ST D040 (180-229)
Improved
472.1 m
311.5 m
HIGH ST D040 (230-299)
8PJOHNSON RD0024 (1-86) 1,26206 r
ID024 (87-1992.3 m
Private Road
(1-99336 M
31
27 to
Private Road
ID034 (1-99) 485.1 m
OLDE LYE RD0079 (1-992538 0
30 Foot
Public Road
Private Road
23 to
Improved Private Road
Public Road
27 to 30 Foot Local
Public Rood
IS to
Improved Private Road
23 to 26 Foot Local
D053 (1-167
598. m
ST 028 (258-299) 308 M
Ii- 2SIMONDS RD D432 (1-99) 152.8 M
R! VSQURE RD0036 (1-99)
935.50
YTHFORNBERRY RD IDD32 (1-1,08.40
S0THORNEERRY RD ID32 (1321.6 m
?VALLEY)OD CIR D30 (1-78.3 M
V$INSON CIR ID330 (1-99)
248 M
RIDGE
STID028 (197-257)
PRDGE
ID037
(1-99) 243
41 rO NCRESTDR
4 W9.w-ooRooRD
003180(11-9953940m
6
"-bc -
Public Road
Public Road
27 to 30
Foot Local
26
Foot Local
CurbQ3 to 26 Foot Local
26
Curbo39 to 40 Foot Local
32
20
& Gor
Curb
Curb
31 to 32 Foot L-ca
19 to
Foot Local
20 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
LooS Gt~ Cio
tIFoot
2710o30tFoo Loot0 oCoG 103
Or bl27 to 30 Foot Local & Gr Curb
27 to 30 Foot Local &
27
to 30
Foot Local
27
to
30
Foot Local
& GOr COurb
to 26 Foot Local & Gor CurbQ3 to 26 Foot Local & Or
to 20 Foot Local & GOr Curb3 to 26 Foot Local & Gor Curb
27 to 30 Foot Loca & GOr CrbG7 to 30 Foot Local &OGr Crbw
&
Curb
Curbl19 to 20 Foot Local or
19 to 20 Foot Local &
23 to 26 Foot Lol & GOr Curbo3 to 26 Foot Local & Gor Curb
23
23
Ipoed Private Road
Curb
& GOr CurbQ7 to 30 Foot Local & Gor
CurbQ3 to 26 Foot Local
Rood
Pubico Road
r
23 to 26 Foot Local
& GOr
Foot Local
Public Road
Pubic Road
&
Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local &OGr CuirbQ3 to 26 Foot Local
Public Reod
& Gr Curbi
Foot Local
Cuirb23 to 26 Foot Local &Gor Curb
Improved Private Road
Public
& GOr Curb
& Curbi
GOr
27 to 30 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
[
0' PPOCAHONTAS DR
Foot Local
Unasigned
27 to 30 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
(1693.4 M
Foot Loca
26
& GOr CurbU7 to 30 Foot Local & Gor Curb,
& GOr Curb7 to 30 Foot Local & Gr Curb!
26 Foot Local & GOr Curb3 to 26 Foot Local & Gr Curb
27 to 30 Foot Local
31 to 32
D321
26
31 to
Unclassified
Public Road
Public Road
VILLAGE DR
& Gor Curb
Foot Local
to
23 to
Local
(,&NASSAU DR
(OLDE
GOr
to 32 Foot Local
Public Road
Improved
SPLONGFELLOW RD0078 (1-206.2 m
39 to
Public Road
40
23 to
Curb3
23 to
26 Foot Local
to 26 Foot Local
Improved Private Road
Urdmproved
1516
26 Food Local
Foot LcSeparatod 1816 15A96 Foot Li
iCOOLIDGE RD
VPARTRIDGE LN 033 (1-9997 M
1'
39 to
23 to
PLOCKELAND RD041
Su~ffl
Nama
& GOr CurbG3 to
Loca
Pubic Road
C*1VJOHNSON RD
I-nassgnd $ogmenido
Local
to 40 Foot
Pubic
TER 0039 (1-99)167.9 m
Local
to 26 Foot
39
264.5 M
COX RD0D329 (1-99)
Foot
to
23
1040m
mHAWTHORNE RD
0027 (1-9233.2 m
2063 8.ioAooooo
Road
Assembly_
19
20
to
ID038 (1-99)
WFIELDSTONE DR
OPPoyIfO1
Rood
CwOsOicOatlon
19
20 Foot Local
CARRIAGE LN
mFAIRLANE
jj
R
ID325 (6a-99) 100806 m
ID031
0R (1-99)598.8 m
SoERKSHiRE
4iJCKMAN DR
WCAPRI TER 10035 (1-99)
sc5d0
Fmscal Year,.2003
hRepootsI
Ailvfis
scsnarosl
Cxbt
Gr
Sepaated1I5/
6 15/16Foot LcSeparated15/:1
5/16Foot L
VVYID1SONG LW 10320 (1-99)21280
S.
Figure 2
o
ooo>
"~-~
. -~ooSt&&&
n~o
Mea Segmen t Configuration Screen Shot
4.2.2 Meta Segment ConfigurationDiscussion
Several streets within the GIS mapping network, MapCiti, were labeled as "unnamed streets". It
was assumed that these streets were private driveways, commercial entrances, or recently
constructed roadway extensions. To verify this assumption and ensure accuracy in constructing
meta segments, these unnamed streets were driven by Barchan administrator to assess their
layout, geometry, quality, and assign names to these meta segments.
19
In addition to several unnamed streets within the GIS network, researchers for this project
also discovered some erroneous roadway data in the MapCiti database.
These errors include
incorrectly named streets, incorrect roadway layouts, and several streets not shown at all. A
MapCiti database update was carried out from March 21 through March 24, 2003. While it is
assumed that this update will solve the mapping anomalies experienced during Winchester betasite testing, Barchan administrators and clients should monitor mapping accuracy on a regular
basis. As in the case of Winchester configuration, Barchan administrators and Winchester DPW
officials were able to quickly detect many of these mapping errors and correct them. Clearly,
client input and coordination at the configuration phase, as well as all other critical stages, is an
efficient and effective way to accurately configure and productively run the system to generate
maintenance scenarios.
4.2.3 Meta Segment ConfigurationRecommendations
Researchers for this project would like to make one recommendations for Barchan system
improvement relative to the meta segment configuration process:
Incorporate an option to view the GIS map in full-screen rather than just a zoom-in
command. As discussed earlier, the small map window makes it difficult to configure meta
segments from streets that are broken by many intermittent intersections, as these streets contain
many individual segments. A detailed view is necessary to ensure that segments are accurately
selected and incorporated into meta segments. The zoom-window provides this detailed view.
However, many major arterials extend through several neighboring townships, and these
neighboring segments are selectable in the GIS mapping window. Thus, a large view of the
mapping area is necessary to ensure that these remote segments are not selected by mistake. The
combined requirements of a large view and level of detail suggest that a full-screen window
would be more appropriate and efficient than just a zoom-in command.
15Many times while trying to use the zoom command in the GIS map screen, the researchers were kicked off
of the system. This resulted in frustration for the researchers, and increased the time needed to configure the meta
segments. In response, the researchers sent tickets to the software developer. This problem was eventually
corrected when the software developer switched from Oracle 8 to Oracle 9.
20
4.3
Meta Segment Classification
4.3.1 Meta Segment ClassificationProcess
Data input for constructed meta segments began on March 17, 2003. Researchers for this project
utilized the Town of Winchester Road Inventory Printout and accompanying Description to
assign classifications and geometries to Winchester meta segments. The process used by the
project researchers for assigning properties to meta segments is detailed below:
.
Under the "Assets" tab, a view is selected in the GIS window, thus listing the
meta segments located in that view in the list located on the right-hand side of the
screen.
.
Each meta segment is selected with a right-hand mouse click, displaying a menu
for further inputs entitled "Meta Segment Properties." In this menu, researchers
are required to make two entries based upon information located in the document
entitled "Massachusetts Highway Department Bureau of Transportation Planning
and Development Road Inventory Printout, January 30, 1997."
.
First, the road must be placed in one of the following designated groups:
Improved Private Road, Unimproved Private Road, Public Road, MDC Parkway,
Public Driveway, Public Unimproved Road, or State Road.
.
Second, the road receives a classification.
The researchers choose this
classification from a list of typical cross-section assemblies developed by a
Barchan administrator. This list of assemblies is found under the "Assemblies"
tab.
.
Barchan automatically completes the Cross-Section data input under the "Meta
Segment Properties" menu based upon the previous classification entry.
A sample screenshot that illustrates the "Meta Segment Properties" dialogue box for a particular
meta segment, Albamont Road, follows:
21
C
V i 6
M44t I
(ri
mx" 14.
e
Fa P4e"
P*k
4
Lnif
:2* W X rcd
PMlt PxAd
a Lhu
mI
k
A'
ki
Casf
st
P
AIepted
2adPbi
4 MDC
21
1
4nr
~
2ZW
Figure
Sreen
erties
Pr
MetaaSement
3
7,
AY'
V40
r.
~
too4
I~ft
V,- 49AWA 2V' I 1117r
p%*
d A C "c
x 9 tx IA x L cbretmm
J*Vrm4 L=W4 Cr w *t30
~2.Lws4
Ce
72 .5221l
MIX XrOOLMV
.Z7I"
fW
a~~
W6'40tltMrOM1
W13 )1
w* 644*
Oxip
L~-721'
1"**~
t,24
L
Cityor.Town
I
")3
144c
F,IJ
-0$
-I'
LxW
1ak
r
AL
.
znw 22 Lm3 5!
Z3
rZ
s
N.
I7L
I"
r
U..
$1W2F
s3'
1
ascuet
iha
i
? I x23.
oo
~P Lms!
13.2
Prvate
The Administrative System (Ad Sy) column in the Road Inventory list was used to group meta
segments.
Zsrb
k!6 x IP d -181A CW UIdI 30rec~l 14t Lde"CM
Barchan
Administrativei.s.
by
"'I,
vs.
2~10
Meta Segment Properties Screen Shot
Unacceptd
22ftaLaca
21 Is
IOW
W 6 FDxd L "/
R9
~
Ma
Sho
'sp-oC mi
Figure 3
.4~
44 6MLDC41 Ge Q
A I sL.
> ar21LAaW,3Cc 1
at
~7# ArN
0Cayt@2"~
City/Twn
2
Metroptia
3V Com*msi
22 fvd
o
3
1w
o
a
ZI Xneaw fs wa rodL-Aia w 94 A fm netoc4ACoe.
I2ACm
P W rrod
* W
"C" Ik28
X 2~a Local A U Cut(
-,*5i 1* 44rcd LXWA Cc Ot1 Is
i
pltk POW
3
.ANuiT
ytem
oM
wowa P*AV O Erae waonde
Ntrn 1)MM1_rQWeAra,
A Mt **_J
,(a
A4rQt)I
NfdL
ta
Mx A
Dept.J1
State
13
2.07
L~(
21.~LI
The Description of Road Inventory Printout details this Administrative System
heading. Meta segments were grouped as follows:
Administrative
System
DsrpinBarchanMie
DsrpinClassification
0
1
2
3
Unaccepted by City or Town
Massachusetts Highway Dept.
City/Town Accepted Road
Metropolitan District Commission
Mie
Private
State
Public
JMDC
13.22
2.07
72.52
14.17
22
.
'Y,
tot
15 rootU
There are numerous other Administrative System groupings listed in the Description of Road
Inventory Printout.
However, none of these other groupings are present in Winchester's
infrastructure system.
The Surface Type (Sf Ty) heading in the Road Inventory List was used to determine whether
private roads were improved or unimproved according to the following chart:
Surface Type Description
0
No Data
Barchan
Classification
**Specific
determination
required* *
2
Unimproved road
Unimproved
5
Gravel or stone road
Unimproved
6
Bituminous surface-treated road
Improved
8
Mixed bituminous road (high type)
Improved
9
Bituminous penetration road (high Improved
type)
11
Bituminous concrete sheet or rockImproved
asphalt road (high type)
As with the Administrative System groupings, there are numerous Surface Types listed in the
Inventory list, but only those listed above are applicable to Winchester roadways.
Meta segments were also classified according to information contained in the Road Inventory
Printout. Classification involves the following determinations:
23
Determine paved surface width.
This is the sum of the Surface Width (Sf Wd) and the
corresponding Left and Right Side Shoulder Width and Type (LSh W&T, RSh W&T) data from
the printout according to the following designation:
Shoulder
Type
Description
H
Hardened
S
Stable-unruttable
subgrade
U
Unstable shoulder
Sf Wd
No shoulder
Sf Wd
penetration
Barchan Paved Width
bituminous
mix
or (Sf Wd)+(LSh W&T)+(RSh W&T)
compacted Sf Wd
Determine status of curbs and sidewalks. The Curb (Cb), Left Sidewalk (Lt SW), and Right
Sidewalk (Rt SW) headings in the Inventory Printout are self-explanatory.
However, project
researchers and Barchan administrators encountered problems associated with meta segments
with varying sidewalk and curb characteristics. A description of this issue and resulting solution
is included in the Classification Discussion section of this report.
4.3.2 Meta Segment ClassificationDiscussion
The researchers were required to make several assumptions while assigning properties to the
meta segments in order to alleviate some inconsistencies in the provided documents.
For
example, several times the documents stated that portions of the same meta segment were private
roads while others were public roads.
In these situations, the Barchan administrator field
checked this erroneous data, and separated these segments into multiple meta segments to better
reflect their assembly and improve accuracy of the system. Also, there were several roads that
contained sidewalks and/or curbs on only one side of the street while there is no such
classification available in Barchan. Rather than create a new cross section for each of these
anomalies, the Barchan administrator recommended that the researchers use a "best fit"
24
classification for such meta segments. Often times, when portions of a meta segment varied in
width or in sidewalk or curb presence, the researchers assigned a classifications that represented
the majority of the meta segment's properties.
The researchers were again kicked off of the
system while assigning properties to the meta segments. This problem was corrected with the
switch from Oracle 8 to 9.
4.3.3 Meta Segment ClassificationRecommendations
During the classification of the meta segments, the researchers noted one recommendation for
the Barchan administrator relative to meta segment classification:
The researcher is unable to view all of the meta segments formatted for the town at one time.
Instead, he must select a portion of the town, and then work only with the meta segments in that
area. The availability of an alphabetical listing of all meta segments for a town would greatly
reduce the time needed to assign classifications to meta segments, and would also allow the
client to pick a meta segment from the list and immediately access the location and
characteristics of that meta segment.
25
Chapter 5 Meta Data, Maintenance, and Condition Assessment
5.1
Meta Data Configuration
5.1.1 Meta Data ConfigurationProcess
Upon completion of configuring various independent street segments into meta segments and
assigning the resulting meta segments cross sectional properties and functional classification, the
researchers then assigned each meta segment an individual initial service date and the number of
sewer manholes and potable water valves located in the pavement of the respective meta
segment. The Barchan administrator assigned the meta segments the appropriate number of
storm drains. The process for entering this data into Barchan is as follows:
.
Under the Assets heading, select an area of the map, thereby displaying the list of
meta segments contained in that region in a list on the right-hand side of the
screen.
.
Right-click on a selected meta segment and choose "Metadata" from the pop-up
menu.
.
Enter the initial service date and the number of manholes, gate valves, and storm
drains into the appropriate spaces.
An example screen shot showing a selected meta segment, Albamont Road, and its
corresponding meta data configuration dialogue box follows:
26
E; kkAW,-M
.,*Ie
tot
0
4k
UL.-
'14 Xl
-1
*6erw
Woo,~c1t
14.
11
I1bI4
51V
N",1
A~
I*~6
*
~
T.44*
tot
VLK
5 5
~~0,'~ OR
~
OLAOOO.VL
4
.
V FOA4
M
10U
41146.
MAW.6
210
F1 M
AF
3561606 j
0
701
!#A*C RIO"
6~~*
CIOf
277e*Ots,'
LcA
441~
011
Mrs011
o4,
V ,S
01A)i-o-3 F Lioa(I
W1
-,T,'<V
.M1
.0
r.4L.~
~~
,
______Pot"_
ssicj
w
11
O
P~
.10
4r
qLOC44d0
)F
to
011144
n- oC44 oov
11 h&'4r
3O
~70~
1*
rA4l
7FV~ 11071
1~N*
76(la07
ntwft-
0
N~L.u&~
,i-7
&-w
14
V*t-4
V1ll U
'#9
AOtR4441o4W2
w*
0
4 Ue4141
,",Vu~
Wo
.S
446h
Lt 3i v m
or*o471
4 rO$ L-OCAWI OO
d
?rA*~~~4~10
w
04
W
ri
. =7
cPAW1
ZrVO
W-
X1.
th reearher bytheTow
t prvidd
docuent
l-411
1 4W.
(oft
1U
P
~ ~
TMIC 461*10111
f~
101M64
o Fizi
3
Loud
1 &CCV
211441411X00411
offiWinhete on a 3
disk:
3
o comute
inch
om-oA speashe conaiin aw log of initia sevc aes 3 rfetn whe thema ~c a2 roa Lid was 2
ciy This documentr isR- incude inM th ppnixfr his
thet
originally acepe by1v
Oervice2Z odates&G."I
and "Win2.totreetslnA&r
is enttle
chapter
this~x
chptr and. iss enite "Town ofo Wicese DW
tree
ResurfacOx~ I 2- Ming 6 I O
Alphl eric abetclSreIneoy"
27
LX
Number of Sewer Manhole, Potable Water Gate Valves, and Storm Drains
The information required to enter the number of manholes and gate valves was compiled from
sanitary sewer and potable water supply maps and lists of sewer and potable water information
exported from a database created by previous GASB 34 researchers. Dr. John Miller, a Barchan
administrator, provided this information to the researchers.
When entering the numbers of manholes and gate valves for each meta segment into
Barchan, the researchers had to pay special attention to those streets that were broken into
several meta segments. Information for meta segments that consisted of entire streets could be
retrieved directly from the sewer and potable water databases. However, the researchers could
not take information for those meta segments that consisted of partial streets directly from the
data bases, and instead retrieved such information by physically counting the numbers of
manholes and gate valves on the respective maps.
5.1.2 Meta Data ConfigurationDiscussion:
The researchers used the document entitled "Town of Winchester DPW Street Resurfacing
Alphabetical Street Inventory" as their primary reference for determining the initial service date
for the meta segments because it contains the date that the streets were last completely resurfaced
and brought to a "like new" standard. If the particular street under investigation was not found
on this list, the document entitled "WinStreetsInServiceDates" was utilized.
Because this
reference only lists the date that the street was first officially accepted by the town, the dates
range from the 19th century to the late 20h . The researchers were advised that 1960 was to be
used as the earliest possible initial service date because any road constructed before then and not
completely resurfaced would have depreciated to a negligible present value regardless of its true
initial service date.
The researchers relied on the Barchan administrator to provide Barchan with the number
of storm drains located in each meta segment.
Judgment calls were often required when
counting the number of manholes and gate valves that were to be assigned to a particular meta
segment. Specifically, when two streets intersect, and a manhole and/or gate valve is located in
the middle of the intersection, the researchers used their best judgment as to what street that item
28
would be assigned.
Because the researchers gleaned much of the manhole and gate valve
quantity information from databases created by previous researchers, they depended upon the
judgment of others. A comparison of the numbers of manhole and gate valve numbers assigned
to each street by the previous researchers and the numbers shown on the respective maps led the
current researchers to trust their predecessors' judgment. Following the apparent precedent set
by the previous researchers, items located in intersections were generally assigned to the longer
road to avoid accounting for the item twice and to provide continuity to the assignment process.
5.1.3 Meta Data ConfigurationRecommendations:
Recommendations to Barchan Developer:
The researchers noted several recommendations that should be taken into account by the
Barchan administrator to ease the meta data configuration process. These recommendations are
listed below:
.
As mentioned before as a recommendation to ease meta segment classification, it
would be extremely helpful if Barchan users were able to view all of the meta
segments located in the research area in one alphabetical listing. Because Barchan
requires the user to first "zoom in" on a window of limited maximum size and then
work with the meta segments located within the boundaries of that window, it is
difficult to complete the meta data configuration of a street that consists of multiple
meta segments without choosing several different views.
.
The meta data configuration dialogue box should be updated to include a
distinction between sanitary sewerage and storm water drainage manholes.
Manholes are required for both systems whenever a change in grade or direction is
necessary. Because both systems generally follow road right-of-ways, manholes for
both are prevalent in street pavement.
should be available in Barchan.
Therefore, an input box for both items
The researchers only accounted for sewer
manholes during the meta data configuration process to avoid confusion between
the two systems.
29
.
The meta data dialogue box does not allow the client to simply type the initial
service date into the appropriate input window. Instead, he must scroll through a
listing of years from 2003 to 1800. While this may seem minor, when considering
the time it takes to scroll through the list and the fact that a town such as Winchester
contains over 300 meta segments, rectifying this situation will save the client undo
frustration.
Recommendations to Future Barchan Clients:
The researchers approached this portion of the project with a trial and error mentality.
As
always, hindsight is 20-20, and the researchers have developed the following list of helpful ideas
for maximizing the efficiency of meta data configuration:
.
Data entry works best with a team of two people: one person looking up and calling
out the information to the second person who then handles the inputs into the
dialogue box.
.
Clients should verify all information (numbers of gate valves, manholes, etc)
presented to them as a database compiled by others by first comparing it to the
appropriate map and then driving around the town and inspecting several streets to
ensure accuracy.
5.2
Meta Segment Maintenance:
The next stage of data input provides Barchan with the schedule of maintenance activities
performed by the town. Such activities can include street sweeping, centerline repainting, litter
control, maintaining ground cover, tree and brush trimming, grass mowing with a tractor, and
catch basin cleaning. Winchester DPW provided the researchers with four lists of roads included
in special plow routes. These roads are the main roads of the town, and therefore DPW sweeps
them three times a year, repaints the centerlines twice a year, and cleans the catch basins located
along them once a year. These lists were consolidated into one document by the researchers, and
included in the appendix. Those roads not included on this list are only swept once a year, do
not have centerlines, and have catch basins cleaned once every other year.
30
The before-mentioned maintenance activities, in general, do not increase the service life
of infrastructure. However, the municipality must account for these activities when developing
an accurate representation of their expenses.
5.2.1 Meta Segment Maintenance Data Input Process:
The process required to input the maintenance data into Barchan is as follows:
.
Under the Assets heading, select an area of the map, thereby displaying the list of
meta segments contained in that region in a list on the right-hand side of the screen.
.
Right-click on a selected meta segment and choose "Maintenance" from the pop-up
menu.
.
In the maintenance dialogue box, check the boxes beside the appropriate
maintenance tasks that the town provides. Then enter the number of times per year
that those items are done into the appropriate spaces. For catch basin cleaning, the
number of catch basins located in that meta segment must be entered as well.
An example screen shot showing a selected meta segment, Albamont Road, and its
corresponding maintenance dialogue box follows:
31
Applcat
on Help
Vi
'ARDLEY PL )346 (1-99)
ARDLEY RD (131 (1-53)
C>,
coo
l*
s
.
0H.
142.9m
180.2 m
131(54-90) 179m
ARDLEY RD
-
-
ATHERTON RD
0062 (1-9190.1 m
4
2
2
Improved Private Road
Pubic Road
Iroved Private Road
3
Pubic Road
J,
'A'
-
Maintenance
--
-
-
f,/-
T mts/Year
Quaity
Rom
Roadways,
sweep
F
"urface
F Re-apply Center Line Pavement Merking, 4 Lane Road
1
R
Roadways, meaini Ground Cover,
Roadways, tree
Cbpyo ht 2003 2 hv
a
F
real,
ean
per 1000 m2
F
a
Gr
Curb
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local 0
Locad &Gr Curb
Local
Local & Cone S
3 to 26 Foot Local & Gr Curb23 to 26 Foot Local & Gr Curb
.9 to 40 Foo Local &Gr Curb39 to 40 Foot Local & Gr Curb
R9 to 40 Foot Local & Conc
39 to 40 Foot Local & Cone S
9 to 40 Foo Local
&Conc
W39 to 40 Foot
Local
& Cone
)nclassitied
Unassined
9t 0Fo oa
9t 0Fo oa
9 to 26 Foot Local
1 to 44 Foot Local
Foot Local
Foo Local
Foot Local
S3to 26
to 26
to 20
RD
395212746 CAMBRIDGERD
C
2
to 20 Foot Local
26 Foot Local
23 to
to26FootLocal&ConecSN
%23
&Gr Curb41 to 44 Foot Local &Gr Curb
23 to 26 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
a Cone W39 to 40 Foot Local & Conc Si
j PHORN POND BROOK RD ID1267.2 m
[PINVERNESS RD I134 (1-9%7.7 m
v JOHlSON RD (1024 (1-06) 1,262.6 er
4) SLAMENCE ST ID0 (1 99200.5 m
4
4
9
2
Public Road
Public Road
Public Road
Pubic Road
0 to 40 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot
3to 26 Foot Local
to 26 Foot Local & Gr Curb23 to 26 Foot
19 to 20 Foot Local &GrCurb9 to 20 Foot
31 to 32 Foot Local &Conc 31 to 32 Foot
21 to 22 Foot
21 to 22 Foot Local
27 to 30 Foo Local & Gr Curb27 to 30 Foot
23 o 26 Po Local &Cone S23to 26 Fod
LYNCH SCHOOL DRIVE (Fr61.5 r
S2NEW MEADOIWS RD (Ext.) 157.2 m
SPNEW MEADOWS RD ID020 1033.2 m
NORFOLK RD ID129 (1-99) 174.5 n
[.
o ONEIDA CR ID089 (1-99) 89.4 m
I
I
2
4
Pubic Driveway
Unimproved Private Road
Public Road
Public Road
19 to 20FootLocal
19 to 20 Foo Local
23 to 26 Foo Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
I
Public Road
ONEX)A RD 1D0689(1.22) 227.0 mn
792 m
OXFORD ST ID01 5 (1-9)
SPARKER RD ID132 (1.99) 128.6m
3
4
I
Public Road
Pubic Road
Public Road
e
NST
HILLTOP RD
ID095
73
(1-99) 168.4m
(11097m
(ci
LT
1
Fot§oa
Pubic Road
Local
Gr Curb
Local Gr Curb
Local Conc S2
Local
Local S Gr Curb
Local Conc S2
Local
19to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
&Gr Curb23 to 26 Foot Local &Gr Curb
23 to 26 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local &Cone S23 to 26 Foot Local &Conc S
23 to 26 Podl LocalS&Or Curb23 to 26 Fodt Locat 8 Dr Curb
231o26 Fod Local &Cone 20231026 Pod Lool& Cone 20
23 to 26 Foot Local
23 to 26 Foot Local
Maintenance Configuration Screen Shot
Figure 5
5.2.2 Meta Segment MaintenanceRecommendations:
The researchers offer two suggestions to the Barchan developer:
*
The client is required to enter the number of gate valves located in a meta
segment twice: first during the meta data input process, and again during the
maintenance data input process. If possible, the developer should incorporate a
link between the two dialogue boxes so that the client only needs to provide
Barchan with the information once.
.
S
Local
to 26 Foot
3
FootLocalI&Cone
33to26
jr
29
1 U10 2U foot
23 to 26 Foot
23 to 26 Foot
23 to 26 Foot
21 to 22 Foot
Gr Curb23 to 26 Foot
Local &Gr Curb23 to 26 Foot
31 to 32 Foot
Local
Local & Conc 23 to 26 Foot
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local
Local 8
Yew: 203
eparated 26:26 Foo Local aSeparated 26:26 Foot Local 8
ea
F Roadways. bluamious concrete, clewn catch basin, 1 22 m da, 3 6 mdeep
90mxC 1690
p-3
2
190
11
4
7-7A
-9 R 19
)1801
A25 101801
378560423CAMBRIDGERD A25 1801 1801
........................
1
....
25 01890
1 8W 472 1Close
A7256971CAMBRlDGE
M-RI1DGEOT.....
T
4D2
9HR
706CAMBN
_1)9
10 A2
A5013
190
-31
-UKY--------A2
374990790 AYER
F
m2
and brush trimmng, par 1000 m2
7 Roadways, grass mowbng wth tractor and 3-gang
A&owes. LLC
Unassigned Segments
scale.
par 1000
-oa-te
2
, hand P 08-1 0
to 20 Fool
23 to 26 Foot
23 to 26 Foot
23 to 26 Foot
1 to 22 Foot
W3 to 26 Foot
3to 26 Foot
i1to 32 Foot
3 to 26 Foci
19
at
Barchan will not accept a fraction as the number of times per year that a
maintenance activity as performed (the fraction is automatically rounded when the
32
client chooses to save changes). Therefore, the client cannot accurately account
for activities such as catch basin cleaning that may only occur once every other
year. If possible, the developer should incorporate the ability to enter fractional
inputs into dialogue boxes.
5.3
Meta Segment Condition Assessment:
Following the maintenance schedule input process described above, the Barchan administrator
and researchers for this project began to develop a methodology for first condition assessments
of Winchester's streets. These condition assessments will be transferred to a quality degradation
curve under the Assessment tab in Barchan, along with observed repair requirements and
recommended activities.
This assessment is then used to determine the current value of
individual infrastructure assets and to generate maintenance scenarios for resource optimization,
according to the requirements of GASB Statement 34.
The Barchan administrator and project researchers drove a small portion of Winchester's
road network together on April 28, 2003 to understand how the condition assessment process
worked and to enter a small number of initial condition assessments. Barchan personnel entered
the balance of the condition assessment information between April 28 and May 7, 2003.
Assessment logs were used to record observed conditions, repair items, and
recommended activities. Assessments were assigned a quality percentage, with 100% being a
"perfect" road with no perceptible defects. In general, the goal of Barchan's infrastructure
management capabilities is to allow local managers to maintain a 70% condition rating across
their infrastructure portfolio. This condition level allows for sufficient roadway conditions to be
maintained while still enabling a broad and efficient allocation of maintenance resources.
Assessments are grouped into the following categories:
.
Maintenance - Condition rating of 70% to 85%. Roads in this category are free
from major defects, and therefore no activity recommendations are made. Repair
and maintenance items observed include isolated crack sealing, isolated patching,
isolated pot hole repair, isolated full depth repair, as well as regularly scheduled
activities such as street sweeping.
33
.
Light Preservation - Condition rating of 50% to 70%. Whereas roads in the
Maintenance category are in a general state of good repair with isolated
anomalies, roads in the Light Preservation category are in a general state of
declining quality.
requiring
This is characterized by rutted, uneven pavement surfaces
widespread
crack
sealing,
patching,
and
shoulder
leveling.
Recommended activities for this category include sand sealing, fog sealing, or
rubberized asphalt sealing. Performance of these recommended activities results
in a quality assessment adjustment to 75% in Barchan'sinventory condition.
*
Heavy Preservation - Condition rating of 25% to 50%. The quality of roads in
this category is severely diminished, such that patching repairs would offer little
to no solution. In this case, recommendations must be made for segment-wide
change activities. These activities include cold milling and leveling overlay, chip
sealing, and open graded friction coursing. Performance of these recommended
activities results in progressive adjustments to Barchan's condition assessment, as
displayed in the appendix of this report.
.
Addition Reconstruction - Condition rating of 0% to 25%. Roads in this category
are
virtually un-drivable.
Recommendations
for this category involve
construction of additional lanes and reconstruction of the street altogether.
Performance of these recommendations will result in an adjustment in condition
assessment to 100%, as these will be "new" streets.
5.3.1 Meta Segment ConditionAssessment Process:
The process for transferring condition assessment data from field assessment logs to Barchan is
as follows:
.
Under the Assets heading, select an area of the map, thereby displaying the list of
meta segments contained in that region in a list on the right-hand side of the screen.
.
Right-click on a selected meta segment and choose "Assessment" from the pop-up
menu.
34
.
On the condition graph located on th6 left-hand side of the dialogue box, click on
the appropriate condition assessment percentage.
This will become the "Initial
Condition," and will be noted at the top right corner of the dialogue box.
.
If any repairs were noted on the field assessment log, enter the quantity of each and
the respective condition percentage deduction in the appropriate input boxes. The
initial condition will be automatically adjusted according to the deductions, and an
"Adjusted Condition" will be displayed directly below the "repairs" section of the
dialogue box.
.
If any recommended change activities were noted on the field assessment log,
choose the appropriate one from the scroll down menu located below the repair
input boxes. When actually completed, these activities will improve the condition
assessment of the meta segment. Therefore, in Barchan, when a change activity is
noted in the "Assessment" dialogue box, the adjusted condition is automatically
increased, and becomes the "Resulting Condition," displayed directly below the
Recommended Change Activity portion of the dialogue box.
.
After all inputs are complete, the client must click on the "Create" button. This
causes another pop-up box to appear, asking the client, " The assessment will
become permanent and unchangeable, create segment?"
If the client chooses the
continue option, the condition is saved.
An example screen shot showing a selected meta segment, Albamont Road, and its
corresponding assessment dialogue box with accompanying create pop-up follows:
35
r
cee
Fig
1
.to~,
PTI.0fUJ.1UI. ft
7T 7
L*Iea
Tt&.~fIIM
MC-
Asesm
C1ii
6120.
htLW
Ty2~
M1~
A vMMIlII PWW
n, "
n
.
PAMI*
POW.4L
3
M
I
wA1
L
JkA5L.
M.VI&Mjr
IV~M
04C
OWu
ws
tat
noed
addiionit
Fiur 6R
te
measemen
eq
ire
4
of
Mm f
Ml as
depth
Pal treaiaprbe
CodtonAssmetSrenSo
that decreased the initial condition by two percentage points, creating an adjusted condition of
Furthermore, it was recommended that the meta segment receive a fog seal. Upon
completion of this, the assessment of the road would increase to the resulting condition of 75%.
61%.
5.3.2 Meta Segment Condition Assessment Discussion
The development of and adherence to a standard condition assessment methodology is critical to
the accuracy and usefulness of maintenance scenarios and resource allocation schedules
For example, Barchan allows local governments to explore
maintenance scenarios based on the distribution of condition and distribution of value of
generated through Barchan.
infrastructure assets across their respective towns. To ensure that these distributions accurately
36
reflect actual conditions, the same markers of condition assessment must be applied to every
evaluation to achieve a level of precision among assessors.
While this directive is very straightforward, the process of developing and implementing
a standard condition assessment methodology is in no way a simple task.
The condition
categories described above are very broad, and it is relatively easy to assign individual streets to
one of the four categories.
However, condition assessments and quality ratings within the
categories are critical to the development of an accurate profile of infrastructure condition and
value.
In a typical town, most infrastructure assets will fall within the Maintenance and Light
Preservation categories. As such, their ratings will likely be within 10 to 20 percentage points.
However, the condition assessments of streets within the same category can vary dramatically.
This means that condition assessment variations of as much as 2 or 3 percentage points could
indicate significant differences in actual roadway conditions. A proposed methodology to ensure
precision in condition assessment is discussed in the next section.
5.3.3 Meta Segment ConditionAssessment Recommendations:
Researchers for this project propose the implementation of quality control mechanisms in the
condition assessment process to achieve a level of precision among different assessors for a
given infrastructure inventory.
First, all assessors should perform an initial assessment as a group, discussing individual
observations and resulting condition assessments for a given street. This allows identification of
a common set of markers to be used in an agreed upon rating system. Individual assessments can
then be carried out independently using the common rating system. After all streets have been
assessed, a sampling of these streets should be evaluated by a different assessor, and the results
compared with the original assessment.
Discrepancies can then be discussed and resolved
cooperatively. This quality control procedure will help ensure that assessments accurately reflect
even the smallest differences between street conditions in the client's infrastructure portfolio.
37
Chapter 6
Scenario Analysis
After the initial configuration of a town's inventory within Barchan is complete, users can then
use the Scenarios function to develop a maintenance, repair, and action item log. By providing
Barchan with a proposed budget and the desired overall inventory condition, the researcher is
provided with a summary of suggested activities that will achieve the desired condition. Before
developing a scenario in Barchan, the client should determine a proposed budget and the desired
overall condition of the town's assets. After this decision is made, Barchan can be used as a tool
to map out what improvements should be made to the infrastructure inventory to achieve the
desired overall condition within the budget constraints. These improvements relate directly to
the initial condition assessment and maintenance schedules entered earlier in the configuration
process. The improvement activities prescribed during the scenario analysis are based on the
initial condition, the needed repairs, and the recommended change activities input by the client.
6.1
Scenario Analysis Methodology:
Barchan is not a probabilistic program, meaning that it will not use a variety of complicated
algorithms to decide where an available budget should be spent to optimize the resulting overall
condition. Instead, it is a tool that allows the client to easily display the cumulative effect of
maintaining, repairing, and performing change activities to certain roads on the overall available
budget and total infrastructure condition. When developing a scenario, the information that
Barchan uses to create a scenario comes directly from the client's previous inputs during
condition assessment and maintenance scheduling. Regardless of the budget and target condition
requested by the client, the program will automatically account for all maintenance, repair, and
change activities previously input, and determine the cost to perform them and the condition that
will result from their completion. For the town of Winchester, maintenance refers to activities
such as centerline painting, street sweeping and catch basin cleaning. While these activities do
not affect the condition of a road, they require funding, and therefore are accounted for in a
scenario analysis. Repair and change activities are input during condition assessment, and refer
to activities like full depth repairs, crack sealing, and surface course patching for repairs and fog
sealing, rubberized asphalt sealing, and cold milling for change activities.
After displaying all
of these recommended activities in a new scenario, Barchan will calculate the total cost of each
category (maintenance, repair, and change activities) and both display that sum and deduct it
38
from the client-provided budget.
Remaining funds will be shown as a positive or negative
amount, depending upon whether the budget was enough to cover all recommended activities.
There are four variables that the client can manipulate when developing a series of scenarios:
money, timing, level of service, and choice of fix. The owner can vary the amount of money
used by providing Barchan with a series of different budgets to determine the required funding
to complete the needed activities. Changing the budget as a sole variable will only affect the
remaining funds shown in a scenario analysis. Barchan will still calculate the funds needed to
complete the activities input during condition assessment and maintenance scheduling, and
display the difference as either positive or negative in the remaining funds box. Similarly,
simply changing the target condition, or the desired overall level of service, will not affect either
the remaining funds or recommended activities because Barchan will still account for all
activities input during condition assessment. Therefore, the client must change the requested
maintenance, repair, and change activities (choice of fix) in order to affect the required budget
and the resulting overall condition. The most direct changes can be made to change activities by
simply clicking on the displayed activity in a scenario and choosing an alternate fix. If the client
wants to manipulate the timing of certain activities, he can delay that action by choosing "none"
from the drop-down menu.
Choosing to not perform a suggested change activity will
immediately increase the remaining budget and decrease the overall condition. However, that
activity's affect on the overall condition may be so fractional that it will not decrease the
percentage by a whole point on its own. Rest assured, if several more change activities are
changed to "none", the program will respond by lowering the overall condition rating. Rather
than choose to do nothing to a road, the client can also examine the affect of choosing an
alternate change activity in the scenario analysis. Barchan recognizes both the cost of each
change activity and the condition of the road that will result from its completion. While several
activities may increase a road to a condition of 75%, and therefore have the same affect on the
overall condition, they will have different costs, and thus different affects on the remaining
budget. The client can also alter the remaining budget and resulting condition by changing the
maintenance and repair activities.
However, this process is much more involved than
manipulating the change activities because Barchan does not allow the client to alter these
activities inside the scenario analysis window.
Instead, the client must make new condition
assessments to change the recommended repair activities, and a new maintenance schedule to
39
change the required maintenance activities. After these changes are made, the client can then
examine the affect of increasing or decreasing the maintenance routine on the remaining budget,
and changing recommended repair activities on both the remaining budget and overall condition.
A typical client will develop a wide variety of scenarios to decide how he should spend his
budget most effectively. For example, if the client is faced with a budget constraint, as he most
likely will, he may want to investigate several different approaches to utilizing this budget. He
can decide to focus on those roads that have an extremely low initial condition in an effort to
improve the town's overall infrastructure condition. On the other hand, he could decide to let
those roads continue to deteriorate until they need to be completely replaced, and instead focus
on keeping acceptable roads at an optimal level of service via regular crack sealing. He can also
focus on a certain change activity such as rubberized asphalt sealing or open-graded friction
coursing, and determine the effect of its sole usage on the overall condition of the road and the
remaining budget.
6.2
Scenario Analysis Process:
The following steps are required to develop a scenario in Barchan:
.
Click on the Scenario tab at the top of the Barchan screen and create a new
scenario by choosing the appropriate command button with a mouse click.
.
A "New Scenario" dialogue box will appear. Enter a scenario name, a proposed
budget, and a target condition in the respectively named input boxes. Choose the
create command to proceed.
.
Barchan will produce a log showing all meta segments located in the town, the
costs to complete the normal maintenance input during maintenance scheduling
and the needed repairs and recommended change activities noted during the
condition assessment, , the cost to complete those change activities, the total cost
to improve the meta segment, and the condition that will result when those
changes are completed.
40
.
The total funds required for maintenance, repairs, and major changes are noted at
the top of the screen. If the budget exceeds the funds required to increase the
condition to the target, the remaining dollar amount is shown. This number will
be negative if the budget was insufficient.
.
The original (current), target, and new conditions are also displayed. The new
condition will be realized once all of the recommended repairs and change
activities are completed.
.
The client can either increase or decrease the remaining funds, and therefore the
new condition, by adding, altering, or removing change activities for the various
meta segments.
A sample scren shot displaying a draft scenario follows:
HOP~
I-
.....
....--.........
_-
(N~aYW2W
406)00055t
WY
El W6 t)w T %r
DrtS
5,4
.o1e
$940949893
04 08
40
25
4o
.1520742
Repar
Chooge TOW0 -$126294 25
cenaio ,01li2IL
Rerrarwq
~
Private Road
Rad
5
iniproed Private
76_iprovad
9od
7
9
9
10
Private
Road
F...Lca
Lc
19
Private Road
timproved
rr9rovod Pr/ot R08
,900ov8
to Foci
to fool
to
.....
...
,19 to 20 Foot Local
.I o2Fo
to 20 Food Local
............
...
.......... ....
!19to 20 Fool Local
to 20 Fadt Local
!19to 20 Foot Local
to 20 Foot Loca
Private Road
2
F
O255370
SoN. 71%6
73%
Ne-
to 20 Foo
Local
19 to 20 Fo
Local
19 to 20
Local
Foot
191o 20 Foot Local
19
to 20 Foot
9 to 20
Foot
impovd
Private ROd
ARLEY
PL
CUJRCHLL
CONANT RD
Local
8RTIS
CR
12
6ro9ed Private
13
6
14
,pr0ed PNvate
is
18
mproed
Private Road
mproved
1is
mroe
19
6mpr0v0d Private
21
24
25
Road
imipr-ed Private Road
17
20
Road
Road
Prae
1proved
prov;;d
Private Road
rvae
ROWd
Road
Private Rod
'961proed Pr1,ft Road
!6mproved Private Road
0roved
Road
Private
CT
EMERSON
$97 41
$352000
45%
$3429
S0.00
80%
$22
9m
(1-99)1
ST D3084 (1 -9)
ID357 (1-99)
D344 109)
95.7.m,
32.8 m
(1.9)
F
50 00 /A
72%
$35091
50D0N)A
NWA
$2035
$14 45$S0,
$000 NA
90%
70%
$22.97
$0001N/A
$0.00 ,
62%
80%
69.8 m
73%
90
$16.75 '!--
151 m
66%
$26 24
r
m2
c
per
mr
per
m
/
0N
S7.831
$25 79
Seal,
N/
$9 41
72%
3& 2 m
D360 (1-99)
NA
82
39.2.m
107.5 M
D396
CT ID398 (199)
AIRVIEW TER
12
EAST
37
D386 (1-99)
EARD
E AT0N
63%
142.9.m
CIR
COLLAMORE
re"
239.2
099
9STE
1
S28. 1
22%
DR 1)329 (1-
CHAPIN
per m2
$0 0 Fg see.Npo,,o2
$00017
920l3~
117.2.m
346 (1-99)
BROOKS ST D287(74- )
CT 0363 (50-67)
Local
to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 FoOt Loca
19
19 to 20 Foot Local
to 20 Fool Local
19
'19to 20 Foot Local
..
a........
F 2 .9
19to 20 Foot Local
119 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
1t9 to 2U Foot Local
.. L.....
...2..F.
1i
19 to 20 Foot Loca
119 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Fad Local
1t9 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
:19 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
.o
2- F o L c
.......
19 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Fedl Local
to 20 Foul Local
19
19 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
19 to 20 Foot Local
19
CA,0055A00550
082950,
AGAWAM RDID331 (1-99)
1t9
11
u_Lvn
r
AsemiSyme
19
-W3*0
$-1416L19
roup
19 to 20 Foo Local
d9 to 20 Foot Local
,rprovd Private Road
..........................
9.0...................8
oi
t
19to 20 Foot Local
Local
20
19
Wrproved Private Road
'2 2 .........
IS to 20 Foot Local
Local
2U
19
51proved PNvate Road
3
2........c
......
19
to 20 Fd Local
:rtproved Private Road
4
.19 20 Foot Local
ClselficItion
20
2
$633 .00FCg
$9,18i
$S
D0NIA
0005/A
--------- -$0001Fg Seat
s
72%
$164.67
GARDNER PL D412 (1-99)
152.4 m
75%
$36.55
$006
WES (1-99)
121.3.m
N/A
$29:121
$000
157.9.m
7 4%
$2789
134.6 m
45%
$3230
$00
...JN/A
$000F7g
EMAY
ID335 (1
REELEY RD
-99)
PL ID280 (50-99)
IkWORTH RD D380 (1-99).
GROVE
LAKEVIEW TER D192
LAWSO RD
EA
(27-99).
ID310)51.
6EDGEWOOD RD ID377 (1-99)
OCKE ST
MCCALL
NER
V044
(1-99)
RD8334 (1
EN RD
'I
199)
D404 (1 -99)
. .
/
.NA
/A
127.8 m
72%
$3060
$0! 1N/A
60.3 m
75%
$40,39
68%
$129 40
$000N/A
$S fON/A
1
581.2 m
126.m
9.m
434
1 26.3
20%
$30.241
45%
$104 371
_62%
$30 79
5000F
.-.-.
.
r-
Seal. pw m2
Pr
$0D0Fg Seal
S0001Fg
.
rm2
m2
Seal. pal
Ito 25 of
532I
176RoFooSea
L-5in 20AM5
Figure 7
Example Scenario Screenshot
41
6.3
Scenario Analysis Creation and Discussion:
To demonstrate the various scenarios that a Barchan client may develop to determine an
appropriate budget request and allocation program, the researcher created several mock scenarios
for the town of Winchester. These scenarios illustrate how a town manager can conduct several
studies and decide how he might make the best use of budgeted funds. To avoid changing the
condition assessments and maintenance scheduling for Winchester's meta segments, the
researcher did not alter the recommended repair and maintenance activities. Instead, the
researcher focused on altering change activities because Barchan allows a client to directly
experiment with different change activities in a scenario analysis without affecting the previously
input information.
6.3.1 Reference Scenario I
The first scenario created by the researchers was to be used as a point of reference. By entering a
budget of zero and a target condition of 71%, the researchers sought to find the funding required
for normal maintenance and needed repairs for all roads in the town, regardless of whether they
are public or private. No changes were made to the change activities previously recommended
during condition assessment. In the resulting scenario analysis report, it is noted that the budget
needed to perform all of the regular maintenance activities, repair items, and recommended
change activities noted during condition assessment is about $2.51 million and the resulting
overall condition is noted as 73%. The required maintenance budget for all roads in the town is
about $169,000, or about 7% of the total budget. The remaining 93% is needed for repair and
change activities. Barchan immediately totals the funds required to complete all maintenance,
repairs, and change activities entered during condition assessment, regardless of the budget
entered. If the town manager chooses to complete all of these activities, the overall condition of
the town will increase from a rating of 70% to 73%. Any changes made to the scenario in the
form of modifying the suggested change activities will alter the overall resulting condition and
required budget. From this scenario, the researcher learned what budget is required to complete
all initially recommended maintenance, repair, and change activities ($2.51 million) and the
resulting overall condition (73%). From this benchmark, the researcher could then explore the
42
effect of altering the change activities for some or all of the town's roads on the budget and the
overall condition.
6.3.2 Exclusion of Private Roads, Scenario II
It is important to note that the budget of $2.51 million accounts for activities pertaining to private
roads as well as public and state roads. Barchan does not recognize the difference between
ownership of infrastructure when developing a budget. Therefore, acting as a public agency that
does not want to account for the funds needed to maintain and repair private roads, the researcher
developed a scenario where no change activities were applied to private roads.
This was
accomplished by giving Barchan a budget of $2.6 million and a target condition of 73%.
Barchan allows the client to manually adjust the recommended change activities within the
scenario analysis, so the researcher changed all change activities for the private roads to "none".
The resulting overall condition for Winchester decreased to 72% when no change activities were
applied to private roads and savings of $120,317 were realized when compared to the reference
scenario. Using total meta segment lengths, the researcher calculated that private roads account
for approximately 26.2 kilometers, or 16.6%, of the total Winchester road network of about
157.5 kilometers.
Therefore, it can be estimated that 16% of the maintenance and repair
activities needed throughout the town, approximately $270,350, is contributed to private roads.
Expounding upon this information, a client could state that residents of private roads should be
billed approximately $390,000 for the cost of private road maintenance, repairs, and change
activities.
These residents could be given the choice of having those actions completed or
allowing their roads to deteriorate.
Regardless, the client would also know that he needs a
budget of approximately $2.12 million to complete all maintenance, repairs, and change
activities recommended during maintenance scheduling and condition assessment.
If this
budget is not available, he could manipulate the change activities until he reaches an acceptable
budget. Because the current edition Barchan still accounts for the condition of private roads
when determining the resulting overall town road condition, the client can not accurately account
for the effect of altering change activities for public roads on the overall condition of public
roads without deleting private road meta segments from the inventory.
43
6.3.3 Effect of Choosing CertainRepair Methods, Scenarios III-VII
A town manager might decide to explore the cost savings and resulting condition assessment of
utilizing various different repair activities. To illustrate this ability, the researcher developed
several scenarios focusing on a single repair activity. To minimize variable, all budgets were
given a budget of $2.6 million, a target condition of 71%, and were compared against a standard
control scenario that accounted for the change activities recommended during condition
assessment. Because of the inability to easily differentiate between public and private ownership
for budgeting during scenario analysis, all roads that already had a recommended change
activity, regardless of ownership, were subjected to the experiment. The researcher used
rubberized asphalt sealing, fog sealing, cold milling, double chip sealing, and open-graded
friction coursing as options that a town manager may decide to solely use. The results of this
methodology are shown in the following table.
Change
Total ($)
Savings Over
Control (%)
Resulting
Condition
2507572
3947929
2105792
1814986
2234180
817880
2258237
416100
125294
544488
0
-57%
16%
28%
11%
73
74
74
73
73
1976002
286310
21%
73
Focus Change Activity
Remaining Total Cost
($)
Budget ($)
Control (Using Recomnended Change Activities
Cold MIlling
Double Chip Seal
Fog Seal
Open-Graded Friction Course
92428
-1347929
494208
785014
365820
623998
Rubberized Asphalt Seal
Figure 8
Single Change Activity Summary
As shown in the table, the same resulting overall condition can be achieved with a wide variety
of budgets. For example, a client could decide to use either cold milling or double chip sealing
for all change activities, both of which will provide an overall condition of 74%. However,
while cold milling will cost 57% more than using the change activities recommended during
condition assessment, double chip sealing will save 16% over the control scenario's required
budget. The following graph compares the cost of using only one type of change activity to the
resulting overall condition of the town.
44
Total Change Activity Cost and Resulting Condition
74.5-
73.5
S00
0
Figure 9
500000
Effect of
1500000
1000000
Total Change Order Cost ($)
2000000
2500000
using a sole change activity method on total change activity cost and resulting
overall condition.
While a town manager most likely would not decide to use only one method to increase the
condition of infrastructure assets, such as study illustrates the fact that there are a variety of
approaches, with a wide range of costs, to reaching a desired overall condition. Although several
change activities may provide similar resulting conditions, some methods will produce much
longer-lasting results than others.
It is often said that every dollar spent in timely pavement
maintenance will save four to five dollars in future rehabilitation Costs.16 Therefore, a client has
two ways of viewing the information gleaned from the above analysis. First, he can use the
cheapest possible change activity, fog sealing, on all roads needing work to bring the overall
condition of the town up to 73%, thereby using the smallest possible budget, thereby providing
the taxpayers with short-term satisfaction. However, such an approach will not be a long-term
fix as cold milling the entire road and replacing it. While this is a very expensive process, it will
16
Flexible Pavements Council of West Virginia, Guide to Pavement Maintenance, Spring, 1997.
45
not have to be repeated nearly as often as other change activities. Thus, a client may decide to
utilize his budget by only cold milling as many roads as possible over several years.
6.3.4 Scenario VIII
The researcher developed Scenario VIII to illustrate other possible methods that a town manager
may take to asset management. If forced to comply with a budget of $1.9 million the client will
obviously have to make severe cuts since $2.5 million is needed to complete all recommended
maintenance, repair, and change activities. The researcher decided to attempt to comply with
this budget by not committing any change activity funds to roads with less than a 60% initial
condition assessment. A client may make such a decision because attempting to maintain the
condition of such roads is like throwing money into the proverbial bottomless pit. Therefore,
instead of spending money on these roads, the client could wait until they need to be completely
replaced at a later date, thus bringing them to a 100% condition. The researcher started with a
budget of $1.9 million and a target condition of 72%. After changing all of the change activities
to "none" for those roads with a current condition of less than 60%, the researcher noted that the
overall condition of the roads decreased to 71%, and the remaining budget was $58,635. Thus,
by ignoring the already declining roads, the client is able to continue to improve those at a decent
condition and stay within his allotted budget. The remaining budget could be used to increase the
condition of several other roads in the town. Because the problems associated with those roads
with a condition greater than 60% have been alleviated, the client could begin to focus on the
deteriorated roads with following years' budget allotments.
6.3.5 Other Possible Scenario Investigations:
There are a variety of other scenarios that a client could explore while either requesting a budget
allotment or trying to satisfy one. A town manager will obviously be very knowledgeable of the
traffic patterns, most heavily traveled roads, and of various politically important infrastructure
assets. If given a set budget, the manager could use Barchan to develop maintenance, repair, and
change activity options for the city council to choose between, thereby alleviating himself of the
final decision. It has been said that a good engineer does not tell his client exactly what they
should do with their money, but rather gives them several viable options that they can then
choose from. In this matter, programs such as Barchan serve as a good tool for the engineer to
46
illustrate to his clients their options. For example, the town manager can choose to aggressively
maintain the most heavily traveled roads and ignore those that are seldom used or to constantly
apply rubberized asphalt sealing to those roads in an effort to maintain their current condition as
long as possible without investing heavily in reconstruction. In this manner, the most heavily
traveled roads will have consistently high conditions corresponding to their usage. Because
these are the roads that most taxpayers will see, public contentment will be maintained while the
lesser-traveled roads are reconstructed slowly over several years.
A client could also use
Barchan to focus on certain areas of a town at one time. The roads in one quadrant of the town
could be identified for change activities, and a corresponding budget developed. By focusing on
a single quadrant per year, the manager could isolate the impact of construction by year.
47
Chapter 7 ABA 2000 Model Procurement Code Developments and Barchan
Applicability
Regulatory frameworks covering the private sector delivery of infrastructure facilities and
services have been undergoing a major change since 1990.17
"Public infrastructure " is
increasingly understood by researchers, policy makers, and (public and private) construction
industry practitioners as a mixture of private sector contributions in initial design and
construction, followed by various combinations and mixes of public and private operation and
maintenance contributions.'8
The American Bar Association originally developed its
recommendations for governmental procurement strategies and placed them in the 1979 edition
of the ABA Model Procurement Code for State and Local Governments. This Code was fully
adopted by sixteen states, and by a wide variety of local municipalities across the United States.
The basic principles of this code became "bedrock notions in the American law associated with
public procurement."'9 For decades, the basic project delivery method for public procurement
has been traditional design-bid-build.2
This sequential process requires the public agency to
first develop a complete design for a project by either using in-house designers or by contracting
with a design firm to produce the necessary plans and specifications. Once this design process is
complete, the purchasing agency may then seek construction bids to have the project realized.
While this delivery system is adequate for many projects and encourages fair competition among
construction firms, it also has a variety of shortcomings. These shortcomings are addressed in
the 2000 update of the procurement code developed by Margaret E. McConnell, former Director
of Procurement for Arizona, and MIT Professor John B. Miller. The revised code adds several
new authorized project delivery methods. Included in this list of newly authorized methods are
design-build,
17
design-build-finance-operate-maintain,
design-build-operate-maintain,23
and
Miller, Principlesof Public and PrivateInfrastructureDelivery, supra, Chapter 3, pp. 79 et seq.
Miller, Principles,supra, Chapter 5, pp. 281 et seq.
19 The 2000 Model ProcurementCode for State and Local Governments, supra.
20 The 2000 Model Procurement Code for State and Local Government, supra, Overview, at pages
xiv and xv.
The Overview also provides a good summary, along with the Reporters notes contained in Article 5, as to how the
various project delivery and finance methods can now be simultaneously used to address the long-term problems
associated with managing large, complex, infrastructure networks.
21 The 2000 Model ProcurementCodefor State and Local Government, supra, Section 5-101 (3), at page 40.
22 The 2000 Model ProcurementCodefor State and Local Government, supra, Section 5-101 (4), at page
40.
23 The 2000 Model ProcurementCode for State and Local Government, supra, Section 5-101 (5), at page 40.
18
48
operations and maintenance. 24 The general characteristics of these project delivery methods, as
described in the 2000 Code, are shown below 2:
.
Design-Build: The Purchasing Agency enters into a single contract for design and
construction of an infrastructure facility.
.
Design-Build-Finance-Operate-Maintain:
The Purchasing Agency enters into a
single contract for design, construction, finance, maintenance, and operation of an
infrastructure facility over a contractually defined period. No state funds are
appropriated to pay for any part of the services provided by the contractor during
the contract period.
.
Design-Build-Operate-Maintain:
The Purchasing Agency enters into a single
contract for design, construction, maintenance, and operation of an infrastructure
facility over a contractually defined period. All or a portion of the funds required
to pay for the services provided by the contractor during the contract period are
either appropriated by the [State] prior to award of the contract or secured by the
[State] through fare, toll, or user charges.
.
Operations and Maintenance: the Purchasing Agency enters into a single contract
for the routine operation, routine repair, and routine maintenance of an
infrastructure facility.
By making the above-mentioned project delivery methods available to government procurement
agencies, the 2000 Model Procurement Code has largely decentralized the decision making
power for infrastructure maintenance. Rather than being forced to rely upon a single approved
procurement strategy, local municipalities now have the authorization to choose between a
variety of delivery methods, picking the one that best suits the specific situation in question. A
town in need of infrastructure development and maintenance is now able to develop its own
24
25
The 2000 Model ProcurementCode for State and Local Government, supra, Section 5-101 (9), at page 42.
The 2000 Model ProcurementCode for State and Local Government, supra, Section 5-101 (3,4,5,9) pages
40-42.
49
unique strategy of mixing and matching six different procurement strategies that will give its
citizens the best value for their tax dollars.
The Impact of Flexible Procurement Options and Good Engineering Information
7.1
With the availability of new procurement options, local governments have increased flexibility
when deciding how to maintain their infrastructure.
With this flexibility comes the need for
easily accessible information for intelligent decision-making.
These local governments can
strongly benefit from having a single source of information pertaining to their current assets,
available budgets, and needed improvements. By having this information readily available, they
can better decide how to combine various delivery methods to maximize the return on taxpayer
money.
The availability of this engineering information provides transparency for the basis
behind procurement decisions both internally and between other similar agencies and potential
privatization corporations.
7.2
Examples
Two of the newly authorized procurement methods, Operations and Maintenance and
Cooperative Purchasing are particularly applicable to local-level asset management. The author
has developed two examples that illustrate the applicability of Barchan to facilitating clients who
wish to utilize one of the new procurement methods authorized in the 2000 Code.
7.2.1 Introduction of Operations and Maintenanceas an Accepted Project Delivery Method
If Operations and Maintenance is now recognized as an accepted project delivery method and
web-based services like Barchan are supplying reliable information about the current status,
condition, and cost of an infrastructure network, its public managers will have the information at
their fingertips to tailor how public employees combine with private contractors to more
efficiently manage public assets.
26
In the ABA Code, Reporters, Miller and McConnell define
Operations and Maintenance as "a project delivery method whereby the Purchasing Agency
There will always be public employee and private contractor components to public infrastructure
management. Neither a public nor private sector monopoly in this field has proven to be stable, efficient, or wise.
See, Miller, Principles,supra, Chapter 5, A Path Through.
26
50
enters into a single contract for the routine operation, routine repair, and routine maintenance of
an infrastructure facility." Traditionally, public agencies have relied upon the design-bid-build
procurement strategy for infrastructure development, and their own in-house maintenance
departments for the operation and upkeep of the infrastructure. This revision to the Code allows
municipal management officials the flexibility to adjust the mix between maintaining
infrastructure with their own personnel and using competitive sealed bidding to out-source
operation and maintenance to private sector organizations.27
7.2.2 Barchan Applicability to Example Situation One
A town such as Winchester traditionally spends a significant amount of its maintenance budget
on the repair and upkeep of private roads. Some residents may argue that because they pay
taxes, the town should maintain these private roads; however, the town does not accept such
roads and, therefore is not legally bound to maintain them. Using Barchan, a town manager can
create a scenario where he filters the assets by either public or private ownership. Then, the
manager can inform residents who live on these private roads exactly how much the town spends
to maintain these unaccepted roads each year. After being told that the town will no longer foot
the bill to maintain the private roads, the residents of each street can vote to pay the town
additional stipends to continue the maintenance, or request to contract for upkeep independently.
This information can then be added to Barchan, and town officials can decide if they want to
dedicate their personnel to private road maintenance, or out-source such duties to an independent
operations and maintenance contractor.
The town official is able to develop and illustrate
choices to offer to residents using Barchan as a tool.
The client could easily create other
scenarios within Barchan to determine other options that the town could explore to economize its
maintenance routines. For example, the manager may decide that he no longer wants to use his
own personnel to paint centerlines, street sweep, or clean catch basins. After creating a scenario
that illustrates how much the town spends on such activities, the manager could then post a
request for bids for privatization of those maintenance items. If a private firm enters a bid for
Again, the dividing line between public and private has constantly moved over time, as advances in
knowledge, materials, equipment, and construction techniques have evolved. This evolution is not new!. What is
new is the potential to make this evolution transparent, and, in the end, to make better decisions that are enabled by
flexible procurement laws and better engineering information.
27
51
less than what the town currently spends, a contract could be issued for a specific time period,
and town maintenance personnel could devote more of their time to repairing potholes and other
more serious problems.
7.2.3 Benchmarking Strategies
Before entering into privatization contracts, a local government should first understand its
current abilities and limitations.
Such benchmarking provides the agency with a basis for
deciding on a proper procurement strategy.
If the agency fully understands the amount of
maintenance it is required to supply, and its current cost to do so, it can accurately access the
benefits of outsourcing such work. Without proper benchmarking, it is impossible for the agency
to know whether or not privatization is beneficial to the government. In addition, maintaining
proper information about the requirements and capabilities of the agency will enable the agency
to properly function if the privatization contract is terminated.
7.2.4 Privatizationof Highway Maintenance in Virginia
Programs such as Barchan are not only useful to public agencies seeking to be more efficient in
their maintenance routines and methods. Barchan provides the benchmark data from which
decisions can be made on whether or not it makes sense to enter into operation and maintenance
contracts with private firms. As illustrated by the privatization of the maintenance of a portion
of Virginia's highway infrastructure, the company to whom the O&M contract is issued can also
greatly benefit from an asset management tool. VMS, Inc was awarded a contract for operation
and maintenance of 250 miles of interstate highway for an initial five years.
Virginia has
estimated that over the five-year contract, it will save 17% of its normal budget allocated for
maintenance. VMS also has highway asset management contracts in Alaska, Florida, Oklahoma,
and Texas.28 Central to the success of this privatization effort has been an asset management
program developed by ERES, and named Highway Quality Management System (HQMS).
Like Barchan, HQMS utilizes inventory condition data to establish priority programs and plan
28 Better Roads Magazine, Agencies and ContractorsTeam Up With Asset Management,,
September, 2001
52
short- and long-term budget needs.29
A company using such information to manage a
municipality's infrastructure has an obvious competitive advantage over one that does not.
While this privatization contract has worked well for Virginia during the past five years, there is
no way to foresee the future.
In addition, even though VMS is contractually obligated to
maintain the highways under its jurisdiction to a certain condition, because of GASB 34, and for
its own knowledge, Virginia should still maintain its own database of infrastructure condition
and maintenance requirements using a program such as Barchan. Ideally, the State and the
contractor could jointly operate the system whereby Virginia maintains the database, and VMS is
required to accurately update conditions.
Therefore, Virginia could still easily report the
condition of its infrastructure as part of its financial statements. Also, upon fulfillment of the
contract or replacement of the contractor, Virginia would always have an up-to-date assessment
of its infrastructure to use as a basis for current and future decision-making.
Bulk Purchasing/Cooperative Purchasing Among Governments
7.3
A second important development in public procurement acknowledged in the 2000 Model
Procurement Code is the authorization of cooperative purchasing.
In Article 10, the new Code
defines a public procurement unit as any public agency that is allowed by law to expend public
funds to acquire supplies, services, and construction. 30 The new Code stipulates that a group of
public procurement units may join together and create a cooperative purchasing group that will
act as a single procurement unit. These cooperative-purchasing groups can then contract a
vendor to provide all included parties supplies, services, and/or construction. An obvious benefit
of such a relationship is that a small, under-funded jurisdiction can ban together with other
similar municipalities, and receive economy of scale pricing.
In addition to allowing local municipalities to form cooperative purchasing groups, the new Code
also allows the individual procurement units to behave as service providers to other units. The
new Code specifically dictates that, pursuant to the agreement between two or more public
29
30
Eye on ERES Magazine, Privatized Highway Asset Management and Maintenance, Volume 5, Number 3
Section 10-201, 2000 ABA Model ProcurementCode for State and Local Governments, supra, p. 80.
53
procurement units, one may provide personnel to the other(s), and will in return receive the
direct and indirect cost of furnishing the personnel.
Cooperative purchasing of information technology is currently or in the process of being
implemented throughout the United States. For example, the entire State of Texas is involved in
the Texas Cooperative Purchasing Network (TCPN). All public and private schools, colleges,
universities, cities, counties, and other government entities in the State of Texas are authorized to
join. Upon becoming members of this cooperative purchasing group, the members benefit from
state of the art purchasing procedures that insure the most competitive contracts, price
solicitation and bulk purchasing that yield economic benefits unobtainable by individual entities,
quick and efficient delivery of goods and services by contracting with "high performance"
vendors, and equalized purchasing power for smaller entities that are not able to command the
best contracts for themselves.
In addition, TCPN maintains credibility and confidence in
business procedures by sponsoring open competition for purchases and by complying with
purchasing laws and ethical business practices and assists its entities in maintaining the essential
controls for budget and accounting purposes. 3 '
It is important to note that the authorization of cooperative purchasing in the code applies to the
procurement of supplies, as implemented by TCPN, but also to construction activities.
Therefore, using TCPN as an example, the obvious next step is for individual municipalities to
create cooperative purchasing agencies that will both utilize their size to demand more attractive
contracts and to develop a larger pool of available talent and resources.
7.3.1 The Implications of Good EngineeringInformation on CooperativePurchasing
Cooperative purchasing has a great potential to decrease the burden of supply procurement and
providing maintenance activities on a single agency by spreading the responsibilities out between
several municipalities. However, an agency that has become quite used to being self-reliant may
have difficulties expressing its current needs and constraints to members of a cooperative
purchasing group.
If each member of a cooperative purchasing group were able to first
accurately assess its current needs and capabilities, and then compare those requirements and
31
http://www.tcpn.org/
54
abilities with the other members, a prosperous relationship would ensue.
Systems such as
Barchan can and should be used to ease the transition into cooperative purchasing and resource
sharing.
7.3.2 Example Scenario
Assume the following scenario.
Three neighboring counties decide to create a cooperative purchasing group with the hopes of
creating economies of scale and increased efficiency in maintaining the infrastructure located in
the combined area. The individual counties felt that choosing neighbors for their cooperative
purchasing group would be most beneficial because of the ease in personnel transfer and because
many segments of the existing infrastructure network crossed their mutual boundaries. Because
of a burgeoning population, inadequate funding, and understaffing, the current infrastructure in
the tri-county area was in need of not only normal repair and maintenance, but also replacement
and addition.
County A has an excellent engineering staff whose design output ability far
overshadowed the available funding. County B has an operations and maintenance department
with few rivals. The supervisors are some of the best in their field, but are limited in their
effectiveness by a shortage of affordable supplies.
County C has connections to several
enterprising suppliers who are willing to reduce prices in exchange for a considerable increase in
business. After the competitive sealed bidding process described in the ABA Code is completed,
the new cooperative purchasing group first contracts with the supplier currently serving County
C to provide enough supplies for the entire tri-county area. Second, the engineers from County
A are given the duties of designing needed improvements to the infrastructure of the tri-county
area. The supervisors of the County B operations and maintenance staff will combine their
personnel with those of the other two counties, form and train specific task groups, and oversee
the maintenance of the tri-county area's infrastructure. Specifically, County B may be given the
duty of repairing all potholes within the tri-county area. Using Barchan, all needed pothole
repairs could be identified, and an appropriate schedule mapped out. Upon the completion of the
repairs, each county would be summarily billed for those repairs undertaken within its
boundaries. Because the needed upkeep activities would be identified in Barchan and agreed
upon before any action were taken, all members of the cooperative purchasing group would
55
understand how and where budgeted funds were spent, thereby hopefully preventing any
misunderstanding.
In competing the work, the group of Counties uses the Barchan estimated costs as the ceiling
price vis a vis bids submitted by private sector contractors. In other words, in order for the work
to be privately performed, the bid prices received from the private sector must be x% lower than
the cost estimated from the Barchan asset management system. In essence, the engineering
information supplied to the managers from systems like Barchan provides the benchmark for
making public/private decisions with known economic and performance impacts on the existing
network.
While the members of the cooperative purchasing group agree to utilize the each other's abilities
to increase the efficiency of infrastructure maintenance throughout the tri-county area, there are
bound to be misunderstandings and resulting conflicts relating to favoritism to one's home
county. For example, the citizens of one county may complain that the infrastructure of that
county is being ignored while that of another county is receiving more than its fair share of
improvements. A second issue relating to cooperative purchasing and inter-municipal personnel
exchange is that, despite agreements to work as a team and seemingly ignore county boundaries,
each town is still responsible under GASB 34 regulations to account for its assets individually.
An asset management tool such as Barchan can be useful to public procurement units choosing
to join a cooperative purchasing group and/or participate in an personnel exchange program.
Just as Barchan can be used as a tool to monitor asset maintenance and its associated budget in a
single municipality, it can also be utilized when managing the infrastructure of multiple agencies
at once.
Having a single source for the current infrastructure condition, recommended
maintenance schedule, needed improvements, and required budget for a cooperative purchasing
group will greatly reduce the above mentioned issues from becoming problematic. The member
municipalities can each determine the budget allocated for infrastructure maintenance in their
32 For example, it may be the policy of this group of Counties that for particular categories of work, public
sector employees will provide the necessary services unless the cost of equivalent services in the private sector are
more than 15% less than currently experienced in the public sector. The rationale for such an approach might be
that the Counties never want to be in the situation where temporarily "low" private sector prices are accepted, only
to discover that these low cost levels cannot be sustained.
56
respective jurisdiction and stipulate what the target condition for their infrastructure.
With
minimal changes to Barchan, its cooperative clients should be able to utilize the system as a tool
to provide a transparent report to any interested party detailing how and where the group budget
is expended.
While in a perfect world, all contributing members of a cooperative purchasing and
maintenance group would have the same amount of infrastructure inventory, available budget,
and current and target conditions, this is much too optimistic. Therefore, any tool used for
cooperative management practices should be able to differentiate between the funds allotted and
the services required of its member agencies. Just as the researchers recommended that Barchan
developers allow the client to differentiate between public and private infrastructure when
developing a scenario, cooperative clients could separate scenarios by jurisdiction while still
creating a maintenance schedule for the entire group. Barchan has the potential to offer enough
flexibility to allow cooperative jurisdictions to combine their efforts while still maintaining their
individuality for reporting purposes.
Using such a web-based asset management system, the
clients could quickly show any dissenters the portion of the cooperative budget contributed by a
specific jurisdiction and the corresponding level of attention paid to improving that jurisdiction's
infrastructure.
However, by also allowing the group to schedule maintenance and repair
activities as a single entity, joint operations teams can determine the best method for applying
their skills and resources to the benefit of all members of the cooperative group.
57
Chapter 8 Conclusions
Barchan has a variety of possible uses, from easing the transition into GASB 34 compliance to
facilitating cooperative purchasing, and improved practices for asset management.
With the
authorization of new project delivery methods in the 2000 ABA Model Procurement Code,
public owners have a variety of new strategic options to effectively and efficiently maintain their
infrastructure assets. Asset management systems such as Barchan provide unbiased, transparent
information to clients, regardless of their business affiliations or if they are members of the
public or private sector. Just as a public agency can utilize such a tool to facilitate decisions on
what delivery method to use for a specific maintenance or construction activity, a private sector
business could and should have access to the same information to decide whether or not it
believes that entering into an operations and maintenance contract would be profitable. The
private sector has a great capacity for innovation, specialized knowledge, and efficiency,
contributable to its ability to concentrate on specific areas of expertise. On the other hand, the
public agencies have an obligation to the citizens of their jurisdictions to manage a wide variety
of infrastructure systems to the best of their ability. In many circumstances, a public agency has
the ability and knowledge to handle the operations and maintenance of infrastructure, and may
decide to continue to do so. However, with the availability of multiple delivery and finance
methods, an agency can now match project characteristics to procurement strategy to best
allocate funds and resources for infrastructure preservation, renewal, and maintenance. Tools
like Barchan allow a government to focus on its strengths as a policymaker, standard bearer, and
regulatory agent by providing the client the ability to explore a variety of combinations of
authorized project delivery and finance methods and to then examine the pros and cons of
outsourcing some or all of maintenance activities. Easily accessible engineering information
provided by programs such as Barchan can and will provide government procurement agencies
an invaluable service. Such information can be used to evaluate the benefits of utilizing alternate
project delivery methods and facilitate the transition into the new procurement environment.
Because neither public nor private delivery of infrastructure maintenance is the most efficient
mechanism in all cases, a transparent market aided by readily available information will
maximize the return on taxpayer money.
58
References
Dorman, Daniel, Asset Management: Management Fad or Prerequisitefor Solving the Fiscal
Challenges Facing Highway Infrastructure?,Infrastructure Management Group, Inc
Dorman, Daniel, Asset Management and GASB-34-Challenge or Opportunity?, Infrastructure
Management Group, Inc.
Federal Highway Administration Office of Highway Policy Information
Elliot, Bill, Meeting GASB 34: An Integrated Software Approach For Transportationand Public
Works Departments, Exor Corporation.
Miller, John B., Principles of Public and Private Infrastructure Delivery, Kluwer Academic
Publishers, 2000.
McConnell, Margaret E, and Miller, John B. The 2000 Model Procurement Code for State and
Local Government.
Strayhorn, Carole Keeton, Are Governmental Entities That Report Under OCBOA (ie cash basis)
Required to Implement GASB 34? Texas Comptroller of Public Accounts, November, 2000.
Thelen Reid & Priest LLP, New Accounting Rules Require States, Local Governments to Track
Value of Their Infrastructure,June 1999.
59