FHWA/AASHTO Asset Management Expert Task Group
Meeting Minutes, April 30 and May 1, 2015
Minutes
The Asset Management Expert Task Group (ETG) held an in-person meeting April 30 and May 1, 2015 at
the headquarters of the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO).
The ETG is a joint effort of AASHTO and the Federal Highway Administration Office of Asset
Management, Pavement and Construction.
Attending were ETG members Chris Champion, Chris Evila, Mo Lali, Tim Henkel, Brad Allen, Randy Park, ,
Omar Smadi, Regina Aris, DeLania Hardy and Laura Mester. From FHWA were Nastaran Saadatmand,
Francine Shaw-Whitson, Steve Gaj, and Egan Smith. From FTA was Mshadoni Smith. Guests included
Dave Johnson of the Washington Area Mass Transit Agency (WAMATA) and Eric Randall of the
Washington Council of Governments. Neil Pedersen and Tom Palmerlee of the National Academies also
participated. Supporting the ETG were Matt Hardy of AASHTO and consultants Katie Zimmerman and
Gordon Proctor
Welcome
Tim welcomed everyone to the meeting and the meeting participants introduced themselves. After the
introductions, Tim reviewed the objectives for the TAM ETG as outlined in the strategic plan. He
stressed that the meeting activities will lead to a closed-door session where the ETG will review the
work plan to ensure that it is on task.
Round Robin
The meeting opened with the Round Robin discussion of issues that members raised to share
information, suggest topics of concern or to provide notice of upcoming events.
Key points raised during the Round Robin include the following:



Tom introduced the TRB activities in asset management, including the Denver workshop on May
31st. A total of 31 states are registered, with 71 total attendees. The National Conference will
be held in Minneapolis in 2016.
Steve stated that the NPRM is out and it closes on May 29th, He invited people to make both
positive and negative comments with explanation. He mentioned the NHI training and new
training on financial plans. The gap analysis plan has addressed needs in 15 states.
o He would like to identify strategies to make the gap analysis a way of doing business. In
many organizations, the PMS and BMS folks don’t know their role in asset management.
o He would also like to see the group discuss strategies to accelerate innovation related to
pavement management or a related topic.
Nastaran added information on the new course on Financial Planning and the series of reports
on financial planning. There will be 5 reports in total and two are very close to being posted.
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015







Francine indicated that the pavement and bridge condition NPRM closes next week. She is
anticipating that the final rule will be targeted for September. So far, there are 28 comments
submitted, but she said it could be 2 weeks for the comments to show up on the web docket.
Tim provided an AASHTO perspective. The Board adopted a new strategic plan that calls for
AASHTO to do several things, including a review of their committee structure. This could impact
the Subcommittee on Asset Management. He indicated he would welcome feedback on this
effort. He indicated the Subcommittee meeting in the summer will likely be in August and it will
be aligned with a peer exchange on risk-based asset management and a workshop funded
through the 20-24 series on Enterprise Risk Management. The product from the workshop will
help inform the Board about how risk should be incorporated into the AASHTO Committee
structure. There has been no replacement named for the Chair.
Egan mentioned that the third in the series of guidebooks in statewide performance-based
planning has been released. Next week there will be a focus group meeting on this document.
He would like input from the ETG on these documents. He said there is also a STIP State of the
Review document (white paper) that is being developed to document why projects are being
selected. He would also like the ETG to review this document.
Moh indicated that there is comparable group in Canada through Transportation Association of
Canada. He would like the products from the TAM ETG to be shared with this group. In Canada,
TAC is also looking at asset management, but most agencies have been working in this area
since 1980. As a result, they have large data sets and they can show impacts of different
investment levels. He said they were spending $25M on data collection but have scaled back to
$18 million.
o Nastaran suggested that a link could be established between the TAM ETG website and
the TAC website.
o Omar suggested that the ETG could inform groups on the cost of doing asset
management and the benefits that can be realized.
o Francine identified resources to help states and other agencies offset those costs. This
would help reduce the amount of duplication.
Chris Evilia pointed out that the NHS is not owned or managed by only one agency and this leads
to different perceptions in terms of priorities. They feel the planning process is where these
discussions need to take place and noted that the NPRM is not very specific on this process. He
suggested the ETG might offer some language for consideration in the final rule.
Randy said Utah looked at how business is going to change with asset management. In the past,
they complained that federal funding is siloed, but they also realized that state money is siloed.
They have since un-siloed their money and regions are given money to manage the performance
of their assets. It is expected to be a work in progress and there’s a culture shift that has to take
place so people don’t fear being fired.
Brad indicated that NY State implemented a new STIP planning process. In the past it was goal
oriented, but the transformation is putting objective measures for performance in place to use
as the basis for investment decisions. They are finding that maintaining this requires a constant
effort so it doesn’t turn into a few people making the decision. In some cases there is an
absence of data and they rely on Google Maps to get an idea of whether a project is justified.
They are also working on new data collection efforts for the NHS in accordance with MAP-21.
They are getting a new CEO and he has a political background. They are interested in seeing
2
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015







how this impacts things. As an aside, Brad said they spend $100M annually to collect data on
about 1900 bridges ($10,000/bridge). Things that could help them:
o Original TAM Guide (2003) is stale and needs to be updated.
o Self-assessment guide is very technical. Need to help agencies look at softer guides
(training and structure).
Matt said there is an NCHRP project being conducted by SpyPond to look at the benefit of
investments in asset management. Brad said they haven’t yet seen the benefits, but they are
starting to build the benefit. He’s hoping there are states with more mature systems to
document the benefit. Matt said this group should take notice of this project. He also said
there’s going to be an asset management research roadmap that will be conducted and the ETG
should influence that. Randy said they don’t even know what benefits they will see – they’re
discovering them every day. The political capital they have gained has been tremendous, for
example.
Omar has a project with FHWA Office of Safety to review roadway data. As part of the project,
he brings in pavement and bridge groups to see how the data interact and this is a challenge for
some agencies. He said the data needs to be able to talk together. Francine said in a recent
peer exchange, they discussed the impact of pavements on safety and so on. The participating
states are talking about how to do this. Nastaran asked about where the original ETG white
paper is and whether it’s available. Matt was able to find the paper.
Nastaran indicated that states can set steady-state and declining targets.
Neil said there may be MPO and transit perspectives to put on the table.
There was a bit of discussion about how all of this interacts. FHWA has separate offices, there
are different rulemakings, and AASHTO committees separate these activities. Steve emphasized
that someone needs to bring it all together.
o Misi suggested that ultimately, asset management has to balance transit and safety, and
infrastructure condition. Ultimately, it comes down to customer satisfaction and tradeoff decisions. The transit industry wants to learn from the highway side and avoid our
problems.
o Dave Johnson said it’s an on-going process of address this and they are questioning
what is the new way of doing business and is the organization set up to address this?
When you have leadership turnover, it can have a tremendous impact and constantly
evolving view of asset management’s role. There needs to be a lot of focus on business
process.
Chris was going to emphasize the relationship to the customer and using asset management to
consider trade-offs between several objectives. He said IPWEA has converted its 4-day face-toface training to a 3-month web-based training. They have put through about 200+ people and
have received very positive responses. They use sample data and have to provide a draft asset
management plan at the end of the course.
Laura stated that Michigan is looking at how rules are impacting resource requirements from a
financial perspective. Asset management also impacts accounting and budgeting and so the
area of impact is huge. She said they now use the modified GASB approach and if they start to
see declining conditions, they will have to shift dollars and this will have an impact through
many parts of the system. Steve sees this as a huge opportunity area. Brad said it’s similar in
New York because they report the value goes up because construction costs have increased so
3
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015


much. Communicating that declining conditions will have implications on bonding ability and
reporting for GASB is good, but GASB modified approach calculation of asset costs is useless in
making asset management decisions. He asks what the cost is to replace everything right now.
They then predict how this number will change over time.
Katie said that agencies are now asking for training on the TAMP and not spending the time to
figure out how to organize to support asset management over the long-run. She also mentioned
that guidance on network-level life cycle analysis is needed as well as the amount of information
needed to do cross-asset optimization.
Omar and Moh wrapped up the discussion by mentioning how much more complex the
decisions are getting when trying to understand the total impact of decisions. Moh added that
managing customer expectations is very important.
MPO, Transit, and State DOT TAM Discussion
Dave Johnson, WMATA
Dave Johnson gave a presentation on their transit asset management efforts. They focused on
establishing the “line of sight” from organizational goals to asset management decisions. The strategic
asset management plan is drilled down to asset groups, who develop their own asset management
plans. The group asset management plans roll up to the strategic plan. The champions for asset
management form a Stakeholder Reference Group to provide guidance and direction to project
selection. One of the organizational changes they made was changing asset management from a project
to a business process. One step in that was creating the Transit Asset Management Office (TAMO) in
engineering. They are still working on developing condition assessments so they can set investment
priorities. Right now, their trade-off decisions are relatively ad-hoc, but they’re moving away from
“everyone gets a slice of the pie.”
When asked to describe the relationship between TAMO and the Performance Management Office, he
said the PMO has been a natural place to have high-level discussions about back-log and needs. The
TAMO will provide the data the PMO uses, but TAMO is much lower in the organization. The PMO will
balance the asset condition data, but also human factors, operations, and management to look into
strategic objectives such as on-time performance (for example).
Dave indicated that they are furthest along on the vehicle side, as are most transit agencies. They
consider preventive maintenance activities to be contributing to avoiding a larger (or earlier)
replacement cost. Brad was using this to draw correlations as to how to model bridge element
maintenance activities.
Matt asked how an agency “gets” certified. Dave indicated he has not looked into that because they
have a long way to go. Chris C. said certifying consultants go in to certify an agency and it’s an expensive
process, so it’s important to be ready. Chris pointed out that FHWA is creating its own definition while
the rest of the world (and transit) is aligning to ISO. Omar pointed out that ISO is more of a process level
certification.
Matt also asked how the TAMO is coordinating with MPOs. Dave hasn’t been involved in this yet, but
thinks their strategic plan would have been developed in conjunction with the MPOs. At his level, it isn’t
something that is coordinated with the MPO.
4
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
Moh asked how they will optimize across assets. He said the vision is that they will use cost-benefit to
do this, but it’s difficult with some assets. It’s simple with vehicles to monetize it, but it’s more difficult
to do traction power and things like that (which work until they don’t and then the system shuts down).
Moh said they use user costs in their B/C analysis to address these issues.
Eric Randall, COG (MPO Perspective)
COG is looking at all the NPRMs to see what MPOs will have to do. Their questions are:





They are pulling in three discrete organizations (Richmond, VA, Washington, DC, and Baltimore,
MD) to evaluate how to consider them as one single organization. At times, one out of three are
okay or the data they provide is different. How should they approach this? They also have
some major parkways managed by the NPS.
They are deciding how to handle data – do they separate rural and urban data, or integrate it all
together into one set of measures and targets?
What are they talking about forecasting? How does each state forecast? What if they have
different trend lines? How do they integrate this?
From a planning perspective, they will have 3 DOTs and 15 transit organizations. How do they
put it all together and consider all of these needs in project selection? They have noted that
there is nothing in the NRPM on transit performance measures. What will be expected for
reporting this?
The 10-year requirement for the financial plan is in the middle of their TIP and their Long-Range
Plan (20 years). How will they handle this?
They are currently in the process of adding up the assets in their MPO so they can better assess how the
rules impact them. They consider their role is conducting analysis for the region.
Omar pointed out that MPOs do not have to develop a plan but are required to develop performance
targets. He asked whether Eric thinks this process will lead them to develop a TAMP, but Eric wasn’t
sure.
Chris Evilia added that a challenge is having to compare assets across modes and how that impacts other
modes. For instance, if WMATA has a failure, it impacts highway modes. He wondered how MPOs are
approaching this and identifying where one asset impacts other modes beyond what can be addressed
easily.
Brad asked whether the MPO supports efforts in all three states. Eric pointed out the problem is if
agencies go in different directions. They would have to rely on coordination and cooperation to resolve
this.
Francine asked what AMPO is putting in place to support the coordination effort. They are considering
having a pre-conference workshop before their annual conference and they will continue scheduling
webinars on this topic to help lay the framework.
Regina said they coordinate with data from Baltimore and other MPOs in the area. She said many MPOs
were focused on long-range planning, but they’re shifting to shorter-term forecasts. Their current plans
do not provide enough detail for them to be able to understand the impacts of the decisions. Their
state (Maryland) gives them direction with respect to how much is for presersation and the Board has
5
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
accepted that. However, if they had better data, perhaps the Board could help Maryland SHA make
better decisions. Omar asked whether states invest in off-system NHS roads. Neil indicated they didn’t
Chris said they have rules that say the MPO can’t use federal dollars on non-state maintained roads, but
they can use some for bridges. Texas DOT tells the MPO how much will be spent on their roads, but not
necessarily why. The MPO has no input into funding priorities at this time. Chris said it’s different on
the transit side. For them, the importance is the reimbursement of operating expenses.
Steve asked whether existing training and programs (such as gap analysis) are being offered to MPOs.
He asked what the ETG needs to do to provide assistance. Chris suggested more training be offered.
Suggestions included the following:



Training touches one group of people, but there’s training needed for the rest of the
Department. They’ve discussed having more training courses and brining in the MPOs as part of
the training. There’s a much larger need to have asset management permeate the organization.
Chris said at large MPOs, there’s some effort to integrate processes into asset management. At
the smaller level, they don’t really know what asset management is. For them, the state tells
them what needs to be done. Chris C pointed out that in Australia, the locals are further along
than the states. This was driven by the fact that locals have 3 times the assets as the states.
Brad said in NY, there’s more competition for funding between the locals and the DOT. They
don’t “tell” the locals what program they have to accept. They do more to get them involved in
the process so they understand the basis for recommendations.
Risk, Performance, and Asset Management
Tim provided a summary of the CEO Workshop that is being funded by NCHRP and the AASHTO Standing
Committee on Planning. The original concept was a 3-day workshop with both CEOs and practitioners.
One day would be spent on enterprise risk management, with a portion of the discussion on the TAMP.
The next day could focus on performance management. The final day could focus on additional
resources needed to support asset management. He said there is also work being done to develop a
Risk Guidebook through NCHRP. In addition, there is an NCHRP project to develop a research roadmap
as well as a FHWA/AASHTO pooled fund sponsored by Rhode Island DOT to implement various activities
in performance management. There are similar issues in the asset management area.
Tim then facilitated a discussion to address the questions listed in the agenda and summarized below.


What other activities are ongoing related to these topics?
o Transport Canada did a lot of work on how climate change impacts transportation as
part of a task force that should be available.
o FHWA received funding to address the impact of extreme weather events on the asset
management plan. There are two offices involved in it.
o There’s also an NCHRP 25-25/Task 94 study on extreme climate change and adaptation
into a TAMP.
Is your agency considering these three aspects collectively? If yes, how? If no, why not?
o Steve said many states are uncomfortable with risk and how to use it for making
decisions. Laura said it is more commonly addressed on maintenance rather than
capital projects. States’ enterprise risk management offices don’t really focus on assets.
6
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
In Australia, they see performance, risk, and cost within asset management. It’s used to
prioritize the whole program. Risks relate to the consequence of a failure and the
priority that is sent.
Dave Johnson said it is hard to think of risk in terms of performance. People usually
think of it in terms of safety or cost.
Moh said his organization does not look at risk separately. They looked at who is best
positioned to provide services and from a risk assessment they decided it was better
privatized. He said it is indirect.
Neil said part of the issue is semantics. He suggested using the term “uncertainty” when
talking about risk.
Brad asked what processes or things mean that risk has fed into agency decisions?
Steve provided several examples, including addressing one road that is more susceptible
to flooding. The decisions are based not just on performance, it’s also based on risk.
Brad said the challenge is in objectively keeping risk from going to a worst first decision.
This discussion is all on the risk of failure and Omar opened it up to include the
uncertainty in terms of the level of service provided.
Brad said they use uncertainty most commonly in pavement management with
modeling, treatment choices, and future funding needs from various project selections.
He would claim this is risk based. When you start talking about contractors going belly
up, or inadequate funding, it is risk-aware, but not really risk based asset management.
He sees the latter topics as being a rabbit hole you could fall into.
Neil said Maryland wanted full disclosure of current and future conditions. Part of it is
just full disclosure of any information you have and the consequences for future
condition.
Gordon said you have to think of risk in a stratified way. Execs think about the
transportation fund goes belly up. The project guy worries about the price of materials
skyrocketing. If you don’t think of it this way, it gets very confused. He also said if there
is no consequence for not hitting targets, then there’s no risk. At IMB, for example, they
update their risk register every month. The more the industry focuses on performance,
the more seriously they take risk to that performance. Otherwise, it will be relegated to
safety and they’ll focus on bridges falling down.
Chris said there’s an international standard on risk based on consequence and
likelihood.
Brad clarified that the question is really how much of the risk has to be addressed in the
TAMP. New York and Minnesota focused on the risks associated with managing the
assets in the TAMP. It informed them, but they don’t’ really consider it driving all the
decisions.
Gordon thinks the accrual accounting piece is a key to how to managing risk in terms of
unfunded liability. The link of long-term planning, financial plan, and risk helps tie all of
this together. In the US, a 1-year program doesn’t show the consequences that make
risk click.
Randy said we need to think about why we’re doing risk management: You want to
retire risk if possible. Some can be retired at little cost. The second is to reduce risk.
The third is the run-off option, which means you haven’t done the others and that’s a
7
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015

mistake. He said agencies may not be able to measure it well, but they’re always taking
it into account in decisions.
o Chris said Brad’s TAMP looks at project risk. You then step back and look at other risks.
In New Zealand they got more serious about risks when had they four water tanks and 1
was old. But, the old one failed and took out the other ones – they hadn’t thought of
that.
o Mishi asked if admitting to a risk brings increased liability to an agency. On the transit
side people typically consider risk to be safety – or catastrophic failure. Eric said the
NPRM seems to focus a lot on weather and not financial risks. He asked what the FHWA
is looking for from states.
o Nastaran said the intent of the regulation is not to “teach” anything. That should be
done through guidance and training courses. She recommends some of these things
should be addressed in a way other than legislation.
o Egan said a single definition for risk will not be easy to achieve because of differences in
the organizations.
o Steve said the NPRM does not focus too strongly on weather, but submit comments if
you feel differently. He hopes agencies will try to do more than just meet the rules.
o Omar said several states are deciding not to include risk into their first TAMP.
What should the TAM ETG be doing to address these topics?
o Gordon thinks the final draft of the Guide would be available in a few weeks. It will be
published as a web document, but it wasn’t entirely focused on asset management.
Therefore, it’s not a how-to document.
o We discussed looking at this from a driver, framework, and tools approach (as in
Australia). MAP-21 is a driver, the Guide is the framework, but we’ll still need tools.
o Tim says the discussion indicates the level of maturity in each of the three areas. He
asked whether more guidance is needed in how performance, asset, and risk work
together. He also suggested there may be gaps that are still not addressed in the risk
area after the release of the Guide.
o Francine suggested that it may be helpful to lay out interpretations of how agencies are
considering risk and how they’re going to approach it. Will they approach it from an
individual perspective or a national perspective? She suggests the ETG could help
agencies make that decision. Gordon says the Guide gives a taxonomy for risk and
illustrates how risk has been applied to 8 transportation areas. There is no single
recommendation provided from a national perspective.
o Richard from AMEC suggested that you could look to other industries to see how they
manage risk. He also mentioned the publications issued by the FHWA.
o Chris outlined an approach that could be used to evaluate risks.
o Brad suggested providing something simple to help reduce the stress of trying to
incorporate risk into the TAMP. Neil indicated guidance will be absolutely critical for
states. He also indicated that they are always looking for good examples, so the extent
to which there are good examples, we should be promoting them. Alternatively, we
should make them up.
o Omar indicated that guidance will also help with consistency nationwide and help with
consistency in how Division offices interpret that portion of the TAMP.
8
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015

o Egan indicated that guidance is needed for Division offices as well as transit and MPOs.
What is critical to the discussion that will take place during the CEO Workshop and Peer
Exchange in August? Which agencies should be there? Who from the agencies should be there?
o This topic will be addressed during the closed session.
White Paper #3: Linking Asset Management Plans to the Planning Process
Gordon summarized some of the key issues to be addressed in the white paper. He indicated that:




Central to most of the likely changes in the planning process will be efforts by State DOTs,
MPOs, transit providers and local agencies to achieve asset condition targets.
Foundational to a planning process that emphasizes asset management in the MPO’s, DOT’s, or
transit provider’s adoption of a policy and framework that incorporates asset management
goals, practices, and objectives.
Planning to achieve targets is likely to increase for infrastructure conditions as it has for
performance.
Another element of the planning process that is likely to rise in visibility is the monitoring and
forecasting of asset conditions.
In his experience, MPOs have been very good at forecasting aspects of performance (such as
congestion), but not necessarily asset condition. He said:






It is less common for MPOs to produce regional asset management reports and forecasts
although a few do.
The focus upon trend lines of asset performance and the forecasting of future needs keeps the
issue of infrastructure preservation central to the MPO board’s decisions on project selection.
An enhanced element of long-range transportation plans is likely to be more robust estimates of
financial needs to meet asset condition targets.
Achieving and sustaining asset conditions are likely to become key influencers of which projects
are selected for funding.
MAP-21’s requirement that States, MPOs, and transit providers cooperate to set targets and
achieve them are likely to lead to closer coordination regarding asset conditions.
The target level that States, MPOs and transit agencies set will influence how much investment
is needed to achieve them.
The TAM ETG had the following comments on the paper:


Francine asked about the issue of data collection and sharing since she thinks this will be a key
issue for these agencies. Another thing that came up at a facilitated session is the flexibility of
funding – some states are talking about keeping the more flexible funding so the locals have to
deal with the less flexible funding.
Egan emphasized that the shared data has to be in a format that allows them to incorporate it
into their long-range plans so they can use it to share with decision makers. Gordon illustrated
scenarios from Rhode Island to show how investment options influence MPOs’ ability to meet
performance targets. As states worry about meeting condition targets on the NHS, there may
be less money passed through to the locals. This will have a large impact on the smaller
programs.
9
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015









Mishi asked what type of resources and expertise are impacted by the MPO’s desire to do
performance-based planning. Gordon indicated that a small agency might rely on the State.
Others might want to take a data-based approach on the entire Federal-aid system. Eric said it
depends on the interests of the MPO Policy Board and the Federal agency’s saying this is
important.
Neil said legislative and MPO board individuals want to be confident decisions are made on a
good, sound basis. He said most policy makers at the MPO don’t have the inclination to get into
the technical information. If they do start to dabble, they tend to go to a worst first situation, so
Neil suggested we avoid that situation. Neil said one of his biggest challenge was getting MPOs
to understand why they weren’t fixing their worst roads.
Regina said there’s a bit of a balance in trying to understand how decisions are made and access
to some of the information. She would like to see a closer relationship between MPOs and
States. Omar reinforced this through his experiences on projects. He suggested that we should
support more cooperation between agencies and sharing of information (both ways). Regina
indicated that they have a lot more requirements for public involvement and this is challenging
when they don’t know how decisions are being made. The terminology used is also a challenge
when they use different terms for justifying projects. For example, one project was funded due
to historical sufficiency and another was a sufficiency rating. Brad indicated that they are using
12 STIP categories to standardize the project selection process to improve transparency. Regina
said this makes it easier for the public to understand, too.
Neil said that he thinks agencies are getting to the point that they can’t fund all the needed
preservation and he would like to see this mentioned in the paper because funding constraints
are a significant issue. Gordon agreed that MPO Boards need to understand these possible
consequences.
Steve raised the issue of growth and demand and how that enters into the decisions. Chris said
they may have to address capacity issues by trying to reduce demand and move people closer to
the services they need. Brad said the MPO has a huge role in evaluating the various options
available to address each issue and get to the core performance impacts. Tim indicated that
historically agencies have ignored the future impacts of system expansion and asked whether
this is the angle that Steve was addressing. Steve said it’s that as well as the shifts that are
taking place. Brad said millions are transferred from highway funds to transit funds since it’s
critical in the NYC area, but it’s not addressed in the TAMP.
Egan asked for clarification about the type of discussion that’s taking place. Brad said it’s more
the connection to the Asset Management Plan, such as the shift of $20M for transit from the
highway program.
Moh said congestion discussions ask whether automated vehicles will reduce the need for
additional lanes since the technology is there now.
Chris asked whether the agency setting the condition targets also has control over the resources
since it’s hard to live with targets set by others. He also suggested indicating the three factors
(performance, risk, and finance) into this since that’s what agencies have control of.
Dave Johnson said it is important to draw a distinction between a strategic long-range plan and
a transportation asset management plan. He suggested use of automated vehicles, for example,
is out of the scope of a TAMP.
10
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015









Neil would like to see a discussion of alternative investment scenarios and resulting conditions,
including a focus on preservation and expansion, for example. The group talked about mobility
being bad and pavements being good, for example, and how Board priorities contribute to that.
The group suggested that the paper help with decision making, but not state who should be
doing what. Gordon suggested that you could add an axis on his example graph to show how
different investment levels for each asset strategy would be helpful.
Eric fears that this will lead to comparison of some agencies because some agencies don’t want
to be last in a ranked list. Brad indicated that this is based on a 10-year planning horizon with a
realistic 4-year STIP, so it’s leading to a mid-range process.
Randy said they started with very specific targets, but they’ve decided there’s no specific target
that’s right. They started talking about a band of values and that helped the discussion. People
will take responsibility for a band, but not a line.
Nastaran wants the document to show the link between the strategic plan, financial plan, and
TAMP but Gordon said he’s not sure whether we are comfortable presenting that. The
question is whether you want the paper to discuss how it’s done, how it will evolve, or how it
will be fitting together. He’s more comfortable pointing out how it will evolve. Nastaran at least
wants it to say that the portion of the long-range plan related to asset performance should be
influenced by the TAMP. Katie suggested ending the white paper with some concluding points
about how the evolution will result in changes to existing practices in MPOs. Gordon indicated
we could do this, but he only wants to take it as far as the ETG is comfortable.
Neil considers asset management as a subset of the long-range plan. The existing graphic shows
asset management as being equal to the planning process decisions. He suggested making it the
biggest wedge of the planning circle if it’s the biggest component.
The decision was made to make the modification to the conclusion rather than change the body
of the text. Chris E. says there will be 407 different approaches to how this is done, so it will be
hard to address this prescriptively in the paper. Mishi suggested we might get more response
and discussion by putting feelers out there without being too definitive. Several folks said the
conclusion should summarize things in the paper so you can’t just add new material here.
Perhaps this can be addressed by changing the title of the last section.
Tim said there were several topics raised during the discussion, and a lot of discussion about the
graphic. Tim and Nastaran don’t want the graphic out, but Gordon said it can be changed. Neil
said the graphic can stay the same if the right circle is smaller.
Tim will look for volunteers during the closed door session.
MAP-21: Asset Management NPRM
General Impressions/Areas of Concerns

NY State DOT – The NPRM didn’t include an opportunity to mitigate when targets aren’t met.
The fear is trying to meet targets could lead to bad practices. The NPRM also discourages
agencies to include other assets and any pavements and bridges beyond the NHS. NYSDOT will
address this by having two plans – one that’s reported and one that’s more comprehensive.
They also would like the NPRM to skip the reference to the other performance measures
because it’s too much to expect them to model for everything.
11
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015












NY State DOT – the NPRM references two protocols, including the AASHTO protocols and the
HPMS Field Guide and these both measure cracking differently.
10 states won’t meet the bridge requirements. NYState DOT is suggesting they take out the
bridge deck so they will meet it.
AASHTO – The bridges carrying the NHS and non-NHS pavements are both subsets of the NHS –
it does not include all NHS assets. They are encouraging more consistency in what is included.
Moh – His first impression is that it appears more like a specification for a contractor than a
collaborative document. This is because of the penalties that are included.
Chris C said there are no roads on the National Road System that are managed by local
governments without being paid for. The National Road System is the responsibility of the
National government. Moh said the provinces own the interstates. The Province sets the
standards and raises taxes for it. There is no consequence if the standards are not met. This is
because they do not have as much federal money coming in for the road system.
There is little discussion about how the planning process fits in, but that may be a good thing.
Some states are looking for guidance on how far back they have to look to evaluate projects
related to emergency situations.
They are not sure the rules jive with rules for the ER process (betterment). They did not include
the costs for managing it.
They underestimated the number of states that have to invest in pavement and bridge models.
Randy pointed out that all of the TAMPs done before the NPRM are very different, but if they
work for the state they should be okay. This gets into a discussion about whether the rules
should be descriptive or prescriptive. The group thinks they should be descriptive. This gives
agencies more flexibility.
Brad wants to see the organizational structure reference taken out because it confuses the issue
to have “should” along with things that “must” be done. The ETG thinks this is a perfect topic
for the ETG to advise FHWA on.
States don’t know what an asset management plan is. Tim is trying to figure out the role of the
ETG in helping agencies figure this out. Same with life cycle.
AASHTO Comments



Matt presented the AASHTO general comments for the NPRM.
o Cost to implement the requirements.
o Make consistent assets required in 23 CFR 490 and 23 CFR 515.
o Make clear how the TAMP links to other planning documents.
o Ensure prerogative of state DOTs to select projects.
o Encourage state DOTs to include other asset classes in the TAMP.
o Keep evaluation of emergency damage simple.
o Clarify the terminology used throughout the rule.
Tim asked whether the ETG wanted to submit comments. The group decided it would be a
conflict of interest.
Gordon asked if there was any comment on the value to be used in preparing a TAMP. Matt
said yes.
Friday, May 1
12
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
White Paper #4: Issues Surrounding Cross-Asset Allocation
Gordon summarized four concepts presented in the paper:




The paper is to provide a vocabulary to talk about complexity of trade-offs since the industry
does not really understand differences between tradeoffs, allocation, and optimization.
DOTs are always making trade-offs. They may not always be documented, but they are always
being made. They are typically fact-based, they are rational, and there is an undefined sense of
risk.
Cross-asset allocation borrows terms straight out of Wall Street. Pension managers understand
that by taking on more risk, they stand the chance of bigger gains and losses. In transportation,
agencies would run scenarios for all the options and then make decisions to help balance out
the objectives. The idea is to keep from having too much gap between resources and
objectives.
The final approach is optimization, which is a much more sophisticated analysis based on
maximizing a utility. There are companies right now that are heavily promoting tools in this
area, but there’s a lot of subjectivity to it and that might not be understood. This isn’t
necessarily bad, but it’s no more objective than any other approach. It does force agencies to
state their objectives but it can still be very subjective.
Comments from the ETG included the following:




Brad would like to clarify whether in the cross-asset allocation, a separate analysis is done for
each asset to determine the best ROI for each asset, and then line them up side by side to
decide what to do. In optimization, you rely more on the software to do the analysis. Gordon
concurred and referenced the optimization tool as a “glass box” and not a “black box.” He
suggested it’s a matter of how much risk you are willing to take with each of these scenarios.
Brad said he’s seen the same graphic, but presented in terms of benefit and cost rather than risk
and return.
Moh concurred, saying that they tried to use a benefit/cost approach. He thinks this is probably
easier to defend than risk and return. He admits it’s not perfect, but they’re getting better.
Gordon used the risk and return graphic to relate it to Wall Street and because of emphasis on
risk in MAP-21. He suggested that risk and resiliency are closely related and focusing only on
B/C doesn’t allow you to do that.
Brad said they’re doing cross-asset allocation and going with a vendor who is very honest about
the limitations of the software program. However, they’re graphic is inverted. They envision
getting stacks of points to determine how it creates an efficiency frontier. They are using this to
limit future preservation costs and that’s how they factor in risk. They’re doing this for
pavements and are trying to do this for bridges, with some differences in how it’s done because
of available data. They’re looking at each individually and then putting them together. They
hope the software will assign a utility function to create the same curve. They need research on
utility function for each project to show its relationship to operations, safety, etc. He thinks
adding what a state is doing now, might be helpful.
Omar likes the descriptions of the trade-off and optimization, but thinks that we might not need
cross-asset allocation. Gordon asked for feedback and wondered if the paper should also
13
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015












address optimization for each asset. The advantage to including cross-asset allocation is a way
to address risk.
Neil disagreed with Omar and said the more it becomes a black box, especially to legislatures,
the less credibility you get. He said no model will be perfect, and he thinks that all three
approaches need to be presented. He thinks cross-asset allocation needs to be beefed up. He
thinks moving from stage 1 to 2 is a major advantage. Brad suggested this is what MAP-21 is
doing with the requirement for pavement and bridge management systems.
Neil also said it would help including transportation examples to make this much more real.
Steve added that he’s happy the group is talking about risk, but sees the challenge in some DOTs
about how this is applicable to them. He supports the idea of including an example or two. He
thinks it might be worth discussing cost/benefit as an example.
Neil said most agencies understand benefit/cost. He thinks the paper should start with this and
then show how moving to an analysis of risk is what should be in the white paper. He said to
emphasize the focus on uncertainty in investment decisions.
Gordon pointed out that you could monetize risk and put it into a benefit/cost analysis. It’s still
based on estimate of damage. Nastaran suggested keeping this paper short.
Chris said it gets confusing because everything
o First is trading off objectives across assets.
o Second is allocation by risk appetite.
o Third is maximizing return for investment.
Brad doesn’t think it will take a lot to include to explain that a traditional state pavement
management system that considers cost and projected conditions and different ways to
prioritize projects can produce the same chart. If you’re not looking at immediate conditions,
you inherently incorporate risk into the analysis. This then becomes the evolution. The Holy
Grail becomes cross-asset optimization.
Omar says once you’re beginning to quantify risk, you’re putting that into optimization. He
argues that most agencies aren’t even doing level 1 well, based on data. They make the tradeoff, but it’s not objective and it’s not based on data. He said the risk factor is still confusing to
people and he fears you could lose people. By incorporating risk into quantifying optimization,
you could look at just two approaches.
Nastaran doesn’t like the title of the paper. She focused on the paper objective to convey
information and provide more clarification.
Steve said the paper could very easily be an informational paper, but examples could be added
to the side of the paper. He would like to see this as a glossy handout.
Chris E. pointed out that the appetite for risk changes based on events (like the I-35 failure). He
said that if they had the information in a way that could foster discussions with decision makers,
it would be very helpful. He suggests adding a few sentences say that this is a real benefit to
agencies if they try to apply this.
Moh was surprised to hear that agencies don’t do this unless they have unlimited resources. He
said agencies have to do this. Omar pointed out that trade-offs lead to good decisions. Moh
said the majority of cases should be based on good decisions. He really likes the paper and said
this is the first time this concept has been defined. He just wants to add things that agencies
already understand, like benefit/cost.
14
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015















Brad sees the difference as this – allocation you optimize asset by asset and then have an
objective basis for decisions across assets. You realize that you can’t optimize each asset, so you
have to find the best set of projects that keep from having any one asset suffer.
Laura said they define investment strategies as a mix of fixes, and we may be getting confused
with the terminology. She thinks a simple chart may enable them to do this. It’s simply what is
the mix of fixes to accomplish agency objectives.
Randy said people do great single asset optimization, but the challenge is how do you do this
across assets. In Utah, no one could figure out how to do it. New tools have spurred how
they’re doing this.
Neil suggested “Conceptual Frameworks for Making Cross-Asset Decisions.”
Steve suggested that this should tie into investment strategies referenced in MAP-21.
Nastaran wants to see a title that interests her. She suggested something more related to “how
to” would motivate people to read the paper.
Matt said Steve Gunther (Caltrans) presented their approach in a webinar and he called it a
multi-criteria objective analysis and stated it could be an example. Gordon said the whole
second concept could have been called this. Gordon said it may be worth adding a paragraph
on this.
Neil said if you have $100M to allocate between certain programs, how would you take this
concept and apply the allocation.
Tim reminded the ETG that CEOs were jumping to the conclusion that they could buy a system
that allows them to do cross-asset optimization. We were concerned about that. Now we seem
to be talking about the techniques available and by doing so, helping the reader understand the
complexity of each approach. He asked the group to think about what the ETG wants to put
forward. He thinks we need to help the reader understand the complexity.
Gordon pointed out that the paper ends with a challenge to say we need to have a discussion
about other definitions. He asked if we’re providing more than a starting point for that
discussion, as he originally intended.
Omar said all three end with allocation, so maybe we should call it methods to allocate
resources. Then, start with the discussion that transportation agencies are doing this and there
are various levels of sophistication.
Nastaran said the term trade-off is used within the optimization discussion, but it’s also
classified as technique 1. This is confusing to the reader. She would like us to be careful with
how these terms are used.
Tim asked whether the paper goes far enough to start the discussion. Omar said yes – this has
never been put on paper and it’s a good way to start the discussion. Chris C suggested calling it
a discussion paper rather than a briefing paper.
Steve sees a real need for this because it addresses an issue that is real. Once it’s finalized,
Steve would like to see it put into a glossy pamphlet style that can be distributed. He
volunteered to pay for it. He also suggested that there are many definitions being used by
different groups and he said we need to recognize that as we move forward.
Brad asked how this jives with the NCHRP project. He said it borrows ideas from it, especially in
the third section but stops short because of the privatization that has spun out of it. He tried to
be positive about the improvement, but tried to point out the complexity. He is using Agile
15
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015








Assets to do this. He said the real value to the agency is in going through the process of defining
the utility and not the software. Gordon said that this should be added to the paper.
Omar asked if the definition of asset class matches the MAP-21 definition. He also said the
paper spends a lot of time on the business relationship in technique 2 when compared to the
other techniques.
Randy suggested that it was very valuable to go through the process with DecisionLens to define
their utility functions. They said that is the value.
Matt said Caltrans decided they didn’t want to pay $1M for software to do this. They said the
important part was the process that the agency goes through.
Steve said two states really went off in this area – Caltrans and Utah. But what they have
thought through, might be good to illustrate.
Gordon asked what length needs to be added in terms of examples. One idea is to illustrate all
approaches in one example at the end of the paper. Omar said this might not work if there’s no
benefit to the more sophisticated approach. Gordon pointed out that this approach might not
go into much more detail than what it has. Neil liked the idea and suggested using $100M for
the example. Gordon pointed out that we won’t know what the allocations will be. Neil would
like to see an example with four assets. Omar said adding safety would make the most sense.
Steve concurred because the safety guys are getting more money. Laura said congestion would
be good to include because it gets into operations. Brad sees the advantage to including these
four topics because it illustrates the challenges in these decisions when trying to see the
benefits to each program that a project provides.
Gordon asked Brad and Utah to put together a paragraph on what they gone through.
We discussed the $100M example. We talked about whether this would be a graphic or text.
We discussed the title of the paper. Including the term “cross asset” is important so people can
search on it. Steve asked whether the term asset management should be in there, and the
group decided it is a bigger issue than just asset management. Neil advocated for using the
term “decision making” and to use subtitles to include the cross asset terms. Gordon liked that
idea. Omar pointed out that all three will help agencies with resource allocation. Egan added
that the focus is on “investment decisions.”
Update on the TAM Research Projects
Matt summarized four on-going, or recently completed, research. He discussed the following:

The TAMPortal is out there and available from several hyperlinks. Matt said this has been
showcased in several webinars. They have money and funding to keep adding resources
through SpyPond. The website has a calendar function and an ETG website.
o Chris said that by tracking the hits on webinars and other items we can get a feel for
how much interest there is.
o Matt said webinars usually get about 150 connections, with 4 people per average.
o Steve also asked ETG members to provide feedback on the FHWA Asset Management
website. Steve wants to keep his website because he can post things quickly.
o Gordon has resources that can be added to the TAMPortal. Because they are not 508
compliant, they cannot be put on the FHWA site.
16
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
o









Neil said that when he googled Transportation Asset Management, the Portal came up
9th. Matt will try to get it higher.
o The resource section is called “DOT Resources” and the group suggested calling it “TAM
Resources” or something more general.
The AASHTO TAMP Builder is a resource under the TAMPortal. They have received good
feedback on it and the ability to search on different topics. It also generates a template for an
agency. There are 27 different plans in there, including states and international sites. AASHTO
will propose a project as part of 08-36 to do a continuation of this so that more plans can be
added.
o Gordon suggested adding the BART plan to the TAMP Builder even though it’s not called
a TAMP.
The TAM Gap Analysis Tool was developed under an NCHRP project, but it would be brought
over to AASHTO for distribution. They are formatting the material now and will make it
available for free from the TAMPortal. You’ll get the Instruction Guide and the software. There
will be no technical support available, but they will create a discussion forum for that. The tool
is done in Excel. This will likely be released in two weeks at the spring meeting.
o Chris C asked about making it a web-based tool, but Katie said the panel specifically
stated that it had to be done in Excel because there is no commitment for maintaining
the software into the future. With changes in technology, this is becoming a huge issue.
A TAM Research Roadmap is going to be developed. The RFP went out in January and they will
be selecting a contractor next Friday. Matt thinks the ETG should be involved in the
development process. There will be a stakeholder implementation process and the ETG will be
invited to be a part of the process.
o Tim listed the people on the panel and Steve volunteered to join the group.
o Matt said there is other research going on, and a research roadmap shows how a
project fits within a broader pictures. He envisions involving all the major players in the
effort.
Tim added the risk register tool under 08-36 Task 126 and he said this should result in a tool that
allows users to evaluate risks at the enterprise and program level. It will be modifiable and
generate heat maps to support decision making. The contractor was selected, so work is
underway.
Omar suggested that it might be nice to have an ETG member on each NCHRP project issued in
the area of asset management. Tim likes the idea of having members involved so they can
report back on efforts and represent the interests of the ETG.
Tim said there’s a lot going on in asset management, but there are also some gaps that need to
be addressed to make asset management a business process and not just a way to satisfy MAP21.
Steve asked if in the future a new Guide should be developed to support the implementation of
asset management. Chris said he updates IIMM every four or five years. The next update will
be to better align the document to ISO.
Moh said that there were several research efforts on asset management that were approved for
funding.
Coordination of research is an important role for the ETG because it appears there are duplicate
efforts underway.
17
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015


Two new research efforts focus on the development of financial plans ($350k) and measures for
TAM and testing/demonstrating the implementation of the cross-asset optimization ($400k).
Matt noted we still have two peer exchanges for about 20 people. One idea was to have one at
the AASHTO annual meeting and one at AMPO annual meeting. The other deliverables are for
the Power Points which we were to align with the webinars. There was to be a Power Point for
risk but we didn’t need to produce that. We also need to do a TAM 101 Power Point. We still
have to finish the white papers and we have 10 webinars to produce. The last we did from
lessons learned from the asset management plans. We have four tied to the FHWA webinar
series and six that are unique. The first is on target setting, the second on MPOs and asset
management.

Closed Door Session

DeLania (AMPO) was made a liaison to the TAM ETG with full rights to sit in on closed door
sessions. Neil made the motion, Omar seconded it, and it passed unanimously.
We reviewed the schedule for ETG activities.








In terms of face-to-face meetings, there are two more scheduled. The next one will likely be
Minneapolis and the last one will be back in Washington, DC.
The current contract ends in February 2016.
Neil asked why we would have a meeting at the end of the contract. Several people said it was
an opportunity to review final deliverables so it may need to be a little earlier. That will give us
time to make adjustments to any deliverables.
A decision as to whether the ETG should be continued should be added to the agenda at the
NEXT meeting. Nastaran asked for a 1-page summary of what has been done, what benefits
have been realized, and why it should be continued.
There are two peer exchanges that have not been planned. Initially, one could be done with the
AASHTO meeting and another at the AMPO meeting.
There are also PowerPoints that are being developed. We didn’t produce the Risk Management
PowerPoint, but could still do it. Also doing one on LCC for TAMP 101.
We are doing a total of 10 webinars. Some are in conjunction with the AASHTO/FHWA
webinars, but 6 are unique to the TAM ETG. AMPO will send out a save-the-date for the May
2015 MPO webinar.
Omar suggested issuing a contract extension so that there’s time to address everything that has
to be completed. Matt pointed out that the webinar dates are already established. The other
items are being fit into the contract, but he’s happy to extend that if necessary.
In terms of content and topics that need to be addressed by the TAM ETG, we identified the following:

Steve is very happy with the white papers and webinars. He is concerned as to whether
PowerPoints are being used and whether the Peer Exchanges are needed.
o Omar pointed out that the CEO PowerPoint has been used by a few.
o Neil asked who is taking advantage of the tools that are available? Are they people who
are learning more about asset management, or does that community need to be better
18
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
o
served? He thinks it would be helpful to look at which DOTs haven’t really engaged, and
how to get them the right information. He pointed out that there’s a difference
between making information available and targeting a specific audience.
Steve is happy with progress if measured by number of states participating in various
events. He has been working with Division offices to get the under-represented states
to participate.
The group discussed whether the underrepresented group can become part of a peer
exchange. Neil doesn’t see it as just providing them information.
Brad said it’s hard to evaluate the status from the outside. He said there’s one state
that is considered to be on-board, but they are not necessarily using the information.
There was a discussion about targeting agencies that might not be ready and bringing
them to specific activities. Neil said you have to involve the right person who is in a
position to influence decisions. Chris C said it’s important to understand the hurdles
that have to be overcome.
Neil suggested trying to have a very targeted list for one of the peer exchanges and
identify the right people so they have some influence.
Moh said the same issue is being addressed in the research community. You have to
target individuals to find out why they aren’t on board. The peer could focus on that
and start the networking to help open doors.
Omar liked the idea of inviting the agencies that need help. Steve said he didn’t want
the peer exchange to be just the folks that are learners. They need to hear from
agencies that have been successful. Randy agreed.
Francine pointed out that there are some agencies that don’t see the fence and she
doesn’t think the ETG should waste resources on those agencies. The focus should be
on agencies that want to use the concepts to move forward.
Gordon said there may be some value in knowing why they’re not interested in TAM.
He would have answered this question by saying there’s no political reason to do this,
we’re doing it under another name, it dilutes my decisionmaking, etc.
From an MPO perspective, a lot of folks don’t know what asset management is. Since
they do not own facilities, they aren’t sure how it influences their plans and programs.
He said that’s what a webinar is going to have to address.
Omar said that since CEOs attend the AASHTO meeting, it would be a good opportunity
to have a discussion with them. He suggested bringing in Carlos and Kirk, for example.
He pointed out that the level of person to address is different in each agency.
Neil said it’s not practical to add a day to the AASHTO meeting. Tim said the best
strategy is personal contact. He suggests some one-on-one conversation with the right
people. Gordon’s experience as a former CEO could be beneficial to this task. He
suggested another option is the AASHTO staff member. This conversation could start
with “How can we help you?” and then use the peer exchange as a strategy to help
them. Another option is for agencies to travel to another state to see how it works.
Moh suggested targeting states that are sitting on the fence, but people were unsure as
to how they determine who they are. FHWA has an idea of who the states are that
need support.
19
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015
o
o
o
Chris said many MPOs don’t even know that a fence is out there. For them, they need
to know that this is a tool that’s out there. As a result, the MPO peer exchange can be
viewed differently than the state peer exchange.
ACTION ON DOT PEER: Lead: FHWA, AASHTO, and State reps (Randy, Steve, and Matt).
Form a group to address the attendance list and present a recommendation at the next
web meeting. Matt suggested dropping the link to the AASHTO Annual Meeting. It
could be done at one of the state DOTs. The focus will be on states that are struggling
but want to improve. Nastaran also suggested including FHWA District Administrators.
ACTION ON MPO PEER: Lead: Chris. Chris thinks there are a handful of MPO achievers
that could be showcased. AMPO has the same issues as the states – there are some
that are more mature than others. There is also some deadweight and it is impossible
to get them to change. There are others that want to try – those are the ones that
AMPO wants to target. Delana and Chris thinks that they could put together a list of
MPOs to target. Since it will be a day in length, it may not be practical to do it as part of
the AMPO meeting.
 Brad asked for an idea of what the focus will be to help determine the focus of
the peer. He pointed out you would involve different people depending on
whether the focus is on turning people into apostles or showcasing good
practices.
 Neil suggested getting several multi-state MPOs is important because their
issues are more complex.
 Omar suggested the focus should be education.
 Tim suggested considering this a starting point, explaining what asset
management is and what it means about how to do business. (And what is their
role?)
 Francine pointed out that MPOs got brought to asset management through the
back door. By having to set targets, they will have to do asset management.
 Chris said most MPOs will just adopt what the states put forward. He sees value
in conveying that there may be an incentive to allow policymakers to have a
voice in these discussions. In the end, it will drive the priority for projects in the
TIP.
In addition, the TAM ETG addressed several other items, including:

Getting a handle on the cost of doing asset management, including the cost of collecting data.
Is it worthwhile spending the money to maintain that data? How frequently? Some agencies
may really wonder whether they can really afford it. This sends the wrong message to
executives. Randy pointed out that there’s a lot of political capital to be earned once you have
the data. Chris pointed out that if you just start on the data side, an agency will get swamped
right away. He thinks most agencies have enough data to do a first draft. Once they understand
what it is, they’ll have a better understanding of its purpose and what data is needed to support
it. There are cost savings that can be realized by coordinating data collection and taking
advantage of new technology.
o A communication strategy might include a discussion on the contribution of federal
funding to cover these expenses.
20
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015









How are we communicating with others? Is there a way that we can have more interaction
with people who care to be more responsive and to raise the profile of the ETG? One idea is to
have an “Ask the ETG” forum on the TAMPortal. Nastaran thinks each webinar should feature
some of the work of the ETG. We can also answer questions then. Katie suggested that the ETG
have a visible presence at the 2016 TAM Conference. Omar suggested that we start doing more
interaction as part of our webinars to gauge what the state-of-the-practices is.
Promote guidance for how the TAMP links with the national performance measures. This
might be a topic that is best addressed after the final rules are issued. Matt sees the ETG as a
body that can provide input to the planning process. Gordon said Egan’s documents reference
asset management to see if there’s a way to add something about this as an addendum.
Organizational structure to support asset management implementation. This is referenced in
the NPRM. Since the ETG planned on doing a white paper on this topic. Neil suggested that the
white paper talk about the different approaches that are used and not recommend one or
another. Gordon said that his document “In the Short Term” discusses two different
approaches.
Asset Management Training and the desire to go to TAMP training without doing the
introductory material. Matt asked whether there’s a way to develop a certification process for
asset management that models the IPWEA model. Moh suggested that the ETG convey the
point that TAM is a business process and it’s not the responsibility of one person. Chris
suggested that FHWA promote some locals through his course. Another option is to do
something like the Book Club to develop a course. They could be given assignments and then
the webinar could be used to discuss the options. FHWA will explore the possibility of one or
more web-based course on asset management to be offered at no cost. Omar will look into the
possibility of this through continuing education. The group feels that there needs to be a
several-week course on TAM that’s available. The group will explore it further.
How to better take advantage of Chris’ knowledge as part of an emersion program. Tim would
like to figure out a way to spend several days with Chris so we can better understand how asset
management is applied in Australia. The TAM ETG discussed strategies for how to do this. Chris
said that since his role with IPWEA is changing soon, he may have more ability to do this type of
thing. Gordon pointed out that there would be an advantage to seeing the uniformity that is
promoted in Australia.
Financial Planning and Reporting. Laura agreed to talk with her peers to find out how they are
approaching various asset management topics, such as GASB and asset valuation. She’ll reach
into GASB and NASCAC(?) to see if they’re aware of the MAP-21 reporting requirements.
August Peer Exchange in Minneapolis – The workshop was to help CEOs bring Enterprise Risk
Management into their organizations and to develop the Research Roadmap on the topic of
Enterprise Risk Management.
Steve would like to compete for EDC money that could be used to promote asset management
topics. Tim suggested that several of the topics identified during the meeting would be good
ideas to promote. Steve, Omar, and Tim will work on ideas for this.
Nastaran and Tim discussed the involvement of the ETG in the future. Neil suggested that if it
takes a year to get a new contract, now is the time to start a new contract. Omar indicated that
extending the ETG’s activities after the rules are finalized is essential. Nastaran indicated that
the first step is to find the money, but Neil suggested that Tim write a letter to FHWA to begin
21
Asset Management ETG Minutes April 30, May 1, 2015

the process. Moh said the next phase will focus on implementation and keep the momentum
going. Tim will draft the letter next week.
Gordon indicated that the White Papers will be updated based on comments and sent out.
The next web meeting is June 9th. The next face-to-face meeting will be in early October in Minneapolis.
Nastaran pointed out that the first week of October is never good for FHWA.
Tim then closed the meeting.
22