Follow-Up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
Legislative Auditor's Conclusion:
WSDOT has taken steps to improve its long-term estimates of bridge
preservation needs, but will need to continue its work to provide complete and reliable
estimates.
This is a JLARC-initiated follow-up study on the Washington State Department of
Transportation's (WSDOT's) efforts to improve its long-term estimates of bridge
preservation needs. Preservation includes actions that prevent, delay, or reduce
deterioration and extend service life.
In 2015,
JLARC staff found that WSDOT could not reliably estimate its funding needs for
preserving the state's bridge network. The Legislative Auditor recommended that WSDOT
improve the reliability of its bridge estimates and work with the Office of Financial
Management (OFM) to increase stakeholders' confidence in WSDOT's estimates. Both WSDOT
and OFM concurred with these recommendations.
WSDOT has taken steps to improve its long-term bridge preservation estimates
WSDOT has done the following to improve its estimates:
Acquired a bridge management system and hired staff to implement it. WSDOT
predicts that the system will be fully operational by July 2020.
Maintained extensive and accurate data on bridge conditions.
Identified the highest-priority hazards affecting bridges. WSDOT has developed
risk mitigation plans for some hazards and is researching appropriate mitigation
approaches for others.
Federal requirements that went into effect in 2017 reinforce the Legislative
Auditor's recommendations. Now all states are required to have a bridge management
system that can perform a variety of functions consistent with those recommendations.
WSDOT is making progress toward meeting federal requirements, but, similar to many
other states, it is not yet in full compliance with them.
Despite progress, at this time WSDOT still lacks the capacity to develop reliable
long-term estimates of bridge preservation needs
WSDOT is still not able to provide reliable long-term estimates. It currently has not
configured its bridge management system to:
Forecast how deterioration and preservation treatments will affect the future
condition of all bridge elements.
Analyze life cycle costs when estimating long-term preservation needs for the
bridge network.
Evaluate how funding scenarios affect bridge conditions. WSDOT claims that current
funding levels are insufficient to maintain a long-term state of good repair, but it
has not analyzed the consequences of different funding levels on bridge conditions.
WSDOT anticipates developing these capabilities once its bridge management system is
fully implemented. These capabilities will require additional analysis, data
preparation and entry, software setup, and system testing, among other tasks. Many
other state transportation agencies are in a similar position.
WSDOT continues to communicate an incomplete picture of its long-term bridge
preservation needs and has not identified the uncertainty of its estimates
In its publications and presentations, WSDOT does not provide a clear or complete
picture of its long-term bridge preservation needs. WSDOT does not publicly document
the reasons why its long-term estimates are inconsistent across agency publications,
or identify the assumptions and uncertainties underlying its estimates.
In response to the Legislative Auditor's 2015 recommendation, OFM stated that it
would “work with WSDOT to identify opportunities for improvement [of its estimates],
emphasizing clarity, predictability, timeliness, transparency and accountability.” It
has not yet done so.
Legislative Auditor Recommendations
WSDOT should report to the Legislature on its progress with implementing its
bridge management system.
WSDOT and OFM should develop and implement a plan to communicate long-term bridge
preservation needs accurately, reliably, and transparently.
The Washington State Department of Transportation and Office of Financial Management
concur with these recommendations. You can find additional information on the Recommendations tab.
Committee Action to Distribute Report
On December 4, 2019 this report was approved for distribution by the Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
Action to distribute this report does not imply the Committee agrees or disagrees
with the Legislative Auditor recommendations.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Report Details
1. WSDOT is working to improve estimates
WSDOT has taken steps to improve its long-term estimates of
bridge preservation needs
“Preservation” is defined as actions that prevent, delay, or reduce
deterioration and extend service life. For bridges, this involves multiple
activities such as painting, seismic retrofits, sealing expansion joints,
and deck repair.
The 2013 transportation budget (ESSB 5024) directed the Joint Legislative Audit and
Review Committee (JLARC) to review the Washington State Department of
Transportation's (WSDOT's) methods for developing long-term estimates of highway
preservation needs.
JLARC staff found that WSDOT followed best practices for developing pavement
estimates, but not bridge estimates. WSDOT could not reliably estimate how much
funding was needed to preserve the state's bridge network.
Recent federal requirements reinforce Legislative Auditor's 2015 recommendations
In JLARC's 2015 report, the Legislative Auditor recommended that
WSDOT:
Improve its long-term estimates of bridge preservation needs, including:
Acquiring or developing a bridge management system.
Developing deterioration models.
Performing life cycle cost analysis.
Assessing risks to the bridge network.
Work with the Office of Financial Management (OFM) to develop a process that
would improve stakeholders’ confidence in its estimates.
WSDOT and OFM concurred with these recommendations. Federal regulations enacted in
2017 reinforce them as well. Now all states are required to have a bridge management
system that can forecast deterioration, analyze life cycle costs, identify long-term
budget needs, and recommend schedules for managing assets within fiscal
constraints.
To determine whether WSDOT is improving its ability to make reliable long-term
estimates for bridges, JLARC directed its staff to conduct this follow-up study.
WSDOT is implementing a bridge management system
When JLARC staff issued its 2015 report, WSDOT did not have a bridge management
system. Since then, WSDOT has acquired a bridge management system that 42 other
states have also adopted. WSDOT contracted with a consultant to develop a workplan
and has hired staff to implement the bridge management system. WSDOT predicts the
system will be fully operational by July 2020.
JLARC staff consulted with a bridge management expert to assess WSDOT's progress in
developing bridge estimates. The consultant reviewed WSDOT's workplan, and concurs
with the proposed approach (see Appendix A).
Once fully implemented, the bridge management system can help WSDOT develop
reliable long-term estimates and manage the state's bridge network in a
cost-effective manner. This includes building the capacity to develop deterioration
and treatment models, which forecast declining conditions and the impact of
preservation treatments.
WSDOT maintains high-quality data and is linking it to its bridge management
system
WSDOT continues to maintain extensive and accurate data on bridge conditions. It
inspects bridges every two years and evaluates the condition of 172 distinct bridge
elements, such as concrete decks and steel arches. The Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) reviews WSDOT's inspection and inventory procedures annually
and WSDOT has been responsive to these quality assurance reviews.
JLARC's bridge management expert indicates that WSDOT has collected more detail on
its bridge elements and has been tracking bridge data for a longer period of time
than most other states.
WSDOT has created a link between its data inventory system and its new bridge
management system.
WSDOT has identified high-priority hazards
WSDOT has identified the highest-priority hazards affecting bridges. It has
developed risk mitigation plans for hazards caused by normal bridge deterioration
and is researching appropriate mitigation approaches for others. WSDOT will need to
perform additional work so that its new bridge management system can use this
information to estimate conditions and needs.
WSDOT identified the following six hazards as the highest priorities for risk
mitigation:
Bridge deterioration.
Construction quality.
Bridge scour (the erosion of sediment from around submerged support structures).
Seismic activity.
Over-height collisions.
Steel expansion joints.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Report Details
2. More work needed for reliable estimates
Despite the progress made, at this time WSDOT still lacks the
capacity to develop reliable long-term estimates of bridge preservation needs
The Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) cannot yet reliably
forecast bridge conditions, budget needs, or the consequences of funding decisions.
Since 2017, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) requires all states to forecast
bridge conditions and estimate future preservation costs. Two national transportation
organizations (the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials and
the National Cooperative Highway Research Program of the Transportation Research
Board) also recommend that state transportation agencies develop analytical tools to
estimate their future needs.
WSDOT has limited capacity to forecast bridge conditions
Reliable estimates require forecasting how deterioration and preservation treatments
will affect future bridge conditions.
WSDOT does not yet use deterioration models to forecast declining conditions
To estimate long-term needs, the FHWA requires that state transportation agencies
forecast how much the condition of bridge elements will deteriorate over several
years. Reliable forecasts use statistical analysis and probability models to
understand the rate of deterioration across an entire network of bridges.
WSDOT has relied on professional judgment to anticipate future deterioration of
bridge conditions. Studies have found that professional judgment can be inaccurate.
For example, a review of the Florida Department of Transportation found that relying
on professional judgment led to predictions that bridge elements would deteriorate
roughly twice as fast as they actually did.
Deterioration models identify how long it takes for bridge elements to transition
from one condition Elements are
typically classified as "good," "fair," or "poor" condition to the
next-level of diminished condition. For example, it may take an average of 5 years for
a concrete slab to transition from good to fair condition and another 17 years to
transition from fair to poor condition.
WSDOT has completed preliminary analysis to identify the average transition times for
147 elements, and it has entered this data into its bridge management system. It has
also completed statistical analysis for two elements, but it has not yet:
Performed the statistical analysis required to reliably estimate the probability
of deterioration for most bridge elements.
Used deterioration models when it develops its long-term estimates of bridge
preservation needs.
WSDOT does not model how preservation treatments affect overall bridge
conditions
WSDOT has not yet developed models to estimate treatment effectiveness, a measure of
how preservation activities will affect future bridge conditions and long-term funding
needs.
While bridge conditions may worsen due to deterioration, they also may improve due to
preservation actions. Repainting a bridge, for example, may forestall deterioration
for many years. To develop reliable long-term estimates of bridge needs, state
transportation agencies are required to estimate how preservation actions affect
bridge conditions.
Exhibit 2.2: Preservation treatments can delay deterioration
Source: JLARC staff depiction of treatment effectiveness model.
WSDOT informed JLARC staff it plans to develop models of treatment effectiveness by
July 2020, which is consistent with the status of other state transportation agencies.
WSDOT does not perform life cycle cost analysis to manage its bridge network
States are required to use life cycle cost analysis (LCCA) to determine the most
cost-effective option for managing their long-term highway assets. LCCA is a process
for evaluating performance and maintenance over the life of an asset. It balances the
initial investment with the ongoing long-term costs of maintenance and preservation.
WSDOT currently uses LCCA to manage its pavement preservation program, but not its
bridge preservation program.
Exhibit 2.3: Life cycle cost analysis can help WSDOT manage its bridges at the
lowest cost
Source: JLARC staff depiction of life cycle cost analysis.
LCCA requires extensive data and analysis, such as forecasting how quickly bridge
elements will deteriorate and estimating the preservation or replacement costs for an
entire network of bridges over an extended period of time.
Like other states, WSDOT has not yet configured its bridge management system to
perform life cycle cost calculations. Some of the delay in implementing LCCA was due
to software problems with the bridge management system that WSDOT and 42 other states
are using. The software sponsor is working to resolve this problem and WSDOT expects
to implement LCCA functionality by July 2020.
WSDOT does not evaluate the consequences of funding decisions
WSDOT claims that its current funding levels are insufficient to maintain a long-term
state of good repair for its bridges. But, to date, it has not analyzed how certain
funding levels will affect bridge conditions. This additional information will help
highlight the consequences of current funding decisions, and how they impact future
needs.
For example, if a state does not spend the right amount at the right time on
preservation, its long-term costs may increase substantially due to a backlog of
needs, accelerated deterioration, and increasing life cycle costs. When a state is
confronted with both higher costs and deteriorating bridge conditions, it may need to
choose whether to increase funding for preservation, tolerate poor bridge conditions,
or allow bridge closures.
Washington is one of many states that is working to comply with federal requirements
Federal regulations now require that states forecast deterioration, use life cycle
cost analysis, and evaluate the long-term impact of different funding scenarios.
WSDOT indicates that it will achieve these capabilities by July 2020 as part of its
plan to implement its bridge management system. These capabilities will require
additional analysis, data preparation and entry, software setup, and system testing,
among other tasks. WSDOT has not publicly reported individual timelines or completion
dates for each of these specific capabilities.
WSDOT's progress is similar to other state departments of transportation that are
currently working to comply with federal requirements.
Exhibit 2.4: WSDOT has made improvements, but more work remains
Does WSDOT do the following in order to develop reliable estimates?
Status in 2015
Status in 2019
Maintain a management system to analyze bridge conditions and long-term
needs?
No
In progress. WSDOT has acquired a bridge management system and
plans to fully implement it by July 2020.
Forecast bridge conditions based on deterioration models?
No
Partially. WSDOT has completed exploratory data analysis and
entered data into its bridge management system.
Assess how preservation activities impact long-term bridge conditions?
No
In progress, pending full implementation of bridge management
system.
Use life cycle cost analysis to manage the bridge network?
No
In progress, pending full implementation of bridge management
system.
Identify the impact of different funding levels on long-term bridge
conditions?
No
In progress, pending full implementation of bridge management
system.
Analyze risks and use this data to prioritize projects?
Partially. WSDOT did not account for all types of risk and did not consider
risk when prioritizing projects.
Partially. WSDOT has identified the highest-priority hazards and
developed risk mitigation plans for some. It has begun to prioritize certain
hazards, but has not programmed its bridge management system to prioritize risk.
Source: JLARC 2015 report and JLARC staff analysis of consultant's report.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Report Details
3. WSDOT and OFM can improve communications
WSDOT continues to communicate an incomplete picture of its
long-term bridge preservation needs and has not identified the uncertainty of its
estimates
In its 2015 report, JLARC staff found that the Washington State
Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) estimates for long-term bridge preservation
varied widely with little explanation or documentation. This led to stakeholder
uncertainty and skepticism about WSDOT's bridge preservation needs.
The Legislative Auditor recommended that WSDOT and the Office of Financial Management
(OFM) develop a process to improve stakeholders’ confidence in its bridge estimates,
including:
Thoroughly documenting key assumptions and uncertainties.
Communicating clearly and routinely with key stakeholders.
Performing internal and external reviews.
Providing organizational buffers to protect estimates from outside pressures.
Both WSDOT and OFM concurred with this recommendation, but neither has completed
steps yet to address it.
Some WSDOT publications give incorrect impressions of the completeness, accuracy,
and reliability of its bridge preservation estimates
WSDOT communicates bridge preservation needs in several recurring publications and
presentations, such as the Gray Notebook (a quarterly performance report) and the
State of Transportation (the Secretary of Transportation's annual report to the
Legislature).
These reports provide a partial account of WSDOT's long-term bridge preservation
needs. For example, the Gray Notebook usually identifies needs for steel bridge
painting and concrete bridge deck repair, which are only two of WSDOT's eight
preservation categories. Similarly, WSDOT's most recent estimate of preservation needs
for the state's bridge network was issued in 2016, when WSDOT estimated it needed $2.7
billion over the next ten years. This did not include long-term estimates for border
bridges, movable bridge components, and seismic retrofits.
Although WSDOT indicates that its funding needs have likely increased since 2016,
WSDOT's recent reports have used the 2016 estimate without acknowledging that it is
incomplete and out of date. In fact, WSDOT has updated the expected costs for at least
three preservation categories by hundreds of millions of dollars, but these updates
are not reflected in WSDOT's reported total estimate of $2.7 billion. Stakeholders may
have an unrealistically low impression of long-term costs based on WSDOT'S recent
reports.
Reliability of some estimates may be overstated
Some of WSDOT's communications have misrepresented the analysis underlying its own
estimates. "The State of Good Repair of the State's Transportation System: Pavement
and Bridges," presented to the Washington State Transportation Commission in April
2019, indicated that about $550 million was needed each biennium to preserve bridges
at the lowest life cycle cost from 2011 to 2021. However, WSDOT did not develop this
estimate using life cycle cost analysis, and it lacked appropriate data to support
this estimate. JLARC staff cannot determine whether the estimates are higher or lower
than what a full life cycle cost analysis would suggest.
Until WSDOT fully implements a more reliable estimating process, it should clearly
acknowledge the assumptions and uncertainties of its long-term bridge preservation
estimates.
Unclear how improvements in bridge conditions relate to funding
WSDOT's public presentations and reports indicate that the state is underfunding
long-term bridge preservation needs. In the 2019 State of Good Repair presentation,
WSDOT reports that it received only 45% of the funding it needs to preserve its
bridges.
At the same time, WSDOT publications state that bridge conditions are improving.
WSDOT provides annual reports on the conditions of its bridges in accordance with
state and federal performance requirements. The June 2018 Gray Notebook reported that
92.5% of WSDOT's bridges (by deck area) were in fair or better condition, an
improvement from 91.8% the previous year.
Without further explanation, it is unclear why bridge conditions would improve if
preservation is underfunded. There may be legitimate reasons for this trend, such as
changes in the way condition is measured or the impact of large-scale projects on the
overall bridge network (e.g., the closure of the Alaska Way viaduct). When these
explanations are not provided, stakeholders may lose confidence in WSDOT's estimates
or misunderstand long-term preservation needs.
OFM has not yet completed steps to implement the recommendation to help improve
stakeholder confidence in bridge estimates
In 2015, the Legislative Auditor recommended that OFM work with WSDOT to develop a
process for improving stakeholder confidence in the state's long-term bridge forecasts
and estimates.
StatuteRCW 47.05.030
also directs OFM to propose a 10-year preservation program for the state's highway
system. OFM defers to WSDOT in identifying specific projects and costs based on
WSDOT's internal expertise and familiarity with its assets.
In response to JLARC's 2015 report, OFM stated that it would “work with WSDOT to
identify opportunities for improvement, emphasizing clarity, predictability,
timeliness, transparency and accountability.” It has not yet completed steps to
provide clear, routine communication with key stakeholders to ensure that those
stakeholders understand the assumptions and uncertainties of WSDOT's estimates.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Report Details
Appendix A: Consultant's Report
JLARC staff worked with a bridge management expert to help
evaluate WSDOT's progress in developing estimates of long-term bridge preservation
needs
JLARC staff engaged Paul D. Thompson to identify best practices in asset management
and assess the Washington State Department of Transportation's (WSDOT's) long-term
estimates of bridge preservation needs.
A full copy of the consultant report can be downloaded here:
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Report Details
Appendix B: Applicable statutes
State and federal laws related to maintaining the transportation
system
Transportation System Policy Goals: Duties
RCW 47.01.078
To support achievement of the policy goals described in RCW 47.04.280, the department
shall:
(1) Maintain an inventory of the condition of structures and corridors in most urgent
need of retrofit or rehabilitation;
(2) Develop long-term financing tools that reliably provide ongoing maintenance and
preservation of the transportation infrastructure;
(3) Balance system safety and convenience through all phases of a project to
accommodate all users of the transportation system to safely, reliably, and
efficiently provide mobility to people and goods;
(4) Develop strategies to gradually reduce the per capita vehicle miles traveled
based on consideration of a range of reduction methods;
(5) Consider efficiency tools, including high occupancy vehicle and high occupancy
toll lanes, corridor-specific and systemwide pricing strategies, active traffic
management, commute trip reduction, and other demand management tools;
(6) Promote integrated multimodal planning; and
(7) Consider engineers and architects to design environmentally sustainable,
context-sensitive transportation systems.
[ 2007 c 516 § 6.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent—2007 c 516: See note following RCW 47.01.011.
Transportation System Policy Goals
RCW 47.04.280
(1) It is the intent of the legislature to establish policy goals for the planning,
operation, performance of, and investment in, the state's transportation system. The
policy goals established under this section are deemed consistent with the benchmark
categories adopted by the state's blue ribbon commission on transportation on November
30, 2000. Public investments in transportation should support achievement of these
policy goals:
(a) Economic vitality: To promote and develop transportation systems that stimulate,
support, and enhance the movement of people and goods to ensure a prosperous economy;
(b) Preservation: To maintain, preserve, and extend the life and utility of prior
investments in transportation systems and services;
(c) Safety: To provide for and improve the safety and security of transportation
customers and the transportation system;
(d) Mobility: To improve the predictable movement of goods and people throughout
Washington state, including congestion relief and improved freight mobility;
(e) Environment: To enhance Washington's quality of life through transportation
investments that promote energy conservation, enhance healthy communities, and protect
the environment; and
(f) Stewardship: To continuously improve the quality, effectiveness, and efficiency
of the transportation system.
(2) The powers, duties, and functions of state transportation agencies must be
performed in a manner consistent with the policy goals set forth in subsection (1) of
this section.
(3) These policy goals are intended to be the basis for establishing detailed and
measurable objectives and related performance measures.
(4) It is the intent of the legislature that the office of financial management, in
consultation with the transportation commission, establish objectives and performance
measures for the department and other state agencies with transportation-related
responsibilities to ensure transportation system performance at local, regional, and
state government levels progresses toward the attainment of the policy goals set forth
in subsection (1) of this section. The office of financial management shall submit
objectives and performance measures to the legislature for its review and shall
provide copies of the same to the commission during each regular session of the
legislature during an even-numbered year thereafter.
(5) A local or regional agency engaging in transportation planning may voluntarily
establish objectives and performance measures to demonstrate progress toward the
attainment of the policy goals set forth in subsection (1) of this section or any
other transportation policy goals established by the local or regional agency. A local
or regional agency engaging in transportation planning is encouraged to provide local
and regional objectives and performance measures to be included with the objectives
and performance measures submitted to the legislature pursuant to subsection (4) of
this section.
(6) This section does not create a private right of action.
[ 2016 c 35 § 3. Prior: 2015 3rd sp.s. c 16 § 1; 2015 3rd sp.s. c 1 § 304; 2013 c 199
§ 1; 2010 c 74 § 1; 2007 c 516 § 3; 2002 c 5 § 101. Formerly RCW 47.01.012.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2015 3rd sp.s. c 16: "This act is necessary for the immediate
preservation of the public peace, health, or safety, or support of the state
government and its existing public institutions, and takes effect immediately [July 6,
2015]." [ 2015 3rd sp.s. c 16 § 2.]
Findings—Intent—2007 c 516: See note following RCW 47.01.011.
Effective date—2002 c 5 § 101: "Section 101 of this act takes effect July 1, 2002." [
2002 c 5 § 102.]
Captions not law—2002 c 5: "Captions and part headings used in this act are not part
of the law." [ 2002 c 5 § 419.]
Severability—2002 c 5: "If any provision of this act or its application to any person
or circumstance is held invalid, the remainder of the act or the application of the
provision to other persons or circumstances is not affected." [ 2002 c 5 § 420.]
Priority Programming for Highway Development
RCW 47.05.010
The legislature finds that solutions to state highway deficiencies have become
increasingly complex and diverse and that anticipated transportation revenues will
fall substantially short of the amount required to satisfy all transportation needs.
Difficult investment trade-offs will be required.
It is the intent of the legislature that investment of state transportation funds to
address deficiencies on the state highway system be based on a policy of priority
programming having as its basis the rational selection of projects and services
according to factual need and an evaluation of life cycle costs and benefits that are
systematically scheduled to carry out defined objectives within available revenue. The
state must develop analytic tools to use a common methodology to measure benefits and
costs for all modes.
The priority programming system must ensure preservation of the existing state
highway system, relieve congestion, provide mobility for people and goods, support the
state's economy, and promote environmental protection and energy conservation.
The priority programming system must implement the state-owned highway component of
the statewide transportation plan, consistent with local and regional transportation
plans, by targeting state transportation investment to appropriate multimodal
solutions that address identified state highway system deficiencies.
The priority programming system for improvements must incorporate a broad range of
solutions that are identified in the statewide transportation plan as appropriate to
address state highway system deficiencies, including but not limited to highway
expansion, efficiency improvements, nonmotorized transportation facilities, high
occupancy vehicle facilities, transit facilities and services, rail facilities and
services, and transportation demand management programs.
[ 2002 c 5 § 401; 1993 c 490 § 1; 1969 ex.s. c 39 § 1; 1963 c 173 § 1.]
NOTES:
Effective date—2002 c 5 §§ 401-404: "Sections 401 through 404 of this act take effect
July 1, 2002." [ 2002 c 5 § 417.]
Captions not law—Severability—2002 c 5: See notes following RCW 47.04.280.
RCW 47.05.030
(1) The office of financial management shall propose a comprehensive ten-year
investment program for the preservation and improvement programs defined in this
section, consistent with the policy goals described under RCW 47.04.280. The proposed
ten-year investment program must be forwarded as a recommendation by the office of
financial management to the legislature, and must be based upon the needs identified
in the statewide transportation plan established under RCW 47.01.071(4).
(2) The preservation program consists of those investments necessary to preserve the
existing state highway system and to restore existing safety features, giving
consideration to lowest life cycle costing.
(3) The improvement program consists of investments needed to address identified
deficiencies on the state highway system to meet the goals established in RCW
47.04.280.
[ 2007 c 516 § 7; 2006 c 334 § 45; 2005 c 319 § 9; 2002 c 5 § 402; 1998 c 171 § 6;
1993 c 490 § 3; 1987 c 179 § 2; 1979 ex.s. c 122 § 2; 1977 ex.s. c 151 § 44; 1975 1st
ex.s. c 143 § 1; 1973 2nd ex.s. c 12 § 4; 1969 ex.s. c 39 § 3; 1965 ex.s. c 170 § 33;
1963 c 173 § 3.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent—2007 c 516: See note following RCW 47.01.011.
Effective date—2006 c 334: See note following RCW 47.01.051.
Findings—Intent—Part headings—Effective dates—2005 c 319: See notes following RCW
43.17.020.
Effective date—2002 c 5 §§ 401-404: See note following RCW 47.05.010.
Captions not law—Severability—2002 c 5: See notes following RCW 47.04.280.
Severability—1979 ex.s. c 122: See note following RCW 47.05.021.
Statewide Transportation Planning
RCW 47.06.050
The state-owned facilities component of the statewide multimodal transportation plan
shall consist of:
(1) The state highway system plan, which identifies program and financing needs and
recommends specific and financially realistic improvements to preserve the structural
integrity of the state highway system, ensure acceptable operating conditions, and
provide for enhanced access to scenic, recreational, and cultural resources. The state
highway system plan shall contain the following elements:
(a) A system preservation element, which shall establish structural preservation
objectives for the state highway system including bridges, identify current and future
structural deficiencies based upon analysis of current conditions and projected future
deterioration, and recommend program funding levels and specific actions necessary to
preserve the structural integrity of the state highway system consistent with adopted
objectives. Lowest life-cycle cost methodologies must be used in developing a pavement
management system. This element shall serve as the basis for the preservation
component of the six-year highway program and the two-year biennial budget request to
the legislature;
(b) A highway maintenance element, establishing service levels for highway
maintenance on state-owned highways. The highway maintenance element must include an
estimate of costs for achieving those service levels over twenty years. This element
will serve as the basis for the maintenance component of the six-year highway program
and the two-year biennial budget request to the legislature;
(c) A capacity and operational improvement element, which shall establish operational
objectives, including safety considerations, for moving people and goods on the state
highway system, identify current and future capacity, operational, and safety
deficiencies, and recommend program funding levels and specific improvements and
strategies necessary to achieve the operational objectives. In developing capacity and
operational improvement plans the department shall first assess strategies to enhance
the operational efficiency of the existing system before recommending system
expansion. Strategies to enhance the operational efficiencies include but are not
limited to access management, transportation system management, demand management, and
high occupancy vehicle facilities. The capacity and operational improvement element
must conform to the state implementation plan for air quality and be consistent with
regional transportation plans adopted under chapter 47.80 RCW, and shall serve as the
basis for the capacity and operational improvement portions of the six-year highway
program and the two-year biennial budget request to the legislature;
(d) A scenic and recreational highways element, which shall identify and recommend
designation of scenic and recreational highways, provide for enhanced access to
scenic, recreational, and cultural resources associated with designated routes, and
recommend a variety of management strategies to protect, preserve, and enhance these
resources. The department, affected counties, cities, and towns, regional
transportation planning organizations, and other state or federal agencies shall
jointly develop this element;
(e) A paths and trails element, which shall identify the needs of nonmotorized
transportation modes on the state transportation systems and provide the basis for the
investment of state transportation funds in paths and trails, including funding
provided under chapter 47.30 RCW.
(2) The state ferry system plan, which shall guide capital and operating investments
in the state ferry system. The plan shall establish service objectives for state ferry
routes, forecast travel demand for the various markets served in the system, develop
strategies for ferry system investment that consider regional and statewide vehicle
and passenger needs, support local land use plans, and assure that ferry services are
fully integrated with other transportation services. The plan must provide for
maintenance of capital assets. The plan must also provide for preservation of capital
assets based on lowest life-cycle cost methodologies. The plan shall assess the role
of private ferries operating under the authority of the utilities and transportation
commission and shall coordinate ferry system capital and operational plans with these
private operations. The ferry system plan must be consistent with the regional
transportation plans for areas served by the state ferry system, and shall be
developed in conjunction with the ferry advisory committees.
[2007 c 516 § 10; 2002 c 5 § 413; 1993 c 446 § 5.]
NOTES:
Findings—Intent—2007 c 516: See note following RCW 47.01.011.
Finding—Intent—2002 c 5: "The legislature finds that roads, streets, bridges, and
highways in the state represent public assets worth over one hundred billion dollars.
These investments require regular maintenance and preservation, or rehabilitation, to
provide cost-effective transportation services. Many of these facilities are in poor
condition. Given the magnitude of public investment and the importance of safe,
reliable roadways to the motoring public, the legislature intends to create stronger
accountability to ensure that cost-effective maintenance and preservation is provided
for these transportation facilities."[ 2002 c 5 § 408.]
Captions not law—Severability—2002 c 5: See notes following RCW 47.04.280.
Asset Management Plans
23 CFR 515
Authority: Sec. 1106 and 1203 of Pub. L. 112-141, 126 Stat. 405; 23 U.S.C. 109,
119(e), 144, 150(c), and 315; 49 CFR 1.85(a).
Effective Date Note: At 81 FR 73263, Oct. 24, 2016, part 515 was added, effective
Oct. 2, 2017.
§ 515.1 Purpose.
The purpose of this part is to:
(a) Establish the processes that a State transportation department (State DOT) must
use to develop its asset management plan, as required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(8);
(b) Establish the minimum requirements that apply to the development of an asset
management plan;
(c) Describe the penalties for a State DOT's failure to develop and implement an
asset management plan in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part;
(d) Set forth the minimum standards for a State DOT to use in developing and
operating highway bridge and pavement management systems under 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(i).
§ 515.3 Applicability and effective date.
This part applies to all State DOTs. The effective date for the requirements in this
part is October 2, 2017.
§ 515.5 Definitions.
As used in this part:
Asset means all physical highway infrastructure located within the right-of-way
corridor of a highway. The term asset includes all components necessary for the
operation of a highway including pavements, highway bridges, tunnels, signs, ancillary
structures, and other physical components of a highway.
Asset class means assets with the same characteristics and function (e.g., bridges,
culverts, tunnels, pavements, or guardrail) that are a subset of a group or collection
of assets that serve a common function (e.g., roadway system, safety, Intelligent
Transportation (IT), signs, or lighting).
Asset condition means the actual physical condition of an asset.
Asset management means a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining,
and improving physical assets, with a focus on both engineering and economic analysis
based upon quality information, to identify a structured sequence of maintenance,
preservation, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement actions that will achieve and
sustain a desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the assets at minimum
practicable cost.
Asset management plan means a document that describes how a State DOT will carry out
asset management as defined in this section. This includes how the State DOT will make
risk-based decisions from a long-term assessment of the National Highway System (NHS),
and other public roads included in the plan at the option of the State DOT, as it
relates to managing its physical assets and laying out a set of investment strategies
to address the condition and system performance gaps. This document describes how the
highway network system will be managed to achieve State DOT targets for asset
condition and system performance effectiveness while managing the risks, in a
financially responsible manner, at a minimum practicable cost over the life cycle of
its assets. The term asset management plan under this part is the risk-based asset
management plan that is required under 23 U.S.C. 119(e) and is intended to carry out
asset management as defined in 23 U.S.C. 101(a)(2).
Asset sub-group means a specialized group of assets within an asset class with the
same characteristics and function (e.g., concrete pavements or asphalt pavements.)
Bridge as used in this part, is defined in 23 CFR 650.305, the National Bridge
Inspection Standards.
Critical infrastructure means those facilities the incapacity or failure of which
would have a debilitating impact on national or regional economic security, national
or regional energy security, national or regional public health or safety, or any
combination of those matters.
Financial plan means a long-term plan spanning 10 years or longer, presenting a
State DOT's estimates of projected available financial resources and predicted
expenditures in major asset categories that can be used to achieve State DOT targets
for asset condition during the plan period, and highlighting how resources are
expected to be allocated based on asset strategies, needs, shortfalls, and agency
policies.
Investment strategy means a set of strategies that result from evaluating various
levels of funding to achieve State DOT targets for asset condition and system
performance effectiveness at a minimum practicable cost while managing risks.
Life-cycle cost means the cost of managing an asset class or asset sub-group for its
whole life, from initial construction to its replacement.
Life-cycle planning means a process to estimate the cost of managing an asset class,
or asset sub-group over its whole life with consideration for minimizing cost while
preserving or improving the condition.
Minimum practicable cost means lowest feasible cost to achieve the objective.
NHS pavements and bridges and NHS pavement and bridge assets mean Interstate System
pavements (inclusion of ramps that are not part of the roadway normally traveled by
through traffic is optional); NHS pavements (excluding the Interstate System)
(inclusion of ramps that are not part of the roadway normally traveled by through
traffic is optional); and NHS bridges carrying the NHS (including bridges that are
part of the ramps connecting to the NHS).
Performance of the NHS refers to the effectiveness of the NHS in providing for the
safe and efficient movement of people and goods where that performance can be affected
by physical assets. This term does not include the performance measures established
for performance of the Interstate System and performance of the NHS (excluding the
Interstate System) under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(ii)(A)(IV)-(V).
Performance gap means the gaps between the current asset condition and State DOT
targets for asset condition, and the gaps in system performance effectiveness that are
best addressed by improving the physical assets.
Risk means the positive or negative effects of uncertainty or variability upon
agency objectives.
Risk management means the processes and framework for managing potential risks,
including identifying, analyzing, evaluating, and addressing the risks to assets and
system performance.
Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) has the same meaning as defined
in § 450.104 of this title.
Work type means initial construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and
reconstruction.
§ 515.7 Process for establishing the asset management plan.
A State shall develop a risk-based asset management plan that describes how the NHS
will be managed to achieve system performance effectiveness and State DOT targets for
asset condition, while managing the risks, in a financially responsible manner, at a
minimum practicable cost over the life cycle of its assets. The State DOT shall
develop and use, at a minimum the following processes to prepare its asset management
plan:
(a) A State DOT shall establish a process for conducting performance gap analysis to
identify deficiencies hindering progress toward improving or preserving the NHS and
achieving and sustaining the desired state of good repair. At a minimum, the State
DOT's process shall address the following in the gap analysis:
(1) The State DOT targets for asset condition of NHS pavements and bridges as
established by the State DOT under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) once promulgated.
(2) The gaps, if any, in the performance-of the NHS that affect NHS pavements and
bridges regardless of their physical condition; and
(3) Alternative strategies to close or address the identified gaps.
(b) A State DOT shall establish a process for conducting life-cycle planning for an
asset class or asset sub-group at the network level (network to be defined by the
State DOT). As a State DOT develops its life-cycle planning process, the State DOT
should include future changes in demand; information on current and future
environmental conditions including extreme weather events, climate change, and seismic
activity; and other factors that could impact whole of life costs of assets. The State
DOT may propose excluding one or more asset sub-groups from its life-cycle planning if
the State DOT can demonstrate to FHWA the exclusion of the asset sub-group would have
no material adverse effect on the development of sound investment strategies due to
the limited number of assets in the asset sub-group, the low level of cost associated
with managing the assets in that asset sub-group, or other justifiable reasons. A
life-cycle planning process shall, at a minimum, include the following:
(1) The State DOT targets for asset condition for each asset class or asset
sub-group;
(2) Identification of deterioration models for each asset class or asset sub-group,
provided that identification of deterioration models for assets other than NHS
pavements and bridges is optional;
(3) Potential work types across the whole life of each asset class or asset
sub-group with their relative unit cost; and
(4) A strategy for managing each asset class or asset sub-group by minimizing its
life-cycle costs, while achieving the State DOT targets for asset condition for NHS
pavements and bridges under 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
(c) A State DOT shall establish a process for developing a risk management plan.
This process shall, at a minimum, produce the following information:
(1) Identification of risks that can affect condition of NHS pavements and bridges
and the performance of the NHS, including risks associated with current and future
environmental conditions, such as extreme weather events, climate change, seismic
activity, and risks related to recurring damage and costs as identified through the
evaluation of facilities repeated damaged by emergency events carried out under part
667 of this title. Examples of other risk categories include financial risks such as
budget uncertainty; operational risks such as asset failure; and strategic risks such
as environmental compliance.
(2) An assessment of the identified risks in terms of the likelihood of their
occurrence and their impact and consequence if they do occur;
(3) An evaluation and prioritization of the identified risks;
(4) A mitigation plan for addressing the top priority risks;
(5) An approach for monitoring the top priority risks; and
(6) A summary of the evaluations of facilities repeatedly damaged by emergency
events carried out under part 667 of this title that discusses, at a minimum, the
results relating to the State's NHS pavements and bridges.
(d) A State DOT shall establish a process for the development of a financial plan
that identifies annual costs over a minimum period of 10 years. The financial plan
process shall, at a minimum, produce:
(1) The estimated cost of expected future work to implement investment strategies
contained in the asset management plan, by State fiscal year and work type;
(2) The estimated funding levels that are expected to be reasonably available, by
fiscal year, to address the costs of future work types. State DOTs may estimate the
amount of available future funding using historical values where the future funding
amount is uncertain;
(3) Identification of anticipated funding sources; and
(4) An estimate of the value of the agency's NHS pavement and bridge assets and the
needed investment on an annual basis to maintain the value of these assets.
(e) A State DOT shall establish a process for developing investment strategies
meeting the requirements in § 515.9(f). This process must result in a description of
how the investment strategies are influenced, at a minimum, by the following:
(1) Performance gap analysis required under paragraph (a) of this section;
(2) Life-cycle planning for asset classes or asset sub-groups resulting from the
process required under paragraph (b) of this section;
(3) Risk management analysis resulting from the process required under paragraph (c)
of this section; and
(4) Anticipated available funding and estimated cost of expected future work types
associated with various candidate strategies based on the financial plan required by
paragraph (d) of this section.
(f) The processes established by State DOTs shall include a provision for the State
DOT to obtain necessary data from other NHS owners in a collaborative and coordinated
effort.
(g) States DOTs shall use the best available data to develop their asset management
plans. Pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(i), each State DOT shall use bridge and
pavement management systems meeting the requirements of § 515.17 to analyze the
condition of NHS pavements and bridges for the purpose of developing and implementing
the asset management plan required under this part. The use of these or other
management systems for other assets that the State DOT elects to include in the asset
management plan is optional (e.g., Sign Management Systems, etc.).
§ 515.9 Asset management plan requirements.
(a) A State DOT shall develop and implement an asset management plan to improve or
preserve the condition of the assets and improve the performance of the NHS in
accordance with the requirements of this part. Asset management plans must describe
how the State DOT will carry out asset management as defined in § 515.5.
(b) An asset management plan shall include, at a minimum, a summary listing of NHS
pavement and bridge assets, regardless of ownership.
(c) In addition to the assets specified in paragraph (b) of this section, State DOTs
are encouraged, but not required, to include all other NHS infrastructure assets
within the right-of-way corridor and assets on other public roads. Examples of other
NHS infrastructure assets include tunnels, ancillary structures, and signs. Examples
of other public roads include non-NHS Federal-aid highways. If a State DOT decides to
include other NHS assets in its asset management plan, or to include assets on other
public roads, the State DOT, at a minimum, shall evaluate and manage those assets
consistent with paragraph (l) of this section.
(d) The minimum content for an asset management plan under this part includes a
discussion of each element in this paragraph (d).
(1) Asset management objectives. The objectives should align with the State DOT's
mission. The objectives must be consistent with the purpose of asset management, which
is to achieve and sustain the desired state of good repair over the life cycle of the
assets at a minimum practicable cost.
(2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset condition, including
those established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150, for NHS pavements and bridges. The plan
must include measures and associated targets the State DOT can use in assessing the
condition of the assets and performance of the highway system as it relates to those
assets. The measures and targets must be consistent with the State DOT's asset
management objectives. The State DOT must include the measures established under 23
U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III), once promulgated in 23 CFR part 490, for the
condition of NHS pavements and bridges. The State DOT also must include the targets
the State DOT has established for the measures required by 23 U.S.C.
150(c)(3)(A)(ii)(I)-(III), once promulgated, and report on such targets in accordance
with 23 CFR part 490. The State DOT may include measures and targets for NHS pavements
and bridges that the State DOT established through pre-existing management efforts or
develops through new efforts if the State DOT wishes to use such additional measures
and targets to supplement information derived from the pavement and bridge measures
and targets required under 23 U.S.C. 150.
(3) A summary description of the condition of NHS pavements and bridges, regardless
of ownership. The summary must include a description of the condition of those assets
based on the performance measures established under 23 U.S.C. 150(c)(3)(A)(ii) for
condition, once promulgated. The description of condition should be informed by
evaluations required under part 667 of this title of facilities repeated damaged by
emergency events.
(4) Performance gap identification.
(5) Life-cycle planning.
(6) Risk management analysis, including the results for NHS pavements and bridges,
of the periodic evaluations under part 667 of this title of facilities repeated
damaged by emergency event.
(7) Financial plan.
(8) Investment strategies.
(e) An asset management plan shall cover, at a minimum, a 10-year period.
(f) An asset management plan shall discuss how the plan's investment strategies
collectively would make or support progress toward:
(1) Achieving and sustaining a desired state of good repair over the life cycle of
the assets,
(2) Improving or preserving the condition of the assets and the performance of the
NHS relating to physical assets,
(3) Achieving the State DOT targets for asset condition and performance of the NHS
in accordance with 23 U.S.C. 150(d), and
(4) Achieving the national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b).
(g) A State DOT must include in its plan a description of how the analyses required
by State processes developed in accordance with § 515.7 (such as analyses pertaining
to life cycle planning, risk management, and performance gaps) support the State DOT's
asset management plan investment strategies.
(h) A State DOT shall integrate its asset management plan into its transportation
planning processes that lead to the STIP, to support its efforts to achieve the goals
in paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this section.
(i) A State DOT is required to make its asset management plan available to the
public, and is encouraged to do so in a format that is easily accessible.
(j) Inclusion of performance measures and State DOT targets for NHS pavements and
bridges established pursuant to 23 U.S.C. 150 in the asset management plan does not
relieve the State DOT of any performance management requirements, including 23 U.S.C.
150(e) reporting, established in other parts of this title.
(k) The head of the State DOT shall approve the asset management plan.
(l) If the State DOT elects to include other NHS infrastructure assets or other
public roads assets in its asset management plan, the State at a minimum shall address
the following, using a level of effort consistent with the State DOT's needs and
resources:
(1) Summary listing of assets, including a description of asset condition;
(2) Asset management measures and State DOT targets for asset condition;
(3) Performance gap analysis;
(4) Life-cycle planning;
(5) Risk analysis, including summaries of evaluations carried out under part 667 of
this title for the assets, if available, and consideration of those evaluations;
(6) Financial plan; and
(7) Investment strategies.
(m) The asset management plan of a State may include consideration of critical
infrastructure from among those facilities in the State that are eligible under 23
U.S.C. 119(c).
§ 515.11 Deadlines and phase-in of asset management plan development.
(a) Deadlines. (1) Not later than April 30, 2018, the State DOT shall submit to FHWA
a State-approved initial asset management plan meeting the requirements in paragraph
(b) of this section. The FHWA will review the processes described in the initial plan
and make a process certification decision as provided in § 515.13(a).
(2) Not later than June 30, 2019, the State DOT shall submit a State-approved asset
management plan meeting all the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, including
paragraph (c) of this section, together with documentation demonstrating
implementation of the asset management plan. The FWHA will determine whether the State
DOT's plan and implementation meet the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part as
provided in § 515.13(b).
(b) The initial plan shall describe the State DOT's processes for developing its
risk-based asset management plan, including the policies, procedures, documentation,
and implementation approach that satisfy the requirements of this part. The plan also
must contain measures and targets for assets covered by the plan. The investment
strategies required by § 515.7(e) and 515.9((d)(8) must support progress toward the
achievement of the national goals identified in 23 U.S.C. 150(b). The initial plan
must include and address the State DOT's 23 U.S.C. 150(d) targets for NHS pavements
and bridges only if the first target-setting deadline established in 23 CFR part 490
for NHS pavements and bridges is a date more than 6 months before the initial plan
submission deadline in paragraph (a)(1). The initial asset management plan may exclude
one or more of the necessary analyses with respect to the following required asset
management processes:
(1) Life-cycle planning required under § 515.7(a)(2);
(2) The risk management analysis required under § 515.7(a)(3); and
(3) Financial plan under § 515.7(a)(4).
(c) The State-approved asset management plan submitted not later than June 30, 2019,
shall include all required analyses, performed using FHWA-certified processes, and the
section 150 measures and State DOT targets for the NHS pavements and bridges. The plan
must meet all requirements in §§ 515.7 and 515.9. This includes investment strategies
that are developed based on the analyses from all processes required under § 515.7,
and meet the requirements in 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(2).
§ 515.13 Process certification and recertification, and annual plan consistency
review.
(a) Process certification and recertification under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(6). Not later
than 90 days after the date on which the FHWA receives a State DOT's processes and
request for certification or recertification, the FHWA shall decide whether the State
DOT's processes for developing its asset management plan meet the requirements of this
part. The FHWA will treat the State DOT's submission of an initial State-approved
asset management plan under § 515.11(b) as the State DOT's request for the first
certification of the State's DOT's plan development processes under 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6). As provided in paragraph (c) of this section, State DOT shall update and
resubmit its asset management plan development processes to the FHWA for a new process
certification at least every 4 years.
(1) If FHWA determines that the processes used by a State DOT to develop and
maintain the asset management plan do not meet the requirements established under this
part, FHWA will send the State DOT a written notice of the denial of certification or
recertification, including a listing of the specific requirement deficiencies.
(2) Upon receiving a notice of denial of certification or recertification, the State
DOT shall have 90 days from receipt of the notice to address the deficiencies
identified in the notice and resubmit the State DOT's processes to FHWA for review and
certification. The FHWA may extend the State DOT's 90-day period to cure deficiencies
upon request. During the cure period established, all penalties and other legal
impacts of a denial of certification shall be stayed as provided in 23 U.S.C.
119(e)(6)(C)(i).
(3) If FHWA finds that a State DOT's asset management processes substantially meet
the requirements of this part except for minor deficiencies, FHWA may certify or
recertify the State DOT's processes as being in compliance, but the State DOT must
take actions to correct the minor deficiencies within 90 days of receipt of the
notification of certification. The State shall notify FHWA, in writing, when
corrective actions are completed.
(b) Annual determination of consistency under 23 U.S.C. 119(e)(5). Not later than
August 31, 2019, and not later than July 31 in each year thereafter, FHWA will notify
the State DOT whether the State DOT has developed and implemented an asset management
plan consistent with 23 U.S.C. 119. The notice will be in writing and, in the case of
a negative determination, will specify the deficiencies the State DOT needs to
address. In making the annual consistency determination, the FHWA will consider the
most recent asset management plan submitted by the State DOT, as well as any
documentation submitted by the State DOT to demonstrate implementation of the plan.
The FHWA determination is only as to the consistency of the State DOT asset management
plan and State DOT implementation of that plan with applicable requirements, and is
not an approval or disapproval of strategies or other decisions contained in the plan.
With respect to any assets the State DOT may elect to include in its plan in addition
to NHS pavement and bridge assets, the FHWA consistency determination will consider
only whether the State DOT has complied with § 515.9(l) with respect to such
discretionary assets.
(1) Plan development. The FHWA will review the State DOT's asset management plan to
ensure that it was developed with certified processes, includes the required content,
and is consistent with other applicable requirements in this part.
(2) Plan implementation. The State DOT must demonstrate implementation of an asset
management plan that meets the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part. Each State
DOT may determine the most suitable approach for demonstrating implementation of its
asset management plan, so long as the information is current, documented, and
verifiable. The submission must show the State DOT is using the investment strategies
in its plan to make progress toward achievement of its targets for asset condition and
performance of the NHS and to support progress toward the national goals identified in
23 U.S.C. 150(b). The State DOT must submit its implementation documentation not less
than 30 days prior to the deadline for the FHWA consistency determination.
(i) FHWA considers the best evidence of plan implementation to be that, for the 12
months preceding the consistency determination, the State DOT funding allocations are
reasonably consistent with the investment strategies in the State DOT's asset
management plan. This demonstration takes into account the alignment between the
actual and planned levels of investment for various work types (i.e., initial
construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation and reconstruction).
(ii) FHWA may find a State DOT has implemented its asset management plan even if the
State has deviated from the investment strategies included in the asset management
plan, if the State DOT shows the deviation was necessary due to extenuating
circumstances beyond the State DOT's reasonable control.
(3) Opportunity to cure deficiencies. In the event FHWA notifies a State DOT of a
negative consistency determination, the State DOT has 30 days to address the
deficiencies. The State DOT may submit additional information showing the FHWA
negative determination was in error, or to demonstrate the State DOT has taken
corrective action that resolves the deficiencies specified in FHWA's negative
determination.
(c) Updates and other amendments to plans and development processes. A State DOT
must update its asset management plan and asset management plan development processes
at least every 4 years, beginning on the date of the initial FHWA certification of the
State DOT's processes under paragraph (a) of this section. Whenever the State DOT
updates or otherwise amends its asset management plan or its asset management plan
development processes, the State DOT must submit the amended plan or processes to the
FHWA for a new process certification and consistency determination at least 30 days
prior to the deadline for the next FHWA consistency determination under paragraph (b)
of this section. Minor technical corrections and revisions with no foreseeable
material impact on the accuracy and validity of the processes, analyses, or investment
strategies in the plan do not constitute amendments and do not require submission to
FHWA.
§ 515.15 Penalties
(a) Beginning on October 1, 2019, and in each fiscal year thereafter, if a State DOT
has not developed and implemented an asset management plan consistent with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part, the maximum Federal share for National
Highway Performance Program projects and activities carried out by the State in that
fiscal year shall be reduced to 65 percent for that fiscal year.
(b)(1) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, if the State DOT has
not developed and implemented an asset management plan that is consistent with the
requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part and established the performance targets
for NHS pavements and bridges required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d) by the date that is 18
months after the effective date of the 23 U.S.C. 150(c) final rule for NHS pavements
and bridges, the FHWA will not approve any further projects using National Highway
Performance Program funds. Such suspension of funding approvals will terminate once
the State DOT has developed and implemented an asset management plan that is
consistent with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. 119 and this part and established its
performance targets for NHS pavements and bridges required under 23 U.S.C. 150(d).
(2) The FHWA may extend this deadline if FHWA determines that the State DOT has made
a good faith effort to develop and implement an asset management plan and establish
the performance targets for NHS pavements and bridges required under 23 U.S.C.
150(d).
§ 515.17 Minimum standards for developing and operating bridge and pavement
management systems
Pursuant to 23 U.S.C.150(c)(3)(A)(i), this section establishes the minimum standards
States must use for developing and operating bridge and pavement management systems.
State DOT bridge and pavement management systems are not subject to FHWA certification
under § 515.13. Bridge and pavement management systems shall include, at a minimum,
documented procedures for:
(a) Collecting, processing, storing, and updating inventory and condition data for
all NHS pavement and bridge assets.
(b) Forecasting deterioration for all NHS pavement and bridge assets;
(c) Determining the benefit-cost over the life cycle of assets to evaluate
alternative actions (including no action decisions), for managing the condition of NHS
pavement and bridge assets;
(d) Identifying short- and long-term budget needs for managing the condition of all
NHS pavement and bridge assets;
(e) Determining the strategies for identifying potential NHS pavement and bridge
projects that maximize overall program benefits within the financial constraints.;
and
(f) Recommending programs and implementation schedules to manage the condition of
NHS pavement and bridge assets within policy and budget constraints.
§ 515.19 Organizational integration of asset management.
(a) The purpose of this section is to describe how a State DOT may integrate asset
management into its organizational mission, culture and capabilities at all levels.
The activities described in paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section are not
requirements.
(b) A State DOT should establish organizational strategic goals and include the
goals in its organizational strategic implementation plans with an explanation as to
how asset management will help it to achieve those goals.
(c) A State DOT should conduct a periodic self-assessment of the agency's
capabilities to conduct asset management, as well as its current efforts in
implementing an asset management plan. The self-assessment should consider, at a
minimum, the adequacy of the State DOT's strategic goals and policies with respect to
asset management, whether asset management is considered in the agency's planning and
programming of resources, including development of the STIP; whether the agency is
implementing appropriate program delivery processes, such as consideration of
alternative project delivery mechanisms, effective program management, and cost
tracking and estimating; and whether the agency is implementing adequate data
collection and analysis policies to support an effective asset management program.
(d) Based on the results of the self-assessment, the State DOT should conduct a gap
analysis to determine which areas of its asset management process require improvement.
In conducting a gap analysis, the State DOT should:
(1) Determine the level of organizational performance effort needed to achieve the
objectives of asset management;
(2) Determine the performance gaps between the existing level of performance effort
and the needed level of performance effort; and
(3) Develop strategies to close the identified organizational performance gaps and
define the period of time over which the gap is to be closed.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Recommendations & Responses
Legislative Auditor Recommendations
The Legislative Auditor makes two recommendations regarding
estimating and communicating long-term bridge preservation needs
Recommendation #1: WSDOT should report to the Legislature on its progress with
implementing its bridge management system.
These reports must provide clear timelines and anticipated completion dates for
implementing deterioration models, analyzing life cycle costs for the bridge network,
and evaluating the impact of different funding scenarios on its bridge conditions.
Legislation Required:
None
Fiscal Impact:
None
Implementation Date:
September 2020. If WSDOT has not fully implemented its bridge management system
at that time, continue to report each September until fully implemented
Recommendation #2: WSDOT and OFM should develop and implement a plan to communicate
long-term bridge preservation needs accurately, reliably, and transparently.
WSDOT and OFM should seek input from legislative transportation committee staff to
ensure that the plan meets legislative needs. At a minimum, the plan should:
Ensure that bridge preservation estimates are consistent across WSDOT's public
reports and presentations. When the figures vary, provide an explanation for the
differences.
Include the assumptions, decisions, and timeframes that underlie the estimates,
and identify which preservation activities are not included in the estimates. Be
explicit in the limitations or uncertainties behind the estimates.
Explain how the investment plans proposed in budget requests will affect future
bridge conditions.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Recommendations & Responses
OFM Response
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Recommendations & Responses
WSDOT Response
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
Recommendations & Responses
Current Recommendation Status
JLARC staff follow up with agencies on Legislative Auditor recommendations for 4
years. Responses from agencies on the latest status of implementing recommendations
for this report are below.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
More About This Review
Audit Authority
The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee (JLARC) works to make state
government operations more efficient and effective. The Committee is comprised of an
equal number of House members and Senators, Democrats and Republicans.
JLARC's non-partisan staff auditors, under the direction of the Legislative Auditor,
conduct performance audits, program evaluations, sunset reviews, and other analyses
assigned by the Legislature and the Committee.
The statutory authority for JLARC, established in Chapter 44.28 RCW,
requires the Legislative Auditor to ensure that JLARC studies are conducted in
accordance with Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards, as applicable to the
scope of the audit. This study was conducted in accordance with those applicable
standards. Those standards require auditors to plan and perform audits to obtain
sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for findings and
conclusions based on the audit objectives. The evidence obtained for this JLARC report
provides a reasonable basis for the enclosed findings and conclusions, and any
exceptions to the application of audit standards have been explicitly disclosed in the
body of this report.
Committee Action to Distribute Report
On December 4, 2019 this report was approved for distribution by the Joint
Legislative Audit and Review Committee.
Action to distribute this report does not imply the Committee agrees or disagrees
with the Legislative Auditor recommendations.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
More About This Review
Study Questions
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
December 2019
More About This Review
Methodology
The methodology JLARC staff use when conducting analyses is tailored to the scope of
each study, but generally includes the following:
Interviews with stakeholders, agency representatives, and other
relevant organizations or individuals.
Site visits to entities that are under review.
Document reviews, including applicable laws and regulations,
agency policies and procedures pertaining to study objectives, and published
reports, audits or studies on relevant topics.
Data analysis, which may include data collected by agencies
and/or data compiled by JLARC staff. Data collection sometimes involves surveys or
focus groups.
Consultation with experts when warranted. JLARC staff consult
with technical experts when necessary to plan our work, to obtain specialized
analysis from experts in the field, and to verify results.
The methods used in this study were conducted in accordance with Generally Accepted
Government Auditing Standards.
More details about specific methods related to individual study objectives are
described in the body of the report under the report details tab or in technical
appendices.
19-07 Final Report: Follow-up on WSDOT's Long-Term Estimates of Bridge Preservation
Needs
