Transportation Asset Management Plans

Case Study 1 – Asset Management 

Practices and Benefits

FHWA-HIF-20-088

FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION

Office of Stewardship, Oversight and 

Management

1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE

Washington, DC 20590

May 2020

Notice

This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation 

in the interest of information exchange. The U.S. Government assumes no liability for the use of 

the information contained in this document. 

The U.S. Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trademarks or 

manufacturers’ names appear in this report only because they are considered essential to the 

objective of the document. 

The contents of this document do not have the force and effect of law and are not meant to 

bind the public in any way. This document is intended only to provide clarity to the public 

regarding existing requirements under the law or agency policies. However, compliance with 

applicable statutes or regulations cited in this document is required. 

Quality Assurance Statement

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) provides high quality information to serve 

Government, industry, and the public in a manner that promotes public understanding. 

Standards and policies are used to ensure and maximize the quality, objectivity, utility, and 

integrity of its information. FHWA periodically reviews quality issues and adjusts its programs 

and processes to ensure continuous quality improvement.

Technical Report Documentation Page

1. Report No. FHWA-HIF-20-088

2. Government Accession No. 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle: Asset Management Practices and Benefits - Case Study 1

5. Report Date: May 2020 

6. Performing Organization Code: None 

7. Author(s): Principal Investigators: Shobna Varma, Starisis Corporation, Gordon Proctor, Proctor Associates 

8. Performing Organization Report No: Case Study 1

9. Performing Organization Name and Address: Starisis Corporation, 3737 Woodstone Drive, Lewis Center, 

Ohio 43035; Gordon Proctor & Associates 7825 Wiltshire Drive, Dublin, Ohio, 43017; Greenman Petersen 

Inc.325, West Main Street, Babylon, NY 11702Greenman-Pedersen Inc. 10977 Guilford Road Annapolis 

Junction, MD 20701 

10. Work Unit No.: None 

11. Contract or Grant No.: DTFH61-10-D-00024, Task Order No. T-11-006 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address: Federal Highway Administration 1200 New Jersey Ave SE, Washington, 

DC 20590 

13. Type of Report and Period Covered: Case study covering 2019 and 2020 

14. Sponsoring Agency Code: FHWA 

15. Supplementary Notes: Peter Doan (COR), Nastaran Saadatmand (Technical Lead) 

16. Abstract: This is one of seven case studies of practices in the 2019 transportation asset management plans 

(TAMPs). This case study highlights examples of how State departments of transportation (DOTs) explained their 

asset management practices, and the benefits from those practices.

17. Key Words: Asset management, transportation asset management plans, life-cycle planning, life cycle plans, 

state of good repair, managing assets for their whole life.

18. Distribution Statement: No restrictions. 

19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified 

20. Security Classification (of this page): Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages: 16 

22. Price Free

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized.

Contents

Case Study Introduction................................................................................................................................ 1

Documenting Asset Management Practices................................................................................................. 2

New Jersey Department of Transportation TAMP........................................................................................ 2

Broad Agency-Wide Involvement in Asset Management Practices.......................................................... 2

TAMP Stressed Development of Asset Management Practices, Not Just a Plan...................................... 3

Asset Management Supported by Policy .................................................................................................. 3

Extensive Outreach to 83 Local NHS Owners ........................................................................................... 3

Objectives Directly Supported a State of Good Repair............................................................................. 4

Gap Analysis Conclusions.......................................................................................................................... 4

Life-Cycle Planning Strategies Emphasized............................................................................................... 4

Risk Roles Assigned and Tools Developed ................................................................................................ 5

Clearly Identified Investment Strategies and Gaps................................................................................... 5

Summary ................................................................................................................................................... 6

Pennsylvania DOT Good Practice Examples.................................................................................................. 6

PennDOT Forecasted Future Investment Needs ...................................................................................... 6

Objectives Embraced Life-Cycle Planning and Drove Investment Strategies........................................... 8

TAMPs as Templates for Change .................................................................................................................. 9

Illinois DOT “Raising the Bar”........................................................................................................................ 9

Integrating Asset Management into the Agency’s “Fabric” ..................................................................... 9

Focusing Targets on Preservation Opportunities ...................................................................................10

New Tools Deployed and More Under Development.............................................................................11

Embracing New Strategies......................................................................................................................12

Changes Affecting Programming Amounts.............................................................................................12

A Roadmap for Further Improvement....................................................................................................13

A Strong Commitment to Asset Management........................................................................................13

Washington State DOT Demonstrated Asset Management Maturity........................................................14

Conclusion...................................................................................................................................................15

Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

1 

Case Study Introduction

This case study is one of seven that captures good asset management practices documented in the 2019

transportation asset management plans (TAMPs) required by 23 U.S.C. 119(e). This series distills many 

of the good practices and presents them in a convenient format for use by other transportation 

agencies. The seven case studies are:

Case Study 1: Asset Management Practices and Benefits

Many of the TAMPs provided comprehensive summaries of their asset management practices and the 

benefits they received from them. Several examples are highlighted in this case study. These include 

examples from the DOTs in New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Washington State. These examples 

illustrate how asset management plans can effectively summarize asset management practices and 

improvement strategies.

Case Study 2: Linking Asset Management to Planning and Programming

This case study examines how TAMPs documented linkages to the DOT’s long-range plan, the State 

Transportation Improvement Program (STIP), and state planning and programming practices. Examples 

are selected from the TAMPs in Missouri, Maine, Utah, Ohio, Wyoming, and Montana.

Case Study 3: Supporting Life-Cycle Planning

To develop a life cycle plan, one needs to know how assets deteriorate throughout their life cycle. 

Several TAMPs were notable in documenting how they manage assets with life cycle plans. Included in 

this case study are examples from the DOTs in Minnesota, Ohio, Tennessee, and New Jersey.

Case Study 4: Managing Risk to Assets

DOTs embrace risk management to support the long-term performance of assets, and for making riskbased investment tradeoffs. This case study summarizes some of the good risk management practices 

from Washington State, California, Kansas, South Dakota, Louisiana, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Texas, 

Colorado, and Michigan. 

Case Study 5: Developing Financial Plans and Investment Strategies

The financial plans and investment strategies reflect priorities for allocating scarce resources to achieve 

their highest asset management objectives. This case study examines how several TAMPs described the 

clear linkages between their asset management objectives, gaps, risks, and investment strategies. 

Examples are from Kentucky, Michigan, Washington State, New York State, Utah, Vermont, and Illinois.

Case Study 6: Communicating Asset Management Strategies

This case study summarizes examples of communicating asset management strategies with key internal 

and external stakeholders. Examples are cited from the DOTs in Vermont, California, New Jersey, 

Washington State, Michigan, Ohio, Colorado, and Nebraska. 

Case Study 7: Managing Non-Bridge-and-Pavement Assets

Several State TAMPs included additional assets beyond pavements and bridges. Examples are cited from 

Minnesota, Connecticut, Utah, and California.
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

2 

Documenting Asset Management Practices 

This case study examines several of the 2019 TAMPs that were notable in detailing agencies’ asset 

management plan development practices or in documenting the benefits the agencies derived from 

asset management such as cost savings, improved asset conditions, or increased transparency.

These examples summarize only a few of the practices seen in the 2019 TAMPs. All the plans are 

available on the FHWA’s asset management website.

New Jersey Department of Transportation TAMP 

Some publications have described asset management plans as opportunities for agencies to coordinate 

their diverse work units to focus on the common goal of managing assets throughout their life cycle.1

TAMPs also provide an opportunity to explain the challenges facing bridge and pavement assets and 

how the agency makes difficult tradeoffs to manage those assets with limited resources. 2,3,4 The New 

Jersey DOT(NJDOT) asset management plan provided several good practice examples of how a TAMP 

can summarize the condition of assets, describe risks, and explain how the agency intends to manage 

the assets. 

Broad Agency-Wide Involvement in Asset Management Practices 

The NJDOT established a governance structure with high-level leadership and broad agency participation 

to implement its asset management practices. High-level leadership demonstrated institutional support 

for asset management while broad engagement encouraged multi-disciplinary coordination to manage 

assets through every phase of their life cycle.

The NJDOT’s Transportation Asset Management Steering Committee provided general direction to the 

TAMP efforts and assisted in communicating the purpose and progress to other stakeholders. The 

committee included the deputy commissioner, assistant commissioner for capital program 

management, the assistant commissioner for transportation operations systems and support, the 

assistant commissioner for finance and administration, and the assistant commissioner for planning, 

multimodal, and grant administration.

The committee’s key responsibilities included: 

• Establishing asset management policy and state of good repair (SOGR) objectives. 

• Approving National Highway Performance Program (NHPP) targets addressing bridge and

pavement condition preservation. 

• Providing oversight in the management of enterprise-level risks to accomplish asset

management policy and state of good repair objectives. 

• Monitoring and reviewing annually the performance and condition of NJDOT assets and the NHS 

to evaluate progress toward achieving NHPP targets and the TAMP objectives. 

• Monitoring and reviewing annually the status of TAMP strategies and actions to improve

NJDOT’s asset management business practices. 

• Communicating the investment strategies to executive management for consideration during

New Jersey’s Transportation Capital Program and STIP development procedures. 

• Communicating the implications of not addressing performance gaps, such as impacts on other

performance areas, and consequences of not meeting NHPP targets. 

The Transportation Asset Management Directors Group was comprised of the organizational units 

responsible for elements of the TAMP development. This group provided general direction to the TAMP 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

3 

effort, monitored progress, and supported resolution of issues requiring coordination across functional 

areas. The Directors Group supported change management, organizational development, and the 

implementation of the TAMP development as an agency-wide, enterprise-wide function. It also provided 

guidance to both the Transportation Asset Management Steering Committee and the Transportation 

Asset Management Plan Team. 

The Transportation Asset Management Plan Team was a cross-functional team of program managers 

with responsibilities for agency-wide asset management functions and asset management programs for 

specific asset classes identified within the TAMP. The team established NJDOT’s overall asset 

management approach. The team coordinated the implementation of enhancements and other 

modifications to the TAMP approach. Fourteen divisions or bureaus were included on the Asset 

Management Plan Team.

TAMP Stressed Development of Asset Management Practices, Not Just a Plan 

The NJDOT emphasized that the TAMP reflected ongoing, continuous practices to manage assets 

effectively as opposed to being only a document that will be updated once every four years: 

The TAMP recognizes that improving asset management practices and outcomes is a continuous 

process that requires top-down leadership, reinforced by policy direction and management 

actions in concert with bottom-up staff involvement that continually refines practices and 

processes. 5

The TAMP discussed how asset management decision making was supported by practices for target 

setting, data collection, gap analysis, life-cycle planning, risk analysis, engagement with local NHS 

owners, and program and project development. 

Asset Management Supported by Policy 

NJDOT’s asset management policy said in part: 

Our policy is to employ asset management best practices and data-driven processes to manage 

New Jersey’s infrastructure across the whole lifecycle to maintain assets in a State of Good 

Repair. In this way, our asset management process is the foundation for cost-effective 

infrastructure preservation and fulfills the mission of providing a world class transportation 

system. 

We employ our asset management process to manage and monitor State of Good Repair. .....The 

New Jersey Transportation Asset Management Plan is NJDOT’s investment plan for fulfilling the 

Infrastructure Preservation core mission, and the plan for improving our asset management 

program and processes so that NJDOT ‘achieves consistent progress through focused 

investments in keeping infrastructure in a State of Good Repair.’ The TAMP is also the process 

through which strategies and plans are developed for the management of NJDOT assets across 

their lifecycle.6

Extensive Outreach to 83 Local NHS Owners 

The 2018 and 2019 TAMPs described extensive outreach efforts to engage all 83 local owners of 

portions of the NHS. The NJDOT managed 61 percent of the NHS lane miles, while 19 percent were 

managed by the New Jersey Turnpike Authority (NJTA), 16 percent by counties and municipalities, and 4 

percent by other authorities. For NHS bridges by area, NJDOT managed 47 percent, the turnpike 

authority managed 34 percent, other authorities managed 17 percent, and counties and municipalities 

managed 2 percent. 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

4 

The aims of the outreach were to:

• Communicate asset management purpose, objectives, and requirements. 

• Establish ongoing communication with NHS owners. 

• Ensure direct engagement with local NHS owners. 

• Ensure quality data about locally owned NHS assets.

Among the data collected were condition information and recent and planned expenditures on NHS 

assets. Information was collected through face-to-face meetings, workshops and web conferences, and 

emails. Workshops were held at key points during the TAMP development to engage local owners and 

to provide opportunities to review and comment on the analysis results. 

Objectives Directly Supported a State of Good Repair 

The NJDOT TAMP defined the state of good repair in terms of measurable condition objectives that 

relate to the agency’s targets. For pavements, the state of good repair objective was to have more than 

80 percent of the lane miles on the State Highway System (SHS) in Good or Fair condition as measured 

by the NJDOT’s Condition Status performance measure and not by the 23 CFR 490.311 and 490.313 

performance measures. For bridges, the objective was to have more than 94 percent of State Highway 

System bridges in Good or Fair condition and more than 95 percent of NHS bridges in Good or Fair 

condition. For bridges, the NJDOT used the measures defined in 23 CFR 490.407 and 490.409 for setting 

its SOGR. Those state of good repair objectives then served as the benchmark for other asset 

management processes such as gap analysis, assessing risks to conditions, conducting life-cycle analyses, 

and influencing investment strategies. The definition of SOGR is required for the TAMP, but the actual 

definition is up to the State.

Gap Analysis Conclusions 

The NJDOT TAMP summarized the performance gaps both for current and projected conditions. Gaps 

were illustrated in terms of percentages of the bridge and pavement network that will not meet 

condition targets or the state of good repair objectives, as well as the investment levels necessary to 

close the gaps. Gaps also were shown by year, and the magnitude of gaps under different investment 

levels was shown. The NJDOT TAMP described a four-step gap analysis process. First, asset data are 

collected. Second, baseline asset performance is determined from calendar year 2017 condition data for 

both the state highway system and the NHS. Third, a review of historical performance and spending 

provided guidance in determining the SOGR objectives. Pavement and bridge management systems 

applied life cycle and risk management strategies to develop projected performance of State Highway 

System pavement and bridge assets under planned funding levels. Fourth, the gap analysis results 

identify (1) the difference between baseline performance and projected performance for each asset and 

the SOGR objectives, (2) the projected performance of select assets and targets, (3) the gaps in system 

performance revealed through the analysis, and (4) the gaps in funding to achieve the SOGR objectives.

Life-Cycle Planning Strategies Emphasized 

The NJDOT TAMP went into considerable detail explaining how the agency used life-cycle planning to 

extend the life of assets and to lower the life-cycle cost of maintaining them. It emphasized the agency’s 

efforts to achieve the highest overall network conditions through timely maintenance, preservation, 

rehabilitation, and replacement treatments.

The life-cycle planning chapter appeared to be written for both technical and lay audiences. It explained

why life-cycle planning lowers the cost of managing assets by avoiding costly repairs with timely and less 

costly preservation treatments. It explained the type of treatments that are applied at different times in 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

5 

the life cycle of bridges and pavements to preserve their condition and to avoid more costly 

rehabilitation or replacement. 

The TAMP provided a brief history of earlier attempts to achieve pavement system condition targets by 

using only overlays every 10 years and how that strategy was too costly to be implemented. Instead, the 

agency is relying more heavily on preservation treatments which, if applied at the right point in a 

pavement’s life cycle, can improve overall network conditions. 

The TAMP also explained in simple terms how the agency’s pavement management system (PMS) 

analyzes condition data and produces optimized treatment programs based upon the pavement budget. 

Graphics compared how much better pavement conditions will be through 2029 given the agency’s lifecycle approach compared to a strategy of relying only on overlays. The steps were to perform multiple 

scenarios using the pavement management system to select the scenario which optimized the 

pavement conditions for the given budget. In addition to four scenarios based upon potential 

investment strategies, two additional scenarios were run only for illustrative purposes. Those two 

illustrative scenarios used the same fixed funding level. One scenario allowed the pavement 

management system to use its decision trees to optimize the treatments. Using the same funding level, 

the second scenario restricted the treatments the management system could choose to only overlays 

after pavements had deteriorated. The first scenario that relied on the pavement management system 

decision trees produced substantially higher conditions through 2029 than did the scenario that allowed 

only overlays.

Although NJDOT did not have the bridge management system (BMS) fully operational in time for the 

TAMP, it included highlights of a plan of action to fully deploy the BMS. The TAMP relied on interim 

analysis to estimate the needed funding levels, and the resulting conditions under different investment 

scenarios.

The TAMP also listed several life-cycle planning improvement strategies. They include a bridge 

preventive maintenance program, use of improved materials and systems, improved design details, new 

bridge condition assessment technologies, and the deployment of the bridge management system.

Risk Roles Assigned and Tools Developed 

The NJDOT TAMP described a process that includes the typical steps of risk identification, analysis, 

evaluation, and treatment but adds three innovations. The first was a NJDOT developed Resiliency

Management System to help manage risks from extreme weather events. 7 The TAMP stated this system 

will when completed intersect data layers such as flood hazard zones, topography, land use, and other 

environmental and social factors to identify areas vulnerable to extreme weather events. The second 

was a Resiliency Working Group of asset owners who will collaborate to assess how extreme weather is 

managed and recommend steps to manage shortfalls. The third innovation was an ongoing Events 

Database that will record emergency events to keep the 23 CFR Part 667 analysis up to date. Per 23 CFR 

667.1, each State shall conduct statewide evaluations to determine if there are reasonable alternatives 

to roads, highways, and bridges that have required repair and reconstruction activities on two or more 

occasions due to emergency events. In 23 CFR 667.5 it states that the beginning date for every 

evaluation shall be January 1, 1997. 

Clearly Identified Investment Strategies and Gaps 

The two major investment strategies were to increase the amount of pavement preservation 

expenditures and the amount of bridge preservation expenditures to capitalize upon the long-term 

benefits of timely preservation. The TAMP showed the pavement preservation annual allocation 

increasing from $15 million to $100 million by 2029. The bridge preservation allocation increased from 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

6 

$100 million to $150 million. The amounts to be allocated for rehabilitation and reconstruction each 

year also were shown. The TAMP did not include amounts for pavement maintenance. It explained

maintenance is provided by in-house forces and the amount allocated for it are hard to identify. For 

bridge maintenance, $70 million was estimated to be allocated per year through 2029.

The TAMP showed year by year how much of a financial gap exists between expected pavement and 

bridge allocations and the amount needed to achieve a state of good repair. The shortfalls were an 

average of $255 million annually for State Highway System pavements and $140 million annually for 

State Highway System bridges through 2029.

Summary 

The New Jersey TAMP provided lay and technically trained readers with clear explanations of the 

condition of the agency’s assets, and its objectives and targets. It also clearly explained the risks and 

gaps affecting those assets, and the agency’s investment strategies to manage its bridge and pavement 

assets with limited resources. The TAMP also informed policy makers and budgeters how much 

additional revenue would be needed to achieve the state of good repair objectives. The NJDOT TAMP 

summarized for the public and policy makers how assets are managed and the conditions the public will 

face in the years ahead. 

Pennsylvania DOT Good Practice Examples 

One benefit of an asset management plan is the forecasting of future revenue and investment needs to 

inform decision makers about the financial sustainability of a State’s assets. It is helpful for agencies to 

understand years in advance how they may have to increase revenues or shift expenditures to align 

their resources with the long-term asset investment needs.8 It can take several years to develop a 

project, and even longer to develop an entire program of projects, such as ones to replace aging 

pavements or to preserve bridges. It also can take several years to convince policy makers of the need to 

increase investments. Therefore, the 10-year forecasts seen in the Pennsylvania DOT (PennDOT) asset 

management plan provide an example of how a TAMP can serve as a “heads up” to policy makers that 

the State’s transportation asset conditions are not financially sustainable under current scenarios.

PennDOT Forecasted Future Investment Needs 

PennDOT produced 12-year pavement and bridge condition forecasts using its bridge and pavement 

management systems. The projections were based on current condition data and improved conditions 

expected as a result of future projects. Planning investments were derived from the financial forecasts 

and lists of programmed projects. PennDOT’s TAMP stated that both the pavement and bridge 

management systems were new and the agency expected some error in the forecasts. The agency was

working to continuously update and improve the forecasts’ accuracy.

Although PennDOT forecasted no short-term gaps between bridge and pavement conditions and targets 

within the first four years, over the longer term significant performance gaps were forecasted. Both 

Pennsylvania NHS pavements and bridges were expected to deteriorate and significantly increase the 

amount of Fair pavements. Also, bridge conditions were forecasted to deteriorate and reach the 10 

percent Poor threshold by 2023. For both pavement and bridge performance measures, PennDOT’s 

TAMP analysis used the 23 CFR Part 490 performance measures.
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

7 

PennDOT attributed the deteriorating forecasts to these factors: 

• Funding is inadequate to keep pace with rehabilitation and replacement projects that are 

needed to keep the system in optimal condition. 

• The increased age of Pennsylvania’s infrastructure minimizes the benefit of continual 

preservation treatments. 

• The results of underinvestment may be slightly exaggerated as the models are not yet precise 

enough to yield highly reliable forecasts in the 5-to 12-year range.

PennDOT forecasted that its Interstate System pavements will meet the minimum FHWA condition level 

of no more than 5 percent Poor as specified in 23 CFR 490.315(a) through the forecast period, although 

the results were not certain. The forecasts were based on surface conditions and did not account for 

roadway age, the condition of underlying pavement distresses, or the backlog of pavement 

reconstruction projects. The PennDOT TAMP stated that detailed analysis of pavement history showed

that many more pavements require costly reconstruction and that preservation and rehabilitation 

treatments will perform well for increasingly shorter periods as the underlying pavement structure 

deteriorates. 

PennDOT’s TAMP indicated that in 2019 only 1 percent of NHS pavements were Poor, 61.7 percent were

Fair, and 37.3 percent were Good. By 2030, the percent Poor is forecasted to rise to 4.8, the percent Fair 

to 80.3, with the percent Good falling to 14.9. For Interstates only, the amount Poor is forecasted to rise 

from 0.4 percent to 1.7 percent and the percent Good to decrease from 63.7 percent to 32 percent 

between 2019 and 2030. 

An even greater deterioration occurs on the non-NHS system. Between 2019 and 2030, the percent Poor 

was forecast to rise from 1.3 percent to 6.1 percent, and the amount Good was forecast to fall from 25.4 

percent to 7.2 percent. The percent Fair was forecast to comprise 86.6 percent of the non-NHS system 

by 2030, according to the TAMP’s forecast.

For bridges, the TAMP forecasted similar trends. The percent of Poor NHS bridges was forecast to 

increase from 4.6 percent to 25.6 percent between 2019 and 2030. The percent of Good was forecast to 

fall from 29.7 percent to 10.9 percent, although the percent of Fair structures was forecast to decrease 

slightly from 65.7 percent to 63.5 percent. Non-NHS bridges also were forecast to deteriorate overall. 

Although the percentage of Good structures was forecast to remain about the same through 2030, the 

percentage of Poor was forecast to increase from 3.3 percent to 25.5 percent.

Three notable elements of good asset management practice were evident in the PennDOT TAMP with 

regard to these forecasts. 

First, PennDOT acknowledged and plans to focus upon “model risk.” Because forecasts are based on 

PennDOT models, the uncertainty or variability surrounding the forecast represents a risk that agencies 

can assess and manage.

9, 10 The PennDOT TAMP used the best available data, and while acknowledging 

the uncertainties in its forecasts, the agency has plans to continually improve the models. Highlighting 

the uncertainties, the TAMP cautioned decision makers about potential variabilities to expect.

Second, PennDOT’s TAMP indicated that the agency will shift its programming to a more life-cycle based 

approach. Because of the substantial investment made in developing currently programmed projects, it 

plans to deliver its current program of projects. However, as new projects are developed for later years 

of the TAMP, they will be more heavily focused on life-cycle strategies. The agency has adopted a lifecycle preservation approach and the slogan, “The right treatment at the right time.”

The third element of good asset management was the forecasts themselves. The forecasts indicated 

that although the minimum Interstate pavement condition levels will be met per 23 CFR 490.315(a), 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

8 

over the next 12 years the overall condition of the pavement network was forecasted to deteriorate 

without a significant response strategy to arrest the trends. The forecasts predicted the percentage of 

Fair Interstate pavements will increase substantially, which will eventually lead to more rapid 

deterioration and more costly repairs to stabilize the pavements. The non-NHS pavements were forecast 

to decline substantially with only 7.2 percent of them in Good condition, and the majority of the 

network forecast to be in marginal, or Fair condition. The overall trend that was forecast was for a 

pavement network that is less robust, more prone to rapid deterioration, and more costly to restore to a 

state of good repair.

The PennDOT TAMP forecasts reflected two concepts common in international asset management 

frameworks. The first is financial sustainability, and the second is “intergenerational equity.” Financial 

sustainability involves managing financial risks and financial shocks in future periods without having to 

introduce significant and economically destabilizing expenditures or revenue adjustments.11,12

Intergenerational equity in relation to transportation assets or government operations has been 

described as not permitting a transportation network to deteriorate to the point that maintenance costs 

are transferred to a future generation.13

The PennDOT TAMP forecasts served as a form of leading indicator that allows policy makers to 

understand what actions are needed in the short term to prepare for longer-term consequences. 

Leading indicators are particularly important for long-lived assets such as pavements and bridges for 

which treatment strategies can stretch over decades.14

Objectives Embraced Life-Cycle Planning and Drove Investment Strategies 

Another good practice seen in the PennDOT TAMP was the adoption of objectives that support life-cycle 

planning and then those objectives driving investment strategies. 

The PennDOT TAMP included objectives that directly embrace asset management. Objective A is, 

“Sustain a Desired State of Good Repair over the Life Cycle of Assets.” The TAMP stated that a 

transportation system in good overall condition is a key enabler of economic activity and is central to 

the quality of life in Pennsylvania. Timely, preservation and rehabilitation treatments are helpful in 

maintaining roadway pavements, bridges, and other transportation infrastructure in a state of good 

repair.

Pennsylvania defined its desired state of good repair as meeting the FHWA minimum condition 

thresholds for pavements and bridges of no more than 5 percent of NHS Interstate lane miles in Poor 

condition per 23 CFR 490.315(a) and no more than 10 percent of total NHS bridge deck area rated as 

Poor per 23 CFR 490.411(a). Pennsylvania’s desired state of good repair for NHS non-Interstate 

pavements was also defined as having no more than 5 percent of lane miles rated in Poor condition.

Objective B was, “Achieve the Lowest Practical Life-Cycle Costs for Assets.” The TAMP stated that 

transportation needs have historically and consistently exceeded available funding in Pennsylvania. For 

this reason, as well as PennDOT’s commitment to good stewardship and delivering value, the agency 

believes it is imperative to derive the greatest value from every infrastructure dollar invested. 

The objectives influenced the investment strategies that demonstrated between 2019 and 2030 a 

steady decrease in capacity-adding allocations and a steady increase in preservation allocations. The two 

largest allocation categories by far were for preservation and maintenance.

The TAMP stated that in recent years PennDOT successfully reduced its backlog of Poor bridges through 

prioritizing rehabilitation and replacement of deteriorated structures. It was a “worst-first” approach 

driven by the State’s backlog of Poor structures.
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

9 

While the strategy was successful in reducing the number of Poor bridges, the approach came at the 

expense of preventive maintenance on structures that were in better condition. The TAMP stated that 

PennDOT is transitioning from a focus on Poor structures to an overall risk-based prioritization and 

selection of bridges based on a lowest life-cycle approach for the entire network. 

The TAMP stated PennDOT is enhancing its bridge and pavement management systems and making 

them available to its Districts, MPOs, and rural planning organizations (RPOs) to allow them to analyze 

investment decisions using their available funds. PennDOT is developing a guidance document to assist 

the Districts and MPOs/RPOs regarding the transition to a life-cycle planning approach. The key points 

will include guidance on:

• Transitioning from “worst-first” to life-cycle programming strategies. 

• Considering new asset condition targets and metrics and how to apply them. 

• Applying the new methodology to Transportation Improvement Program adjustments. 

• Utilizing the Pavement Asset Management System and Bridge Asset Management System tools 

to assist in project selection. 

• Training on the software systems and interim tools. 

TAMPs as Templates for Change 

While some TAMPs document existing asset management practices, others served as catalysts to explain 

and document the changes that agencies intend to make. This section summarizes how the Illinois 

Department of Transportation (IDOT) TAMP served as a pivot point for the agency to make fundamental 

changes to how it manages its assets. 

Illinois DOT “Raising the Bar” 

The Illinois DOT (IDOT) 2019 asset management plan used the slogan “Raising the Bar” to summarize the 

agency’s pivot to asset management. The TAMP emphasized the agency is moving away from a “worstfirst” approach that did not optimize the agency’s limited resources. Repeatedly, the TAMP explained

new strategies that will embrace a life-cycle approach to managing its assets.

Under the previous approach, the implementation of the program varied by districts, funding 

was minimal, and there was little verification that preservation funds were being used as 

intended. The revised strategies outlined in this TAMP address those concerns by placing a 

greater emphasis on the use of improved guidance ensuring that preservation techniques are 

applied to pavements and bridges before significant deterioration occurs. This is expected to 

reduce the overall cost of preserving IDOT’s pavements and bridges and slow the overall rate of 

network deterioration. 

Integrating Asset Management into the Agency’s “Fabric” 

The 2019 TAMP stated that IDOT determined early that the TAMP should not be a stand-alone effort but 

should become part of the fabric of IDOT. To that end, the development of the TAMP and 

implementation of asset management practices have been guided by a Steering Committee of 

representatives at the executive level. A Project Management Team was also created that consisted of 

mid-level managers for each of the areas involved in asset management. Team members also led 

working groups for each of the specific areas. 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

10

The IDOT TAMP stated that a 2015 analysis recommended seven significant changes or steps the agency 

should take to improve its asset management procedures. In 2017, as it began to develop its asset 

management plan, it established new targets representing acceptable conditions for its hierarchy of 

bridges and pavements. The pavement conditions were based upon the agency’s Condition Rating

Survey (CRS) that it has used as its in-house rating system that pre-dated the FHWA 23 CFR Part 490 

performance measures. IDOT set a CRS value of 5.5 or higher for Interstates and 5.0 for the other NHS 

and non-NHS routes out of a scale of 1.0 to 9.0. Using National Bridge Inventory (NBI) ratings, the 

minimal acceptable condition for bridges was set at 5 for decks, superstructures, substructures, and 

culverts on a 0-9 scale. 

Focusing Targets on Preservation Opportunities 

The 2019 IDOT TAMP stated the significance of those targets is that they represent the lowest value for 

which preservation activities are effective in extending the life of the assets. In the past, IDOT primarily 

focused its highway investments on addressing the most pressing needs, such as congestion in the 

Chicago area, economic development demands, or deteriorated pavements and bridges across the 

State. Historically, IDOT’s pavement and bridge condition assessment procedures have been used to 

report necessary pavement and bridge improvements in terms of two types, “Backlog” and “Accruing.” 

Accruing segments were those anticipated to deteriorate to the point that they would need 

improvement within six years of the evaluation, while “Adequate” segments were those expected to 

need little or no improvement within those same six years. The focus on Backlog prioritized already 

deteriorated pavements and bridges in significant need of repair and tended to drive investments 

toward assets that were in unacceptable condition. This focus on deteriorated assets represented a 

“worst-first” strategy that required substantial funding levels each year. Since money was not available 

to treat all the Backlog, network conditions declined and desired conditions known as “aspirational 

goals” were unachievable. 

The TAMP stated IDOT is changing the way its CRS ratings are used to monitor pavement performance 

and identify investment needs. In the past, the CRS was evaluated in conjunction with other data, such 

as average daily traffic and the roadway functional classification to determine the greatest repair needs. 

Based on this information, each roadway segment was determined to be in “Acceptable” condition or 

“in need of repair.” Roadway segments in “Acceptable” condition were further divided into either 

“Accruing” or “Adequate” condition.

If the roadway segment was determined to have “Needs,” it was classified in terms of “Critical Backlog” 

or “Other Backlog.” “Critical Backlog” included roadway segments that had deteriorated to a very Poor 

or unacceptable condition in which case extensive patching and base repair were required before

resurfacing. Road segments classified as “Other Backlog” had deteriorated to the point that an 

improvement was needed immediately and the cost of repairs was expected to increase significantly if 

the improvement was delayed. Together, roadway segments in those categories were referred to as the 

“Backlog” of needs. 

The TAMP stated IDOT is shifting the pavement metrics to a more proactive approach that recognizes 

the importance of preservation before pavements deteriorate to the “Backlog” condition. The new 

approach uses CRS values to determine the percentage of the highway system that is in a “State of 

Acceptable” condition representing the new values of 5.5 or higher for the Interstates and 5.0 for other 

NHS and non-NHS routes. 

IDOT conducted an analysis of the best way to select treatments throughout an asset’s life cycle. The 

analysis showed that programming appropriate treatments throughout the lives of the assets will lead 

to higher performance of the highway system overall. As a result, IDOT began programming projects in 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

11

five categories: initial construction, maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and

reconstruction/replacement.

For the 2019-2024 multi-year program, IDOT ended its use of the “Backlog” as a pavement performance 

metric and replaced it with the State of Acceptable Condition. Pavements in those condition categories 

are considered to be Fair or better, which means they can be preserved using low-cost preservation 

treatments. 

New Tools Deployed and More Under Development 

To begin to implement the new changes, existing tools were enhanced and new tools created to assist 

the Districts. Treatment criteria were developed by the Pavement Policy Working Group. Pavement 

performance models were updated, and the Districts were given pavement condition predictions for 10 

years and the currently recommended treatments for each pavement section. 

The procedures being used to report bridge conditions and to identify, select, and prioritize bridge 

needs are undergoing similar changes. In the past, bridge investment priorities were identified using a 

program planning tool called the Bridge Analysis and Monitoring System (BAMS), which categorizes 

bridges into a hierarchy of deficiency levels. BAMS used 16 categories for bridge conditions, with nine 

representing “Backlog” condition issues and the remaining seven categories used to identify bridges that 

would accrue to a “Backlog” condition in the future. As with pavements, bridges in “Backlog” condition 

had deteriorated to the point where an improvement was needed as soon as practical. Those bridges

classified to be in “Accruing” condition were expected to need improvements during or subsequent to 

the current programming timeframe.

The TAMP stated that now IDOT is focusing on a range of treatments detailed in FHWA’s Bridge 

Preservation Guide over a bridge’s life span to sustain the State of Acceptable Condition rather than 

focusing exclusively on “Backlog” bridges. 

In the past, IDOT had developed average primary NBI rates of change in bridge conditions to identify 

expected changes in terms of the “Accruing” and “Backlog” bridge conditions in developing the 

program. In 2018, deterioration curves were developed for deck, superstructure, substructure, and 

culverts based on 20 years of historical inspection data to predict future conditions that will support 

IDOT’s Bridge Management System. Future revisions to the deterioration models will include 

customizing the models based upon bridge types and the climatic conditions to which each bridge is

exposed. In addition, IDOT is in the process of acquiring and will implement a new asset management 

software that will have enhanced bridge-condition prediction capabilities, including the ability to 

develop up-to-date deterioration models based on the information and factors mentioned above.

Interim bridge prediction models were developed by the Bureau of Bridges and Structures. Bridge 

condition predictions for 10 years and recommended treatments were given to the Districts. 

Additionally, the State Bureau of Bridges and Structures developed a Bridge Preservation Manual, which 

was close to being finalized. The manual will provide guidance on activities to perform that will 

maximize the life of IDOT’s bridges.

The life-cycle and investment strategies were used to develop ideal mixes of investments for each 

District to use in developing their multi-year programs. Once the Districts had the new tools in place, the 

Bureau of Programming began conducting a more focused review of the Districts’ programming 

recommendations to ensure consistency with the TAMP guidelines.
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

12

Embracing New Strategies 

The IDOT TAMP stated that the agency has developed several additional strategies to improve the 

stewardship of assets and to manage costs. Among the strategies are:

1. Create a culture through training and communication where asset management is viewed as a 

way of doing business. 

2. Move toward a more performance-based approach to TAM decision making. 

3. Find a sustainable balance between proactive, preservation treatments and 

rehabilitation/reconstruction activities that reduce long-term systemwide preservation costs. 

4. Provide IDOT staff with improved access to accurate, timely, consistent, and complete asset 

data and information. 

To implement its asset management philosophy, the TAMP stated IDOT has adopted a TAMP framework 

that:

• Supports the use of strategic performance objectives that are linked to investments. 

• Introduces a systematic procedure for determining pavement and bridge needs over the life of 

an asset. 

• Emphasizes the use of preservation treatments that economically extend the life of the highway 

system. 

• Considers agency risks or exposure in setting investment priorities. 

• Uses asset inventory information, asset condition data, and analysis tools to evaluate options for 

allocating resources and selecting projects. 

For managing pavements and bridges in Illinois, this meant: 

• Pavement management system acquisition and implementation. 

• Bridge management system acquisition and implementation. 

• Revisions to pavement data collection deliverables to meet FHWA performance measures. 

• Improved coordination between District and Central Office planning and programming activities.

Changes Affecting Programming Amounts 

In addition to establishing asset condition targets that encourage preservation, IDOT committed to 

increased expenditures in pavement and bridge preservation to slow the rate of deterioration and 

postpone the need for more expensive treatments. The TAMP stated that near-term pavement 

strategies remain predominately focused on minor and major rehabilitation because of the already 

programmed projects. The strategy gradually transitions to one based on life-cycle planning. This 

strategy will first allocate funds based on pavement class and condition, then allocate funding within 

each class to different pavement condition categories. The first objective was to meet the IDOT and 

Federal Interstate targets and then allocate funds to other NHS and non-NHS routes. Although the initial 

strategy remains heavily focused on already programmed minor and major rehabilitation, over time 

IDOT intends to shift more funding toward preservation and maintenance once the supporting business 

procedures are in place. 

For structures, the TAMP stated that a similar investment strategy is planned. The initial years primarily 

focus on major rehabilitation and what is called high-cost preservation. That represents the distribution 

of funding resulting in the highest percentage of deck area in a State of Acceptable Condition. Over time, 

the emphasis on preservation is expected to increase.
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

13

To assist with the development of the Fiscal Year (FY) 2019–FY 2024 program, the nine highway Districts 

were issued funding targets and technical guidance to use in developing, prioritizing, and submitting 

projects. For example, Districts were instructed by the State Bureau of Programming to use at least 5 

percent of their unrestricted funds on bridge and pavement preservation, although they still retained 

considerable flexibility in how those funds would be used. Districts were also provided with the number 

of pavement miles or square feet of bridges that needed to be addressed to meet the IDOT and Federal

Statewide targets in place at that time. In addition, the Districts were told which system to prioritize, 

based on systemwide conditions. However, the funding provided was generally inadequate to achieve 

the intended targets.

A Roadmap for Further Improvement 

The Illinois TAMP described a series of additional enhancements, including:

• It adopted an asset management framework that resides in the Bureau of Programming and is 

championed by the Illinois Secretary of Transportation and directed by the steering committee. 

The Asset Management Project Team will report to the Steering Committee on a regular basis 

and provide updates on actual versus planned progress on the asset management 

enhancements.

• A funding increase was approved effective for June 1, 2019, and once its full impact is assessed, 

projected asset conditions will be assessed and the TAMP revised.

• The IDOT will acquire and implement a new Enterprise Asset Management System that contains 

the software to evaluate long-term impacts and cost effectiveness of different pavement and 

bridge treatment strategies. A request for proposal has been issued. Implementation once a 

vendor has been selected is expected to take 18 to 36 months.

• IDOT is developing new guidance for Districts to help them select projects and treatments. 

General guidance for repairs to respond to the bridge and pavement conditions was established 

during the development of the spreadsheet tool and the TAMP. A bridge working group is 

enhancing guidance on bridge improvements. A pavement working group is developing more 

specific guidance for pavement treatment selection using characteristics such as traffic levels, 

distress types, and the amount of rutting.

• District training also is being enhanced to incorporate the new guidance for planning and 

programming aligned with the asset management approach.

A Strong Commitment to Asset Management 

The TAMP concluded with a strong commitment to the agency’s advancement of asset management.

As documented in this TAMP, IDOT has made a strong commitment to Raising the Bar through 

improved asset management practices that make use of new performance metrics to emphasize 

the importance of preservation treatments, enhanced analytical tools to predict funding needs, 

stronger guidance to support project and treatment selection, and improved coordination with 

regional transportation partners. These efforts will continue as IDOT moves forward with 

implementing its new project and treatment selection procedures to enable the Department to 

achieve the goals set forth over the coming decade.15
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

14

Washington State DOT Demonstrated Asset Management 

Maturity 

The Washington State DOT (WSDOT)TAMP was one example of demonstrating asset management 

maturity through summarizing how multiple iterations of life-cycle planning led to minimizing assets in 

Poor condition based on State and Federal measures at lower costs. Instead of pivoting to new 

procedures, the WSDOT TAMP identified existing ones that meet its asset management objectives. 

The TAMP stated, “Asset management has been, and will continue to be, a foundational piece of how 

we, and our partners, manage our transportation network.” The WSDOT TAMP did not describe 

procedures that were developed for the TAMP, or procedures that will be deployed in the future. It 

described long-standing procedures that have over several years generated substantial savings and

minimized assets in Poor conditions. Those procedures were used for the WSDOT TAMP as the 

processes to satisfy 23 CFR Part 515.

The WSDOT asset management plan stated that the agency’s life-cycle planning approach considers the 

following types of highway asset information:

• Condition information. 

• Condition deterioration rates (models). 

• Maintenance and rehabilitation intervals and treatment rules. 

• Treatment costs. 

• Expected condition improvements, new deterioration rates, or new service life estimates. 

• Expected changes in system demand. 

• Risks associated with current or future conditions. 

• Anticipated budgets. 

• Inflation and discount rates. 

• System hierarchies (high priority routes versus low priority routes). 

• Constraints that influence investments. 

• Desired state of good repair and any existing performance gaps.

WSDOT’s life-cycle planning process for asphalt pavements was to use timely resurfacing to make them, 

in effect, perpetual pavements that seldom need reconstruction but stay in good repair through timely 

maintenance and resurfacings. For concrete pavements, WSDOT usually used a crack and seat with 

asphalt overlay for its approximately 1,000 lane miles of concrete pavements that are more than 40 

years old. WSDOT also steadily converted asphalt pavements with average daily traffic of 10,000 or less 

to chip seals. 

Between 2010 and 2017, WSDOT had used chip seal conversion for approximately 2,300 lane miles and 

the lane mile percentage of chip sealed routes rose from 25 percent to 36.7 percent. Before funding 

challenges disrupted it plans, WSDOT intended to convert another 700 lane miles over the next five 

years to chip seals which would have brought the percent of the network treated with chip seals to 40 

percent. The effect of this strategy on the annual network cost would have been to shift 3,000 lane 

miles from asphalt to chip seal by 2024 with an estimated annual cost savings of $40 million. 

The TAMP indicated WSDOT also had for several years deployed what it called “strategic maintenance” 

that included three strategies. One was to identify premature distresses in pavements that otherwise 

were in good condition and perform maintenance to arrest further premature deterioration. It also 

deployed short-term maintenance strategies to prolong pavement service life and to postpone the time 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

15

until reconstruction was needed. WSDOT also deployed preventive maintenance treatments as part of 

its strategic maintenance program. The WSDOT TAMP estimated that the strategic maintenance efforts 

saved the department $15 million annually. 

The WSDOT TAMP estimated the agency will save an additional $25 million a year by 2025 through the 

use of crack, seat, and overlay of concrete pavements that reached the end of their life cycle compared 

to performing a pavement reconstruction. Combined with the chip seal savings and the strategic 

maintenance savings, it predicted a total annual savings of $80 million by 2025, if its budget allows it to 

continue with its chip seal strategy. 

WSDOT calculates a value called the Equivalent Uniform Annual Cost (EUAC) for each treatment type 

expressed in terms of dollars per lane mile per year. EUAC is a metric used by WSDOT to compare the 

long-term costs of one pavement treatment strategy versus another, and to determine the best 

management practices relative to the risk of pavement failure. The WSDOT TAMP stated that the

significant advantage of using the annual cost as a measure of cost-effectiveness is that it allows direct 

comparison of multiple treatment alternatives with different service lives.

For example, the TAMP stated at the time of its publication the cost of a chip seal was $45,000 per lane 

mile compared to $225,000 for an asphalt overlay. The crack, seat, and overlay of concrete cost $1.15 

million per lane mile compared to $2.5 million for a concrete reconstruction. These lower cost strategies 

can be compared to the strategies used before 2010 which was the year when they were first deployed. 

In 2010, WSDOT had 4,580 lane-miles chip sealed that had an average service life of 6 years and an 

average lane mile cost of $45,000. The 2025 lane-mile chip seal cost combined with strategic 

maintenance was estimated to be $47,500 with a 9-year service life. By 2025, WSDOT estimated that it 

would have 7,580 lane miles chip sealed compared to 4,580 in 2010. The annual cost for all chip seals 

would be higher in 2025 than in 2010 but the annualized cost overall would have been less because 

3,000 fewer lane miles would have been treated with higher cost asphalt. The annual budget for chip 

sealing would have risen from $34 million per year to $40 million, but the annual asphalt paving costs 

would have decreased from $186 million to $116 million. Overall, with all the pavement life-cycle 

strategies deployed, the annual pavement costs were expected to fall from $324 million annually to 

$244 million, or the $80 million savings previously mentioned. The EUAC for the chip seal was estimated 

to be $7,497 per year compared to $20,237 for asphalt. The crack, seat, and overlay EUAC was

estimated to be $49,330 per lane mile compared to $116,376 for reconstructed concrete. Since the 

publication of the TAMP, because of budget challenges WSDOT intended to suspend preservation 

treatments on routes posted at less than 40 miles per hour although the analysis showed that those 

treatments would be cost-effective. 

Conclusion 

The asset management plans in this case study provide examples of good practices that are relevant to 

other State and local agencies at all levels of maturity. The New Jersey and Pennsylvania TAMPs included 

examples for agencies deploying early-generation asset management programs. The Illinois plan 

represented an example of an agency in the early stages of using asset management practices but which 

has identified a road map for improvement. The Washington plan provided an example of how mature 

asset management procedures allow an agency to document many years of cost savings and asset 

improvement. 
Case Study on Asset Management Practices and Benefits

16

1 FHWA Transportation Asset Management Expert Task Group, Life Cycle Planning – An Overview, A 

White Paper Produced by the Federal Highway Administration Transportation Asset Management Expert 

Task Group, July 2019, p3, accessed at https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/etg/pubs/whitepaper1.pdf. 2 American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Transportation Asset 

Management Guide A focus on Implementation, January 2011 p4-3.

3 International Infrastructure Manual, Version 3.0, 2006 p2.39.

4 FHWA Financial Planning for Transportation Asset Management: An Overview, FHWA-HIF-15-008, 

2015, p3.

5 New Jersey Department of Transportation 2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan p3-11.

6 NJDOT 2019 TAMP, p3-11. 7 NJDOT 2019 TAMP, p6-13

8 FHWA, Financial Planning for Transportation Asset Management, An Overview, Report 1, FHWA-HIF15-008, pages 1-6 February 25 https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/asset/plans/financial/hif15018.pdf. 9 FHWA Risk-Based Transportation Asset Management: Evaluating Threats, Capitalizing on 

Opportunities, Report 1 Overview of Risk Management, FHWA-HIF-12-035, pp12, 16, 30.

10 AASHTO Guide to Enterprise Risk Management, 2016. p139. 

11 Austroads, “Guide to Asset Management Part 8: Asset Valuation and Audit,” May 2009, p2. 12 Australian Infrastructure Financial Management Guidelines, version 1.1, 2010, pix.

13 The Roads Liaison Group Cod of Practice for Highway Maintenance Management, The Roads Liaison 

Group, London, 2013, p 92. 14 Kavanagh, S., Han, M., Long-Term Financial Planning for Local Government, Government Finance 

Officers Association, 2008, p16.

15 Illinois Department of Transportation 2019 Transportation Asset Management Plan, p103.