Transportation Asset Management Plans 

Case Study 2 - Linking Asset Management to 

Planning and Programming

FHWA-HIF-20-089

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-20-089

2. Government Accession No. 

3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

4. Title and Subtitle: Linking Asset Management to Planning and Programming Case Study 2

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 2

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, Office of Stewardship, 

Oversight, and Management 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 linkage of asset management to long-range plans, the 

statewide transportation improvement program (STIP), and State planning and programming practices. 

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

17. Key Words: Asset management, planning, statewide transportation improvement program (STIP), 

long-range plans, metropolitan transportation plans, metropolitan planning organizations (MPOs), 

transportation asset management plans, MPOs, local engagement, engaging stakeholders in asset 

management. 

18. Distribution Statement: No restrictions. 

19. Security Classification (of this report): Unclassified 

20. Security Classification (of this page): Unclassified 

21. No. of Pages: 12 

22. Price: None

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

Contents

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

Planning, Programming, and Asset Management ........................................................................................ 2

Missouri’s Linkage of Its TAMP with Programming ...................................................................................... 2

Targeting for Life-Cycle Performance ....................................................................................................... 3

Annual STIP Updates to Track Implementation of the TAMP................................................................... 4

Results Led to Increased Investment........................................................................................................ 5

The Performance Summary ...................................................................................................................... 5

Maine’s ‘Plan, Deliver, Measure’ Programming ........................................................................................... 5

Utah’s Linkage of Asset Management and Planning .................................................................................... 7

Ohio’s Use of Work Plans to Link TAM with Projects ................................................................................... 9

Wyoming Closely Links Its TAMP and Program ............................................................................................ 9

Maintenance Viewed as Critical to Pavement Objectives......................................................................10

Using Bridge Management Systems to Support Programming ..............................................................10

Montana’s Plan Focuses on 10-Year Objectives.........................................................................................11

Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

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 Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

2 

Planning, Programming, and Asset Management 

The Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1962 created the State and metropolitan transportation planning 

process which the Act declared will be “a continuing comprehensive transportation planning process 

carried on cooperatively by States and local communities...”1

 Since the Act’s passage, the planning 

process steadily evolved to emphasize mobility, safety, public involvement, financial constraint, air 

quality, environmental justice, and other important factors. 

The Moving Ahead for Progress Act in the 21st Century (MAP-21) (Pub. L. 112–141) marked a further 

advancement of the Federal-aid planning process by enhancing the focus upon performance and asset 

management. How that enhancement is evolving was evident in many of the 2019 asset management 

plans, several of which are referenced in this case study. The examples in this study illustrate how State 

DOTs are strengthening the linkage between their planning and programming processes and their asset 

management plans. 

Maintaining assets has always been a planning and programming priority. What is new is the degree of 

formality and precision seen in the linking of asset management to planning and programming. As seen 

in the 2019 TAMPs, State DOTs are increasingly linking long-term life-cycle planning strategies to their 

planning processes by selecting projects that reflect their TAMP investment strategies. State DOTs are 

required in 23 CFR 515.13(b)(2) to use their investment strategies to make progress towards achieving 

their targets for asset condition and performance of the NHS, and to support the National goals in 23 

U.S.C. 150(b). Since the 2019 TAMPs were adopted, many long-range statewide transportation plans 

have not yet been updated. Over time, the statewide long-range transportation plans and the TAMPs 

influence one another. What is apparent from the examples below is that the TAMPs are already 

influencing the annual and biennial STIP updates. 

The examples below illustrate how State DOTs are linking asset management to the planning and 

programming processes. These examples summarize only a few from the 2019 TAMPs. All the plans are 

available on the FHWA website. 

Missouri’s Linkage of Its TAMP with Programming 

The Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) reported in its 2019 asset management plan that 

in 2016 the agency’s asset management planning evolved from a statewide plan to individual District

plans. Since 2016, each of MoDOT’s seven Districts maintains an asset management plan for pavements 

and bridges that directly influences each District’s programming. The TAMP reported that the District

plans have been developed and updated annually by multi-disciplinary teams including bridge, 

pavement, mobility, and maintenance experts, and also included input from senior leadership, FHWA, 

and regional planning partners. MoDOT reported that the 2019 statewide TAMP was developed by 

summarizing the 2019 District asset management plans, which represents a bottom-up process not 

commonly seen in other TAMPs.

The 2019 statewide TAMP reported that MoDOT’s District asset management plans were developed to 

align with the agency’s performance process which it calls MoDOT’s Tangible Results. The TAMP 

reported the objective is to keep the State’s assets in good repair over their life cycle at the most 

practical cost. The MoDOT plan defined a state of good repair (SOGR) as maintaining pavement and 

bridge conditions for the six Federal performance measures at targeted levels over the following 10 

years. The target levels were: 

• Zero percent Poor Interstate pavement. 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

3 

• 77.5 percent Good Interstate pavement. 

• No more than 1 percent Poor non-Interstate NHS pavement. 

• 61.1 percent Good non-Interstate NHS pavement. 

• No more than 7.1 percent of NHS bridge deck area in Poor condition. 

• No less than 30.9 percent of NHS bridge deck area in Good condition. 

Targeting for Life-Cycle Performance

The TAMP indicated those State targets cascade down to the Districts and drive their programming, but 

with an emphasis on using life-cycle treatments and not short-term worst-first solutions. In the past 

decade, MoDOT has substantially improved Statewide pavement conditions. The TAMP indicated

MoDOT now relies primarily on thin treatments to preserve those gains. The TAMP indicated that in rare 

instances the agency uses full-depth pavement replacements but primarily relies on cyclical preventive 

maintenance treatments including thin overlays, crack sealing, and pavement repairs. 

The TAMP stated Districts are provided with a 10-year funding projection based upon a formula 

including the amount of highway travel, bridge size, lane miles, population, and employment. Districts 

use a spreadsheet-based asset management model to develop scenarios of how they will allocate funds 

over the 10 years to achieve the targets using life-cycle planning strategies. The TAMP indicated the 

model allows for quick “what-if” analyses of different treatment strategies and funding allocation 

scenarios to determine the benefit-cost over the life of assets. Each District used the model to 

recommend optimal programs and implementation schedules to manage its pavements and bridges 

within the agency’s policy and budget constraints.

The TAMP reported that because MoDOT had 7.1 percent of its NHS bridges rated Poor, it still needed to 

replace some aging bridges. However, it no longer relied only on a worst-first bridge-replacement

strategy. The TAMP stated that MoDOT uses a combination of an aggressive repair and replacement 

program to address Poor bridges and reactive and preventative treatments to prolong the life of Good 

and Fair ones. District bridge activities include fall and spring bridge washing, bridge joint and deck 

resealing, and spot painting of bearings and pilings to inhibit corrosion. 

The TAMP included an example of a District’s bridge condition forecasting result showing specific targets 

for the square feet of bridge treatments that are needed for the “mix of fixes.” The St. Louis District had 

898 bridges, 38 of which were in Poor condition and considered to be critical. In Fair condition were 452 

bridges shown by route category. MoDOT has two bridge programs, Non-Major and Major. The

condition forecasting result indicated that to achieve its target for non-major structures, the District

needed to treat on average 30 bridges annually over each of the 10 years of the TAMP. That results in an 

estimated annual Non-Major bridge program of $20 million.

The TAMP indicated MoDOT is challenged by its major bridges, which are bridges more than 1,000 feet 

long. They account for only 166 out of 3,557 NHS structures in the State, but represent more than 20.3 

million square feet of the entire 55 million square feet of Missouri’s NHS bridge deck. The St. Louis Work 

Plan indicated that the funding was tracked separately for those major structures, as were targets for 

treating or replacing them. Although the non-major bridge expenditures were similar year to year, the 

major bridge spending varied annually from zero in most years to $69.8 million one year, $182 million in 

another, $36.9 million in another and so forth. The specific years in which major bridges were to be 

replaced or repaired were shown in the 2019 TAMP. 

The statewide bridge plan indicated that 22 percent of the programmed work types were for bridge 

replacements, 10 percent for replacing decks, 28 percent for bridge rehabilitation, and 40 percent for 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

4 

preventive maintenance. This translated into 55 bridges replaced per year, 25 re-decked, 70 

rehabilitated, and 100 treated with preventive maintenance. 

For pavements, similar target-focused and life-cycle driven treatments were captured in the example for

the St. Louis District. The example District asset management scenario showed that the St. Louis District

had 1,694 lane miles of Interstates, 1,806 lane miles of “other” Major Roads, 2,102 lane miles of Minor 

Roads with more than 400 average daily traffic (ADT), and 138 lane miles of Minor Roads with less than 

400 ADT. The current conditions are shown, as are the planned percentage of Good pavements for each 

of the major pavement classes excluding the ones with less than 400 ADT. The number of lane miles that 

need treatment by route type are shown along with the estimated annual spending for those 

treatments. For example, 180 lane miles of Interstate treatments are planned annually, 203 lane miles 

of Other Major Routes, and 170 lane miles annually of Minor Routes. 

Annual STIP Updates to Track Implementation of the TAMP

The MoDOT TAMP indicated that each year the Districts and regional partners update the STIP using the 

asset management plans as their guide as part of the State and regional coordination activities 

described in 23 CFR Part 450. At the end of the programming cycle, MoDOT evaluates the STIP to ensure 

the projects meet the TAMP objectives. The 2019 TAMP indicated that the asset management plan is a 

rolling 10-year plan reviewed and refined annually.

The TAMP stated, 

“It’s imperative that the asset management plans get implemented in order to keep the system 

operating in the condition that it presents today. To ensure the asset management plans are 

implemented, each year MoDOT compares the asset management plan investment assumptions 

to the actual investment levels proposed to be programmed in the 5-year STIP prior to finalizing 

the draft STIP. Any significant deviations are reviewed and addressed if deemed appropriate. ..... 

the investment levels and amount of work in MoDOT’s asset management plans is compared to 

the most recent 5-year STIP and reflects what is shown in the Tracker measures that monitor 

the implementation success. From the Tracker Measure, you can see that percent difference 

between the asset management assumptions and the actual investment levels in the STIP have 

dialed in considerably over the past two years.” 

The Tracker charts show the difference between the projects that were programmed in the STIP and the

projects that were identified by the Districts’ asset management plan. Comparisons are made for several 

key categories such as the number of lane miles treated by Interstate, Major Roads, and Minor Roads as 

well as the money invested in each of those classifications. Similar comparisons were made between the 

number of bridges treated by treatment type and what was planned in the Statewide TAMP. The 2019 

TAMP reported the comparisons between planned and actual work for 2016, 2017, and 2018.

For example, the first three years of the STIP included 702 lane miles of Interstate pavement treatments 

compared to the 2019 TAMP assumption that 678 miles would be treated. For Interstate bridges, the 

first three years of the STIP included 362,009 square feet of bridge improvement compared to 302,910 

square feet that the plan estimated needed to be treated. 

The Tracker also compared actual to planned unit costs. For a three-year period, the TAMP showed that 

average per lane mile Interstate pavement costs were $162,217 compared to the $120,500 estimated by 

the TAMP. Interstate bridge replacement costs were $277 a square foot in the STIP compared to $279 

per square foot assumed by the TAMP. The 2019 TAMP reported that for the previous two years, STIP 

pavement and bridge costs were significantly higher than asset management plan assumptions. Even 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

5 

though the current STIP costs were updated to reflect earlier price increases, the costs are to be 

analyzed each year to ensure that the costs in the TAMP and STIP are better aligned.

Results Led to Increased Investment

The 2019 TAMP reported that a 2017 comparison between NHS and non-NHS assets revealed 

investments were inadequate to keep the non-NHS assets in good repair. After realizing the funding gap, 

the Missouri Highways and Transportation Commission established an Asset Management Deficit 

Program in 2017 to ensure adequate funding for the non-NHS assets. The commission acted again in 

2019 to align funds with needs. The commission funded categories at the level necessary to maintain 

the system conditions and renamed the funding categories as Asset Management and System 

Improvement. 

The Performance Summary

Although MoDOT’s plan reported no NHS bridge or pavement condition gaps through 2028, the MoDOT 

TAMP was the only 2019 TAMP that included travel time reliability performance measures to illustrate 

gaps in other performance areas.

MoDOT reported that because of inadequate resources, it set the State Interstate Travel Time Reliability 

target for 2019 and 2021 to be less than the baseline reliability recorded in 2017. The 2017 baseline was 

91.6 percent of the person miles travelled on the Interstate were under reliable conditions although the 

2021 target will be only 87.1 percent. For non-Interstate NHS travel time reliability, the 2021 target was 

87.8 percent compared to a 2018 baseline of 92.3 percent. The Freight Reliability Measure for 2021 was 

set at 1.30 although the 2017 baseline was 1.25. The TAMP stated that:

“Unfortunately, current available funding leaves a performance gap in system performance for 

reliability and congestion reduction improvements. MoDOT seeks and implements costeffective, innovative solutions to close performance gaps, but results in these areas are 

expected to worsen going forward based on current funding......”

In total, the MoDOT TAMP reported an annual funding gap of $825 million for categories such as nonNHS State bridges, maintenance and operations, Interstate reconstruction, economic expansion 

projects, and other non-NHS pavement and bridge needs. 

Maine’s ‘Plan, Deliver, Measure’ Programming

At the core of many performance management processes is the “plan, do, check” cycle. Such a cycle is 

evident in the Maine Department of Transportation (Maine DOT) asset management plan description of 

how its STIP projects are measured against the TAMP strategies to determine if the agency is achieving 

its asset management objectives.

The Maine DOT 2019 TAMP stated that the agency’s STIP is the vehicle for implementing the 

department’s asset management plan strategies. The TAMP indicated that each year as the STIP is 

updated, the TAMP investment strategies are manifested in the projects added to the program which 

drives the agency’s work plans.

The Maine DOT TAMP indicated that the agency used its bridge management system (BMS) and 

pavement management system (PMS) to identify optimized funding levels and treatment strategies. 

Those funding levels influenced what it called Asset Management Funding Strategies (AMFS) intended to 

minimize life-cycle costs for each asset class. Those funding levels led to what it called Resource 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

6 

Allocation Goals (RAGs) on a network-wide basis. From the resource goals, the agency developed a Work 

Plan that included the additional projects recommended for the STIP. 

The TAMP indicated that Maine DOT used its management systems to conduct a systematic number of 

scenarios of different bridge and pavement investment levels. For pavements, it analyzed investment 

levels ranging from $32 million annually to $44 million annually for 20 years. The scenario based on $41 

million annually for 20 years appeared to produce optimum conditions with the least cost. Investments 

beyond $41 million produced diminishing returns and were deemed to be not optimum. Using the $41 

million scenario, the TAMP adopted the funding splits recommended by the PMS for the pavement 

investment strategies. Over 10 years in total, the strategies were to allocate $15 million for preventive 

maintenance, the largest amount of the remaining funds for preservation, followed by rehabilitation, 

and the least amounts for reconstruction. Only $35 million was allocated for initial construction. 

A similar management-system-based analysis was conducted for bridges. Various funding levels were 

analyzed and the one selected was to invest $40 million annually for bridges for the 10-year TAMP 

period. The investment strategy adopted included $20 million for maintenance with the remaining funds 

allocated approximately equally between preservation, rehabilitation, and reconstruction and 

replacement. Again, $35 million was allocated for initial construction. 

The Maine plan indicated that annually the agency updates its Work Plan to incorporate any 

adjustments recommended by the pavement and bridge modeling. The TAMP included a version of the 

graphic shown in Figure 1 to illustrate its “Plan, Deliver, Measure” process that uses the management 

systems to recommend 

treatments, the Work Plan and 

STIP to deliver the treatments, 

and the data-collection process 

to continuously assess if the 

desired results are achieved.

The TAMP emphasized that the 

STIP is the final process that 

allows the latest TAMP results to 

be delivered. The Maine DOT 

used funding strategies from the 

management systems to develop 

the detailed list of projects in the 

agency’s 3-Year Work Plan and 

the 4-year STIP which it updates 

annually. As bridge and 

pavement data are collected, the 

project results are assessed and 

fed back into the ongoing analysis 

of whether investments are 

achieving the agency’s objectives 

and targets.

Figure 1. This is the Maine DOT Plan, Deliver, Measure graphic. The colors were 

modified to enhance the on-line visibility. Source: Maine DOT.
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

7 

Utah’s Linkage of Asset Management and Planning 

The Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) 2019 asset management plan listed as an objective the 

incorporation of asset management into the intermediate and long-range planning processes. Program 

alignment between the asset management process and the projects that are selected was one of three 

major initiatives that resulted from an agency asset management self-assessment. 

The objectives and the findings from the self-assessment led to an asset management goal to work 

collaboratively across divisions to develop a unified program that maximizes system performance and 

funding, while quantifying risks. 

The TAMP described the alignment of the asset management analysis with the prioritization of Region 

projects as a work in progress but one that is an agency priority. The TAMP said collaboration continues 

between UDOT divisions to complete an information loop from project planning, design, construction, 

and maintenance. The TAMP said the agency believes completing this loop from planning through 

design, construction, and maintenance will improve the accuracy and efficiency of each separate 

process and of the overall UDOT program. It stated that the development of this linkage also will tie the 

long-range plan to the STIP process, as well as to the asset management plan.

The TAMP stated UDOT uses its pavement management system to develop a five-year set of 

recommended treatments for each Region based upon the suggested funding level. The Regions 

consider the recommendations for preservation, rehabilitation, or reconstruction, and incorporate them 

into their recommended set of STIP projects. 

In addition to selecting projects to continue achieving the State-set condition targets, projects are also 

selected based upon a State-developed Sustainability Index. The index helps assess if the mix of 

treatments selected will achieve a sustainable pavement level for the entire roadway network. The 

index is based on the premise that all pavements age one year annually which can be measured in units 

called Surface Area Years. Different types of projects replace different amounts of surface years, such as 

a reconstruction project provides more Surface Area Years than does a chip seal. The Sustainability 

Index is the ratio of work planned to be done divided by the Surface Area Years that will be lost in the 

District during the life of the STIP. If the District program does not replace as many Surface Area Years as 

will be lost, then the Sustainability Index will be less than 1.0 indicating that the program will not lead to 

sustainable condition levels.

The Sustainability Index is what UDOT calls a secondary performance measure. A primary measure is 

one such as the measures set for the Federal performance management process. A secondary measure 

focuses on efforts to minimize long-term costs and maximize the service life of each asset. 

Each year the Regions’ and Statewide STIP projects are reviewed and a new sustainability index is 

calculated. This index value showed if adequate funding had been invested in the right mix of projects to 

sustain the NHS and statewide system in Good condition. 

A similar process is used for bridges, but instead of a Sustainability Index UDOT uses a UDOT-developed 

Bridge Health Index. The Bridge Health Index is a composite measure to describe the overall condition of 

each bridge, and it is used as a structural performance measure to prioritize treatment. The index is 

made up of three scores, the deck, superstructure, and substructure weighted to underscore the 

importance of each to a bridge’s health. The deck component is weighted at 40 percent, the 

superstructure 35 percent, and the substructure 25 percent. The score of the deck, superstructure, or 

substructure component is the score of the elements that make up the component. A health index is 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

8 

calculated for each element as the ratio of the value of the element in its current condition to the value 

of the element if it were in the best possible condition. 

The component scores are used to prioritize bridges statewide for replacement and rehabilitation while 

the health indices of individual elements are used to identify preservation needs. Each year, the 

program of projects is updated following the annual bridge inspections to ensure that the mix of 

preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement will sustain the bridges at targeted levels. The analysis 

also results in what UDOT calls a “plan for every structure” that defines each structure’s needs for 

preservation, rehabilitation, or replacement.

Bridge forecasting influenced long-term program funding as well as short-term project selection. A 20-

year forecast indicated that although the number of Poor structures was forecast to remain better than 

the targeted level, the amount of bridge area in Fair condition was increasing. To prevent a long-term 

risk of more structures being on the verge of becoming Poor, UDOT increased bridge funding from $18.7 

million annually to $48 million for three years to “jump start” long-term efforts to reduce the number of 

Fair structures in the 20-year forecast. The number of structures in Fair condition will continue to 

increase, but not at the same rate as before the investment increase.

UDOT efforts to link programming to the asset management objectives were not limited to pavements 

and bridges. UDOT’s TAMP also demonstrated a programming link to active traffic management system 

(ATMS) components and to traffic signals. Those two assets were included in the asset management 

plan, in addition to the required NHS pavements and bridges.

The TAMP included a UDOT condition target of 95 percent of the ATMS system in operational condition. 

Because the ATMS is made up of many components, the condition of the separate components was 

averaged into a composite rating. The TAMP estimated that although the overall ATMS network met its 

95 percent target, there were more than 1,100 individual components that had failed or were beyond 

their expected service life. Recognizing the importance of these aging assets, the Utah Legislature 

allocated an additional $3.9 million each year for device replacement and upgrade. UDOT’s plan 

estimated that within the life of the TAMP the backlog of aging or failed ATMS assets would be 

eliminated. The TAMP stated that funding needs will be tracked and adjusted as the system expands and 

as components’ life expectancy is analyzed based upon accumulated historical data and technological 

improvements. 

Traffic signals had a UDOT performance measure of the percent in Good or Fair condition based upon 

annual inspections of the electronics and physical infrastructure. The UDOT target is 95 percent 

statewide in Good or Fair condition. The TAMP and UDOT’s performance dashboard, that is linked to the 

TAMP, indicated that in 2018 12 percent of the signals were in Poor condition but that was reduced to 

zero percent Poor by 2019. The percentage rated Fair increased from 39 percent to 57 percent although 

the percentage in Good condition declined from 49 percent to 43 percent. At the time of the TAMP

publication, a life-cycle strategy for signals was under development. 

The investment strategies for signals were to conduct regular preventive maintenance to meet the 95 

percent State target, implement emergency responses when emergencies occur, and apply established 

maintenance management processes to minimize failures and downtime. A process was being 

established to evaluate signalized intersections annually and rate them on a 1-5 scale. The results are 

published in a Traffic Management Tactical Measures dashboard and the condition reports provided to 

the Regions. The Regions are to incorporate the cost of the signals rated as a 1 or 2 into their project 

scoping and cost estimates.
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

9 

Ohio’s Use of Work Plans to Link TAM with Projects

The Ohio DOT’s 2019 TAMP emphasized the agency’s use of District Work Plans to link the investment 

strategies with the Districts’ capital projects and maintenance efforts. 

For pavements, the agency’s PMS generated funding needed on a Statewide basis and recommended 

treatments for each District. The treatments derive from decision trees that emphasize preservation to 

lower life-cycle costs and to emphasize chip seals on low-volume roads. The Districts developed a 

pavement Work Plan that matches 75 percent of the PMS recommendations.

While a BMS that includes forecasting modules was under development, a spreadsheet-based tool was 

used to generate bridge Statewide funding levels and to recommend District bridge projects. The 

Districts receive a list of structures that should be cleaned, swept, and sealed as part of the bridge 

preservation program. More extensive improvements are based on an ODOT “general appraisal” 

analysis which is a form of composite bridge rating using National Bridge Inventory (NBI) component and 

element ratings. 

As with pavements, bridge efforts are incorporated into the District Work Plan that also includes the 

pavement treatments, and all maintenance activities. Within the larger Multi-Year Work Plan, each 

District develops a Capital Work Plan that represents the contracted portion of the DOT’s long-term plan 

and which lists the projects that will be awarded over the next six years. In addition to the Capital Work 

Plan, each District develops an Operations Work Plan that lists the routine and reactive maintenance, 

preservation, and “ready to pave” projects that are planned for each fiscal year. The Capital and 

Operations work plans are now part of the Multi-Year Work Plan that are fiscally constrained and which 

focus upon achieving the agency’s condition targets and life-cycle objectives. 

Wyoming Closely Links Its TAMP and Program

The Wyoming Department of Transportation (WYDOT) TAMP provided another example of an agency 

that closely linked its asset management processes to its Districts’ STIP projects. 

The 2019 Wyoming TAMP explained that the agency relies on its pavement management system to 

identify the optimal investment strategy that provides the best pavement condition results in future 

years. To achieve those optimal future conditions attributed to the TAMP investment strategies, each 

year a minimum number of project miles must be completed using preventive, minor, and major 

rehabilitation strategies for each of three roadway categories, Interstates, non-Interstate NHS, and nonNHS routes. Those treatments on those systems were identified using the pavement management 

system during the TAMP development process and then were included in the TAMP as the pavement 

investment strategies.

During the development of the TAMP investment strategy, the pavement management system 

produced a network-level analysis that accounted for the current STIP projects and budget projections. 

The analysis also incorporated inflation, preservation treatment types, and current road conditions to 

forecast 20-year conditions. The analysis also broke down to the District and project level. It provided 

recommended pavement funding strategies for optimizing funds for the treatment candidates in each 

District to aid District managers in selecting STIP projects. The recommended pavement funding strategy 

suggested mileage counts for each District and functional classification that should be met on a rolling 

average for the six-year STIP. Those recommendations led each District to program a minimum number 

of miles per year with the recommended preventive maintenance and major rehabilitation strategies 

that were derived from the management system’s decision trees and benefit-cost analysis.
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

10

The TAMP stated that the programming of projects by the Districts began with taking the recommended 

management system treatments that led to the TAMP investment strategies and programming them as 

projects into the STIP. Because the recommended treatments linked to the TAMP investment strategies 

are generated by the optimized PMS scenarios, the TAMP stated it is critical to strictly track the projects 

to ensure delivery of the recommended miles of pavement treatments. The TAMP indicated that 

performance is not based on dollars spent but upon work performed and the resulting changes to the 

system conditions. 

The Districts used the list of candidate treatments recommended by the management systems and the 

guidance on the mileage to be treated. The TAMP indicated that if the District engineers select projects 

from the candidate list and apply the treatments indicated, they will achieve their pavement targets. As 

projects progress through the design and construction processes, the asset categories being treated are 

tracked and updated as changes occur. The TAMP stated the tracking is done to monitor and update the 

asset management recommendations which relate to the TAMP investment strategies. If project costs 

increase for one category, funding is decreased in another. 

While the District engineers are held accountable for applying the needed treatments, the Programming 

Section tracks the treatment types and quantities that each District programs into the STIP. The TAMP 

stated that the Programming Section provided the District engineer with a report that compared the 

previously determined required treatment quantities to the actual work programmed in the STIP. 

Districts can group treatment types into one or two years of the six-year STIP to more effectively use 

their resources and do not have to deliver the needed treatments in a given year. The cumulative 

treatment amounts are tracked. The Programming Section tracks the estimated cost per treatment to 

allow adjustments if unit prices fluctuate during the project-development process. 

The feedback loop between planned and actual work occurs by the management systems tracking the 

treatments over time to ensure that they are providing the projected benefits, and to adjust treatments, 

if necessary. The tracking may show that construction techniques need to be modified or that the 

management systems need to be adjusted.

Maintenance Viewed as Critical to Pavement Objectives

Although not part of the STIP, Wyoming DOT’s pavement maintenance activities also are linked to the 

asset management strategies. The Wyoming TAMP indicated that in-house and contracted pavement 

maintenance activities are captured and their benefits are factored into the PMS forecasts. Maintenance 

work includes crack sealing, short patches that are less than a section’s length, chip seals, slab repairs or 

slab replacement. The TAMP indicated that without this work, pavements would have shorter lives and 

deterioration models would need to show steeper curves. The TAMP indicated that Wyoming DOT 

considers its maintenance budgets to be critically important to achieving its pavement targets. Districts 

provide a list of their chip seal, patching, and slab-replacement efforts. Those are reviewed by the 

Materials Program and depending upon the type of treatment and the length of the pavement sections 

that are treated, some proportion of the completed maintenance work is credited in the PMS. Those 

efforts are factored into the management system forecasts and they influence the deterioration curves 

applied to the sections that were maintained.

Using Bridge Management Systems to Support Programming

As the TAMP described for pavements, the bridge management process in Wyoming also influenced the 

programming process. Once the bridge management system (BMS) identifies needs for preservation, 

repair, rehabilitation, or replacement, candidate lists are developed for each District. The candidate lists 

are developed within the parameters of Wyoming DOT’s targets which are to maintain State-owned 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

11

bridges on and off the NHS so that at least 10 percent are in Good condition and less than 10 percent 

are in Poor condition. 

An optimization algorithm in the BMS compares deterioration rates to treatment actions and their costs. 

The algorithm set targets for the percentage of the budget that should be allocated to preservation, 

rehabilitation, or replacement. Then, headquarters provides the Districts recommended treatments that 

Districts should consider programming into projects. The algorithm prioritizes actions on Poor structures 

but as the amount of Poor square footage declines in a District, the algorithm concentrates more on 

preventive maintenance and preservation. 

As was described for the pavement analysis, once bridge projects are programmed, the delivery of those 

projects is tracked to ensure that the amount of treatment by type is achieving the intended bridge 

conditions. The tracking process compares the “mix of fixes” in the STIP to the percentage of treatment 

types recommended by the management system. The tracking ensures that over the life of the STIP, the 

balanced mix of preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement that is needed to achieve the life cycle 

strategies is delivered.

Montana’s Plan Focuses on 10-Year Objectives

The Montana Department of Transportation’s (MDT) 2019 TAMP identified current condition gaps that 

it plans to close over 10 years by focusing upon a life-cycle based program of projects.

The plan noted that the agency faces condition gaps in its non-Interstate NHS pavements and in its NHS 

bridge deck area. The 10-year state of good repair State target for non-Interstate NHS pavements is to 

have a ride index of 76 whereas the index currently is at 72.6. For NHS bridges, the state of good repair 

target is to have 25 percent of the inventory by area in Good condition per the 23 CFR 490.409 

performance measures whereas 17.4 percent is Good as of 2019. However, by focusing its pavement 

projects on its management system’s recommendations and by relying on dedicated bridge preservation 

funds, the agency forecasts that its STIP projects will over the 10 years of the TAMP bring pavements 

into a state of good repair and nearly eliminate the gap in NHS bridges.

The MDT plan emphasized the agency’s tracking of how projects and treatments influence condition so 

that the agency can hone the predictive ability of its management systems and processes. The TAMP 

indicated that MDOT allocates funds based on scenario analysis that seeks to achieve a state of good 

repair with life-cycle strategies. Funding is distributed to Districts by highway system and work types. As 

the Districts develop projects, the results of the projects are assessed to ensure progress toward the 

state of good repair. 

The Montana TAMP included Figure 2 to illustrate the long-term, continuous process of identifying 

pavement needs, designing and then building pavements, and then maintaining and monitoring them 

over their life cycle. Eventually, the pavements are replaced and the cycle begins again.

The treatments to achieve the pavement conditions with the lowest life-cycle cost are identified by 

MDT’s pavement management system. It bases the recommended treatments upon decision trees and 

an optimization tool that considers conditions, deterioration rates, pavement type, project histories, 

traffic levels, and other factors. The recommended treatments are given to the Districts who incorporate 

them into their project lists that lead to the STIP. As projects are designed, headquarters and District

staff work together to refine the scope to address the observed pavement distresses and other roadway 

needs. 
Case Study on Linking Asset Management with Planning and Programming

12

For its bridges, MDT increased its 

annual bridge investments from $25 

million annually to $40 million with a 

10-year strategy to program the needed 

replacement and rehabilitation projects 

in the first five years along with an

increase in preservation. It identified a 

structured sequence of preservation 

projects that it will consider for the 

newly constructed bridges to lower 

their life-cycle costs and to keep them 

in a state of good repair. Those 

treatments include preservation at 

approximately years 10 and 20, along 

with joint replacement at year 20. 

Preservation is repeated in year 30 

followed by deck replacement and joint 

repairs in approximately year 40. The 

cycle of preservation, deck

replacement, and joint repairs are 

repeated until year 100 when 

replacement is assumed. 

The MDT TAMP concluded that by 

focusing its STIP projects upon the mix 

of maintenance, preservation, rehabilitation, and replacement called for by its management processes, 

it will make progress toward its State-defined state of good repair. Key to the achievement will be the 

enhanced focus upon bridge and pavement preservation emphasized in its asset management plan. 

1 Public Law 87-866-Oct. 23, 1962, Sec. 134 

Figure 2.Montana's cycle to maintain pavements over their life cycle. 

Source: Montana DOT.