Roadway Safety Hardware 

Asset Management Systems 

Case Studies

PUBLICATION NO. FHWA-HRT-05-073 OCTOBER 2005

Research, Development, and Technology

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center

6300 Georgetown Pike

McLean, VA 22101-2296
FOREWORD 

Since the early 1990s, the term “asset management” has grown to embrace a broad array of tasks 

and activities aimed at identifying, assessing, prioritizing, evaluating, maintaining, rehabilitating, 

renewing, preserving, improving, and managing assets. This report addresses asset management 

of roadway safety hardware in the United States. Increasingly refined and complex tools such as 

modern bridge and pavement inventory management systems have been developed and adopted 

by many State departments of transportation (DOTs), as well as some of the larger departments 

of county and municipal governments. Many of these management systems have been developed 

cooperatively by pooling funds and in other ways, such as assistance from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA).

Through maintenance and enhancement efforts, these software systems are growing in their 

robustness and capability to deal effectively with complex, real-world issues and conditions. One 

software management area that has not advanced as rapidly is roadway safety hardware 

inventory, which includes an array of signs, signals, roadway lighting luminaries, support 

structures for signs, guardrails, pavement markings, and deployed detecting devices—all vital to 

safe, efficient highway operations. 

This study provides information to State DOTs on roadway safety hardware management 

systems that would help increase their use of state-of-the-practice techniques. This report was 

developed for State DOT personnel, particularly chief engineers and other top management, 

involved with the planning, funding, and execution of roadway safety hardware management 

systems. 

Gary L. Henderson 

Director, Office of Infrastructure Research and 

Development 

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. This report does not constitute a standard, 

specification, or regulation. 

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. 

Quality Assurance Statement 

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. 
Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) 

1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. 

FHWA-HRT-05-073 

4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date 

October 2005 

6. Performing Organization 

Code: 

Roadway Safety Hardware 

Asset Management Systems 

Case Studies 

7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. 

Mr. David J. Hensing, Dr. Shahed Rowshan 

9. Performing Organization Name and 

Address 11. Contract or Grant No. 

Science Applications International Corporation 

(SAIC) 

Transportation Division 

1710 SAIC Drive 

McLean, VA 22102 

DTFH61-01-C-00180 

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report 

and Period Covered 

14. Sponsoring 

Agency Code 

Office of Safety R&D 

Federal Highway Administration 

400 7th Street, SW 

Washington, D.C. 20590 

Final Report, 

April 2005 

HRDS 

15. Supplementary Notes 

FHWA COTR, Kerry Perrillo Childress, Office of Safety R&D 

16. Abstract 

This study provides information to State DOTs on roadway safety hardware management systems that 

could help increase their use of state-of-the-practice techniques. This report was developed for State DOT 

personnel, particularly chief engineers and other top management, involved with the planning, funding, 

and execution of roadway safety hardware management systems. 

17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement 

Asset management, roadway safety 

hardware 

No restrictions. This document is available to the public 

through the National Technical Information Service, 

Springfield, VA 22161. 

19. Security Classif. (of 

this report) 

20. Security Classif. (of 

this page) 21. No of Pages 22. Price 

Unclassified Unclassified 92 

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized
SI* (MODERN METRIC) CONVERSION FACTORS 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS TO SI UNITS

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH 

in inches 25.4 millimeters mm 

ft feet 0.305 meters m 

yd yards 0.914 meters m 

mi miles 1.61 kilometers km 

AREA 

in2 square inches 645.2 square millimeters mm2

ft2 square feet 0.093 square meters m2

yd2 square yard 0.836 square meters m2

ac acres 0.405 hectares ha

mi2 square miles 2.59 square kilometers km2

VOLUME 

fl oz fluid ounces 29.57 milliliters mL 

gal gallons 3.785 liters L 

ft3 cubic feet 0.028 cubic meters m3 

yd3 cubic yards 0.765 cubic meters m3 

NOTE: volumes greater than 1000 L shall be shown in m3

MASS oz ounces 28.35 grams g

lb pounds 0.454 kilograms kg

T short tons (2000 lb) 0.907 megagrams (or "metric ton") Mg (or "t") 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

F Fahrenheit 5 (F-32)/9 Celsius oC 

or (F-32)/1.8 

ILLUMINATION 

fc foot-candles 10.76 lux lx

fl foot-Lamberts 3.426 candela/m2 cd/m2

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

lbf poundforce 4.45 newtons N 

lbf/in2 poundforce per square inch 6.89 kilopascals kPa 

APPROXIMATE CONVERSIONS FROM SI UNITS 

Symbol When You Know Multiply By To Find Symbol 

LENGTH

mm millimeters 0.039 inches in 

m meters 3.28 feet ft 

m meters 1.09 yards yd 

km kilometers 0.621 miles mi 

AREA mm2

 square millimeters 0.0016 square inches in2 

m2 square meters 10.764 square feet ft2 

m2 square meters 1.195 square yards yd2 

ha hectares 2.47 acres ac

km2 square kilometers 0.386 square miles mi2 

VOLUME 

mL milliliters 0.034 fluid ounces fl oz 

L liters 0.264 gallons gal 

m3 cubic meters 35.314 cubic feet ft3 

m3 cubic meters 1.307 cubic yards yd3 

MASS 

g grams 0.035 ounces oz

kg kilograms 2.202 pounds lb

Mg (or "t") megagrams (or "metric ton") 1.103 short tons (2000 lb) T 

TEMPERATURE (exact degrees) o

C Celsius 1.8C+32 Fahrenheit oF 

ILLUMINATION 

lx lux 0.0929 foot-candles fc 

cd/m2 candela/m2 0.2919 foot-Lamberts fl

FORCE and PRESSURE or STRESS 

N newtons 0.225 poundforce lbf 

kPa kilopascals 0.145 poundforce per square inch lbf/in2

*SI is the symbol for th International System of Units. Approp e riate rounding should be made to comply with Section 4 of ASTM E380. 

(Revised March 2003)

ii
Table of Contents 

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1 

Background..................................................................................................................................1 

Objectives ....................................................................................................................................2 

Research Methodology ................................................................................................................4 

Assumptions.................................................................................................................................5 

Foundations of the Approach.......................................................................................................5 

CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDIES OF STATE DOT ROADWAY SAFETY HARDWARE 

MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS..........................................................................................................7 

Approach To Selection Criteria ...................................................................................................7 

States Selected For Case Studies .................................................................................................8 

Model Integrated Asset Management Systems............................................................................9 

Other DOT Case Studies............................................................................................................31 

CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS ...................................................................................................57 

APPENDIX A. FHWA LETTER TO DIVISION OFFICES ........................................................59 

APPENDIX B. QUESTIONNAIRE TO STATE DOTS...............................................................61 

APPENDIX C. SUMMARY OF AASHTO SURVEY RESULTS...............................................63 

APPENDIX D. LIST OF STATE DOT CONTACTS...................................................................71 

REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................81 

BIBLIOGRAPHY..........................................................................................................................83 

iii
List of Figures 

Figure 1. Photo. Data collection van............................................................................................. 10 

Figure 2. Screen Capture. Sample image in the New Mexico RFI application............................ 11 

Figure 3. Screen capture. Comparison of sample images in the New Mexico RFI Virtual Drive 

application............................................................................................................................. 11 

Figure 4. Screen capture. Sample RFI image showing roadside guardrail................................... 12 

Figure 5. Photo. Sample RFI image showing interstate sign........................................................ 12 

Figure 6. Screen capture. Sample RFI application screen with thumbnail image. ....................... 13 

Figure 7. Screen capture. Sample New Mexico RFI spatial map with assets identified. ............. 13 

Figure 8. Chart. Sample flowchart of RFI QA/QC checks........................................................... 19 

Figure 9. Screen capture. Georgia DOT HSMS sample data screen. ........................................... 39 

Figure 10. Map. Geographic map showing States that responded to AASHTO survey............... 63 

Figure 11. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question # 1: Do you inventory? ......................... 63 

Figure 12. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #2: Percentage of assets in inventory. . 64 

Figure 13. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #3: Does inventory track location?....... 64 

Figure 14. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #4: Inventory cycle............................... 65 

Figure 15. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 1): Method used for original 

inventory. .............................................................................................................................. 65 

Figure 16. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 2): Method used for inventory 

updates. ................................................................................................................................. 66 

Figure 17. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #6: Funding allocated on inventory...... 66 

Figure 18. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #7: Budget line item for maintenance. 67 

Figure 19. Graph. AASHTO survey results to questions #8 and 8b: Monitor condition. ............ 67 

Figure 20. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #9: Coverage of condition monitored.. 68 

Figure 21. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #10: Frequency of condition surveys. . 68 

Figure 22. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #11: Methods of monitoring condition.69 

iv
List of Tables 

Table 1. New Mexico RFI data collected. .................................................................................... 14 

Table 2. New Mexico RFI asset types. ......................................................................................... 14 

Table 3. The 31 RFI assets and their definitions. ......................................................................... 15 

Table 4. New Mexico HMMS data collected. .............................................................................. 21 

Table 5. Virginia ICAS data collected.......................................................................................... 24 

Table 6. Virginia RCA data collected........................................................................................... 29 

Table 7. California IMMS data collected. .................................................................................... 34 

Table 8. Florida RCI data collected. ............................................................................................. 36 

Table 9. Georgia HSMS data collected......................................................................................... 39 

Table 10. Maryland GIS Roadway Route System data collected................................................. 42 

Table 11. Maryland TSIIM data collected.................................................................................... 44 

Table 12. Minnesota AFMS data collected................................................................................... 45 

Table 13. TDOT TRIMS data collected. ...................................................................................... 47 

Table 14. TDOT MMS data collected. ......................................................................................... 50 

Table 15. State contact offices...................................................................................................... 71 

v
Abbreviations and Acronyms 

AADT Average Annual Daily Traffic 

AASHTO American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

AFMS Automated Facilities Management System 

AMS Asset Management System 

BMP Begin Mile Point 

BPR Business Process Reengineering 

CAD Computer Aided Design 

Caltrans California Department of Transportation 

CMS Construction Management System 

COTS Commercial off-the-shelf 

DMI Distance Measuring Instrument 

DMS Document Management System 

DOT Department of Transportation 

EIS Executive Information System 

FDOT Florida Department of Transportation 

FHWA Federal Highway Administration 

FMIS Financial Management Information System 

FRD Functional Requirements Document 

FWD Falling Water Device 

GASB Government Accounting Standards Board 

GB Gigabyte 

GDOT Georgia Department of Transportation 

GIS Geographic Information System 

GPS Global Positioning System 

HMIS Highway Management Information System 

HMMS Highway Maintenance Management System 

HPMS Highway Performance Monitoring System 

HSMS Highway Sign Management System 

ICAS Inventory and Condition Assessment System 

IMS Infrastructure Management Service 

IMMS Inventory or Integrated Maintenance Management System 

IMU Inertial Motion Unit 

INS Inertial Navigation System 

ISTEA Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act 

IT Information Technology 

MAL Master Asset List 

MDSHA Maryland State Highway Administration 

MMS Maintenance Management System, Marking Management System 

MMSI Maintenance Management System Improved 

Mn/DOT Minnesota Department of Transportation 

NCDOT North Carolina Department of Transportation 

vi
Abbreviations and Acronyms—Continued

NCHRP National Cooperative Highway Research Program 

NMSHTD New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 

ODOT Oregon Department of Transportation 

OIS Office of Information Systems 

PDA Personal Digital Assistant 

PMS Pavement Management System 

POSTM Position Orientation System 

PPRM Program, Project, and Resource Management System 

PPSTM Pavement Profile Scanner 

QA/QC Quality Assurance/Quality Control 

QAR Quality Assurance Review 

R2Sign Sign Management System 

RAM Random Access Memory 

RCA Random Condition Assessment 

RCI Roadway Characteristics Inventory 

RFI Roadway Feature Inventory 

RFP Request for Proposal 

RMAN Recovery Manager 

SAIC Science Applications International Corporation 

SCDOT South Carolina Department of Transportation 

SCOH Standing Committee on Highways 

SHA State Highway Administration 

SHTD State Highway and Transportation Department 

SIMS Sign Inventory Management System 

Stereo RST Stereo Road Surface Tester 

TAMS Transportation Asset Management Service 

TB Terabytes 

TDOT Tennessee Department of Transportation 

TranStat Transportation Statistics Office 

TRB Transportation Research Board 

TRIMS Tennessee Roadway Information System 

TRIS Transportation Research Information Services 

TSIIM Traffic Structure Inventory Inspection and Maintenance 

TSIS Traffic Signal Information System 

TSSI Traffic Signal System Inventory 

USDOT United States Department of Transportation 

VCMS Vertical Clearance Measurement System 

VCR Videocassette Recorder 

VDOT Virginia Department of Transportation 

WisDOT Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

vii

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 

BACKGROUND 

Since the early 1990s, the term “asset management” has grown to embrace a broad array of tasks 

and activities aimed at identifying, assessing, prioritizing, evaluating, maintaining, rehabilitating, 

renewing, preserving, improving, and managing assets. This report addresses asset management 

of roadway safety hardware in the United States. Increasingly refined and complex tools such as 

modern bridge and pavement inventory management systems have been developed and adopted 

by many State departments of transportation (DOTs), and larger departments of county and 

municipal governments. Many of these management systems have been developed cooperatively 

by pooling funds and in other ways, such as with assistance from the Federal Highway 

Administration (FHWA). 

Through maintenance and enhancement efforts, these software systems are growing in their 

robustness and capability to deal effectively with complex, real-world issues and conditions. 

Clearly, the ability of the State DOTs to meet future challenges in an era of rapid social and 

political change and with ever-scarcer resources will depend in no small measure on the 

intelligent deployment of asset management technologies. 

One software management area that has not advanced as rapidly is roadway hardware, which 

refers to an array of signs, signals, roadway lighting luminaries, support structures for signs, 

signals, guardrails, pavement markings, and deployed detecting devices. Collectively, these 

roadway hardware categories are vital to the safe and efficient operation of highways. 

Many roadway hardware devices degrade relatively quickly in the face of traffic stress, snow and 

ice conditions that often entail chloride applications and repeated freeze-thaw cycles, and other 

environmental factors. These systems must be monitored closely and their underlying inventory 

systems updated regularly and frequently. The impairment or ineffectiveness of certain system 

components may not be discernable through simple visual inspection. For example, sign 

retroreflectivity deteriorates steadily from the day of its deployment, but certain specialized 

equipment can determine its level of performance at any time. Also, nonfunctioning, embedded 

magnetic loop detectors are both commonplace and invisible to the visual inspector. The 

appropriateness of well-designed management systems to monitor and give timely and accurate 

indication of the need to maintain, rehabilitate, or replace components hardly seems debatable. 

And yet, the pressure of other needs and priorities has led some DOTs to devise and use 

inadequate asset management systems or, worse, to have no systematic approach at all. 

The significance of new financial reporting standards established by the Governmental 

Accounting Standards Board (GASB) in 1999 must not be ignored. These new standards 

fundamentally changed the practices of State and local governments in reporting their financial 

results, providing an important opportunity for State DOTs to increase public recognition of the 

worth of roadway safety assets in terms of their financial value to the States. 

Among other provisions, GASB Statement 34 (GASB 34), “Basic Financial Statements—and 

Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local Governments,” requires that major 

infrastructure assets acquired or receiving major additions or improvements in fiscal years 

beginning after June 15, 1980, be capitalized in financial statements.( ) 1 This means that 

governments with more than $100 million in total annual revenues (which includes all States) 

1 
were required to report on new infrastructure assets starting in the fiscal year beginning after 

June 15, 2001, with reporting of previously acquired infrastructure assets 4 years later. 

As a result, GASB 34 provides transportation agencies with the opportunity to make other State 

and local officials, as well as the public at large, more aware of the value of the significant 

transportation assets that governments own and operate and the maintenance they require. 

Increased awareness of the importance of investment in these assets highlights the need to 

preserve their condition. 

OBJECTIVES 

The objective of this study is to provide information to State DOTs on roadway safety hardware 

management systems that would help increase their use of state-of-the-practice techniques. The 

research team conducted a review of current practices by DOTs that use fully or semi-integrated 

asset management systems. The team identified features and characteristics of the different asset 

management systems in use or under development in State DOTs. They worked closely with 

FHWA and the American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials 

(AASHTO) committees and staff, including the AASHTO Roadside Hardware Asset 

Management Task Force and the AASHTO Standing Committee on Highways (SCOH), 

Subcommittees on Traffic Engineering and Maintenance. 

The intention of this report is to give an understanding of the wide-ranging benefits of an 

effective roadway safety hardware asset management system, including one or more of the 

following capabilities: 

• Properly establish and maintain a collection of safety hardware that is operating at optimal 

efficiency statewide. 

• Enhance the ability to make rational and cost-effective resource allocation decisions based on 

complete information, centralized resource tracking, and more accurate cost data. 

• Reduce costs for acquisition, maintenance, upgrade, and replacement of assets following 

improved ability to assess needs and make resource allocation decisions. 

• Improve ability to gather and analyze data in a timely and effective manner that supports 

overall information management and reporting activities. 

• Increase ability of management to assign and oversee the efficient completion of work orders 

and routine maintenance tasks and reduce duplication of effort. 

• Decrease State legal liability that results from gaps in appropriate safety hardware 

installation. 

Target Audience 

This report was developed for State DOT personnel involved with the planning, funding, and 

execution of roadway safety hardware management systems. The primary target audience is 

chief engineers and other top management in State transportation agencies. Other intended 

audiences include senior State DOT officials, FHWA safety engineers, and FHWA division 

administrators. Other State DOT officials who would benefit from reviewing this report include 

technical directors in charge of traffic and maintenance programs and district managers. 

2 
Scope of Roadway Hardware Assets 

The terms “asset management,” “roadway assets,” and “roadway safety hardware” have different 

uses in various State DOTs; however, AASHTO interprets the term “transportation asset 

management” as a “strategic approach to managing transportation infrastructure.”(2) The FHWA 

Office of Asset Management defines the term and its principles in specific language: “Asset 

management is a set of business principles and best practice methods for improving resource 

allocation and utilization decisions. It reflects a comprehensive view of system management and 

performance.” 

Following is a list of the FHWA Office of Asset Management core principles of asset 

management: 

Policy Driven: Resource allocation decisions are based on a well-defined set of 

policy goals and objectives. These objectives reflect desired system condition, 

level of service, and safety provided to customers, and typically are tied to 

economic, community, and environmental goals. 

Performance Based: Policy objectives are translated into system performance 

measures that are used for both day-to-day and strategic management. 

Analysis of Options and Tradeoffs: Decisions on how to allocate funds within and 

across different types of investments such as preventive maintenance versus 

rehabilitation, pavements versus bridges, capacity expansion versus operations, 

different modal mixes, and safety are based on an analysis of how different 

allocations can affect achievement of relevant policy objectives. Alternative 

methods for achieving a desired set of objectives are examined and evaluated. 

Decisions Based on Quality Information: The merits of different options for an 

agency’s policy goals are evaluated using credible and current data. Where 

appropriate, decision-support tools are used to provide easy access to needed 

information and assist with performance tracking and predictions. 

Monitoring to Provide Clear Accountability and Feedback: Performance results 

are monitored and reported for both resulting effects and effectiveness. Feedback 

on actual performance may influence agency goals and objectives, as well as 

resource allocation and utilization decisions.(3)

State DOTs maintain a large number of assets along the roadside. The functions of many of these 

assets include providing safer driving conditions for the public. For this study, the FHWA 

specified the following seven categories of assets for study: 

• Roadway signs.

• Signals. 

• Roadway lighting. 

• Supports and structures for signs, signals, and lighting. 

• Guardrails, barriers, and crash cushions. 

3 
• Pavement markings and treatments. 

• Detectors. 

Each asset management system in the case studies described in chapter 2 is limited to systems 

that manage one or more of these seven assets. In each case study, a table summarizes the list of 

assets collected from these seven categories. 

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY 

FHWA and AASHTO believe a key mission is to develop and promulgate effective roadway 

safety hardware management systems. Both organizations believe such systems are vital to the 

efficient preservation of the vast public investment in transportation facilities and infrastructure. 

FHWA demonstrated its commitment several years ago in its reorganization by establishing the 

Office of Asset Management. Assets such as warning and regulatory signs, edge lining, signals, 

and roadway lighting have virtually no other purpose than fostering and enhancing highway 

safety. 

State DOTs have been leading the way in asset management for a decade or more. The work of 

the AASHTO Task Force on Transportation Asset Management has been prodigious in guiding 

numerous advances. In the field of roadway hardware specifically, the ad hoc Roadside 

Hardware Management Steering Committee has been crucial to progress, and it will be vital to 

the success of this and other successor projects. 

The success of this effort has depended largely on close coordination with representatives of the 

participating FHWA organizational units and the AASHTO Steering Committee. Coordination 

took place through mail and e-mail exchanges as well as face-to-face interaction with the 

AASHTO group over the course of the project. 

Following is a list of steps followed to complete this project: 

1. Survey of State DOTs. The January 2000 AASHTO survey provided a starting point for this 

task. Individual responses were sought from the AASHTO offices, and the nearly 40 

responses were examined individually. A State that indicated it was implementing or 

planning an asset management system was contacted by telephone or e-mail and asked about 

tools in use. It was recognized at the beginning of this research that the survey was more than 

2 years old. The research team sought updated information through these contacts and the 

FHWA division offices. Appendix A contains a copy of the letter to FHWA division offices 

seeking updated information about State activities. Appendix B contains the questionnaire 

sent to State DOTs. Appendix C contains a summary of the survey results. Appendix D lists 

the State DOT contacts. 

2. Literature Review. A literature review was desirable because the tools in use were more 

likely to be from such source documents than from the survey summary. Additional relevant 

literature leads were sought through interviews with FHWA and AASHTO staff and a 

Transportation Research Information Services (TRIS) search. The results of the literature 

search appear in the bibliography. 

3. Selected Examples of Best Practices. The principal resources for this task were the members 

of the AASHTO Steering Committee along with the designated representatives of the three 

4 
participating FHWA offices. Most of the States that indicated any type of automated asset 

management system in the AASHTO survey were contacted. A number of States that did not 

respond to the AASHTO survey were also contacted. Through consultation with these project 

sponsors and extensive phone interviews, eight States were chosen for case studies. 

4. Conducted Case Study Field Visits. The research team scheduled 1- to 2-day visits with the 

selected State DOTs. The field visits to the States were preceded by telephone calls and 

e -mails aimed at identifying key contacts in each location, establishing firm appointments, 

and, most important, soliciting and collecting key documents before each visit. During the 

visits, the research team interviewed senior managers, maintenance and traffic engineers, 

technical staff, and State DOT contractors to collect more in-depth information and 

resources. All information in the case studies was collected from the interviews with the 

State DOT staff, and it is based on reference documents provided by the States. Most of the 

States had limited documentation for their systems; most of the available documents were 

user manuals. The information in the case studies was collected in an outline format using 

responses to 17 questions about each system, as listed in appendix B. 

ASSUMPTIONS 

Although the key assumption in a project such as this one is that the findings obtained in a small 

sample of State DOTs can apply to the broad universe of these State agencies, the projects that 

were examined in detail through field visits or extensive telephone interviews, or both, varied 

significantly from one another in program details. This results principally from the specific 

history and circumstances in each State; for example, the needs of Virginia, which has the third 

largest State-maintained highway system in the country, are significantly different from those of 

a State such as Arizona, whose asset management system includes landscape features. As a 

result, some care and judgment is advisable when reviewing some of the lessons learned. 

FOUNDATIONS OF THE APPROACH 

Personnel responsible for managing highway assets are faced with a mature roadway 

transportation system that is experiencing high and growing demand. In addition, personnel must 

cope with the problems of deterioration associated with aging assets while also being expected to 

provide high-quality service. Transportation officials face increasingly constrained funding and 

competition with other States agencies for limited financial resources. 

One way to help in making cost-effective resource allocation decisions is through the use of asset 

management systems. The resulting decisions are strategic rather than tactical because they 

account for all assets under the transportation agency’s umbrella for an extended time horizon. 

An asset management approach has at its foundation technical, fact-based information for 

decisionmaking, and it is driven by goals, policies, and budgets. 

The technical information supporting the asset management framework is derived from 

engineering, economic, performance, and behavioral models. Raw data such as inventory 

statistics are also required to make asset management work. The ability to gather timely, useful 

technical information that is critical to asset management is possible through the technological 

revolution resulting from faster, more capable computers. 

5 
Performance goals reflect input from citizens, legislators, and policymakers, and they provide a 

focal point from which transportation officials may explain their programs and performance to 

the public. In addition, performance goals assist transportation executives in identifying and 

focusing on critical system requirements. 

Implementing an asset management framework provides not only the means to identify optimal 

investment strategies, but also offers a way to articulate them. These capabilities arise from the 

transportation agency having the ability to weigh one alternative against another—or to conduct 

what-if analyses. For example, an agency faced with a possible decrease in funding can readily 

demonstrate the effect on the condition and performance of a system, and then its effect on the 

overall safety of State roadways. It should be noted that the application of asset management 

varies significantly from organization to organization. 

6 
CHAPTER 2. CASE STUDIES OF STATE DOT ROADWAY SAFETY 

HARDWARE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

APPROACH TO SELECTION CRITERIA 

In January 2000, AASHTO conducted a survey of State DOTs to evaluate the practices of 

roadway safety hardware asset management systems. In October 2002, FHWA initiated a followup e-mail to all FHWA division offices inquiring about updates to the information States 

provided to the 2000 AASHTO survey. A copy of the correspondence with the FHWA division 

offices appears in appendix A. A list of the survey questions appears in appendix B. The FHWA 

division offices provided no updates based on that inquiry. 

According to the AASHTO study, only one-third of the State DOTs use a hardware management 

system. A summary of the survey results appears in appendix C. The research team used the 

AASHTO survey as the basis for its initial approach to State DOTs that indicated use of some 

type of an asset management system. 

The research team took the following steps to identify States with fully or semi-integrated 

roadway safety hardware management systems: 

• Contacted the 42 States (out of the 52 States surveyed) that responded in the 2000 AASHTO 

survey. 

• Canvassed FHWA division offices for updates in October 2002; no additional information 

was received. 

• Contacted potential candidate State DOTs based on initial survey results. 

• Pursued new leads generated from contacts with States. 

• Pursued selected States that did not respond to the survey. 

• Conducted follow-up contacts with potential candidate States. 

After a comprehensive search for candidate States, the team narrowed the number of candidates 

for field visits and case studies using the following considerations: 

• States that had implemented any integrated roadway hardware asset management system. 

• States that had initiated a prototype asset management system. 

• States with fully or semi-automated methods of inventory and monitoring of a partial number 

of assets. 

• States willing to share information on lessons learned from systems that are not fully 

successful. 

• States that had outsourced an integrated asset management system. 

• Quality and innovation of roadway hardware asset management systems. 

The research team worked closely with FHWA and AASHTO members during the selection 

process and briefed the project principals during all the stages of research. 

7 
STATES SELECTED FOR CASE STUDIES 

The research team conducted site visits and held numerous discussions with officials from State 

DOTs, FHWA, and AASHTO. Several States that use a single-asset system are discussed briefly 

later in this chapter as a sample of typical systems that are in place in many States. 

This document presents two detailed State model integrated asset management systems, Virginia 

and New Mexico, which are discussed in more detail in the case studies later in this chapter. Six 

additional States were selected for case studies: 

• California. 

• Florida. 

• Georgia. 

• Maryland. 

• Minnesota. 

• Tennessee. 

The research team visited seven of the State DOTs and collected information by phone 

interviews from Florida. 

This chapter also contains brief descriptions of a few other States with typical asset management 

systems (that is, nonintegrated, single-asset management systems): 

• North Carolina. 

• Oregon. 

• Wisconsin. 

A number of other States have similar systems in place. The States reported here represent just a 

sample of the type of systems implemented. 

During the site visits, the research team met with senior management personnel and technical 

managers including State DOT and contractor staff in some of the following positions: 

• Chief engineer. 

• Office director. 

• State maintenance engineer. 

• State traffic engineer. 

• System project managers and technical staff. 

• Information technology (IT) department staff. 

• Contractors developing the systems. 

The research team conducted interviews and viewed brief system demonstrations in each State 

visited, collected available documentation, and followed up after the meeting to collect 

additional information. 

8 
MODEL INTEGRATED ASSET MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS 

The FHWA Office of Asset Management defines data integration as the “process of combining 

or linking two or more data sets from different sources to facilitate data sharing, promote 

effective data gathering and analysis, and support overall information management activities in 

an organization.” Information about roadside assets and the process for sharing this information 

is critical to successful asset management; therefore, an integrated asset management system is 

highly desirable and results in increased effectiveness. 

As the different systems in each State were studied, it became clear that few State DOTs have 

implemented integrated systems to manage all seven asset categories identified for this study 

(roadway signs; signals; roadway lighting; supports and structures for signs, signals and lighting; 

guardrails and barriers; pavement markings and treatments; and detectors). Most States have 

implemented asset management for one or more of the asset categories and put several 

nonintegrated systems in place. 

Two different models of integrated asset management systems emerged as seeming the most 

progressive among the States in this study. These models, New Mexico and Virginia, present a 

different approach to the integrated system of managing roadway hardware. 

New Mexico uses a video system to capture roadway assets and extracts detailed data for each 

asset from the video image. A feature called “Virtual Drive” allows system users to simulate 

driving along any roadway in the State system and view clearly and accurately the hardware 

along the route. Virginia envisioned managing its assets through its entire life cycle—condition 

assessment, planning, alternatives evaluation, project development, and implementation. An 

initial system module was developed based on an inventory system with a statistical, random 

sampling using manual data collection. 

Following is a discussion of these two State DOT systems. 

New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department 

The New Mexico State Highway and Transportation Department (NMSHTD) provides one 

model of a fully integrated asset management system. NMSHTD has two primary asset 

management systems: Road Feature Inventory (RFI) and Highway Maintenance Management 

Systems (HMMS), described in the following paragraphs. 

Road Feature Inventory System Description 

The NMSHTD Road Feature Inventory RFI system maintains an extensive database on the entire 

New Mexico roadway system to ease maintenance and limit legal liability by documenting safety 

assets. Images have been captured statewide at every 15.24 m (50 ft) of highway with a video 

image width of 36.58 m (120 ft). 

Along with the images, information is collected on the NMSHTD roadway safety assets and 

roadway features. The result is a database, the RFI, of more than 5 million images and their 

associated data, forming the foundation for a number of applications used to manage the State’s 

highway assets. 

The RFI project started in June 2001 when NMSHTD engaged a contractor for data collection. 

The contractor is collecting data on all right-of-way assets on all NMSHTD-maintained roads. 

9 
The development of the RFI application and database was initiated in-house by the Highway 

Operations IT development staff, assisted by a contractor. 

Video images have been filmed on approximately 24,140.16 kilometers (km) (15,000 miles (mi)) 

of centerline on roads operated by the State, and approximately 690,000 assets on State highways 

have been inventoried using video taken in each driving lane. The van that captures the video can 

be driven at up to 88.51 kilometers per hour (km/h) (55 miles per hour (mi/h)) running speed. 

Each NMSHTD district is divided into DOT patrols that maintain specified areas. The video is 

identified by districts and patrol number. 

When the application is fully implemented, patrol personnel will be equipped with Global 

Positioning System (GPS)-enabled personal digital assistants (PDAs) and either a digital camera 

laptop or a pen tab and a digital camera. Personnel can update, insert, or delete assets from their 

PDA laptop and then synchronize with the database when they return to the office. Because so 

much of New Mexico is rural, wireless access to the application is not an option. An image will 

be associated with each new asset added to the database or changes made to an asset. 

One of the two main components of RFI is reporting. The reporting component interfaces to the 

HMMS that districts use to enter daily work reports and maintain stockpile and similar 

information. At the time of this writing, NMSHTD has plans to integrate the RFI and HMMS 

applications to maximize efficiency and provide data integrity. For example, a user who enters a 

work order for a guardrail is directed to the RFI application to update the relevant inventory. The 

RFI application feeds the HMMS system to reflect updates to the RFI database for maintenance 

done on the road, which keeps the inventory current. Users access the system through an Oracle®

portal to generate reports using Oracle Reports Builder® and Discoverer® applications. 

Figure 1 shows a typical van used to collect the video images. The van is fully equipped with 

cameras, computer equipment, and lasers to capture pavement conditions and road geometry. 

Figure 1. Photo. Data collection van. 

The report feature incorporates images stored in the database with the data. Figure 2 shows a 

sample image of an RFI report interface. 

10 
Figure 2. Screen Capture. Sample image in the New Mexico RFI application. 

The second main component of the RFI application is known as “Virtual Drive.” By choosing a 

route, a direction, and start mileposts and end mileposts, a user can take a tour of the route on the 

computer screen. Users can interact with the application much like a videocassette recorder 

(VCR), pressing a button (similar to the “play” button) to create the effect of driving down the 

chosen route and viewing the images one after another. All departments at the NMSHTD will be 

able to use the Virtual Drive feature to improve their asset management capabilities. For 

example, the State Maintenance Bureau will be able to use Virtual Drive to pinpoint an area of 

highway that needs maintenance or lacks appropriate signage. Periodic comparisons to historical 

records can help identify missing signage. The legal department will be able to use the Virtual 

Drive to verify if the route was safely signed or if a guardrail was located where it needed to be. 

Figure 3 shows a Virtual Drive screen capture of a sample image comparison. Figures 4 through 

7 show additional RFI images. 

Figure 3. Screen capture. Comparison of sample images in the New Mexico RFI Virtual 

Drive application. 

11 
Figure 4. Screen capture. Sample RFI image showing roadside guardrail. 

Figure 5. Photo. Sample RFI image showing interstate sign. 

12 
Figure 6. Screen capture. Sample RFI application screen with thumbnail image. 

Figure 7. Screen capture. Sample New Mexico RFI spatial map with assets identified. 

Of the seven asset categories in the FHWA project, only lighting and detectors are not included 

in the New Mexico program. In New Mexico, lighting is maintained by local governments, not 

the State DOT. Nonetheless, the video can easily pick up the roadway lighting information as 

well. The State is eliminating the use of magnetic detectors and making a transition to the use of 

video technology. Table 1 lists the asset category of data collected in the New Mexico RFI 

program. 

13 
Table 1. New Mexico RFI data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals √

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, 

Signals, and Lighting 

√

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and 

Treatments 

√

Detectors – 

Data on assets are collected based on a master asset list (MAL). Some fields from the MAL 

initially will be empty and populated continuously (for example, installation dates). Assets can 

be broken down into either point assets such as signs or linear assets such as guardrails that have 

a start and end point. Table 2 lists assets in each category. 

Table 2. New Mexico RFI asset types. 

Asset Type Asset List 

Point assets Ditches, gates, cattleguard, traffic signal, culverts, drainage structures, delineators, 

overhead structures, signs, median crossover, turnouts, bridge, interchange, junction, 

utilities crossing, infrastructure location, ports of entry, border patrol check stations, 

rest area, emergency services location, railroad crossing, drop inlet 

Linear assets Highway section, low water crossing, mowing, noxious weed section, fences, barrier 

walls, pavement markings, erosion control devices, delineators, guardrails 

The RFI project has identified 31 types of assets and their respective attributes or characteristics, 

listed in table 3. Each asset has common attributes such as description; condition; material; X, Y, 

and Z coordinates; start and end milepost; start and end mile point; height; and length. Some 

asset attribute information varies depending on the asset type. Note that these assets types were 

determined by the New Mexico RFI project for its own program and may vary from other States’ 

asset definitions. 

14 
Table 3. The 31 RFI assets and their definitions. 

No. Asset Asset Definition 

1 Highway section A section of road, designated as being State owned, having a specific start and end 

point, with relatively uniform construction throughout. New sections should be 

started where the attributes change (for example, number of lanes, surface type, 

shoulder width) 

2 Ditches This is a man-made cut in the ground. The start of the structure is identified by the 

left-most point, closest to the road surface, when first observed. 

3 Low water 

crossing 

Naturally occurring or man-made features that allow vehicle to wade through 

when little or no water exists. Cannot be forded in high-water conditions. 

4 Mowing Areas along the highway section designated specifically for controlling vegetation 

growth. By default it is everywhere except where no vegetation is evident. 

5 Noxious weed 

section 

Vegetation that is not native to the area or is threatening to take over the area from 

other indigenous species. 

6 Fences Structures used along the highway section to separate different areas. Every time 

the fence construction changes, a new asset is to be defined. 

7 Gates A structure used for restricting entry to the highway section. Can also be used for 

controlling entry to NMSHTD or other properties. 

8 Cattle guard These devices are used to prevent livestock from crossing or entering roadways. 

9 Barrier walls The barrier wall is, in most cases, found close to the outside edge of the highway 

pavement or section right-of-way. At the edge of roadway, it is typically a 

concrete barrier to deflect traffic and at the edge of right-of-way typically a high 

wall to separate traffic noise from residential areas, or other traffic. Starting 

measurement is made at the leading base edge. 

10 Pavement 

markings (stripe 

items) 

Lines and symbols on the travel surface of the highway section. 

11 Traffic signal Light or series of lights used for controlling the flow of traffic. Each signal head is 

to be inventoried separately using the same supporting structure—differentiated 

by the attribute “position of head.” The position is to be calculated to the base of 

the support closest to the right edge of the travel lanes. 

12 Culverts These structures pass under the roadway and are normally open on both ends. 

13 Drainage 

structures 

These devices are used to drain water from the road surface and are found most 

often along the right edge/side of the road. Structures in the median or the left side 

of a divided road are inventoried under drop inlets. 

14 Erosion control 

devices 

A definition of the way water and soil movement is controlled or restricted. 

15 Delineators These are markers placed along the edge of the highway section to identify 

hazards, edge of pavement, or note distance and highway information. Edge of 

road posts are treated as a linear assets, tenth-mile markers are summed by 

highway section, other types of delineators are to be treated as point assets, such 

as a culvert delineator. 

15 
Table 3. The 31 RFI assets and their definitions—Continued 

No. Asset Asset Definition 

16 Overhead 

structures 

Overhead structures do not include railways. The location is measured at the 

bottom left point of the base of the structure, to the right of the travel surface. 

17 Signs Features located around the highway section. Signs on posts are measured at the 

base of the post. Overhead signs, on bridges or gantries, are measured at the right 

front corner base of the supporting structure. All other locations are best estimate. 

18 Guardrails These are structures used for attempting to protect traffic from danger and are 

adjacent to the road surface. 

19 Median crossover The median crossover allows traffic to turn left, off the travel lanes, mostly on 

divided roads. May have a slow-down approach on left shoulder. Measured from 

start on left side of travel lanes to end on left. 

20 Turnouts This feature is to be measured from the front edge at the edge of the travel surface 

to the ending edge at the edge of the travel surface. These features are only on the 

right-hand side of the highway sections and include lead-up strips to the feature. 

21 Bridge This is a structure used by the highway section. It is not a pedestrian bridge or a 

railroad bridge. 

22 Interchange Grade-separated intersection of two highways/roads. 

23 Junction At-grade intersection of two or more roads. 

24 Utilities crossing Sites identified to have non-State features crossing them. 

25 Infrastructure These sites are located along the highway section and used for supporting the 

highway section, or some other feature of the infrastructure. 

26 Ports of Entry Located at the entrance to the State from either another State or Mexico. Should 

also coincide with the start or end of a highway section. 

27 Border patrol 

check stations 

These are stations located along the highway section for stopping and holding 

vehicles for inspection, in most cases located on the travel lanes. 

28 Rest area A location along the highway section used by the motoring public. The location is 

defined by the first point of possible entry to the site, to the last point of return to 

the traveling surface of the highway section. 

29 Emergency 

services location 

A location along the highway section used by the motoring public. The location is 

defined by the first point of possible entry to the site, to the last point of return to 

the traveling surface of the highway section. 

30 Railroad crossing This feature indicates the presence of any observable feature used by railroads to 

cross the highway section. 

31 Drop inlet All grated drainage structures flush with surface that can occur in the median and 

right-hand side of the pavement. 

The RFI software application is in an Oracle9i

® Forms application. The application was initially 

developed in-house by the IT department but is currently being completed by a consultant. The 

application uses an Oracle9i Database, Oracle interMedia, Oracle9i Application Server, Oracle 

Portal, Oracle JDeveloper, and Oracle Discoverer. The RFI application also uses other key 

database technologies including partitioning, Oracle Recovery Manager (RMAN), materialized 

views, and virtual private database. 

The NMSHTD database system manages more than 5 terabytes (TB) of JPEG images in the RFI 

application and approximately 1 million traditional (nonmedia) assets that account for 

16 
approximately 100 gigabytes (GB) of storage. Using Oracle9i database as the image data store 

has simplified application development and enabled powerful indexed searches that speed route 

image information retrieval. 

The database server runs the Oracle software in Windows 2000 on an HP server with 8 GB 

random access memory (RAM) and 5 TB of network storage. The application server consists of 

Oracle9i AS running on Windows 2000 on an HP server with 8 GB of RAM and 500 GB of local 

disk storage. 

Road Feature Inventory Data Collection 

Data collection is performed by each district, and State patrols query all the data in their districts. 

New data are added as needed and identified by milepost. Among the data collected are 

pavement performance data such as roughness and pavement condition ratings. 

The RFI system is approximately 92 percent populated. The remaining data collection activities 

include collection and processing of 60,000 assets and missing pieces of data, most of which are 

on ramps and interchanges. New data entry continues without special funding; the State will 

continue data collection as assets need to be repaired or replaced. 

The initial cost of the RFI development was $2 million. At the time of this writing, an estimated 

$500,000 in additional funds would be required to complete the missing data acquisition process 

and implement the corrections. 

In addition to electronic data collection methods, the State uses the RFI asset verification form in 

the field. This form is filled out manually on paper for entry back in the office. All districts have 

access permissions enabling them to enter data, but they cannot view data from other districts. 

The RFI has been online on the NMSHTD intranet since early 2003. At the time of this writing, 

the system was scheduled for completion in 2005, when all collected data are anticipated to have 

been loaded into the database. Plans exist to integrate RFI with other State systems such as the 

pavement and bridge management systems so that all of State asset management systems will 

ultimately be supported by a single integrated database. It will also allow NMSHTC to use RFI 

to meet maintenance requirements and capture the value of assets for accounting purposes. 

Road Feature Inventory Quality Assurance 

The State uses the districts to verify the data received from video, which are about 89 percent 

accurate. The State benchmark is set at 95 percent for accuracy, which is generally achieved as 

the districts correct their data. An example of insufficiently accurate data occurs when data 

collection for a segment of road needs to be repeated because of inadequate sunlight conditions. 

The State used committees to develop the quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) protocols, 

and the key district staffs were trained on the database. The State district office staff and the 

State maintenance engineers and managers are among the primary users. 

The QA procedures include a series of survey protocols that are followed throughout every 

project: 

• Roadways are surveyed only when there is sufficient daylight and they are dry and free of 

debris. 

• Roadways are surveyed in a single lane to provide true, consistent data. Lane changes are 

avoided. 

17 
• Every effort is made to collect data during off-peak times to minimize variations in speed and 

visually blocked assets. 

• In addition to the start and stop points along a particular roadway segment, intermediate tiein points, such as intersecting roads or bridge locations, are noted. 

At the conclusion of the field surveys, a data collection technician completes a detailed review 

with the raw and processed data using trend analysis, video, and, if required, field verifications. 

Information on pavement performance and asset is audited. 

Figure 8 illustrates a sample flowchart with QA/QC checks for processing video images into the 

software. 

18 
Figure 8. Chart. Sample flowchart of RFI QA/QC checks. 

19 
Highway Maintenance Management System Description 

The NMSHTD Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS) is a collection of highway 

information on labor, equipment, commodities, and maintenance management processes. This 

system is a proprietary database, separate from the RFI. One purpose of the HMMS is to help 

NMSHTD use its resources in the most efficient manner to maintain the roadways for which it is 

responsible in the best possible condition. HMMS provides a guide to assist field personnel in 

managing maintenance operations effectively. 

The HMMS is a tool designed to support all department maintenance personnel and help 

maintenance supervisors and managers make decisions. It is used for daily work reports, 

maintenance activities, and patrol reports. Crew members can identify their time and track their 

spending. The State uses the system to calculate the cost per mile for road maintenance. Other 

applications are for summaries to legislators and maintenance activity reports. 

To instruct the many and varied users, the State in 1998 issued an internal handbook on the use 

of HMMS. This manual was prepared in three versions: General Office Operations, District 

Operations, and Patrol Operations. Each version is customized for the indicated level of 

operation. 

The HMMS, which builds on the department’s previous maintenance management system, 

exchanges information with three of the department’s other computerized systems: 

• Financial Management Information System (FMIS). 

• Fleet Anywhere System, an equipment management information system. 

• Payroll System. 

All maintenance personnel, and particularly supervisors and managers, are involved in the 

maintenance management cycle of planning, organizing, directing, and controlling the work. 

Department personnel use the different screen sets of the HMMS throughout the management 

cycle. The information collected for and stored in the HMMS assists maintenance personnel in 

many ways. In particular, the information accomplishes the following tasks: 

• Supports budget requests and special projects. 

• Helps assess the need for changes in activity planning. 

• Provides managers with information for decision making. 

• Establishes benchmarks for comparing performance to standards. 

• Passes time information to payroll, equipment usage information to Fleet Anywhere, and 

commodity usage information to FMIS. 

• Helps evaluate contractor performance. 

• Provides information to managers that they can use to identify problem areas. 

HMMS is a system that manages the maintenance and budgeting activities as well as the 

schedule of crews. Following is a list of pertinent facts: 

• HMMS features an inventory table that supports an asset count. 

20 
• HMMS is a district-based system developed with seven separate databases—six districts and 

the General Office. NMSHDT collects data from the districts into the central office. In the 

system implementation, line speed was an issue because the connection from patrols to 

districts was through dial-up lines. The unit continues to explore the implementation of a 

centralized database. 

• There are 65 activities in HMMS. 

• The NMSHTD has elected to develop and implement the RFI and defer, at least for now, any 

updates to HMMS. 

NMSHTD was one of the first States to develop an HMMS, which was implemented in July 

1998. The system, which was acquired from the contractor, was designed as an interactive 

planning, budgeting, and reporting tool. It uses Oracle and Oracle-based tools, and consolidates 

several documents into a single data-entry process through a data-entry system at the district 

patrol and crew level. 

New Mexico has been using asset management systems since 1978; however, the earlier system 

was a mainframe program with limited planning and budgeting adjustment flexibility. The 

department began to consider replacing this system in 1994; however, after reviewing systems 

from Arizona, Utah, and Colorado, the NMSHTD determined those systems would not fully 

meet its needs. 

HMMS project planning began in 1994. The process involved interviews with more than 100 

maintenance personnel leading to development of the system requirement definition. A Request 

for Proposal (RFP) for the HMMS was published in March 1996. A contractor was awarded the 

contract, and work began in September 1996. The system was fully implemented in 1998, when 

it was installed statewide. The HMMS, with a project cost of approximately $2.1 million, is fully 

populated and functional. New Mexico is one of the few States that owns the source code for its 

HMMS, which allows the State to maintain the software internally without licensing or other 

maintenance fees. 

Following the demonstrated success in New Mexico, a number of other States including Georgia, 

South Carolina, and Tennessee have since implemented an HMMS. 

Highway Maintenance Management System Data Collection 

Table 4 lists the categories of New Mexico HMMS data collected. 

Table 4. New Mexico HMMS data collected. 

Asset category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, 

Signals, and Lighting 

√

Guardrails, Barriers √

21 
Table 4. New Mexico HMMS data collected—Continued 

Asset category Collected 

Pavement Markings and 

Treatments 

√

Detectors – 

HMMS Current Status and Future Plans 

Plans include system upgrades when the RFI project is complete. In addition, the two databases 

are to merge into one database. 

The integration of HMMS with RFI will figure in NMSHTD plans. NMSHTD recognizes the 

importance of coordinating integration planning with the IT department, and it plans for central 

coordination for applications and development of any future software. 

RFI and HMMS integration details are not yet determined; however, HMMS has road feature 

components that will be replaced by RFI data. 

Three interfaces—Maintenance Management System (MMS), Pavement Management System 

(PMS), and RFI—are also planned for the future, but these interfaces are at least 2 years away. 

The system currently exchanges data with three other systems: 

• Equipment Management. 

• FMIS. 

• Human Resource Payroll System. 

Virginia Department of Transportation 

The Commonwealth of Virginia has the nation’s third largest State-maintained highway system 

(after Texas and North Carolina). This system includes approximately 91,732.61 km (57,000 mi) 

centerline miles of interstate, arterial, regular primary, and secondary roads, and more than 

18,800 total structures, including 12,600 bridges located in 135 counties. 

To make the best possible maintenance investment decisions, the Virginia Department of 

Transportation (VDOT) initiated a comprehensive maintenance and operations business process 

reengineering (BPR) effort in 1995. This effort laid the groundwork for what is now widely 

known as transportation asset management. 

Inventory and Condition Assessment System 

Based on recommendations from the BPR effort, VDOT initiated the development of 

infrastructure decision-support systems and a large data collection program, referred to as the 

Inventory and Condition Assessment System (ICAS). 

In 2002, the Virginia General Assembly passed legislation that requires VDOT to incorporate the 

principles of asset management into its maintenance and operations practices. This legislation 

was one of the main drivers for VDOT to develop a modernized integrated asset management 

system. 

22 
This new data integration strategy has enabled VDOT to make significant progress in developing 

decision-support tools and integrating asset management data without waiting for the details of 

the final Asset Management System (AMS). 

A discussion of the ICAS and AMS systems follows. 

ICAS Description 

The scope of the ICAS project was to collect inventory and condition data for all roadway assets 

that existed within the VDOT highway fence-line boundaries. VDOT structured its approach in 

several phases: A pilot phase (Phase 1) to prove and fine tune the concept and procedures, a 

statewide implementation phase (Phase 2), and a steady state or full deployment phase (Phase 3). 

Additional measures used to mitigate project risk to VDOT included employing a fixed-price 

contract and conducting a phase-gate review or an end-of-pilot evaluation that allowed for 

adjustment and repricing before beginning the statewide effort. 

Development of the prototype ICAS system began in 1997. A contractor provided support to 

VDOT with BPR work from 1995 to 1996, and then developed the initial ICAS performance and 

business requirements. 

In 1998, following a request for proposal, VDOT selected a prime contractor and team of 

subcontractors. The prime contractor performed overall project management, data collection, and 

training. Subcontractors developed an ICAS system, performed system integration and systems 

training, and provided database support, GIS integration, mapping, and aerial photography 

analysis. The contractor also proposed a commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) data management 

system developed in the United Kingdom that accommodated multiple linear referencing 

systems. The system needed modification to fulfill the VDOT requirements. 

For the pilot project, VDOT selected Fairfax, Fauquier, and Augusta counties. Combined, these 

three counties represent about 10 percent of State-maintained lane miles. 

VDOT used video logging, GPS backpacks, and digital satellite imagery to collect data for the 

ICAS. Following is a list of key ICAS project deliverables: 

• A complete inventory of highway-maintainable assets in three counties. 

• A comprehensive data dictionary. 

• A process for the consistent measurement of asset conditions. 

• A statewide process for managing asset information. 

• Modern information technology tools to access the information. 

• Support to multiple location-reference systems. 

• Statewide centerlines for the entire highway network. 

ICAS has also captured a GPS-referenced digital video log along every segment of highway. 

These were used to develop centerline coordinates of the roadway network. 

Infrastructure inventory data derived from these images are available in ICAS. The forward 

images, collected every 16.09 m (52.8 ft), are available in the VDOT geographic information 

system (GIS) and can be accessed through the VDOT intranet. 

23 
The initial concept for ICAS was to be a tool to support the AMS and provide information for 

statewide budgeting and planning. The goal of the completed pilot project was to collect 

inventory, condition, and location information for a comprehensive set of assets. A secondary 

goal was to store, access, and demonstrate use of this data in strategic and tactical day-to-day 

asset management decisionmaking. 

ICAS is a PC-based client-server system based in Exor, a proprietary software system from the 

United Kingdom. VDOT had acquired licenses to use the system and decided not to upgrade it. 

VDOT is currently building the AMS and Oracle spatial database with in-house staff. 

The primary users of ICAS include district maintenance staff for budgeting, planning, and 

scheduling work. Users were trained by the contractor and VDOT. 

ICAS Data Collection 

VDOT collected information for 42 assets, including fences, ditches, and rest areas. ICAS was a 

complete assets inventory, fence line to fence line. It collected asset management data in the 

categories listed in table 5. 

Table 5. Virginia ICAS data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals √

Roadway Lighting √

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, and 

Lighting 

√

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and Treatments √

Detectors √

ICAS, now fully populated for the three pilot program counties, is being integrated with the RCA 

so that all data will reside in an Oracle spatial database. The database architecture is based on the 

NCHRP 20-27 data model. ICAS is fully integrated in the seven data categories in this study. 

Other AMS tools will be integrated with the AMS Oracle spatial database, including the 

following systems: 

• Bridge Management. 

• Pavement Management. 

• Virginia Operational Information. 

• Plant Mix Scheduling. 

• Security and Emergency Management. 

• Financial Management. 

24 
ICAS Quality Assurance 

The highway network centerlines were accurate to a precision of 3.05 m (10 ft), exceeding the 

VDOT specifications. This accuracy was evaluated against known control points established by 

an independent subcontractor. 

A robust QC process was implemented for the project. For the data collection, a double-blind test 

was conducted. After the collection was complete, random, separate QC segments were assigned 

to QC inspectors, who independently examined the assigned area. The results, which were 

overlaid on the production results to check the correlation, showed that the data collection was 

easily meeting contract requirements of +/− 5 percent accuracy at the 95 percent confidence 

level. A similar procedure was used for the image collection QC. 

The QC effort during the pilot was extensive. The use of the double-blind QC procedure, while 

ensuring independent data verification, was also expensive and time consuming. An independent 

project evaluation confirmed that the data were within accuracy requirements and that the QC 

procedures on the number of segments to sample could be reduced. 

VDOT administered a well-defined quality review process. Highway sections were selected at 

random and verified by onsite visual checks. Quality issues were discovered in the data 

collection process, operation of the software, and the data loading process. All issues were 

resolved and documented to VDOT’s satisfaction. This review provided the basis for acceptance 

of the data and determined eligibility for payments to the contractor. In summary, data quality 

issues were not a major problem in this project. 

ICAS Current Status and Future Plans 

The ICAS pilot was completed in November 2002. The three-county data collection activities are 

complete, but VDOT has decided not to expand ICAS statewide (it did use the concepts and 

knowledge learned to develop the Random Condition Assessment). Video-logged images are 

available on the VDOT intranet, and VDOT personnel have the capability to access data, update 

and add assets, and obtain reports and information from the system. The three county 

jurisdictions are keeping the ICAS data current. 

The ICAS fixed-price costs were itemized as follows: Pavement data, $3.8 million; Phase I, 

$7.9 million; and Phase 2, $25 million. The actual costs of work performed, which included the 

accelerated Phase II centerline delivery, totaled $18 million. Statewide centerline delivery cost 

was $7.7 million and asset data collection cost was $4.6 million. The largest contract 

modifications, not counting the centerlines, were for collecting additional mileage in the pilot 

counties (beyond the official VDOT record), changes to the data dictionary during data 

collection, and delays imposed by VDOT during data collection. 

The ICAS project came to administrative closure in November 2002. Having finished a review 

of the pilot project, VDOT executive management decided that, because of fiscal constraints, 

continued data collection for asset management would be addressed with in-house staff and 

resources. VDOT will continue to use the ICAS system and procedures adopted during the pilot 

to populate the required data. Project deliverables were finalized and the contract closed out. 

ICAS Useful Conclusions and Lessons Learned 

One of the greatest achievements of this project was the delivery of complete statewide 

centerlines for all VDOT roads and highways in the Commonwealth of Virginia—more than 

25 
111,044.74 km (69,000 centerline mi). Under ICAS, the State collected information on asset 

inventory and inventory condition and evaluated the technology. In most cases, the tools and 

technologies in this project delivered good functionality and demonstrated capabilities to provide 

asset inventory and condition data for asset management. 

The ICAS project provided VDOT with extensive information, knowledge, and documented 

processes. The following list summarizes a sample of the gain for VDOT: 

• A comprehensive inventory of highway-maintainable assets in three counties. 

• Processes for the consistent measurement of asset conditions. 

• A statewide process for managing asset information. 

• Modern tools and a database to access the information. 

• Support to multiple location-reference systems. 

• Statewide centerlines for the entire highway network. 

• Eighteen field data-collection units and related software licenses owned by VDOT. 

• VDOT staff gained the institutional knowledge of all the steps required to collect data and 

develop a highway network-based database. 

An essential lesson learned was that the system used in the data collection—backpack units with 

voice recognition software technology—worked extremely well and enhanced safety by 

providing appraisers with a heads-up and hands-free capability. In addition, the inspectors were 

able to collect both aboveground and belowground assets and attributes and effectively assess 

conditions. This approach allowed an accurate and complete asset inventory and a full condition 

assessment. 

The GPS location referencing equipment and software also were effective and enabled precise 

location of all assets. The system worked equally well with the field inspectors and van-based 

image collection technology. Having the data collected with spatial coordinates using GPS was 

fundamental to obtaining repeatable, verifiable, and accurate locations of assets. Raters were not 

required to know specifics such as official route number, milepost, or intersection and offset to 

locate their position. Having the assets tagged with spatial information also allowed linear 

referencing technologies to be used easily to integrate data from different sources in the 

relational database. 

Despite the success of the pilot and advantages to the system, there were several reasons that 

VDOT opted not to proceed to the next phase and take ICAS statewide: 

• Cost. The primary reason was the expense; it was a very expensive way to collect inventory 

data. 

• Video Quality. Although the quality of the video generally was good, quality was a concern, 

and improvements would have been necessary. 

• Completion Delay. Phase 1 completion took 300 percent longer than estimated, although 

change orders remained below 10 percent of the contract value. The pavement data portion of 

the project was deleted because of the exacting information required, the manual processes 

involved, and the state of the pavement evaluation technology at the time of the pilot. A 

26 
lesson learned was that the asset and attribute set must be determined and locked before data 

collection begins. In addition, this data set also should be based clearly on business needs. 

Asset Management System 

VDOT did not select COTS software in developing its AMS because it determined that COTS 

software would not be cost efficient unless its specifications were close to current VDOT 

practices and customs. With ongoing budget constraints and the lessons learned from the ICAS 

experience, cost-efficiency concerns had been brought into sharp focus and played a key role in 

this decision. 

As a result, VDOT chose to develop an AMS by revisiting the original requirements of the BPR 

effort. In contrast to the single COTS system envisioned in early efforts, VDOT staff divided the 

BPR requirements into a series of components that could be developed individually and 

integrated incrementally. The new AMS has six key components: 

• Random Condition Assessment (RCA). 

• Needs-Based Budget Request Module. 

• Planning and Scheduling Module. 

• Work Order and Accomplishment Module. 

• Inventory Module. 

• Analysis Tools Module. 

Through the BPR, VDOT envisioned the management of assets through their entire life cycle: 

condition assessment, planning, alternatives evaluation, project development, and 

implementation. Decision-support tools would provide resource management capabilities such as 

attributing financial, equipment, and human resource investments to specific groups of assets. 

These systems would also enable VDOT to manage the use of its assets and provide an 

integrated approach for managing information such as land use permits; hauling permits; routing 

traffic flow; and capacity, impact, trip, and travel analyses. 

Of the six planned modules, the first two are completed and the others are in different stages of 

development. Work on the first two components of the AMS—the Random Condition 

Assessment Module and the Needs-Based Budget Request Module—began in 2003. In 

developing these modules, VDOT followed a formal systems development process designed to 

provide consistency between the individual development efforts and verify that data required for 

the AMS are fully integrated. 

The AMS, which is entirely Web-based and requires only a standard Web browser, will, 

according to its documentation, “enable VDOT to more efficiently and effectively manage 

roadway assets.” Based on the results of a cost-benefit analysis of the AMS, VDOT expects a 

15 percent return on investment by 2006. This rate of return is possible because the system will 

enable VDOT to implement its management strategies, which includes the following objectives: 

• Maintain current, accurate data on inventory and condition. 

• Develop statewide maintenance budget requests based on needs identified during a formal 

condition assessment process. 

27 
• Plan and prioritize maintenance and operations work based on an understanding of available 

resources. 

• Improve the cost effectiveness of maintenance and operations activities. 

• Determine the effect of deferred maintenance strategies on network performance and 

resulting needs. 

• Maintain a record of work on an asset throughout its life cycle. 

• Automate aspects of maintenance management function that are currently performed 

manually. 

In addition, implementing the AMS will help bring VDOT into compliance with 

recommendations developed through an audit performed by the Virginia Joint Legislative Audit 

and Review Commission and a study conducted by the Virginia Auditor of Public Accounts. 

A description of the first AMS module, the Random Condition Assessment, follows. 

Random Condition Assessment System Description 

Development work on the RCA, the first module of the current VDOT asset management 

system, began in January 2003. 

The RCA is an inventory system with a statistically based random sampling approach for manual 

data collection. The RCA data are used to compute an unconstrained, needs-based budget to 

maintain infrastructure and VDOT assets. It includes the condition of the highway system based 

on extrapolating conditions of the random sample of the roadways. VDOT has the capability to 

extract cost information from its financial management system to support the needs-based budget 

analysis. 

The RCA contains nonpavement and nonbridge assets and focuses on pipes and drainage, 

roadside, and traffic features. The protocol for districts is to collect inventory and condition data 

in preselected 0.161 km (0.10 mi) sections of the roadways. VDOT rates all assets within the 

0.161 km (0.10 mi). 

The RCA system includes a built-in help menu with definition of asset types and helpful asset 

pictures such as cantilever and regulatory sign types in the help menu. The menu items for signs 

include sign type, age, and number of panels. For each data entry, there is a comment field for 

the appraiser. 

RCA provides a drop-down menu of choices from which the appraiser selects. For example, 

under signs, “post damage” and “panels missing” are among the options. Appraisers are 

equipped with a computerized system, either a laptop or hand-held devices, and download 

information daily when they return to their offices. Appraisers use standard forms, and data entry 

is done using a touch screen application on a PC. Appraisers are field people who, on average, 

hold a 2-year college degree. 

On the interstate system, VDOT captured approximately 1,800 0.161-km (0.10-mi) sections out 

of 2,200 directional miles of Interstate roads. On primary and secondary roads, VDOT has 

captured 3,690 0.161 km (0.10 mi) sections. The approximate sampling rate in the RCI includes: 

28 
• 10 percent to 15 percent of interstate roads in the State. 

• 3 percent to 4 percent of primary roads. 

• 1 percent of secondary roads. 

Using the RCA system, data for 9,000 statewide sites were collected by June 2003. The process 

was repeated in spring 2004. 

All RCA concepts are developed on an incremental basis in-house by the VDOT Asset 

Management Division, which is working closely with the IT department in developing RCA. The 

Asset Management Division has defined the system business application and needs, and the IT 

department performs system development. The IT department supports the Asset Management 

Division, and they are well coordinated and integrated. All work is performed in-house. 

RCA is an Oracle-based database system on a PC platform. The graphic user interface is built 

with a drop-down, menu-based system. 

The primary users of the RCA data are the district maintenance staff. Other users include State 

and district budget managers. To train these users, VDOT formed focus groups for each district 

and trained the focus groups at a central location. 

Random Condition Assessment System Data Collection Efforts

Table 6 lists the categories of VDOT RCA data collected. 

Table 6. Virginia RCA data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, √

Signals, and Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and Treatments √

Detectors – 

Relevant data from various systems are being processed and imported into a data repository. 

VDOT is proceeding with this work without fully understanding the details of what the target 

asset management system will look like. For example, the final AMS may consist of a series of 

individual tools, or it may resemble a comprehensive enterprise resource planning system that 

was once proposed. It is anticipated that if all relevant data are cleansed, normalized, and stored 

in a single data repository, VDOT can export data to any future system. 

This strategy provides VDOT with great flexibility in designing the final AMS. The design will 

continue to evolve based on organizational requirements, funding availability, and emerging 

technologies. In the meantime, this approach has enabled VDOT to make significant progress 

29 
both in developing individual maintenance decision-support tools and integrating maintenance 

data without waiting for the final details of the comprehensive AMS to be developed. 

The RCA will be fully integrated to the other modules of the VDOT asset management system, 

including ICAS and two other systems: 

• Bridge Management. 

• Pavement Management (PMS). 

The RCA general confidence level statewide stands at 95 percent. This level varies by 5 percent 

to more than 10 percent for various locations and asset types. 

Random Condition Assessment System Current System Status and Future Plans 

VDOT has entered approximately 20 to 25 of the 42 assets per selected 0.161-km (0.10-mi) 

section into the database. 

In 2003, VDOT completed the first two components of the AMS: the Random Condition 

Assessment Module and the Needs-Based Budget Request Module. Based on the success of this 

initial effort, the agency proceeded to develop the Planning Module and a New Work Order and 

Accomplishment module. Four of its six modules have been developed at this time and are in 

various production and implementation stages. It is expected that the remaining modules are to 

be developed before the end of 2005. 

Looking beyond this next milestone, VDOT will work to integrate the AMS with the 

Commonwealth’s statewide GIS. Also, to date the scope of the VDOT AMS has been focused on 

maintenance and operations. It is anticipated that, when work is completed in these areas, the 

system may be further enhanced to provide additional decision support for the VDOT equipment 

program. 

VDOT has learned not to rely on a single-vendor solution, but instead to pursue open standards 

as much as possible. The agency is interested in implementing standards that may emerge from 

the National Spatial Data Infrastructure Framework Project in the transportation data layer. 

VDOT is also coordinating with the I-95 Corridor Coalition on a regional multistate 

transportation network for the interstate and State routes. The department is also embracing 

Web-based services and views Internet map servers as an integral part of its enterprise 

architecture. VDOT anticipates that in the future more services will be accessed remotely 

through the Internet including data uploads from local handheld computers, and provide the 

ability to query data and applications in the field, perhaps using wireless communications. The 

rapid changes in technology require a flexible, open-systems approach. VDOT is conscious of 

the need to take small steps to take advantage of these improvements in the context of an 

enterprise data architecture. 

VDOT has already used results from the Needs-Based Budget Request Module of its 

infrastructure AMS in presentations to its executive board and members of the General 

Assembly. Although there is much work to be done, VDOT’s ability to get meaningful 

information into the hands of decisionmakers has solidified support for further enhancements and 

provided a glimpse of the power of a fully developed AMS. 

The initial RCA cost for the first 3 months was approximately $300,000. The 2.5-year total RCA 

cost is expected to be in the low million-dollar range. 

30 
OTHER DOT CASE STUDIES 

A number of State DOTs have implemented asset management systems with various levels of 

integration. A selected number of these States are featured in the following paragraphs, in 

alphabetical order. 

California Department of Transportation 

Inventory Maintenance Management System Description 

In 1990, following an independent review of business processes in the Maintenance Division of 

the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans), it was determined that the systems were 

not adequate for the increasingly complex needs of the division. For example, field crews were 

required to enter extensive time, material, and equipment reporting data (FA83 and HM85) 

manually on duplicate screens. In addition, short- and long-term management information was 

not readily available and was often not timely or reliable. 

The Caltrans Division of Maintenance planned the Inventory Maintenance Management System 

(IMMS) to improve internal operations. The initial phase of the IMMS project was to replace the 

Caltrans Maintenance Management System (MMS), a time reporting system where sign and 

lighting information was maintained, and its follow-on Maintenance Management System 

Improved (MMSI) with asset management software. The Caltrans Division of Maintenance 

provided expertise and input to modify the software product to suit the needs of its users. 

IMMS was tailored to meet the specific needs of the division. Following is a list of tasks the 

IMMS team accomplished: 

• Identified business needs and determined how IMMS could best accommodate them. 

• Configured (or customized) IMMS to meet those needs. 

• Reviewed business issues such as special designations and production units. 

• Loaded data into IMMS. 

• Developed training and implementation materials to make the transition from MMS/MMSI 

to IMMS and the new way of doing business as easy as possible. 

• Used resources from Headquarters, Information Systems and Service Center, districts, 

regions, and contractors to work together for a successful implementation. 

IMMS is a COTS software developed by a California company. After a competitive bidding 

process, the State awarded the development of IMMS in 1996. The general specifications of 

IMMS were set by the Department of Information Technology, and a computer application was 

selected as the core of IMMS. 

The IMMS system is mostly based on reports on time tracking and individual assets, and it has 

limited built-in reporting. IMMS contains some cost data but comprises mostly individual data 

elements. 

The key function of the Caltrans Maintenance Division is to perform work activities on Caltransmaintained assets such as lights, signals, bridges, landscape areas, and the roadway. The Caltrans 

IMMS is designed to track time, material, and equipment. One feature of the system captures 

how much time the crew worked on each job. Work performance items listed in IMMS include 

31 
day labor work order, input/output, and inventory order. IMMS is designed to give supervisors 

access to detailed information about each asset, where it is located on the roadway, and work 

being performed on the asset. 

Following is a list of the planned benefits of IMMS: 

• Provide the Maintenance Division with access to real-time data. 

• Allow more effective monitoring and control of materials by improving the accuracy of data 

that are entered and stored. 

• Make it easier to generate reports, enabling staff to receive inventory reports instantly instead 

of filling out a request and waiting for the data. 

• Eliminate the need for users to enter duplicate information on multiple systems. 

• Reduce the amount of time users spend on administrative tasks such as re-creating 

information that has already been collected. 

• Make it easier for users to effectively coordinate large projects involving multiple crews. 

• Allow users to easily determine where equipment is located and who is using it. 

• Provide a central repository for information at all levels, better enabling headquarters to 

justify the need for more resources. 

IMMS comprises three primary elements. The first element is the computer program at the core 

of IMMS. All users access this program to create work orders, enter time and work information, 

adjust working stock, and view information about IMMS assets. 

The second element is the IMMS database. When a user views information or enters data into 

IMMS, the data are accessed directly at the IMMS database located at headquarters in 

Sacramento. All information entered is stored in this database. Users throughout the State can 

input information directly into the IMMS database through one of 11 servers. 

These 11 servers and a Citrix® access program work together to form the third element of IMMS. 

Citrix directs all information moving to and from the database to one of the servers. IMMS uses 

multiple servers to handle high volume periods, when supervisors throughout the State may be 

accessing IMMS at the same time. This helps in entering all information updates quickly and 

providing easy access to the information. 

A key feature of the IMMS is the Roadway Feature Viewer. The IMMS Roadway Feature 

Viewer (Viewer) provides a convenient way for supervisors to scrutinize information about a 

roadway; for example, supervisors can easily see the locations of assets along the roadway and 

either view information about work being performed on an asset or create a work order for the 

asset. In addition, they can view the location of work being performed on a portion of the 

roadway and have access to information about the roadway itself, such as the number of lanes or 

speed limit. 

A supervisor who is planning work for a specific section of roadway can check the Viewer to see 

if other work is being performed at or near the location. This alerts the supervisor to conflicts or 

help to coordinate the sharing of resources more easily. 

The IMMS implementation was planned for three phases: 

32 
• Phase 1, Go-Live Preparation. In each district, the IMMS team planned for the 

implementation in a district by conducting several preparation activities. The IMMS team 

worked side-by-side throughout implementation with a team of district staff that provided 

expertise to help a smooth transition to IMMS. These efforts included: 

− Meetings to kick off the district’s implementation were held to provide information to 

users about IMMS, its benefits, and what users can expect during implementation. 

− Workshops with users to explain how daily business practices will change with IMMS. 

During these workshops, adjustments to the new business practices were made so that 

they meet the needs of users in each district. 

− A readiness assessment, or survey, was conducted before implementation to ensure that 

all of the activities necessary for a successful implementation were indeed completed in 

the district and that IMMS was ready to go live. 

− Installation of the IMMS software program on users’ computers. The software was also 

tested to ensure it was working properly. 

• Phase 2, Go-Live Phase. The IMMS team performed the implementation and verified that 

IMMS ran smoothly. The IMMS team worked with each supervisor to conduct a working 

stock inventory to verify that the IMMS parts count was accurate and updated. In addition, 

users, primarily superintendents, supervisors, lead workers, and select headquarters, district, 

and region staff, were trained before implementation. To the extent possible, users were 

trained in groups based on their jobs (such as regional staff or superintendents), and crew 

type (such as electrical or landscape supervisors). Superintendents, supervisors, and lead 

workers were trained together during a 4-day class; district and regional staff were combined 

for 2 days of training; and a group of headquarters staff were to receive 2 days of training 

during pilot implementation. 

• Phase 3, Post-Implementation Phase. The IMMS team supported users in each district. After 

implementation, users in the district who were designated IMMS experts, or super-users, 

were available to provide ongoing support to other users in their district. A dedicated IMMS 

help desk was also made available during and after each district implementation. 

Inventory Maintenance Management System Data Collection 

IMMS is an Oracle-based system. The software selection was based on department policy to use 

Oracle and Oracle-compatible software so that different systems can interchange data. 

All electric power systems are in IMMS, including luminaries, signals, ramp meters, flashers, 

cameras, message signs, all lighting, tunnel lighting, and loop detectors. Table 7 lists the 

categories of California IMMS data collected. 

33 
Table 7. California IMMS data collected.

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs – 

Signals √

Roadway Lighting √

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, and – Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers – 

Pavement Markings and Treatments – 

Detectors √

Although data entry is planned, Caltrans has not completed it because of the State’s current 

budget constraints. 

Caltrans recognizes the need for coordination between IMMS and other systems such as the 

Pavement Management System and Bridge Management System, but is not budgeted for 

activities soon.

The department is maintaining the previous generation of its asset management system (MMS) 

until IMMS is fully populated. During the transition, the State will maintain two parallel 

systems, which are anticipated to be in existence for many years. 

Inventory Maintenance Management System Quality Assurance 

The IMMS team tested the application software and IMMS data to verify that IMMS meets the 

needs of all users. Following are descriptions of the types of testing performed: 

• Functional testing to verify that the application software works correctly. 

• Performance testing to verify that IMMS can handle many people using it at the same time. 

• User acceptance testing to determine if IMMS meets the business needs of the Maintenance 

Division. 

• Integrated systems testing to determine if the functions a user would perform in a typical day, 

including interfaces with other systems, work properly. 

Inventory Maintenance Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The final phase of IMMS implementation concluded in June 2003. All the districts are now using 

the software. 

There is no allocated budget for IMMS future development, although one of the future 

development plans for IMMS includes wireless data entry for inventory. 

Following is a list of some of the needed IMMS improvements identified by the Caltrans 

Maintenance Division: 

34 
• Set report query rights for the staff. 

• Improve the reporting system. 

• Make the system more accessible to users. 

• Improve help desk service. 

Florida Department of Transportation 

The tremendous volumes of data that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) is 

responsible for keeping track of and regularly updating led to the development of a tool to more 

easily manage the department’s asset information. The Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI) 

System was created in response to this data management need. The district and central offices 

within the FDOT maintain the RCI, which is the largest department database with more than 1 

million records. The database is updated daily to reflect the most current information available. 

Roadway Characteristics Inventory System Description 

The Roadway Characteristics Inventory (RCI) system is a computerized database of physical and 

administrative data related to the roadway networks that are either maintained by or are of 

special interest to the FDOT. The RCI also contains other data as required for special Federal 

and State reporting obligations. Some of the specific items that the RCI database includes are 

roadway signs, traffic signals, pavement markings and treatments, guardrails, and barriers. The 

system currently tracks assets in the Department of Maintenance and Traffic Operations Control, 

including roadway lighting, structural supports, and detectors. 

RCI uses the following data categories: 

• Roadway Identification. The road system designation in RCI is based on an eight-digit 

identifier called a Roadway ID. Mile points associated with a Roadway ID represent specific 

locations or physical points on the road. Mile points typically start at the Begin Mile Point 

with a value of 0.00 and accumulate to the End Mile Point of the Roadway ID. 

• RCI Roadway Features. A feature is a general grouping of physical attributes of a roadway 

identified by a unique three-digit number and name. Different types of features include 

administrative, geometric, and operation and maintenance data, and the types may refer 

either to points or extended lengths. 

• RCI Roadway Characteristics. A characteristic is a specific element of the roadway 

identified by a unique name up to eight characters long. Roadway characteristics can be 

thought of as components of a roadway feature, such as shoulder width and shoulder type for 

a shoulder feature. Besides these values, characteristics can include information such as the 

units of measurement or distance from centerline. 

The primary users of the RCI include the FDOT Traffic Operations, Pavement Management, 

Maintenance, Work Program, Safety, and Statistics Departments. Limited access is also given to 

department consultants. Access for consultants to the RCI database requires authorization from 

the various division managers in FDOT. 

FDOT offers training classes for internal use of the RCI database every several months when a 

number of new employees are qualified for the training and express an interest in taking it. 

35 
Roadway Characteristics Inventory System Data Collection 

Table 8 lists major asset data categories collected for the RCI database. 

Table 8. Florida RCI data collected.

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals √

Roadway Lighting √

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, √

and Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and Treatments √

Detectors √

Each feature listed above has multiple characteristics such as pavement index, condition, and 

roughness. The database population depends on the availability of information from the field, not 

RCI system limitations. FDOT has entered all available data for the RCI system in the three data 

categories—identification, features, and characteristics. 

At the time of this writing, FDOT was in the process of implementing a Web-based system for 

accessing the RCI database. Access is limited to mainframe use onsite at FDOT offices statewide 

and, although the data will continue to reside on these mainframe computers, remote access over 

the Internet will be available for authorized individuals. 

The database is maintained by department computer personnel, with access by specified 

personnel from the district and central offices. At this writing, PCs are used as terminal 

emulators, but following the anticipated launch of the Web-based access system, laptops will be 

used for Web access. The system will be capable of allowing users to view data directly or 

download to various spreadsheets or database software. 

Roadway Characteristics Inventory System Quality Assurance 

A quality control plan for the RCI data is administered by the district office and reviewed by the 

central office. Quality assurance reviews (QARs) are conducted by the Transportation Statistics 

Office (TranStat) staff working with the district office. QARs are intended to monitor activities 

and demonstrate compliance with approved department policies, procedures, rules, guidelines, 

and standards. 

TranStat conducts QARs in each district at least biennially to determine compliance with the 

critical requirements identified in the General Interest Roadway Data Quality Assurance 

Monitoring Plan defined in the District QC Plan for Highway Data Reporting. 

The district assists TranStat personnel in conducting QARs by providing the following resources: 

• A licensed driver and a vehicle that can accommodate a minimum of four people and is 

equipped with a distance-measuring instrument. 

36 
• An additional person knowledgeable in the program being reviewed to accompany the team 

and answer questions. This person may also serve as the additional driver, if an additional 

vehicle is required. 

• Documentation on the roadways and counties selected for review including construction 

notices, highway performance monitoring system (HPMS) sample locator maps, inventory 

schedules, county section number key sheets, and straight line diagrams. 

After the field review is completed, TranStat staff conducts an exit interview with the district 

secretary or designee and other personnel. TranStat uses district feedback and review team 

observations and findings to determine the effectiveness of data collection processes to make 

recommendations to improve district or TranStat processes, or both. When requested, and with 

district input and support, the TranStat staff develop recommendations for appropriate processoriented remedial actions in areas of noncompliance. 

TranStat tracks the district’s Action Plan and conducts follow up field and office reviews on 

areas of noncompliance. In addition, TranStat provides details of discrepancies found during the 

QAR within 30 calendar days of the exit interview. The details of the discrepancies include 

documentation of the deficiencies by roadway identification and a milepost range. 

Roadway Characteristics Inventory System Current Status and Future Plans 

FDOT has populated the database with all available data for the RCI system. The database is 

updated daily when the department obtains new or modified information. The RCI database 

resides on the department mainframe computer system, and it is maintained by department 

computer personnel from the district and central offices. 

The FDOT Office of Information Systems (OIS) is in charge of operating and maintaining the 

database with assistance of contractors directed by OIS staff. 

The cost of operating and maintaining the RCI database is difficult to estimate because it has 

been ongoing for several years and continues with frequent updates. 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

The Georgia Department of Transportation (GDOT) has several asset management systems in 

place including the Traffic Signal Inventory Program, Highway Sign Management System 

(HSMS), and the Highway Maintenance Management System (HMMS), which is similar to the 

MMS being developed by the Tennessee DOT discussed later in this chapter. The GDOT 

systems are not integrated. 

As in many States, fiscal constraints play a significant role in the ability of GDOT to complete its 

asset management systems using integrated databases or technologically current data collection 

methods. As a result, GDOT must move incrementally toward the initial effort to populate its 

databases with current asset information, let alone proceed with systems integration. 

Highway Sign Management System Description 

GDOT HSMS is a comprehensive database capable of storing detailed information about State 

DOT signs. The system, built by a contractor, is fully developed but not populated with data. 

37 
The system features include barcoding, stock inventory, and roadside inventory options. A userfriendly menu bar is designed to access the modules. The File, Reports, and System 

Administration options on the menu bar include drop-down menus of more options. 

When a new sign is manufactured, a barcode label containing all the information describing the 

sign is printed and affixed to it. For old signs, a generic barcode label can be printed that only 

contains a unique barcode key. The information about the old sign is requested when the sign is 

scanned into inventory. Following is a list of designated fields in the HSMS: 

• Height in inches. 

• Width in inches. 

• Size in square feet. 

• Fabrication date. 

• Warranty date. 

• Cost. 

• Substrate material. 

• Sheeting manufacturer. 

• Legend sheeting type. 

• Background sheeting type. 

• Legend color. 

• Background color. 

In the case of special signs, the following data are collected for each line of text on the sign: line, 

text, font series, font size, size in inches, legend colors, background colors, and application 

method. 

Data screens on the roadside inventory all share certain features, including the top portion of the 

screen, which displays the assembly information, and the buttons on the left side of the screen, 

which allow the user to navigate to and from five data screens—assembly location detail, 

assembly inspection, sign position, sign detail, and sign inspection. 

Figure 9 is a screen capture of a sample assembly detail screen. This is the introductory screen 

used for the roadside inventory data screens because it is the first screen a user sees when 

selecting an assembly. 

38 
Figure 9. Screen capture. Georgia DOT HSMS sample data screen. 

Highway Sign Management System Data Collection 

Table 9 lists the categories of Georgia HSMS data collected. The database includes location of 

sign, GPS, milepost, location on left or right side of the road, type of sign, height, lateral offset to 

the bottom, fabrication, and installation date. 

Table 9. Georgia HSMS data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, – 

and Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers – 

Pavement Markings and Treatments – 

Detectors – 

The HSMS is completely in place, but is not populated with data, nor is it correlated to HMMS. 

Highway Sign Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The HSMS is fully developed. GDOT intends to develop a plan to populate the database, but the 

process will be incremental. Fiscal constraint is the primary reason the sign data have not been 

entered in this completed system. Because the State is moving to a digital photo log system, the 

HSMS could be tied to a GIS if funding permits. 

39 
Maryland State Highway Administration 

The Maryland State Highway Administration (MDSHA) does not use a single, integrated, 

computerized database for all roadway characteristics. There are a number of databases kept by 

various operating divisions to inventory and report on the assets under their responsibility. These 

databases are integrated as necessary through a shared route system based on the roadway 

inventory used for internal and Federal reporting requirements. The route system uses a standard 

key and mile points relating each of the ancillary systems to it and to one another. 

Highway Management Information System and Roadway Route System Description 

The data source for roadway information is the Highway Management Information System 

(HMIS) maintained by the database management section of the Highway Information Services 

Division. Roadway data are collected by inventory crews and integrated with data supplied by 

local county governments. The information gathered and maintained by the system is used for 

reporting and mapping support within and outside MDSHA. It is also the information base from 

which the intelligent GIS roadway route system was developed and is maintained. The HMIS 

also supports reporting for the Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS). 

By facilitating the reporting and map display of their data on a graphical roadway map, the GIS 

Roadway Route System serves as an integrating function for databases maintained by Bridge, 

Pavement, Signal Operations, Accident Reporting, and Project Planning divisions. 

The HMIS is updated as requested data are received from county governments and verified as 

part of the inventory process. The system resides on a Windows 2000 server running an Oracle 

database, as are the large databases maintained by other divisions. Smaller databases are 

maintained on Windows 2000 workstations running Microsoft® Access. The GIS Roadway 

Route System is also maintained on a Windows 2000 server running Oracle. 

The GIS Roadway Route System is designed to provide linear referencing capability using single 

line work for all Interstate, U.S., Maryland, and major county routes based on the FHWA 

functional classification; that is, all roads are referenced except for urban and rural local roads.(4)

The State is responsible for the maintenance of the core systems that support and integrate the 

data for the operating division; that is, the HMIS and the GIS Roadway Route System. 

Contractors are used to aid the development of new applications and also perform some 

continuing daily functions such as roadway inventory and cartography. 

Users of the various systems integrated by the GIS Roadway Route System are the direct users, 

who update and maintain the system application databases, and the indirect users, or customers, 

who use the data from these databases in conducting MDSHA business. 

The Roadway Inventory (HMIS) supports the GIS Roadway Route System and integrates data 

from the other systems. The GIS Roadway Route System, in turn, supports a GIS Data Viewer 

application that facilitates map display, printing, and reporting of HPMS. Additional elements 

supported include pavement, bridge, accident, signals, and highway needs inventory data on 

more than 450 desktops across the State. 

The GIS staff continually seeks opportunities to facilitate the use of the GIS Roadway Route 

System as an integrating tool, and staff members serve as internal consultants to any department 

or individual with a need to display or report on data that can be spatially enabled. They also 

provide as-needed training for the GIS Data Viewer. 

40 
Highway Management Information System Data Collection 

The HMIS master file contains records to store each intersecting feature by route number and 

mile point. Features include, but are not limited to, intersecting routes, municipal and county 

boundaries, bridges, cultural features, some private roads, and road ends and cul-de-sacs. 

The Universe file contains roadway section data designated by route number, beginning mile 

point, and section length to support internal reporting and HPMS requirements. Data such as 

median width and type, number of lanes, shoulder type and width, pavement type, average 

annual daily traffic (AADT) and other characteristics are maintained. 

GIS Roadway Route System Data Collection 

This system contains graphical line work and attribution to support the use of linear referencing 

of other data sets to the roadway base. The system line work is based on intersection-tointersection, and it is calibrated using intersecting roadway feature mile point measures, as 

determined by roadway inventory data from the HMIS. 

Databases relate to the GIS Roadway Route System using a standard key: 

• HPMS. Section data from the universe portion of the HMIS are mapped and reported using 

the route system. 

• Accidents. Detail and summary statistical data for accidents are reported and mapped. 

Information such as accident time, weather conditions, roadway conditions, and other 

accident characteristics are made available on a controlled, need-to-know basis. 

• Bridge. This database maintains inventory and analytical data on bridges and smaller 

structures for interested users within MDSHA throughout the State. 

• Pavement. Roadway pavement characteristics and ride quality data (collected by the 

Pavement Division) are maintained for use by other divisions of MDSHA, such as Project 

Planning and Highway Maintenance. 

• Highway Needs Inventory. This database provides a tracking and long-term look at roadway 

projects under study but not yet funded. 

• Signals. An ongoing inventory of traffic control devices and their attributes can also be 

mapped and related to other databases through the GIS Roadway Route System. 

Table 10 lists the asset categories of data collected in the Maryland GIS Roadway Route System. 

41 
Table 10. Maryland GIS Roadway Route System data collected.

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs – 

Signals √

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, – 

and Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers – 

Pavement Markings and Treatments – 

Detectors – 

All of the databases mentioned are mature and have been in use for a number of years. The 

HMIS in particular has evolved from a paper system through several generations of computer 

system technology. Most of the other systems have evolved in a similar way. 

The HMIS recently completed a reengineering process that has introduced improved technology 

to provide better data and more efficient operation. Many of the changes were in direct response 

to the needs of the GIS Roadway Route system to support the increasing needs of its users and 

the other divisions who maintain data sets for their own information requirements. The GIS 

section has a Web-based application to supply roadway video-log images using a map-based 

interface. The application is being enhanced to provide aerial photography or roadway video for 

a specific set of project limits through an enhanced map and textual interface. 

All of these database applications reside on Windows 2000 servers or workstations and Oracle 9i

or Microsoft Access 2002, depending on hardware platform. The applications are accessed using 

client-server technology; however, several Web-based applications are in development, and 

others are in the planning stage. 

Highway Management Information System and Roadway Route System Quality Assurance 

As new roads are added to the public highway system, roadway inventory information is 

supplied by local governments. State highway personnel then field-verify the information, 

collecting various attribute information and GPS data. After this field data are returned to 

headquarters, aerial imagery is used to QA the GPS data. QA is also performed by offices that 

maintain other data sets such as bridges, pavement, traffic devices, and accidents. 

Highway Management Information System and Roadway Route System Current Status 

and Future Plans 

A project has been undertaken to enhance the GIS Roadway Route System to include all roads in 

the State, including all local roads, ramps, collector-distributors, auxiliary lanes, and both sides 

of divided highways. This project required lengthening the standard identification key field from 

13 to 36 characters to accommodate the required additional coding. 

42 
The GIS Roadway Route System enhancement, including divided highways, collectordistributors, and all locally maintained routes, is proceeding with the cooperation and help of 

many county governments. This effort will produce a route system that provides location 

services based on linear referencing and address geocoding to all State departments and county 

governments as well. 

The various systems have been in place for many years and have undergone much change. Cost 

data for ongoing maintenance and periodic enhancement are unavailable. 

Traffic Structure Inventory Inspection and Maintenance System Description 

After reviewing asset management systems in use at VDOT and the Delaware Department of 

Transportation, the MDSHA Office of Bridges determined those systems could not meet its 

needs without reworking. MDSHA contracted with consultants to provide an automated structure 

inventory system that could also track maintenance and inspection activities. This automated 

system is the Traffic Structure Inventory Inspection and Maintenance (TSIIM) system. 

The data fields and structure components captured by the TSIIM system were determined after 

numerous meetings and reviews of the MDSHA DOS-based database, its paper inventories, and 

inspection forms previously filed. 

TSIIM comprises three components: TSIIM Inspector, TSIIM Manager, and TSIIM Online. 

TSIIM Inspector is written on a desktop database platform (Microsoft Access with a Visual 

Basic front-end) for portability. The TSIIM Inspector consists of modules for Sign Structures and 

High Mast Light Poles with development of modules for Bridge-Mounted Signs and Signals 

planned. TSIIM Manager will be developed later on an Oracle platform, and it will have the 

ability to check-in and check-out structures for inspection and compare history. TSIIM Online 

will be developed to allow those interested in traffic structure inventory or its inspection data to 

search, review, and print a limited set of information about the structures on the MDSHA 

intranet. 

The TSIIM is run on Intel® processor-based PCs using a Microsoft Windows NT/2000/XP 

platform with a Crystal Reports® Runtime engine and Visual Basic Runtime libraries. 

The primary users of TSIIM are in the Structures Team of the Traffic Engineering Design 

Division. A training session was arranged to train teams who are inspecting structures and 

populating the database. 

43 
Traffic Structure Inventory Inspection and Maintenance System Data Collection 

Table 11 lists the categories of Maryland TSIIM data collected. 

Table 11. Maryland TSIIM data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs – 

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting (high mast only) √

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, √

and Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers – 

Pavement Markings and Treatments – 

Detectors – 

Data for nearly 250 of the 2,500 traffic sign structures (cantilever and overhead) have been 

entered in the system. All of the data will be populated by 2008. 

At present, inspectors input their own data sets into the system. The data reviewer at MDSHA 

calls up those data sets by double-clicking on them. The Structures Team reviews the TSIIM data 

before a data set is populated. 

Traffic Structure Inventory Inspection and Maintenance System Current Status and 

Future Plans 

The system is being used by several consultants under a 5-year system inspection contract. The 

consultants’ efforts will be assisted by the use of data collected by the State field inspection staff. 

Integration between data sets and historical data support is planned for when the TSIIM Manager 

is developed. Other plans are to integrate with the GIS base maps maintained by the MDSHA 

Highway Information Systems Division and to integrate with the MDSHA intranet, allowing 

limited data query and printing capabilities. 

Future development includes upgrade to an extensible generic asset inventory, inspection, and 

maintenance data management program. The development will integrate data from all inspection 

teams. Further enhancement will allow for the check-in and check-out of this data for repeat 

inspections and provide historical data review and optimal fund allocation analyses. 

For TSIIM Online, an intranet interface to the inventory and inspection data for general use 

within SHA will be further developed. These components will also interface with GIS. 

44 
Minnesota Department of Transportation 

Automated Facilities Management System Description 

The Minnesota Department of Transportation (Mn/DOT) Automated Facilities Management 

System (AFMS) is used to track the Electrical Services Section maintenance activities. AFMS 

also coordinates requests for materials and work produced by the Mn/DOT Metro Division and 

the eight district traffic offices overseen by Mn/DOT. The AFMS is limited to traffic signals and 

other electric/electronic facilities that Mn/DOT owns, operates, or maintains. 

The AFMS is used by the districts to order equipment, maintain the history of maintenance calls, 

summarize work orders, and keep track of the maintenance activities at each intersection. AFMS 

is also used as the system of record for State One Call (Miss Utility) verifications. 

The software enables the districts to enter a work request that includes a summary of the work 

order, work order requirements, assigned employees, vehicle use, components, fiber test, and 

loop test. 

The AFMS was developed by Mn/DOT more than 10 years ago with the goal of cost effectively 

and efficiently managing the asset classes covered by the system. The original software was an 

MS DOS-based system, which has since been converted to MS Windows. AFMS project 

challenges have included the implementation and user friendliness of the software. 

The primary users of the AFMS are the districts. User training for the rollout of AFMS V2.0 was 

conducted during October 2002 at the Mn/DOT Central Shop in Fort Snelling, MN. 

Mn/DOT completed a pilot study of a video-based system in 1999. The Sign Inventory System 

captured signs and guardrail data in the Rochester District, one of the eight districts under 

Mn/DOT responsibility. 

The video scanning was performed using proprietary software. Mn/DOT decided not to pursue 

the project or expand it statewide because of concerns over the cost of development and 

maintenance for the software. The pilot study cost for partial data collection was approximately 

$167,000. In addition, the software, developed in 1999 was not Y2K compliant. 

Automated Facilities Management System Data Collection 

Table 12 lists the data categories that are collected by AFMS. 

Table 12. Minnesota AFMS data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs – 

Signals √

Roadway Lighting √

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, and – Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers – 

Pavement Markings and Treatments – 

Detectors – 

45 
All signals and lighting systems on State highways are in the database, but, the AFMS is not 

integrated with the other Mn/DOT asset management systems. 

A contractor was retained to develop the customized AFMS V2.0 software. AFMS is an Oracle 

client-server database application that is run on MS Windows-based software. The system was 

originally an MS DOS-based system designed as a two-tier client-server application to operate 

on Mn/DOT in-house local and wide area networks. The IT department has managed the 

conversion to MS Windows. 

The hardware is based on a database server with Oracle Forms running on an existing runtime 

environment on client machines. The client operating system is NT/2000/XP, and the server is 

non-OS specific. 

Automated Facilities Management System Quality Assurance 

A QA plan was filed as part of the standard project deliverables for AFMS V2.0. This document, 

available on request, describes the participants and procedures. 

Automated Facilities Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The AFMS is fully populated, and new data entry is performed manually. No major 

enhancements are planned. The estimated cost of the current production system is $191,800 for 

AFMS V2.0. 

Tennessee Department of Transportation 

Tennessee Department of Transportation (TDOT) conducted a survey in February 2000 to 

research the available asset management systems in other DOTs. The results of the survey were 

used in developing the plans for the State’s next generation asset management system. A 

summary of the State survey results can be downloaded from the TDOT Web site at 

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Engineer/assistant_engineer_operations/maintenance/MMS.ht

m

TDOT has two asset management systems in place: 

• Tennessee Road Information Management System (TRIMS). 

• Maintenance Management System (MMS). 

Data reside on TRIMS as the first level of the asset management system. The MMS is the next 

level of the asset management system, which is under development. 

Tennessee Road Information Management System Description 

TRIMS is an enterprise transportation database owned and maintained by the TDOT, and it was 

developed to improve cost effective and efficient asset management. The TRIMS Oracle 

database contains information on each public road in Tennessee, totaling more than 136,794 

km (85,000 mi) of roadway. The PowerBuilder® interface allows users to query inventory data, 

digital photographs, road mileage, documents, digital plans, and scanned documents. TRIMS 

also has a graphic interface, which offers map-based queries and displays information on maps, 

providing a more effective tool for planners and engineers. 

TRIMS functionality supports the following Federal and State mandates for TDOT: 

46 
• HPMS. 

• Annual Bridge Report. 

• County local bridge grant program. 

• High crash location listing. 

• Roadway deficiency studies. 

• Railroad grade crossing priority listing. 

• GASB 34. 

TRIMS was developed by a transportation asset management and visualization products 

company in Huntsville, AL. The TRIMS system in TDOT headquarters runs from an application 

server configuration. In the regions and districts, TRIMS runs from a client-server configuration. 

The software is Oracle-based software running on Windows NT and Windows 2000 

Professional. 

The TRIMS project experienced excellent coordination and support with the IT department. 

TDOT has assessed the common tools for design, development, and project tracking as being 

very useful. 

The system is in use by field staff to plan and execute work and by office staff to manage needed 

maintenance and develop analyses in support of budget requests. TDOT has developed an 

internal guide to the TRIMS system to familiarize users with the TRIMS hardware, network, 

operating system, database, and intranet/Internet connections.(5)

Tennessee Road Information Management System Data Collection 

Table 13 lists the categories of TDOT TRIMS data collected. 

Table 13. TDOT TRIMS data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, and – Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and Treatments √

Detectors – 

TRIMS features the following information: 

• Accidents. 

47 
• City boundaries. 

• County boundaries. 

• Elevation alignments. 

• Geometrics. 

• Horizontal alignment. 

• Maintenance features. 

• Maintenance inventory. 

• Railroad crossings. 

• Rivers. 

• Road history. 

• Road segments. 

• Road descriptions. 

• Route features. 

• State boundaries. 

• Structures. 

• Surface conditions. 

• Traffic. 

• Urban boundaries. 

• Vertical alignments. 

The State plans to integrate TRIMS into the MMS. TRIMS is compatible with the Bridge 

Overhead Structure Database, but it is not integrated with other State systems such as the 

Construction Management System (CMS) and the TDOT financial accounting system. 

Tennessee Road Information Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

TRIMS is a fully functional database. In the future, TDOT wants additional support functions to 

improve access to TRIMS through the Web. TDOT requires the regions to be able to contact 

TRIMS through the intranet concerning upgrades on route openings, route realignments, and data 

issues. 

Maintenance Management System Description 

The objective of the MMS is to provide TDOT with a sound, cost effective, solution that can 

integrate upward to manage maintenance expenditures, labor, equipment, and materials. The 

intent is for MMS to provide efficient use of funds and budget planning. It is anticipated that 

MMS can be developed and implemented by using existing applications and customizing the 

integration of these products with each other as well as with existing and proposed IT 

infrastructure. 

The MMS has three primary goals: 

48 
• Improve the effectiveness of inventory tracking to streamline associated costs. 

• Provide a system of measuring and monitoring budget and performance. 

• Provide a system to develop yearly work plans for measuring manpower and equipment 

needs. 

In May 2002, TDOT selected a contractor to develop and implement the MMS for Tennessee. 

TDOT procured the MMS to provide a single-source data entry point, primarily used by middle 

managers, to automatically transfer information to and from other internal databases such as the 

Tennessee financial system and TRIMS. 

The following goals and objectives were identified for the maintenance management process: 

• Develop and analyze yearly work plans to project manpower, equipment, and material needs. 

• Provide a level of service throughout the State highway system that is consistent and meets 

the overall funding goals. 

• Budget equipment and materials based on estimated work effort. 

• Provide for work scheduling. 

• Track the work effort of the various maintenance work units. 

• Provide for the tracking of contract maintenance projects. 

• Compare contract versus in-house unit cost. 

• Support managerial decisions. 

• Provide for a single data entry point. 

• Provide an ad hoc reporting tool to satisfy administrative queries. 

• Measure preventive maintenance. 

Maintenance management systems have been used by highway departments since the early 

1970s to assist in the planning, scheduling, and tracking of maintenance work. Formerly, these 

systems were mainframe applications; however, over the past several years, many advances have 

been made in this field. These systems are now being converted to client-server applications that 

are integrated with many other systems to form a network capable of transferring information 

instantly and in many cases, eliminating the duplication of work. 

The TDOT approach to analysis of the Functional Requirements Document (FRD) was 

accomplished in several phases: 

• Determine the MMS functional requirements. 

• Perform subject matter expert interviews. 

• Follow up joint requirements definition. 

• Conduct a best practices survey. 

This approach was developed to optimize TDOT’s ability to collect and document its MMS 

requirements. 

49 
Maintenance Management System Data Collection 

Table 14 lists the categories of TDOT MMS data collected. 

Table 14. TDOT MMS data collected. 

Asset Category Collected 

Roadway Signs √

Signals – 

Roadway Lighting – 

Supports and Structures for Signs, Signals, and – Lighting 

Guardrails, Barriers √

Pavement Markings and Treatments √

Detectors – 

The MMS is in the development, and it is not populated. The MMS was initially designed to 

interface with the following existing and proposed systems: 

• TDOT financial accounting system—STARS and TDOT STARS. 

• TDOT intranet. 

• State of Tennessee Web pages. 

• Geographic Information System. 

• Document Management System (DMS). 

• Executive Information System (EIS). 

• TRIMS. 

• CMS. 

• Program, Project and Resource Management System (PPRM). 

Different levels of integration are being built into the system. 

Maintenance Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The MMS project began in 2002 and is scheduled for completion in 2005. 

A Synopsis of Other State Practices 

The following information summarizes some of the other State DOT asset management systems. 

These States have stand-alone databases in one or more of the asset categories of this study. 

50 
North Carolina Department of Transportation 

Maintenance Management System Description 

The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) maintenance management system 

was developed with the following goals and capabilities in mind: 

• Plan, schedule, execute, and manage individual maintenance programs. 

• Describe the condition of assets based on extrapolations from random sampling. 

• Develop an annual plan both ideal and constrained. 

• Create an inventory of assets. 

• Facilitate accounting processes. 

• Schedule daily maintenance work. 

Initially the maintenance management system was released as a pilot program in two divisions 

for 6 weeks. Field personnel were involved in the initial development of the North Carolina 

system providing comment and suggestions. 

Maintenance Management System Data Collection 

Visual Maintenance Management System software was acquired from a contractor. The system 

is a PC-based, three-tiered system with workstation access, an application server, and a 

mainframe Oracle server. Plans exist to integrate; pilot programs are being deployed in selected 

divisions. 

A visual inspection is used to determine the condition of assets on the sample sections of 

roadways. All assets in the section, including signs, lighting, supports and structures for signs, 

guardrails, markings, and detectors receive pass or fail ratings, and the extent of failure is 

measured. 

A condition assessment is performed randomly every 2 years on sample sections of North 

Carolina highways and freeways. An asset inventory on 126,012 km (78,300 mi) of NCDOT 

highways has not started. 

Maintenance Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The vision is to tie together the pavement maintenance, bridge management, and maintenance 

management systems and eventually add traffic signal management to allow a comprehensive 

assessment of needs down to the project level. 

Training is being offered for a pilot implementation in 2 of 14 divisions. 

The GIS is nearing the final stages of development. GIS data will be used to develop a graphical 

representation of the road network using ArcView® to display maintenance history. Information 

on each sample section of roadway is included so that engineers can call up sections of roadway 

and view condition ratings and maintenance needs. 

No asset inventory has been initiated, caused in part by budget limitations and competing 

priorities. The software has the capability for an asset inventory, and it is intended to be used for 

such in the future. 

51 
Oregon Department of Transportation 

Traffic Signal Information System Description 

The goal of the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) in developing the Traffic Signal 

Information System (TSIS) was primarily for improved maintenance and inventory tracking. One 

of the stated uses of the tracking capability is to provide support for defense of liability actions 

brought against the State, potentially producing large savings in legal fees. ODOT anticipates 

additional benefits to include more effective planning, scheduling, executing, and managing 

individual maintenance programs. Other cost saving and efficiency producing rationales for 

developing the TSIS are to allow the State to create an inventory of assets, determine 

maintenance budgets, facilitate accounting processes, and enhance the expected service life of 

the asset categories included. 

Traffic Signal Information System Data Collection 

TSIA is a PC-based system running on an SQL database built with Visual Basic and Crystal 

Reports. The following data will be included in the database: 

• Highway location and name. 

• Street name. 

• Direction of traffic flow. 

• Intersecting street name. 

• Nearest city. 

• Name of county. 

• Name of district. 

• Region number. 

• Name of company supplying power. 

• Meter number for location. 

• Mile point. 

• Date of activation. 

• Recent date of repair. 

• Months of inspection and maintenance. 

• Comments. 

• Signal priority. 

TSIS is 65 percent to 75 percent populated with accurate data. Data for TSIS are collected and 

available for reference statewide to ODOT personnel who request access. 

52 
Traffic Signal Information System Current Status and Future Plans 

TSIS is fully integrated throughout the ODOT intranet. The current version of TSIS was put into 

service the first quarter of 2002, but earlier versions of TSIS have been in use since 1990. ODOT 

has fully populated the data and completed integration throughout the State. 

Only individuals in the traffic signal services unit can access TSIS. 

Sign Management System (R2Sign Database) System Description 

In 1994, ODOT’s Region 2 initiated a grassroots effort to develop a database to track signs in 

Oregon. In doing so, the region developed the Sign Management System (R2Sign), a PC-based 

Microsoft Access database system. The primary use of the R2Sign database is for maintenance 

and inventory tracking, but an additional benefit of tracking is to provide support for defense of 

liability actions brought against the State. Its main purposes, however, are to provide planning, 

scheduling, executing, and management for individual maintenance programs and its primary 

users are the district ODOT sign crews. The database is also used to determine maintenance 

budget and expected service life. 

R2Sign Data Collection 

The database includes the following types of information: 

• Location. 

• Highway identification. 

• Mile point. 

• Direction. 

• Size of sign. 

• Type of sign. 

• Sign catalog number. 

• Replacement dates and scheduled maintenance dates. 

• Installation dates. 

Data population varies within regions and districts. While some districts are using R2Sign fully, 

others do not use it. 

Currently, R2Sign is not integrated across the ODOT. This system is not on network-connected 

computers. 

R2Sign Current Status and Future Plans 

R2Sign is being groomed for statewide use. ODOT envisions an integrated network, where all 

regions are fully using this system. The ODOT technology branch also plans to combine these 

stand-alone systems into one statewide system. 

53 
Wisconsin Department of Transportation 

Sign Inventory Management System Description 

The goals of the Wisconsin Department of Transportation’s (WisDOT) Sign Inventory 

Management System (SIMS) included the ability to allow better planning for the replacement of 

signs using a system that records the life span of signs. Another goal was for SIMS to ensure that 

signs are neither prematurely replaced nor remain in the field in poor condition. For cost 

efficiency, SIMS is expected to provide a useful tool for contractor signing projects; it will 

permit WisDOT to provide an accurate listing of signs that need to be replaced, enabling the 

contractor to provide a realistic bid. The system will also facilitate the development of program 

funding needs annually. 

Primary users of SIMS are district sign shops and central office management functions. At this 

point, districts are required to implement the sign management system; training is provided; and 

user groups are held to introduce new features of the software as they are implemented. 

Sign Inventory Management System Data Collection 

The following types of information are included in the database: 

• Location, county, route, milepost. 

• Position on the roadway. 

• Sign direction. 

• Post type and length. 

• Sign code. 

• Size. 

• Base material. 

• Face material. 

• Age of sign, manufacturer’s date, and installation date. 

• Sign description (important for special signs). 

• Installation project identification, fleet number, vehicle number. 

• Condition (good, fair, or poor). 

The database is being populated, and approximately 300,000 signs (70 percent) have been 

inventoried. 

Sign Inventory Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The database is in full production; districts are inputting signs as they are installed, repaired, or 

replaced. The conversion to an Oracle platform will ease integration among all districts and 

assist in financial planning and projection of statewide 6-year sign replacement costs. 

Traffic Signal System Inventory System Description 

The Traffic Signal System Inventory (TSSI) system has the following purposes: 

54 
• To serve three groups of electrical staff for knockdowns and service reports (director’s 

software links different view packages). 

• To query information. 

• To provide management tracking infrastructure. 

TSSI is a PC-based system run on CartêGraph SIGNALviewTM software. User groups, including 

electrical service personnel, engineers, and senior management, are developing data fields and 

forms. Following development of the data model, operations managers will be presented with 

findings and level of effort necessary to perform data collection. 

Traffic Signal System Inventory System Data Collection 

A list of data fields that will include a basic description of systems and collect a count of the 

number and types of systems present on Wisconsin roads (such as controller cabinets and 

detection systems) is under development. 

Through the CartêGraph software, a WORKdirectorTM suite will integrate the different View 

software products (SIGNview, SIGNALview, and MARKINGviewTM). 

Traffic Signal System Inventory System Current Status and Future Development 

The TSSI initiative began in the spring of 2003, with user groups working to define data fields 

for signal inventory at that time. At the time of this writing, the data model was projected to be 

completely developed by the end of 2004. Pending IT issues, actual data collection and inventory 

are expected to take 2 years or more. 

The database will eventually be integrated statewide. One district has begun to gather data on 

markings. An existing yard inventory will be integrated with the field inventory. 

Marking Management System Description 

The Marking Management System (MMS) was designed to develop quantity needs for contract 

plans and facilitate annual budget estimates for users, including engineers, financial analysts, and 

senior management. 

Marking Management System Data Categories 

Data parameters are being defined and probably will include color, type, product make, 

reflectivity, spotting distance, and roadway surface type.

Marking Management System Current Status and Future Plans 

The initiative started in spring 2003 and user groups are working to develop data fields and form. 

The data model was completed in spring 2003, when data collection began. A single pilot 

program has been initiated in District 6, which has begun to gather data on markings. The 

marking database is planned to be integrated with various existing databases such as material, 

pavement, and bridge. The timeframe for integration is unknown, but the completion for data 

population is targeted for 2005. The database will be integrated statewide. 

55 

CHAPTER 3. CONCLUSIONS 

The majority of states, 42 of the 50 surveyed in 2000, indicated they use an asset management 

system to track their roadway safety hardware; however, for most of those states, the systems 

entail manual data collection and unintegrated databases. Although the readily available 

information about roadside assets and the coherent processes for sharing information that are 

characteristic of an integrated asset management system result in significantly increased 

effectiveness of State maintenance expenditures, most State DOTs contacted for this report cite 

fiscal constraints as the primary reason for their inability to upgrade current systems 

The implementation of both stand alone and integrated asset management systems often results 

in an extension of the service life of equipment and increased available funding for maintenance 

and repairs to State-maintained roadside assets. This type of preventive maintenance tends to not 

only reduce lifecycle costs, but also improve travel conditions, equipment reliability, and public 

safety. Indeed, assets such as warning and regulatory signs, edge lining, signals, and roadway 

lighting have virtually no other purpose than fostering and enhancing highway safety. 

In addition to a more efficient use of maintenance funds and improved information management, 

a number of benefits accrue to States that implement an asset management system: 

• A well-maintained collection of safety hardware equipment. 

• Improved ability to make pragmatic and cost-effective resource allocation decisions based on 

complete and accurate information. 

• Reduced acquisition, upgrade, and replacement costs for assets. 

• Improved management and oversight capabilities. 

• Decreased State legal liability that could result from inadequate or faulty safety hardware. 

Until fairly recently, a widespread institutional bias has existed among legislators and State 

DOTs that tends to favor funding new construction and capacity expansion over operations, 

maintenance, and management of existing facilities. The advent over the past decade or so of the 

application of asset management principles, particularly with respect to major asset categories 

such as pavements and bridges, has resulted in a growing trend toward establishing effective 

preventive maintenance and replacement systems. These systems, in turn, have contributed to a 

growing culture of extending the useful life of existing safety hardware, thereby decreasing 

replacement costs. 

Asset management may entail a life-cycle cost analysis (that is, taking into account total costs 

over each asset’s operating life) during planning and procurement. This analysis enables the 

selection of options with the lowest overall long-term costs based on a rational assessment of 

fact-based scenarios. 

At the time of this publication, a number of States were proceeding with initial development of 

safety hardware asset management systems, and some were working to integrate their current 

systems with other asset management systems and data sets. A growing number of states are 

investing considerable effort and resources in more comprehensive and sophisticated approaches 

to hardware asset management systems, an endeavor that clearly lends itself to cooperative 

multistate development efforts through such mechanisms as AASHTO and the regional State 

DOT associations.

57 

Appendix A. FHWA Letter to Division Offices

October 2002 

On behalf of the FHWA Office of Safety R&D, Office of Safety and Office of Asset 

Management, we have initiated through a contractor the next phase of the Hardware and Safety 

Management System work with AASHTO. The project is entitled: “The Development of 

Guidance Material for Hardware Asset Management.” 

The project involves documentation of what the leading or best practices are for hardware and 

safety management systems. Approximately 5 to 10 states are being contacted for case studies 

that will be documented in a primer. A catalog of the tools (software, hardware and others) that 

state DOTs and other agencies are using will also be developed. The primer and catalog are 

expected to be available in 2004. 

Attached to this e-mail are the summary results from a 2000 Roadway Management Survey of 

states performed by AASHTO. This survey provides information regarding states’ roadway asset 

management inventory. 

If you would like to update your state’s information, or for the states that did not respond, submit 

information regarding the survey, please feel free to forward this to me. Any information that 

you provide may also be used in the contract identified above in the selection of the five–ten 

states for case study. (Note: When States responded to the initial AASHTO survey, they were 

aware of the potential for follow up survey, if they were conducting innovative practices.) 

Also, if you are familiar with any private systems that should be considered by the contractor for 

best practice, please forward this information as well. 

The contract also involves the development of a marketing plan for distribution and transfer of 

the technology for the project. If you have any early input in this regard, it is appreciated. Please 

also indicate if you would like to be listed on the Technology Facilitation Action Plan for this 

project as a continuing field contact. 

I will be serving as the COTR for this contract and appreciate your time regarding this matter. If 

you have any questions, comments or suggestions, please feel free to contact me at your 

convenience. 

Regards, John 

John McFadden, Ph.D., P.E., PTOE 

Transportation Specialist 

Federal Highway Administration 

Turner-Fairbank Highway Research Center 

6300 Georgetown Pike, HRDS-06 

McLean, VA 22101 

Phone: (202) 493-3320, Fax: (202) 493-3417 

E-mail: john.mcfadden@fhwa.dot.gov

59 

Appendix B. Questionnaire to State DOTs 

Following is a list of questions sent to State DOTs in 2000. 

1. Contact Office/Person 

2. System Description 

3. System Background 

4. Current System Status 

5. Data Categories 

6. Status of Data Population 

7. Status of Integration 

8. System Requirements 

Software 

Hardware 

9. Cost 

10. Quality Assurance 

11. Primary Users 

12. Training 

13. State Contractors 

14. System Marketing Plan 

15. Future Development 

16. Other Information 

17. References 

61 

Appendix C. Summary of AASHTO Survey Results 

Alaska

District of Columbia

Hawaii

Puerto Rico

Participating

Not Participating

States Responding

To Survey

Figure 10. Map. Geographic map showing States that responded to AASHTO survey. 

Question #1 - Do you inventory?

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Yes

No

Figure 11. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question # 1: Do you inventory? 

63 
Question #2 - Percentage of Assets in Inventory

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt. Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

All

Partial

None

No Answer

Figure 12. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #2: Percentage 

of assets in inventory. 

Question #3 - Does Inventory Track Location?

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

All

Some

None

Figure 13. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #3: Does inventory track location? 

64 
Question #4 - Inventory Cycle

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Ongoing

0 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

As needed

Figure 14. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #4: Inventory cycle. 

Question #5, Part 1 - Method Used for Original Inventory

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt. Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Manual Survey

Semi-Automated

Automated

Other

Figure 15. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 1): Method used 

for original inventory. 

65 
Question #5, Part 2 - Method Used for Inventory Updates

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt. Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Manual Survey

Semi-Automated

Automated

Other

Figure 16. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #5 (part 2): Method used 

for inventory updates. 

Question #6 - Funding Allocated on Inventory

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Yes

No

Figure 17. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #6: Funding allocated on inventory. 

66 
Question #7 - Budget Line Item for Maintenance

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pavement Markings

Guardrail

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Yes

No

Figure 18. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #7: Budget line item 

for maintenance. 

Questions #8 & #8b - Monitor Condition

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Currently Monitoring

Would Use System

Would not use system

Figure 19. Graph. AASHTO survey results to questions #8 and 8b: Monitor condition. 

67 
Question #9 - Coverage of Condition Monitored

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt. Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

All

Some

None

Figure 20. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #9: Coverage 

of condition monitored. 

Question #10 - Frequency of Condition Surveys

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Ongoing

0 to 5 years

5 to 10 years

As needed

Figure 21. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #10: Frequency 

of condition surveys. 

68 
Question #11 - Methods of Monitoring Condition

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt. Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Manual Surveys

Semi-Automated

Automated

More than one

Figure 22. Graph. AASHTO survey results to question #11: Methods 

of monitoring condition. 

Question #13 - Funding Allocated on Condition

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50

Detectors

Pvmt.Markings

Guardrails

Supports

Lighting

Signals

Signs

Number of States

Yes

No

Figure 23. Graph. AASHTO Survey Results to question #13: Funding allocated 

on condition.

69 

Appendix D. List of State DOT Contacts 

The following individual State contact offices were provided, in part, by AASHTO. 

Table 15. State contact offices. 

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Alaska 

State Transportation Engineer 

Alaska Department of Transportation 

3132 Channel Dr. 

Juneau, AK 99801 

(907) 465-6963 

Arizona 

State Traffic Engineer 

Arizona Department of Transportation 

1655 W. Jackson St. 

Phoenix, AZ 85007-3217 

(602) 712-8888 

Assistant State Engineer (602) 712-6622 

State Engineer (602) 712-7391 

Arkansas 

Chief Engineer 

Arkansas State Highway and Transportation 

Department 

10324 Interstate 30 

Little Rock, AK 72209 

(501) 569-2214 

Staff Traffic Engineer (501) 569-2661 

Staff Traffic Engineer (501) 569-2232 

Asst. Roadway Design Engineer (501) 569-2336 

Staff Planning Engineer (501) 569-2111 

California 

Electrical Support Staff, Superintendent, 

or Traffic Engineer 

1120 N. Street 

Sacramento, CA 95814 

916-654-2924 

916-684-1822 

Colorado 

Traffic Engineer 

4201 E. Arkansas Avenue 

Denver, CO 80222 

(303) 512-5100 

Standards Engineer (303) 757-9083 

Connecticut 

Manager of Traffic Engineering 

2800 Berlin Turnpike 

Newington, CT 06131-7546 

(860) 594-2710 

Trans. Principal Engineer (860) 594-2608 

Trans. Engineer 2 (860) 594-3177 

Trans. Maint. Planner III (860) 594-2616 

71 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Delaware 

Director, Div. Of Hwy. Ops 

Headquarters Administration Center 

800 Bay Road 

P.O. Box 778 

Dover, DE 19903 

(302) 760-2201 

Chief Traffic Engineer (302) 739-4362 

Comtech Engineer (302) 760-2188 

Florida 

State Highway Maintenance Engineer 

Florida Department of Transportation 

605 Suwannee Street 

Tallahassee, FL 32399 

(850) 414-4704 

Traffic Services Engineer (850) 488-4562 

Transportation Statistics Office (850) 488-4562 

Georgia 

Maintenance Activities Engineer 

Georgia Department of Transportation 

25 Kennedy Drive 

Forest Park, GA 30297 

(404) 363-7625 

Idaho 

Acting Traffic Engineer 

3311 W. State Street 

P.O. Box 7129 

Boise, ID 83707-1129 

(208) 334-8557 

Trans. Staff Eng. Asst. (208) 334-8565 

Trans. Staff Eng. Asst. (208) 334-8571 

Illinois 

Traffic Operations Engineer 

Illinois Department of Transportation 

2300 S. Dirksen Pkwy. 

Springfield, IL 62764 

(217) 782-2076 

Field Operations Engineer (217) 782-2984 

Indiana 

Highway Support Manager 

100 N. Senate Ave. 

Indianapolis, IN 46204 

(317) 232-5508 

Traffic Field Engineer (317) 232-5549 

Maintenance Field Engineer (317) 232-5551 

72 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Iowa 

Highway Division Director 

Iowa Department of Transportation 

800 Lincoln Way 

Ames, IA 50010 

(515) 239-1124 

State Traffic Engineer (515) 239-1513 

Assistant Office Director (515) 239-1396 

Bridge Maintenance Engineer (515) 239-1165 

Asst. Office Director (515) 239-1396 

Telemetrics Coordinator (515) 239-1172 

Kansas 

Director/Division of Operations 

Kansas Department of Transportation 

Dwight D. Eisenhower State Office Building 

700 S.W. Harrison Street 

Topeka, KS 66603-3754 

(785) 296-2235 

Senior Traffic Signing Engineer (785) 296-3618 

State Traffic Engineer (785) 296-3618 

Overhead Sign Structure Engineer (785) 296-5559 

Asst. Bureau Chief/Const. & Maint. (785) 296-3576 

Kentucky 

Deputy State Highway Engineer 

James K. Polk Building 

505 Deaderick Street 

Suite 700 

Nashville, TN 37243-0349 

(502) 564-3730 

Director (502) 564-3020 

Tr Eng Br Mgr (502) 564-4556 

Transportation Engineer Specialist (502) 564-4556 

Maine 

State Traffic Engineer 

Maine Department of Transportation 

3 Child Street, State House Station #16 

Augusta, ME 04333-0016 

(207) 287-3775 

Engineering Technician (207) 287-3775 

Civil Engineer (207) 287-3775 

Striping Manager (207) 287-3745 

73 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Maryland 

Assistant Division Chief 

Highway Information Services Division 

Office of Planning and Preliminary Engineering 

707 N. Calvert St. 

Baltimore, MD 21202 

(410) 545-5537 

Transportation Engineer (410) 582-5569 

Statewide Pavement Marking Coordinator (410) 582-5520 

Team Leader, Structures Team (410) 787-5853 

Asst. Division Chief 

Traffic Engineering Design Division 

(410) 787-4022 

Massachusetts 

Assistant Chief Engineer 

The Executive Office of Transportation 

10 Park Plaza, Suite 3170 

Boston, MA 02116 

(617) 973-7516 

Manager, Signs and Pavement Marking (617) 973-7375 

Civil Engineer IV (617) 973-7373 

Manager, Electrical System (617) 973-7363 

Maintenance Engineer (617) 973-7799 

Director ITS Programs (617) 973-7315 

Michigan 

Supervising Engineer, Traffic Signs 

and Delineation Unit 

State Transportation Building 

425 W. Ottawa St. 

P.O. Box 30050 

Lansing, MI 48909 

(517) 335-2625 

Supervising Engineer, Traffic Signals Unit (517) 373-2324 

EML 14 (517) 373-0733 

Staff Specialist-Roadside Safety (517) 335-2991 

Minnesota 

Maintenance Operations 

Office of Traffic Engineering and Intelligence 

Transportation Systems 

Mailstop 725 

2nd floor North 

395 John Ireland Blvd 

St. Paul, MN 55155-1899 

(651) 282-2281 

Electronics Traffic Maintenance Superintendent (612) 725-2305 

State Lighting Engineer (651) 284-3470 

State Signing Engineer (651) 284-3440 

Traffic Electrical Systems Engineer (651) 284-3434 

(651) 205-4526 

74 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Missouri 

Technical Support Engineer 

MoDOT 

Central Office 

105 W. Capitol Avenue 

Jefferson City, MO 65102 

(573) 526-0121 

Design Standards Engineer (573) 526-2903 

Nevada 

Chief Safety/Traffic Engineer 

Nevada Department of Transportation 

1263 South Stewart Street 

Carson City, NV 89712 

(775) 888-7490 

Asst. Bridge Engineer (775) 888-7545 

New 

Hampshire 

Traffic Maint. Supervisor 

New Hampshire Department of Transportation 

John O. Morton Building 

7 Hazen Drive 

Concord, NH 03302-0483 

(603) 271-2291 

Traffic Engineer (603) 271-2291 

P.M. Operations Supervisor (603) 271-2291 

New Mexico 

Operations and Maintenance, or 

Bureau of Maintenance and Traffic Services 

P.O. Box 1149 

Santa Fe, NM 87504 

(505) 827-5525 

New York 

Director Design Quality Assurance Bureau 

1220 Washington Ave., Bldg. 5 - Rm. 410 

Albany, NY 12232-0751 

(518) 457-6467 

Fax: (518) 457-6477 

Assistant Commissioner for Eng (518) 457-4430 

75 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

North Carolina 

Traffic Engineering Staff Engineer 

North Carolina Department of Transportation 

1500 Mail Service Center 

Raleigh, NC 27699-1500 

(919) 715-7736 

Signing Engineer (919) 250-2145 

Signals Management Engineer (919) 733-5666 

Transportation Electrical Engineer. (919) 250-4128 

Road Maintenance Operations Engineer (919) 733-3725 

Traffic Control Engineer (919) 250-4151 

MMS Project Office 

Global Software Building 

3200 Atlantic Avenue, Suite 205 

Raleigh, NC 27604 

(919) 573-7252 

North Dakota 

Traffic Data Manager 

North Dakota Department of Transportation 

608 East Boulevard Avenue 

Bismarck, ND 58505-0700 

(701) 328-4401 

Deputy Director for Engineering (701) 328-2584 

Roadway Data Manager (701) 328-3479 

Traffic Operations Engineer (701) 328-4398 

Structure Management (701) 328-4448 

Asst. Maintenance Engineer (701) 328-2545 

Ohio 

Assistant Director/Chief Engineer 

Ohio Department of Transportation 

1980 W. Broad St. 

Columbus, OH 43223 

(614) 466-2448 

Administrator, Traffic (614) 644-8137 

Maintenance Manager (614) 644-7155 

Deputy Director 

Office of Roadway Engineering Services 

(614) 644-1203 

76 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Oregon 

Technical Services Manager 

Oregon DOT 

355 Capitol St., N.E. 

Salem, OR 97301 

(503) 386-3302 

Sign Engineer (503) 986-3603 

Transportation Operations Engineer (503) 986-3489 

Traffic Design Engineer (503) 986-3583 

Standards Engineer (503) 986-3779 

Sr. Traffic Investigator (503) 986-3573 

Traffic Operations (503) 986-4062 

Field Operations (503) 986-4485 

Pennsylvania 

Manager, Sign Standards & Manufacturing 

PENNDOT Central Office 

Keystone Building 

400 North Street 

Harrisburg, PA 17120 

(717) 783-6261 

Manager, Congestion Management and Signalization 

Section 

(717) 787-9787 

Civil Engineer Manager (717) 78-6263 

Chief Highway Lighting (717) 772-3077 

Manager, Traffic Engineering & Operations Division (717) 787-3620 

Manager, Highway Safety Engineering (717) 705-1706 

Manager, Markings and Delineation (717) 772-5462 

ATMS/ATIS Section Manager (717) 705-1447 

Trans. Planning Specialist (717) 787-1840 

Puerto Rico 

Deputy Exec. Director Infrastructure (787) 729-1554 

Director-Design Area (787) 729-1575 

Dep. Exec. Director for Traffic & Ops (787) 729-1538 

Rhode Island 

Chief Civil Engineer 

Rhode Island Department of Transportation 

Two Capitol Hill 

Providence, RI 02903 

(401) 222-2694, ext. 4202 

Maintenance Engineer (401) 222-2378 

Principal Civil Engineer (401) 222-2694, ext. 4203 

77 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

South Carolina 

Traffic Programs Engineer 

South Carolina Department of Transportation 

955 Park Street 

P.O. Box 191 

Columbia, SC 29202-0191 

(803) 737-1994 

Traffic Services Coordinator (803) 737-1500 

Advanced Systems Coordinator (803) 737-1646 

Signing and Marking Plan Preparation Engineer (803) 737-2086 

Tennessee 

Director, Maintenance Division 

505 Deaderick Street, Suite 400 

James Polk Bldg. 

Nashville, TN 37243 

(615) 741-2027 

State Traffic Engineer (615) 741-2466 

Project Manager 

505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1200 

James Polk Bldg. 

Nashville, TN 37243 

(615) 253-6421 

Transportation Manager 

505 Deaderick Street, Suite 1000 

James Polk Bldg. 

Nashville, TN 37243 

(615) 741-2208 

Texas 

Director of Traffic Operations Division (512) 416-3200 

Policy and Standards Engineer (512) 416-3120 

Signal & Radio Operations Branch Manager (512) 416-3149 

Senior Lighting Design Engineer (512) 416-3121 

Geometric Design Engineer (512) 416-2653 

Utah 

Traffic Studies Engineer (801) 964-4521 

Engineer for Maintenance (801) 965-4120 

Director, Traffic Operations Center (801) 887-3707 

Virginia 

Asset Management Division 

1401 East Broad Street 

Richmond, VA 23219 

(804) 371-1265 

Fax: (804) 371-2037 

Assistant For Systems Development 

Asset Management Division 

(804) 371-2978 

Fax: (804) 371-2037 

78 
Table 15. State contact offices—Continued

State DOT Address and Point of Contact Contact Phone 

Washington 

Signing Engineer 

Washington State Department of Transportation 

310 Maple Park Avenue SE 

PO Box 47300 

Olympia WA 98504-7300 

(360) 705-7988 

Traffic Signal Engineer (360) 705-7284 

Design Policy with Standards Engineer (360) 705-7269 

West Virginia 

Special Projects and Programs Engineer 

Building 5 

1900 Kanawha Blvd. E. 

Charleston WV 25305 

(304) 558-3063 

Systems Management & Traffic Services Eng (304) 558-3063 

Wisconsin 

Wisconsin DOT 

4802 Sheboygan Ave. 

Madison, WI 53707-7910 

(608) 266-1260 

Wyoming 

State Traffic Engineer 

WYDOT Headquarters 

5300 Bishop Blvd 

Cheyenne, WY 82009-3340 

(307) 777-4492 

79 

References 

1. “Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and 

Local Governments,” Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Norwalk, CT, 

1999.

2. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, AASHTO Task Force 

on Transportation Asset Management: Strategic Plan 2000–2010, Washington, DC, 2000.

3. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of Asset 

Management, Asset Management Primer, Washington, DC, 1999. 

4. U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Highway Functional 

Classification: Concepts, Criteria and Procedures, Washington, DC, 1989. 

5. Tennessee Department of Transportation, TRIMS Users Instructions Class Guide, 

Nashville, TN, 2002. 

81

Bibliography 

21st Century Asset Management, Executive Summary, Center for Infrastructure and 

Transportation Studies at Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute, Troy, NY, October 1997. 

Advanced Construction and Maintenance System Task Force, National Strategic Plan May 2001,

ITS America, Sacramento, CA, 2001. 

AgileAssets, Web site, http://www.agileassets.com/html/overview.htm. 

Annual Report 2000, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

Office of Asset Management, Washington DC, 2001. 

Asset Management for Bridges, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, Washington, DC, 2002. 

Asset Management Guidance for Transportation Agencies, Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, NCHRP Research Results Digest, No. 266, Washington, DC, 2002. 

Asset Management Peer Exchange Using Past Experience to Shape Future Practice, American 

Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, Washington, DC, 2000. 

Asset Management Primer, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway 

Administration, Office of Asset Management, Washington, DC, 1999. 

Asset Management Vision and Work Plan, Vermont Agency of Transportation, Montpelier, VT, 

January 2002. 

Asset Management, Advancing the State of the Art Into the 21st Century Through Public-Private 

Dialogue, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, September 1996. 

“Basic Financial Statements—and Management’s Discussion and Analysis—for State and Local 

Governments,” Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB), Norwalk, CT, June 1999. 

Geospan Corporation, Web site, http://www.geospan.com/. 

Guidelines for Transportation Management Systems Maintenance Concept and Plans, U.S. 

Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC,

December 2002. 

Intelligent Transport Systems In Asset Management–Issues Paper, Austroads Incorporated, APR210 /02, Sydney, Australia 2002. 

Maintenance Management: Proceedings of the Seventh Maintenance Management Conference, 

National Research Council (U.S.) and American Association of State Highway and 

Transportation Officials, Orlando, FL, July 1994. 

Murphy, Wayne and David Palmquist, Minnesota Department of Transportation Maintenance 

Management System Pilot Project Users Manual, Minnesota Department of Transportation, 

1986. 

“New Tools for Sign Management: Utah T2 Center Partners with Smart Map Systems LLC to 

Develop a User-Friendly Sign Management Program,” Road Management and Engineering 

Journal, TransSafety, Inc., September 1997. 

83
Phase I Report, Task 1 of 3: Synthesis of Asset Management Practice, National Cooperative 

Highway Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, 

NCHRP Web Document 41, Project SP20-24[11], Washington, DC, 2002. 

Phase I Report, Task 2 of 3: Asset Management Framework, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, NCHRP Web 

Document 41, Project SP20-24[11], Washington, DC, 2002. 

Phase I Report, Task 2 of 3: Recommended Research Program, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, NCHRP Web 

Document 41 (Project SP20-24[11]), Washington, DC, 2002. 

Primer: GASB 34, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office 

of Asset Management, Washington, DC, 2000. 

Roads and Streets Maintenance Management System: A Manual for Decentralized and Local 

Agencies, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Office of 

Operations, Washington, DC, 1985. 

Roadside Safety Analysis Program (RSAP)–Engineer’s Manual, Transportation Research Board, 

National Research Council, NCHRP Report 492, Washington, DC, 2003. 

“Roadway Hardware Management Systems: Is There a Need for Assistance?” Research & 

Technology Transporter, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, 

Washington, DC, January 2001. 

Roadway Infrastructure Study, Roads and Transportation Association of Canada, Montreal, 

Quebec, 1987. 

Synthesis of National Efforts in Transportation Asset Management, Midwest Regional University 

of Transportation Center, Madison, WI, 2002. 

Tennessee Department of Transportation, Web site 

http://www.tdot.state.tn.us/Chief_Engineer/assistant_engineer_operations/

maintenance/MMS.htm. 

Tennessee DOT Maintenance Management Systems Functional Requirements Document,

Tennessee Department of Transportation, Nashville, TN, 2000. 

Transportation Asset Management Case Studies—The Virginia Experience, U.S. Department of 

Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2004. 

Transportation Asset Management Case Studies: Life-Cycle Cost Analysis, Highway Economic 

Requirements System, and Data Integration, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal 

Highway Administration, Washington, DC, 2003. 

Transportation Asset Management Guide, Final Report, National Cooperative Highway 

Research Program, Transportation Research Board, National Research Council, Project SP20-

24[11], Washington, DC, November 2002. 

Vanier, D.J. Asset Management from “A” to “Z”, Institute for Research in Construction, 

National Research Council Canada, Ottawa, Canada, September 20. 

84