(This Page Left Blank) - AASHTO TAMP Builder · 1.3 Pavement Condition Performance ... engineering practices to help guide resource allocation ... These objectives are the foundation

(This Page Intentionally Left Blank)

Transportation Asset Management Plan

Florida Department of Transportation October 2015

For more information, go to http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/tamp

http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/tamp



Florida Transportation Asset Management Plan

i

Table of Contents

1.0 About This Plan .................................................................................................. 1-1

1.1 Purpose ......................................................................................................... 1-1

1.2 Asset Management Plan Objectives ......................................................... 1-2

1.3 Pavement Condition Performance Measures ......................................... 1-3

1.4 Bridge Condition Performance Measures ............................................... 1-4

2.0 Inventory and Condition ................................................................................... 2-1

2.1 NHS Pavement ............................................................................................ 2-1

Inventory ...................................................................................................... 2-1

Condition ..................................................................................................... 2-2

Pavement Condition Survey ................................................................ 2-2

Pavement Measure: Ride Quality ........................................................ 2-2

Pavement Measure: Defect Metrics ..................................................... 2-3

Pavement Measure: Rutting ................................................................. 2-3

Florida Analysis System for Targets (FAST) ........................................... 2-4

Pavement Condition Summary ................................................................ 2-4

2.2 National Highway System Bridges .......................................................... 2-5

Inventory ...................................................................................................... 2-5

Bridge Inspection Program / Bridge Work Plan .................................... 2-6

Condition ..................................................................................................... 2-6

3.0 Performance-Based Planning and Programming .......................................... 3-1

3.1 Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process .................... 3-1

3.2 Program Objectives .................................................................................... 3-4

3.3 Performance ................................................................................................. 3-4

4.0 Asset Management Tools .................................................................................. 4-1

4.1 Policy, Planning, and Programming Processes ...................................... 4-1

Pavement Practices ..................................................................................... 4-1

Bridge Practices and Strategies ................................................................. 4-1

4.2 Life Cycle Cost Analyses ........................................................................... 4-2

4.3 Risk Management Analysis ....................................................................... 4-2

Program Level ............................................................................................. 4-3

Asset Level ................................................................................................... 4-4

5.0 Financial Plan ...................................................................................................... 5-1


ii

5.1 Investment Strategies ................................................................................. 5-1

5.2 Financial Plan .............................................................................................. 5-1

6.0 Implementation ................................................................................................... 6-1

1. Establish Steering Committee ............................................................... 6-1

2. Monitor Federal Transportation Asset ManagementRulemaking Process ................................................................................... 6-2

3. Update Investment Strategies ............................................................... 6-2

4. Submit for FHWA Certification and Respond to Comments ........... 6-3

5. Update Risk Register and Mitigation Strategies ................................ 6-3


iii

List of Tables

Table 1 Summary Inventory for State Owned Pavement and Bridges ............. 2-1

Table 2 Pavement Inventory - Centerline and Lane Miles by Ownership ...... 2-2

Table 3 Inventory Summary for Bridges Managed by FDOT ............................ 2-5

Table 4 TAM Steering Committee .............................................................................. 6-2

List of Figures

Figure 1 NBI Rating Scale ....................................................................................... 1-4

Figure 2 Results of 2013 Florida Flexible Pavement Condition Survey ........... 2-5

Figure 3 Amount of NHS Deck Area in Florida Rated Structurally Deficient, 2010-2013 ................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 4 Percentage of NHS Deck Area in Florida Rated Structurally Deficient, 2010-2013 ................................................................................. 2-7

Figure 5 Performance Based Planning and Programming Process .................. 3-1

Figure 6 Department Processes and Key Documents ........................................ 3-3

Figure 7 Percent Pavement on the State Highway System Meeting Department Standards ............................................................................ 3-5

Figure 8 Percent Bridges on the State Highway System Meeting Department Standards ............................................................................ 3-5

Figure 9 Risk Rating Scale ...................................................................................... 4-3

Figure 10 Historic and Projected Allocations for Pavement Resurfacing and Bridge Maintenance and Replacements in Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2022-23 .......................................................................... 5-2

Figure 11 Projected Allocation for Maintenance and Operations in Fiscal Years 2014-15 through 2021-22 ............................................................... 5-3



1-1

1.0 About This Plan

The Florida Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) explains the processes and policies affecting pavement and bridge condition and performance in the state. Transportation Asset Management is a strategic and systematic process of operating, maintaining, and improving physical assets effectively throughout their life cycle. It leverages various business, economic, and engineering practices to help guide resource allocation and project selection. The overarching objective is to inform decision-making based upon quality information.

The TAMP acts as a focal point for information about the department’s assets, associated management strategies, long-term expenditure forecasts, and business management processes. It is an important tool for demonstrating sustainable asset stewardship, effective use of resources, and justifications for funding.

The TAMP is also a management process for bringing together a variety of business processes, disciplines, and stakeholders (internal and external), to achieve a common understanding and commitment to maintain or improve performance.

It is organized in the following sections:

2.0 Inventory and Condition

3.0 Performance-Based Planning and Programming

4.0 Asset Management Tools

5.0 Financial Plan

6.0 Implementation

The TAMP and supporting documents will be posted at http://www.dot.state.fl.us/planning/tamp/. This will include any additional documents required by federal regulations currently being developed.

1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of the TAMP is to document Florida Department of Transportation’s (FDOT’s) approach to asset management and how it links to the states performance-based planning and programming processes.

FDOT has a long history of being leaders in the field of transportation asset management. The department primarily manages assets on the State Highway System (SHS). Although this system consists of 12,099 (10 percent) of the 121,829


1-2

public road centerline miles in the state, it carries 54 percent of Florida's total traffic.1 The department inspects and maintains 6,783 bridges and performs inspections on other bridges owned by other state and local government jurisdictions.

The department views it as one of its primary responsibilities to keep the SHS in acceptable physical condition. The system currently is in very good condition; a direct result of the department inspecting and maintaining these assets.

The department has a well-established philosophy, supported by statutes, to preserve its assets before adding capacity to the transportation system. This approach sets the framework for all capacity enhancements and service additions to the transportation network. As such, the philosophy serves as a solid foundation to meet and build upon federally required asset management focused practices.

This TAMP documents how the department will continue to preserve the condition and performance of pavements and bridges for the National Highway System in Florida.

1.2 ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN OBJECTIVES The TAMP highlights current FDOT practices and the outcomes of the existing department business processes.

The goals, objectives, and strategies for asset management are clearly defined and consistent among the department’s suite of plans and reports. Across all planning levels, starting with the Florida Transportation Plan (FTP), the department remains committed to maintaining the existing system prior to building capacity enhancements. Those commitments are tracked through a range of accountable performance measures that document transportation system performance over time.

Overarching Asset Management Objectives:

Achieve and maintain a state of good repair for transportation assets;

Reduce the vulnerability and increase the resilience of critical infrastructureto the impacts of extreme weather and events; and,

Minimize damage to infrastructure from transportation vehicles.

Bridge-Related Asset Management Objectives:

Bridge Condition: Ensure that 90 percent of all bridge structures on the StateHighway System have a condition rating of either “excellent” or “good;” and

1 Florida's Transportation System by the Numbers, 2014. http://www.dot.state.fl.us/intermodal/system/


1-3

Restricted Bridges: No more than one percent of all bridge structures on theState Highway System with posted weight restrictions.

Pavement-Related Asset Management Objectives:

Pavement Condition: Ensure that 80 percent of all lane-miles on the StateHighway System have a Pavement Condition Rating of either “excellent” or“good.”

Safety Related Objective:

Identify and improve riding surfaces that may need to be more skid-resistantor otherwise improved in areas where crash reports indicate problems withpavement conditions.

Maintenance-Related Asset Management Objective:

Achieve a maintenance rating of at least 80 on the State Highway System(Section 334.046 Florida Statutes.) The maintenance rating is a composite ofmeasures of standard of roadway, traffic services, roadside, drainage andvegetation/aesthetic features.

These objectives are the foundation for performance measures related to asset management and their attainment enables the department to achieve a state of good repair even while experiencing continuing rapid population growth and other roadway impacting challenges and opportunities.

1.3 PAVEMENT CONDITION PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

FDOT uses a pavement condition index called Pavement Condition Rating (PCR) to evaluate pavements. The PCR includes a ride measure among its combination of values (others are crack and rutting). The ride measure component is the International Roughness Index (IRI). IRI is the measure proposed by FHWA for MAP 21 reporting. IRI represents measured longitudinal road profiles. It is calculated using a quarter-car vehicle mathematic model, whose response is presented in an index with units of slope (inches per mile). In basic terms, the measure responds to variations in pavement “bumps” across a particular distance. PCR relates to what the public cares much about -- road smoothness. It is defined separately for rigid and flexible pavements:

Rigid Pavement: The rigid pavement condition includes ride rating(measured in IRI) and several distresses, including surface deterioration,spalling, patching, transverse cracking, longitudinal cracking, cornercracking, shattered slab, faulting, pumping, and joint condition. Deductionsare taken against the PCR depending on the severity of each distress.

Flexible Pavement: The flexible pavement condition includes ride rating(measured in IRI) and several distresses: crack rating (includes different size


1-4

cracks, raveling, and patching) and rut rating. Deductions are taken against the PCR depending on the severity of each distress.

1.4 BRIDGE CONDITION PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Florida uses the National Bridge Inventory (NBI) rating as its primary performance measure. NBI includes information on approximately 600,000 of the Nation's bridges located on public roads. It presents a state-by-state summary analysis of the number, location, and general condition of highway bridges within each state. The ratings are based upon inspector judgments on each of the bridge’s primary elements: deck, superstructure, and substructure.

Figure 1 NBI Rating Scale

The department’s primary bridge target is to have 90 percent of its bridges achieve a NBI rating of six or higher. An NBI rating of six or seven means that a bridge is in good condition.

9

Excellent Structurally DeficientFairGood

8 7 16 5 4 3 2


2-1

2.0 Inventory and Condition

In order to manage assets effectively, two fundamental questions need to be addressed. First, what facilities does the department own and manage? Second, what condition are those assets in? The practice of developing an inventory and condition assessment sets the stage for all other phases of asset management. In this initial TAMP, the department documents its approach to pavement and bridge assets on the expanded National Highway System (NHS), 2,427 lane miles of which is owned by local governments. These are the minimum requirements of MAP-21. In future updates of the TAMP, the department may expand its perspective to include safety, transit, intelligent transportation systems (ITS), and culverts, among other assets. Table 1 summarizes the inventory and condition of pavement and bridge assets using the proposed MAP-21 performance measures for each2. Note that the values are for 2013 which were the latest available for this analysis. Also note that the performance measures listed do not match those currently used by FDOT. However, reporting these measures for MAP-21 would not be an issue for the department.

Table 1 Summary Inventory for State Owned Pavement and Bridges

Inventory Unit 2013 Inventory Performance

Measure 2013 Performance

Pavement Lane-miles (state owned)

43,402 Percent on NHS with a high condition rating based on International Roughness Index (IRI) score

81%

Bridge Number of bridges (state

owned)

6,783 Percent deck area on bridges classified as Structurally Deficient

(SD)

2.4%

2.1 NHS PAVEMENT

Inventory

The department is responsible for constructing and maintaining a 12,099 centerline mile highway system that consists of 43,402 total lane-miles of pavement.

2 Final regulations had not yet been issued by the Federal Highway Administration when the Florida TAMP was adopted.


2-2

The department has a focused planning approach that includes a Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), a priority network of highways, railways, transit lines, airports, seaports, and spaceports that form the critical arteries for interstate and interregional commerce. The highway portion of the SIS is a subset of NHS transportation facilities. SIS facilities are classified as “hubs” (nodes of activity such as train stations and airports), “corridors” (such as highways), and “intermodal connectors” (facilities that connect a SIS hub with a SIS corridor).

Table 2 shows state and local ownership of both centerline and lane miles by SIS, NHS and SHS. Centerline miles represent the length of the road, while lane-miles represent the length and lane count for a road.

Table 2 Pavement Inventory - Centerline and Lane Miles by Ownership

SIS Centerline

Miles

SIS Lane Miles

NHS Centerline

Miles

NHS Lane Miles

SHS Total Centerline

Miles SHS Total Lane Miles

State owned (includes interstates)

4,294 18,678 8,203 33,708 12,118 43,665

Locally owned 59 221 567 2,427

Total 4,353 18,899 8,770 36,135

As of June 30, 2015

Condition

Pavement Condition Survey

The department performs an annual Pavement Condition Survey (PCS) to collect data on all state owned roads. Different metrics exist for flexible (asphalt) and rigid (concrete) pavements; 97.6% of FDOT’s pavement is flexible. The department measures ride quality and cracking for both pavement types, rutting for flexible pavements, and several types of distresses unique to rigid pavements.

The Pavement Condition Unit in the State Materials Office conducts these annual surveys of the entire state highway system in support of the department's Pavement Management Program. The data collected (in terms of crack, ride, and rutting measurements) is used to assess the condition and performance of the state’s roadway as well as to predict future rehabilitation needs.

Pavement Measure: Ride Quality

The two ride quality metrics used by the department are the International Roughness Index (IRI) and Ride Rating (RR). Both measures are computed from a surface profile captured by van-based equipment at freeway speeds. IRI is the rating system required by FHWA in annual highway inventory summaries. It is generated using a standard algorithm (ASTM E1926) and varies from zero, indicating pavement in perfect condition, to infinity. Higher scores indicate worse ride quality.


2-3

RR is a second metric used by the department to report ride quality on a scale from 0 to 10, primarily for internal agency use. Starting in 2015, RR will be based on IRI.

Pavement Measure: Defect Metrics

Due to the physical differences between them, defect metrics differ between flexible and rigid pavements. For flexible pavements, the department evaluates cracking and rutting. Flexible pavement defect is measured in the percentage of roadway area affected by each of five types of defect: three degrees of cracking defined by severity (1, 2, or 3); raveling (4); and patching (5).

The total affected surface area is the sum of those percentages. In addition, the “predominate type of cracking” is used to establish a score based on its severity and extent for the areas inside and outside of wheel paths. These scores are added together and subtracted from ten to calculate the Crack Rating (CR). Higher values for CR indicate better condition.

For rigid pavement, the department defines 10 defect metrics as follows:

surface deterioration

spalling

patching

transverse cracking

longitudinal cracking

corner cracking

shattered slab

faulting

pumping

joint quality

These metrics reflect both the natural deterioration of the concrete surface and structural displacement unique to concrete slab, such as faulting (vertical displacement) and joint quality. The metrics are weighted according to both standard and segment-specific priorities, and the result is deducted from 100 to calculate the Defect Rating.

Pavement Measure: Rutting

The current condition survey field van also measures rutting for flexible pavement in ⅛-inch increments of depth, with each increment deducting one point from a perfect total of 10. The overall rutting score for the road segment is equal to the average of the scores for each wheel path.


2-4

Florida Analysis System for Targets (FAST)

Prior to 2009, the department used a formulaic approach to pavement resurfacing project selection. This approach dictated that 5.3% of the statewide lane-miles be resurfaced based on deficiencies. The Florida Analysis System for Targets (FAST) was created to provide a stronger analytic approach to the resurfacing program to meet the 80% non-deficient statewide standard. Based on a set of historical performance information in each district, FAST relies upon regression equations to forecast performance. Crack ratings and other predictive indicators are used to estimate the optimal allocations.

FAST allows for a more detailed forecast analysis, allowing pavement management staff to run a variety of funding scenarios and to help optimize project selection for decision-makers. FAST provides the ability to calculate future resurfacing allocations based on forecasted conditions, impact analysis for these scenarios, a prioritized list of candidate projects, and has improved section level condition forecasts across the SHS.

FAST is extremely accurate on a system-wide level, however some section level projections remain difficult to estimate.

Pavement Condition Summary

Figure 2 shows the 2013 condition distribution for FDOT flexible pavement. The chart shows RR10, CR, and rutting - the metrics FDOT uses to inform decisions regarding pavement preservation projects. It also distinguishes among statewide, primary3, Interstate, and Turnpike pavements. All metrics are evaluated from zero to 10, with 10 representing perfect pavement conditions. A pavement is in poor condition if it scores less than six in any category. Pavements generally are in good condition; ride rating typically is in fair condition; and the Turnpike and Interstates typically are in better condition than the average statewide roadway.

3 The “Primary” highway system consists of the National Highway System (NHS) and roads bearing a functional classification of Urban Collector/Major Rural Collector or higher. It is also referred to as the “Federal Aid Highway” system.


2-5

Figure 2 Results of 2013 Florida Flexible Pavement Condition Survey

2.2 NATIONAL HIGHWAY SYSTEM BRIDGES

Inventory

Bridges meeting FHWA qualifications are defined within FDOT as Major Structures. Major Structures are those vehicular bridges with a clear opening of greater than 20 feet along the direction of the roadway between abutments, spring lines of arches, extreme ends of openings for multiple boxes, or extreme ends of openings for multiple pipes. Most Major Structures are bridges. However, there are also large culverts (greater than 20 feet) that are classified as major structures.

Approximately 12,000 bridges in Florida are recorded in the National Bridge Inventory (NBI), as shown in Table 3. Of these, 6,783 are state maintained and approximately 5,700 are part of the National Highway System (NHS).

Table 3 Inventory Summary for Bridges Managed by FDOT

Number of

Bridges Deck Area (ft2) SD Area (ft2) Percent of Area

SD

SIS 4,509 93,116,588 615,445 0.7%

State Owned NHS 4,220 96,125,304 1,831,101 1.9%

Locally Owned NHS 1,488 26,484,291 482,284 1.8%


2-6

State Owned Total 5,441 122,600,774 2,890,234 2.4%

NHS 5,708 122,609,594 2,313,385 1.9%

Florida NBI 12,070 172,941,567 4,194,739 2.4%

Note: Based on April 2013 NBI tape data submitted to the FHWA (figures do not include the locally owned bridges on post-May 2013 NHS).

Bridge Inspection Program / Bridge Work Plan

In 2013, the department maintained 6,773 bridges, completing 5,777 inspections on state, turnpike, and locally owned bridges. In 2014, the department maintained 6,846 bridges, completing 7,127 inspections on state, turnpike, and locally owned bridges. Each bridge’s current condition is compared with the condition from its prior inspection. Every bridge is inspected at least once every two years to assess its condition and to identify structures that require further maintenance, rehabilitation, or replacement. Special inspections are conducted after major weather events, such as floods and hurricanes.

Since FDOT’s bridge inspection program began in 1970, there has been a steady improvement in bridge conditions on the State Highway System due to an aggressive maintenance and construction program.

Condition

Figure 3 and Figure 4 show the condition of the state’s NHS bridges over the past several years. Figure 3 shows the amount of deck area rated SD against the overall total in the years 2010-2014, while Figure 4 shows how the percentage of deck area on NHS bridges rated SD has declined over time. While interpreting these figures, it should be noted that the NHS in Florida was expanded through the MAP-21 legislation and that these new designations are reflected in the 2013 NBI dataset.

Prior to MAP-21 in 2012, the department (like most state DOTs) did not utilize deck area as a basis for bridge condition. Reported deck area is developed during inspections. In Figure 3, the total structurally deficient deck area declines over the years 2010-2013 because new bridges built during that period significantly increased the newly built share of NHS deck area. The expansion of the federally defined NHS added several new bridges to the NHS and accounts for the expansion in deck area shown in Figure 3.


2-7

Figure 3 Amount of NHS Deck Area in Florida Rated Structurally Deficient, 2010-2013

Note: Data for 2013 differs from other years, in that the NHS was expanded and that bridges in their first ten years of life could receive an SD rating.

Figure 4 Percentage of NHS Deck Area in Florida Rated Structurally Deficient, 2010-2013

Note: Data for 2013 differs from other years, in that the NHS was expanded and that bridges in their first ten years of life could receive an SD rating.

0

25

50

75

100

125

2010 2011 2012 2013

Mill

ions

Squ

are

Feet

SD Area (sf)

Non-SD Area (sf)

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

2010 2011 2012 2013

Perc

enta

ge o

f Dec

k Ar

ea R

ated

SD



3-1

3.0 Performance-Based Planning and Programming

3.1 PERFORMANCE-BASED PLANNING AND

PROGRAMMING PROCESS The department's Performance Policy and Performance Framework guides and informs transportation decision making (see FDOTPerforms.org). As stated in the Policy, "Performance management also encompasses asset management and performance measurement reflecting the department's priorities for accountability and stewardship of resources". The Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process is shown in Figure 5 and in detail in Figure 6 on page 3-3.

Figure 5 Performance Based Planning and Programming Process

The TAMP influences several critical documents that provide overall financial guidance for the department and in turn influence the projected investment strategy for the TAMP. The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) provides long-term vision for the state. The FTP sets policy guidance for future department initiatives. The Program and Resource Plan (PRP) shows a 10-year projected annual investment levels for all departmental programs, including the capital and maintenance programs. The PRP provides program-funding levels that form the basis for the department’s Finance Plan, Five-Year Work Program, and


3-2

Legislative Budget Request. The 10 year project annual investment levels presented in the PRP will serve as the 10 year guide for purposes of the TAMP.

The most important document for project development is the Five-Year Work Program, that identifies which projects and services will be provided, when and where such projects and services will be provided, and how these projects and services will be funded using projected available revenue.

The five-year Finance Plan provides the legislature and department managers with expected revenue forecasts and assurance that the department’s planned program is financed (balanced with anticipated revenues). A separate 36-month Cash Forecast provides a model for ensuring that acceptable cash flow is available for project activity and operations over the time period.

An Annual Performance Report (www.fdotperforms.org) documents progress in relation to the department's mission execution and other priorities, plans and programs. FDOT uses performance measures to perform the following:

Assess how well Florida's multimodal transportation system is functioning;

Provide information to support and inform decision making;

Assess how effectively and efficiently transportation programs, projects and services are being delivered;

Determine customer satisfaction levels; and

Demonstrate transparency and accountability to Florida’s citizens and the department’s many other stakeholders.

http://www.fdotperforms.org/


3-3

Figure 6 Department Processes and Key Documents


3-4

3.2 PROGRAM OBJECTIVES Section 1.2 above includes a list of the department's objectives for its asset management plan. These objectives include specific targets for condition and performance ratings.

In January 2015, the Federal Highway Administration released a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) for pavement and bridge condition measures. The Notice calls for the TAMP to demonstrate how the department will meet the expected minimum levels for condition of pavements on the National Highway System as required by MAP-21. When the pavement and bridge rulemaking process is complete, MAP-21 regulations will require the department to set targets for pavement condition. Sections 334.046 and 339.135, Florida Statutes, already require pavement on state owned facilities to meet certain standards. For pavement, 80 percent of all lane-miles on the State Highway System must be in good or excellent condition. This requirement must be met before any capacity expansion projects can be considered. Similarly, bridge related targets indicate 90% in excellent or good categories. Each year, the department allocates sufficient funds to meet both objectives.

The bridge and pavement NPRM as presented will require some modifications to the data collection and reporting practices within the department. Florida will meet Federal performance requirements for pavements and bridges due to its well-established policy on funding and ability to meet condition targets as outlined above. Florida intends to meet all requirements in both of the Asset Management related rules (Pavement Condition and Bridge Condition ( 23 CFR Part 490) as well as Asset Management Plan (23 CFR Part 515). The TAMP may be revised to address these needs in the future when the rules become final.

3.3 PERFORMANCE Pavement on the SHS is generally in excellent condition. Ninety-three percent of pavements meet department standards as of 2014. In the past 10 years, overall pavement performance has improved dramatically. A combination of factors, including improved design approaches and preventive maintenance efforts, are responsible for this increase.


3-5

Figure 7 Percent Pavement on the State Highway System Meeting Department Standards

For bridge condition, the state’s bridges also perform above national averages. More than 90% of the state’s bridges meet the department’s standards, with 95% meeting that target in 2014.

Figure 8 Percent Bridges on the State Highway System Meeting Department Standards

This established history demonstrates that the state’s bridges are in a state of good repair and do not exhibit signs of structural deterioration or are they posted with weight restrictions. Less than 1% of the state’s total bridges are posted with weight restrictions.



4-1

4.0 Asset Management Tools

4.1 POLICY, PLANNING, AND PROGRAMMING

PROCESSES Florida has been at the forefront of transportation asset management and asset maintenance best practices. In many national surveys, Florida is consistently rated as having the nation’s best pavements and bridges. This focus, and a legislative mandate to maintain consistently high ratings for pavements and bridges, sets a standard for all of Florida’s TAM practices. Florida’s existing practices for asset management are rooted in meeting these performance standards.

Florida’s asset management focus is mission driven and it is clear that the asset management ethic is incorporated into the mission statement, goals, and operating policies of the department.

Pavement Practices

The department consistently follows several steps to ensure it continues to meet its targets with respect to pavement condition. These steps include:

Resurfacing 3 percent of the arterials on the SHS annually;

Resurfacing 175 lane miles on the interstate system annually;

Coordinating with the department’s Motor Carrier Size and Weight Officeand the Florida Highway Patrol’s Office of Commercial Vehicle Enforcementto reduce the illegal operation of commercial motor vehicles exceedingweight limits;

Facilitating training and technical assistance to assist local governments; and

Maintaining current data systems for pavement condition surveys andratings.

Bridge Practices and Strategies

FDOT takes a proactive approach to bridge maintenance emphasizing preventative maintenance and repairs being performed prior to bridges deteriorating to a level that would require much higher repair costs. This helps to ensure that FDOT-maintained bridges meet or exceed their life expectancy, resulting in a lower frequency of replacements due to bridge condition. Bridges are inspected at least once every two years, with more frequent inspections on structures following extreme weather events.

Specifically, the department has also adopted the following strategies aimed to continue meeting this high standard:


4-2

Include all FDOT-maintained bridge projects that need repair in the BridgeWork Plan within 12 months of deficiency identification as candidate projectsfor potential Work Program adoption.

Replace or repair all structurally deficient FDOT-maintained bridges andthose bridges posted for weight restriction within six (6) years of thedeficiency identification.

Replace all other FDOT-maintained bridges designated for replacementwithin nine (9) years of the deficiency identification.

As with pavements, coordinate with the department’s Motor Carrier Size andWeight Office and Florida Highway Patrol’s Office of Commercial VehicleEnforcement to reduce the illegal operation of commercial motor vehiclesexceeding weight limits on Florida’s public roads and bridges.

Continue to monitor bridges scheduled to be replaced and make interimrepairs, as necessary, to safeguard the traveling public.

4.2 LIFE CYCLE COST ANALYSES Florida currently uses life cycle cost considerations in its project selection processes for pavements and bridges.

Both management systems for pavements and bridges in the state use elements of life cycle costs in the project prioritization process.

The department uses AASHTOWare™ Bridge Management software (BrM), formerly Pontis, to inform bridge management decision making. Florida has been inspecting bridges since 1998 with the Commonly Recognized Elements (CoRe) for bridge inspections. BrM includes a life cycle cost analysis evaluation tool and its associated project planning tool allows agency planners to evaluate various project options using rapid analysis with clear presentation of the life cycle costs associated with each alternative.

FAST incorporates economic costs in its modeling. The FAST pavement tool includes deterioration curves and three basic preservation actions: light, medium, and heavy. The model selects appropriate action for a segment using incremental benefit cost analysis (IBC). The agency allocates resurfacing funds at a level to ensure that 80% of the system remains non-deficient per Statute. The tool uses NCHRP defined user costs as part of its selection criteria.

4.3 RISK MANAGEMENT ANALYSIS The Florida Transportation Plan requires the department to incorporate and to consider the risk of service interruption (e.g., extreme events, asset failures, bridge scour, etc.) into its priority-setting process. In an asset management approach context, identification, analysis, evaluation, and mitigation are combined into a formalized process.


4-3

To develop this TAMP, a risk register was developed that captured a set of risks at the agency, program, and asset levels. This risk register was evaluated in terms of the likelihood of a service interruption and the resulting consequence as based on the scale shown in Figure 9.

Figure 9 Risk Rating Scale

This prioritization tool was used in an FDOT workshop in August 2014. Each individual risk categorization area is prioritized. Note that these are potential risks that may or may not occur.

The following risks were identified as the highest priority items to be addressed in the TAMP. Agency Level

1. State and federal funding are significantly reduced across the board fortransportation.

2. Funds are not sufficient for capital and maintenance projects due to inflationin construction costs.

3. Funds are not sufficient for capital and maintenance projects due to failure toaccurately predict funding.

Program Level

1. Unpredicted variation in construction costs.

2. Unfunded federal mandates.

3. Staff turnover and loss of experience/expertise.

4. Poor management.


4-4

5. New infrastructure initiatives.

Asset Level

1. Hurricane damage.

2. Damage or destruction due to flooding.

3. Bridges are damaged or destroyed due to scour.

4. Culverts and other drainage facilities fail (blockages or overtopping)unexpectedly.

5. Sinkholes emerge under or near roadway sections compromising foundation.

6. Assets are damaged or destroyed due to vehicle impacts and/or hazardousmaterials spill.

Complete mitigation and/or treatment approaches will be presented in a separate document posted on the asset management web page.


5-1

5.0 Financial Plan

5.1 INVESTMENT STRATEGIES The Federal Highway Administration has defined investment strategy as follows:

An investment strategy means a set of strategies that result from evaluating various levels of funding to achieve a desired level of condition to achieve and sustain a state of good repair and system performance at a minimum practicable cost while managing risks.

The Florida legislature has adopted several prevailing principles for the department to meet to achieve and sustain a state of good repair and maintain system performance targets. Among the most germane for this discussion are the requirements to:

ensure that 80 percent of the pavement surfaces on the SHS meet departmentstandards;

ensure that 90 percent of department-maintained bridges meet departmentstandards; and

ensure that the department achieves 100 percent of the acceptablemaintenance standard on the SHS (Section 334.046, Florida Statutes).

The department meets the pavement condition standard by balancing resurfacing needs with SHS pavement deterioration rates. Pavement condition standards are based on the percentage of lane-miles with a Pavement Condition Rating of either excellent or good using cracking, ride, or rut measurements. The bridge standard is the percentage of bridge structures on the State Highway System that have a condition of excellent or good. The Maintenance Rating Program uses visual and mechanical evaluation of routine highway maintenance conditions in a uniform manner to rate maintenance levels.

Through these statutory provisions, Florida has established a well-recognized approach to preserve existing assets and protect the public’s investment in its highways and bridges. The strong mandated targets, coupled with a departmental commitment to adopting innovative approaches for meeting these condition targets, allow Florida to ensure a strong approach to maintenance and preservation activities.

5.2 FINANCIAL PLAN

The department annually updates and extends its planned 10-year approach to meet its asset management objectives and other program responsibilities.


5-2

The current Work Program and planned 10-year Program Resource Plan provide enough funding to maintain the state of good repair for Florida’s pavement and bridge network.

Based on the July 9, 2014 PRP, this section summarizes the amount of funds expected to be available for managing assets over a 10-year period and provides a high-level view of how the funds will be allocated.

Trends in allocations for pavement resurfacing and bridge maintenance are shown in Figure 10 for the years 2011-2023. Over the period shown, the department will allocate approximately $6.9 billion for resurfacing and approximately $4.1 billion for bridge maintenance.

Figure 10 Historic and Projected Allocations for Pavement Resurfacing and Bridge Maintenance and Replacements in Fiscal Years 2011-12 through 2022-23

Source: Program and Resource Plan Summary, Fiscal Years 1982-83 to 2012-13, 2013-14 Program and Resource Plan Summary, Florida DOT, July 9, 2014.

Note: FY 14-15 through FY 18-19 comprises the Five-Year Work Program.

$524 $526 $550

$610

$674

$520 $546 $546

$578 $592 $612 $605

$356 $354 $365

$193 $173

$709

$240

$622

$264 $269 $274 $278

$0

$100

$200

$300

$400

$500

$600

$700

$800

FY11-1

2

FY12-1

3

FY13-1

4

FY14-1

5

FY15-1

6

FY16-1

7

FY17-1

8

FY18-1

9

FY19-2

0

FY20-2

1

FY21-2

2

FY22-2

3

Millions

Resurfacing Bridge


5-3

The 2014 Five-Year Work Program reduces the number of lane-miles resurfaced, the number of bridges repaired, and the number of bridges replaced when compared to the previous Work Program. However, the department will still meet its targets and preservation related objectives while maintaining stability. This will enable additional resources to be directed to other department operations and capacity improvement projects without degradation of existing performance. Substantial increases from 2012-2013 are in order for the first three years of the resurfacing program.

The 2013-2014 plan year is funded at $10 billion, including nearly $7.2 billion for product.

With respect to Maintenance and Operations, the department has projected small increases throughout the current PRP period. Figure 11 shows the projected allocations for maintenance and operations over the coming decade.

Figure 11 Projected Allocation for Maintenance and Operations in Fiscal Years 2014-15 through 2021-22

Source: 2013/14 Program and Resource Plan Summary, Florida DOT, July 9, 2014. Note: FY 14-15 through FY 18-19 comprises the Five-Year Work Program

$0

$100,000,000

$200,000,000

$300,000,000

$400,000,000

$500,000,000

$600,000,000

$700,000,000

$800,000,000

$900,000,000

Combined M&O/Consultant

In-house Maintenance



6-1

6.0 Implementation

This section describes the implementation actions necessary to institutionalize the practices described within this plan.

The development of the Florida TAMP is championed by representatives from both the Office of Maintenance and the Office of Policy Planning; these champions chair a Core Working Group tasked with developing the TAMP. The Core Working Group includes the Office of Work Program and Budget, the Pavement Management Office, the Public Transit Office, the Safety Office, the Transportation Statistics Office, the Pavement Condition Survey, the Bridge Office, and the Office of Information Systems. The Core Working Group participates in the development of and reviews the supporting material for the TAMP. It will dissolve and key members will reconvene to become the TAM Steering Committee, a group that will be responsible for ongoing implementation of TAM within the department.

The steps for implementation include:

1. Establish Steering Committee

2. Monitor Federal Transportation Asset Management Rulemaking Process

3. Update Investment Strategies

4. Update TAMP elements based on Final Rulemaking (if necessary)

5. Submit document for Federal Highway Administration Review

6. Respond to comments from FHWA Review and Certification Process

7. Update Risk Register and Mitigation Strategies

Each of these steps are described in the following sections.

1. Establish Steering Committee

The initial step for implementation of the strategic plan is to establish the TAM Steering Committee. The proposed membership is presented in Table 4.


6-2

Table 4 TAM Steering Committee

Role Title, Organization

TAM Co-Champion Director, Office of Maintenance

TAM Co-Champion Administrator, Statewide Planning and Policy Analysis, Office of Policy Planning

Intelligent Transportation Systems (ITS)

State Traffic Operations Engineer, Traffic Engineering and Operations Office

Finance and Programming Director, Office of Work Program and Budget

Pavement Pavement Management Engineer, Pavement Management

Bridge State Structures Maintenance Engineer, Bridge Office

Transit Transit Planning Administrator, Freight, Logistics, and Passenger Operations

Safety Transportation Safety Engineer, Safety Office

MPO Executive Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization

Advisory Council

The mission of the TAM Steering Committee will be to:

Update and modify the TAMP as necessary,

Bring leaders from across the department together to direct asset management policies and effort, and

Confirm definitions, descriptions, roles and responsibilities presented in the TAMP in accordance with federal rulemaking processes and executive direction.

The proposed Steering Committee would be appointed by the Secretary and meet twice annually to review progress.

2. Monitor Federal Transportation Asset Management Rulemaking Process

Two specific rulemaking processes are underway that directly impact the TAMP. The Asset Management Plan Notice of Proposed Rulemaking closed formally in May 2015. The final rule is anticipated in October 2015. The second is the Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program rulemaking. This final rulemaking is also scheduled for October 2015.

The department will continue monitoring these rulemaking processes and modify the plan elements as needed to meet the final rulemaking. [The initial TAMP has used the Notice of Proposed Rulemaking and proposed TAMP template promulgated by the FHWA].

3. Update Investment Strategies

The department will update the investment strategy presented in the TAMP based on the most recent PRP. Based on the expected budget allocations


6-3

approved through the Florida legislature, slight variations in future investments may occur.

4. Submit for FHWA Certification and Respond to Comments

The TAMP will be reviewed by FHWA for compliance with the final rulemaking. In accord with the expected process, the Secretary will submit the department’s TAMP to FHWA.

5. Update Risk Register and Mitigation Strategies

The TAMP is envisioned to be updated on a four year cycle. In addition, the Risk Register should be revised and re-prioritized on a similar schedule. To maximize the benefits of risk mitigation approaches, the Steering Committee will regularly monitor the proposed activities and approaches.

Florida Department of Transportation

September 3, 2015

FLORIDA TRANSPORTATION

ASSET MANAGEMENT PLAN

Technical Report


Technical Report

Florida Department of Transportation

September 3, 2015

Florida Transportation Asset Management Plan — Technical Report

i

Table of Contents

1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................... 1-1

2.0 Performance Gap Analysis ............................................................................... 2-1

2.1 Existing Practices and Policies ....................................................................... 2-1

2.2 Financial Processes and Funding Levels .......................................................... 2-2

2.3 Risk Management and Assessment ................................................................ 2-3

3.0 Risk Management and Mitigation .................................................................... 3-1

3.1 Trends Affecting Maintenance and Operations ................................................. 3-1

3.2 Risk Register .............................................................................................. 3-2

3.3 Risk Related Strategies ................................................................................ 3-5

Agency Level Risks ...................................................................................... 3-5

Program Level ............................................................................................ 3-6

Asset Level Risks......................................................................................... 3-8

4.0 Detailed Process Information .......................................................................... 4-1

4.1 Role Descriptions ........................................................................................ 4-1

FDOT Executive Team .................................................................................. 4-1

FDOT Office of Comptroller ........................................................................... 4-1

FDOT Office of Work Program and Budget ...................................................... 4-1

Other Offices .............................................................................................. 4-2

Florida Transportation Commission ................................................................ 4-2

Metropolitan Planning Organizations .............................................................. 4-3

Other Partners ............................................................................................ 4-3

4.2 Processes and Critical Documents ................................................................. 4-3

Florida Transportation Plan ........................................................................... 4-5

Annual Program and Resource Plan ............................................................... 4-6

The Work Program ...................................................................................... 4-7

4.3 Developing the Work Program: Process .......................................................... 4-7

The Finance Plan ......................................................................................... 4-9

Legislative Budget Request ......................................................................... 4-10

Florida Long-Range Program Plan ................................................................ 4-10

Annual Performance Report ........................................................................ 4-10

5.0 Systemwide Valuation ..................................................................................... 5-1

5.1 Current Calculations for GASB 34 .................................................................. 5-1


ii

Condition and Maintenance Programs ............................................................ 5-1

6.0 Governance and Principles .............................................................................. 6-4

6.1 Florida TAMP General Principles ..................................................................... 6-4

6.2 Asset Management Business Model ................................................................ 6-4

Process for Defining Governance ................................................................... 6-5

Steering Committee Roles and Responsibilities................................................ 6-5

6.3 TAMP Update Cycles .................................................................................... 6-6


iii

List of Tables

Table 1 Revised Risk Register............................................................................... 3-3

Table 2 Proposed TAM Steering Committee ............................................................ 6-5


v

List of Figures

Figure 1 Department Processes and Key Documents ................................................ 4-5

Figure 2 Work Program Development Schedule ....................................................... 4-9


1-1

1.0 Introduction

The Florida Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP) includes supplemental

information generated during the course of the Plan’s development. A series of technical

memoranda were prepared to assist the Core Working Group develop the final TAMP. This

technical report summarizes the technical memoranda that were used to support the Core

Working Group’s efforts.

This report contains the following sections:

1.0 Performance Gap Analysis

2.0 Risk Management and Mitigation

3.0 Detailed Process Information

4.0 Systemwide Valuations

5.0 TAMP Governance and Principles


2-1

2.0 Performance Gap Analysis

This section includes the result of the TAMP Performance Gap Analysis.

A Performance Gap Analysis was completed in three primary areas based on the guidance of

the Asset Management Core Working Group. These three areas were:

Existing Practices and Policies,

Financial Processes and Funding Levels, and

Risk Management and Assessment.

2.1 Existing Practices and Policies

Florida’s mandated preservation and maintenance condition principles establish a strong

foundation for department asset management policies and approaches. Using the

background information and asset management self-assessment as a guide, consultant staff

completed a series of interviews with pavement, bridge, financial, and maintenance

personnel. Consultants also reviewed dozens of documents, plans, operating policies, and

previously completed research. During the course of these interviews and literature

reviews, several observations were made on potential improvements in asset management

practices for the department.

In no particular order, the following opportunities exist to continue effective efforts or

improve asset management practices within the department. These will be considered by

the Asset Management Steering Committee going forward.

Responsibility for the formal asset management plan and department asset

management implementation resides in shared duties between the Office of Policy

Planning and the Office of Maintenance. As such, the department will continue to

provide for open communication among all personnel involved in implementing the asset

management program.

In Florida, there are several actively involved participants in the asset management

program and the policies for including resurfacing, bridge, and maintenance funding in

programs have involved multiple people for several years.

The establishment of the Asset Management Steering Committee as a governing body

over the TAMP will ensure the TAM process continues to be well managed within the

department.

There appears to be some opportunity for maintenance and preservation efforts to

better coordinate with capacity projects in the programming process. Based on staff

interviews, the opportunity to identify long-term preventive maintenance activities in


2-2

connection with programmed projects is not considered strongly in the current

processes. There may be opportunities for more formal communication in this area. This

will be addressed by the Asset Management Steering Committee going forward.

For preservation focused bridge activity, deterministic approaches to maintenance

activities are programmed for bridges in the system. This network-level approach may

be modeled more accurately to portray complete information for project prioritization.

Increased pressure for inspectors, maintenance professionals, and managers to

complete evaluations on an aging and an increasingly complex transportation network

creates a potential for workforce capacity issues in the department. This is not

dissimilar to other state agencies and other Departments of Transportation nationally.

The department will continue to ensure workforce resources are adequate in the future.

Data collection processes are adequate to meet MAP-21 requirements for pavements

and bridges. Once the Florida TAMP is expanded to include other assets, it is likely that

new data collection processes and techniques would be required. This could include

updates for information technology resources. In addition, future developments in the

automated and connected vehicle environment may allow increased and potentially

improved data collection information for all assets.

2.2 Financial Processes and Funding Levels

The department’s open, transparent, and thorough approach to project selection and work

program development, coupled with statutory guidance requiring investment in

maintenance and preservation before capacity programs, positions the department well to

meet all pavement and bridge related performance requirements under MAP-21.

This section details observations on financial processes and funding levels that were part of

the performance gap assessment completed as part of the TAMP process. The Asset

Management Steering Committee will consider these opportunities:

A more detailed document outlining the processes for budget distribution, project

selection, project tracking, and similar information would be useful for asset managers in

the agency outside of the office of work program and budget. Opportunities exist to

allow asset managers better understanding and provide training to their staff members

on these processes.

Stronger tools to assess budget tradeoffs and scenarios may enhance the efficiency of

the work program development process. In general, cross-asset optimization is a

capability that can be improved with stronger analytic tools and cross-department

communication. Specifically, there is an opportunity to better understand the

implications of trading off investment dollars in one program versus another program,

and comparing the associated performance gains and losses.


2-3

There is not a consistent method to introduce standalone funding categories to

specifically pursue priority efforts. In many cases this may be viewed as a positive

aspect to ensure consistency of processes. However, there may be opportunities for

new funding sources to support new technology areas such as operations on arterials.

Development of a process for adding funding categories could benefit the department as

new technologies and funding areas emerge.

2.3 Risk Management and Assessment

Based on strong legislative guidance requiring minimum conditions to be met, the

department has minimized its financial and budget risks associated with maintaining a state

of good repair for the state’s pavements and bridges.

Project level risk management strategies are well established and very strong in the

department while enterprise wide or programmatic risks are not as well understood. The

department’s Project Manager’s Toolbox includes an entire section detailing risk and its

application in the field. The toolbox includes a quick risk based "graded approach analysis"

used to determine requirements for planning and control of the project work effort.

The Florida Transportation Plan further states that the department should incorporate the

risk of service interruption (e.g., extreme events, asset failures, bridge scour, etc.) into its

priority-setting process. The department also considers risks associated with delivering

asset management programs and projects (e.g., loss of funding, uncertainty of quality of

materials, project costs, unknown bridge depths, risky bid types, etc.)

During the development of the Florida TAMP, a series of project, programmatic, and

enterprise wide risks were identified. More information on this process is included in 6.2:

Risk Management and Mitigation. The following observations were generated during the

gap assessment effort. The Asset Management Steering Committee will consider these

opportunities.

Due to the expected federal rulemaking focusing on risk, the department should adopt a

formal risk-based approach to asset management. Existing policies for bridges and

pavements fulfill the minimum requirements necessary to meet federal guidance.

Mechanisms may be formalized to identify regular updates to the risk register,

reclassification of risk likelihood or prioritization, or inclusion of new risks requiring

mitigation or other treatment. An overall framework to consider mitigation strategies for

various risk events/sites is desired, as well as for comparing and trading off investments

across various risk opportunities.

At present, project identification is based on a number of engineering criteria or

responses to condition changes. There is an opportunity to establish policy or procedure

to formally insert risk based analysis in the project selection process.


2-4

Department staff expressed a great deal of interest in understanding how risk related

analysis could improve the project identification and selection processes. Additional

training and discussion may be valuable.


3-1

3.0 Risk Management and Mitigation

The Florida Transportation Plan states that the department should incorporate the risk of

service interruption (e.g., extreme events, asset failures, bridge scour, etc.) into its priority-

setting process. The department also considers risks associated with delivering asset

management programs and projects (e.g., loss of funding, uncertainty of quality of

materials, project costs, unknown bridge depths, risky bid types, etc.). The question that

remains is how best to incorporate these unknowns and how to systematically address them

in a repeatable manner.

Preparation for the risk workshops included summarization of key trends affecting

maintenance and operations in the coming years. This work summarized key issues

associated with the provision of transportation services in the coming years.

This section also captures the risk register used in the Florida TAMP Risk focused workshops

and core working group meetings to develop the priority items noted in the TAMP. The

document also includes the proposed mitigation approaches to be considered.

3.1 Trends Affecting Maintenance and Operations

Several emerging trends in public sector management for transportation assets will

substantially alter the department’s processes for delivering programs in the coming years.

The trend assessment effort did not present them as individual risks in the sense that they

require mitigation approaches, but rather as context for the FDOT risk register and risk

plans.

Emerging trends discussed included design, construction, and construction management

area concerns followed by operations trends. On the construction side, the following trends

were assessed:

Mechanistic Empirical Design,

6D Design,

Design Build Operate Maintain Contract Mechanisms, and

Materials Technology.

These trends influence the context under which construction and maintenance occur and

must be considered for long-term planning.

Operations focused trends included:

Growth in alternative transportation usage, including shared ride and transportation

network providers,


3-2

Residential location behaviors,

Vehicle connectivity and automation, and

Data-related changes, including the availability of new data sets for real-time system

management and operations.

These trends were discussed to establish an initial risk register. The initial risk register

included 26 areas to consider across agency, program, and asset level categorizations.

These risks were defined as follows:

Agency (Strategic, Corporate) Risks. These affect mission, vision, and overall

results of the asset management program. Examples include politics, public perception,

reputation, levels of available revenue, etc.

Programmatic (Business Line) Risks. Affects the department’s ability to deliver

projects and meet targets within a program. These may include organizational and

systemic issues as well as revenue and economic uncertainties that in general cause

projects to be delayed. These causes are not related to any specific projects. Examples

include project delivery risks, revenue uncertainties, cost-estimating processes, revenue

and inflation projection inaccuracies, construction cost variations, materials price

volatility, data quality, retirements, etc.

Project/Asset Risks. Affects scope, cost, schedule, and quality of projects. In

contrast to programmatic risks, project risks are related to specific projects. Examples

include hazardous materials, geology, environmental issues, right-of-way issues,

utilities, project development timeline/delays, scope growth, cost overruns, project

delays, etc.

3.2 Risk Register

Although the concept of risk management sometimes is viewed as esoteric, tools to identify

and evaluate risks are simple. The department chose to develop a risk register based on

best practices developed by the FHWA and other state DOTs. An initial risk register was

developed and refined by subsequent efforts The final risk register is presented here. The

risk register scores presented herein are based on a consequence score multiplied by a

likelihood score. Each is rated on a score of 1-5 with five being the most catastrophic or

most likely. The consequence score is based on an average of four consequences: safety,

mobility, asset damage, and other financial impact. The maximum score based on this

scoring would be 25. To differentiate between risks, and highlight key issues of importance

to the department, a bonus score was included for other considerations, including funding,

insurance, regulations, political, and reputation. 0.2 points were awarded across each

consideration, allowing for a maximum enhancement of 1.0. Scores were rounded up to

simplify the tiering process. With the bonus included, the maximum score would be 26.


3-3

Table 1 Revised Risk Register

Event/Occurrence Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence

Score

Other

Considerations

Ris

k S

co

re

Safe

ty

Mo

bilit

y

Asset

Dam

ag

e

Oth

er

Fin

an

cia

l

Im

pact

Fu

nd

ing

In

su

ran

ce

Reg

ula

tory

Po

liti

cal

Rep

uta

tio

n

Agency Risks

A State and Federal funding are significantly

reduced across the board for transportation.

2 3 4 3 4 √ √ √ 8

B State funding is reduced to FDOT due to poor

public perception of the agency.

1 2 4 1 3 √ √ √ √ 3

C Flexibility with Federal funding is reduced due

to failure to meet regulatory standards (MAP-

21).

1 2 2 2 2 √ √ √ √ 2

D Funds are not sufficient for capital and

maintenance projects due to inflation in

construction costs.

2 2 4 3 4 √ √ √ √ √ 7

E Funds are not sufficient for capital and

maintenance projects due to failure to

accurately predict funding.

2 2 4 3 3 √ √ √ 7

F Funds are not sufficient for capital and

maintenance projects due to failure to

accurately predict costs.

1 2 4 3 3 √ √ √ 3

G Asset management at FDOT is inefficient or

ineffective due to a lack of communication

with staff.

1 2 1 1 1 √ √ √ 1

Program Risks

H FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to unfunded Federal

mandates.

2 3 4 2 3 √ √ √ 7

I FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to diversion of funds to

high-profile projects.

1 3 3 3 3 √ √ √ √ 4

J FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to staff turnover and loss

of expertise/experience.

3 3 3 2 3 √ √ 9

K FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to poor data management

systems and strategies.

1 3 3 3 3 3

L FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to poor management.

2 3 3 3 3 √ √ 7


3-4

Event/Occurrence Lik

elih

oo

d

Consequence Score

Other Considerations

Ris

k S

co

re

Safe

ty

Mo

bilit

y

Asset

Dam

ag

e

Oth

er

Fin

an

cia

l

Im

pact

Fu

nd

ing

In

su

ran

ce

Reg

ula

tory

Po

liti

cal

Rep

uta

tio

n

M FDOT’s ability to deliver programs is

impacted by a new statute requiring capacity-

related investment.

2 3 3 2 3 √ √ √ √ 6

N FDOT’s ability to efficiently deliver programs

is undermined due to unpredicted variation in

construction costs.

2 3 3 2 3 √ √ √ 6

Asset Risks

O Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

hurricanes.

4 4 4 4 4 √ √ √ 1

8

P Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

flooding (often associated with hurricanes).

4 4 4 4 4 √ √ √ 1

8

Q Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

tornadoes.

2 1 2 3 2 √ √ 5

R Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

wildfires.

2 2 2 3 1 √ √ √ √ 5

S Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

vehicle impacts and/or hazardous materials

spill.

3 2 2 3 2 √ √ √ 8

T Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

retaining wall failure, landslides, or rockfalls.

1 1 2 2 1 √ √ √ 2

U Bridges are damaged or destroyed due to

scour.

2 2 3 4 3 √ √ √ 7

V Assets are damaged or destroyed due to

failure of ITS and traffic safety equipment.

1 2 2 1 1 √ √ 2

W Bridges fail for reasons other than impacts

and scour.

1 3 3 4 2 √ √ √ √ 4

X Culverts and other drainage facilities fail

(blockages or overtopping) unexpectedly.

3 2 3 4 2 √ √ √ 9

Y Sinkholes emerge under or near roadway

sections compromising foundation.

3 3 3 3 2 √ √ 9

Z FDOT’S ability to construct/maintain assets is

compromised due to unanticipated increase

of project scope.

2 1 2 1 3 √ √ √ 4


3-5

At an August 2014 workshop, the following risks were prioritized as most important for

inclusion in the TAMP. During the development of proposed asset management

enhancements, mitigation activities were reviewed and presented for consideration by the

Asset Management Steering Committee.

3.3 Risk Related Strategies

Agency Level Risks

1. State and Federal funding are significantly reduced across the board for

transportation. In the event that state or federal funding is significantly reduced, the

department would need to reallocate funding and/or reprioritize projects. This risk could

be caused by either policy decisions or federal inactivity.

External risk. Given the department’s limited control over legislative funding priorities

(and even more marginal control over total federal funding), the department will

mitigate this risk by:

Prioritization. The department already prioritizes projects based on general

importance and overall impact to the transportation system. This approach

would ensure that should funding reductions occur, projects critical to achieving

agency objectives and performance goals are eliminated last.

Performance reporting. The department does project expected reductions in

performance related to key agency objectives under funding-constrained

scenarios and convey results to lawmakers and/or the public (thereby making a

case for sustaining or expanding current funding levels).

2. Funds are not sufficient for capital and maintenance projects due to inflation in

construction costs. Inflation in construction costs would increase the budgetary load

of projects and reduce the number of projects the department could fund. This would

inhibit the completion of the Work Program.

External risk: The department cannot control the broader forces contributing to

construction cost inflation. However, FDOT will manage its programs and contracts to

minimize these risks as follows:

Prioritization. As with the previous risk, the department considers approaches

that tier programs and projects by relative priority. This ensures that, should

significant cost inflation occur, construction projects critical to achieving agency

objectives and performance goals are eliminated last.

Risk reallocation. The department currently institutes contract mechanisms that

control or stabilize costs throughout the duration of the project, shifting the

burden of some risks to contractors (although bids reflect this risk reallocation).


3-6

3. Funds are not sufficient for capital and maintenance projects due to failure to

accurately predict funding. The Work Program is presented over five years, but the

horizon on budgeting is only one year. It is possible that in years two through four the

state might not appropriate the funding that the department anticipates, forcing some

elements of the Work Program to be postponed.

External Risk: Due to a wide variety of factors beyond the department’s direct control,

even informed predictions of future funding can prove to be inaccurate, particularly

during the latter years of the Work Program. The department could address this risk by:

Prioritization. The department allocates resources by relative priority to ensure

that, should funding predictions fall short, projects critical to achieving agency

objectives and performance goals are eliminated last. Particularly in the latter

years of the Work Program, when significant variances from funding predictions

are most likely, the department develops contingency plans (to supplement

funding, cut projects, or both) to address potential funding shortfalls.

Program Level

1. The department’s ability to efficiently deliver programs is undermined due to

unfunded Federal mandates. Unfunded mandates put a strain on state budgets by

imposing sanctions if money is not diverted to cover them.

External risk: The department has minimal control over the timing and nature of

Federal mandates, but may manage this risk (to a limited degree) by:

Staying abreast of Federal developments. If the department is able to anticipate

the timing and nature of Federal mandates well in advance, it may buy time to

better prepare for the impacts (or, to a limited degree, shape the mandate

through its Federal representation). The department currently maintains strong

relationships with Federal officials and key Congressional representatives to

maintain high levels of knowledge to anticipate such policy changes.

Engaging Florida’s national representation. Florida has a large legislative

contingent in Washington, which, if proactively engaged by the department (or,

through the State’s administration), may be able to help shape Federal mandates

to better reflect the realities facing Florida and other state departments of

transportation.


staff turnover and loss of expertise/experience. Expertise and experience could be

lost when leader or subject matter expert leaves.


3-7

Internal risk: Although attrition is a workplace reality, the department manages this

risk through strategies intended to retain high performing employees and attract

promising new employees, including:

Rewards. Although the department’s ability to reward employees is limited by

statutory requirements, the department has considered bolstering programs

meant to identify high-performing staff early on and develop managerial and

non-managerial job descriptions that correspond with higher salary grades (i.e.,

linking financial rewards with incremental promotions). Among these are flexible

scheduling and workplace accommodation programs.

Workplace. Fostering a welcoming, high-quality workplace is critical to retaining

employees. The department should continue to work with its Human Resources

and Facilities groups to explore opportunities for improvement.

Post-employment restrictions. The department already prohibits certain

categories of former department employees (Selected Exempt Service or Senior

Management Service) from representing a private firm before the department for

a two-year period after leaving the department. This restriction limits the

incentive of the senior department staff to resign to seek employment with

private contractors serving the department.


poor management. Poor management could create an unproductive or inefficient

atmosphere in the department. In addition, poor management could affect the tracking

of asset condition and project spending.

Internal risk: The department minimizes the opportunities for and impacts of poor

management by employing strategies that include:

Institutional controls. Building on its strong institutional controls and protocols,

the department can further eliminate opportunities for poor management. This

includes mandatory management training programs; strategic cross checks

relating to key management decisions; the development of monitoring and

performance measurement protocols for staff and project managers; and removal

of authority if a history of poor management becomes evident.


diversion of funds to high-profile projects. Though the department currently has a

positive relationship with the state legislature, politics or publicity could lead the

legislature to overrule the department’s prioritization of projects. Alternatively, a high-

profile project exceeding its budget could lead to the diversion of funds from other

projects.

External risk: Although the department has a limited ability to prevent the diversion of

funding to high profile projects, it can partially manage this risk by:


3-8

Performance reporting. The department will forecast expected reductions in

performance related to key agency objectives if funding for the Work Program is

reallocated to high-profile projects, and convey these projected results to

lawmakers and/or the public.

Prioritization. The department will continue to develop conservative cost-

affordable plans (or plan alternatives) that tier programs and projects by relative

priority. This will ensure that, should significant funding reallocation occur (due

to high-profile projects or other reasons), elements of the program critical to

achieving agency objectives and performance goals are eliminated last.

Alternative funding. In some instances, high-profile projects are candidates for

Public-Private Partnerships/concessions. When appropriate, the department will

consider alternative mechanisms and advise legislators on potential options for

alternative funding.

Asset Level Risks

1. Assets are damaged or destroyed due to flooding (often associated with

hurricanes). Flooding can undermine roadways and bridges, can increase scour on

bridge piers, and can carry debris which causes impact damage to assets.

External risk: Although hurricanes and other intense storm events are endemic to

Florida and cannot be prevented, the department manages the impacts of flooding and

other extreme weather risks on the department assets—particularly those deemed most

critical to mobility, economy, evacuation, etc. Potential risk management strategies

adopted in Florida currently include:

Protect/Harden. Enhance the resilience of infrastructure by developing or

enhancing natural (e.g., wetlands) buffers; building engineered protection (e.g.,

levees); or updating design standards (e.g., higher capacity drainage, greater

freeboard requirements, etc.). The department regularly considers hurricane

probability in bridge design and this could be incorporated in its pavement

selection processes as well.

Manage/Maintain. The department will continue to prioritize operations and

maintenance activities that contribute to risk mitigation (e.g., culvert

maintenance) and develop emergency response plans that emphasize active

monitoring and management (e.g., bridge scour monitoring) before, during, and

after flooding events. The 2013 State of Florida Enhanced Hazard Mitigation Plan

addresses the prioritization of operations in the event of a hurricane.

Develop redundancy. The department will continue to prepare for intermittent

loss of service by developing alternate routes or services through system

expansion and/or by instituting emergency detour plans and support


3-9

infrastructure (such as ITS). In most current infrastructure development

planning efforts, redundancy is considered.

Abandon/Relocate. In accordance with federal rulemaking, the department will

develop a policy to address the most vulnerable infrastructure, including the

possibility of relocating roadways, bridges, or other assets to lower risk areas.

These strategies are most cost-effective when integrated into capital investment

and asset management plans and coinciding with normal asset renewal cycles.

2. Bridges are damaged or destroyed due to scour. Scour is the wearing and erosion

of soil around bridge piers through the movement of water.

Internal risk: Although the high-velocity flooding events that lead to scour-related

failure are external (beyond the department’s direct control), scour-related failure risk is

significantly amplified when facilities are already scour critical. The department

manages its inventory of bridges to aggressively mitigate existing scour critical facilities

(through scour countermeasures or replacements) and to minimize the proportion of

non-scour critical bridges that deteriorate to scour critical status. These risk

management strategies include:

Monitoring and inspections. Particularly for bridges known to be scour critical or

approaching scour critical status, an aggressive program of monitoring and

inspections (beyond the normal bridge inspection frequency) is already in place.

This facilitates the early identification of significant problems, allowing the

department to take preemptive action before a failure event occurs.

Bridge management and replacement. Although monitoring and inspections

provide essential information to FDOT, a successful scour mitigation program

requires a management plan that balances issues of condition with the estimated

degree of failure risk (related to anticipated flood velocities, angle of attack,

debris, etc.), cost to mitigate or stabilize the problem, and anticipated funding—

resulting in a prioritized treatment program. The department will consider

adopting a scour-specific mitigation program.

3. Culverts and other drainage facilities fail (blockages or overtopping)

unexpectedly. Severe blockages or immense rainfall can cause failures in pavement.

In addition, the potential for collapse due to loading or structural failure can impact

roadway networks.

Internal risk: As with scour critical bridges, although the department cannot prevent

the intense precipitation events that may instigate culvert failure, the agency does

manage its culverts to mitigate the risk of failure, including:

Maintenance. Even when properly sized, culverts may fail if they are clogged

with silt or debris or fail structurally, potentially resulting in overtopping, erosion,


3-10

and washouts. An aggressive program of culvert management—including

inventories, monitoring/inspections, preventative maintenance, and proactive

replacements—can help reduce the incidence of failure. The department is

developing a culvert-focused maintenance program.

Drainage design guidelines. Particularly for higher functional classification

facilities, design guidelines will be modified for the installation of drainage

infrastructure intended to handle more significant (lower recurrence interval)

flooding events and/or for the substitution of more resilient designs (such as box

culverts or bridges in place of cylindrical culverts). Upgrades could be performed

during the normal asset renewal cycle, or, for example, as a component of

projects to enhance fish passage.

4. Sinkholes emerge under or near roadway sections compromising foundations.

Sinkholes, either naturally occurring or due to infrastructure issues (water pipe

seepage), compromise pavement integrity and are potentially catastrophic events.

External risk: Depending on whether sinkholes are natural or artificial in origin, the

department will employ various strategies to help manage risk. Options differ depending

on whether sinkholes are natural or artificial:

Natural sinkholes. Natural sinkholes form most commonly where karst geology is

present—typically associated with soluble rocks such as limestone or gypsum.

Soluble subsurface rocks can, over time, erode due to percolation of surface

water or underground flows. The department will mitigate natural sinkhole risk

by monitoring conditions where assets sit atop karst geology (and, presumably,

where sinkholes have appeared in the past)—although this strategy is likely only

sustainable for a select few critical assets. Systemwide, the department will

consider integrating sinkhole evaluation into design guidelines to ensure that

risks are minimized for new or reconstructed facilities. The Florida Geological

Survey has been identified as a partner in this endeavor.

Artificial sinkholes. Artificial sinkholes occur most frequently in urbanized areas

due to sewer or water pipe leaks, which erode subsurface stabilizing materials, or

when large diameter pipes fail structurally. Over time, the department manages

these risks by developing additional information on the subsurface elements.

Communities with subsurface water and wastewater pipes can be encouraged to

develop a robust inventory of subsurface infrastructure, with information on age

and condition, that—with knowledge of typical deterioration curves—could help

identify high risk facilities. Large diameter pipes beneath critical infrastructure

may be monitored remotely, by camera, and major new pipes could feature fiber

optics or other nano-sensing technology to alert the department of significant

leaks or imminent structural failures.


3-11

5. Assets are damaged or destroyed due to vehicle impacts and/or hazardous

materials spill. Hazardous materials can include both those which are explosive or

combustible as well as those which are corrosive.

External risk: The department can exert control over aspects of the HAZMAT

transportation process, including:

Endorsements. The Florida Department of Highway Safety and Motor Vehicles

already has a process in place for providing HAZMAT endorsements to CDL

holders. If warranted, this process will be reevaluated and made more stringent.

Registration. Currently, under the Hazardous Materials Transportation

Authorization Act (HMTAA), anyone who transports a highway-route controlled

quantity of hazardous materials must register with FDOT. The department (the

Secretary, specifically) has the discretionary power to require anyone

transporting any quantity of hazardous materials to register with FDOT, meaning

that the department can, in principle, lower the hazardous materials quantity

thresholds to reduce spill risks.

National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (NHMRR). Currently, routes

designated for the transport of hazardous materials are available from the

National Hazardous Materials Route Registry (created by the Federal Motor

Carrier Safety Administration). The department could further restrict routes,

selecting a subset of the NHMRR—potentially with different routes for different

types of materials—that reduce risk and exposure.

Penalties. Currently, fines for violating the HMTAA are limited to $55,000 per

day, and imprisonment is limited to 5 years in the instance that a violation

results in bodily injury (10 years if it results in death). The department could

explore options for increasing the maximum allowable fine and/or recategorizing

the associated criminal penalties to permit longer sentences.

Enforcement. The department could work with local, state, and federal law

enforcement to more aggressively identify and prosecute violators, with particular

emphasis on protecting critical facilities and/or high population areas.

These collective mitigation approaches will enhance the investment strategies described

above and strengthen the department’s ability to achieve and maintain a state of good

repair for pavements and bridges.


4-1

4.0 Detailed Process Information

This section includes information on detailed process information. It includes background

information including the roles and responsibilities of department offices as they relate to

the financial planning and programming processes. The associated technical memorandum

discussed how modeling is used to set priorities for pavements and bridges.

4.1 Role Descriptions

FDOT Executive Team

The FDOT Executive Team serves as the highest level policy advisory body for the

department and provides a forum to address statewide issues, including the annual

legislative budget request, the annual program planning workshops and the Florida

Transportation Plan (FTP). The Executive Team serves as the principal advisory group to

the Secretary. The Executive Team includes the Secretary, Assistant Secretaries, District

Secretaries, Executive Director of the Turnpike Enterprise, and the Chief of Staff.

FDOT Office of Comptroller

The FDOT Office of Comptroller consists of four offices: General Accounting, Disbursement

Operations, Project Finance, and Financial Management. The General Accounting Office

(GAO) is responsible for the department’s financial reporting in accordance with generally

acceptable accounting practices, representing the department at the Revenue Estimating

Conferences, and administering bond-related financing programs, among other

responsibilities. The Disbursement Operations Office administers and manages the

department’s disbursement process and information. The Project Finance Office provides

and coordinates alternative financial tools and solutions, analysis and reporting for

transportation projects. The Financial Management Office is responsible for the

development of the department’s monthly cash forecast, oversight of cost accounting

functions, funding approval processes, and the administration of federal billings and

reimbursement for federally funded transportation projects. In addition, the staff provides

reporting and inquiry support for the department’s actual commitments.

FDOT Office of Work Program and Budget

The Office of Work Program and Budget develops and manages the department’s Five-Year

Adopted Work Program and provides additional financial planning services for department

management. The office contains six functional areas: Budget Office; Federal Aid

Management; Financial Management Support; Finance, Program and Resource Allocation;

Production Management; and Work Program Development and Operations. For the

purposes of this document the Budget Office, Finance, Program and Resource Allocation,

Production Management, and Work Program Development and Operations functional areas

hold the most relevance to the Transportation Asset Management Plan.


4-2

The Budget Office is responsible for development of the Legislative Budget Request (LBR) as

well as administration of appropriations throughout the fiscal year. In addition to other

responsibilities, the Budget Office develops the LBR, oversees allocation of appropriations to

program areas, and communicates with budget coordinators within districts and central

office units.

The Finance, Program and Resource Allocation Office is responsible for allocating and

managing the resources available to the department for transportation programs in a

manner that is consistent with the Florida Transportation Plan, Florida Statutes, and the

mission and vision of the department. The office coordinates the annual program planning

workshops. The office also develops five-year finance plans that are coordinated with the

Comptroller’s cash forecasts and the Program and Resource Plan, which documents planned

commitment levels over a 10-year period for each of the department’s programs.

The Production Management Office prepares, monitors, and reports production-related

performance by all major product categories within the department’s Work Program.

Performance and Production Reports are presented each month at the Executive Board

Meetings to track accomplishments.

The Work Program Development and Operations Office is responsible for developing Work

Program Instructions and for coordinating the development, review, and administration of

the work program consistent with the Work Program Instructions, department policies and

procedures, and federal and state laws. The office also facilitates the development of the

statewide programs to include Strategic Intermodal System (SIS), safety, bridge, and other

statewide program areas.

Other Offices

Individual asset-related offices, including the Office of Maintenance, Office of Design, and

the Office of Materials are responsible for developing initial budget requests and meeting

statutory and performance guidelines.

Florida Transportation Commission

The Florida Transportation Commission (FTC) is a nine-member oversight board for the

Florida department of Transportation. The FTC is responsible for evaluating, reviewing, and

making recommendations on matters pertaining to Florida transportation policies, initiatives

or revisions.

The FTC is required by statute to review the tentative Work Program and conduct a

statewide public hearing annually. As part of the public hearing, it evaluates whether the

tentative Work Program complies with all applicable laws and departmental policies but does

not comment on individual construction projects. As part of the Work Program review

process, the FTC assesses the progress that the department and its transportation partners

have made in realizing the goals of economic development, improved mobility, and


4-3

increased intermodal connectivity of the SIS. The FTC also evaluates and monitors the

implementation of the 2005 Growth Management Legislation. If the FTC determines that

the Work Program is not in compliance with any laws or departmental policies it must report

its findings and recommendations to the Florida Legislature and the Executive Office of the

Governor.

Among the criteria that the FTC also considers are the Work Program’s feasibility from a

production capacity perspective and stability of the overall program. The FTC considers

both preliminary engineering and construction management capacity in this review.

Metropolitan Planning Organizations

There currently are 27 Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) in the State of Florida.

The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) apportions a lump sum amount of metropolitan

planning funds each year to the State of Florida, and Florida DOT is responsible for

administering the appropriation based on a base annual apportionment amount, as well as

additional funds proportionate to the population of the urbanized area relative to the total

urbanized area population in the State.

District/Turnpike Enterprise work programs are required to be consistent, to the maximum

extent feasible, with MPO’s Transportation Improvement Programs. By statute, MPOs may

request that the department review-specific projects not included (or included) in the Work

Program. The MPOs also can request information on projects that do not appear to be

adequately addressed.

In addition, the districts hold a public hearing on projects in an urbanized area in the district

to obtain input on the district’s work program. The district determines the necessity of

making any changes to projects included in their district work program and to hear requests

for new projects to be added to, or existing projects to be deleted from, the work program.

In some cases, project timelines are altered to meet important regional needs.

Other Partners

The department also engages several additional partners in the transportation development

process. For example, in areas not represented by formal MPO designation, counties serve

as local partners on project activities. Municipalities, federal lands, and other jurisdictions

are also engaged as projects warrant.

4.2 Processes and Critical Documents

There are five critical processes and documents generated to provide overall financial

guidance for the department. The Florida Transportation Plan provides long-term vision

for the State. This Plan sets the broad policy guidance for all future department initiatives.

The Program and Resource Plan (PRP) is a 10-year projected annual budget for all

departmental programs, including the new capital and maintenance programs. The PRP


4-4

provides program funding levels that form the basis for the department’s Finance Plan, Five-

Year Work Program, and Legislative Budget Request. The most important document for

project development is the Work Program, which is a five-year outlook that identifies

which projects and services will be provided, when and where such projects and services

will be provided, and how these projects and services will be funded using available

revenue. The Five-year Finance Plan provides the legislature and department managers

with expected revenue forecasts and assurance that the department’s planned program is

financed (balanced with anticipated revenues). A separate 36-month Cash Forecast

provides a model for ensuring that acceptable cash flow is available for project activity and

operations over the time period.

A separate Florida Long-Range Program Plan, which is developed on an annual basis as

required by section 216.013, Florida Statutes, provides the framework and context for

preparing the annual legislative budget request and includes performance indicators for

evaluating the impact of programs and agency performance.

The Systems Planning Office produces an additional document set known as the SIS

Funding Strategy, which includes three inter-related sequential documents that identify

potential Strategic Intermodal System (SIS) capacity improvement projects in various

stages of development. The combined document set illustrates projects that are funded

(Year 1), programmed for proposed funding (Years 2 through 5), planned to be funded

(Years 6 through 10), and considered financially feasible based on projected state revenues

(Years 11 through 25). The figure presented in the TAMP illustrates the relationship between

these financial processes and documents. It is presented here again for clarity.


4-5

Figure 1 Department Processes and Key Documents

Florida Transportation Plan

The Florida Transportation Plan (FTP) establishes the policy framework for the use of state

and federal transportation funds in the department’s work program. The 2060 FTP goals and

objectives also provide guidance to all other transportation partners as they develop and

implement future policies, plans, and projects. Working together toward a common vision

will ensure Florida’s future transportation system supports the state’s economic,

community, and environmental goals.

The FTP includes:

Key trends, issues, and opportunities shaping Florida’s transportation past and future;

Six long range goals to guide Florida’s transportation decisions, along with objectives,

strategies, and indicators to support each goal; and

Key actions to implement the 2060 FTP, with emphasis on transportation decision

making, funding and finance, and progress tracking and reporting.

The department is currently updating the plan.


4-6

Annual Program and Resource Plan

The department produces annually a Program and Resource Plan (PRP), which consists of a

complete 10-year projected budget for all major agency functions and programs. The PRP

is a summary document that contains the approved program alternatives and funding levels

by fiscal year to accomplish program goals and objectives within expected revenue. The

PRP combines the department’s operating budget, fixed capital outlay buildings and grounds

budget, debt service budget and work program details into a summary document. The

document reports the department’s planned budget in a number of different ways including

by product area, product support, operations and maintenance, administration, etc. It also

provides summary information by funding source. While an annual document, the PRP can

be modified over a dozen times during the course of a Fiscal Year as the work program is

being developed.

The PRP serves as a link between the FTP, a planning document, and the Adopted and

Tentative Work Programs, documents listing all FDOT projects and expected spending out to

a five-year horizon. The PRP establishes the programming framework by which the work

program is developed. Fund allocations and program targets are published in Schedule A

and Schedule B and are included in the work program instructions.

To develop the fund allocations and program targets, the department conducts a series of

workshops statewide typically in May, June, and July. At these workshops, the district

Secretaries and central office management establish funding requirements for the needs-

based programs. For example, they determine the level of funding which should be

allocated for pavement resurfacing based on current and projected pavement condition.

Each year the Materials Laboratory conducts a pavement condition survey for all the roads

on the State Highway System. During this process, data is objectively gathered to

determine the existing pavement condition. The Florida Analysis System for Targets (FAST)

combines existing pavement condition data with planned construction data to help set lane-

mile allocations for each district. Each individual district is provided a lane-mile allocation

through the outcomes of these workshops. Each district however does have flexibility

within its allocation to program projects in the Work Program.

Allocations for bridge repair and replacement, as well as routine maintenance, follow a

similar process. Bridge inspection information is fed into the process and traditionally

engineers’ recommendations to fund needed repairs or replacement are followed.

The PRP is continually reviewed as programs change and new priorities emerge. The

workshops establish policy directions and explore all needs-based programs. After the July

workshop, all policy-related issues are settled and cash flow rates and available roll-forward

funding is included in the plan. These figures are used in the fall for programming

discretionary projects in the Tentative Work Program.


4-7

Following the completion of the legislative session, new fund codes or priority programs

could be brought forward. These are fed into updated PRPs and form the basis for the

following year’s Tentative Work Program.

The Work Program

As noted previously, the Work Program is the five-year outlook that identifies which projects

and services will be provided by the department during the relevant five-year period. It

provides details on when and where such projects and services will be provided and how

these projects and services will be funded using available revenue. The Work Program is

developed jointly each year by FDOT with the metropolitan planning organizations, local

governments, and the FHWA. The purpose of the Work Program is to maximize the

department’s production and service capabilities through innovative use of resources,

increased productivity, reduced cost, and strengthened organizational effectiveness and

efficiency. A Tentative Work Program is provided to the legislature and becomes the

guiding Adopted Work Program following legislative approval. Both the Tentative and

Adopted Work Programs are based on a complete, balanced financial plan for the State

Transportation Trust Fund and other department funds.

4.3 Developing the Work Program: Process

The process of developing the Tentative Work Program begins with the Summer Executive

Program Planning Workshops, during which policy and preliminary funding decisions are

made.

The Office of Work Program and Budget updates the Work Program Instructions annually.

The Work Program Instructions reflect any policy changes approved by the Executive Team

and reflect changes in technical guidelines arising from system modifications and/or

revisions to applicable federal and state laws, regulations and administrative rules.

Changes to the Work Program Instructions are reviewed at workshops held in late August or

early September, after which the instructions are finalized.

A gaming period is opened from July to January for Districts/Turnpike and Rail Enterprises

and Central Office to update or add to the projects currently programmed in the Work

Program Administration System within the Tentative Work Program years. The gaming

cycle allows districts to make modifications that reflect the most up-to-date factual

information. This could include emergency responses, changes to legislation, or project

scheduling. District level reviews by District Secretaries, followed by district-wide public

hearings, are conducted prior to final closing of the gaming period.

After the closing of the gaming period, the Central Office Work Program staff reviews the

District and Statewide Work Programs for compliance with the Work Program Instructions,

federal and state laws and regulations, administrative rules, and any other applicable

guidelines. Other offices such as Intermodal Systems Development, Engineering and

Operations, and Production Management also participate in the Central Office review.


4-8

Review results are discussed with the districts and statewide program managers, and the

Work Program Administration system is opened to allow Central Office staff to make

necessary changes. Conferences or teleconferences are then scheduled for District

Secretaries to review the district work programs with the Secretary. Additional

modifications may take place as a result of these reviews.

The Tentative Work Program is developed by the central office based on the submissions of

the seven districts and the Turnpike and Rail Enterprises. A preliminary version is submitted

to the Executive Office of the Governor and the Legislature at least 14 days prior to the

start of the legislative session (as required by section 339.135(4)(f), F.S.). This typically

takes place in February.

The Florida Transportation Commission also is charged with reviewing the draft submission.

The FTC is required to hold a statewide public hearing on the Tentative Work Program prior

to submission to the legislature.

Fourteen days after the start of the session (typically in March), the department must

submit the tentative Work Program for legislative consideration based on comments and

review. The legislature ultimately approves or modifies the Work Program through the

General Appropriations Act. Prior to the start of the new Fiscal Year on July 1st, the

department will adopt a final Work Program. The adopted work program may include only

those projects submitted as part of the tentative work program plus any projects that are

separately identified by specific appropriation in the General Appropriations Act and any roll

forwards.

Figure 2 shows the Work Program development schedule.


4-9

Figure 2 Work Program Development Schedule

Source: Work Program 101 Computer-Based Training (http://wbt.dot.state.fl.us/ois/WorkProgram101CBT/index.shtm).

The Finance Plan

The department regularly produces four finance plans, one each for the State Transportation

Trust Fund (STTF), the Right of Way Acquisition and Bridge Construction Trust Fund, the

Turnpike Enterprise Revenue Funds, and the Turnpike Enterprise Bond Funds. The purpose

of the Finance Plans is to show that projected revenues are sufficient to cover planned

expenditures for the ensuing five year period. Submitted formally in October of each year

with the department’s Legislative Budget Request, the Office of Work Program and Budget

updates the Finance Plans on an ongoing basis. The Five-Year Finance Plans provide a

general snapshot of the financial health of the department by testing whether the existing

and planned commitments can be financed based on a comparison of revenue estimates

and expenditures for a five-year period. They are used to establish capacity related fund

allocations for the department and help show that the department is fully utilizing the

resources which are available. The Finance Plans provide summary level revenue estimates

and planned expenditures across high-categorical levels, including Administration/In-House

Operations, Maintenance, Consultant Support, Right-of-Way, Construction, Freight Logistics

and Passenger Operations, Miscellaneous Expenditures, and Fixed Capital Outlay.

The Finance Plans include federal aid reimbursements, state and bond funded programs so

as to provide a complete funding perspective.

http://wbt.dot.state.fl.us/ois/WorkProgram101CBT/index.shtm


4-10

An essential input for the STTF Finance Plan formulation is the estimate of state revenues

which is officially provided by the state Revenue Estimating Conferences. The conferences

are generally held each November and March, but may be held more frequently if actual

revenues differ significantly from projections.

Legislative Budget Request

The Legislative Budget Request is the department’s request to the Governor and Legislature

for spending authority to do the work of the agency for the next fiscal year. The request

includes proposed revenues and expenditures for operational and fixed capital outlay needs

to accomplish the department’s objectives in the ensuing fiscal year. This LBR requests

legislative authority to finance the first year of the Five-Year Work Program. The LBR also

includes a balanced 36-month forecast of cash and expenditures and a five-year finance

plan.

The budget request conforms to the tentative Work Program, also submitted to the

legislature for approval.

Florida Long-Range Program Plan

This plan provides the framework and context for preparing the annual legislative budget

request and includes performance indicators for evaluating the impact of programs and

agency performance. This plan is developed by the Office of Policy and Planning.

Annual Performance Report

A Performance-Based Planning and Programming Process is used to evaluate performance

results in relation to the FDOT mission and the Florida Transportation Plan. The Annual

Performance Report includes performance measures and objectives for:

Safety and Security – Fatality and serious injuries related to aggressive driving,

intersection crashes, vulnerable road users, lane departure crashes, impaired driving, at-

risk driving, and distracted driving;

Maintenance and Operations – Percent of pavement and bridges meeting condition

standards, percent of maintenance activities (such as roadway striping, guardrail repair

and mowing) that meet department standards;

Mobility and Economic Competitiveness – Strategic Intermodal System

implementation, freight and port access, transit ridership, hours of delay, facilitation of

economic development opportunities, benefit-cost ratio of FDOT programs; and

Quality of Life and Environmental Stewardship – Community values and visions;

travel experience; impacts to the physical, natural and cultural environment.


5-1

5.0 Systemwide Valuation

This section includes information on the processes that the department follows to provide a

systemwide valuation. The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking for asset management practices

requires agencies to develop an estimate of the value of the agency’s pavements and bridge

assets and the needed investment on an annual basis to maintain the value of these assets.

Florida currently has calculated a value for its transportation infrastructure to follow

Government Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement 34. This information will be

used and reported to meet the details of the rulemaking as required. The department

follows GASB’s modified approach and reports a net value of assets. A more detailed

accounting at various system levels (SIS, Interstate, NHS, Non-Interstate NHS) may be

valuable.

5.1 Current Calculations for GASB 34

The state has elected to use the modified approach for accounting for its roadways, bridges,

and other infrastructure assets included in the State Highway System. Under this approach,

the department has made the commitment to maintain highway and bridge assets at levels

established by the U.S. Department of Transportation and approved by the Florida

Legislature. No depreciation expense is reported for such assets, nor are amounts

capitalized in connection with improvements that lengthen the lives of such assets, unless

the improvements also increase their service potential. The department maintains an

inventory of these assets and performs periodic condition assessments to establish that the

predetermined condition level is being maintained. In addition, the department makes

annual estimates of the amounts that must be expended to maintain these assets at the

predetermined condition levels. The Office of Work Program and Budget provides annual

updates for GASB-34 compliance. This approach is commonly referred to as the “modified”

approach.

In the 2014 State of Florida Comprehensive Annual Financial Report, the state reported the

following programs for its 12,109 centerline miles of roads and 6,974 bridges.

Condition and Maintenance Programs

Resurfacing Program: Road pavements require periodic resurfacing. The frequency of

resurfacing depends on the volume of traffic, type of traffic, pavement material variability,

and weather conditions. Resurfacing preserves the structural integrity of highway

pavements and includes pavement resurfacing, pavement rehabilitation, and minor

reconstruction.

The department conducts an annual Pavement Condition Survey. Pavements are rated on a

scale of 0 to 10 (with 10 being the best) in each of three criteria: ride smoothness,

pavement cracking, and wheel path rutting. Ride smoothness is what the motorist

experiences. It directly affects motor vehicle operation costs. Pavement cracking refers to


5-2

the structural deterioration of the pavement, which leads to loss of smoothness and

deterioration of the road base by water seepage if not corrected. Wheel path rutting refers

to depressions in pavement caused by heavy use. Ride smoothness and wheel path rutting

are measured mechanically using lasers. Pavement cracking is determined through visual

observation by experienced survey crews.

The condition rating scales were set by a statewide committee of pavement engineers, so

that a pavement segment receiving a rating of six or less in any of the three rating criteria

is designated a deficient pavement segment. In low-speed areas, the ride rating must drop

to five or less before a pavement segment is considered deficient due to ride. The

department standard is to ensure that 80% of the pavement on the State Highway System

remains non-deficient.

Bridge Repair/Replacement Program: The Bridge Repair Program places primary

emphasis on periodic maintenance and specified rehabilitation work activities on State

Highway System bridge structures. The department Bridge Replacement Program’s primary

focus is on the replacement of structurally deficient or weight restricted bridges on the State

Highway System. In addition, the Bridge Replacement Program addresses bridges that

require structural repair but which are more cost effective to replace.

The department conducts bridge condition surveys using the National Bridge Inspection

(NBI) Standards to determine condition ratings. Each bridge is inspected at least once every

two years. During the inspection process, the major components such as deck,

superstructure, and substructure are assigned a condition rating. The condition rating

ranges from 0 to 9. By policy, a rating of 8 to 9 is excellent. A rating of 6 to 7 is good. A

rating of 5 indicates fair condition. A rating of 4 or less identifies bridges in poor condition

requiring major repairs or replacement per department policy. A rating of 2 indicates a

critical bridge condition, and a rating of 1 indicates imminent bridge failure and is used for a

bridge that is closed, but with corrective action may be put back into light service. A rating

of 0 indicates that the bridge is out of service and beyond corrective action. Per policy,

bridges rated fair or poor do not meet performance standards.

The department standard is to ensure that 90% of all department maintained bridges meet

department standards (are in good condition).

Routine Maintenance Program: The department is responsible for managing and

performing routine maintenance on the State Highway System to help preserve the

condition of the system. Routine maintenance includes many activities, such as highway

repair, roadside upkeep, emergency response, maintaining signs, roadway striping, and

keeping storm drains clear and structurally sound.

The quality and effectiveness of the routine maintenance program is monitored by periodic

surveys, using the Maintenance Rating Program (MRP), which results in an annual

assessment. The MRP has been used since 1985 to evaluate routine maintenance of the

transportation system in five broad categories or elements. The five rating elements are


5-3

roadway, roadside, vegetation/aesthetics, traffic services, and drainage. The MRP provides a

maintenance rating of 1 to 100 for each category and overall. The standard is to achieve

and maintain an overall maintenance rating of 80.


6-4

6.0 Governance and Principles

This section details a proposed TAMP governance structure. The TAMP governance structure

defines who carries primary responsibility for the TAMP; how it is used in the budgeting and

project selection processes; how it relates to other planning and operations documents;

when it will be updated; and how the process includes other stakeholders.

6.1 Florida TAMP General Principles

The TAMP is a planning document written for pavement and bridge infrastructure owners

and made available to the public that documents:

The performance of bridges and pavements on the National Highway System (NHS);

The business management practices for bridges and pavements funded through the

Federal-Aid Highway Program and state revenues (e.g., risk management, performance

gap assessment, and objectives and measures); and

The financial planning data and practices for bridges and pavements (e.g., revenue

forecasts, life cycle cost analysis, and investment strategies).

The TAMP has influence beyond those directly involved with its development. There are

many factors within the department and its stakeholder community that impact Florida’s

pavements and bridges and influence the TAMP. The TAMP and TAM decision making and

business practices will affect policy and legislative leadership, operations staff, emergency

management staff, and others throughout the State.

The TAMP is championed by representatives from both the Office of Maintenance and the

Office of Policy Planning; these champions chaired a Core Working Group tasked with

developing the TAMP. The Core Working Group included the Office of Work Program and

Budget, the Pavement Management Office, the Public Transit Office, the Safety Office, the

Transportation Statistics Office, the Pavement Condition Survey, the Bridge Office, and the

Office of Information Systems. The Core Working Group participated in the development of

and reviewed the supporting material for the TAMP. It will dissolve and key members will

reconvene to become the TAM Steering Committee, a group that will be responsible for

ongoing implementation of TAM within the department.

6.2 Asset Management Business Model

As the Core Working Group dissolves, it is critical to establish a formal Asset Management

Steering Committee to guide and own the TAM process. The Steering Committee process

will recommend enhancements, modify existing practices based on the TAMP enhancement

plan, and meet federal reporting requirements.


6-5

Process for Defining Governance

The proposed Asset Management Steering Committee structure and roles were developed

during discussions with executive leadership in November 2014 and confirmed by the Core

Working Group assigned to support the development of the TAMP in January 2015. The

executive team recommended that with the strong preservation and maintenance

philosophy already permeating departmental processes, there was not a need to develop a

stand-alone organization to implement asset management approaches. The Steering

Committee approach spreads responsibility across the organization and brings together the

necessary department personnel to maintain and update the TAMP. By not recommending

an institutional reorganization to oversee the TAMP, the executive team recognizes the

effectiveness of the current working group, and the ability to transition to a steering

committee function.

Steering Committee Roles and Responsibilities

Table 2 describes the proposed TAM Steering Committee members and roles. The Steering

Committee includes representation from across the department in order to reflect the

financial, planning, and technical areas TAM influences.

Table 2 Proposed TAM Steering Committee

Role Title, Organization

TAM Co-Champion Director, Office of Maintenance

TAM Co-Champion Administrator, Statewide Planning and Policy Analysis,

Office of Policy Planning

Intelligent Transportation

Systems (ITS)

State Traffic Operations Engineer, Traffic Engineering

and Operations Office

Finance and Programming Director, Office of Work Program and Budget

Pavement Pavement Management Engineer, Pavement

Management

Bridge State Structures Maintenance Engineer, Bridge Office

Transit Transit Planning Administrator, Freight, Logistics, and

Passenger Operations

Safety Transportation Safety Engineer, Safety Office

MPO Executive Director, Metropolitan Planning Organization

Advisory Council

The proposed Steering Committee, co-chaired by the designated offices of Maintenance and

Policy Planning, will provide an advisory role on all TAM related activities. The committee

should operate by consensus and consist of a diverse group of personnel. It is not

anticipated that any organizational restructuring should occur to deliver TAM enhancements.

The mission of the committee will be to update and modify the TAMP as necessary; bring

leaders from across the department together to direct asset management policies and

effort; and confirm definitions, descriptions, roles and responsibilities in accordance with

federal rulemaking processes and executive direction.


6-6

The proposed Steering Committee will be appointed by the Secretary and meet twice

annually to review progress.

6.3 TAMP Update Cycles

The TAMP will be updated per MAP-21 requirements or as needed to ensure that the long

term investment strategies, risk register, mitigation approaches, and inventory and

condition remain current. This update cycle should coincide with the FTP to ensure close

coordination with long-term policy development and establish the TAMP as a critical member

of the Florida family of plans. The TAMP Core Working Group will dissolve and many

members will reconvene to staff the standing TAM Steering Committee. Between update

cycles, the Steering Committee will:

Communicate TAM practices within the department and to partner agencies, including

MPOs, municipalities, passenger and freight rail owners, transit agencies, airports,

seaports, and waterways;

Develop strategies for incorporating additional assets and programs in the asset

management business model;

Evaluate the need for a standard asset management business structure and process

using existing titles to staff permanent asset/goal teams as necessary for further

implementation efforts;

Assist with managing communications with external stakeholders;

Gather feedback on how TAM should evolve over time;

Update the inventory and condition information for TAM purposes on schedule with

regular performance reports;1

Assess progress on implementing the TAMP including the enhancement plan and risk

mitigation strategies, and report to the executive board; and

Monitor the progress of FHWA certification of the TAMP.

To update the TAMP itself, the Steering Committee will review partner feedback and

consider how it should influence the objectives and measures included in the TAMP and how

this integrates with the FTP. The Steering Committee also will review the following

information to support the development of further iterations of the TAMP:

1 FHWA expects that Florida and other states will keep current data and information on facilities and

monitor condition outside of this update cycle. The intention of the TAMP update cycle is to maintain a clear understanding and knowledge of the overall preservation and maintenance activities

throughout the decision making cycle, including Work Program Development and updates to the

Florida Transportation Plan.


6-7

Pavement and bridge performance and trends;

Population, economic, environmental, climate, or technology trends that are likely to

impact TAM practices;

The influence of a changing state on the risk register, including assessing whether risks

have changed and whether the likelihood and consequence scores should be updated;

and

Pavement and bridge planning and management practices, including whether there are

new data, systems, or practices in place that would influence TAM.