Nation & internation practices in decision support tools in road asset management

This document provides a review of international and national practices in investment decision support tools in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying analytic frameworks, evaluation methodologies and criteria adopted by current tools. Emphasis was also given to how current approaches support Triple Bottom Line decision-making. Benefit Cost Analysis and Multiple Criteria Analysis are principle methodologies in supporting decision-making in Road Asset Management. The complexity of the applications shows significant differences in international practices. There is continuing discussion amongst practitioners and researchers regarding to which one is more appropriate in supporting decision-making. It is suggested that the two approaches should be regarded as complementary instead of competitive means. Multiple Criteria Analysis may be particularly helpful in early stages of project development, say strategic planning. Benefit Cost Analysis is used most widely for project prioritisation and selecting the final project from amongst a set of alternatives. Benefit Cost Analysis approach is useful tool for investment decision-making from an economic perspective. An extension of the approach, which includes social and environmental externalities, is currently used in supporting Triple Bottom Line decision-making in the road sector. However, efforts should be given to several issues in the applications. First of all, there is a need to reach a degree of commonality on considering social and environmental externalities, which may be achieved by aggregating the best practices. At different decision-making level, the detail of consideration of the externalities should be different. It is intended to develop a generic framework to coordinate the range of existing practices. The standard framework will also be helpful in reducing double counting, which appears in some current practices. Cautions should also be given to the methods of determining the value of social and environmental externalities. A number of methods, such as market price, resource costs and Willingness to Pay, are found in the review. The use of unreasonable monetisation methods in some cases has discredited Benefit Cost Analysis in the eyes of decision makers and the public. Some social externalities, such as employment and regional economic impacts, are generally omitted in current practices. This is due to the lack of information and credible models. It may be appropriate to consider these externalities in qualitative forms in a Multiple Criteria Analysis. Consensus has been reached in considering noise and air pollution in international practices. However, Australia practices generally omitted these externalities. Equity is an important consideration in Road Asset Management. The considerations are either between regions, or social groups, such as income, age, gender, disable, etc. In current practice, there is not a well developed quantitative measure for equity issues. More research is needed to target this issue. Although Multiple Criteria Analysis has been used for decades, there is not a generally accepted framework in the choice of modelling methods and various externalities. The result is that different analysts are unlikely to reach consistent conclusions about a policy measure. In current practices, some favour using methods which are able to prioritise alternatives, such as Goal Programming, Goal Achievement Matrix, Analytic Hierarchy Process. The others just present various impacts to decision-makers to characterise the projects. Weighting and scoring system are critical in most Multiple Criteria Analysis. However, the processes of assessing weights and scores were criticised as highly arbitrary and subjective. It is essential that the process should be as transparent as possible. Obtaining weights and scores by consulting local communities is a common practice, but is likely to result in bias towards local interests. Interactive approach has the advantage in helping decision-makers elaborating their preferences. However, computation burden may result in lose of interests of decision-makers during the solution process of a large-scale problem, say a large state road network. Current practices tend to use cardinal or ordinal scales in measure in non-monetised externalities. Distorted valuations can occur where variables measured in physical units, are converted to scales. For example, decibels of noise converts to a scale of -4 to +4 with a linear transformation, the difference between 3 and 4 represents a far greater increase in discomfort to people than the increase from 0 to 1. It is suggested to assign different weights to individual score. Due to overlapped goals, the problem of double counting also appears in some of Multiple Criteria Analysis. The situation can be improved by carefully selecting and defining investment goals and criteria. Other issues, such as the treatment of time effect, incorporating risk and uncertainty, have been given scant attention in current practices. This report suggested establishing a common analytic framework to deal with these issues.

Strategy for the development of investment decision-making framework for road asset management for queensland department of main roads

The aim of this project is to develop a systematic investment decision-making framework for infrastructure asset management by incorporation economic justification, social and environmental consideration in the decision-making process. This project assesses the factors that are expected to provide significant impacts on the variability of expenditures. A procedure for assessing risk and reliability for project investment appraisals will be developed. The project investigates public perception, social and environmental impacts on road infrastructure investment. This research will contribute to the debate about how important social and environmental issues should be incorporated into the investment decision-making process for infrastructure asset management.

International practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of an international review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different countries and international organisations. Road assets are powerful drivers of economic development and social equity. They also have significant impacts on the natural and man-made environment. The traditional definition of asset management is “A systematic process of maintaining, upgrading and operating physical assets cost effectively. It combines engineering principles with sound business practices and economic theory and it provides tools to facilitate a more organised, logical approach to decision-making” (US Dept. of Transportation, 1999). In recent years, the concept has been broadened to cover the complexity of decision making, based on a wider variety of policy considerations as well as social and environmental issues rather than is covered by Benefit-Cost analysis and pure technical considerations. Current international practices are summarised in table 2. It was evident that Engineering-economic analysis methods are well advanced to support decision-making. A range of tools available supports performance predicting of road assets and associated cost/benefit in technical context. The need for considering triple plus one bottom line of social, environmental and economic as well as political factors in decision-making is well understood by road agencies around the world. The techniques used to incorporate these however, are limited. Most countries adopt a scoring method, a goal achievement matrix or information collected from surveys. The greater uncertainty associated with these non-quantitative factors has generally not been taken into consideration. There is a gap between the capacities of the decision-making support systems and the requirements from decision-makers to make more rational and transparent decisions. The challenges faced in developing an integrated decision making framework are both procedural and conceptual. In operational terms, the framework should be easy to be understood and employed. In philosophical terms, the framework should be able to deal with challenging issues, such as uncertainty, time frame, network effects, model changes, while integrating cost and non-cost values into the evaluation. The choice of evaluation techniques depends on the feature of the problem at hand, on the aims of the analysis, and on the underlying information base At different management levels, the complexity in considering social, environmental, economic and political factor in decision-making is different. At higher the strategic planning level, more non-cost factors are involved. The complexity also varies based on the scope of the investment proposals. Road agencies traditionally place less emphasis on evaluation of maintenance works. In some cases, social equity, safety, environmental issues have been used in maintenance project selection. However, there is not a common base for the applications.

National practices in investment decision making in road sector

This document provides the findings of a national review of investment decision-making practices in road asset management. Efforts were concentrated on identifying the strategic objectives of agencies in road asset management, establishing and understanding criteria different organisations adopted and ascertaining the exact methodologies used by different sate road authorities. The investment objectives of Australian road authorities are based on triple-bottom line considerations (social, environmental, economic and political). In some cases, comparing with some social considerations, such as regional economic development, equity, and access to pubic service etc., Benefit-Cost Ratio has limited influence on the decision-making. Australian road authorities have developed various decision support tools. Although Multi-Criteria Analysis has been preliminarily used in case by case study, pavement management systems, which are primarily based on Benefit Cost Analysis, are still the main decision support tool. This situation is not compatible with the triple-bottom line objectives. There is need to fill the gap between decision support tools and decision-making itself. Different decision criteria should be adopted based on the contents of the work. Additional decision criteria, which are able to address social, environmental and political impacts, are needed to develop or identify. Environmental issue plays a more and more important role in decision-making. However, the criteria and respective weights in decision-making process are yet to be clearly identified. Social and political impacts resulted from road infrastructure investment can be identified through Community Perceptions Survey. With accumulative data, prediction models, which are similar as pavement performance models, can be established. Using these models, the decision-makers are able to foresee the social and political consequences of investment alternatives.

Schools' guide : How to select providers of road safety education programs for senior school students

Road safety education is not just about safe driving. Best practice road safety education seeks to improve knowledge and change attitudes relating to being safe, and making sure others are safe on the road. Typical topics might include: • Strengthening attitudes toward safe road use behaviours and avoiding risks • Supporting behaviours to ensure others are safe • Promoting knowledge of traffic rules.

Final : report assessing risk and variation in maintenance and rehabilitation costs for road network

This report presents the results of research projects conducted by The Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation, Queensland University of Technology, RMIT University, Queensland Government Department of Main Roads and Queensland Department of Public Works. The research projects aimed at developing a methodology for assessing variation and risk in investment in road network, including the application of the method in assessing road network performance and maintenance and rehabilitation costs for short- and long-term future investment.

Identification of critical input variables for risk-based cost estimates for road maintenance and rehabilitation

An estimation of costs for maintenance and rehabilitation is subject to variation due to the uncertainties of input parameters. This paper presents the results of an analysis to identify input parameters that affect the prediction of variation in road deterioration. Road data obtained from 1688 km of a national highway located in the tropical northeast of Queensland in Australia were used in the analysis. Data were analysed using a probability-based method, the Monte Carlo simulation technique and HDM-4’s roughness prediction model. The results of the analysis indicated that among the input parameters the variability of pavement strength, rut depth, annual equivalent axle load and initial roughness affected the variability of the predicted roughness. The second part of the paper presents an analysis to assess the variation in cost estimates due to the variability of the overall identified critical input parameters.

Identifying programs to reduce road trauma to A.C.T. motorcyclists

A broad range of motorcycle safety programs and systems exist in Australia and New Zealand. These vary from statewide licensing and training systems run by government licensing and transport agencies to safety programs run in small communities and by individual rider groups. While the effectiveness of licensing and training has been reviewed and recommendations for improvement have been developed (e.g. Haworth & Mulvihill, 2005), little is known about many smaller or innovative programs, and their potential to improve motorcycle safety in the ACT.

Opportunities for enhancing the Australian national road safety strategy

With the current National Road Safety Strategy [1] coming to the end of its term, it is timely to consider ways in which the next iteration of this strategy can be enhanced. Strategic planning should be a cyclic process in which learning and adaptation are just as important as planning and implementation. It will always be the case that some actions are not as effective as expected, or that barriers to effective implementation will emerge. Rather than being setbacks, these are opportunities for learning about the validity of our assumptions. They are also opportunities for us to adapt to meet unanticipated or emerging challenges. One of the positive aspects of the implementation of the first and second National Road Safety Strategies has been the willingness of road safety agencies to critically assess progress and to identify where and how actions would be better focused. This has been reflected in the evolving nature of the periodic National Road Safety Action Plans. As the decade of the current Strategy reaches an end, there is a need to take this process further, and undertake a thorough critical evaluation of the Strategy development and implementation. While not an attempt to be exhaustive, the following article will identify some key priorities for consideration as part of this process.

Evaluation of valuation of noise amelioration treatments within and outside the road reserve

In urban environments road traffic volumes are increasing and the density of living is becoming higher. As a consequence the urban community is being exposed to increasing levels of road traffic noise. It is also evident that the noise reduction potential of within-the-road-reserve treatments such as noise barriers, mounding and pavement surfacing has been exhausted. This paper presents a strategy that involves the comparison of noise ameliorative treatments both within and outside the road reserve. The noise reduction resulting from the within-the-road-reserve component of treatments has been evaluated using a leading application of the CoRTN Model, developed by the UK Department of Transport 1988 [1], and the outside road reserve treatment has been evaluated in accordance with the Australian Standard 3671, Acoustics – Road traffic noise intrusion – Building sitting and construction [5]. The evaluation of noise treatments has been undertaken using a decision support tool (DST) currently being developed under the research program conducted at RMIT University and Department of Main Roads, Queensland. The case study has been based on data from a real project in Queensland, Australia. The research described here was carried out by the Australian Cooperative Research Centre for Construction Innovation [9], in collaboration with Department of Main Roads, Queensland, Department of Public Works, Queensland, Arup Pty. Ltd., Queensland University of technology and RMIT University.

Creating a proactive decision-support environment in managing road traffic noise

Properly designed decision support environments encourage proactive and objective decision making. The work presented in this paper inquires into developing a decision support environment and a tool to facilitate objective decision making in dealing with road traffic noise. The decision support methodology incorporates traffic amelioration strategies both within and outside the road reserve. The project is funded by the CRC for Construction Innovation and conducted jointly by the RMIT University and the Queensland Department of Main Roads (MR) in collaboration with the Queensland Department of Public Works, Arup Pty Ltd., and the Queensland University of Technology. In this paper, the proposed decision support framework is presented in the way of a flowchart which enabled the development of the decision support tool (DST). The underpinning concept is to establish and retain an information warehouse for each critical road segment (noise corridor) for a given planning horizon. It is understood that, in current practice, some components of the approach described are already in place but not fully integrated and supported. It provides an integrated user-friendly interface between traffic noise modeling software, noise management criteria and cost databases.

Risk assessment in life-cycle costing for road asset management

Queensland Department of Main Roads, Australia, spends approximately A$ 1 billion annually for road infrastructure asset management. To effectively manage road infrastructure, firstly road agencies not only need to optimise the expenditure for data collection, but at the same time, not jeopardise the reliability in using the optimised data to predict maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Secondly, road agencies need to accurately predict the deterioration rates of infrastructures to reflect local conditions so that the budget estimates could be accurately estimated. And finally, the prediction of budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation must provide a certain degree of reliability. This paper presents the results of case studies in using the probability-based method for an integrated approach (i.e. assessing optimal costs of pavement strength data collection; calibrating deterioration prediction models that suit local condition and assessing risk-adjusted budget estimates for road maintenance and rehabilitation for assessing life-cycle budget estimates). The probability concept is opening the path to having the means to predict life-cycle maintenance and rehabilitation budget estimates that have a known probability of success (e.g. produce budget estimates for a project life-cycle cost with 5% probability of exceeding). The paper also presents a conceptual decision-making framework in the form of risk mapping in which the life-cycle budget/cost investment could be considered in conjunction with social, environmental and political issues.

Road Asset Management Investment

Australias civil infrastructure assets of roads, bridges, railways, buildings and other structures are worth billions of dollars. To effectively manage road infrastructures, road agencies firstly need to optimise the expenditure for data collection whilst not jeopardising the reliability in using the optimised data to predict maintenance and rehabilitation costs. Secondly, road agencies need to accurately predict the deterioration rates of infrastructures to reflect local conditions so that the budget estimates can be accurately calculated. Finally, the prediction of budgets for maintenance and rehabilitation must be reasonably reliable.