Implementing Highway Preventive Maintenance: Comparing Challenges, Processes, and Solutions in Three States

Abstract

One of the central challenges facing today's state transportation policymakers is how to incorporate preventive maintenance concepts and strategies into existing asset-management systems. Seven unique challenges to implementing preventive maintenance are identified in the literature and elsewhere, and a discussion covers the ways states have addressed those challenges through various implementation strategies. Then, case studies provide examples of how that incorporation has occurred in the departments of transportation in Michigan, Kansas, and Nebraska. The three case studies are presented in an effort to demonstrate the advantages and disadvantages of these three unique approaches, herein labeled the top-down approach, for Michigan; the bottom-up approach, for Kansas; and the inclusive approach, for Nebraska. In particular, an examination is presented of how preventive maintenance concepts were integrated into the planning, budgeting, and technical needs-assessment for state highways.

Field Evaluation and Cost-Effectiveness of Saw and Seal Method to Control Reflection Cracking in Composite Pavements

“…For cleaner joints, a sand blaster may be used to remove any remaining debris. The final step is to seal the joints with a low-modulus rubberized sealant (5). Most of the grooves are overfilled from the bottom up and then followed by squeegeeing to make the applied sealant flush with the pavement surface.…”

Effects of the GASB No. 34 infrastructure reporting standards on state highway infrastructure quality

“…With the GASB 34 requirements, highway infrastructure data are now available in ways that it was not before to managers in many/most governments. Carroll et al (2004) suggested that this information can enhance preventive maintenance activities in the capital budgeting process, and that managers can prioritize maintenance spending because these costs are no longer reported as liabilities but rather recognized as an investment to maintain a minimum level of asset condition. Thus, GASB 34 can function as “the “guardian” of infrastructure quality in the asset portfolios of state department of transportation” (Carroll et al , 2004, p. 12).…”

“…GASB felt that this information would allow constituencies to evaluate the extent to which the government has invested in capital assets, including roads and bridges, and other infrastructure assets (GASB 34, 1999). Asset reporting based on GASB 34 has been touted as a good capital management tool to enhance preventive maintenance activities that can be influential in the long-term planning, needs assessment, and asset management of the capital budgeting process (Carroll et al , 2004). With an increased focus on asset information, governments may prioritize maintenance activities more highly in the resource allocation process, leading to improved infrastructure quality.…”

Outsourcing Decision Making in Public Organizations

“…Engagement of qualitative measures of pros, cons, and risks has been shown to provide initial assessments of outsourcing in DOTs (32). Public organizations engaged in outsourcing find that qualitative measurement has an important role both in the decision-making process and in determining the success of an outsourcing relationship (33)(34)(35). Because of the important role that PCR assessments play in outsourcing within departments of transportation, measurement techniques by Eger et al were adapted for measuring all pros, cons, and risks on a binary scale (yes, no) for all the subfunctions of the DOT (34).…”