Decision Methodology for Allocating Funds across Transportation Infrastructure Assets
Publication: Journal of Infrastructure Systems
Volume 12, Issue 1
Abstract
One of the main activities in transportation infrastructure asset management is the allocation of available funds across infrastructure classes (e.g., pavements, bridges, signs) or programs (e.g., maintenance, construction). A methodology for allocating funds across transportation asset classes using multiattribute utility theory has been developed and is provided in this paper. This methodology can be used for performing trade-off analysis among asset classes where it is practical to consider potential shifts in funding from one class to another. The methodology was applied to a sample state highway network in Champaign County, Illinois. The sample highway network consists of pavements, bridges, culverts, signs, and intersections. Four funding allocation alternatives were evaluated using the developed methodology. The case study identified the funding allocation alternative that results in the lowest risk of infrastructure failure or poor performance (i.e., highest utility) from an experienced engineer standpoint. The utility analysis revealed that the decision maker in the case study is risk averse when managing infrastructure classes with the most potential to affect traffic safety and to be noticed by the public, such as bridges and intersections. The case study also revealed that the level of available funding and the level of infrastructure performance affect how the total funding is allocated among asset classes.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
Acknowledgments
The writers wish to acknowledge the assistance of the Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT) in providing data used in the case study.
References
AASHTO. (2002). “Transportation asset management guide.” Pub Code No. RP-TAMG-1, Washington, D.C.
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA). (2002). “Highway economic requirements system—state version (HERS-ST).” Pilot Program Report. No. FHWA-IF-02-056, Washington, D.C.
Gharaibeh, N. G., Darter, M. I., and Uzarski, D. R. (1999). “Development of a prototype highway asset management system.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 5(2), 61–68.
Gharaibeh, N. G., Hicks, J. E., and Hall, J. P. (1997), “Analyses of accidents, traffic, and pavement Data.” Proc., Traffic Congestion and Traffic Safety in the 21st Century: Challenges, Innovation, and Opportunities, ASCE, Reston, Va., 396–402.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). (2002). “Structure information and procedure manual, Illinois highway information system.” Springfield, Ill.
Illinois Department of Transportation (IDOT). (2003). “Roadway information and procedure manual, Illinois highway information system.” Springfield, Ill.
Keeney, R. L., and Raiffa, H. (1976). Decisions with multiple objectives: Preferences and value tradeoffs, John Wiley & Sons, New York.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) (2000). “Asset management for the road sector.” Rep. No. DSTI/DOT/RTR/IM1(2000)1, Paris, France.
Pratt J. W., Raiffa, H., and Schlaifer, R. (1995). Introduction to statistical decision theory, MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass.
Transportation Research Board. (2000). Highway Capacity Manual, National Research Council, Washington D.C.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2006 ASCE.
History
Received: Apr 12, 2004
Accepted: Oct 15, 2004
Published online: Mar 1, 2006
Published in print: Mar 2006
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
Citations
Download citation
If you have the appropriate software installed, you can download article citation data to the citation manager of your choice. Simply select your manager software from the list below and click Download.