Nested Markov Decision Framework for Coordinating Pavement Improvement with Capacity Expansion
Publication: Journal of Transportation Engineering
Volume 138, Issue 4
Abstract
Pavement improvement and capacity expansion traditionally fall in two different decision-making processes. Pavement improvement decisions are typically made at the maintenance level and focus on maintaining, rehabilitating, and reconstructing the existing pavements with respect to the physical conditions, such as poor riding quality, severe cracking, or rutting. In contrast, capacity expansion decisions are normally made at the planning level in regard to the operational conditions, such as levels of service, travel speeds, or delays. The recently adopted asset management approach calls for integrated decision-making that balances both types of decisions. In this context, this paper introduces a nested Markov decision process (NMDP) framework that can be used to obtain the optimal policy for joint pavement improvement and capacity expansion decisions. The applicability of the proposed NMDP framework is demonstrated through a numerical example showing how a special capacity expansion decision, road widening, can be integrated with conventional pavement improvement decisions for upgrading roadway facilities.
Get full access to this article
View all available purchase options and get full access to this article.
References
California Dept. of Transportation. (2010). Life-cycle cost analysis procedures manual, Sacramento, CA.
Cambridge Systematics. (2004). Asset management position paper, Office of Asset Management, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Carnahan, J. V., Davis, W. J., Shahin, M. Y., Keane, P. L., and Wu, M. I. (1987). “Optimal maintenance decisions for pavement management.” J. Transp. Eng., 113(5), 554–572.JTPEDI
Chandra, S. (2004). “Effect of road roughness on capacity of two-lane roads.” J. Transp. Eng., 130(3), 360–364.JTPEDI
Durango, P., and Madanat, S. (2002). “Optimal maintenance and repair policies in infrastructure management under uncertain facility deterioration rates: An adaptive control approach.” Transp. Res. Part ATRPPEC, 36(9), 763–778.
Durango-Cohen, P., and Sarutipand, P. (2009). “Maintenance optimization for transportation systems with demand responsiveness.” Transp. Res. Part C, 17(4), 337–348.
Kulkarni, R. B., Miller, D., Ingram, R. M., Wong, C., and Lorenz, J. (2004). “Need-based project prioritization: Alternative to cost-benefit analysis.” J. Transp. Eng., 130(2), 150–158.JTPEDI
Li, Z., and Sinha, K. (2004). “Methodology for multicriteria decision making in highway asset management.” Transportation Research Record 1885, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC, 79–87.
Madanat, S. (1993a). “Incorporating inspection decisions in pavement management.” Transp. Res., Part B: Methodol.TRBMDY, 27(6), 425–438.
Madanat, S. (1993b). “Optimal infrastructure management decisions under uncertainty.” Trans. Res. Part C, 1(1), 77–88.
Madanat, S., and Ben-Akiva, M. (1994). “Optimal inspection and repair polices for infrastructure facilities.” Transp. Sci., 28(1), 55–62.TRSCBJ
Ouyang, Y., and Madanat, S. (2006). “An analytical solution for the finite-horizon pavement resurfacing planning problem.” Transp. Res., Part B: Methodol.TRBMDY, 40(9), 767–778.
Park, K., Thomas, E. N., and Lee, K. W. (2007). “Applicability of the international roughness index as a predictor of asphalt pavement condition.” J. Trans. Eng., 133(12), 706–709.JTPEDI
Smallwood, R., and Sondik, E. (1973). “The optimal control of partially observable Markov process over a finite horizon.” Oper. Res.OPREAI, 21(5), 1071–1088.
Smilowitz, K., and Madanat, S. (2000). “Optimal inspection and maintenance policies for infrastructure networks.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.CCIEFR, 15(1), 5–13.
The World Bank. (2010). “HDM-4 RUC model version 2.00.” Washington, DC.
Unnikrishnan, A., Valsaraj, V., Damnjanovic, I., and Waller, S. T. (2009). “Design and management strategies for mixed public private transportation networks: A meta-heuristic approach.” Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastruct. Eng.CCIEFR, 24(4), 266–279.
U.S. Bureau of Public Roads. (1964). “Traffic assignment manual.” Washington, DC.
Walls, J. III and Smith, R. M. (1998). “Life-cycle cost analysis in pavement design—interim technical bulletin.” Rep. No. FHWA-SA-98-079, Federal Highway Administration, Washington, DC.
Yang, J., Gunaratne, M., Lu, J., and Dietrich, B. (2005). “Use of recurrent markov chains for modeling the crack performance of flexible pavements.” J. Trans. Eng., 131(11), 861–872.JTPEDI
Zhao, T., Sundararajan, S. K., and Tseng, C. (2004). “Highway development decision-making under uncertainty: A real options approach.” J. Infrastruct. Syst., 10(1), 23–32.JITSE4
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
© 2012. American Society of Civil Engineers.
History
Received: Oct 18, 2009
Accepted: Aug 16, 2011
Published online: Mar 15, 2012
Published in print: Apr 1, 2012
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.