Sign Retroreflectivity Compliance – A Geospatial Approach

We just completed a sign retroreflectivity shortlist presentation for the a client and discussed the options available for gaining compliance based on FHWA regulations as described in the MUTCD.  The client was sold on the “Blanket Replacement” method by a vendor who specializes in sign replacement.

MUTCD Retroreflectivity Guidelines

I was thinking “what a great selling strategy”, but then I thought twice about it.  This vendor had the ability to write their own ticket for selling their sign materials!  A great strategy for the vendor, but not a good option for the client.

We approached the presentation using a different approach – it combined the concept of risk with the general principles of Asset Management.  First, we would inventory their existing sign network to determine what they had and where it was.  Then, we would prioritize which areas were the most likely to fail based on the average age of the signs as well as the risk associated with the actual failure (e.g. pedestrian injury or vehicle damage due to an accident).

 

Risk Assessment for Signs

 

Sample Replacement Cost Calculation

This approach takes into consideration the entire segment of a road instead of considering an individual asset.  The client believes that it is more cost effective to replace the worst signs along a segment using a single mobilization of field crews, rather than jumping around and fixing signs based solely on their condition.  Therefore, we are combining the geospatial location, condition, age, value and MUTCD to develop a risk score for each individual sign.

Project Life Cycle

This analysis is used to create the biggest bang for the buck for our client by reducing risk related to accidents caused by failing signs.  Since all agencies have to be compliant with Regulatory, Guide and Warning signs by 2015, this approach will support a phased approach while taking care of the highest risk signs and working through the lower risk signs until all non-compliant signs have been replaced or are scheduled for replacement.

Compliance Dates for Sign Retroreflectivity

 

Valuation of Sign Asset

In conclusion, the use of Risk to support the prioritization of asset maintenance serves an appropriate role in saving clients time and money.  By replacing the highest risk assets first, an agency can reduce their exposure to lawsuits related to failing infrastructure.

Executive Dashboard

Advertisements

Risk Analysis for Asset Management

One of the pet-peeves I have with asset management software is that they are basically Access on steroids.  There’s not much to the inner workings of the software other than showing you information about an asset – its location, street name, type and maybe some historical information.  Once you get past the attributes, the applications get very complicated because they need to handle some business logic and one-to-many relationships, etc.     The list of attributes can be exhaustive, but how much of it is useful when making a decision about what to do to an asset with limited funding.

I’m working with a vendor who understands this relationship and the role it plays in prioritizing asset rehabilitation and we are getting some promising results.  Imagine trying to prioritize which roads you will be resurfacing next year based on their condition alone.  The worse condition they are in, the higher priority they will receive when you are ranking them based on condition alone.

What if you added risk analysis into the mix?

Then, you can ask these questions of your data – If this road fails, what kind of impact will it have on the travelling public?   Does the road carry large volumes of traffic, or is it in the boonies?

If you can answer these questions, you add another level of intelligence to your data.  Start incorporating traffic volumes, functional classification, detour and access constraints  into your model and you’re on your way to prioritizing with intelligence.