2017 TAMC Training Program Results - Michigan · 2017 TAMC Training Program Results 4 Executive...

Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council

2017 TAMC Training Program Results

Tim Colling, PhD, PE Center for Technology & Training

Michigan Technological University

1400 Townsend Drive

Houghton, Michigan 49931

[email protected]

906‐487‐2102

Pete Torola, PE Center for Technology & Training

Michigan Technological University

1400 Townsend Drive

Houghton, Michigan 49931

[email protected]

906‐487‐2102

January 19, 2018

Michigan Technological University 1400 Townsend Drive Houghton, MI 49931


2

Contents Executive Summary ....................................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 5

Summaries of TAMC Training Programs ....................................................................................................... 5

2017 Transportation Asset Management Conference ............................................................................. 5

2017 PASER Training ................................................................................................................................. 6

2017 Introduction to Asset Management for Elected/Local Officials ...................................................... 7

2017 Asset Management Workshop ........................................................................................................ 8

2017 Bridge Asset Management Workshop ............................................................................................. 9

2017 Inventory‐Based Rating System™ Training .................................................................................... 10

2017 Pavement Asset Management Plan Workshop Pilot ..................................................................... 10

Summary of Historical Attendance ............................................................................................................. 13

Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................... 18

Appendix A: 2017 Asset Management Conference Participant Attendee Demographics, Evaluations, and

Feedback ..................................................................................................................................................... 20

Participant Demographics ....................................................................................................................... 20

Mt. Pleasant, Michigan – May 25, 2017 –Evaluations and Written Feedback ....................................... 23

Marquette, Michigan – October 5, 2017 –Evaluations ........................................................................... 29

Appendix B: 2017 PASER Attendee Demographics, Evaluation Results, and iClicker Polling Results ........ 32


2017 PASER –Evaluations ........................................................................................................................ 32

2017 PASER –Written Evaluations .......................................................................................................... 34

2017 PASER –Webinar Polling Results .................................................................................................... 46

2017 PASER –iClicker Polling Results ...................................................................................................... 47

Appendix C: 2017 Asset Management for Local Officials Attendee Demographics and Evaluation Results

.................................................................................................................................................................... 50


2017 Asset Management for Local Officials –Evaluation Results ........................................................... 50

Appendix D: 2017 Asset Management Workshop Attendee Demographics, Evaluation Results, and

Feedback ..................................................................................................................................................... 51


2017 Asset Management Workshop–Evaluations .................................................................................. 51

2017 Asset Management Workshop –Written Evaluations.................................................................... 53

Appendix E: 2017 Bridge Asset Management Workshop Attendee Demographics ................................... 55


3


Appendix F: 2017 Inventory Based Rating System™ Training Attendee Demographics and Evaluation

Results ......................................................................................................................................................... 56


2017 Inventory Based Rating System™ Training – Evaluations .............................................................. 56

Appendix G: 2017 Pavement Asset Management Plan Workshop Pilot Attendee Demographics,

Evaluation Results, and Feedback ............................................................................................................... 58


2017 Pavement Asset Management Plan Workshop Pilot Training – Evaluations and Feedback ......... 58


4

Executive Summary TrainingMichiganlocalagenciesonthemanagementoftheirroadandbridgeassetsisoneofthemissionsoftheMichiganTransportationAssetManagementCouncil TAMC .TheCenterforTechnology&Training CTT conductstrainingsonassetmanagementthatfallundersevenmajorprogramcategories.Thesetrainingprograms,theTransportationAssetManagementConference,PavementSurfaceEvaluationandRating PASER Training,TransportationAssetManagementforLocalOfficials,AssetManagementWorkshop,BridgeAssetManagementWorkshop,Inventory‐BasedRatingSystem™Training,andthePavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilot,wereheldin2017 Seetablebelow .

TrainingProgramTotal

ParticipantsNumberofTrainingEvents

AverageClassAttendance

TAMConference 171 2 85PASERTraining 476 10 notincludingwebinars 48AMforE/LOfficials 191 7 27AMWorkshop 40 2 20BridgeAMWorkshop 20 3 notincludingwebinars 7IBRTraining Webinar 133 2 66PAMPlanWorkshopPilot 19 1 19

Total 1050 27 37Participantattendanceatallofthetrainingprogramsin2017totaled1050.Theprogramexhibitedarecordhighattendanceyearwithanaverageof37studentsforthe25in‐person1trainingevents.Sixty‐fourpercentofthe1050totalattendeesin2017representMichiganlocalagencies,whichisthetargetaudienceforTAMCtrainingprograms.Overthepastfouryears,theTransportationAssetManagementConferenceandPASERTrainingprogramshaveexhibitedsteadyattendancegrowth.TheAssetManagementforLocalOfficialsandAssetManagementWorkshoptrainingprogramshadmorevolatileattendancetotalsinthepastfouryears.Thevolatilityislargelyduetothevariableamountoftrainingeventsheldandthedifferenttypesofvenuesoverthisfour‐yeartimeperiod.

1 Webinar training events are not included in the in‐person training event totals.


5 | P a g e

Introduction TheMichiganTransportationAssetManagementCouncil TAMC ,whichcameintobeingasaresultofPublicAct499,accomplishesitsmissionofenablingacoordinated,unifiedmethodforMichigan’sroad‐owningagenciesformanagingtheirroadandbridgeassetsbyprovidingthoseagencieswithtechnicaltrainingonassetmanagementprinciples.TheCenterforTechnology&Training CTT ,housedatMichiganTechnologicalUniversity,offerstrainingprogramsonbehalfofTAMC.In2017,TAMCtrainingprogramshadatotalof1050participants.

Summaries of TAMC Training Programs ThesevenTAMCtrainingprogramsin2017weretheTransportationAssetManagementConference,PavementSurfaceEvaluationandRating PASER Training,TransportationAssetManagementforLocalOfficials,AssetManagementWorkshop,BridgeAssetManagementWorkshop,Inventory‐BasedRatingSystem™Training,andthePavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilot.Table1 seepages11‐12 presentsasummaryofthestatisticsforeachprogram.

2017TransportationAssetManagementConferenceTheCTTparticipatedinorganizationmeetings,distributedpromotionalmaterials,handledparticipantregistration,producedconferencehandouts,facilitatedatconferences,andprovidedon‐siteaudiovisualandlogisticalsupport.Thetwo2017TransportationAssetManagementConferencesincludedsuchtopicsasbestpractices,agencyexperiences,Michiganinfrastructurechallengesandopportunities,andtechnicaldetails.AppendixAcontainsdemographicattendancedata;individualpresenterevaluationswithregardtopresentationquality,relevancy,andcomprehensiveness;andwrittenfeedbackfromparticipants.

Figure 1: Total TAM Conference attendees for 2007 to 2017


6 | P a g e

2017PASERTrainingTheCTTprovidedinstructionatthetrainingsessionsandproducedaccompanyingPASERManualsandhandouts.TheCTTupdatedpresentationsthatreflecteddatacollectedin2016,qualitycontrolresults,andchangesinlegislationandTAMCpolicies,andtheyalsocontinuedtoimplementblendedlearningstrategieswiththeuseofiClickers.For2017,asupplementalwebinar,calledMastertheRoadsoftDataCollectionCycleforPlanningOrganizations,wasdevelopedandconductedthatprovidedinstructionsonnavigatingthedatacycleprocess.CTTplanstoprovidethisdatacyclewebinartrainingagainin2018.AppendixBdisplaysdemographicattendancedata,evaluationresults,writtenfeedback,andiClickerspollingresults.Inaddition,theCTTdevelopedpromotionalmaterialandcoordinatedparticipantregistration.Followingeachon‐sitesession,eligiblecandidates—thosewithsixyearsofattendanceandratingexperienceorthosewhoarelicensedprofessionalcivilengineersandhavethreeyearsofcombinedtrainingattendanceandratingexperience—couldtaketheTAMCPASERCertificationexaminationtoqualifyforcertification.Lettersofeligibilityweresenttocandidatesbasedontheirtraininghistory;allcandidateswereaskedtoverifytheireligibilitybysigningacertificationstatementontheexam.Table2 below showstheresultsofPASERcertification.For2018,theletterssentouttocandidateswillusethenewTAMCcertificationeligibilityrequirementsadoptedSeptember6,2017.

TABLE2:PASERCertificationCandidatesandResultsTotalcertificationcandidateletters 242Totalregisteredfortheexam 18Completedandpassed 13No‐shows 3Non‐passing 2

Figure 2: Total PASER On‐site Training attendees for 2007 to 2017


7 | P a g e

2017IntroductiontoAssetManagementforElected/LocalOfficialsTheCTTsolicitedfor‘host’agenciesforeachtraininginordertotargetlocalofficialsintheimmediatejurisdiction;openenrollmentsessionsprovidedofficialsstatewidewiththeopportunitytoattendaneventnotassociatedwithahostagency.Inaddition,theCTTprovidedinstructionforthetrainingsessionsandproducedpromotionalandhandoutmaterials.Threeagencieshavealreadyexpressedaninterestinhostingthistraining.ItsdesigngivesthesamebasicinformationastheIntroductiontoAssetManagementforLocalOfficialsbutwithafocusongravelroads.AppendixCcontainsthedemographicattendancedataandtheresultsoftheevaluationsreceivedfromtheIntroductiontoAssetManagementforLocalOfficialstrainingclass.

Figure 3: Total TAM for Elected/Local attendees for 2007 to 2017


8 | P a g e

2017AssetManagementWorkshopTheCTTprovidedinstructionfortheworkshops.The2017AssetManagementWorkshoptopicsincludedassetmanagementexercises,mixoffixesandpavementbasics,assessingpavementconditions,predictingfutureconditions,performancemeasures,projectselectionandreporting,assetmanagementplans,andexercisespertainingtoassetmanagementplanpreparation.AppendixDcontainsthedemographicattendancedata,evaluationresults,andlistswrittencommentsreceivedfromparticipantsoftheAssetManagementWorkshops.

Figure 4: Total AM Workshop attendees for 2007 to 2017


9 | P a g e

2017BridgeAssetManagementWorkshopTheCTTprovidedinstructionatthetrainingsessionsandproducedaccompanyinghandoutsanddataparsingtools.Thetrainingconsistsofatwo‐partwebinarseriesthatcoversbasictopicsandadvancedtopicsbeingpresentinanon‐siteworkshopwherestudentswillgohomewithabridgeassetmanagementplantemplatethatisspecifictotheiragency.AppendixEcontainsthedemographicattendancedataofparticipantsoftheAssetManagementWorkshops.Thistrainingunderwentrevisionsin2016.

Figure 5: Total Bridge AM attendees for 2007 to 2017 (2013 was the first year of offering this training)


10 | P a g e

2017Inventory‐BasedRatingSystem™TrainingTheCTTprovidedinstructionandtrainingmaterialsattheGravelRoadInventory‐BasedRatingSystem™trainings.AnIBRSystem™manualwillbedevelopedin2018thatwilldescribethesystem,thepremisebehindit,andtheprocessfordatacollectionusingIBR.ThissystemisrequiredforsubmittingratingdatatoTAMContheunpavedroadnetwork.TheCTTconductedonelesswebinartrainingthanwasoriginallyplanned.ThisisoffsetbythetwoadditionalIntroductiontoAssetManagementforLocalOfficialsclassesthatwereconducted.Inadditiontothetwowebinarsthatwerecompleted,ashortenedversionofthistrainingwasconductedasapresentationattheSpringTransportationAssetManagementConferenceinMt.Pleasant,MichiganonMay25,2017andattheUnpavedRoadsSafetyPeerExchangeinLincoln,NebraskaonAugust22,2017.AppendixFcontainsthedemographicattendancedataandevaluationresultsfromparticipantsoftheGravelRoadInventory‐BasedRatingSystem™TrainingWebinars.Therewere133attendeesforthisfirstyear.

2017PavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilotTheCTTdevelopedtrainingmaterialsanddataparsingtoolsforlocalagenciestocreatetheirownpavementassetmanagementplanaspartofthePavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilot.Thisworkshopwillbeupdatedbasedonthefeedbackthatisreceivedfromthispilotworkshopforthefourworkshopsthatareplannedfor2018.AppendixGcontainsthedemographicattendancedata,evaluationresults,andlistswrittencommentsreceivedfromparticipantsofthePavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilot.Therewere19attendeesforthisinitialpilotworkshop.


11 | P a g e

TABLE1:SummariesofEachTAMCTrainingProgramin2017

TAMConference PASERTraining on‐site PASERTraining Webinars2 IntrotoAMforLO

TotalParticipants

171 476 273 191

NumberofTrainingEvents

2 10 6 7

Dates,Locations,andParticipants

05/25–Mt.Pleasant 105 10/05–Marquette 66

PASERPart202/28 – WestBranch 3203/01–Saginaw 42 03/02–Okemos 53 03/28–GrandRapids 61 03/29–Kalamazoo 63 03/30–Detroit 100 04/04–Gaylord 38 04/05–Escanaba 14 04/06–Ishpeming 26 PASERPart1&206/07 – WestBranch 47

PASERPart102/14 – Webinar 6302/21–Webinar 37 03/07–Webinar 40 03/23–Webinar 67 06/01–Webinar 17 PASERDataCycle06/21–Webinar 49

01/10–Detroit 1001/16–Quinnesec 2501/30–Charlevoix 54 02/01–Milford 35 02/16–Marquette 16 02/21–Kalamazoo 20 02/22–Saginaw 31

ParticipantDemographicsfromsurveydata

Informationnotsurveyed 420 respondentso Engineer:48%o Planner:14%o Superintnt./Foreman:15%o Laborer/TruckDriver:5%o Other:18%

Informationnotsurveyed 58respondentso Elected/App.Official:55%o TechnicalStaff:26%o SupportStaff:5%o Other:14%

Participants’PerceivedValue fromsurveydata

580responses sumofallpresenters Werethepresentations:“Relevanttoyourneeds/interests?”o ‘StronglyAgree’:30%o ‘Agree’:51%o Neutral:15%o Disagree:4%o StronglyDisagree:0%

375 respondents “DidthistrainingmakeyoumoreconfidentinusingPASERtoaccuratelyratepavements?”o ‘Yes’:85.6%o ‘No’:4.8%o ‘NoAnswer’:9.6%

16 respondents

“HowwouldyouratethisPASERTrainingwebinar?”o ‘Good’:100%o ‘Fair’:0%o ‘Poor’:0%

165respondents Totalofthreeassessmentquestions notcountingblankanswers o 77%correctbeforeclasso 85%correctafterclass

Participants’AgencyType

County 15% 37% 24% 8%LargeCity 2% 13% 13% 6%SmallMunicipal 9% 12% 16% 23%Township 2% 1% 0% 60%State 59% 25% 27% 2%Private 12% 13% 18% 1%Other 2% 0% 1% 0%

2 Attendee statistics for PASER Training Webinars are not reported in PASER Training totals. They are shown for reference only.


12 | P a g e

TABLE1 continued :SummariesofEachTAMCTrainingProgramin2017

AMWorkshop BridgeAMWorkshop IBRTraining PAMPlanWorkshopPilot

TotalParticipants

40 20 133 19

NumberofTrainingEvents

2 3 2 1

Dates,Locations,andParticipants

10/24–Lansing 25 10/25–Saginaw 15

Webinars310/26– Part1 1211/02–Part2 11 11/28–Part1 14 11/30–Part2 16 On‐site11/08–Kalamazoo 8 11/09 – Saginaw 812/07 – Gaylord 4

Webinars04/18 – Webinar 82 07/24–Webinar 51

12/13–Lansing 19

ParticipantDemographicsfromsurveydata

35respondentso Manager:11%o Engineer:60%o Planner:11%o Finance:3%o DPW: 9%o Other: 6%

Informationnotsurveyed Informationnotsurveyed Informationnotsurveyed

Participants’PerceivedValue fromsurveydata

35respondents Regardingoverallworkshopquality:“Wastheinformationpresenteduseful?”o ‘Verymuchso’:60%o ‘Yes’:37%o ‘Alittlebit’:3%o ‘Neutral’:0%o Noanswer:0%

Informationnotsurveyed 74 respondents

“DoyoufeelcapableofratingroadsusingtheIBRsystem™?”o ‘Yes…’:84.0%o ‘Maybe…’:14.9%o ‘No…’:1.4%

14respondents “Howconfidentareyouthatyouragencywillcompleteanassetmanagementplan?”Typeofresponse:

o Veryconfident:36%o Fairlyconfident:64%o Notatallconfident:0%

Participants’AgencyType

County 13% 45% 59% 47%LargeCity 53% 5% 7% 42%SmallMunicipal 13% 0% 2% 11%Township 3% 0% 1% 0%State 13% 5% 15% 0%Private 5% 45% 14% 0%Other 3% 0% 2% 0%

3 Attendee statistics for the Bridge AM Workshop Webinars are not reported in Bridge AM Workshop totals. They are shown for reference only.


13 | P a g e

Summary of Historical Attendance In2017,TAMCtrainingprogramshadatotalof1050participantscomparedto815participantsin2016.Table3belowshowsabreakdownoftheattendancefrom2007‐2017and2017byagencytypeandbytrainingprogram.

TABLE3:HistoricalSummaryofTAMCTrainingAttendanceby:

Agency Type 2007‐2017 2017 Training Program 2007‐2017 2017

Counties 31% 30% PASER 4387 476

Large cities 8% 11% Workshop 837 40

Small cities and villages 16% 12% Conference 1686 171

Townships 14% 12% E/LOfficials 2255 191

Other 31% 36% Bridge 100 20

IBRWebinar ‐ 133

PAMPlanWorkshop ‐ 19

Total 100% 100% Total 9417 1050Figure 6chartsthehistoricalTAMCTrainingattendancefrom2007to2017.Figure7andFigure9showthehistoricalagencyparticipationinTAMCTrainingeventsfrom2007‐2017bycountyagencyandthetop40citiesandsmallagenciesrespectively.Thesearemappedbythestudents’currentbillingcountyforcountyagenciesandcurrentbillingzipcodeforthetop40citiesandsmallagencies smallcitiesandvillages .Thesetwofiguresaccountfor49percentofthestudentstrainingfrom2007‐2017.

Figure 6: Total TAMC Training attendees for 2007 to 2017


14 | P a g e

Figure 7: Historic county participation of all TAMC Training Events (mapped by student current billing county).


15 | P a g e

Figure 8: Historical Top 40 City participation of all TAMC training events (mapped by student current billing zip code).


16 | P a g e

Figure 9: Historical Small Agency (small city/village) participation of all TAMC training events (mapped by student current billing zip code).

Enrollmentnumbersforthisyearcomparedtopreviousyearscanbebrokendownonanevent‐by‐eventbasis Figure10 .The2017TAMConferencesattracted171totalparticipants,whichrepresentsanincreaseinparticipationwhencomparedto2016’stotalenrollmentof164.PASERTrainingdecreasedfrom478totalparticipantsin2016to476in2017.The2017AssetManagementWorkshophad40participantscomparedto23in2016.TheBridgeAssetManagementWorkshopin2017had20participantsin2017,whichwasundergoingreorganizationin2016.TheTransportationAssetManagementforLocalOfficialsin2017had191totalparticipants,whichisanincreasecomparedto150in2016;Figure11illustratesthedistributionofTransportationAssetManagementforLocalOfficialseventlocationsstatewidefrom2007to2017withthesizeofthecirclerepresentingtheamountofstudentsattending.


17 | P a g e

Figure 10: HistoricalparticipationbyallagenciesinTAMCtrainingbyevent.


18 | P a g e

Figure 11: Introduction to Asset Management for Elected/Local Officials – locations of events from 2007 to 2017 by county (circle size depicts size of event attendance).

Conclusion TheTAMCtrainingprogramexhibitedarecordhightotalattendanceyearandanaverageof37studentsforthe25in‐persontrainingevents.Sixty‐fourpercentofthe1050totalattendeesin2017representMichiganlocalagencies,whichisthetargetaudienceforTAMCtrainingprograms.ThetrainingprogramsthathavemainlyexhibitedsteadyattendancegrowoverthelastfouryearshasbeentheTransportationAssetManagementConferencesandPASERTrainings.TheAssetManagementforElected/LocalOfficialsandAssetManagementWorkshoptrainingprogramshaveexhibitedmorevolatilityintheirattendancetotals,whichismostlikelyduetothevariableamountoftrainingeventsandvenuetypesheldoverthisperiod,combinedwiththedifficultyinconvincingelectedofficialstoattendoneofthesetrainingevents.TheAsset


19 | P a g e

ManagementforLocalOfficialseventinCharlevoix January30,2017 andinMilford February1,2017 werepartoflargerevents MichiganTownshipAssociationChapterMeetingandCityManagersConference,respectively ,makingitaveryeffectivewaytoreachalargeamountofMichiganlocalagencieswithminimaleffort.TheschedulingoftheeventinQuinnesec January16,2017 waschampionedbyanattendeeoftheMichiganTownshipAssociationUPNorthSummittrainingatHarris June9,2016 andwasmeanttoeducatenearbylocalagencies.Table4belowshowsthe2018initiallistofagenciesinterestedinhostingtrainingsforthisprogram.

TABLE4:Possible2018Asset ManagementforLocalOfficials HostsForsythTownshipinMarquetteCountyGogebicCountyTownshipAssociationCountyRoadAssociationofMichiganCommissioner’s Seminar

ThePavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopwillundergoupdatesduetofeedbackreceivedfromthe2017pilottraining.Similarly,thePASERtrainingandtrainingmaterialswillundergoupdatesfor2018basedonparticipantfeedbackreceived.AppendicesAthroughGhavethedemographicattendeedata,receivedevaluationresults,andwrittenfeedbackfromall2017trainingprograms.Thevastmajorityofthecommentsreceivedfor2017arepositiveandshowstudentsunderstandthematerialspresented.Theevaluationshelptraininginstructorstoevaluatewhattopicsneedbettercoverage.


20 | P a g e

Appendix A: 2017 Asset Management Conference Participant Attendee Demographics, Evaluations, and Feedback

ParticipantDemographics

Charttotalmaynotbeexactly100%duetorounding.


21 | P a g e

ParticipantlocationfortheSpringAssetManagementConferenceinMt.Pleasantmappedbystudentbillingaddress


22 | P a g e

ParticipantlocationfortheFallAssetManagementConferenceinMarquettemappedbystudentbillingaddress


23 | P a g e

Mt.Pleasant,Michigan–May25,2017–EvaluationsandWrittenFeedback

WelcomeandOpeningComments‐ BobSlattery

Informationwaspresentedclearlyand

completely.

Presentationwasrelevanttoyourneeds

andinterests.

Youwouldliketolearnmoreaboutthis

topic.

StronglyAgree 2 1 1Agree 11 10 5Neutral 4 6 9Disagree 1 1 1StronglyDisagree 0 0 0LeftBlank 3 3 5

TAMCUpdate&Awards‐ JoannaJohnson


completely.

Presentationwasrelevantto yourneeds

andinterests.


topic.


CoffeeConversationswith21stInfrastructureCommissionMembers &RegionalInfrastructurePilots‐EricDelong,JoannaJohnson,CarminePalombo,&Hon.GeorgeHeartwell


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



24 | P a g e

StewardsoftheRightofWayinthe21stCentury‐ DeniseDonohue


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


Inventory‐BasedRating&RoadsoftEnhancement‐ Peter Torola


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


Act51Distribution&InvestmentOpportunity‐ BillMcEntee


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



25 | P a g e

InternationalBridgeAuthorityPresentation‐ KarlHansen,PeterPetainen


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


3‐DimensionalInfrastructureMappingontheM‐1RailProject‐ DaveLanglois,JonathanBailey


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


CoffeeConversationwithBridgeProgramManagers‐ AlexPatsy,WayneHarrall,AlHalbeisen,KeithCooper,ChrisGilbertson


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



26 | P a g e

Participant Response to: “What lessons have you learned in achieving the current state of TAMC?”

Data gathering from locals is served by a simple collection tool that collects only the minimum required data. Changing the process complicates training and frustrates users.

1) Utilizing city staff for savings on projects that have been outsourced in the past. 2) Pavement alternatives being used nearby successfully. 3) Sadly how few projects are receiving funding.

1) Communication is critical. 2) Having an industry standard for data maintenance and sharing is one of the biggest challenges. 3) Condition assessments need to be done using the same criteria and ranking system (1‐9 or fair/poor/good) 4) Most of the data is out there, it's just a matter of bringing it all together in one system.

I have learned I have much more to learn. I am currently in the midst of my first season of rating. That is proving eye‐opening.

Education, education, education. From staff to residents.

1) Collaborative effort 2) Standardization is key 3) Use the data obtained

CityofAnnArborAssetManagementPlanDevelopmentExperience‐ NicholasHutchinson,DeborahGosselin


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


SummaryandClosingThoughts‐ BobSlattery,JoannaJohnson


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



27 | P a g e

Participant Response to: “What thoughts do you have about how to integrate asset classes in asset management planning and investment to leverage improved outcomes?”

GIS technology lends itself to feature integration. If management and analysis is done using the same tools, expertise and usefulness of the technology is enhanced.

1) Need to incorporate/commit AM concepts in everyday operations/position duties/culture. (Top down support) 2) Invest in LIDAR and other smart technologies to effectively collect and maintain asset inventories. 3) Dedicate specific funds for asset collection and for manual collection efforts (Needed for culvert inventories, etc.) 4) Help establish standardized attribution & date needs for various asset types. (Resource to help multiple agencies contribute to the common goal)

The information given was interesting but I would like more tips on integrating asset management within an existing system.

It must be leveraged in a way that allows for all asset classes involved to be notified of a proposed project with 3‐5 years notice so that the data owners have a chance to evaluate the life remaining in their assets where the project is located and from that then find the finding to update/replace their assets during the project.

There should be more extensive training for new planners to transportation. Those who have never rated or used Roadsoft software/written like a report, various regions have such small staff, PASER training needs to address planner concerns much more extensively.

Gather the state's champions of AM to brainstorm ideas.

Need a statewide GIS based framework base map ‐ also taking the place of PA 51 certification paper maps. Used to layer asset management classes statewide.

Standardization of data elements will be crucial

Safety was noted as top priorities for both the 21st Century Infrastructure Commission (listening sessions) and the CRA session. Investment strategies/allocations are not equitable based on risk across the local and MDOT networks but should be. Local roads experience 60% of serious crashes but receive a significant smaller portion of HSIP funds coming to MI.

Participant Response to: “What are your top three ideas for making the Michigan Infrastructure Pilot work statewide?”

1) Universal tool for data collection, management and analysis. 2) Web based tools and access. 3) Incentives such as financial inducements to small communities. 4) Technology assistance to small communities.

1) See #2 2) Do not try to eat the elephant in one bite. (Start with simple data and focus on location more to start with, and some simple condition assessment processes.) 3) Review numerous tools and methods that can be employed to accomplish the overall goals.

1) Pick a software (Esri product, Roadsoft, etc.) that has the ability to take in all of the data that counties, CVTs and utility companies have to contribute. With this data then focus on converting all of the data to be displayed in the software. 2) A non‐disclosure data agreement for all parties involved. 3) There is serious legality issues that some data holders will want addressed before they give up their data related to policies that could be changed following law makers seeing all the data (DEQ could also be an issue).

1) Mandate 100% participation in measuring condition of facilities/utilities, etc. 2) Short‐term 1‐5 CIP & long‐term 5‐30 CIP for all in step 1. 3) Action items with deadlines, accountability (critical path).


28 | P a g e

Participant Response to: “What are your top three ideas for making the Michigan Infrastructure Pilot work statewide?”

1) Base map GIS statewide. 2) Reduce duplication of effort. 3) Duplicate the best practices.

Review data elements for applicability across urban and rural use.

Not sure if this a strategy for the pilot or not ‐‐ If TAMC acknowledges resources are a huge limitation to locals developing asset management plans, consider using the MDOT Local Safety Initiative as a model that could be applied here. The CSI dictates resources to developing safety plans at the local agency level = individual plans.

Participant Response to: “General Comments”

This was a very informative conference and had great food. The agenda was kept on schedule and remained organized. "Coffee Conversations" are a very creative way to get valuable information for numerous industry experts at the same time.

Who is the intended audience? Even for this conference? Not many road commission or villages/cities in attendance.


29 | P a g e

Marquette,Michigan–October5,2017–Evaluations

WelcomeandOpeningComments‐ BobSlattery


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


TAMCUpdate‐ DerekBradshaw


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


PublicAct51,InvestmentReportingandTAMC'sInteractiveMap‐ DaveJennett&Roger

Belknap


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



30 | P a g e

FederalAidExchangeProgram‐ SteveWarren&MarkChristensen


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


MDOTSuperiorRegion‐ AaronJohnson


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


InfrastructurePilots&AssetManagement‐ GarethLifton


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


CenterforPavementPreservation‐ JudithCorely‐Lay


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



31 | P a g e

BridgeAssetManagementPrograms&2016Conditions‐ DavidJuntenen&TimColling


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


CityofAnnArborAssetManagementPlanDevelopmentExperience‐ NicholasHutchinson


completely.


andinterests.


topic.


SummaryandClosingThoughts‐ Bob Slattery&DerekBradshaw


completely.


andinterests.


topic.



32 | P a g e

Appendix B: 2017 PASER Attendee Demographics, Evaluation Results, and iClicker Polling Results



2017PASER–Evaluations

Should any topics be included or covered in more detail during the next training?

Yes 38 10.1%

No 270 72.0%

BLANK 67 17.9%

Which of the training topics do you feel is the most helpful? (some respondents gave more than one answer)

Distress Identification 120 31.5%

Rating Exercises 215 56.4%

Rating Rules 26 6.8%

Data Cycle 7 1.8%

Other 2 0.5%

BLANK 11 2.9%


33 | P a g e

Which part of collecting/submitting PASER data is the most difficult to remember from year to year? (some respondents gave more than one answer)

Distress Identification 79 20.9%

Rating Exercises 45 11.9%

Rating Rules 90 23.8%

Data Cycle 50 13.2%

Other 21 5.6%

BLANK 93 24.6%

Do the rating exercises help you to better rate roads?

Yes 328 87.5%

No 8 2.1%

BLANK 39 10.4%

Did this training make you more confident in using PASER to accurately rate pavements?

Yes 321 85.6%

No 18 4.8%

BLANK 36 9.6%


34 | P a g e

2017PASER–WrittenEvaluations


Yes: Concrete Distress

Yes: Why is #4 poor in PASER when it is good in other systems? Framework connection procedure.

Yes: Example of rumble strip failure and how to rate Manistee M‐22 west of US‐31 example.

Yes: Rating exercises, repetition is good

Yes: The updated webinar info

Yes: Reasons for failure are interesting and appropriate fixes in more detail. Data collector screen and

how to fill out. How to stop and start new segments.

Yes: Example of the LDC screen and inputs. It is different than Roadsoft.

Yes: Data cycle ‐ Q&A after LDC data collection

Yes: How to determine roads that are federal aid and where they're typically found. Are non‐federally

aided roads required or just preferred to be rated?

Yes: More time on asphalt road rating distresses, geared more for what most agencies have. Group

discussions.

Yes: Maybe more on unpaved roads.

Yes: Funding

Yes: Emphasizing the importance of preventative maintenance does not make the rating better!

Some engineer‐managers believe that; this is not the case.

Yes: Composite Pavement, more examples and discussion in general

Yes: How these distresses effect roads.

Yes: Additional asphalt and concrete training slides

Yes: Maybe use live demonstration. Go out and rate parking lot.

Yes: More details on how to rate concrete

Yes: Distress identification. Why do we even have secondary distresses listed if they are never really

used to determine PASER rating?

Yes: Creating the rating network (local agencies never seem to know how to do it).

Yes: Concrete Rating

Yes: IRT/ADARS Interface

Yes: Gravel roads. Turn lanes, passing lanes, decel. lanes, intersection, bypass lanes. When to count

them, when to not.

Yes: Distress Identification

Yes: The difference between "some" and "extensive" full depth repairs for concrete pavement.

Yes: It would be more beneficial to have the distresses as a part of the class training and the reporting

topics as the webinar.

Yes: IRT class

Yes: Show example of longitudinal edge cracking and explain why this type of distress is rated /

considered differently than when having joint separates from shoulder lane.

Yes: Concrete section could be better.

Yes: The concrete rating portions need to be more detailed. It was difficult to understand with the

examples given.

Yes: Bridge and road rating and how each rating affect each other.

Yes: Describe the different descriptions better i.e. spalling, D cracks, scaling, raveling.


35 | P a g e


Yes: Concrete ‐ defining factors between ratings.

Yes: We didn't take the webinar portion. Unless it was needed we were quickly trying to learn the

defects in the roads. Firs time in this course, so it was difficult to learn the ratings on the fly.

Yes: The purpose of telling us all the stuff in the beginning: stats, names, titles. What was that

segment for? Detailed descriptions and images of what each rating problem is (i.e. the trans crack,

longitudinal, rutting, flushing, meander cracks, edge cracks). More interactive way of teaching what

we should identify.

Yes: All topics were good.

No: Very well covered all of topics.

No: Pretty good. Covered questions I've had in the past.

No: Training is thorough

No: No, I thought time spent on each topic was adequate.

No: All topics were explained thoroughly with many examples

No: Everything was explained in detail

No: Everything was good. Seemed to run an appropriate amount of time for the various segments.

No: Excellent information

No: It's a good class

No: Everything seemed to be covered.

No: If anything, maybe go through getting data between IRT & Roadsoft

No: Concrete is much more difficult to grasp

No: Data entry

No: The rating exercises are an excellent improvement.

No: Covered well

No: Good job!

No: It was very thorough

No: Good coverage of all topics.

No: I thought most of material was properly discussed.

No: Everything was covered

BLANK: Ask me next year.

BLANK: Send primary review material to participants a week or 2 before the class

BLANK: LDC or Bridge?

BLANK: Little more info about gravel

BLANK: Lots of young people at this training. I wonder if everyone in the room knows what a crush &

shape is compared to a reconstruct. Also when partial vs. full depth repairs are needed on concrete.

BLANK: First timer, hard to say.

BLANK: Request additional training on topic of preventative maintenance and life cycle analysis. To

have a simple tool to demonstrate treatment options with costs and long‐term benefits would be

helpful for local officials. As a rater, I see road conditions and can evaluate effectiveness of past

improvements ‐ but I recommend a unit to demonstrate cost effectiveness and extended life

comparisons. Cost per year of treatment life slide used in the 2017 PASER training PowerPoint is a

great example!


36 | P a g e


BLANK: Felt that the run‐thru/in‐room testing of the concrete PASER rating wasn't as thorough and

therefore I didn't do as well getting the ratings correct. I did pretty well on the asphalt section and

got a lot more of the ratings wrong. Also having the plan view in the sealcoat rating exercise would

have been useful ‐ the plan view was very useful in helping me learn this piece.

BLANK: Computer portion ‐ data entry

Which of the training topics do you feel is the most helpful?

Rating Rules: Always seems to come up while rating. Good to have refresher.

Rating Rules: This guide helped me rate the exercises.

Rating Exercises: Identifies priority distresses

Rating Exercises: All are important to remember for accurate and consistent rating.

Rating Exercises: Other than some of your own pictures are deceptive and leave to much room for

interpretation, at a minimum. Tim also needs to be more rigid when it comes to alligator cracking,

some are secondary cracking.

Rating Exercises: I like the visuals and other picture examples

Rating Exercises: Best part was HMA rating exercises. Concrete rating was challenging ‐ committee

could try to provide more clear criteria for rating system for concrete roads.

Rating Exercises: Exercises are helpful.

Rating Exercises: Help with ratings, but more distress identifications would be nice to have

Rating Exercises: It's helpful to see visual representation and how it relates to the PASER rating scale

Rating Exercises: So many different types of defects, class always learning something new on what to

look for.

Rating Exercises: Exercises assist getting back into the groove & ready for rating

Rating Exercises: It's a great refresher!

Rating Exercises: Like out on the road, good open discussion

Rating Exercises: Helps to identify current rating when in the field.

Rating Exercises: Good for the beginner

Rating Exercises: Gives you a hands on experience

Rating Exercises: Real life scenarios really help to see what could be present in the field.

Rating Exercises: I find that going over the rating values is beneficial as a refresher every year. I use

PASER once a year while rating then don't use it or think about it until the following year.

Rating Exercises: Hands on training is helpful

Rating Exercises: Good refresher with examples!

Rating Exercises: Helps us all be on a similar page and can help better prepare for our own rating.

Rating Exercises: Keep making errors in rating

Rating Exercises: Distress ID is a part of the exercises

Rating Exercises: It helps when determining the extent of the distress.

Rating Exercises: Practice helps to retain information

Rating Exercises: Helps to evaluate

Rating Exercises: Relates to real world

Rating Exercises: I learn by doing so the exercises were great

Rating Exercises: So all raters are consistent with each other so data is accurate and useful


37 | P a g e


Rating Exercises: Rating exercises provide some real life examples. Don't need many though.

Rating Exercises: This is truly the only portion that is needed as this is my 4th year ‐‐ Just a quick

refresher to get the rating season started

Rating Exercises: It reinforces the distress identification

Rating Exercises: It is good to see real world examples of the condition descriptions

Rating Exercises: Always a good review prior to in‐field work

Rating Exercises: Real world application

Rating Exercises: Refresher

Rating Exercises: Good to see real life examples

Rating Exercises: Helped everyone understand rating scale better.

Rating Exercises: After doing this for several years, the refresher exercises are helpful in preparing for

the rating season

Rating Exercises: Helpful to see real life examples.

Rating Exercises: I felt it was helpful to have examples

Rating Exercises: Describing why a specific road earns a certain rating is more useful than describing

what distresses make up a rating.

Rating Exercises: Examples are most helpful

Rating Exercises: Helped test skills

Rating Exercises: Since this combines distress identification and forces you to use your evaluation

skills/decision making

Rating Exercises: I found this helpful to hear the reasons why the road received the rating that it did.

Rating Exercises: Helps ensure raters see the same thing.

Rating Exercises: Helps visualize different scenarios

Rating Exercises: Refreshes our memories

Rating Exercises: Good Exercise to see how ratings should be completed in the field. Should help

everyone create a uniform rating system

Rating Exercises: During rating you were able to understand the distresses.

Rating Exercises: It's helpful to have some hands on training with input from several raters.

Rating Exercises: Practice makes perfect

Distress Identification, Rating Exercises: Both critical!

Distress Identification: Its what we deal with most days.

Distress Identification: Need to thoroughly explain distresses for each material

Distress Identification: This is definitely the most important thing to teach, but I don't think the class

fulfilled that. Did this happen during the training? If so, it was so bad that it felt non‐existent.

Distress Identification: More accurate ratings

Distress Identification: Memory refreshment

Distress Identification: Concrete distress is always tough compared to asphalt.

Distress Identification: Good manual with pictures

Distress Identification: Excellent Presentation

Distress Identification: Thank you!

Distress Identification: Knowing identifiers are making ability to note much easier.

Distress Identification: Seeing the visual pic and discussing why was most helpful


38 | P a g e


Distress Identification: Learning the distress and what rate goes along with it

Distress Identification: I'm a visual learner

Distress Identification: Improvement project selection and prioritization of pavements for treatment

is my top goal. Distress identification is valuable for this purpose. Distress identification terminology

is important for appropriate justification descriptions and documentation.

Distress Identification: There are many variables when it comes to distress. It's good to get everyone

to identify the same way. Practice makes perfect!

Distress Identification: Seems to continually be refined, good to keep up to date.

Distress Identification: Understanding the distress is critical in determining the corrective actions.

Distress Identification: It is key to know definitions of distress

Distress Identification: Talking and showing distresses works best for me

Distress Identification: Definitions of distress language ‐ always a good review

Distress Identification: Could use more information on the topic

Distress Identification: Helpful to know what to look for to use for rating

Distress Identification: Helpful to see. Could use some more clarification on concrete rating rules.

Feels very ambiguous at times.

Distress Identification: Distress ID is important because it helps rate roads appropriately.

Distress Identification: I need regular refreshing yet!

Data Cycle: Data cycle is very important!

Data Cycle: Data cycle ‐ because we do that less

BLANK: Really appreciate that Tim goes over the distresses and ratings and the reasons why you see

the distresses. I think the more knowledgeable people are on pavement and how it works, the better

they can evaluate the road and this [gives] more accurate ratings, too.

BLANK: All Good

BLANK: N/A ‐ First year

Which part of collecting/submitting PASER data is the most difficult to remember from year to

year?

Rating Rules: Cheat sheet helps

Rating Rules: Changing

Rating Rules: Differences between 8‐7‐6. Hard to see the slight differences.

Rating Rules: Different ratings from 1‐10 have different rules

Rating Rules: Change in rules

Rating Rules: Never rated / trained before

Rating Rules: Always changing

Rating Rules: It [is] good to go over what each rating means and what the cut off points are for certain

ratings.

Rating Rules: Concrete roads are difficult to assess distresses.

Rating Rules: Concrete is difficult

Rating Rules: 50% lane travelled, etc.

Rating Rules: Fall back to the cheat sheet for refresher

Rating Rules: Downloading new Roadsoft versions & LDC


39 | P a g e


year?

Rating Rules: Being able to accurately know the rating rules to precisely rate the roads.

Rating Rules: Thanks for the blue sheets!

Rating Rules: The repetitive training is critical since I only average about 1 hour of rating annually.

Rating Rules: hard to differ between one or two ratings. Like a 7 from an 8.

Rating Rules: We have 7 staff all within training phase. We take turns rating over 160 miles of roads

with a certified consultant. Each gets to rate for 3‐4 hours.

Rating Exercises: Splitting close ratings, 5‐6, 6‐7, 8‐9

Rating Exercises: Concrete ‐ we don’t have any

Rating Exercises: Difficulty between close rating segments

Rating Exercises: Hard to see in detail fine distresses to rate roads during exercise period.

Rating Exercises: Without using the distresses for 6+ months at a time, it is difficult to remember

controlling items.

Rating Exercises: It’s in a lot of cases are judgement call.

Other: Concrete: Concrete: Have no concrete roads in county to rate. Makes it kind of hard to

remember.

Other ‐ Timing: The timing to turn in collected data gets confusing with different agencies having

different end of the year dates.

Other: Haven't done it year to year yet

Other: Nothing is difficult to remember

Other: The process for sharing data with TAMC seems to change a little each year

Other: First training with PASER data. Would not know.

Other: The crew

Other: Concrete rules, distresses, etc.

Other: Lanes

Other: None

Other: Concrete roadways always hard to rate

Distress Identification: Hard to remember the secondary rating considerations between rating

categories.

Distress Identification: Could have used a little more time on identification.

Distress Identification: Distress identification only on concrete roads

Distress Identification: Cheat sheet helps

Distress Identification: Concrete is hard to rate.

Distress Identification: Rate once a year, so this is helpful

Distress Identification: Still need the cheat sheet

Distress Identification: We have very few concrete roads, so concrete stresses are difficult to identify

Distress Identification: Concrete vs Asphalt

Distress Identification: Seems to continually be refined, good to keep up to date.

Distress Identification: Definitions and Language

Data Cycle: Which file goes where

Data Cycle: Setting up the network and importing / submitting to planning org ‐ I use the manual.

Data Cycle: I don't perform these functions


40 | P a g e


year?

Data Cycle: No other comment ‐ rest are helpful

Data Cycle: I only rate for one community, so submitting the data is the hardest part to remember.

Data Cycle: I don't use this.

Data Cycle: There were not a lot of material presented today.

Data Cycle: With software updates this part of PASER has been most difficult over the years. Have

found beneficial to start early in the season and work with road commissions to be save to have latest

LDC & Roadsoft versions. Also appreciate CTT staff assistance. PASER Training Manual has also

become a great resource. Thanks for step‐by‐step instruction and data quality control guide (pg. 57

of manual) very helpful.

Data Cycle: Entering data is most difficult for me

Data Cycle: Data cycle ‐ because we do that less

BLANK: First year

BLANK: I am new to PASER training

BLANK: None

BLANK: None ‐ use cheat sheet

BLANK: First year of training

BLANK: N/A

BLANK: N/A ‐ haven't done a rating yet

BLANK: The whole training felt very scattered and disorganized. Not a very strong presentation. The

speaker was very friendly and seems very knowledgeable, but needs to strengthen his presentation,

rhetoric and public speaking skills. Needs to improve explaining things that engaging the people

trying to learn. He definitely seems to know his stuff, just not how to education others.

BLANK: First year

BLANK: First year

BLANK: Nothing stands out.

BLANK: N/A

BLANK: First time

BLANK: Nothing. After doing it for multiple years, it is pretty straight forward. As you get going just to

have to get your "PASER" eyes back on for the year.


Yes: Consistency.

yes: Good to have refresher

Yes: it is great when afterward you can see what you missed

Yes: Makes me confident.

Yes: Touches the base / core topics for rating roads.

Yes: Yes, the most important distresses and being able to identify them will help me greatly.

Yes: Yes it was very helpful.

Yes: I am new to this.

Yes: Helps to identify road ratings.

Yes: Shows you what to look for in distresses


41 | P a g e


Yes: Real life examples are better preparation for own experiences.

Yes: Identification

Yes: Specifics are always useful

Yes: Yes, Please!

Yes: Pictures are great and being able to discuss it among peers.

Yes: Practice makes better!

Yes: Good to reinforce the materials.

Yes: Hands on learning

Yes: Although I noted I haven't officially rated any roadways for TAMC, we used the rating system to

evaluate condition of roadways and compare to data that TAMC produces to determine possible asset

management and repair strategies.

Yes: It's a good exercise to do as a group to see how others view and make decisions on rating scale.

Yes: Refreshes distress identification and order of importance

Yes: Practice makes perfect

Yes: It helps when determining the extent of the distress.

Yes: Yes. It's nice to look at examples and break down the "why" of each PASER number

Yes: Seeing practical examples

Yes: Lots of good examples

Yes: It's good to see the examples to ensure consistent ratings from year to year.

Yes: It helps to identify road conditions

Yes: Pictures and practice helps to retain info

Yes: Some familiarity with rating prior to doing in the field

Yes: Hands on…. Doing is always most helpful

Yes: Refresher

Yes: Better understanding of rating

Yes: Helps to [sic] proportions into perspective. Ex: <25 % coverage, etc.

Yes: Good refresher!

Yes: Standardized between raters

Yes: Refresher

Yes: Improves uniformity of segment rating

Yes: So much gray area, and too subjective. Different answer from year to year.

Yes: In agreement with others?

Yes: Good info & feedback from the folks that are the experts.

Yes: Good practice

Yes: Just like riding a bike, good to "knock the rust off"

Yes: Reviews before going out and to rate on your own = good

Yes: Refresher

yes: It helps with priorities

Yes: Actual pictures put rules into perspective

Yes: It gives plenty of examples

Yes: Refresher is good.

yes: Keep making errors


42 | P a g e


Yes: Real world relation

Yes: Review prior to in‐field is helpful

Yes: Good to have a concrete refresher

Yes: The rating exercises are helpful but the pace of going through them was very slow. I feel the

class could move quicker.

Yes: There were more examples and different slides were presented. Awesome.

Yes: The exercise reinforcement, the booklets & cheat sheet

Yes: Real examples ‐ pictures worth a thousand words

Yes: Able to see what others would rate to compare to my own

Yes: It's a year between rating cycles so it [sic] always good to brush up before the season begins

Yes: Explains tough decisions

Yes: Always great to get a refresher

Yes: Correcting bad habits

Yes: Consistency is important

Yes: Keeps the ratings fresh in my mind

Yes: Gives practical knowledge to more accurately rate roads

Yes: I have no experiencing with rating, so yes

Yes: Helps eliminate subjectivity of ratings

Yes: Help to discuss what [you] see vs. others and evaluate what distress indicators are/take

precedence

Yes: Shows familiarity for areas not common to districts

Yes: Different perspectives help in determining what you are seeing.

Yes: Helpful to see and discuss examples

Yes: See what I'm doing wrong

Yes: Always good to refresh

Yes: Good refresher!

Yes: Only time will tell

Yes: Visual aids help hands on

Yes: Good refresher. Always interesting to see the perspective of the trainer.

No: It's all subjective.

No: The program used for the exercises was not useful for learning how to rate. The speaker was not

very consistent or engaging when it came to information, timing, examples, audience understanding,

volume, and content. There were more than enough exercises, but when you only see a "yes" at the

top of the screen and don't know what the "yes" is for, the whole exercise is pointless.

No: Not after 13 years

BLANK: First year


Yes: The rating exercises helps reassure that we know the ratings and are consistent.

Yes: Reaffirm my rating abilities

Yes: For sure

Yes: Sure did!


43 | P a g e


Yes: As someone that is new to this, definitely yes.

Yes: Better understanding of ratings

Yes: Put photos for descriptions.

Yes: Always nice to have a hands on approach

Yes: Never rated before

Yes: Exercises very helpful!

Yes: The rating exercises were most helpful.

Yes: Yes it helped refresh my memory

Yes: Second year is always useful to cement knowledge learned previously.

Yes: Seeing that you as an individual and the classmates give the same ratings during the rating

exercise makes you feel more confident.

Yes: Keeps me up to date on all things.

Yes: New rater, so I learned a lot.

Yes: Refresh!

Yes: Good reference

Yes: It is always good to have regular training for consistent rating results.

Yes: Leaving class with understanding on how to use proper evaluation scale and identify different

distress types. Also added benefit is recommended pair for distress which will be helpful with report

evaluations to municipalities.

Yes: See what types of distress, how to identify, which are most important, which are structural,

maintenance related, etc.

Yes: Answering ratings correct or close lets me know I'm thinking in the right direction.

Yes: Verifies my ability to apply correct rating and be consistent.

Yes: I'm new so this helped me know what to look for

Yes: Rating exercises

Yes: Very good reminder. Always learn something new.

Yes: Better understanding how distress should be rated.

Yes: iClicker very helpful

Yes: Refresher

Yes: Gained more knowledge in rating technology

Yes: More practice, the more confident we get

Yes: The annual training helps to remind of stresses to look for

Yes: Refresher

Yes: Somewhat

Yes: Good refresher

Yes: Seems to continually be refined, good to keep up to date.

Yes: Trainings are a good review

Yes: Good Refresher

Yes: I have never rated roads before

Yes: It is a nice refresher every year

Yes: Good to go over the distresses and noting what is a controlling distress for certain ratings.

Yes: Explained my errors


44 | P a g e


Yes: I am more confident because of the examples.

Yes: Great examples / cheat sheets

Yes: This will be my first year so any extra info very helpful!

Yes: I pick up a few tricks every year to make rating a little more efficient.

Yes: Correcting bad habits

Yes: Best session I've been to that goes through the fine line of in‐between ratings.

Yes: Good refresher on concrete

Yes: I have never rated roads so any class would increase my confidence

Yes: First time rating training. Never rated before.

Yes: Refresher course

Yes: The training/rating exercises help to gain confidence with matching and using indicators to form

decision making.

Yes: This is my first training for PASER

Yes: Better understanding on why we rate the way we do.

Yes: I am a back‐up rater, not rating every year. A refresher is necessary to re‐familiarize with

threshold criteria for rating assignments.

Yes: I know more then before the class.

Yes: First time, good base to start

Yes: Yes, but only because I came in knowing nothing about it. So success; I'm leaving with more

knowledge than I came in with. However… a better, more organized, thorough presentation would

make me far more confident. The whole thing was very choppy.

Yes: The practice rating exercises really help

Yes: Will be the first time rating roads

Yes: I created my first rating report prior to any training / rating. Certainly I will be in an appropriate

position now to actually rate.

No: Have rated for 14 consecutive years.

No: Pretty confident from previous years, good to hear the refresher, but not mind blowing

No: Rating standards seemed to change from last year

No: Been doing this for a long time, I'm pretty confident

No: Still subjective

No: A few years of training should suffice. Road distresses don't change. Cracks are cracks. After

three years of training, one shouldn't be required to continue training. I've been to 13 training and I

haven't learned anything new since year 2.

No: It’s all subjective.

No: Not after 13 years

Additional Questions/Comments

Tell us where the example photos are from.

Great class! Well attended!

Thank you

3 year Certification


45 | P a g e


Skip line in Michigan Are 50' apart, 37.5' skip, 12.5' paint. Good job Peter!

In class exercises. It would help if we know distances. Currently we are guessing

Great job, Pete!

No gloves?!!! :(

Strongly recommend investing in additional iClickers so that everyone can participate. Prefer last

year's training location in Dearborn.

None

More clear examples where it is not near one or another rating.

Does crack seal increase rating? (It does add life) If patching raises a 1 to a 2, crack seal should also

raise rating.

Not sure the "good, fair, poor" descriptions are needed on the cheat card. I feel like these could

influence potential ratings and focus should be on the # for raters and the actual distresses that are

present. The venue was very nice, but parking situation was not ideal. Presenter did a great job

conveying critical information.

Please don't use ratings as funding distribution factor!

No gloves?

Good review

Thanks!

Always a Pleasure =)

Nice job! iClicker good

The rating by "clicker" is a good interactive exercise compared to the earlier training years

Dry material, maybe try to be less monotone. Speak up.

Thanks

Standing activities. Presentation can be a little dry.

Stronger coffee. Stagger seating for better viewing.

Awesome instructor!!!

What to do when a road condition changes. A large portion is a 7 but a small portion is a 5 For

example: split the road? Make it all a 5? Make it all a 7? What to do after collecting. How and where

to submit data.

Thank you!

To make more interesting, tell where photos are.

The noise of the restaurant / kitchen is distracting.

Please look into longer certifications. 3 to 5 years? With a webinar refresher every year? Currently it

is not worthwhile to get certified.

First time

Being consistent. Seemed like many of the exercises were not consistent (Ex. Cracking in the wheel

path).

First year

My first year. Very informational!

Thanks

The speaker sometimes contradicted himself without meaning to, but it made some points hard to

understand. Explaining "what" and "why" would be more helpful than "because" without reason.


46 | P a g e


The iClicker part of the class really drags. Maybe some better examples, a more interactive way of

presenting the things we should be looking for and rating.

1st PASER training

Potentially clarify concrete rules. Consistently my co‐raters are all off by 1 with each other.

Less training (every two years? 5?) More local reimbursement.

New format is better, but could be done in an hour or two, not 4. Also, saying PASER trainings are

really successful when you require them??

After 13 years it's pretty much ingrained.

If you offered a longer certification, more people would take advantage of it. 1 year is senseless.

My day to day function is not engineering / road maintenance. For me, this training was

informational to help with communicating to the public.

2017PASER–WebinarPollingResults

How would you rate this PASER Training webinar?

‘Good’ 100%

‘Fair’ 0%

‘Poor’ 0%

What did you find most helpful in this webinar and what did you find most unclear? (one answer per user, submit both answers together at once)

Information about the concrete as I had not found any before this webinar

Animation Slides and Presentation

Presenter's strong knowledge base.

description of types of asphalt distress

Asphalt part was the most clear, concrete part much less so.

The photographs were most helpful.


47 | P a g e

2017PASER–iClickerPollingResults


48 | P a g e


49 | P a g e


50 | P a g e

Appendix C: 2017 Asset Management for Local Officials Attendee Demographics and Evaluation Results


2017AssetManagementforLocalOfficials–EvaluationResults

GeneralQuestionsPriortothisworkshop,didyouunderstandwhattheTransportationAssetManagementCouncil TAMC was?

‘Yes’:47%‘No’:53%

Doesyouragencyusechipseals alsoknownassealcoats asapreventivemaintenancetreatment?

‘Yes’:78%‘No’:22%

Doyouhavecontroloverorinfluenceonthetypesandlocationsofroadprojectsthatyouragencyundertakes?

‘Yes’:75%‘No’:25%

EvaluationQuestionsGivenPriortoAttendingClassWhatisthebenefitofapplyingachipsealonanasphaltpavement? 67%CorrectWhichoneofthefollowingstatementsisfalseregardingpavementdeterioration?

75%Correct

Whichisthemostcosteffective bestbangforthebuck whenmanaginganetworkofroads?

89%Correct

EvaluationQuestionsGivenAfterAttendingTrainingWhatisthebenefitofapplyingachipsealonanasphaltpavement? 82%CorrectWhichoneofthefollowingstatementsisfalseregardingpavementdeterioration?

73%Correct

Whichisthemostcosteffective bestbangforthebuck whenmanaginganetworkofroads?

98%Correct


51 | P a g e

Appendix D: 2017 Asset Management Workshop Attendee Demographics, Evaluation Results, and Feedback



2017AssetManagementWorkshop–Evaluations

(Due to rounding, some totals may not be 100%)

What is Asset Management?

Was the info presented useful? Not at all A little bit Neutral Yes Very

much so Blank

0% 6% 0% 66% 29% 0%

Describe presenter's ability to communicate the material & quality

of the presentation. Lacking

Could use some work Neutral Good Great Blank

0% 0% 3% 14% 77% 6%

Asset Management in Michigan


much so Blank

0% 0% 3% 66% 31% 0%




0% 0% 3% 32% 59% 6%


52 | P a g e

Asset Management Exercise

Was the exercise useful? Not at all A little bit Neutral Yes Very

much so Blank

0% 6% 3% 49% 43% 0%

Mix of Fixes and Pavement Basics


much so Blank

0% 0% 3% 54% 43% 0%




0% 0% 0% 23% 69% 9%

Assessing Pavement Condition


much so Blank

0% 3% 0% 66% 29% 3%




0% 0% 0% 24% 71% 6%

Predicting Future Conditions


much so Blank

0% 0% 3% 66% 31% 0%




0% 0% 0% 31% 63% 6%

Performance Measures


much so Blank

0% 3% 0% 63% 34% 0%




0% 0% 0% 34% 63% 3%


53 | P a g e

Asset Management Plans


much so Blank

0% 0% 6% 66% 29% 0%




0% 0% 3% 29% 66% 3%

Summary Exercise - Preparing an AM

Was the exercise useful? Not at all A little bit Neutral Yes Very

much so Blank

0% 0% 0% 40% 57% 3%

Overall Workshop Quality


much so Blank

0% 3% 0% 37% 60% 0%




0% 0% 0% 20% 74% 6%

2017AssetManagementWorkshop–WrittenEvaluations

What other asset management topics would you like to learn about or learn more about?

Budgeting for variable roadway types in a city. How far to break down analysis, or just general.

Concrete road sizes <‐‐ more in depth and an asset management exercise with a concrete road system

Development of the plan

I'd like to see an advanced AM with more examples, similar to the workshop.

PASER Training in Detroit Area.

Specifically ‐ A focus on how to begin implementation of asset management system. Where to start for large

municipality that is not actually using these techniques.

Tim did a "great" job


54 | P a g e

Would you like someone to contact you about a specific issue?

Can Roadsoft have ability to limit # of times a road gets a certain treatment to reset itself back to a higher #?

Ex. Chip Seal or Crack Fill ‐ cheapest cost w/ best return

Not at this time


55 | P a g e

Appendix E: 2017 Bridge Asset Management Workshop Attendee Demographics


4

4 Seven of the nine Private attendees were attending in behalf of a Michigan local agency.

3


56 | P a g e

Appendix F: 2017 Inventory Based Rating System™ Training Attendee Demographics and Evaluation Results


2017InventoryBasedRatingSystem™Training–Evaluations


Do you feel capable of rating roads using the IBR System™?

'Yes, …' 84.0%

'Maybe, …' or 'Somewhat' 14.9%

'No,…' 1.4%

Do you feel that the IBR System™ will be useful for local agencies?

'Yes, …' 75.7%

'Maybe, …' or 'Somewhat' 23.0%

'No,…' 1.4%


57 | P a g e

Will you use the IBR System™ on your gravel roads?

Positive Response 49.3%

Neutral Response 46.3%

Negative Response 0.0%

My agency does not have gravel roads. 4.5%

Should collecting IBR data for gravel roads be a priority for the

Michigan Transportation Asset Management Council (TAMC)?

Yes 21.7%

Maybe 44.9%

No 33.3%


58 | P a g e

Appendix G: 2017 Pavement Asset Management Plan Workshop Pilot Attendee Demographics, Evaluation Results, and Feedback


2017PavementAssetManagementPlanWorkshopPilotTraining–EvaluationsandFeedback


Years with your agency?

What kind of agency are you with?

Does your agency already have a Transportation Asset Management Plan?

Less than 1 13% City 38% Yes 31%

1‐3 13% Village 0% No 69%

3‐5 19% County 63% 5‐7 6% MDOT 0% 7‐10 13% Consultant 0% 10+ 38% RPO/MPO 0%


59 | P a g e

Were the instructions clear about what needed to be completed prior to attending the workshop?

Yes. Although we were not allowed to VPN to our network to use Roadsoft. I would like better background info on what we need to do to use Roadsoft in class. Please call to discuss.

Yes

Yes. Emailed instructions could be a little more clear. Webinar offering would be good.

Yes, except the version of Excel needed.

I had 2‐3 questions I called to get clarification on.

Yes, example of Excel spreadsheet for expenditures/revenue would have been helpful

Could be a little more clear on specific filters and more description for people who are real new. Instructions were clear to intermediate users.

Yes

Yes

Pretty clear ‐ the only thing was whether we needed our Roadsoft data ‐ ours is a shared network ‐ but we didn't need it, so not an issue.

Yes

Yes

Instructions on pulling financials into Excel are sketchy. Might want to distribute an Excel doc with fields to be filled with info generated by hovering.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Do you feel these pre‐workshop tasks should have been completed in the workshop instead, even if it requires a 2‐hour longer class?

No

No ‐ I outsourced this work to my IT dude.

No. Getting Roadsoft info exported before class avoids potential trouble with computers, databases, etc.

No

No

No. Self‐explainable. Email/phone support is excellent.

No

No

Yes

NO!

No

No ‐ much better to complete before class to save time for additional help/instruction during class. An online video might be helpful as well.

I think it would be difficult because many of the Roadsoft users are networked and can't get data away from their network.


60 | P a g e

Do you feel these pre‐workshop tasks should have been completed in the workshop instead, even if it requires a 2‐hour longer class?

No. Specific instructions work well.

No

No

How far in advance should the pre‐workshop instructions be sent out to give time to complete the necessary tasks?

At least 2 weeks.

2 weeks

2 weeks

Week, but with a follow‐up 48 hours or so before

1‐2 weeks ‐ everyone is busy

2 weeks

At least a week

Time was ok ‐ unless you were on vacation.

2 weeks

1 week minimum. We had to get our IT department to export some data due to permission policies.

2 weeks

2 weeks

1 month with a 1 week reminder.

One week

One week

How much time did it take you to complete the requested pre‐workshop tasks?

Two days. Found needed data updates for maintenance field.

5 minutes to email IT

Half hour to an hour

Hour or so

4 hrs

I delegated!! :) Maybe an hour?

4 hours. I had to get Roadsoft onto a laptop with the database loaded. Excluding Roadsoft, maybe 1‐2 hours.

3 hours

1.5 hours with LTAP help

Had to tell, did it over 3 days. Probably 1‐2 hours.

1‐2 hours

1 hour

N/A ‐ someone else did it


61 | P a g e

How much time did it take you to complete the requested pre‐workshop tasks?

Approximately two hours

Was the instruction guide detailed enough to understand how to use the data macro?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, learned do not delete!

Yes

Yes ‐ but editing data is difficult, formatting difficult, missing local data throws off these charts, using 2010 software is a handicap.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Was the Excel data macro easy to navigate and understand while you were completing each step?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Macros are unfamiliar to me, but were clear enough to follow by a "newbie".

Yes

Yes

Not easy, but manageable.

Yes

Yes

I'm very proficient with Excel so it was easy for me.


62 | P a g e

What did you like/dislike about using the Excel data macro? What could be improved or added?

Please notify to update Word and Excel to current versions.

Sheets were a little cluttered.

How to short list sheet could be helpful.

I really wish I had the correct version to make things run.

I would like a template for city only ‐ don't need all the other data.

As long as there is support available for questions it is good. Lots of info/long formulas.

Like the automatic tables, but dislike having to reverse engineer the data macro to figure out why things aren't showing up right. Add primary v. local roads.

Does not work well with 2010 Excel. Does not work well without enough years of data. I am not proficient enough to improve/edit graphs.

Liked having a canned program for making charts, etc.

Easy button in Roadsoft. Our department needs a newer version of Excel (we will be requesting).

Concerned about fixing issues on my own.

Just some small bugs discussed in class.

There are some errors in the data ranges that need to be corrected. It wasn't picking up years 2013 to 2017 in the historical ratings. We will probably break down into primary v. local and not federal aid v. non‐federal aid.

Was the instruction guide helpful in understanding how to use the Word template?

Very

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Very helpful.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes


63 | P a g e

Were there any topics in the Word template that were not addressed?

I think it was thorough.

I don't think so.

Yes

No

Haven't play with it long enough.

Can't think of any.

No

Not that I can think of

No

No

No

What could be improved or added to the Word template?

Take out FA and just have city major or minor.

Yes. Same as Excel. Crib sheet could be helpful.

Looks good ‐ just recommended primary fed aid, primary non‐fed & local.

Need to look at still. To date looks good. No comment.

Need to work with it more to determine this.

Maybe two templates ‐ one geared for cities and one for counties

Can't think of anything

Will need time working with the document to answer this question.

How confident do you feel that you can navigate and understand the relationship between all of the components of the Roadsoft data, the Excel data macro, and the Word template used to complete and update the plan?

Would like to run through it to bring up all points.

Fairly confident

Good.

70% ‐ but we have 5 of us here to group think and figure it out.

If I did it tomorrow, no problem. A year from now?? If everything works as well as today, no problem!

Somewhat confident.

The charts and macros are not easy to manipulate. Need help with setting‐up projects and treatments and costs in Roadsoft.

Fairly confident. May need to call for help.

Very (with newer Excel)

Somewhat confident.

Fairly

Moderately. Need to really dive in to know for sure.


64 | P a g e

How confident do you feel that you can navigate and understand the relationship between all of the components of the Roadsoft data, the Excel data macro, and the Word template used to complete and update the plan?

Very confident.

Fairly confident, however we would need to customize to suit our specific needs.

Was enough time given to complete each of the hands on sections of the asset management plan?

Yes. Reasonable.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

Yes

Yes

Yes ‐ just the right amount.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Overall, did you find the course to be helpful in getting your agency started with the creation of a transportation asset management plan?

Yes. I think there was good thought and effort for putting together a simple to understand program.

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes, way exceeds what I expected.

Yes

Yes

Very helpful

Yes, very helpful and we really need one.

Yes!

Yes

Yes


65 | P a g e

Overall, did you find the course to be helpful in getting your agency started with the creation of a transportation asset management plan?

Yes

Absolutely

How confident are you that your agency will compete an asset management plan?

Fairly confident

Highly confident

We will.

100%

100%

Pretty confident

We will at some point

Very

Very

Fairly confident

Fairly certain

Very

Very

Depends on management priority.

Do you see any benefits or liabilities for having an asset management plan?

This will help us prioritize our spending and increase awareness of how we get things done.

Needed.

Benefit

It will answer a lot of questions.

It could be used to help get townships on board with road projects and planning for them v. coming to see us in the spring and wanting a road paved in the same year.

Benefits ‐ accountability

Benefits ‐ convey information

Benefits. It will help us plan and explain what/why we are doing to the public.

I see both. More benefits to make sure we stay on track and demonstrate to the public & elected officials the challenges we face.

Yes. Both.

Benefits

No

Always great to have a plan. But don't make realistic [sic] expectations.


66 | P a g e

Is there anything else you want to tell us?

Great job!

Thanks for the workshop. Very helpful.

Thank you

Only have a city template/macro

Send a survey out to us after holiday to see how we are getting along. Very well presented.

Meeting room temp control. :( HVAC overshadows hearing ability of speakers & students. Location is great. AV is great. Lunch good!

Great workshop ‐ very useful

We really need time to work the macro and template on our own to give you more feedback. At first glance, we will probably condense the final plan to not overwhelm our board and township officials.

How much exposure to Asset Management principles did you have prior to this workshop?

Been to several seminars and fell intermediate with principles.

A fair bit.

Some

Good amount

Some

Very little

Just getting into it, maybe a few years now

8 years

Little

A lot

I am familiar with the PASER system and fixes to apply. I've had some exposure to asset management principles.

Some ‐ attended a few of the fall/spring asset management seminars and had the asset management class prior to this workshop.

10 years

Very little

Fair amount

None

Extra Comments

In the working doc: insert, cross ref, gravel road program history, Need to filter network properly, only GCRC Jurisdiction/Maintained Rds, Gravel data

2017 TAMC Training Program Results - Michigan · 2017 TAMC Training Program Results 4 Executive...

Documents

Transcript of 2017 TAMC Training Program Results - Michigan · 2017 TAMC Training Program Results 4 Executive...