Prioritizing Infrastructure Maintenance and Rehabilitation Activities Under Various Budgetary Scenarios Evaluation of Worst-First and Benefit-Cost Analysis Approaches

Infrastructure maintenance and rehabilitation (M&R) projects are commonly prioritized by using the worst-first (W-F) and benefitcost analysis (BCA) approaches. While many acknowledge the inherent disadvantages of the W-F approach relative to that of the BCA, many transportation and public works agencies still use the W-F approach. W-F and BCA approaches were compared in regard to their impact on network condition (specifically, lane miles in good condition and backlog) under various budgetary scenarios. These comparisons were motivated by the premise that under certain budget allocation and availability scenarios, the shortcomings of the W-F approach might be abated. The analysis presented used highway pavement network data from the Bryan District of the Texas Department of Transportation. The Bryan District is located in east central Texas (wet-warm climate and generally poor subgrade). In 2011, this network consisted of approximately 3,178 roadbed centerline miles. Results suggest that when M&R share a single combined budget, the W-F approach is dramatically less effective than the BCA approach in improving the network condition and reducing backlog. However, when the M&R budget is divided into two separate budgets (one for maintenance and one for rehabilitation), the disadvantages of the W-F approach diminish.

Prioritizing Infrastructure Maintenance and Rehabilitation Activities Under Various Budgetary Scenarios Evaluation of Worst-First and Benefit-Cost Analysis Approaches Academic Article