See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/269111475

Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mobile Terrestrial Laser Scanning Applications for

Highway Infrastructure

Article  in  Journal of Infrastructure Systems · March 2014

DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000192

CITATIONS READS
15 753

3 authors:

Kin S Yen Ty A. Lasky

University of California, Davis University of California, Davis
16 PUBLICATIONS   78 CITATIONS    60 PUBLICATIONS   1,068 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Bahram Ravani
University of California, Davis
223 PUBLICATIONS   4,468 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Automated Highway Systems (AHS) View project

Computational and Line Geometric Methods View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Ty A. Lasky on 12 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Cost-Benefit Analysis of Mobile Terrestrial Laser Scanning
Applications for Highway Infrastructure
Kin S. Yen 1; Ty A. Lasky 2; and Bahram Ravani 3

Abstract: This paper presents a cost-benefit analysis of mobile terrestrial laser scanning (MTLS), specifically in highway infrastructure (HI)
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

applications using data and requirements from the western United States. MTLS can be used for rapid data collection in a digital point-cloud
format. This data can then be analyzed for mapping and feature inventory in several applications including asset management, preservation,
maintenance, and operational planning performed by State Department of Transportation agencies. In this paper, data and requirements related
to some of the operations of Washington State Department of Transportation and the California Department of Transportation are used as the
basis for this cost-benefit analysis. DOI: 10.1061/(ASCE)IS.1943-555X.0000192. © 2014 American Society of Civil Engineers.
Author keywords: Light detection and ranging (LiDAR); Cost benefit; Highway maintenance; Highway construction; Surveys.

Introduction performed by state departments of transportation (DOTs) can lead

Mobile terrestrial laser scanning (MTLS) is a new and rapidly
emerging technology with many potential applications in highway-
infrastructure design, construction, preservation, and operations
(Yen et al. 2011; Olsen et al. 2013). It can provide a basis for de-
velopment of a massive digital database for all highway infrastruc-
ture assets. This method of asset management has the potential to
drastically improve activities of national, state, and local transpor-
tation agencies by providing a digital world model that can be the
driving force behind all planning and operational aspects of high-
way-infrastructure management. Systematic evaluation of capabil-
ities and the potential benefits of these laser-scanning systems in
the highway-infrastructure (HI) context must be carefully evaluated
to facilitate their adaptation by transportation agencies. One of the
first steps for such an evaluation has involved development of
standardized methods and test protocols to evaluate the accuracy
and other performance measures of laser scanning systems for HI
applications. Systematic evaluation for fixed tripod-mounted laser
scanners has been performed (Hiremagalur et al. 2009), with fol-
low-up work by Johnson and Johnson (2012). Although it is antici-
pated that the accuracy of MTLS systems will not equal that of
fixed tripod-mounted scanners, nevertheless such studies can help
develop a baseline for performance evaluation and assessment of
suitability of such technology for specific applications. Another im-
portant set of parameters that can provide a baseline for comparison
and evaluation of alternatives in utilization of such a technology is a
cost-benefit analysis. Although developing a comprehensive cost-
benefit analysis may require a lot of data and may not be feasible, a
baseline study of a selected example group of functions or tasks
1
Senior Development Engineer, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace
Engineering, Univ. of California—Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
2
Research Engineer, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering,
University of California—Davis, Davis, CA 95616 (corresponding author).
E-mail: talasky@ucdavis.edu
3
Professor, Dept. of Mechanical and Aerospace Engineering, Univ. of
California—Davis, Davis, CA 95616.
Note. This manuscript was submitted on April 9, 2013; approved on
September 9, 2013; published online on March 4, 2014. Discussion period
open until August 4, 2014; separate discussions must be submitted for in-
dividual papers. This paper is part of the Journal of Infrastructure Sys-
tems, © ASCE, ISSN 1076-0342/04014022(13)/$25.00.
to a method for evaluating alternatives and choosing this technol-
ogy for the right applications.
A freeway pavement-surface survey is one of the most hazard-
ous tasks that HI surveyors face. Small survey crews often work on
the roadside, next to live traffic, without the protection of elaborate
work-zone setups such as traffic control, changeable message sign
(CMS) warnings, and cone zones to warn drivers of their presence.
In the traditional survey process, surveyors, particularly the rod-
man, are often exposed to all manner of environmental hazards in-
cluding walking across the roadway exposed to high-speed traffic,
climbing steep slopes, and standing close to high-speed traffic or
other dangerous areas to place the prism or rod. The use of reflec-
torless total stations has improved safety, but due to the large in-
cidence angle the measurements can be inaccurate. Stationary laser
scanners are capable of obtaining this accuracy, but the instruments
must be set up within the right-of-way to obtain the measurements.
In urban areas, road widening and addition of sound walls have
eliminated shoulder and median areas that are traditionally the saf-
est areas for surveyors to occupy without lane closures. As a result,
surveyors’ safety risks increase significantly and the mobility of the
public decreases due to lane closures.
The MTLS systems produce a large amount of data in the form
of a point cloud that can be postprocessed to create a detailed
three-dimensional (3D) computer-aided design (CAD) model.
These solutions have significant advantages over existing methods.
It eliminates surveyors’ exposure by keeping them inside the ve-
hicle and improves survey speed and traffic flow. An MTLS system
may collect up to 50–150 mi (80–240 km) of field data a day.
Furthermore, it does not require space on the shoulder or median.
This system would replace traditional surveying methods for many
applications. A mobile laser scanning system would increase the
safety of surveyors, reduce the need for lane closures, and possibly
increase productivity. The resulting point-cloud data may be used
for other HI applications such as roadside inventory and bridge-
height clearance generation.
As with any emerging technology, it is important to consider the
cost-benefit of applying the technology. This paper presents a cost-
benefit analysis of MTLS, specifically in HI applications. The areas
considered include roadside-feature inventory, bridge-clearance
measurement, pavement survey, and Americans with Disabilities
Act (ADA)–feature inventory. The baseline for this analysis is

© ASCE 04014022-1 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 centered on some of the existing operations within some of the state
DOTs (e.g., Yen et al. 2011). The analysis considers service
procurement, rental, and system purchase. The analysis also con-
siders mapping-grade (meter-level absolute accuracy) versus survey-
grade (cm-level absolute accuracy) systems [for details, see Olsen
et al. (2013)]. Risks and mitigations are also identified.
The paper is organized as follows. A brief overview of MTLS is
presented. This is followed by some of the existing state-DOT
practices and an overview of current data-collection practices.
Next, the detailed cost-benefit is presented, followed by a summary
of the benefits and cost savings. Risks are identified, along with
means for mitigation. Finally, conclusions and recommendations
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The amplitude depends on the reflectance of the object surface as
well as the range and incidence angle to the object. It allows the
software to identify the highly reflective painted lane lines, signs,
and raised pavement markers. By combining the GNSS/IMU and
laser range scanner data with system calibration parameters, the
global coordinate of every scan point can be calculated. Thus, the
position of the painted lane line will also be established. In addition,
other roadside and roadway features can be identified and located
using the resulting point cloud and georeferenced photographs.
LiDAR requires an unobstructed line of sight to the measure-
ment surface. Obscured by the internal structure and scanner body,
some two-dimensional (2D) LiDAR scanners have less than 360

are presented. degree field of view (FOV) by design. New generations of 2D Li-
DAR scanner designs enable 360° FOV. The LiDAR range error
directly adds to the overall MTLS-system absolute error. Therefore,
MTLS Systems Overview only a few LiDAR scanners are suitable for high-accuracy pave-
ment survey work. Currently, most survey-grade MTLS systems
MTLS systems are similar to airborne light detection and ranging use the Optech Lynx V100, V200, or M1, or the Riegl VQ-250
[LiDAR (laser scanning)] systems. Fig. 1 illustrates the basic sys- or VQ-450 LiDAR time-of-flight (TOF) scanners. Both Optech
tem-architecture concept. The system consists of a dual-frequency (Vaughan, ON, Canada) and Riegl (Orlando, FL) scanners have
real-time kinematic (RTK) global navigation-satellite system long-range and high-range accuracy. A few custom-engineered
(GNSS) receiver(s), a six degree-of-freedom (DOF) inertial meas-
MTLS systems (Burchi, presented at SPAR, 2008; Graefe, pre-
urement unit (IMU) (typically three accelerometers and three gyros
sented at SPAR, 2010) employ Z&F (Bridgeville, PA) or Faro
orthogonally mounted), a distance-measuring indicator (DMI),
(Lake Mary, FL) phase-based laser scanners which have higher
LiDAR scanner(s), data synchronization electronics, data logging
range accuracy. However, their practical range is much shorter than
computer(s), and digital camera(s) (Mrstik and Newby 2005;
the TOF scanner. Consequently, the operator may have to drive
Newby and Mrstik 2005; Glennie 2007; Graefe, presented at
multiple passes on different lanes of the multi-lane freeway to
SPAR, 2010; Mandli et al. presented at SPAR, 2010). The com-
gather all the required data. Nevertheless, MTLS systems with
puter(s) collects the synchronized data of GNSS carrier-phase
phase-based laser scanners would yield higher relative-accuracy
measurements, IMU and DMI outputs, digital photographs, and
point-cloud data and are better suited for urban areas.
LiDAR-scanner data for the postprocessing software. Combining
MTLS systems have been developed to collect geospatial data
GNSS base-station raw data collected at the same time, based
(Frecks, presented at SPAR, 2009; Adams and Dunham, presented
on the GNSS measurement, IMU, and DMI data of the rover,
at SPAR, 2010). Their high mobility and capturing ability of large
the software will provide position and orientation solutions (at up-
highway areas (roadways, roadsides, structures) enables DOT users
date frequencies of 100–1,000 Hz) of the sensor platform contain-
to collect massive amounts of data for highway surveying, asset
ing the LiDAR scanners and digital cameras. To achieve the highest
management (Howerton and Sideris 2010), as-built documentation,
possible accuracy, the raw GNSS/IMU data are postprocessed with
and maintenance operations (Frecks, presented at SPAR, 2008;
GNSS base station(s) raw data with high-accuracy satellite orbital
Harrison and Frecks, presented at SPAR, 2010; Mandli et al. pre-
measurements. Furthermore, the system may have multiple LiDAR
sented at SPAR, 2010; McNease and Perry, presented at SPAR,
scanning sensors with digital cameras in visible light, near infrared
2010). They have also been used in railway-tunnel scanning
(NIR), or ultraviolet (UV) wavelengths. An NIR or UV camera may
(Sandrone and Wissler 2011).The LiDAR scanner’s resultant point
be used to better determine health of certain plant species or to
cloud, shown in Fig. 2, is then postprocessed to extract mapping
compensate for poor lighting conditions.
data, roadside asset–feature data, and various measurements. If
The LiDAR scanner produces distance and angular measure-
such a database were developed, the extracted data could then
ments to objects as well as the amplitude of the light-return signal.
be readily imported into a database for analysis and be accessible
by all DOT business areas, thus reducing duplicate data collection
GNSS and storage in separate silos. Of course features like culvert ends,
Infrastructure dry wells, regulatory outfalls, and anything underground are not
visible in the point cloud; therefore, they cannot be extracted.
However, these types of features are relatively safe to collect
Extrinsic Sensors Data
Mobile Proc. Point
Digital
Platform GNSS Camera Sensor Cloud
Fusion

LiDAR
Human
Intrinsic Sensors Interface
IMU DMI

World
Highway Model
Infrastructure

Fig. 2. Example point-cloud of a highway produced by a MTLS

Fig. 1. MTLS-system architecture block diagram system (Terrametrix 2013, with permission from Terrametrix, LLC)

© ASCE 04014022-2 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 and they do not usually change position. This new tool presents an
opportunity for DOTs to consolidate geospatial-data collection and
storage operations and improve overall efficiency by eliminating
redundant work.
Private contractors and services providers have been using mo-
bile LiDAR extensively to collect geospatial data for mapping,
asset management, and survey. Based on discussions with service
providers, a few state DOTs, such as Tennessee DOT, Hawaii DOT,
Nevada DOT, and Texas DOT, have contracted with MTLS service
providers for asset management. The California Department of
Transportation (Caltrans) has contracted with a MTLS survey firm
to perform bridge-clearance measurements and pavement surveys.
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
Survey-service providers have been using survey-grade MTLS
systems to collect data for railroad and power transmission–line
management (McNease and Perry, presented at SPAR, 2010).
Statement of the Problem
The mission of state DOTs is to keep people and business moving
by operating, maintaining, and improving the state’s transportation
systems vital to the public, businesses, and communities. State
DOTs require geospatial data for planning, maintenance, operation,
and project delivery. Despite the high initial costs of MTLS systems
and data-extraction software, the solution may be cost-effective
compared to existing methods. The costs and benefits of MTLS
solutions are examined in detail in the remainder of this paper,
sorted by functions. Not all functions that would benefit from
LiDAR are included, just those with tangible data.
Application Areas
There are at least three existing programs [roadside feature inven-
tory program (RFIP), bridge clearance measurement, and ADA fea-
ture inventory], performed by some DOTs, that would directly
benefit from employing MTLS systems. These programs’ historical
and current expenditures in the western United States are used in
this cost-benefit analysis. Their data and functional requirements
are well-defined. There are other state-DOT functional groups that
can greatly benefit from the data produced by these mobile systems
(Chang et al. 2006; Glennie 2009; Mendenhall 2011). However,
data on their program expenditures for geospatial-data collection
were not fully available (or varied greatly from year to year) to do
proper comparisons.
RFIP Requirements
The RFIP used by the Washington State Department of Transpor-
tation (WSDOT) involves collecting, storing, and reporting roadside
features such as guardrails, culverts, signs, objects in clear zones,
and other features from different regions within the state. This data
can be used for asset management, project and system design, and
overall system analysis. In some cases, some individual businesses
in a state have collected similar information (e.g., utility poles, signs,
guardrails, tree groupings, and slope information) independently of
one another. This causes duplication of efforts and expenses, which
can result in the data not being consistently stored in a statewide,
standard format that would allow shared use and proper mainte-
nance of the data. Because of the advancements in technology,
GIS applications, and the creation of the RFIP, it will be desired
by state DOTs to combine this information resulting in a single
source for data retrieval. In this fashion, the stored data will be more
accurate and, therefore, the ability to analyze and maintain the data
increases exponentially, saving the agency time and money.
© ASCE 04014022-3
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Some of the benefits of an RFIP using MTLS technology for
state DOTs include
• Having consistent data definitions, accurate values and formats
throughout the department;
• Having reliable data-collection methods and procedures to
maintain standards with minimal variation;
• Improving efficiency of projects through consistent data collec-
tion and reporting;
• Using the data to fulfill environmental requirements and inven-
tory management;
• Using the data strategically for safety considerations, unstable
slopes, major electric utilities, access control, and drainage
considerations; and
• Using the data for evaluation of regulatory compliance and
inventory management.
Bridge-Clearance Requirements
State DOTs have programs that are responsible for collecting
bridge vertical and horizontal clearance as well as other bridge
as-built structure information. The absolute accuracy requirement
for bridge location is relatively low [ca. 2 ft (0.6 m)]. The following
are practical recommendations for the relative accuracy require-
ments for bridge clearance data:
• Bridge columns/piers (horizontal clearance): within 4 in.
(10 cm) optimum;
• Bridge girders (vertical clearance): within 1 in. (2.5 cm);
• Overhead restrictions (including truss members) (vertical/
horizontal clearance): within 1 in. (2.5 cm) vertical; within
3 in. (7.6 cm) horizontal;
• Bridge rails/guard rails (horizontal clearance): 3 in. (7.6 cm);
• Edge of pavement (horizontal clearance): 1.5–6 in. (3.8–15 cm);
and
• Sign bridges (vertical clearance): within 1 ft. (0.3 m).
All of these measurements are achievable with a survey-grade
MTLS system. Beyond the clearance information needed for post
heights, bridge strikes by over-height trucks can occur several times
per year. Proving damage by having existing condition data would
be extremely valuable in cases resulting in litigation. In addition,
existing condition would be valuable in evaluating the effects of
environmental hazards.
ADA Feature–Inventory Requirements
State DOTs are responsible for collecting data on ADA ramps
at intersections to ensure their compliance to ADA standards and
regulations. The types of ADA features that are usually captured in
this type of inventory are
• All curb-ramp types, including detectable warning-surface
placement;
• Bridge-end sidewalk ramps;
• Sidewalks;
• Pedestrian access routes (PAR) with protruding objects and
other obstructions;
• Crosswalks;
• Driveways;
• Island and median cut-throughs;
• Accessible pedestrian signals (APS), push-button types, and
locations;
• Shared-use paths;
• Independent walkways;
• Facility ramps;
• Edge protections;
• Handrails;
• Railroad crossings;
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 1. Itemized RFIP Field Data–Collection Estimated Cost for
WSDOT
Description Cost
Vehicle $600 per month
Laptop $1,500 per crew
Data logging equipment (one per $6,000 per unit
crew member)
Estimated travel expenses $3,600 per year per region
Miscellaneous cost (e.g., cell phone, $1,000 per month per crew
supplies, and repair)
Transportation technician 2 $4,200 per month
Transportation technician 3 $4,800 per month
GIS pathfinder office software maintenance $3,500 per year
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Table 2. Historical RFIP Yearly Costs for WSDOT

Annual Number
RFIP-program of miles
Fig. 3. Making ADA-ramp measurements from a point cloud Year cost surveyed Cost per mile
(WSDOT 2013, with permission from Washington State DOT
2010 $638,381 443 $1,442.41
GeoMetrix Office)
2009 $836,960 644 $1,299.63
2008 $1,179,356 709 $1,831.30
2007 $1,319,550 911 $1,448.46
• Stairs; and 2006 $884,504 879 $1,006.26
• Parking stalls. Sub total $4,858,752 3,585 Average cost: $1,355.20
Each of these ADA features has numerous elements that need to
be measured and documented such as subtypes, running slopes,
cross slopes, widths, lengths, clearances, and alignments. Errors in location data are mitigated since all feature locations should
Fig. 3 depicts the point cloud of a typical ADA ramp, illustrating a be fairly close to the roadway. A total of 12 FTE personnel and six
few of the needed measurements. For this type of work, the relative vehicles are typically utilized statewide for RFIP-data collection.
accuracy for horizontal and vertical measurements is usually 0.01 ft, The estimated costs for itemized field-data collection in the state
and the angular accuracy for slope measurement is 0.01%; these rel- of Washington are listed in Table 1. The collected field data are
ative accuracies are at the limits of a survey-grade MTLS. The processed in the office by a transportation-planning specialist, with
absolute position accuracy for the intersection is typically 1–5 ft. assistance from an information-technology specialist when re-
(0.3–1.5 m). In the figure, darker points correspond to sidewalk, quired. The program is managed by a transportation technical en-
while white points correspond to curb and ramp. The labels denote gineer. The total estimated yearly program cost for this operation is
horizontal [5.302 ft. (1.616 m)] and vertical [0.443 ft. (0.135 m)] $1,340,000. Table 2 shows the historical yearly expenditures for
dimensions, which are used to compute slope of the ramp. this state and productivity levels of the RFIP since 2006. It is im-
portant to note from the data in this table that while the yearly RFIP
expenditures vary over the years, the survey and data management
Current Data-Collection Methods and Costs costs per highway mile is relatively constant, with an average of
approximately $1,355=mi ð$840=kmÞ. Even though almost 4,000
This section provides details of an example of a current practice in highway miles of data have been collected and processed, to date,
data collection for RFIP, bridge clearances, and ADA-feature in- the program still has approximately 3,059 more miles for which
ventory. In addition, the program cost, equipment used, productiv- data collection is needed for full completion. The data, once com-
ity figures, full-time equivalent (FTE) personnel, and vehicles pleted, can provide information that can be used in preliminary
involved in data collection are listed for each program. The exam-
design and scoping of projects.
ple is developed using some of the current practices of the WSDOT.

RFIP Data–Collection Methods and Cost Bridge-Clearance Measurement Data–Collection

WSDOT is divided into six regions. Each region has a crew for
RFIP-data collection. Here, we assume a typical regional RFIP
crew consists of two people, and that to increase the speed of data
collection, some regions in some situations use a four-person crew.
Typically, a crew member proceeds to the feature on foot or by car
and inputs the feature’s attributes into the data logger. Each crew
shares a laptop computer and a vehicle. We assume that, on
average, each crew collects
• 137 features per day in rural areas; and
• 491 features per day in urban areas.
Data-collection locations and collection schedules are usually de-
termined by the individual regions. The feature mile post (MP)
location is determined by a WSDOT custom-developed application.
This application calculates MP location from GPS location data.
Methods and Cost
Bridge-clearance measurements can be performed from a moving
vehicle, e.g., from the Advanced Highway Maintenance and
Construction Technology (AHMCT) Research Center’s StructView
system (Lasky et al. 2006). In the State of Washington, bridge-
clearance data are collected by a crew consisting of a bridge-
geometry engineer and a co-inspector traveling in a vehicle with a
hitch-mounted vertical-clearance measurement system (VCMS) from
Mandli Communications (Madison, WI). In addition to the vehicle,
the VCMS requires a converter unit and a laptop for local data-
processing and control. The time required for vertical-clearance data
collection depends on number of lanes under the structure, density of
the structures, and exits/turnaround availability. In an urban area
where the highway typically has numerous lanes and ramps, it takes

© ASCE 04014022-4 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 about 1.5 h per structure to collect all necessary data. In a rural set-
ting, it is estimated the data collection generally takes about 45 min
for each structure. In addition to using VCMS to collect vertical
clearances, bridge inspectors also collect bridge-structure horizontal
clearances during routine bridge inspections.
The personnel hourly cost for this operation is estimated at $45.
Traveling throughout the state, the crew requires additional lodging
and per diem costs. The lodging and per diem cost is estimated at
approximately $15=h per person in addition to the labor rates. In
addition there is a need for an approximately one hour of office
processing time per structure at $45=h. A cost of $20=h is estimated
for the vehicle. The Bridge Preservation Office (BPO) estimated
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
that it costs $300 per structure including labor, lodging, per diem,
and basic vehicle costs. The BPO also estimated that it spends
$80,000=year to collect data on the 270 structures/records per year.
Consequently, it takes the BPO about 10 years to complete a full
cycle of data collection for all WSDOT bridge structures. In order
to achieve a 10-year cycle for data collection, this agency needs a
data-collection rate exceeding 270 structures per year.
ADA-Feature Inventory Data–Collection Methods and
Costs
As part of WSDOT’s ADA-transition plan, WSDOT has started
collecting data for an ADA-feature database that includes gathering
data on what features exist or are missing in the field. A survey
crew collects data on a wide array of ADA features and their
elements. In these efforts, the precise measurements of the ADA
elements are the primary objectives of the crew.
In the case of a curb ramp, for example, the ADA data–
collection crew will locate the ramp by placing a mapping-grade
GPS unit at the center of the ramp cut along the back of the curb.
The mapping grade GPS has an absolute positional accuracy of
5 ft. (1.5 m). Once a GPS location tag is generated for the ramp
location, the ramp attributes are measured by hand tapes and digital
levels [Stabila (Stabila, Inc., South Elgin, IL) or Smart Level
(SmartTool Technologies, Oklahoma City, OK)] and entered into
a digital-data collector using a data dictionary created specifically
for the ADA-collection program. Digital range-finders are also used
to measure the horizontal/vertical differences of remote features. The
field crew shares a pickup truck, a digital camera, a laptop computer, a
digital level, and tape measures. The crew size typically consists of
two people. A three-person crew is sometimes needed in heavily
urbanized areas primarily to provide a traffic spotter.
This process at a curb ramp takes a well-trained crew about
10 min to complete. The time required for measuring all the ramps
in the entire intersection depends on the number of ramps in the
intersection. Usually, there are only ADA ramps and crosswalks
in each quadrant. However, there may be a need to collect more
data in some intersections that have traffic islands, pedestrian fa-
cilities, or obstructions. The estimated time to complete an entire
intersection with minimal attributes is 1–2 h. However, an intersec-
tion with extensive collection points and heavy traffic may take 4 h
for the crew to complete all the measurements. In-office postpro-
cessing time is usually 1 h per intersection per data collector used.
The estimated program cost from July 2009 to June 30, 2010
was $118,414, and the cost from July 2010 to March 2011 was
$237,321. Itemized ADA feature-inventory data collection costs
are provided in Table 3
MTLS-Deployment Option Details and Costs
To collect data for a state-DOT roadway network, a MTLS-system
vehicle would need to be driven in both directions on each roadway.
© ASCE 04014022-5
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Table 3. Itemized ADA Feature–Inventory Data-Collection Costs
Description Cost
Pickup truck $800=month
Trimble data logger, laptop, digital camera, $20,000 per crew
digital rangefinder, and software
Transportation technician 2 $30=h
Transportation technician 3 $45=h
Furthermore, depending on the range of the LiDAR scanners used,
some multilane-highway segments may have to be driven on
more than one time. In addition, extra travel mileage is required to
capture highway interchanges. In order to reach a baseline target
for the cost-benefit analysis, it is assumed here that there are ap-
proximately 15,000 mi (24,000 km) that would need to be driven
by the data-collection vehicle in order to pick up the entire state’s
network of highways handled by the state DOT. There can also be
limitations on the number of days per year that data can be collected
due to weather and other conditions such as construction and main-
tenance. For the state of Washington, for example, due to its typical
weather conditions, it is assumed here that data collection can only
be conducted for 6 months of the year. In such a condition, a single
vehicle can collect data for the entire WSDOT highway network
in 2 years.
The total cost can be broken down to several cost categories as
follows:
• Information-technology (IT) costs. This includes the cost of
data-extraction software, storage, server, backup, and worksta-
tions for data extractions. The current WSDOT-IT charges are
approximately $7.3 per gigabyte (GB) for storage and asso-
ciated backup costs. In addition the cost of a virtual server is
approximately $1,000. Our pilot study indicated that the esti-
mated data requirement is about 3 GB=mi [1.86 GB/km (Yen
et al. 2011)]. Thus, the total data storage requirement is 45
terabytes (TB) and costs $328,500 for a 2-year data-collection
period. Five workstations ($15,000) are needed for data postpro-
cessing. In addition, data-extraction software licenses and yearly
renewal costs are approximately $80,000 and $20,000 per year,
respectively;
• Data-collection costs. The total costs associated with data
collection is composed of the equipment cost, equipment-
maintenance cost, personnel cost, and vehicle cost. The
vehicle costs are estimated at $700=month or $0.56=mi
ð$0.35=kmÞ; and
• Data-extraction cost. This is the total cost of the personnel to
extract the required geospatial data for various WSDOT pro-
grams. The data-extraction cost depends highly on the number
of features required to be extracted.
In order to simplify the calculation of personnel costs, an aver-
age cost of $50=h is used for labor rate for all of the personnel
needed for data collection and processing in mapping-grade appli-
cations. For survey-grade applications, a cost of $135=h is used.
Deployment of MTLS technology can be achieved in many
different ways. Seven of the most common approaches are dis-
cussed below, where their costs are estimated and compared. These
options are
1. Contract for mapping-grade MTLS services;
2. Contract for bridge-clearance measurement services;
3. Rent and operate a mapping-grade MTLS system;
4. Purchase and operate a mapping-grade MTLS system;
5. Rent and operate a survey-grade MTLS system;
6. Purchase and operate a survey-grade MTLS system; and
7. Purchase fractional ownership of a survey-grade MTLS
system.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Mapping-grade options are not considered for Caltrans, as they
do not meet the needs of land surveys and structure maintenance.
Contract for Mapping-Grade MTLS Services
There are several service providers who provide statewide highway
network–mapping services using an MTLS system. The advantage
of this option is that the contractor will supply the equipment,
personnel, and the final needed output. The DOT would not be
burdened with training, data postprocessing, technological obsoles-
cence of equipment, and equipment maintenance. On the other
hand, the contracting process is often complicated and takes a long
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
are not in the database. The data-extraction costs of the subsequent
data-collection cycles can be significantly lower since data on most
assets have been extracted and inserted into the database.
Contract for Bridge Clearance–Measurement Services
Some survey/engineering-grade MTLS system–operators provide
contract services to collect and extract vertical and horizontal
bridge clearances. Like Option 1, the advantage of this option is
that the contractor will supply the equipment, personnel, and the
final needed output. The DOT would not be burdened with training,
data postprocessing, technological obsolescence of equipment, and

time, and the DOT would not have a mobile-LiDAR system
available at a moment’s notice. This option provides data with
mapping-grade accuracy, and the service provider also provides
feature-extraction services. Most State DOTs contract MTLS-data
collection from service providers for their asset management. Some
state DOTs perform their own data extraction as needed, while
other DOTs rely on contractors to extract their data. For example,
Tennessee DOT (TnDOT) had a contract with Mandli Communi-
cations (Madison, WI) to perform an MTLS scan of their entire
state highway network. The total size of resulting point-cloud
and digital image data was 15 TB. The operation took 2 years
to complete at a cost of approximately $70=mi ð$43=kmÞ. The data
extraction cost was an extra $62=mi ð$38=kmÞ. It should be noted
that data extraction costs depend on the number of features to be
extracted and can vary greatly.
Feature extractions typically take about 2–5 human-hours=mi.
Table 4 lists the cost breakdown for contract services with each data
collection having a period of 2 years. The data-extraction costs are
usually higher for the first cycle in data collection since most assets
equipment maintenance. The disadvantage is that DOT would not
have a mobile-LiDAR system available at a moment’s notice. The
cost is approximately $100–$150 per structure. The service pro-
vides only the vertical and horizontal bridge clearances and clear-
ance diagrams as deliverable. Point-cloud data are usually not part
of the deliverables. The cost depends on the number of structures to
be surveyed and their geographic separation. For example, Caltrans
had a contract with a service provider for such services, Terrame-
trix, which processed 589 bridges for Caltrans and is currently
documenting 7,250 additional bridges for horizontal and vertical
clearance. The bridge office also needs accurate as-built plans
of existing bridge-structure conditions to address litigation con-
cerning ongoing accidental bridge strikes, which average about
one a month. Bridge-repair and court costs include proving damage
(change detection, based on existing scans). Not all structures
would require the same level of detail. For example, over/under
crossings would be different than river crossings. The deliverable
of this option does not provide accurate as-built data. WSDOT
has a total of 2,700 structures. Thus, the total cost of surveying

Table 4. Itemized Costs for MTLS Options

Option 4: Option 5: Option 6: Option 7:
Option 3: Rent Purchase and Rent and Purchase and Partial ownership
Option 1: Contract and operate a operate a operate a operate a (50%) of a
MTLS services mapping-grade mapping-grade survey-grade survey-grade survey-grade
Description (mapping-grade) MTLS MTLS MTLS MTLS MTLS
IT data-storage cost $328,500 $328,500 $328,500 $328,500 $328,500 $328,500
IT-server cost $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
Data-postprocessing workstations N/A $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000
(5 at $3,000 each)
Data-extraction software N/A $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000 $80,000
Data-extraction software annual N/A $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000
maintenance cost
First-cycle total IT cost $329,500 $444,500 $444,500 $444,500 $444,500 $444,500
Subsequent-cycle total IT cost $328,500 $368,500 $368,500 $368,500 $368,500 $368,500
Mobile LiDAR–equipment cost N/A $360,000 $350,000 $600,000 $850,000 $403,000
Equipment annual maintenance cost N/A $0 $35,000 $0 $85,000 $432,000
Training N/A $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 $50,000 N/A
Vehicle cost (6 months=year) N/A $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 $8,400 N/A
Personnel cost ($8,650=month,2 FTE for N/A $207,600 $207,600 $311,400 $311,400 N/A
mapping-grade and 3 FTE for survey-grade)
Data-collection cost per mile $70 N/A N/A N/A N/A $75
First-cycle total data-collection cost $1,050,000 $626,000 $651,000 $969,800 $1,304,800 $1,960,000
Subsequent-cycle total $1,050,000 $576,000 $286,000 $919,800 $489,800 $1,557,000
data-collection cost
First-cycle data-extraction cost/mile $100 $125 $125 $150 $150 $150
Subsequent-cycle data-extraction cost/mile $50 $50 $50 $75 $75 $75
First-cycle data-extraction cost $1,500,000 $1,875,000 $1,875,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000 $2,250,000
Subsequent-cycle data-extraction cost $750,000 $750,000 $750,000 $1,125,000 $1,125,000 $1,125,000
First-cycle total cost $2,879,500 $2,945,500 $2,970,500 $3,664,300 $3,999,300 $4,654,500
Subsequent-cycles total cost $2,128,500 $1,694,500 $1,404,500 $2,413,300 $1,983,300 $3,050,500
Total cost (6 years, 3 cycles) $7,136,500 $6,334,500 $5,779,500 $8,490,900 $7,965,900 $10,755,500
Note: Boldface indicates subtotals or summary statistics.

© ASCE 04014022-6 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 all structures in WSDOT is about $337,500 assuming a cost of $125
per structure. Caltrans has approximately 12,000 bridge structures
that require clearance measurements. Thus, the total cost of survey-
ing all structures in Caltrans is about $1,500,000 per cycle, also
assuming a cost of $125 per structure. The cycle would ideally be
repeated every 2–4 years.
Rent and Operate a Mapping-Grade MTLS System
Some mapping-grade MTLS-system manufacturers work with their
dealers to provide a rental option. Some of the advantages of this
option include the elimination of equipment technological obsoles-
cence risk and the burden of equipment maintenance and warranty,
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
as well as higher system availability. This option also has a lower cost
of entry compared to the purchase option, but has a higher lifecycle
cost. For example, a Topcon IP-S2 [Livermore, CA (http://www
.topconpositioning.com/products/mobile-mapping/ip-s2)] is avail-
able for rental from the PPI Group [Portland, OR (http://www.
theppigroup.com/)] for approximately $25,000=month, or more de-
pending on the system configuration. In this scenario, the WSDOT
rents and operates a mapping-grade MTLS system for data
collection and performs data collection and extraction with in-house
personnel. The IT cost includes data hosting, virtual server, five
data-postprocessing workstations, data-extraction software, and
maintenance. The majority of the IT cost is the data-storage cost.
The data collection–cycle duration is estimated to take 2 years,
at 6 months=year of active collection due to Washington-state
weather limitations.
The data-collection costs for WSDOT are composed of equip-
ment rentals for 12 months (6 months=year for 2 years), one-time
training cost, vehicle cost, and personnel cost. Table 4 lists the cost
breakdown for this option. The data extraction cost is higher for the
first data-collection cycle since most assets are not initially in the
database. The data extraction cost of subsequent cycles is much
smaller since most assets have already been extracted and installed
into the database.
Purchase and Operate a Mapping-Grade MTLS System
Currently, there are more choices for purchasing mapping-grade
MTLS systems as compared to renting them. The advantage of pur-
chasing a unit is lower lifecycle cost compared to the rental option,
and the MTLS system is available at a moment’s notice. The
disadvantage of this option is the technological obsolescence of
equipment, higher entry cost, and the burden of equipment mainte-
nance and warranty. Typical mapping-grade systems currently cost
from $250,000 to $350,000 depending on the LiDAR and camera
configuration. This option considers WSDOT purchasing and
operating a mapping-grade MTLS system for data collection and per-
forming data collection and extraction with in-house personnel. The
duration of the data-collection cycle, in this option, is estimated to
take 2 years (again, operating for 6 months for each year). The data-
collection costs consist of MTLS-equipment cost, annual mainte-
nance cost, one-time training cost, vehicle cost, and personnel cost.
The annual maintenance cost includes firmware/software upgrade,
calibration, and extended warranty. The two-person crew would take
6 months=year for 2 years to complete a single data collection–cost
cycle. Table 4 lists the cost break down for this option.
Rent and Operate a Survey-Grade MTLS System
Some survey/engineering-grade MTLS system manufacturers work
with their dealers to provide a rental option for such equipment.
The advantages of this option include the elimination of equipment
technological obsolescence risk and the burden of equipment
© ASCE 04014022-7
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
maintenance and warranty as well as higher system availability.
The data accuracy is higher than a mapping-grade system, and
it is suitable for more applications within the state DOT. It also
has a lower cost of entry compared to the purchase option. The
lifecycle cost of this option, however, is higher than the purchase
option. For example, Trimble MX8 [Sunnyvale, CA (http://www
.trimble.com/geospatial/Trimble-MX8.aspx?dtID=overview&)] is
currently available for rental for approximately $150,000 for a
3-month duration. In this option, a state DOT can rent and operate
a survey-grade MTLS system for data collection and extraction
using in-house personnel. The data-collection cost consists of
equipment rental for 12 months (6 months=year for the 2-year
data-collection cycle in the state of Washington), one-time training
cost, vehicle cost, and personnel cost. The personnel time required
for high-accuracy data collection and raw data postprocessing is
higher than the mapping-grade option because of more complex
setup and raw GNSS/IMU-data postprocessing. To achieve the best
accuracy, more GNSS base-station setups are required with closer
spacing and placements of ground targets. Thus, one extra person-
nel per year is added to the personnel costs for data collection.
Additional data-extraction time is also added because of additional
feature-extraction requirements for bridge clearances and ADA-
feature inventory. It takes approximately 3 h=mi ð1.9 h=kmÞ instead
to perform this operation as compared to 2.5 h=mi ð1.6 h=kmÞ in
the mapping-grade option. Table 4 lists the WSDOT cost break
down for this option. Table 5 lists the Caltrans cost breakdown
for pavement survey, while Table 6 lists the Caltrans cost break-
down for bridge-clearance measurements.
Purchase and Operate a Survey-Grade MTLS System
At the present time there are more purchase options available for
survey-grade MTLS systems than there are rental options. The ad-
vantage of this option is lower lifecycle cost as compared to the
rental option, and the mobile-LiDAR system is available at a mo-
ment’s notice. The data accuracy is higher than the option using a
mapping-grade system, and this option can accommodate more ap-
plications within a DOT. The disadvantage of this option, however,
includes the technological obsolescence of equipment, higher entry
cost, and the burden of equipment maintenance and warranty. Typ-
ically, a survey-grade system costs from $500,000 to $850,000 de-
pending on the LiDAR and camera configuration, plus 10% annual
maintenance cost. In this scenario, a state DOT would purchase and
operate a survey-grade MTLS system for data collection and data
extraction with in-house personnel. Similar to the previous options,
the data collection–cycle duration for the state of Washington is
estimated to take 2 years at 6 months=year with a three-person
crew. The data-collection cost consists of equipment cost, annual
maintenance cost, one-time training cost, vehicle cost, and person-
nel cost. The annual maintenance cost includes firmware/software
upgrade, calibration, and extended warranty. The personnel time
required for high-accuracy data collection and raw data postpro-
cessing is higher than for mapping-grade operation. Thus, one extra
personnel time per year is added to the data collection–cost calcu-
lation. Tables 4 and 5 list the cost break down for this option.
Purchase Fractional Ownership of a Survey-Grade
MTLS System
At present, 3D Laser Mapping [Bingham, Nottingham, UK (http://
www.3dlasermapping.com/)] and GeoDigital International Inc.
[Hamilton, ON, Canada (http://www.geodigital.com/)] offer frac-
tional ownership plans for a StreetMapper 360 system for U.S.
customers. Fractional-ownership plans are common in the aviation
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 Table 5. Caltrans Cost for Different Survey-Grade MTLS–Deployment Options
Option 6: Number 7:
Option 1: Option 5: Rent Purchase and Partial
Contract for and operate a operate a ownership (50%)
survey-grade survey-grade survey-grade of a survey-grade
Deployment option MTLS MTLS MTLS MTLS
Data-extraction software N/A $150,000 $150,000 $0
Data extraction–software maintenance N/A $15,000 $15,000 $0
MTLS-equipment cost 2*$2,100/day $0 $850,000 $403,000
Annual maintenance or rental cost N/A $600,000 $85,000 $216,000
Hardware installation N/A $0 $6,000 $0
Training N/A $50,000 $50,000 $0
Total fixed cost (6 years) N/A $3,875,000 $1,556,000 $1,699,000
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

Data-collection cost N/A — — —

Vehicle mileage cost per year ($0.56=mi, 6 projects=month, 10mi=project $235/project $8,870 $8,870 $0
with 2 passes and 10x travel to work site–mileage overhead.
Totalmileage ¼ 1,320mi=month or 15,840mi=year)
Data collection–personnel cost per year ($135=hr, three-person crew, $6,720/project $272,160 $272,160 $54,000
1 day=project + 0.5-day driver cost per project or $75=mi for partial
ownership @ 6 projects=month for 6 months=year)
Georefencing cost/year (12 hr=project) $2,100=project $116,640 $116,640 $0
Total data-collection cost (6 years) N/A $2,386,022 $2,386,022 $324,000
Total cost (6 years) N/A $6,261,022 $3,942,022 $2,023,000
Average cost per project $13,255 $14,493 $9,125 $9,366
Note: Boldface indicates subtotals or summary statistics.

Table 6. Caltrans MTLS-Cost Estimate for Bridge-Clearance Measurement

Option 5: Rent Option 6: Purchase Option 7: Partial
Option 2: Contract and operate a and operate a ownership (50%)
for bridge-clearance survey-grade survey-grade of a survey-grade
Deployment option measurement services MTLS MTLS MTLS
Total number of bridges/structures in California N/A 12,000 12,000 12,000
Total highway centerline miles in California N/A 14,851 14,851 14,851
Number of passes per centerline miles N/A 2 2 2
Miles of travel overhead (times) N/A 2.5 2.5 2.5
Total miles of travel for bridge scanning (mi) N/A 74,255 74,255 74,255
Data processing cost ($75=mi) N/A N/A N/A $2,227,650
Vehicle-travel cost N/A $41,583 $41,583 $0
Total bridge-scanning days (400 mi=day) N/A 186 186 186
Data collection–labor cost ($135=hr) N/A $401,760 $401,760 $0
Data postprocessing labor cost (0.5 hr=bridge) N/A $810,000 $810,000 $810,000
Total cost (without equipment cost) N/A $1,253,343 $1,253,343 $3,037,650
Cost per bridge (without equipment cost) N/A $104 $104 $253
Equipment cost per day (50 weeks=year) N/A $2,400 $907 $2,832
Total equipment cost N/A $446,400 $168,640 $526,690
Total cost with equipment N/A $1,699,743 $1,421,983 $3,564,340
Cost per bridge with equipment cost $125 $142 $118 $297
Note: Boldface indicates subtotals or summary statistics.

industry where asset costs are high. Fractional ownership reduces
the cost of entry and risk of technological obsolescence. The ad-
vantage of this option is that the contractor will supply the equip-
ment, personnel, and GNSS/IMU postprocessing. The state DOT is
not burdened with training and equipment maintenance. On the
other hand, the contracting process could be complicated and
can take a long time. Furthermore, the state DOT would not have
an MTLS system available at a moment’s notice. The equipment
availability is lower than the rental or the purchase option. Under
the fractional-ownership plan, customers purchase a fraction (20,
30, 40, or 50%) of the system. The customer (for example, a state
DOT) pays an initial fractional-equipment cost based on the per-
centage of the fractional ownership. The plan also requires a
monthly management and maintenance fee ($18,000/month for
50% ownership). The customer also pays a fixed per mile usage
and data-processing fee [$75=mi ð$47=kmÞ] for the point-cloud
data. The plan provider will supply the personnel and vehicle
for data collection (100 days=year for 50% ownership) and raw-
data postprocessing. The customer (a state DOT) will have to per-
form its own data extraction using in-house personnel and software.
Similar to previous survey-grade options, the data extraction is
estimated to take about 3 h=mi ð1.9 h=kmÞ at $50=mi ð$31=kmÞ.
Table 5 lists the Caltrans partial-ownership cost breakdown for
pavement survey, while Table 6 lists the Caltrans partial-ownership
cost breakdown for bridge-clearance measurement. Partial owner-
ship is not cost-effective for bridge-clearance measurement.
Caltrans 50% Fractional Ownership of a Survey-Grade
MTLS
Under the 50% fractional ownership plan, a customer may have
up to 100 days of use and 25 times access per year. Fractional

© ASCE 04014022-8 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 $4,245,500

$1,387,500

$5,633,000
$5,047,500

$5,602,500

$5,615,100

$6,140,100

$3,375,412
Total 6 yrs
(3 cycles)
ownership can be a cost-effective solution for pavement survey

savings
with careful planning and time coordination to complete a lot
K of projects in the 100 days available. In addition, the DOT
does not require trained personnel to operate the MTLS system.
Subsequent-
However, availability of the MTLS system is limited. Fractional

$717,000

$462,500

$711,304
$1,179,500
$1,151,000

$1,441,000

$1,340,200

$1,770,200
savings
cycle ownership is not a cost-effective solution for bridge-clearance
J

measurement. The DOT would be better off contracting this service

to a service provider.

$462,500
$2,811,500

$3,274,000
$2,745,500

$2,720,500

$2,934,700

$2,599,700

$1,952,804
First-cycle
savings

Cost Summary for All MTLS-Deployment Options

I

Table 7 provides a summary of comparative costs for each of

the options discussed for WSDOT. Table 5 provides similar data
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

for Caltrans. These tables indicate that in all the options, approxi-
savings
(tons)
CO2

mately half of the cost is associated with data extraction. It should

23

23
23

23

29

29

29
H

be pointed out, however, that it is difficult to accurately estimate the

data-extraction cost because it depends on the software used, num-
savings
Vehicle

ber of features to be extracted, and whether the highway is in a rural

G

4
3

4
or urban area. The feature-extraction time estimate provided in
Table 4 is based on discussions with contractors and feature extrac-
savings

tion–software makers. To obtain a better estimate, the DOT must

FTE
F

8
0

perform an in-depth study to determine a realistic productivity figure

for data extraction for their asset-management program. As can be
seen in Table 4, the first data collection–cycle costs for rental and
collection
vehicle(s)
for data
Annual

purchase options are very close. However, the subsequent data col-
E

0
1

lection–cycle costs for the purchase options are much lower. Thus, in
the long run, the purchasing options seem to be a better alternative
when cost is the only consideration. On the other hand, if the data-
postprocessing
Annual FTE

collection cycle is changed from 2 years to 3 or 4 years, the rental

required
for data

0
9

11

11

11

options may be better, again considering the cost as the only con-
D

sideration. For WSDOT, fractional ownership does not seem to offer

any cost advantages due to the high monthly management and main-
tenance costs and the per-mile data-processing costs. In addition, the
Annual FTE

collection

MTLS system would be shared 50% of the time so the work output
required
for data

would be 50% of all the other options. In the near future, data-
1.5

1.5
C

0
1

hosting costs may decline with advances in storage technology.

However, the data demand may increase with high-speed LiDAR
scanners and higher-resolution cameras offsetting storage-cost
Subsequent cycle

and processing
data-collection

reductions. Fractional ownership of survey-grade MTLS system

$2,128,500

$2,466,000
$1,694,500

$1,404,500

$2,413,300

$1,983,300

$3,042,196
$337,500

can be rejected based on cost considerations. Based on cost-only

cost
B

comparison, purchasing and operating an MTLS system with either

mapping-grade or survey-grade accuracy is the lowest-cost option.
and processing
data-collection

Sensitivity to Number of Projects

$2,879,500

$3,217,000
$2,945,500

$2,970,500

$3,664,300

$3,999,300

$4,646,196
$337,500
First cycle
Table 7. Itemized Savings for Each WSDOT-MTLS Option

cost

Utilization rate is the key factor in reducing the average cost per
A

project as shown in Fig. 4. A DOT with a large roadway network

has higher demand for MTLS pavement surveys and could maintain
a high MTLS-system utilization with large number of pavement sur-
7: 50% fractional ownership of a survey-grade
2: Contract for bridge clearance–measurement

vey projects and number of bridges requiring constant update of

their clearance measurements. Thus, the average project cost for
4: Purchase and operate a mapping-grade

6: Purchase and operate a survey-grade

purchasing and operating options could be lower and be competitive

1: Contract for mobile-LiDAR services

3: Rent and operate a mapping-grade

with outside contractors. However, a DOT with a smaller roadway

5: Rent and operate a survey-grade

network should examine the equipment rental, contractor, and

partial-ownership options for their cost-effectiveness and viability.
Setting ground control, logistics, and poor weather are often factors
Combine Options 1 and 2

reducing utilization. Fig. 5 provides MTLS pavement survey–

mobile-LiDAR system

mobile-LiDAR system

mobile-LiDAR system

mobile-LiDAR system

mobile-LiDAR system

project costs versus project length.

Option description

(mapping-grade)

Benefits and Cost Savings of Each Solution

Column:

services

The benefits of MTLS technologies can be divided into tangible

benefits and intangible benefits. The tangible benefits come from

© ASCE 04014022-9 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 $20,000
the direct cost savings from using MTLS technologies over current
data-collection methods. Other tangible benefits are reduction in
$18,000 FTEs, vehicle fleet, and carbon dioxide (CO2 ) emissions from less
vehicle usage and fewer miles traveled. The intangible benefits are
$16,000 increased safety, higher data-collection speed, higher-accuracy
data, and up-to-date (every 2 years) geospatial point-cloud data
Average Cost per Project

for use in other state DOT processes. Not all options may satisfy
$14,000
all of a state DOT’s program requirements. Table 8 summarizes
compatibility of each option for WSDOT programs. The check-
$12,000 mark indicates compatibility.

$10,000 Tangible Benefits

Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.

This section calculates the cost savings of MTLS technology over

$8,000 the current methods for each of the three WSDOT programs: RFIP,
bridge-clearance measurement, and ADA-feature compliance. Each
$6,000 section lists the assumptions for cost, FTE, and vehicle savings. The
assumptions may have large effects on cost-saving calculations.
$4,000 Roadside Feature–Inventory Program
4 6 8 10 12 14
Some RFIP data, such as culvert type, size, and location, would not
Average Number of Projects per Month
be collected using MTLS system because culvert ends cannot be
Contractor (high estimate) Purchase and operate a survey grade reliably seen by the scanners. These features would still require
mobile LiDAR system the traditional process to collect, utilizing field personnel with
Rent and operate a survey grade 50% fractional ownership of a survey GPS units for collection. However, culvert type, size, and location
mobile LiDAR system grade mobile LiDAR system
do not change. Therefore, once such data are collected, these would
Contractor (low estimate)
not need to be collected again. RFIP-data collection must use some
FTE personnel to collect feature data that the MTLS system cannot
Fig. 4. Sensitivity of cost per project to number of projects
reliably collect. Nevertheless, it is estimated that the number of
vehicles required for such an operation would still be reduced
from six to two, and number of FTE personnel for data collection
would reduce from 12 to two. In addition, some of the RFIP costs
are devoted to back-office data management and support for its
$180,000 customers. In this analysis, we assume that approximately 60%
$160,000 of the current RFIP costs are associated with feature-data collec-
$140,000 tion. Table 2 shows that the average RFIP cost is approximately
$1,355=mi. Thus, $813=mi ($1,355=mi × 0.6) is the current RFIP-
MTLS Project Cost

$120,000
y = 4125.4x + 74571 feature data-collection cost, and the total feature data–collection
$100,000 cost for the entire Washington state is estimated at $5,691,000
$80,000 [$813=mi × 7,000 mi ð$504=km × 11; 300 kmÞ] for the first cycle
$60,000 of data collection. The cost for subsequent cycle of data collections
will be less because most data has already been collected in the first
$40,000
cycle. This analysis assumes that data collection for the subsequent
$20,000
cycles of data collections would be half of the first cycle or approx-
$0 imately $2,845,500.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
Highway Miles
Bridge-Clearance Measurement
Fig. 5. Historical MTLS pavement survey–project costs (with feature Based on the BPO’s estimate, the WSDOT BPO spends
data extraction and ground-control setup) versus project length (high- $80,000=year to collect bridge-clearance data, and the data-
way miles) collection cycle for the entire WSDOT’s bridge clearances takes
approximately 10 years to complete. Therefore, if a survey-grade

Table 8. Solutions Compatibility with WSDOT Programs

Compatibility RFIP Bridge clearance
Mobile LiDAR–deployment options — —
Contract for mobile-LiDAR mapping services (mapping-grade) ✓ —
Contract for bridge clearance measurement services — ✓
Rent and operate mapping-grade mobile-LiDAR system ✓ —
Purchase and operate mapping-grade mobile-LiDAR system ✓ —
Rent and operate survey-grade mobile-LiDAR system ✓ ✓
Purchase and operate survey-grade mobile-LiDAR system ✓ ✓
Purchase fractional ownership of a survey-grade mobile-LiDAR system ✓ ✓
ADA compliance GeoMetrix office
— —
— —
— —
— —
— —
✓ ✓
✓ ✓
✓ ✓

© ASCE 04014022-10 J. Infrastruct. Syst.

J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.

 mobile-LiDAR system is used, the savings would be approximately
$800,000 for each data-collection cycle. Besides measuring bridge-
clearance data, the bridge inspectors can also perform the critical
task of inspecting bridges for their integrity, which occupies most
of their time.
ADA-Feature Inventory
The expenditure for WSDOT’s ADA-compliance survey varies
from year to year, and it is hard to predict its exact values. The
average annual cost is estimated at approximately $180,000, where
it is also assumed that 60% of the program cost is associated with
data collection. Thus, using a survey-grade MTLS system is ex-
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
pected to provide a saving of $108,000. It is also expected that
it will provide a reduction of one vehicle and 2.5 FTE personnel.
Carbon Dioxide Savings
For the CO2 emission savings calculation, it is assumed each
vehicle travels 15,000 mi=year ð24; 000 km=yearÞ with average
gas mileage of 25 mi=gal: ð10.6 km=LÞ (mpg). The annual gasoline
usage, in such a scenario, would be 600 gal. (2,270 L), and the
equivalent CO2 emission is estimated to be approximately
11,640 lb=year [5.8 tons=year ð5; 280 kgÞ] for each vehicle.
Benefit Summary
It was estimated that the point-cloud feature extraction requires
2.5–3 h=mi for the first data-collection cycle, and therefore, in the
case of Washington state, the human-hours required are estimated
to be 37,500–45,000 h over 2 years or 9–11 FTEs/year for the first
data-collection cycle. Table 9 summarizes the data-collection and
processing costs for RFIP, bridge-clearance measurement, and
ADA feature–inventory programs.
Table 7 shows the benefits of each of the MTLS system–
deployment options discussed earlier for the three programs of
the WSDOT. The first data collection–cycle savings (Table 8,
Column I) is the estimated monetary savings produced by imple-
menting the option in the first data-collection and processing cycle.
It was calculated by subtracting the option’s first data collection–
cycle and processing cost (Table 7 Column A) from the total esti-
mated first data collection–cycle costs (Table 9 Column A) of the
WSDOT operations (RFIP, bridge-clearance measurement, and
ADA-feature inventory) that benefited from that option. The sub-
sequent (2nd and 3rd) data collection cycle–savings (Table 7
Column J) are equal to the total of estimated subsequent data
collection–cycle costs of affected WSDOT operations (Table 9
Column B) minus the option’s subsequent data collection–cycle
and processing costs (Table 7 Column B). The expected monetary
savings of all three data-collection cycles in 6 years (sum of Table 7
Column I and 2 times Column J) is shown in Table 7 Column K.
It is clear from this column that even though the initial cost of
deploying a survey-grade system is more, the benefits and cost
savings from the bridge-clearance and ADA feature–inventory
operations outweigh the higher initial cost and produces higher
savings.
Table 9. Itemized Savings for Each Program
Column: A B
Estimated Estimated
first-cycle subsequent-cycle
Current operations cost cost
RFIP $5,691,000 $2,845,500
Bridge-clearance measurement $800,000 $800,000
ADA-feature inventory $108,000 $108,000
© ASCE 04014022-11
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Table 7 Column F shows the estimated FTE personnel savings
produced by each option in the first data-collection period and as-
sociated data processing. This was calculated by adding Column C
and subtracting Column D of Table 9 of the WSDOT operations
that benefited from the option, and subtracting the sum of Table 7
Columns C and D of the same option. The vehicle savings were
calculated in a similar manner.
Intangible Benefits
Intangible benefits are the unquantifiable benefits that are not di-
rectly associated with costs. Intangible benefits of using an MTLS
system can be potentially larger than its tangible benefits. For ex-
ample, MTLS improves mobility of the traveling public by elimi-
nating lane closures and other temporary work zones for survey
workers. It also reduces the number of needed personnel, vehicles,
and carbon dioxide emissions for data collection. In addition it in-
creases the speed of data collection and reduces time to acquire the
critical geospatial data and provides for an environment that enhan-
ces data-driven decision-making processes. In many DOT opera-
tions, long time delays between the need or request for data and
data provision is often the invisible cause of project delays and cost
overruns. Use of MTLS technology can eliminate or reduce such
delays.
In comparing the different options discussed earlier, the intan-
gible impact by a mapping-grade MTLS system is less than that of a
survey-grade system, based on the number of applications that can
potentially benefit from the mobile-LiDAR technology.
MTLS technology provides an effective means to collect as-
built data on bridges and structures. Having detailed as-built data
for bridges and structures is critical in assessing the damage caused
by accidents or natural disasters. Good documentation of the initial
conditions and proof of the damage caused in an accident can po-
tentially improve the likelihood of a DOT recovering repair costs
from parties involved in the accident. In addition, some state DOTs
currently rely on outside contractors to provide LiDAR data for
accident reconstruction. The deployment of MTLS technology
would provide them with LiDAR data before and after an accident,
reducing their reliance on outside contractors
In most state DOTs, the design and construction divisions can
realize the biggest intangible benefits. Currently, the cost of survey-
grade MTLS data from survey-service contractors is approximately
$10,000–$15,000=mi ð$6; 200–$9; 300=kmÞ with feature-data ex-
traction and ground-control setup. The cost of the survey-grade
MTLS system can be recovered from the state DOT’s projects over
a 6-year period if the system is used on a sufficient number of proj-
ects. An MTLS system can also be potentially used for construction
inspection and as-built documentation throughout different con-
struction stages. Thus, as-built data of utility conduits, drainage
pipes, pavement subgrade, and pavement thickness are accurately
captured for future maintenance and retrofit operations. This type
of data can significantly reduce the need for ground-penetrating
radar survey for utilities before retrofit or change order during
future construction projects.
C D E F
Annual FTE Estimated FTE Vehicles needed
for data for data collection Current after mobile
collection after mobile LiDAR vehicle usage LiDAR
12 2 6 2
2 2 1 0
2.5 0 1 1
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 MTLS System–Deployment Challenges and
Considerations
The selected MTLS solution must meet the diverse objectives of a
DOT while balancing the costs, benefits, and ease of implementa-
tion. The mode of operation of a system can have a significant
effect on its cost. The best deployment option may not just be based
on maximum cost-benefit ratios. It can also depend on other factors
such as ease of implementation, risks, and economic feasibility
(Steering Committee on Space Applications and Commercializa-
tion 2003). Although use of an MTLS system improves worker
safety and can be cost-effective, deployment of MTLS technology
can present the following challenges for a DOT:
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
• Extensive knowledge, skills, and mission planning are required
to operate an MTLS system and properly postprocess the raw
GNSS/IMU/LiDAR data;
• Management has to address integration issues with the DOT’s
existing business processes and legacy systems; and
• The high initial cost of the system may require a special legis-
lative approval to purchase the equipment. In addition, fund-
ing is also required for software, computing-infrastructure
upgrades, system maintenance, and creating a new funding
program with personnel to operate the system and process
the data. A decision package must be developed for the program
and legislative approval should be sought for extra funding.
Best practices and workflow procedures must first be developed
to ensure data are collected consistently and accurately as well as
for guiding users on the proper use of the data. At the same time, the
best practices and workflow procedures should be integrated into
the DOT’s standards manuals and policy documents (Olsen et al.
2013). There are also IT challenges as described below:
• MTLS systems can produce a huge amount of data in a short
time, requiring upgrade of the entire computing infrastructure
(software, workstations, servers, data storage, and network
backbones). The unusually large data-storage requirements can
produce a significant strain on existing DOT-IT infrastructure.
Server rooms, network bandwidth, and backbones may have to
be upgraded to accommodate the data demand; and
• A data-management system is needed in the long run to allow
diverse groups of users to access the current and historical data
in order to extract the needed information. A simple and easy to
use point-cloud viewer will be needed. A comprehensive train-
ing program may be required in order to train a larger work force
to take advantage of the point-cloud data
Risks and Mitigation
Technological obsolescence is one of the major risks of purchasing
an MTLS system. The GNSSs (GPS, GLONASS, Galileo, and
Compass) are currently going through major modernization or
are in the middle of deployment. More satellite-navigation frequen-
cies and signals can become available in the near future. Most
GNSS receivers are designed to be compatible with GNSS mod-
ernization. Their firmware may be upgraded to improve compati-
bility. However, the new generation of GNSS receivers with much
higher number of channels for GNSS signal tracking may be
needed to take advantage of over 80 satellites in the sky when
all the GNSSs are fully operational.
Recently, there have been rapid improvements in LiDAR scan-
ners. For example, the Optech Lynx [Vaughan, ON, Canada (http://
www.optech.ca/lynx.htm)] LiDAR scanner’s maximum measure-
ment rate has increased from 100,000 points=s (pts=s) to
500,000 pts=s, and its maximum scan rate has also increased from
150 to 200 Hz when the system was first offered over 4 years ago.
© ASCE 04014022-12
J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Nevertheless the total system cost remains the same. Other
mapping-grade LiDAR scanners are made available with higher
performance and lower costs. In addition, there have been recent
technological improvements in digital cameras in term of costs,
frame rates, and resolutions that can impact automatic data collec-
tion and documentation.
To mitigate the risk of technological obsolescence, customers
may obtain data from mobile LiDAR–service providers using
service contracts. In addition, MTLS-system manufacturers have
recognized their customer’s concerns of risk of technological ob-
solescence and high initial system costs. They have partnered with
dealers and service providers to offer equipment rentals and partial-
ownership options. Both options enable lower cost of entry and
provide a cost-effective option in cases when there is relatively
low system utilization. To determine which options may be most
cost-effective, users should consider the expected utilization rate of
the MTLS system. If the anticipated system utilization rate is low,
then renting, partial ownership, or service contracts may be a better
option.
The uncertainty in the high feature-extraction costs introduced
ambiguity in the cost-benefit analysis presented in this paper.
This is because realistic feature extraction–productivity data are
not available. The cost-benefit analysis presented is therefore based
on estimates given by service providers and DOT users. The feature
extraction–productivity fluctuates greatly depending on the soft-
ware, user skill-level, feature requirements, and geographical
location.
Conclusions and Recommendations
MTLS technology enables a DOT to collect geospatial data once,
with the data being used by many of the DOT business processes as
well as other state departments. Seven different options for deploy-
ment of MTLS technology were discussed and the cost-benefit re-
sults were summarized in Table 7. The analysis presented indicates
that for a situation like WSDOT over three data-collection cycles
for a 6-year life cycle, the savings can range from $1.3 million to
$6.1 million. Furthermore, comparing the different deployment
options presented, one can make the following conclusions (using
the assumptions stated and used in the calculations):
• Although equipment rental options have lower initial cost, the
purchase options have lower lifecycle cost and produce larger
saving than the rental options;
• Option 6, purchasing and operating a survey-grade mobile-
LiDAR system, produced the highest saving of $6.1 million.
Even though deploying the survey-grade mobile-LiDAR system
costs more, the benefits and cost savings from the bridge-
clearance operations alone can outweighs the higher cost and
produce higher savings when the number of bridges in a state is
comparable to or exceed the numbers used in these calculations;
• In all options, the first data-collection cycle is generally more
expensive than subsequent data-collection cycles due to higher
data-extraction costs in the first cycle and lower data-extraction
costs in the subsequent cycles; and
• The intangible benefits of deploying a MTLS system can be
potentially more significant than the tangible benefits. A survey-
grade MTLS system meets the requirements of more types of
work performed by a state DOT than a mapping-grade MTLS
system. The technology could also be useful in other DOT-
application areas such as cultural-heritage preservation, home-
land security, construction inspections, and development of
three-dimensional digital world-models for machine control and
guidance in construction.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.
 The system/solution selection process must also consider
diverse objectives while balancing costs, benefits, and ease of im-
plementation. Other factors, such as integration into existing DOT-
business processes, risks, and economic feasibility, should be
considered. The cost-benefit analysis presented here offers a guide
for which option may be the best for a DOT. Further internal dis-
cussion with DOT management and other stake holders is needed to
examine all the advantages and disadvantages of these solution
options in order to select the prime candidate for deployment.
Acknowledgments
Downloaded from ascelibrary.org by University of California, Davis on 12/02/14. Copyright ASCE. For personal use only; all rights reserved.
The authors gratefully acknowledge the Washington State Depart-
ment of Transportation (WSDOT) for the support of this work
through contract GCA6059 and California Department of Trans-
portation (Caltrans) through contract 65A0368 to the Advanced
Highway Maintenance and Construction Technology (AHMCT)
Research Center at the University of California, Davis. The authors
thank the WSDOT for their support; in particular the guidance and
review provided by WSDOT Technical Advisory Group (TAG)
members: Mark Finch, Heath Bright, Lori Beebe, Eric Jackson, Ro-
ger Caddell, Rhonda Brooks, Scott Campbell, Tom Clay, Marc
Faucher, Kurt Iverson, David Luhr, Rick Mowlds, Steve Palmen,
John Tevis, and Brent Schiller for their valuable participation and
contributions. The authors would also like to thank Larry Orcutt,
Mark Turner, Robert McMillan, Nelson Aguilar, and Kevin Akin of
Caltrans for their input and support. Moreover, the authors express
gratitude to the mobile-LiDAR vendors—Eagle Mapping (Port
Coquitlam, BC, Canada), Earthmine (Berkeley, California), ESM
Consulting (Everett, Washington), Mandli Communications
(Madison, WI), Optech (Vaughan, ON, Canada), The PPI Group
(Portland, OR), and Topcon (Livermore, CA)—for their pilot-study
participation, efforts, and generous support; this study would not
have been feasible without their gracious assistance. We also thank
Chris Harris of Tennessee DOT (TnDOT) and Ron Singh of Oregon
DOT (ODOT) for their valuable input. The authors also acknowl-
edge the dedicated efforts of the AHMCT research team members
who have made this work possible.
References
Chang, J. R., Chang, K. T., and Chen, D. H. (2006). “Application of 3D
laser scanning on measuring pavement roughness.” J. Test. Eval., 34(2),
83–91.
© ASCE 04014022-13
View publication stats J. Infrastruct. Syst. 2014.20.
Glennie, C. (2007). “Reign of point clouds: A kinematic terrestrial LIDAR
scanning system.” Inside GNSS, Fall 2007, 22–31.
Glennie, C. (2009). “Kinematic terrestrial light-detection and ranging
system for scanning.” Transportation Research Record 2105, Transpor-
tation Research Board, Washington, DC, 135–141.
Hiremagalur, J., Yen, K. S., Lasky, T. A., and Ravani, B. (2009). “Testing
and performance evaluation of fixed terrestrial three-dimensional laser
scanning systems for highway applications.” Transportation Research
Record 2098, Transportation Research Board, Washington, DC,
29–40.
Howerton, C. G., and Sideris, D. (2010). “A study of implementation of IP-
S2 mobile mapping technology for highway asset condition assess-
ment,” M.S. Project Rep., Civil Engineering, Virginia Polytechnic
Institute and State Univ., Blacksburg, VA.
Johnson, W. H., and Johnson, A. M. (2012). “Operational considerations
for terrestrial laser scanner use in highway construction applica-
tions.” J. Survey. Eng., 10.1061/(ASCE)SU.1943-5428.0000084,
214–222.
Lasky, T. A., Swanston, T., and Ravani, B. (2006). “STRUCTVIEW:
A vehicle-based laser scanning system for roadway structure
profile assessment.” IEEE Int. ITS Conf., IEEE, Piscataway, NJ,
331–336.
Mendenhall, S. (2011). “Moble laser scanning—Caltrans evaluates the
technology’s costs and benefits.” CE News, 23(5), 42–43.
Mrstik, P., and Newby, S. (2005). “Highway mapping in Afghanistan.”
Geospatial Solut., 58–59.
Newby, S., and Mrstik, P. (2005). “LIDAR on the Level in Afghanistan.”
GPS World, 16(7), 16–22.
Olsen, M. J., et al. (2013). “Guidelines for the use of mobile LiDAR in
transportation applications.” NCHRP 15–44 Rep. 748, National
Cooperative Highway Research Program, Transportation Research
Board, Washington, DC.
Sandrone, F., and Wissler, R. (2011). “Laser scanning images analysis for
tunnel inspection.” Proc., 12th Int. Congress on Rock Mechanics—
Harmonising Rock Engineering and the Environment, CRC, Boca
Raton, FL, 454–456.
Steering Committee on Space Applications, and Commercialization.
(2003). Using remote sensing in state and local government: Informa-
tion for management and decision making, National Research
Council of the National Academies, Washington, DC.
Terrametrix. (2013). “Home page.” 〈http://www.terrametrix3d.com/〉 (Sep.
11, 2013).
WSDOT. (2013). “WSDOT GeoMetrix.” 〈http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/
mapsdata/geometrix/default.htm〉 (Sep. 11, 2013).
Yen, K. S., Ravani, B., and Lasky, T. A. (2011). “LiDAR for data
efficiency.” Rep. No. WA-RD 778.1, Washington State Dept. of
Transportation, Olympia, WA.
J. Infrastruct. Syst.