International Journal of Highway Engineering (한국도로학회논문집)

Korean Society of Road Engineers (한국도로학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Evaluation of Road Asset Value using Alternative Depreciation methods : Focusing on National Highway No.1

대체적 감가상각기법을 활용한 도로자산의 가치 평가 : 국도 1호선을 중심으로

  • Received : 2016.11.21
  • Accepted : 2017.05.29
  • Published : 2017.06.15
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

PURPOSES : This study proposes the road asset valuation approach using alternative depreciation methods. It has become necessary to have asset management system according to the adoption of accrual basis accounting for governmental financial reporting and the amendment of the road act. Therefore, it is very important to analyze the effect of depreciation methods on road asset value as a basic research for road asset management system. METHODS : The Ministry of Strategy and Finance (MOSF) has mainly performed road asset valuation based on Write down Replacement Cost and Straight Line depreciation method. This study suggests some appropriate asset valuation methods for road assets through case analysis using three depreciation methods: Consumption-based depreciation method, Condition-based depreciation method, and Straight Line depreciation method. A road asset valuation data of national highway route 1 (year 2014) is used to analyze the effect of three depreciation methods on the road asset value. Road assets include land and structures (pavement, bridge, and tunnel). This study mainly focuses on structures such as bridges and tunnels, because according to governmental accounting standards, land and road pavement assets do not depreciate. RESULTS : The main results of this study are as follows. Firstly, overall asset value of national highway route 1 was estimated at 6.97 trillion KRW when MOSF's method (straight-line depreciation method) is applied. Secondly, asset value was estimated at 4.85 trillion KRW on application of consumption-based depreciation method. Thirdly, asset value was estimated at 4.37 trillion KRW when condition-based depreciation method is applied. Therefore, either consumption-based or condition-based depreciation methods would be more appropriate than straight-line depreciation method if we can use the condition data of road assets including land that are available in real time. CONCLUSIONS : Since road assets such as pavements, bridges, and tunnels have various patterns of deterioration and condition monitoring period, it is necessary to consider a specific valuation method according to the condition of each road asset. Firstly, even though road pavements do not depreciate, asset valuation through condition-based depreciation method would be more appropriate when requirements for application of non-depreciation approach are not satisfied. Since bridge and tunnel facilities show various patterns of deterioration and condition monitoring period by type and condition level, consumption-based depreciation method based on deterioration model would be appropriate. Therefore, it is necessary to have a reasonable asset management system to apply condition-based depreciation method and a periodic condition investigation to manage road assets well.

Keywords

References

  1. An, J., Park,J., Lee, D. and Lee, M.(2012). A Study on Asset Valuation Method for Road Facilities Maintenance, Journal of the Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 13, No.4, pp.141-151(In Korean). https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2012.13.4.141
  2. David Edgerton FCPA(2013). Valuation and Depreciation A guide for the not-for-profit and public sector under accrual based accounting standards, CPA AUSTRALIA.
  3. Ellis, R.M., and Thompson P.D.(2007). Bridge Asset Valuation and the Role of the Bridge Management System, In 2007 Annual Conference and Exhibition of the Transportation Association of Canada: Transportation-An Economic Enabler (Les Transports: Un Levier Economique).
  4. Falls, L.C., Haas, R., Eng, P. and Tighe, S.(2005). A Framework for Selection of Asset Valuation Methods for Civil Infrastructure, In Annual Conference of the Transportation Association of Canada, pp.1-5.
  5. FHWA(Federal HighWay Administration)(2005). Transportation Asset Management In Australia, Canada, England, and New Zealand, Federal Highway Administration, U.S. DOT.
  6. IPWEA(Institute of Public Works Engineering Australasia)(2015). International Infrastructure Management Manual 2015.
  7. KISTEC(Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation)(2008). Development of Condition Evaluation Program (in Bridge)(In Korean).
  8. KISTEC(Korea Infrastructure Safety Corporation)(2003). Guideline for an objective state evaluation of Facilities(In Korean).
  9. KDI(Korea Development Institute)(2008), Revised and Complemented Study on General Guidelines for Pre-Feasibility Study in the Traffic and Railroad Sectors (5th Edition)(In Korean).
  10. Lee, Y. and Lee, M. (2016). A Study on Estimating of Probability Distribution and Mean Life of Bridge Member for Effective Maintenance of the Bdrige, Journal of the Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 17, No.4, pp.57-65(In Korean). https://doi.org/10.6106/KJCEM.2016.17.4.057
  11. Lee, D., Kim,J., Ji, S. and Lee, S., Kim, J.(2012). Study about the Evaluation of Bridge Asset Valuation for Maintenance, Journal of the Korea Society of Road Engineers, Vol. 14, No.6, pp.13-23(In Korean).
  12. Lee, M., Park, K., Park, C. and Sun, J., Lee, D.(2010). A Study on Asset Valuation Method for Bridge Asset management, Journal of the Korea Institute of Construction Engineering and Management, Vol. 11, No.6, pp.35-44(In Korean).
  13. Ministry of Government Legislation(2015). Special law enforcement ordinance for facility safety(In Korean).
  14. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (2016). Development of Road Asset Management System Focus on Road Pavement (In Korean).
  15. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (2015a). Yearbook of Road Statistics, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport(In Korean).
  16. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (2015b). 2014 Fiscal year Budget Report, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport(In Korean).
  17. MOLIT(Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport) (2013). National highway pavement management system, Final report, Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport(In Korean).
  18. MOSF(Ministry of Strategy and Finance) (2016). Accounting Guidelines of Tangible Assets and Social Infrastructure, Ministry of Strategy and Finance(In Korean).
  19. MOSF(Ministry of Strategy and Finance) (2011). Accounting Guidelines of Social Infrastructure, Ministry of Strategy and Finance(In Korean).
  20. MOSF(Ministry of Strategy and Finance) (2009). (Summary) Guidelines of Social Infrastructure cost estimates, Ministry of Strategy and Finance(In Korean).
  21. Nam, H. and Lee, Y.(2014). A Study on Asset Value Evaluation Process to Develop AIS on Social Infrastructure, Information System Review, Vol. 16, No. 3, pp.215-240(In Korean). https://doi.org/10.14329/isr.2014.16.3.215
  22. Veshosky, D., Wagaman, S. J., Romano, J. J., Wilson, J. L. and Beidleman.(1997). Modeling Bridge Deck Life-Cycle Costs, Proc. of ICOSSAR97.
  23. Yoon, T. and Park, J.(2011). A Study on the implementation of government capital asset accounting and depreciation, Korean International Accounting review, Vol. 39, pp.283-308(In Korean).

Cited by

  1. Enhancing Road Network Resilience by Considering the Performance Loss and Asset Value vol.10, pp.11, 2018, https://doi.org/10.3390/su10114188