Below is the uncorrected machine-read text of this chapter, intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text of each book. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.
1 Background The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century (MAP-21) Act and Fixing Americaâs Surface Transportation (FAST) Act legislation introduced performance management into the Federal Highway Program by establishing goals that State DOTs and MPOs will be required to report on. This new aspect of the federal program is designed to focus federal funds on achieving national goals, increasing accountability and transparency, and improving invest- ment decision making through performance-based planning and programming. The MAP-21 Act/FAST Act performance areas include safety, infrastructure condition, system reliability, freight movement and economic vitality, congestion reduction, and environmental sustain- ability. The implementation of the legislation promises to change how State DOTs and MPOs conduct transportation planning. Resource allocation decisions will be based on outcome- based measures, and transportation performance management will be realized. Rulemaking has been under way over the past 4Â½ years to establish the regulations to implement these new aspects of the federal program, and FHWA, State DOTs, MPOs, and other entities are preparing for these changes. As a result of the preparation and comments received on the rulemaking, FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs agree that collecting and ana- lyzing transportation data will be a critical aspect of the new Federal Highway Program. State DOTs and MPOs will need to manage, process, and analyze data to conduct many of the functions needed to carry out a performance-based program. This synthesis comes at an opportune time, given the emphasis and need for data to sup- port performance reporting, analysis, target setting, and performance management, in gen- eral, for State DOTs and MPOs. This synthesis summarizes how State DOTs and MPOs are acquiring and analyzing data to support (1) performance measurement to meet the MAPâ21 and FAST Actsâ final rule requirements and (2) current performance-based programs within their agencies. Content and Research Approach This synthesis presents the following: â¢ State of practice regarding the availability and use of data and analysis tools; â¢ Discussion of the research and development of promising new tools; â¢ Gaps that need to be addressed to better support State DOT and MPO needs; and â¢ Future research needs, including multimodal approaches. The information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a literature review, surveys of State DOTs, a sample of MPOs, the five national University Transportation S U M M A R Y Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs
2 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs Centers (UTCs), and follow-up interviews to develop four case examples (two MPOs and two State DOTs). The research gathered information about how State DOTs and MPOs identify and acquire data; process, review, and manage data; use specialized tools and technology; conduct mod- eling and performance forecasting; establish performance targets; monitor system perfor- mance and progress; create visual displays of performance; coordinate with partners; and assess technical competency and resource needs of staff and contractors/consultants. This research concentrated on the data to support the following rules: â¢ Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) and Safety Performance Management Measures (Safety PM) with an effective date of April 14, 2016. (PM1) â¢ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Pavement Condition for the National Highway Performance Program and Bridge Condition for the National Highway Performance Program with an effective date of May 20, 2017. (PM2) â¢ National Performance Management Measures; Assessing Performance of the National Highway System, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement Program with an effective date of May 20, 2017. (PM3) The survey was created based on the final PM1 and on the Notice of Proposed Rule Making (NPRM) for PM2 and PM3. Final rules for PM2 and PM3 were published on January 18, 2017. The panel decided not to change the survey instrument to reflect the published rules because the questions in the survey were general enough to cover the data needs to support both the NPRM and final rules. At the time, there was no indication when or if the rules would become final. Also, the changes related directly to data requirements between the NPRM and the final rules are minimal. The results were analyzed in consideration of the final rules as adopted on May 20, 2017. Results Forty-one DOTs responded to all four parts of the survey, and several more DOTs responded to one, two, or three parts. About 16 MPOs responded to the survey. In general, most states have the data they need and are prepared to process it to support performance reporting. Of the State DOTs responding, all have the data for bridge condi- tion measures. Some DOTs cannot meet all the needs related to pavement condition and mobility measures. States are least likely to be prepared to process and produce measures for the mobility performance areas when compared to the other areas. Figure S-1 presents additional information from the survey. Results pertaining to the current state and gaps in data and tools to support performance management are summarized in the following sections. Bridge Condition Pavement Condition Mobility Safety No Yes Figure S-1. DOTs prepared to process the data and produce the required measures.
Summary 3 Current State Data Collection In general, State DOTs have most of the data they need to report on measures. DOTs report being the most prepared in the bridge condition and safety areas, closely followed by pavement, and then mobility. â¢ Bridge. All who responded to the bridge condition part of the survey have all the data necessary to report on all of the bridge condition measures. Most of the states (44) reported that they collect the data for the bridge measures internally. For all of the bridge condition measures, 22 of the DOTs responded that they are coordinating with MPOs and local governments regarding collection. â¢ Pavement. Most states have the data they need for pavement condition reporting. The number of DOTs with all data to support pavement measures varies from 44 for Inter- national Roughness Index (IRI) on the National Highway System (NHS) Interstate to 36 for cracking on NHS non-Interstate. In all cases, the number of states having all data for each of the measures is slightly less on the non-Interstate NHS, when compared to the Interstate NHS. Approximately one-half of the DOTs indicated that they collect the data internally. DOTs might have been considering the requirements in the NPRM versus the final rule. For example, the NPRM required collection of pavement data in both directions on the Interstate system, while the final rule only requires the data in one direction. â¢ Mobility. All of the DOTs have the annual Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) data to support mobility measures. Regarding local vehicle occupancy, 34 DOTs indicate that they do not have the data to support the measure. Transit measures are the most frequently reported by State DOTs (26 reporting). All states, except for one, will be using the National Perfor- mance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) provided by FHWA to obtain speed. Twenty-five DOTs are coordinating with their MPOs on speed data collection. Most of the required data for the mobility measures is available to the DOTs and MPOs, so they are prepared to process the data and produce the required measures. â¢ Safety. In general, DOTs have most of the data required for the four safety measures. For Fatalities on All Public Roads, only 1 out of the 42 states responding does not have the data. Regarding Serious Injuries on All Public Roads, four states do not have the data. Only two states report that they do not have the data to support Rate of Serious Injuries and Fatali- ties per 100 million VMT on all Public Roads. Most State DOTs are collecting the data in house. One-half of the states obtain the data in house, and the other one-half obtain the data from other agencies. When asked how they plan to handle VMT on all public roads, some State DOTs responded that they are collecting traffic on all public roads; however, most indicated that they do not have the volume data readily available. Twenty-six states indicated that they are collaborating with local government to obtain the data. Data Analysis and Tools Most states are using specialized tools and technology to analyze and report their data. Specialized tools and data are used most in the pavement and bridge performance areas (33 and 29 states, respectively). The next highest use of specialized tools occurs in the mobility area (28 State DOTs). Twenty-four states report using specialized tools in the safety area. More DOTs are using specialized tools and visualization methods for reporting on per- formance in the pavement area than any other area. Mobility tools for reporting are used in 22 states, followed by safety tools (18) and bridge (18). DOTs reported using tools to analyze data in the bridge area at a much higher rate (29) than they use tools to report bridge condition (18). DOTs use specialized tools for mobility and safety performance areas, slightly more for data analysis than for reporting on performance.
4 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs Target Setting State DOTs are most advanced with respect to developing target-setting methods for safety measures, with 40 reporting they have methods in place. Only 13 of the States have devel- oped methods for mobility target setting. Twenty-seven of the states have developed bridge target-setting processes. Fifty-one percent of the DOTs have set a process for target setting for pavement. For all four performance areas, most targets are based on historic trends, models into the future, or goals. Most DOTs define their targets as realistic (i.e., in line with plans, but doable per the survey), as opposed to the other two choices (i.e., minimum or conservative (easy to meet) and stretch or aspirational). Resources State DOTs reported they have the most resources to handle bridge condition measures (with only one state with insufficient resources), followed by pavement condition, safety, and mobility. Twenty-one states report having insufficient resources to handle data to support mobility measures. Collaboration Collaboration with partners is a key success factor for performance management. Coordi- nation is occurring with MPOs in the safety area and slightly less so for mobility, but no signi- ficant coordination is occurring for pavement and bridge measures. DOTs report the most developed collaboration with MPOs relates to safety measures, with the next most developed area being mobility, followed by the pavement and bridge condition areas. Collaboration is most developed for bridge condition measures, compared to pavement condition measures. Proficiency of Staff The survey results show that DOTs need improved proficiency in staff, consultants, and tool capability for all performance areas, with mobility having the highest need, followed by bridge, pavement, and then safety. Thirty-nine DOTs reported that their staffs are fully proficient with data collection, analysis, and reporting for bridge condition measures. Simi- lar results are observed for the pavement condition measures. Thirty-three DOTs reported that their staffs are fully proficient with data collection, analysis, and reporting for pavement condition measures. In the case of mobility measures, DOTs report that consultant techni- cal capability is higher than staff capability. Safety is the only performance area where DOTs reported the highest percentage in the fully capable and proficiency column for all three areas (technical capability of staff, consultants, and current tools). Gaps in Data and Tools to Support Performance Measurement In general, data and tools to support pavement and bridge condition are well developed. Direct field data collection and well-vetted predictive models have helped states improve their asset investment decisions over the course of several decades. Even so, many states lack the ability to rigorously assess gaps in asset condition relative to targets, identify and mitigate risks, set pri- orities, and project how investments will influence future condition. Gaps in the development of performance measures for congestion, delay, reliability, and freight will require additional sup- port. A significant area of concern among State DOTs and MPOs is setting performance targets. Data Collection â¢ Bridge. States have no major gaps in data, but there are some concerns about the data being collected. Concerns include collection every 2 years being a challenge, lack of clear direction on how to calculate the area of a culvert, and confusion about the good/fair/poor rating. MPOs are relying heavily on the states to provide them with bridge condition data.
Summary 5 â¢ Pavement. Some states reported data gaps, especially in relation to cracking data on NHS Interstates and non-Interstate roadways. DOTs might have been considering the require- ment to collect the pavement data in both directions on the Interstate system, while the final rule only requires the data in one direction. MPOs are relying heavily on the states to provide them with pavement condition data. â¢ Mobility. States and MPOs have numerous concerns about collecting data to support mobility and air quality measures. The comments and concerns related to the mobility measures are more significant and include segmentation and posted speed limit. VMT on non-Interstate NHS may be an issue for many. â¢ Safety. DOTs and MPOs reported very few challenges with the collection of data to support safety measures. Data Analysis and Tools Across the board, less than half of State DOTs responding have needs for tools and tech- nology for analyzing performance data. The highest number of needs relate to pavement, followed by the mobility, bridge, and safety performance areas. In all cases, there appears to be slightly less need for reporting tools, compared to analysis tools. The highest needs for reporting tools are in the mobility area. The lowest needs are in pavement and safety. Target Setting DOTs have the most data gaps pertaining to setting targets for mobility measures and the least related to bridge condition. Data gaps for setting targets in the pavement and safety areas are reported by approximately one-third of all states. In the area of target setting, State DOTs lack trend data, particularly for non-Interstate NHS. Additional guidance or standardization related to analysis techniques may be needed for the following: â¢ Conflation for speed and volume, â¢ Highway Performance Monitoring System (HPMS) as a data source for VMT, â¢ Segmentation (Traffic Message Channels (TMC) and linear referencing systems (LRS)), â¢ Processing pavement data at one-tenth of a mile increments, and â¢ Timeliness of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administrationâs (NHTSAâs) Fatality Analysis Report System (FARS) data. The survey respondents were commenting on the NPRM, where the requirements related to metrics reporting were not yet clear. The final rule and subsequent guidance from FHWA clarifies that states do not need to complete conflation of their networks, which simplifies the requirement significantly. Rather, states must enter the travel time metrics into HPMS, and the combination of these metrics with volumes occurs at the FHWA level. However, a state may still want to analyze their data to prepare for target- setting analysis, which would require preparing and combining speeds and volumes, which would then require conflation. Research Needs Many research topics were identified for each of the four performance areas. For the bridge area, six topics were identified related to successful practices, tools, and deterioration/ degradation. For the pavement area, eight topics were identified related to tools, data processing/forecasting, and analysis. For the mobility area, about ten topics were identified, including templates, technical issues (conflation/segmentation), tools, training, nonmotorized issues, vehicle occupancy, forecasting, and new data sources. For the safety area, eight topics were suggested related to tools, forecasting, external factors, and target setting.