Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs (2019)

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.

6 Background The MAP-21/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. States and MPOs will also need to show how they are making progress toward targets they will set. The objective of this new aspect of the federal program is to focus federal funds on achieving national goals, increasing accountability and transparency, and improving investment decision making through performance-based planning and programming. The MAP-21/FAST Act performance areas include safety, infrastructure condition, system reli- ability, freight movement and economic vitality, congestion reduction, and environmental sustainability. Rulemaking has been under way over the past 2 years to establish the regulations to imple- ment these new aspects of the federal program, and efforts are under way by FHWA, State DOTs, MPOs, and other entities to prepare for these changes. Data has arisen as a key issue as part of the preparation and comments received on the rulemakings. FHWA, State DOTs, and MPOs agree that a critical aspect of the new Federal Highway Program will be collecting and analyzing transportation data. State DOTs and MPOs will need to manage, process, and analyze data to conduct many of the functions needed to implement a performance-based program. The national-level performance measures are included in three rules, including safety (PM1), bridge/pavement (PM2), and system performance (PM3). PM1 became effective on April 14, 2016; and PM2 and PM3 became effective on May 20, 2017. This synthesis report summarizes how State DOTs and MPOs are acquiring and analyzing data to support performance measurement to meet the MAP-21/FAST Act (23 CFR Part 490) final rule requirements and support current performance-based programs within their agencies. The findings of the synthesis research are intended to be used by national, State, and local organizations to learn about effective practices and identify needs for future research, develop- ment, and deployment. Scope and Methods The synthesis presents • The current state of practice in the availability and use of data and analysis tools; • The status of current research and development of promising new tools; • Gaps that need to be addressed to better support State DOT and MPO needs; and • Future research needs, including multimodal approaches. C H A P T E R 1 Introduction

Introduction 7 The information provided in this synthesis was gathered through a literature review, surveys of State DOTs, a sample of MPOs, the five national 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 do the following: • Identify and acquire data; • Process, review, and manage data; • Use specialized tools and technology; • Conduct modeling and performance forecasting; • Establish performance targets; • Monitor system performance and progress; • Create visual displays of performance; • Coordinate with partners; and • Assess the technical competency and resource needs of staff and contractors/consultants. The State DOT survey was sent to the voting members of the AASHTO Standing Committee on Performance Management. The MPOs surveyed were part of the Association of Metropolitan Planning Organizations (AMPO) Performance-Based Planning & Programming Work Group. The UTCs were selected based on their willingness to participate. The surveys were conducted through NCHRP in close coordination with AASHTO. AASHTO provided an email distribution list to the members of the Standing Committee on Planning (SCOP). AASHTO also provided extensive follow-up with States to encourage completion of the surveys. The survey was organized in several sections to ensure the various technical components were addressed. One representative was identified within each agency to take the lead in completing the survey or having their technical experts do so. The sections include specific questions related to bridge, pavement, mobility, and safety data and performance measures. Respondents could print the survey and send responses to the project team to be entered into the survey software. The survey method consisted of the following steps: 1. AASHTO sent the survey request to State DOT members of SCOP; 2. The project team sent the survey to MPOs and UTCs, with assistance from the project panel; 3. Approximately 2 weeks later, AASHTO and the project team sent out email reminders to those who had not yet responded; 4. Approximately 2 weeks later, AASHTO and the project team made follow-up calls to the invitees of State DOTs that had not yet responded; 5. After at least 40 State DOTs had completed all four parts of the survey (i.e., bridge, pavement, mobility, and safety), the project team began to compile the results. Forty-one DOTs responded to all four parts of the survey, and more DOTs responded to one, two, or three parts. Figure 1-1 shows a map of DOTs responding to the survey (and if they answered all parts of the survey or only a portion of it). Figure 1-2 shows the locations of the 16 MPOs that responded to the survey and indicates the relative size of the MPOs by population. The MPOs responding represent a good sample of size and geographic distribution. Responses were received from MPOs as follows: • Small MPOs (less than a population of 1 million)—five; • Medium MPOs (greater than 1 million population and less than 4 million)—five; and • Large MPOs (greater than a population of 4 million)—six.

8 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs Appendix B, which presents a complete list of DOT and MPO survey participants along with the survey results, is available on the TRB website and can be found by searching for “NCHRP Synthesis 528”. Organization This synthesis is organized as follows: • Chapter 1—Introduction. This chapter provides background information and summarizes the scope and organization of the report. • Chapter 2—Performance Measurement and Data Requirements. This chapter documents why State DOTs and MPOs are concerned with performance measurement and describes the data needs to address the final rules. Figure 1-1. Map of DOTs participating in survey. Figure 1-2. Map of MPOs participating in survey.

Introduction 9 • Chapter 3—Current State of the Practice. This chapter describes the current practice related to data collection, analysis, collaboration, and tools. It is based on the survey, literature review, and case examples. • Chapter 4—Gaps in Data and Tools to Support Performance Measurement. This chapter highlights gaps in data and analysis tools. • Chapter 5—Research and Development Underway. This chapter describes efforts, research, and resources that are under way. • Chapter 6—Conclusions and Future Research Needs. This chapter presents key observations, findings, and suggestions for future research. The appendices to the synthesis are not provided herein but are available on the TRB website by searching for “NCHRP Synthesis 528”. The appendices are as follows: • Appendix A. Resources (as revealed from the literature review) • Appendix B. List of Survey Respondents and Survey Responses • Appendix C. Case Examples • Appendix D. Bibliography