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.

10 The MAP-21 and FAST Acts transform the federal-aid highway program by establishing new requirements for performance management to ensure the most efficient investment of federal transportation funds. The implementation of the long-awaited legislation promises to change the way State DOTs and MPOs conduct transportation planning. Resource allocation decisions will reflect outcome-based measures, and transportation performance management (TPM) will be realized. The MAP-21 and FAST Acts are clear in their intent to require a performance management approach to the federal investment in the Nation’s highways. Although performance manage- ment has gained momentum among State and local transportation agencies for several years and many agencies have implemented exemplary programs, the rulemaking has accelerated the process significantly. This chapter summarizes the requirements and needs related to performance management and data to support it. Performance Management Requirements FHWA defines TPM as a strategic approach that uses system information to make investment and policy decisions to achieve national performance goals. More specifically, FHWA suggests that use of TPM results in the following: • Application of a systematic ongoing process; • Provision of key information to help decisionmakers understand the consequences of investment decisions across transportation assets or modes; • Improved communications among decisionmakers, stakeholders, and the traveling public; and • Ensures targets and measures are developed in cooperative partnerships and based on data and objective information. (Source: FHWA (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/TPM/about/tpm.cfm)) State DOTs and MPOs have been working toward implementing and improving practices to support TPM and data management for many years—long before MAP-21. Most agencies have developed detailed performance reports and dashboards, and some agencies have solid perfor- mance-based decision-support processes to support long- and near-term planning. Several States (e.g., Washington, Florida, and Minnesota) are considered pioneers in TPM. Other States (e.g., Missouri and Virginia) have had tools and reports in place for many years, and these are regarded as successful practices. Some States (e.g., Utah, Ohio, and Colorado) have advanced the practices related to data tools and approaches. All States and MPOs have practices and lessons to share. C H A P T E R 2 Performance Measurement and Data Requirements

Performance Measurement and Data Requirements 11 MAP-21 and Fast Acts—Final Rules This section summarizes the planning rule and other rules related to bridge, pavement, mobility, and safety performance measures. Details on all final rules (including fact sheets, webinars, frequently asked questions (FAQs), dockets, and other resources) are available on FHWA’s performance management website (https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/tpm/rule.cfm). The planning rule codifies the legislative requirements for metropolitan and statewide plan- ning for State DOTs and MPOs. It covers long-range transportation plans (metropolitan and statewide), Transportation Improvement Programs (TIPs) and State Transportation Improve- ment Programs (STIPs), Unified Planning Work Programs (UPWPs), consultation and public involvement, MPO certification, congestion management processes, agency coordination, MPO designations and boundaries, and streamlined environmental review and permitting. FHWA and FTA published the final rule on May 27, 2016, to update the previous final planning rule dated February 2007 (Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users [SAFETEA-LU]); and implement new MAP-21 and FAST Act requirements for state- wide and metropolitan planning. The planning rule has an effective date of June 27, 2016; con- tains critical changes to the planning process related to performance management; and updates and adds a handful of requirements. The planning rule establishes the framework for perfor- mance management in the planning process. It addresses integrating goals, objectives, measures, and targets contained in other transportation plans (e.g., Highway Safety Improvement Program [HSIP], Strategic Highway Safety Plan [SHSP], asset management, freight, and transit safety); establishes targets; discusses reporting on progress toward achieving targets; addresses coordina- tion responsibilities of States and MPOs with each other and with public transportation provid- ers; and addresses written agreements to document roles, responsibilities, and data collection among States, MPOs, and public transportation providers. Tables 2-1 and 2-2 present specific requirements of the planning rule and coordination. This research concentrated on the data needs to support the following rules: • HSIP and Safety Performance Management Measures (Safety PM) with an effective date of April 14, 2016. (PM1) Planning Product What Must be Reported Long-Range Statewide/ Metropolitan Plan A description of the performance measures and targets System Performance Report evaluating the condition and performance of the transportation system with respect to targets and progress achieved in meeting the targets in comparison with previous reports Additional evaluation for MPOs conducting scenario analyses as part of their plans TIP and STIP Discussion of the anticipated effect of the STIP or TIP toward meeting performance targets and linking investment priorities to performance targets Table 2-1. Planning rule requirements. Agency Coordination State Must coordinate with MPOs when selecting targets to ensure consistency to “maximum extent practicable” MPO Must coordinate with State and public transportation providers when selecting targets to ensure consistency to “maximum extent practicable” Maximum extent practicable: Capable of being done after taking into consideration cost, technology, and logistics. Table 2-2. Coordination requirements.

12 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs • 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) • Assessing Performance of the NHS, Freight Movement on the Interstate System, and Conges- tion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) 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. Table 2-3 shows the key differences (related to data needs) between the NPRM and PM2. Also, one of the measures proposed in the final rule—percentage change in tailpipe carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions on NHS—was not effective until September 28, 2017. Tables 2-4 and 2-5 present the data and threshold changes (NPRM versus final rule) for pave- ment measures. Table 2-6 presents the data changes (NPRM versus final rule) for bridge measures. The changes are minimal and impose less constraint on DOTs for both pavement and bridge. Therefore, the comments States made in the survey may reflect more concern than warranted, given the final rules. Tables 2-7 through 2-10 summarize the data required to support each of the required perfor- mance measures. The tables were included in the survey questions. NPRM Final Rule NPMRDS in 5-minute epochs NPMRDS in 15-minute epochs No need to have VMT for Travel Time Reliability (TTR) measures TTR measures require VMT No need to have occupancy factors for TTR measures TTR measures require occupancy factors Excessive delay measure does not require population Excessive delay measure requires population NPRM did not require percent of non-single-occupancy vehicle (SOV) travel Percent of non-SOV travel poses new data requirements, which may differ depending on the method chosen to calculate the measure (Method 1—American Community Survey, Method 2—local survey, or Method 3—system use measurement) Table 2-3. Key data differences between NPRM and Final Rule for PM2. NPRM Final Rule Interstate system IRI, Cracking Percent, Rutting, and Faulting in both directions Missing, invalid, unresolved data considered “Poor” IRI, Cracking Percent, Rutting, and Faulting in one direction Missing, invalid, unresolved data: no more than 5.0% Non-Interstate NHS IRI, Cracking Percent, Rutting, and Faulting in one direction Missing, invalid, unresolved data considered “Poor” IRI, Cracking Percent, Rutting, and Faulting in one direction Missing, invalid, unresolved data: no more than 5.0% Road Classification Table 2-4. Pavement data requirements.

Performance Measurement and Data Requirements 13 NPRMMeasure Final Rule PSR (Present Serviceability Rating) Not permitted PSR permitted on routes with posted speed limit <40 mph IRI Threshold Poor: 220 in./mi in urbanized areas; 170 in./mi for most roads Poor: 170 in./mi for all roads (No urbanized area exception) Cracking Percent Threshold (CRCP) >10 = poor CRCP: >10 = poor Jointed concrete: >15 = poor Asphalt: >20 = poor Faulting Threshold <0.05 = good <0.10 = good Table 2-5. Pavement condition thresholds and data collection options. CurrentCharacteristic and NPRM Final Rule Definition Bridges with any component condition rating ≤ 4, structural evaluation ≤ 2, or waterway adequacy ≤ 2 Bridges with any component condition rating ≤ 4 NBI Items 58—Deck 59—Superstructure 60—Substructure 62—Culvert 67—Structural Evaluation 71—Waterway Adequacy 58—Deck 59—Superstructure 60—Substructure 62—Culvert Effective Date Until December 31, 2017 Beginning January 1, 2018 Table 2-6. Definition of structurally deficient bridges. Performance Measures Data Items Data Sources Number of fatalities on all public roads Annual number of fatalities in crashes involving a motor vehicle Final FARS or FARS Annual Report File (ARF) Rate of fatalities per 100 million VMT on all public roads Annual number of fatalities in crashes involving a motor vehicle Total VMT Final FARS or FARS ARF State VMT data are derived from the HPMS; the MPO VMT is estimated by the MPO Number of serious injuries on all public roads Annual number of serious injuries in crashes involving a motor vehicle (state and by urbanized area boundaries (Urbanized Zone Areas [UZA] and all non-UZA) State motor vehicle crash database Rate of serious injuries per 100 million VMT on all public roads Annual number of nonmotorized traveler serious injuries in crashes involving a motor vehicle Total VMT State motor vehicle crash database State VMT data are derived from the HPMS; the MPO VMT is estimated by the MPO Number of nonmotorized fatalities and nonmotorized serious injuries on all public roads Annual number of nonmotorized traveler fatalities in crashes involving a motor vehicle (state, by UZAs, all non-UZA) Final FARS or FARS ARF State motor vehicle crash database Table 2-7. Safety measures. Performance Measures Data Items Data Sources Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in good condition Percentage of NHS bridges classified as in poor condition Condition of deck Condition of superstructure Condition of substructure Condition of culverts Deck area (Condition can be Good, Fair, Poor) State Bridge Management System Reporting for National Bridge Inventory Table 2-8. Bridge condition measures.

14 Analyzing Data for Measuring Transportation Performance by State DOTs and MPOs Performance Measures Data Items Data Sources Percentage of pavements on the Interstate system in good condition Percentage of pavements on the Interstate system in poor condition Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in good condition Percentage of pavements on the non-Interstate NHS in poor condition IRI (for all pavement types) Rutting (for asphalt pavements) Faulting (for jointed concrete pavements) Cracking percent (for all pavement types) State Pavement Management System HPMS For road segments where the posted limit is less than 40 mph, the Present Serviceability Rating (PSR) may be used in lieu of the four data items. Table 2-9. Pavement condition measures. Performance Measures Applicability Data Items Data Sources Performance of the NHS Percentage of the person- miles traveled on the Interstate that are reliable The Interstate system Level of Travel Time Reliability (LOTTR) VMT Occupancy factors All vehicle data in National Performance Management Research Data Set (NPMRDS) or approved equivalent VMT from HPMS Occupancy factors published by FHWA Percentage of the person- miles traveled on the non- Interstate NHS that are reliable The non-Interstate NHS Percent change in tailpipe CO2 emissions on the NHS compared to the calendar year 2017 levela The NHS Tailpipe CO2 emissions on NHS from 2017 and current calendar yeara Annual state total fuel sales data from highway statistics or from State DOT VMT estimates on NHS and all public roads from HPMS FHWA tailpipe CO2 emission factorsa Freight Movement Truck Travel Time Reliability (TTTR) Index The Interstate system TTTR Index Metric Truck data in NPMRDS or approved equivalent CMAQ Traffic Congestion Annual hours of peak-hour excessive delay per capita The NHS in urbanized areas with a population over 1 million for the first performance period and in urbanized areas with a population over 200,000 for the second, and all other performance periods that are also in nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program Total peak-hour excessive delay (person-hours) Total population All vehicles data in NPMRDS or approved equivalent Bus, car, and truck volumes in HPMS Occupancy factors published by FHWA Percent of non-SOV travel NHS roads in urbanized areas with populations over 1 million that are, all or in part, designated as nonattainment or maintenance areas for any of Applicable areas Percent of non-SOV travel Method A: American Community Survey Method B: Local survey Method C: System use measurement the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program CMAQ On-road Mobile Source Emissions Total emissions reduction All projects financed with funds from the 23 U.S.C. 149 CMAQ program apportioned to State DOTs in areas designated as nonattainment or maintenance for any of the criteria pollutants under the CMAQ program Applicable projects Daily kilograms of emission reductions CMAQ public access system aPercentage change in tailpipe CO2 emissions on NHS from calendar year 2017: Effective date deferred indefinitely for this measure only. Table 2-10. Multimodal mobility and air quality measures.